that they were all caused to meet together on Him Esai 53 6. He therefore was made a Sacrifice for sin or dealt with punished as a sinner though no sinner inherently but only by Imputation for He did bear our griefs carried our sorrowes was wounded for our transgressions bruised for our iniquities Esai 53 4 5. to wit now imputed to Him by God reckoned upon His account who knew no sin in Himself inherently So are we made the Righteousness of God in Him 2 Cor. 5 21. that is have His Righteousness who is God imputed to us who were in our selves inherently sinners being in Him by faith are dealt with as Righteous The manifest scope of the place the plaine Import of the word must enforce this truth on all who are not more than ordinarily blinded with prejudice Secondly as Adam's posterity who were not existing when he transgressed the Law of God but were only in his loines federally comprehended with him in that covenant by God's voluntary disignation appointment so did not actually really eat that fruit which Adam did eat yet have that sin guilt so imputed unto them that it is really accounted theirs not meerly in its Effects for its Effects are not truely Imputed neither can be saied to be so for that natural contagion corruption of Nature which is truely propagated to the posterity all actuall trangressions the fruits thereof cannot be said to be imputed because they are really theirs inherent in them But that original sin which is the guilt of Adam's first sin is only it which can be imputed unless we mean such an Imputation whereby our actual sinnes which we commit are said to be imputed to us when they are laid to our charge we actually punished therefore to them who did not actually commit it in their own person by vertue of this Imputation they are accounted guilty of that self same sin therefore are dealt with punished upon the account thereof no less than if they had actually committed it themselves in their own persons no less than Adam himselfs was punished therefore So are Beleevers being by faith united unto Christ made real members of His mystical body now interessed in Him as His Children Brethren made partakers of His Righteousness have it imputed unto them for all ends uses as if it had been their own without any Imputation The reading of the Apostles discourse Rom. 5. from vers 12. forward to the end may satisfy any as to this whole affaire who will yeeld themselves captives unto Truth for upon this doth the Apostle found His whole discourse explication of the rich advantages had by Christ His Righteousness clearing illustrating the same by that similitude of Adam whom He expresly calleth the figure of Him that was to come vers 14. so asserteth that as by one man sin entered into the world death by sin so death passed upon all beâ—ause all did sinne so by one man Jesus Christ the second Adam righteousness ontered into the world life by it so life passed upon all that were in Him because they are righteous in Him or have His righteousness imputed unto them Nay in the following verses the matter is cleared with an advantage unto Beleevers in Christ. But saith he vers 15 16 17 18 19. not as the offence so also is the free gift for if through the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God the gift by grace by one man Iesus Christ hath abounded unto many c. And so he goeth on to shew what how great things beleevers receive from Christ with no less Yea rather with much more of a certainety than the Posterity of Adam were interessed in what he did and therefore as judgment was by one to condemnation saith he so the free gift is of many offences unto justification if by one mans offence death reigned by one much more they who beleeve or receive aboundance of grace of the gift of righteousness shall reigne in life by one Iesus Christ. And as the offence of one Adam was imputed unto all thereby guilt judgment came upon all making them liable to condemnation So by the righteousness of one Jesus Christ imputed to all that receive this aboundance of grace of the gift of righteouseess the free gift of justification cometh unto them reconciling them to God instating them for life And the ground reason of this is laid down vers 19. for as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so were guilty made liable to judgment condemnation So by the obedience of one that perfect obedience to the Law that Christ performed opposite to Adam's transgression disobedience shall many be made righteous that is constituted righteous therefore dealt with as such through this imputed righteousness so justified made heirs of life for vers 21. he addeth as sin hath reigned unto death even so grace must reigne through righteousness unto eternal life by Iesus Christ our Lord. They then who will deny or oppose themselves unto this Imputation of Christ's righteousness must do manifest violence unto the whole discourse of the Apostle in this place Thirly Hence another evidencing ground of this imputation for as what is done by a publick person representing others whether upon one ground after one manner or another is accounted legally to be done by those who are represented they are dealt with accordingly as Adam was a publick person representing all his posterity that were to come of him by ordinary generation according to the ordination appointment of God So Christ of whom Adam was a figure was a publick person representing all whom the Father had given to Him for whom He had undertaken for whose sake He sanctified Himself Ioh. 17 19. become their Brother taking on their Nature Heb. 2 11 14. becoming like them in all things sin only excepted Heb. 2 17. comp with Heb. 3 15. Therefore He took not upon Him the Nature of Angels but the seed of Abraham Heb. 2 16. He was the Captaine of their Salvation vers 10. He is also made called the Head of the Church which is His body fulness Ephes 1 22 23. 5 23. Col. 1 18. and so He with His Church make up one mystical body whereof He is the Head Beleevers are members Thus there is a closs mystical union betwixt Christ Beleevers beyond any union that is in Nature whether it be that of Head members of Root Branches of King Subjects or of that betwixt Husband wife for all these are but dark resemblances of this Spiritual Union betwixt Christ Beleevers which is therefore compared unto these in part explained thereby for our better understanding of the matter but none of
sinners before He can be looked upon as a Righteous person or be dealt with as a Righteous person He must first have a Righteousness imputed to him and bestowed upon him for how can God whose judgement is according to truth look upon a person as Righteous and conferre privileges upon him due only to such as are Righteous who is not Righteous indeed Must He not first bestow a Righteousness upon him reckon a Righteousness upon his Score to the end He may be just and Righteous when He is the justifier of him that beleeveth Lastly He said Here is neither peer nor peep of the least ground or reason to perceive that by Righteousness in this Scripture should be meant the Righteousness of Christ. Ans. It is enough that the Text saith Righteousness is imputed for the man here spoken of hath not a Righteousness of his own as the Apostle hath proved in the preceeding Chapters doth here take for granted And therefore this Imputed Righteousness must be the Righteousness of another and it must be such a Righteousness of another as can found free Remission of Sins And whose Righteousness else can this be if it be not Christ's Is there any third competitour here imaginable must it not be the Righteousness of Him whom faith goeth out unto laith hold on in order to justification Must it not be His Righteousness who was the Mediator who laid down the price of Redemption was a propitiation as He told us in the preceeding Chapter Some men in alleiging a difference betwixt a Righteousness imputed to us Sinners and the Righteousness of Christ as if there could be any other Righteousness imputable to us except the Surety-righteousness of Christ as they expresly in this joine with Socinians See Volkel de vera Relig. lib. 5. cap. 21. p. 565. with Papists Arminians so they declare themselves utter strangers to the Gospel yea greater strangers than those were against whom the Apostle wrote who took it for granted that if any Righteousness from without or that was not by any thing which we do were imputed it behoved to be the Righteousness of the Mediator And this we may conceive is the reason why the Apostle doth not say in so many express words that it was the Righteousness of Christ for who could have thought of another Fourthly Rom. 5 19. a place with its whole contexture pregnant for our purpose for the Apostle is not onely here confirming but also illustrating this whole matter from the Imputation of Adam's Sin unto his posterity after many various and emphatick expressions used there-anent from vers 12. and forward he saith here vers 19 for as by one mans disobedience many were made Sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous Socinus de Servat lib. 4. cap. 6. is so bold as to tell us That he supposeth there is nothing written in the Scriptures that hath given us a greater occasion of erring than that comparison betwixt Adam Christ which Paul made did prosecute at length here And he would cleare to us the comparison thus That as by Adam's Sin disobedience it came to passe that all men were condemned and died so by Christ's righteousness and obedience it came to passe that they wero absolvod and did live for Christ by His own Righteousness and Obedience by vertue of the decree of God did penetrate the heavens there to reigne for ever and there he begote eternal life and everlasting blessedness both to Himself and to His. How aliene this is from the whole of the Apostle's discourse needs not be declared seing there is not one word giving the least hint of the Apostle's designe to be to declare how what way Christ obtained power and authority to save Yet He goeth on to tell us That as Adam's fault made him guilty of death whence it came to passe that all mankind that are procreat of him after that guilt is obnoxious to death so Christ by His Righteousness purchased to Himself eternal life whence it cometh te passe that who ever are procreat of him partake of this life But He never once taketh notice that Paul giveth for the ground of all mankind's becoming guilty of death their sinning in him vers 12. even such as had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression vers 14. yea in every verse this cause is noted or pointed at it being Notour of it self that ifall mankind did sin in Adan Adam's sin must be imputed unto them so Christ's Righteousness must be imputed unto all His inreference to their justification that with a much more Let us now see what Iohn Goodwine excepteth pag. 142. c. It is not here said He said that by the Imputation of Adam's disobedience men are made formally Sinners but simply sinners that is either obnoxious to death and condemnation or else sinners by propagation not Imputation Ans. This is the same upon the matter with Bellarmin's answer de justif lib. 2. cap. 9. here we have a distinction proposed without any explication to wit betwixt simply sinners and formally sinners And what can he meane by formally sinners possibly he meaneth that which otherwise is expressed by inherently sinners And if so though Adam's posterity so soon as they come to have a being have an universal corruption of Nature convoyed by propagation yet that is not it which is properly said to be Imputed for that which is imputed is the guilt of Adam's sin whereby they become sinners that is guilty legally and so obnoxious to punishment death condemnation this is enough for us for as the posterity of Adam have the sin of Adam so imputed to them that they become guilty and obnoxious to wrath so Beleevers have the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto them and they thereupon are accounted legally righteous 2 Whileas he will not grant that Adam's posterity are sinners by imputation he joineth with the Socinians who turne these words vers 12. 〈◊〉 not in whom but because or whereas which the Ethiopick version doth better sense saying Because that sin is imputed unto all men even unto them who know not what is that sin And the Arabick turne thus seing all have now sinned and the Syriack word is Behi or Bhi which may as well be interpreted in whom as because And in several other places this praeposition so construed as here in the Greek hath this same import as Mark 2. 4. Luk 5 25. 11 22. Rom. 6 21. Phil. 4 10. 1. Thes. 3 7. But enough of this here seing that matter is sufficiently cleared by the orthodox writting against the Socinians and we have also spoken of it against the Quakers Againe saith He Neither doth the Apostle here oppose unto or compare the Obedience of Christ with the disobedience of Adam as one Act unto or with another but as Satisfaction to and with the provocation or the Remedie to and with the
satisfie that demand by dying the shameful death of the cross undergoing the wrath curse due to us for sin thereby making a more perfect Satisfaction unto the Sanction and threatning part of the Law than we could have done by lying in hell for ever more And by faith closeing with Christ resting upon Him as such a satisfying Cautioner Redeemer the sinner acknowledgeth the Law in all its force confessing himself a Transhressour and obnoxious to the Curse now presenting to the Law Law-giver the obedience Satisfaction of Christ whereby both its commands Sanction are fully answered resting thereupon as the only ground of his Absolution from the sentence of the Law for his guilt and of his right to the Crown which he formerly had forfeited 4. Here is another mystery That such as are unrighteous and Ungodly should be declared and pronunced Righteous In justification the person is declared not guilty of what was laid to his charge in order to punishment that juridically and so he is declared free from the punishment that the Accuser was seeking to have inflicted upon him and so is declared pronunced to be a righteous man though not one that hath not sinneth yet now one that is juridically righteous But how can this be seing every man and woman is guilty before God and is come short of the glory of God The mystery lyeth here as was said The righteousness of their Cautioner Christ is reckoned upon their score and is imputed to them they receive it by faith and so it becometh theirs for now by faith they are united unto Christ become members of His mystical body He being the Head and true Representative thereby He and they are one Person in Law being one Spirit as the Husband and the Wife are one person in Law being one flesh and as the Representer and Represented the Cautioner principal debtor and thus they have a true Interest in His Righteousness obedience to the Law which He yeelded not upon His own account being not obliged thereunto antecedently to His own voluntary condescension for us for as to His person He was God and so not obnoxious to any such Law imposed upon man who is in the way to the obtaining of a Crown as the end of his race yea nor was this requisite as to His humane Nature which by vertue of the personal union with the God-head was as to it self either in Patria and in possession of the State of blessedness or in a capacity thereto without working therefore And it is certaine that therefore His being made under the Law was for His owne people that in their room He might in the Nature of Man give perfect obedience to the Law and so make up a righteousness with which they might all become clothed by Imputation on Gods part by faith receiving it on their part and so be justified Hence-saith the Apostle by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous Rom. 5 19. And thus are they who are unrighteous in themselves being Transgressours of the Law constituted righteous as to the Commands of the Law by the righteousness of their Cautioner As also they are though guilty in themselves obnoxious to wrath yet pronunced free and absolved from that charge by the Imputation of the Satisfaction of Christ made in His sufferings death who did bear our griefs and carry our sorrowes and was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was upon Him and with His stripes we are healed Esai 53 4 5. 1 Pet. 2 24. And his own self bear our sins in His own body on the tree 3. There is likewise a mystery here That the Imputation of the obedience and Righteousness of Christ doth not take away the Imputation of His Satisfaction nor make His Satisfaction useless of no Importance or necessity as Socinians imagine who cast the whole Gospel in the mould of their own corrupt Reason and understanding For they think if Christs Righteousness be imputed to us we are perfectly righteous and if we be perfectly righteous we have no sin if we have no sin there is no need of Satisfaction for our sin But they little consider that we are both guilty of the broken Law and also nothwithstanding obliged to perfect obedience It is unreasonable to think that Adam by his breach of the Law was exeemed delivered from any obligation to obey the Law sin doth not neither can dissolve that obligation otherwayes the best way of being freed from the Lawes of God or Man were to break them cast them at our heels We then being transgressours still under the obligation of obedience to the whole Law our Mediator and Cautioner must not only obey the Law for us to the end we may inherite the promised reward but must also make Satisfaction for the Violation of the Law to the end we may escape Gods Curse wrath threatned in the Law and due to us for the breach of the same Had we perfectly kept the Law we had then had no need of any Satisfaction for our breach thereof but being guilty of sin this Satisfaction and the Imputation thereof to us is absolutely necessary And though we need not nicely here distinguish betwixt this Righteouness Satisfaction in reference to the different ends and say that by His Righteousness imputed to us we have right to the Crown by His Satisfaction freedom from death which was the penalty of the broken Law for God hath joined both together for both ends what He hath thus joined together as we should not separat so neither may we nicely scrupulously distinguish but adore the wonderful wisdom of God in this contrivance and observing our necessity of both sweetly acquiesce in and thankfully accept of both But you will say if we be perfectly righteous by the Imputation of Christs righteousness what need have we of any more are we not possessed of right to the reward and being righteous are we not free of our sin I answer It is true indeed if we said that Christs Righteousness or compleet obedience was first imputed to us or if the Scripture gave any ground to say so there might be some coloure for this Exception but as the Scripture giveth no such ground so neither do we assert it Only we have need of both both are graciously imputed and received by faith yea we being sinners if we might speak of an order here Satisfaction must first be imputed that thereby we may be freed from the sentence of the Law which most presseth a wakened convinced sinner who is most anxious hereanent crying out How shall I escape the wrath and curse of God But as the Lord hath graciously and wonderfully knit the effects together so is the Cause Both Christs obedience and Sufferings were so woven together that they belonged both to made up His
disease Otherwise he should make sins of Omission to be no disobedience be cause Omissions are no Acts. Ans. The Apostle so compareth the Obedience of Christ with the disobedience of Adam as the Satisfaction with the provocation or as the Remedie with the disease as that withall chiesly he cleareth up the manner way thereof to be by Imputation thus That as Adam's sin of disobedience which includeth both Omission Commission being a Violation of the Law of the Covenant was imputed to his posterity they hence became guilty obnoxious to death yea were punished with original Corruption which cometh by propagation the consequences thereof so Christ's obedience which was full compleat is imputed unto Beleevers whereupon they become Righteous in order to their recovery out of their Natural state of sin and misery Further He saith By that obedience of Christ whereby it is here said that many are or shall be made Righteous that is jusâ—ified we cannot understand that Righteousness of Christ which consists only in obedience to the Moral Law but that Satisfactory Righteousness or obedience which He performed to that peculiar Law of Mediation which was imposed upon him and which chiesly consisted in his sufferings Ans. By the obedience of Christ unto the Law of Mediation strickly so taken as distinguished from His obedience to the Moral Law beleevers could not be made Righteous as the posterity of Adam are made sinners by his disobedience for that could not be properly imputed as this is as hath been shown so Paul's similitude should halt But 2. Why is Christ's obedience to the Law of Mediation set in opposition to His obedience to the Moral Law seing this was a part of that unto this He obliged Himself in undertaking the Mediation Was He not by the Law of Mediation bound as well to give obedience to the Law as to suffer the penalty And was He not obliged to both as Surety in room place And then why may not both be imputed unto them 3. Why should obedience here be thus restricked to the Law of Mediation He addeth two reasons but neither are valide The 1. is this Because otherwise the opposition â—etwixt Adam's disobedience which was but one single Act and Christ's Obedience if it were his universal conformity to the Law would not hold Ans. This same man told us in his former exception That Christ's obedience in respect of Adam's disobedience was considered opposed as the Satisfaction to the provocation as the Remedie to the disease now if this be true Christ made Satisfaction for no provocation but for that single act of eating the forbidden fruit what He did suffered should be only a Remedie for that one distemper if so how shall the rest of the Provocations and diseases be taken away or are there no more Provocations or diseases 2. Adam's disobedience was no Single act of disobedience but a disobedience including the breach of the whole Moral Law Saith not Iames that he who offendeth in one is guilty of all Iam. 2 10. prove it too in the following vers The 2. is this The Effect that is here attributed to this obedience of Christ to wit justification or Righteous making of many is constantly appropriated to the death blood of Christ. Ans. This that is attributed to the blood death of Christ elsewhere to wit our justification sheweth that the death of Christ is not understood exclusively for by His death exclusivly considered we cannot-be made Righteous for the Imputation of another's suffering though it may exeem from death suffering yet it cannot constitute Righteous in reference to the commanding Law 2. The death of Christ must not be looked on as one act of obedience but as including all His foregoing acts of obedience belonging to His State of humiliation whereof His death was the crowning piece so as including as His whole suffering so His whole obedience to the Law under which he was made for He is said to have been obedient unto death even unto the death of the cross Phil. 2 8. not that the death of the cross was all His obedience as it was not the whole state of His humiliation but the terminating remarkable act thereof as it was not all His suffering His whole life being a life of suffering 3. If this obedience be understood of this one act of obedience in His dying justification be looked upon as the effect of this only what shall become of His Soul-sufferings while He was in an agonie in the garden But if the act of obedience in His death include these why not His whole state of humiliation And if it include all this why not also His obedience to the Law seing His being made under the Law belongeth to His state of humiliation as the Apostle tels us Gal. 4 4. He excepteth furder saying Suppose that by the obedience of Christ we should here undorstand His active obedience to the Moral Law yet it will not hence follow that men must be justified or made Righteous by it in such a way of imputation Ans. If by Christ's obedience to the Moral Law we be made Righteous as the posterity of Adam were made sinners by the disobedience of Adam that obedience of Christ must necessarily be imputed to us as Adam's disobedience was imputed to his posterity for there is no other way imaginable Let us hear his reason to the contrary For certaine it is said he that that justification or Righteous-making whereof the Apostle speaketh vers 19. is the same with that which He had spoken of v. 16 17 18. Now that Righteousness vers 17. is described vers 16. to be the gift i.e. the forgiveness of many offences i.e. of all the offences whereof a man either doth or shall stand guilty of before God unto justification and evident it is that that Righteousness c. cannot stand in the Imputation of a fulfilling of the Law Ans. 1. Though making Righteous and justification be inseparable yet they are not formally one the same but Righteous-making to wit by Imputation is antecedent unto justification the ground thereof as becoming sinners is not formally to be condemned but is prior to it the ground thereof 2. That free gift mentioned vers 16. is not free forgiveness but is that which is opposite to judgment or guilt or reatus tending to condemnation so is the same with that which is called the Grace of God the gift by Grace vers 15. and the gift of Righteousness vers 17. which is in order to justification free pardon As therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 guilt is not the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemnation but tendeth thereunto so neither is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the free gift the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justification but leadeth thereunto is followed therewith 3. Nor can the Adversary Himself take these words vers
before the bargane be made and may also be paid down some time before he obtaine the purchase We owne only such consequential conditions here as are but the means and Methods appointed of God for such and such ends which have an immedial connexion with the end here intended And therefore we neither say nor imagine that a man may have the Righteousness of Christ or Faith yet not be justified for in the very moment as was said that a Man acteth true Gospel-and so justifying faith he hath the Righteousness of Christ imputed to him and is justified Every priority in order of Nature doth not conclude also a priority as to time far less can a man be supposed to have the Righteousness of Christ without God's Act of Imputation But Finally all these Argueings returne upon his own head for when he saith that faith is Imputed for Righteousness meaning by faith our act of beleeving he must also say that a man may beleeve and yet not be justified untill his faith be Imputed unto Righteousness by God whose work alone this is and his reply to this will relieve us Obj. 24. That which was Imputed to Abraham for Righteousness in his justification is imputed to other beleevers also But the faith of Abraham was imputed to him for Righteousness Ergo c. And for proof of all he referreth us to what he hath said Chap. 2. upon Rom. 4. Ans. We shall not here anticipat the consideration of that place and of this Argument founded there upon seing afterward we will have a fitter occasion to speak hereunto Obj. 25. Here is his last argument which he largely prosecuteth Chap. 21. pag. 188. c. and it would seem that it is here adduced againe for we had it once if not oftner before that he may take occasion to vent his mind against the Imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity Thus he Argueth If the Righteousness of the Law be not imputable or derivable in the letter and formality of it from one mans person to another then cannot the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to any man in justification But the former is true therefore c. Ans. What may be answered unto this Argum. the Reader may see in the foregoing Chapter Object last I shall not here repeat but go on to take notice of what he saith to that objection which he moveth against himself and proposeth thus If the transgression of the Law be imputable from one Mans person to another then may the Righteousness of the Law be imputed also But the former is hence evident because the sin of Adam is imputed to his posterity He first excepteth against the Major and denieth the Consequence thereof and giveth reasons of his denial 1. There is saith he no such Emphatical restraint of the guilt and punishment to the transgressour as there is of the reward to the performer of obedience for Gal. 3 12. the very man that hath done them shall live by them which is no where said of the Transgressour Ans. But all this is loose reasoning for as the Law saith God will visite the iniquities of the Fathers upon the Children unto the third and fourth Generation so it saith that He will shew mercy to thousands of them that love Him and keep His Commandements and here the one is as Emphatick as the other 2 As he readeth Gal. 3 12. that the man that doth them shall live in them so we read Ezek. 18 3. the soul that sinneth it shall die and Gal. 3 10. Deut. 27 26. Cursed is every one that abideth not in all things which are written in the Law to do them which words do Import as emphatical a restraint as the other But of that Gal. 3 12. we have said enough above we might also mentione that which was said to Adam in the day thou eats thou shalt die which seemeth to have no less an Emphatick Import But 2. he mentioneth this difference Sin saith he is ever greater in ratione demerity than obedience is in ratione meriti Adam might by his transgression merite condemnation to himself and posterity yet not have merited by his obedience Salvation to both because if he had kept the Law he had only done his duty Luk. 17 10. so had been but an unprofitable servant Ans. All this saith nothing where a Covenant is made promising life to the obeyer as well as threatning death to the transgressour Albeit Adam could not be said to have merited life by his obedience in way of proper and strick merite yet in way of merite expacto he could have been said to have merited for the reward would have been reckoned to him not of grace but of debt and there would have been ground of boasting and glorying Rom. 3 27. 4 2 4. How beit he had done but his duty when he had obeyed to the end yet the condescending love of God promising the reward to perseverance in obedience to the end was sufficient to found this Whether Adam had merited Salvation to all his posterity if he had kept the Covenant to the end or not is not our present question to enquire j this we know that by one man sin entered into the world death by sin so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned Rom. 5 12. And upon the other hand this we know that Christ was made sin for His as a publick person and all His promised Seed and Children are made the Righteousness of God in Him 1. Cor. 1 30. 2. Cor. 5 21. and those are sufficient for our purpose 3. He saith The Imputableness of the transgression of the Law rather overthroweth the Imputation of the obedience of it than any wayes establisheth it for the more Imputable that is punishable the transgression is the less imputable that is rewardable is the obedience of it Ans. This is very true when we speak of the same man as of Adam in both for he could not both be a Transgressour and a Final Observer of the Law and so both obedience and Transgression could not be imputed to himself Let be to any other the Imputation of the one did quite evacuat the other But what maketh this meer shift to his present purpose which is to show if he could that the Righteousness and obedience of the Second Adam the Lord from heaven is not as imputable to His Spiritual Seed Issue as the Sin and Transgression of the first Adam who was of the earth earthy 1. Cor. 15 47. was imputable to his Natural Seed Next he cometh to the Minor and denieth the Imputation of Adam's sin and this seemeth to be his maine buliness wherein he complieth with the Socinians and others Let us hear him first saith he the Scripture no where affirmes either the Imputation of Adam's sin or of the Righteousness of Christ. Ans. The contrary is sufficiently proven above all his reasons cannot evince what he saith He tels us
that neither is the phrase nor manner of such speaking any wayes agreable to the language of the Holy Ghost for still in the Scriptures wheresoever the word imputing is used it is only applied unto or spoken of something of the same persons to whom the Imputation is said to be made never to or of any thing of anothers Ans. Though it be true that some things are said to be imputed in Scripture unto persons which are or were theirs before the Imputation though that Instance of faiths being imputed to Abraham Rom. 4. which he adduceth doth not belong to this head as shall be evinced in due time whether it be good or evil as 2. Sam. 19 19 Act. 7 60. where this Imputation is deprecated So 2. Chron. 24 22. Gen. 30 33. Psal. 106 31. Yet it is also true that we read of an Imputation of Something that did not belong to or was not possessed by the person before the Imputation was made as when Paul desireth Philemon to impute to him what Onesimue was oweing and that he would reckon both the debt and the injury whereof Onesimus might beguilty upon his score and require it of him Philem. vers 18. Thus do Sureties take upon themselves what formerly was not theirs and so make that imputable to themselves which formerly was not so as we seen Gen. 43 9. 44 32. and the Sureties payment or Satisfaction according to what he voluntarily undertook is according to Law and equity imputable to be imputed unto or reckoned on the Score of the debtor to the end he may be dealt with by vertue of that imputed payment Satisfaction as if he himself had made the payment or given the Satisfaction And this is the very Nature End of this Imputation not that the person to whom the Imputation is made should be accounted one who had that before the Imputation was made but that the thing Imputed may become his to whom it is imputed and he thereupon be dealt with as now an owner possessor of that thing by Imputatioâ— Secondly he saith When a thing is said simply to be imputed as sin folly or righteousness the meaning is not to be taken concerning the bare acts of things as if to impute sin signified to repute the man to have committed a sinful act but to charge the guilt or demerite of sin upon his head of purpose to punish him for it Ans. This is true of such things as are either really or falsly by injustice supposed to be in the person before that imputation be made But notwithstanding hereof there is as we have seen as all acts of Suretiship do further cleare an imputation of what was not the persons before whereby the thing it self that is imputed is legally made over unto them reckoned upon their score thereupon they are dealt with as being now possessed of that which is imputed as when a person voluntarily becometh Surety for another as Paul for Onesimus Iudah for Benjamin first the debt it self is made their reckoned upon their score then they willingly undergo the consequences thereof that is the payment or punishment Thridly pag. 198. he cometh home to the point saying The expressions i.e. of Christ's Righteousness of Adam's sin are unknown to the Holy Gost in Scripture Ans. This is but the old exception of Bellarmin de Iustif. lib. 2. chap. 7. of the Socinians See Volkel do Vera Relig. lib. 5. pag. 564 565. who upon this same ground reject several other fundamental points as the Trinity others But we have already shown Scripture-proof enough of this matter himself in the following words granteth that there are expressions in Scripture concerning both the Communication of Adam's sin of Christ's Righteousness that will fairly enough bear the terme of Imputation So that all the difference betwixt him us is about the sense of the word Now we come to the matter He speaketh to Rom. 5 19 giving this for the only meaning thereof that the demerite or guilt of Adam's sin is charged on his posterity or that the punishment ran over from his person to them i a maine part of which punishment lyeth in that original defilement wherein they are all conceived borne whereby they are made truely and formally sinners before God Ans. But if that sin of Adam be imputed in its curse punishment the sin it self must be imputed as to its guilt else we must say that God curseth punisheth the posterity that is no wayes guilty which to do suiteth not the justice of God the righteous Governour of the world We do not say as he supposeth when he setteth down our sense of the words that that sinful act of eating the forbidden fruit in the letter formality of it an expression that on all occasions he useth whose sense is not obvious but needeth explication is excogitated meerly to darken the matter as it was Adam's own personal sin is imputed to the posterity but it is enough for us to say with the Scripture that by Adam's disobedience his posterity became guilty that all sinned in him therefore death passed on all that guilt was by that one sin to condemnation Rom. 5 12 15 16 18 19. so that the posterity sinned legally originally though not formally because not existing in Adam actually but legally originally became thereby obnoxious to the punishment threatned that is death both in body Soul here hereafter Whence it is manifest that punishment being relative to sin such as are punished because of sin must be sinners judged to be sinners so guilty before they be punished for sin Adam being the Head Root of Mankind God entering into Covenant with him as such therefore with all his posterity in him when he broke the Covenant transgressed all Mankind descending from him by ordinary generation being comprehended with him in the Covenant became actually partakers of that guilt so soon as they did partake of Nature actually being really guilty when existing they were justly punished But if this guilt were not imputed to them they could not be justly punished for it On the contrary he thinks they might be justly punished for that sin though not guilty thereof he laboureth to establish this upon three pillars 1. The demerite saith he sinfulness of that sin which had so many aggravations and in this regard was beyond the sin of devils that Adam had the estates of all his posterity in his hand knew that if he sinned he should draw all their souls after him into the same perdition Ans. But if by Adam's having the estates of all his posterity in his hand this truth be not included that his sin should become their sin they should be looked upon as guilty thereof chargable therewith how could he know that by his sin heshould draw the souls of all his
Covenant was only one single act of obedience for then his Notions about just unjust as to Adam would have some ground but till this be done all he hath said is to no purpose 3. He saith That he maintainâ—th as well as we that Christ hath not only satisfied for sin merited pardon but also merited immutable Glory Ans. But we say further that He merited pardon Immutable glory not by His death sufferings only but by His whole Surety-righteousness consisting in Active Passive Obedience whereby He paid our whole debt But he willeth us to consider 1. That Adam's not doing that which was to merite glory was sin of Omission and to pardon that Omission is to take him as a Meriter of Glory 2. Therefore it must be somewhat more than he forfeited by that Omission and his Commission which cometh in by Christ's merite above forgiveness 3. That Christ merited all this by his active Passive habitual Righteousness by which he merited pardon 4. That it was not we that merited in Him but He to give it to us only in the termes of a Law of Grace Ans. I To pardon that Omission in Adam was not to take him as a Meriter of Glory but only to take him as one that was free of the obligation to punishment for that Omission It is false then to suppose or say that one pardoned as such is taken to be one that never sinned for the contrary is manifest to take Adam as a Meriter of Glory is to take him for one that never sinned yea for one that fulfilled his course of obedience which can never be supposed of a pardoned man as such 2 That by Christ's Merites the Elect obtaine more than what Adam forfeited to speak so I shall easily grant but notwithstanding thereof we stood in need of more than of meer forgiveness even of a Right to what Adam lost the expectation of and in order to this the Law was to be fulfilled 3 I yeeld the 3d. 4 Though we need not say that we Merited in Him yet we say That Christ merited as a Publick Person representing His own as a Sponsor and Surety coming in their Law-place and taking on their whole debt both as to punishment deserved and Duty required And I see no warrand to say that Christ only merited to give it to us only on the termes of a Law of Grace for this would make Him no Sponsor or Surety nor to stand in the room of any which yet he granteth n. 130. but only hold Him forth as a third unconcerned person no wayes related to them like a man buying a Bond or Obligation from a Creditor whereby he may be in case to distress the debtor and call for payment in his owne way and time Whereby the whole tenor of the Covenant of Redemption between Jehovah the Mediator is altered the Mediator's Place Relation to those for whom he died is changed His Righteousness of Active and Passive Obedience is made to have no necessary respect unto the old Covenant Man's Obligation He is supposed to have merited bought all for Himself immediatly He is supposed to have died for all that the New Covenant or Caw of Grace is wholly of Him To none of all which I can assent He saith next n. 127. that some come neerer say that to punish and not reward are all one so the respect that sin hath to the deserved punishment needed Pardon and Satisfaction but our deserving the Reward needed Christ's perfect obedience to be Imputed What saith he to this He granteth that there is some what of truth here but saith he there are errors also that lye in the way and so he willeth us to remember 1. without a 2. or 3. that man can have nothing from God but what is a meer gift as to the matter though it be a Reward as to the Order Ends of Collation Ans. True what then And in this case saith he punishment is damni as well as sensus so the loss of the Reward is the principal part of hell or punishment Ans. That there is poena damni as well as sensus I grant but I am sure the punishment threatned to Adam was more than the meer want of what was promised otherwayes we must say that Adam was punished before he fell because even while he stood he had received the Reward promised so that poena damni is some other thing than the meer want of the Reward even the want of that which man had already in his possession together with the hopes of what was promised The faithful yet living are not pofâ—essed of the Reward of Glory yet it may not be said that they have the principal part of hell being delivered there from So that all this is but loose Sophistrie from the word loss What more So that saith he if Christ's death hath pardoned our sins of Omission we are reputed to have done all our duty Ans. Passing the Impropriety of speach here we say that it is manifestly false as appeareth from what is said And if so saith he again we are reputed to have merited the Reward And. This is also false as is shown And if he pardon our sins saith he more-over as to all punishment of sense loss he pardoneth them as to their forfeiture of heaven at a gift if not as a Reward And. Neither can this be granted for there is more required to the taking away of the forfeiture of heaven if by this nothing else be meaned than a giving of a Right to heaven whether as a Gift or as a Reward than to the taking away of all punishment whether of Sense or of Loss as such as for example when a King covenanteth with his own Servant whom he hath already advanced to great honour dignity and promiseth him far greater honour if he will work one day to end in sueh an Imployment if not threatneth to deprive him of all he hath to cast him in prison untill he die This servant faileth performeth not the condition and therby hath both forfeited what he was in hope of and what he had and is now obnoxious to perpetual Imprisonment when the King 's own Son goeth to prison for some time to make Satisfaction and thereby deliver the Servant from perpetual Imprisonment he doth not thereby deliver him from his loss so as to give him a right to the far greater honour promised though he deliver him from the punishment of constant Imprisonment Yea it may be a doubt if he thereby procure his restauration to his former state but in order to this and to the end the servant may get the Reward promised beside his going so long to prison in the servants room stead that he may be delivered from the punishment he must also in his room stead performe that daies work We say that Remission of sin is a consequent or at most
Christ the ground meritorious cause thereof is a far other thing And when he saith Apologie ag Mr. Eyre § 4. that he is well content to call Christ's Righteousness of Satisfaction the matter of ours and that the imputation of Christ's Righteousness taken for Donation is the forme of Constitutive Iustification that sentential adjudication of Christ's Righteousness to us is the forme of our sentential Iustification That Faith in order to Justification doth in a special manner eye the Righteousness of Christ is clear from Esai 45 24 25 Surely shall one say in the Lord have I Righteousness then followeth In the Lord shall alâ— the seed of Israel be justified This truth is also clearly held forth when faith in the matter of Justification is called faith in Christ's blood Rom. 3 25. for when faith laith hold on the bloud of Christ it cannot but lay hold on his Surety-Righteousness whom God set forth to be a Propitiation and in through whom there was a Redemption wrought vers 24. for this hlood was the Redemption-money the price payed in order to Redemption 1. Pet. 1 18 19. And the blessedness of Justification is through the Imputation of Righteousness without our works Rom. 4 6. and therefore faith in order to the obtaining of this blessedness must eye and relye upon this Righteousness which is the Righteousness of him who was delivered for our offences and was raised againe for our Justification vers 25. where we may also observe a manifest difference betwixt this Righteousness which consisteth in his being delivered for our offences and our Justification the one being the Cause as was said the other the Effect Moreover this same truth is clear from Râ—m 5 17. where we read of the receiving of the gift of righteousness which is by faith and that in order to a reigning in life by one Jesus Christ where also we see a difference put betwixt this gift of Righteousness Reigning in life which is also more cleare in the following vers 18. Even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto Iustification of life this righteousness of one to wit one Jesus Christ is the Cause and the Iustification of life is the Effect And further this difference is againe held forth vers 19 20 21. Our being made Righteous is different from the obedience of one Christ Jesus and by the Imputation of this Obedience to us do we become Righteous as our being made sinners is different from Adam's act of Disobedience and we are made sinners by the Imputation of it to us And as sin death are different when it is said that sin hath reigned unto death so Eternal life is different from Righteousness when it is said so might grace reigne through righteousness unto eternal life We need say no more of this seing it clearly followeth from what was formerly at length confirmed to wit That justification is by the Righteousness of Christ imputed CHAP. XXXIV Faith in Justification respecteth not in a special manner Christ as a King but as a Priest MR. Baxter did long ago in his Aphorismes tell us That the Accpting of Christ for Lord is as essential a part of Iustifying Faith as the accepting of him for our Saviour that is as he explained himself That faith as it accepteth Christ for Lord King doth justifie And this was asserted by him to the end he might cleare confirme how Sincere Obedience cometh in with Affiance to make up the Condition of Justification for his Thesis LXXII did run thus As the accepting of Christ for Lord which is the hearts Subjection is as essential a part of Justifying Faith as the accepting of him for our Saviour So consequently sincere obedience which is the effect of the former hath at much to do in justifying us before God as Affiance which is the fruit of the later Hence the question arose and was by some proposed thus Whether faith in Christ qua Lord be the justifying act or whether the Acceptation of Christ as a Lord and not only as a Priest doth justifie And Mr. Baxter in his Confess p. 35. § 13. saith that it is not only without any ground in God's word but fully against it to say that faith justifieth only as it apprehendeth Christ as a Ransome or Satisfier of justice or Meriter of our Iustification or his Righteousness as ours not as it receiveth him as King or as a Saviour from the staine tyranny of sin I have shewed before that the moving of this question is of little use in reference to that end for which it seemeth it was first intended to wit to prove that Sincere Obedience hath as much to do in Justification as faith or Affiance hath where I did shew the inconsequence of that consequence That because Justifying Faith receiveth Christ as King Therefore Obedience is a part of the Condition of Justification yea or therefore a Purpose or a promise of Obedience is a part of the Condition of Justification So that in order to the disproving of that Assertion that maketh obedience or a Purpose or a promise of obedience an essential part of the Condition of Justification we need not trouble ourselves with this question Yet in regaird that the speaking to this may contribute to the clearing of the way of Justification by faith which is our great designe we shall speak our judgment there anent And in order thereunto several things must be premitted As 1. The question is not whether Christ as a King belongeth to the compleet adequate object of that faith which is the true justifying faith for this is granted as was shown above this faith being the same faith whether it be called True Faith or Saving Faith or Uniting Covenanting faith or Justifying faith it must have one the same adequate Object 2. Nor is the Question whether Faith in order to Justification doth so act on Christ as a Priest as to exclude either virtually or expresly the consideration of any other of his offices or of Christ under any other of his offices for under whatever office Christ be considered when faith acteth upon him whole Christ is received and nothing in Christ is or can be excludeth So that there is no virtual exclusion nor can there be any express exclusion of any of his offices when he under any other of his offices is looked to a right received for such an exclusion would be an open rejection of Christ and no receiving of him 3. When we speak here of receiving of Christ as a Priest or in respect of his Sacerdotal Office it is all one as if we named his Sacerdotal work or what he did in the discharge of that office offering up himself a Satisfactory Sacrifice and giving his blood and life for that end and suffering inwardly outwardly what was laid upon him by the Father in order to the making of full Satisfaction to justice
Nor is it to the point to tell us that some hold that God if it had pleased him might have pardoned Adam's transgression without the Atonement made by the death of Christ for they speak not of what God may now do having determined to manifest the glory of his justice but what he might have done in signorationis ante decretum And as for that word Heb. 2 11. It became him c. it will as well respect the justice of God as his wisdom seing it became him upon the account of justice which he would have glorified Mr. Baxter in his Confess Chap. IX Sect. 5. pag. 289. thinketh that to say that Christ paid the same thing that the Law required of us not only satisfied for our not payment is to subvert the substance of Religion But this is only in his apprehension as he taketh up their meaning who say so And others possibly may have no lower thoughts of some who hold that Christ only gave such a sacrifice to God as might be a valuable consideration on which he might grant us the benefites on such conditions as are most sutable to his ends honour that he did not suffer the same which the Law threatned The screwing up of differences to such an hight as to make either the one or the other subversive of the substance of Religion had need to be upon clear undeniable grounds and not founded on meer sandy and loose consequences such as those seem to me by which Mr. Baxter maketh out this Charge For he tels us The Idem is the perfect obedience or the full punishment that the Law requires It is supplicium ipsius delinquentis Ans. But now seing such as say that Christ paid the Idem will say as well as he that when Christ suffered that which they call the Idem the person himself that sinned did not suffer And I would enquire at Mr. Baxter whether paid Christ the Idem as to all other respects beside that is whether Christ suffered all that penalty which the Law did threaten to transgressours only this excepted which must be excepted that he did it in another person that he was not the person himself that sinned or not If he say Not then the difference goeth deeper but why doth he not then to make out this heavy charge Instance some particulars threatned in the Law which Christ did not undergo And why doth he insist only on this one that he was not ipse delinquens but another person If he grant that in all other respects Christ paid the Idem no man sure can see such difference here as shall make the one side subvert the Substance of Religion for it is a meer sâ—â—ife about a word it cometh all to this whether when one man layeth down his life to save another condemned to death after all satisfaction in money lands rents service or what else hath been rejected he can be said to pay the Idem which the Law required or not Some Lawyers would possibly say he did pay or suffer the Idem Mr. Baxter would say not because he was not ipsa persona delinquens was not the very person that was condemned but another And yet death unto which the other man was condemned was inflicted upon him and no less would be accepted as satisfaction at his hands which would make some say that all that debate whether it was the same or the equivalent were a meer needless contest about a word And if it be but just so here in our present debate every one will judge it very hard to call that a subversion of Religion which after examination trial is found to be but a strife about a word Now how will Mr. Baxter prove that the suffering of the Idem is only when it is supplicium ipsius delinquentis And not also when the same punishment in all its essential ingredients is undergone suffered by another When the Law imposeth the penalty of death or of such a great summe of money on a person transgressing such a Law common discourse would say I suppose the Law give allowance thereto that when another came payed the same penalty for him without the least abatement he payed the same penalty which he Law impofed and not another and not meerly a valuable consideration It is true the Law threatened only the transgressour obliged him to suffer but notwithstanding another might pay the very same thing which the Law threatned requireth He saith next p. 290. the Law never threatned a Surety nor granteth any liberty of substitution that was an act of God above the Law If therefore the thing due were payed it was we ourselves morally or legally that suffered Ans. Sure some Lawes of men will threaten Sureties grant liberty of substitution too But if he speak here only of the Law of God we grant that it threatned only the transgressour that it was an act of God above the Law dispensing therewith that granted a substitution Yet notwithstanding of this it is not proved that that Substitute did not or could not suffer the same punishment which the Law threatned And if Mr. Baxter think that the lawes not threatning a Surety nor granting liberty of a substitution will prove it it is denied Next His other consequence is as uncleare viz. That if the thing due were payed it was we ourselves that suffered personally all these consequences run upon the first false ground that no man can pay the Idem but the very transgressour What he meaneth by we ourselves morally he would do well to explicate And as for legally we ourselves may be said to do legally what our Surety undertaker doth for us And if this be all he meaneth viz. that if the thing due to wit by Law as threatned there be payed either we in our own persons or our Surety for us in our room Law place payed it it is true but subversive of his hypothesis It must then be some other thing that he meaneth by morally or legally it must be the same with or equivalent to personally or the like but his next words cleare his meaning for he addeth And it would not be ourselves legally because it was not ourselves naturally And what lawyer I pray will yeeld to this reason I suppose they will tell us that we are said to do that legally which our Cautioner or Surety doth for us But if he think otherwayes here also that nothing can be accounted to be done by us legally but what is done by our selves Naturally which is a word of many significations might occasion much discourse that is personally Yet it will not follow that no other can suffer the Idem that was threatned but the delinquent himself At length he tels us That if it had been ourselves legally then the strickest justice could not have denied us a present perfect deliverance ipso facto seing no justice can
sufficiat non est pallium breve quod secundum Prophetam non possit operireduos justitia tua justitia in aeternum te pariter me opertet larga aeterna justitiâ— in me quidem operit multitudinem delictorum i. e. Shall I make mention of my Righteousness Lord I will make mention of thine only for that is also mine because thou art made of God unto me Righteousness Is it to be feared that that one shall not serve two It is not a short cloak that according to the Prophet cannot cover two thy Righteousness is an everlasting Righteousness that large eternal Righteousness shall cover both thee me in me indeed it shall cover a multitude of sins Id. Dom. 1. post Octav. Epiph. Serm. 1. Veruntamen ut jam non sit quod causeris O homo contra inobedientiam Adae datur tibi obedientia Christi ut si gratis venundatus es gratis redimaris i. e. But that thou ô man should not have whereof to complean fore against the disobedience of Adam which he said before was imputed the obedience of Christ is given unto thee to the end that if thou be sold for nothing thou shalt also be redeemed for nothing Idem Epist. 190. ad Innocent Pont. Rom. Quid namque ex se agere poterat ut semel amissam justitiam recuperaret homo servus peccati vinctus diaboli assignata est ei proinde aliena qui caruiâ— sua ipsa sic est Venit Princeps mundi in Salvatore non invenit quicquam cum nihilominus innocenti manus injecit justissime quos tenebat amisit quando is qui morti nihil debebat accepta mortis injuria jure illum qui obnoxius erat mortis debito Diaboli solvit Dominio Qua enim justitia id secundo exigeretur homo siquidem qui debuit homo qui solvit nam si unus inquit pro omnibus mortuus est ergo omnes mortui sunt ut viz saâ— factio unius omnibus imputetur sicut omnium peccata unus ille portavit nec alter jam inveniatur qui forte fecit alter qui satisfecit quia Caput Corpus unus est Christus Satisfecit ergo Caput pro membris Christus pro Visceribus suis c. quod si dixerit Pater tuus addixit te Respondebâ— sed Frater men's redemit me cur non aliunde justitia quia aliunde reatus alius qui peccatorem constituit alius qui justificat a peccato alter in semine alter in sanguine An peccatum in semine peccatoris non justitia in sanguine Christi non convenit filium portare iniquitatem patris fraternâ— fieri exortem justitiae i. e. For what could man a servant of sin a bound slave of the devil do of himself to recover the Righteousness which he had once lost Therefore another is assigned unto him because he wanted his own the same is so The Prince of the world came found nothing in the Saviour when notwithstanding he put hands on the Innocent he lost those most justly when he held when he who owed nothing to death having received the injurie of death he did by right loose him who was liable to the debt of death deliver him from the Dominion of Satan for by what Right could he exact that the second time seing as it was man who owed so it was man who payed for if one he saith died for all then are all dead that to wit the Satisfaction of one might be imputed to all as that one did bear the sins of all Neither now is it found that one did the wrong another satisfied for the Head the body are one Christ the Head therefore did satisfie for the members Christ for his own bowels But if he shall say Thy Father bound thee over I shall answer but my Brother hath redeemed me why should not Righteousness be from another as guilt was from another one who made man a sinner another who justifieth from sin the one in the seed the other in blood Was sin in the seed of a sinner shall not Righteousness be in the bloud of Christ. It is not right that the Son should bear the iniquity of the Father be defrauded of the Righteousness of his Brother Idem Serm. ad Milites Templi c. 1. Qui peccati meritum tulit suam nobis donando justitiam ipse meritis debitum solvit reddit vitam sic namque mortua morte revertitur vita quemadmodum ablato peccato redit justitia porro mors in Christi morte fugatur Christi nobis justitia imputatur c. Qui nostram induit carnem subiit mortens putas suam nobis negabit justitiam Voluntarie incarnatus voluntarit passus voluntarie crucifixus solam à nobiâ— retinebit justitiam afterward ibid. Unus peccavit omnes tenentur rei unius innocentia soli reputabitur uni Unius peccatum omnibus operatum est mortem unius justitia uni viâ—am restituet Haud Dei justitia magis ad condemnâ—ndum quam ad restaurandum valuit aut plus potutt Adam in malo quà m Christus in bono Adae peccatum imputabitur mihi Christi justitia non pertinebit ad me i. e. He who took away the desert of sin giving to us his Righteousness the same by his merites paid the debt restored life for if death be dead life returneth even as sin being taken away Righteousness returneth Moreover death is banished away in Christ's death and Christ Righteousness is imputed to us c. He who took on our flesh underwent death thinks thou that he shall deny to us his Righteoysness He who willingly was incarnate willingly suffered willingly was crucified shall he withold his Righteousness from us?-one man sinned all are guilty shall the innocency of one be accounted only to one One mans sin hath wrought death unto all shall the Righteousness of one restore life only to one Shall God's Righteousness be more powerfull to condemne than to restore Could Adam do more in sin than Christ in good Shall Adam's sin be imputed unto me shall not Christ's Righteousness belong unto me Ambros. lib. 3. de Virginit p. 100. Omâ—ia Iesus est nobis si volumus Si vulnus curari defideras Medicus est Si febribus aestuas sons est Si gravaris iniquitate justitia est si auxilio indiges virtus est Si mortem times vita est si câ—lum desideras via est si tenebras fugis luxest si cibum quaeris alimentum est i. e. Christ is all things to us if we be willing if thou desirest to have thy wound cured he is the chyrurgen if thou burn with feavers he is a fountain If thou be burdened with sin he is Righteousnâ—ss If thou want help he is vertue If thou fear death he is the life if thou desirest heaven he is the
1. Cor. 15 3. Christ died for our sinnes 1. Pet. 2 24. who his owne self bear our sinnes in his own body on the tree by whose stripes we are healed How can we then imagine that all this was a meer may be seing he was so bruised for our iniquities so died for our sins so bear our sinnes in his own body as that thereby all in whose room he stood are healed by his stripes The Apostle doth moreover fully clear this matter Rom. 5 6. Christ died for the ungodly was this for all Or was it to have an uncertaine End effect No vers 9. much more then being now justified by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him The ungodly and the sinners for whom he died are such as become justified by his blood shall at length be fully saved from wrath And againe vers 10. for if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life Upon his death followeth Reconciliation with God then Salvation and his death is for no more than his life is for By him also they receive an atonement vers 11. As the consequences effects of Adam's sin did Certainly and not by a may be redownd to all that he represented engadged for so the fruites effects of Christ's death do as certainly come unto such as are his as the Apostle cleareth in the following verses laying the advantage on the side of Christ his vers 15. much more the Grace of God and the gift by grace by one man Iesus Christ hath abounded unto many vers 16. but the free gift is of many offences unto justification vers 17. much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the Gift of Righteousness shall reigne in life by one Iesus Christ vers 18. even so by the Righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justification of life vers 19. so by the obedience of one shall many be made Righteous vers 21. so might grace reigne through Righteousness unto eternal life by Iesus Christ our Lord. Is all this a Common thing and a meer may be or Possibility Ioh. 10 11. he giveth his life for his sheep vers 15. But may they for all that perish No in no wise vers 28. and I give unto them eternal life and they shall never perish He came that they might have life and might have it more abundantly vers 10. To the same purpose he saith Ioh. 6 33. that he giveth life unto the world not such a life sure as may never quicken any Upon Christ's death doth the Apostle inferre Rom. 8 32. that the Elect shall have all things vers 33 34 35. that they are free from all Accusations or any Hazard therefrom being justified and having Christs Death Resurrection and Intercession to secure them at all hands thereupon they have assurance that nothing shall separate them from the love of God Act. 20 28. Christ hath purchased a Church with his own blood The whole world is not this Church nor is this purchase an uncertane may be And all this Real Certaine Effect of Christ's death was foretold by Daniel Chap. 9 24 to finish the transgresion and to make an end of sins and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in everlasting Righteousness c. And who can imagine that this is Universal or Uncertane If we will 7. Consider some other Ends of the death of Christ which the Scripture pointeth forth which are not to be found among Heathens or any except the few Chosen ones Ordained to life we shall see how unreasonable the Adversaries are Gal. 4 5. Christ died to redeem them that were under the Law that we might receive the adoption of sones Was this end fruit left at an Uncertanty Shall we thinks that Christ might have died yet one man receive this Adoption Was this Adoption purchased upon an uncertain Condition Or was this purchased equally for all Then such as received it might have thanked their owne well natured Freewill upon that account But let us consider some other fruits Gal. 1 4. who gave himself for our sins that he might deliver us from this present evil world So 1. Pet. 2 24. He bear our sins in his own body on the tree but for what end That we being dead to sin should live unto Righteousness Chap. 3 18. Christ suffered for sins the just for the unjust To what end and purpose To bring us to God Heb. 10 10. by the which will we are sanctified How came this to passe Through the offering of the body of Iesus Christ once for all So he suffered without the gate that he might sanctify the people Chap. 13 12. Revel 1 5 6. he loved us and washed us from our sins in his owne blood But was this all No it is added And hath made us Kings Priests unto God and his Father So Ch. 5 9 10. thou was â—tain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood and what more And hast made us unto our God Kings Priests c. So 2. Cor. 5 15. He died for all But for what end and purpose That they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves but unto him which died for them and rose againe See Col. 1 22. These the like passages do clearly pointe forth a special end of Christ's Death which was designed both by the Father that sent him by himself and shall we suppose that this great chiefe designe was made to hang upon the lubrick uncertain will of man Shall Christ be beholden to mans good will for the purchase he made at so dear a rate If not why are not all these ends attained in all for whom he died Did Christ fail in laying down the Ransome Or doth not the Father keep condition Who can say either of these Then surely there can be no reason to say that Christ made an uncertain bargain purchased only a Possibility of these fruites which he knew not if ever he should attaine in any one Nor to say that he died for all Let us further 8. take notice That for whom Christ died he died to take away their sins And that so as they may be fully Pardoned never brought on reckoning againe that is that they be Remitted Pardoned and that the poor sinner may not suffer therefore This sure must be the import of that prayer forgive us our trespasses If then Christ by his death hath taken away sin and purged it away making satisfaction to justice therefore how can we think that justice can punish the sinner in hell fire for these same sinnes But let us see what the Scripture saith 1. Ioh. 3 5. he was manifested to take away our sins Ephes. 1 7. we have redemption in his blood what Redemption forgiveness of sins according to the riches of
such expressions in this matter that we finde no mention made of two fold Righteousness of a twofold Justification the one subordinat the other Principal in the Scriptures but all expressions in this matter framed designedly to abase man make all appear to be of free grace that he who glorieth may glory in the Lord. And as Self will be ready in this to make that which is called a Subordinat Righteousness a Prinpal Righteousness so it will have this faire plausible ground to do so to wit That upon our own Righteousness we are Immediatly accepted of God as Righteous especially when the Merits of Christ are made subservient unto our personal Righteousness as procuring the New covenant that therein our Personal Righteousness shall be accepted accounted perfect compleet though it be not so in it self we thereupon immediatly justified accepted of God as Righteous as they love to speak who assert these things 12. Though faith be indeed the mean of our justification that is the onely thing required of us in order to our Interest in Christ actual participation of the benefites of His Redemption of justification in the first place according to the Gospel methode Yet it is too favourable to proud Self to call it such a Condition as hath a far more dangerous Import That is 1. To call it a Condition withall deny that it is an instrumental Cause or that it is to be considered in the matter of justification as it laith hold on Christ His Righteousness 2. To say that the very act of faith or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere is imputed for Righteousness that Paul is to be so understood Rom. 4. as speaking properly not metonymically 3. To say that this is the Righteousness which is imputed to us in order to justification not the Righteousness of Christ except as to its Effects in respect of some whereof Yea the chiefe only immediat it is equally Imputed to all Reprobat as well as Elect. 4. To say that this faith is our Gospel-Righteousness because a Righteousness is perfect adequate to the Rule of the New Covenant 5. To say that this faith hath the same place consideration consequently the same force efficacy in the New Covenant that perfect obedience had in the Old Covenant with Adam 6. To say that Christ hath purchased the New Covenant that this shall be the condition of persons partaking of the benefites thereo◠withall 7 To say that Christ hath died for all by his death made Satisfaction to justice for the breach of the Law so purchased freedom from the Curse of the Law to all equally at least conditionally whereby it is apparent that all are put in statu quo prius in the state they were once in that equally now have new conditions proposed unto them which if they performe they are righteous upon that performance are freed from the Curse made heirs of Glory and thus the New Covenant is of the same Nature kinde with the Old only its Conditions are a little altered made more easie their Performance of the condition must-have a 〈◊〉 with it at least ex pacto though not ex condigno as neither Adam's Perfect obedience could have had And the performers of this condition in this case may reflect upon their own deed lay their weight on it it being their Righteousness may plead upon it as their immediat ground of right before God unto justification Acceptance Let any man now consider these things see whether or not the asserting of faiths being such a condition as this be not a plaine gratification of proud Self the laing down a ground for vaine man to boast of glorying though not-before God yet before others And whether this be not an ascribing more to faith than is done by such as yeelding it to be a condition of the mean appointed of God required of us in order to justification say with all that it is to be considered not in it self nor as an act of our obedience but as an Instrument or mean laying hold upon the Righteousness of Christ without us that it may be ours our onely Righteousness where upon we may expert according to the Gospel justification absolution c. 13. It tendeth too much to blow up proud Self to say That if works of Obedience be not the Condition of our first justification yet they may be called the Condition of our Second justification or of the Continuance of our justification for as the Scripture speaketh nothing of a Second justification so to assert our works to be the Condition thereof is to crosse the argueings of the Apostle manifestly to lay a foundation of glorying for Man for if even Abraham had been justified by works a considerable time after he was first justified and first a beleever he should have had whereof to glory though not before God as saith the Apostle Rom. 4 2. And vers 3. he proveth that he was justified by faith that after he had been a beleever for that passage Abraham beleeved God it was imputed to him for righteousness was not spoken of at his first beleeving so cannot be properly meaned of his First justification onely but some yeers there after therefore must be true of his Second justification if there were any such Yea the just liveth by faith a passage that the Apostle useth as wee have seen to prove justification by faith both here in our Text Rom. 1 17. all alongs both first last so that the beginning continuance of this life of justification is by faith not by works 14. It is also dangerous to say That the work of the Law convining of sin with the Effects Consequences thereof Sorrow griefe Anxiety Legal Repentance c. are either Dispositions Preparations or Conditions of justification or Meritorious thereof by way of Congruity as if there were a certaine constituted connexion betwixt these the blessing of justification made by any Law or promise of God as if none could be justified that had not these sensible affecting Effects going before Sure the asserting of this cannot but contribute much to stirre up foster pride in Man give occasion to think that man himself hath done or suffered something that calleth for procureth in congruity at least meriteth justification CHAP. IV. Justification is so contrived in the Gospel as man may be abased have no ground of boasting THirdly we come to speak to the third thing mentioned above to wit That justification is so contrived begun carried on that man hath no real or apparent ground of glorying before men or of boasting in himself A few particulars will sufficiently cleare this I. The Lord 's ordinary usual Method in bringing His Chosen ones into a justified State is
that it is nothing to the present question But this we say That all men by nature and so Beleevers before they be justified by faith in Christ are not only under the Curse because of sin but are under the demand of the law or the commanding power of the law requiring perfect obedience in order to the reward And that therefore both these demands of the law must be satisfied by their Surety and the same must be imputed to them and reckoned upon their score before they can be looked on as free of the Curse and as heirs of the Reward promised to full perfect obedience 3. We are not saith he therefore exempted from keeping the law no not in respect of justification it self because we have transgressed it but because 1. having once transgressed it we are utterly uncapable of such an observation whether personally or by imputation which may amount to justification or exemption from punishment 2. That relaxation or release from an observation of or dependance upon the law by justification accrueth unto us by meanes of our dependance upon Christ for justification through his death Rom. 7 4. Ans. 1 If our transgression of the law doth not exeem us from the obligation to keep it perfectly in order to justification then ere we be justified that obligation must be satisfied as well as the obligation to punishment and so the law must be perfectly keeped as well as its penalty suffered And seing we our selves can do neither our Surety must do it for us that must be accepted for us imputed to us 2 Nor can it be said that our uncapableness to keep it so as may amount to justification doth exeem us from the obligation or destroy the lawes power to require that of us more than our uncapableness to suffer the penalty so as may amount to a justification doth or can exeem us from the obligation to suffer or destroy the lawes power to require the penalty of us It is true that no man now is called of God to endeavoure this way of justification yet all such as live without the Gospel have not the better more sure way through faith in Christ made known unto them The obligation to perfect obedience remaining after the transgression saith that ere a man that was both obliged to Suffer and to yeeld perfect obedience can be justified the law as to both these demands must be satisfied the Sureties Satisfaction to both must be reckoned upon his score 3 Justification Exemption from punishment are not one the same in our case more than pardon Righteousness 4 The Exemption that accrueth to beleevers saith not that there was no obligation upon mankind both to suffer and to obey in order to justification anteriour to Christs doing both 4. God never required saith he pag. 210. of any man but only of Christ both exactness of obedience to the law subjection to punishment due to the transgression of the law conjunctim but divisim only He that shall perfectly keep the law is not bound to suffer the penalty Ans. 1 Then our transgressing of the law should exeem us from the obligation to obedience contrare to what was granted in the First Exception 2 Though he who perfectly keepeth the law is obnoxious to no punishment yet he who breaketh the law as we all did in Adam beside our daily transgressions is obnoxious to punishment this obnoxiousness to punishment no more dissolveth his obligation to obedience than his transgression was able to do And therefore we are all considered in our Natural state obliged to both conjunctim for we are borne sinners and yet born under the obligation of keeping the law of God 3 Gods requiring both of Christ who was Mediator Surety saith that both were required of us for what was required of him as Surety was required of the principal debtors 5. He saith In case a Man hath transgressed the law hath suffered whether by himself or by some other for him the full punishment threatned he is no further a debtor unto the law neither in point of punishment nor of obedience for the punishment is of equal consideration to the law with the most absolute conformity and as no man can be obliged to fulfill the law twice for his justification so neither is it reasonable to conceive that he who hath suffered the full penalty that being as satisfactory to the law as the exactest obedience should be still bound to the observation of the law Ans. When the law promiseth life to the fulfillers as well as threatneth death to the transgressours the suffering of death for the transgression is not such a fulfilling of the law as hath the promise of life annexed to it Devils though now suffering the vengeance of eternal fire the death threatned yet cannot be said to be fulfilling the law or obeying unto life nor can they be said to be justified nor to be suffering any thing in order thereunto In order therefore to our justification Acceptance with God as heirs of the life promised who were both obnoxious to punishment also obliged to give perfect obedience to the law the law as to both must be satisfied Nor can we say that the punishment of Devils is of equal consideration to the law with the conformity yeelded thereunto by the confirmed Angels And though the suffering of the penalty in lawes penal or such as promise no reward unto the obeyers may be said to be of equal consideration with the keeping of the law yet this cannot be said in lawes which promise a Reward to the observers as well as threaten a punishment to transgressours Nor can the man that suffereth the punishment suppose to the full that is threatened in the law be said to have fulfilled the law and to have deserved the reward promised to obeyers 2 Though Christ hath both obeyed the law suffered the punishment yet the law is not twice fulfilled but once because as was granted such as were sinners and obnoxious to punishment were also obliged to yeeld perfect obedience for transgression did not destroy this obligation As when a man is punished for breach of a law that not only required obedience under such a penalty but also promised a reward to the observers when he is put to performe what was commanded ere he can have the promised reward he is not put to fulfill the law twice for his punishment was but Satisfaction to one part of the law or to threatning but it was no satisfaction of the law as to the reward promised Arg. 6. If there be no justification without a perfect Righteousness no such Righteousness to be found but the Righteousness of Christ performed to the law then of Necessity this Righteousness must be imputed to us unto justification But the former is true Ergo c. The ground of this Argument is that justification is the pronouncing of a person righteous justification being
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
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
third yea multiplied Regeneration whereof the Scripture is silent nay it clearly depones the contrary 10. And if it be enquired how it cometh to passe that after sins may not at least gradually impaire the State of Justification as sins do impaire and weaken Sanctification I answere and this may further help to clear the business under hand The reason is manifest from the difference that is betwixt these two blessing and benefites Iustification is an act of God changing the Relative-state of a man and so is done and perfected in a moment Sanctification is a progressive work of God making a real physical change in the man whence sin may tetard this or put it back but cannot do so with the other which is but one single act once done and never recalled the gifts and calling of God being without repentance Rom. 11 29. In justification we are meerly passive it being a sentence of God pronunced in our Favours in Sanctification as we are in some respect patients so are we also Agents and Actors and thus sin may retard us in our motion and as it evidenceth our weakness for acting so it produceth more weakness Moreover Sin and Holiness are opposite to other as light and darkness therefore as the one prevaileth the other must go under and as the one increaseth the other must decress But there is no such Opposition betwixt sin pardon which is granted in Justification And whereas it may be said that sin expelleth also grace Meritoriously yet that prejudgeth not the truth in hand for it can expell grace meritoriously no further than the free constitution of God hath limited and so though it can and oft doth expell many degrees of Sanctification yet it cannot expell make null the grace of Regeneration or the Seed of God so no more can it expell or annul Justification because the good pleasure of God hath secured the one the other made them both unalterable By these particulars we see how the first doubt is removed out of the way we shall next speak to the Second which is concerning afflictions Punishments which are the fruits and deserts of sin and seem to be part of the curse or penalty threatned in the first Covenant To which we need not say much to show that notwithstanding hereof the State of Justification remains firme and unaltered These few things will suffice to cleare the truth 1. Though all affliction and suffering be the fruite consequent of the breach of the Covenant by Adam the head of mankind for if he had stood and the Covenant had not been violated there had been no Misery affliction Death or Suffering and though in all who are afflicted in this world there is sin to be found And though it cannot be instanced that God ever brought an afflicting or destroying stroke upon a Land or Nation but for the provocations of the People yet the Lord may some rimes afflict outwardly or inwardly or both a particular Person in some particular manner though not as provoled thereunto by that persons sin or without a special reference to their sin as the procuring Cause thereof as we see in Iob and as Christ's answer concerning the blinde man Ioh. 9 3. Neither hath this man sinned nor his parents that he was born blinde but that the works of God should be made manifest in him giveth ground to think 2. Though it doth oftner fall out that God doth afflict Punish and Châ—sten his people even because of their sinnes as well as other wicked persons yet the difference betwixt the two is great though the outward Camitie may be materially the same To the godly they flow from Love are designed for good are sanctified and made to do good they are covenanted mercies but nothing so to the wicked They are mercies to the one but curses to the other They speak out love to the one but hatred to the other They are blessed to the one but blasted cursed to the other They work together for good to the one but for evil to the other and all this notwithstanding that the outward affliction calamity that is on the godly may be double or treeble to that which is upon the wicked Yea there is mercy and love in the afflictions of the Godly when the prosperity of the wicked is cursed Whence we see that all these afflictions cannot endanger or dammage their Justified state 3. Though the Lord may be wroth smite in anger his own people chasten punish them in displeasure yet this wrath anger is but the wrath and anger of a Father and is consistent with fatherly Affection in God and therefore cannot be repugnant to a state of Sonshipe in them Prov. 3 11 12. Heb. 12 5-8 Psal. 89 30 33 34. Revel 3 19. 4. In all these afflictions that seem to smell most of the Curse and of the death threatned and are most inevitable such as death c. there is nothing of pure vinâ—ictive justice to be found in them when Justified persons are exercised with them for Christ did bear all that being made a curse for them and as to this the Lord caused all their iniquities to meet together upon him He drunk out the cup of Vindictive anger and left not one drop of the liquor of the Curse of the Law for any of his own to drink He alone did bear the weight of revenging justice and there is nothing of this in all that doth come upon beleevers So that the very sting of death is taken away the sting of all these Afflictions is sucked out and now they are changed into Mercies Blessings 1 Cor. 3 21 22. Therefore we must not think that they contribute the least mite unto that Satisfaction which justice required for sins Christ payed down to the full justice was fully satisfied with what he paid down nor must we think that God will exact a new satisfaction for sins or any part thereof of the hands of beleevers after he hath received a full satisfaction from the Mediator Christ did rest satisfied therewith The afflictions and Punishments then that the godly meet with being no parts of the Curse nor of that Satisfaction that justice requireth for sin nor flowing from vindictive justice but being rather fatherly chastisments mercies meanes of God can do no hurt unto their state of justification nor can any thing be hence inferred to the prejudice of that glorious state 5. But it is said Pardon and Justification is one thing and a man is no more Justified than he is Pardoned and Pardon is but the taking off of the obligation to punishment and consequently of punishment it self and seing punishment is not wholly taken off but there remaineth some part of the curse or of the evil threatned for sin and will remaine untill the resurrection it is cleare that pardon is not fully compleet not consequently Justification so long as we live But
we were justified upon the account of it as our Righteousness God should not be he who justifieth the ungodly as he is expresly stiled Rom. 4 5. And the reason is because he cannot be called an ungodly person who hath a Righteousness inherent in him which is his own which the Lord accounteth to him for a Righteousness he is not unrighteous whom God accounteth Righteous he whom God accounteth Righteous cannot be called ungodly so that if God account Faith to us for our Righteousness putting it up upon our score as our Righteousness when God justifieth us as Righteous by vertue of our faith or as clothed with faith as a compleet Righteousness he cannot be said to justifie such as are ungodly But now the Scripture tels us that God is one that justifieth the ungodly that is one who hath no Righteousness inherent in him upon the account of which the just righteous God can justify him but one that must have a Righteousness from without Imputed to him upon the account of which he is Justified and accounted Righteous in Christ though unrighteous ungodly in himself our Faith cannot be said to be imputed to us as our Righteousness 8. If Faith as our act of obedience were imputed to us as our Righteousness Paul could not say as he doth Rom. 4 6. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputed righteousness without works for then Righteousness should not be imputed without works but a prime special principal comprehensive work for with our Adversaries here faith is in a manner all works or comprehendeth them as we heard towards the end of the foregoing Chapter should be imputed as our Righteousness not a Righteousness without works 9. Free pardon of sins will never prove the man blessed unto whom God imputeth Faith in a proper sense for his Righteousness as it doth prove him blessed unto whom God imputeth Christ's Righteousness or a Righteousness without works And the reason is because faith is no satisfaction to the justice of God therefore can not be our Righteousness upon which we are pardoned justified Now the Apostle argueth thus Rom. 4 6 7 8. Even a David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works saying blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven whose sins are covered blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin 10. The Righteousness imputed is something distinct from our Faith is not our faith it self for the Apostle saith Rom. 4 23 24. Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him but for us also to whom it shall be imputed if we beleeve on him c. If Faith it self were the Righteousness imputed these words could make no good sense Shall we think that the meaning of the Apostles words is nothing but this Faith shall be imputed if we have faith or our Beleeving shall be imputed to us if we Beleeve This looks not like one of the discourses of the Apostle 11. The imputation of our Beleeving as our Righteousness cannot ground our Peace with God not have we by it access into this grace wherein we stand nor can we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God nor glory in Tribulation for it is obvious how weak a ground that were for such a great building But the Righteousness of Christ laid hold on by Faith can be a sufficient basis for all this Rom. 5 1 2 3. 12. Faith as our work of obedience is not the grace of God and the gift by grace which must be imputed to us as our Righteousness upon the account of which we are to be justified as the offence transgression of Adam was imputed to his posterity as the ground of death passing upon them and of judgment or guilt to condemnation But is only our receiving of that abundance of grace and of the gift of Righteousness Rom. 5 17. But that which is imputed as the ground of Justification as Adam's disobedience was imputed as the ground of their Condemnation is the Righteousness of the Second Adam of whom the first was a figure vers 14 15 18 19. 13. When the Apostle saith 2. Cor. 5 21. for he made him sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him his meaning cannot be that our Faith is the Righteousness of God or that we are made the Righteousness of God upon that account of having faith for the Apostle is holding forth here a comfortable commutation which God maketh betwixt Christ us as the ground of that ministrie of Reconciliation to wit that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them mentioned vers 18 19. And therefore as Christ hath some thing that was properly ours imputed to him by God that is Sin or Guilt which he had not in himself so we must have something as the native fruit effect of that that is properly Christ's imputed to us of God that is his Righteousness which we have not in ourselves And beside this Righteousness of God is that whereupon Reconciliation is founded as is manifest comparing vers 19. with 21. But who will say that our Reconciliation unto God is founded upon our Faith as if that were our Peacemaker our Atonement Satisfaction as if that were Christ in whom God was reconciling the world unto himself Was Christ made sin that the imperfect grace of faith might be made a compleet Righteousness become our compleet Righteousness 14. When the Apostle saith Rom. 9 31 32. That Israel hath not attained to the Law of righteousness because they sought it not by faith he must meane a Righteousness that is distinct from Faith and therefore he cannot meane Faith it self for if he meaned faith it self as our work the words should have this sense they sought not Faith by Faith and therefore they did not attaine to Faith Shall we impute such jejune insipide expressions to Paul or rather to the Spirit of God speaking in by Paul 15. The same Apostle tels us Rom. 10 3 4. That the jewes being ignorant of God's righteousness going about to establish their own righteousness have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God And by this Righteousness of God he cannot meane Faith for their faith had been their own so their own Righteousness if Faith had been Righteousness but he must meane the Righteousness of Christ which faith laith hold on for he addeth for Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that beleeveth So that it is the Righteousness of him who is the end of the Law that is that Righteousness unto which they should have submitted themselves by Faith it is not Faith it self but a Righteousness which is had from Christ who is the end of the Law a Righteousness
our Pardon whatever seeming assurance we had formerly So that this place speaketh nothing of the Condition of our pardon but of the condition rather of our Sense Feeling grounded Assurance of Pardon which is a far different thing These are the Scriptures whereby he would prove his first argument His 2. Arg. is this Our first faith having the nue nature of a Covenanting with Christ giving ourselves to him taking him for our Lord Redeemer therefore it followes that as the Covenant making accepting was of necessity as the condition of our first right remission so is our Covenant keeping of the same necessity to our continued right And that God is as it were disobliged if we should not keep Covenant And the keeping hath more in it than the bare making No Covenant-relations usually are entered among men but the Covenant keeping is more than the making and the conditions of their continued right more then of their first right So it is with a Subject to his Prince wife to a husband Souldier to a commander Scholer to his Teacher Servant to his Master c. Promising will give them the first right but performing in the essentials must continue it it or will cease for the end of the promise was its performance And in that respect faith which is the Covenant is inferiour to obedience which is promised though in other respect it may be superiour Ans. 1 Though Justifying Faith be also a Covenanting faith and of uniteth he soul with Christ Yet in order to Justification it hath not to use his words the true Nature of a Covenanting with Christ nor a giving up ourselves to Him but rather it is a receiving resting on Him and his Righteousness and a fleeing to his Merites for refuge 2 Nor doth faith in order to Justification as we cleared above receive Christ or goe to him as Lord King but rather as Priest 3 Nor doth the receiving of Christ at first as King formally include Obedience or a promise of obedience as was also manifested above 4 Therefore from this first acting of faith in order to justification it can no way follow that Obedience or Covenant keeping as he speaketh is the condition of our continued Right or of our continued justification 5 What God hath promised upon Covenant-keeping he is it is true disobliged from giving to speak so when the Covenant is not keeped But we find not that he hath promised Justification or the continuance thereof upon these termes 6 There is no Covenants among men that can fully quadrate either with God's Covenanting with us or with the matter of Justification about which we are now speaking The sentences of judges absolving the debitor upon the payment of the Cautioner instructed agreeth more with this and we finde not in such sentences any such-like Conditions mentioned of their Continuance in force 7 Some of these Relations or Covenants mentioned are purely aliene being betwixt a Master his servant and the Captain and the Souldier these are meer mercenary contracts having Obedience service for their only end promiseing a reward upon that Condition Our justification hath no likeness to this 8 Even in these Relations every act of disobedience or non-performance of the duties required doth not dissolve the Relation and therefore it cannot be said that upon the contrare performance as a condition the continueing of the Relation dependeth Mr. Baxter seeing this addeth a restriction in the essentials And in our case I would require what he will account Essential It must be that sure the contrary whereof is inconsistent with a Justified state and what can this be but a total Apostasie From which there is full securitie laid-in in the New Covenant which is not in any of the Covenants among men which he hath mentioned And this total Apostasie must include a full renuncing of Christ his Righteousness as to Justification And this rather would say that the continuance of Justification dependeth on the continuance of Faith adhereing to Christ his Righteousness to this I shall willingly assent And this taketh away the force of the 3. Arg. which he adduceth saying 3. Arg. If there were no more necessary to the continueing of our Iustification but only the same thing which did constitute it then we should be justified by no none act of faith to our lives end but only the first instantaneous act so our faith after that instant should never more be justifying faith But that 's false c. Ans. This whole argument I yeeld unto for I plead not against the interest of faith here but against our works being the condition of continued Justification as was said above CHAP. XXXVI Of the Interest of Repentance in the Pardon of after-sinnes WE spoke before Chap. 29. of Repentance in order to the first pardon of sinnes or to justification and in the foregoing Chapter we shew that the continuance of Justification did not depend on our works as the Condition thereof But now the question will be moved touching Repentance Whether it may not be said to be required as a Condition of the Continuance of Justification or at least as a Condition of the Pardon of sins committed after justification Concerning which we would premit these things 1. It is granted that Repentance is not only necessary at the first Conversion of a sinner but is a Grace that is constantly to be exercised by a Beleever so long as he liveth both in respect of its terminus a quo of its terminus ad quem or both in respect of its aversive of its conversive part for he is still more more to depart fâ—om sin and to turne unto God and to all the wayes of his Commandements Psal. 119 59. The very body of death is constant matter of groaning and mourning unto him Rom. 7 24. his dayly iniquities transgressions ought to keep him low and to put him to this exercise Beside what at extraordinarie times of publick wrath or judgment against the Land Church or Place he liveth in or judgments upon his own neer Relations Familie c. or upon occasion of his own more hainous out breakings as in David Psal. 51. 2. It is also granted That where is no Repentance or no true Repentance for sinnes committed there is no ground for that man to suppose that his sin is pardoned I do not here speak of the measure or expressions of Repentance for there may be mistakes on both hands some thinking their Repentance is naught because not in such a sensible measure as they think is required may therefore inferre that their case is worse than indeed it is others upon the other hand may suppose they have repented when it is not so so inferre pardon when they have no ground But this is granted that where true sincere Repentance is not there is no Pardon from God of sins whereof such are guilty for to such as
also by the imputation of a Righteousness for being in this State of Righteousness we have not only the Obligation to wrath eternal punishment removed which is done by Remission upon the account of the Satisfaction of Christ imputed but we have also a right to the reward the crown of life which is had by imputation of Righteousness or of obedience though it were better to say we have both by both or we have both by the imputation of that compleet Satisfaction merite which comprehendeth or consisteth of both His 3. Conclusion is this Adam whilst his innocency stood with him and till his fall by sin was compleetly Righteous in an estate of justification before God Yea for the truth substance of Righteousness as Righteous as he could or should have been if he had lived to this day in the most entire absolute obedience to the Law Ans. Adam while he remained innocent was compleatly Righteous that is was changable with no transgression it is true That he was compleatly Righteous that is had full right to the reward as having done all his duty and compleated his work it is most false Therefore 2 it is false to say he was in a state of justification unless nothing else be hereby meaned than that he was not in a state of condemnation Though there be no mids betwixt these two now as to us but either we must be in a state of justification or in a state of condemnation Yet Adam while he stood was in neither Not in a state of condemnation because he had not yet transgressed the Law Nor yet in a state of justification because he had not yet done all his duty for he was to persevere in obedience to the end And if he had been justified he had full right to the reward so had been glorified for whom the Lord justifieth he glorifieth But Adam was not glorified upon his Law-obedience and consequently was not justified by his Law-obedience 3 The truth substance of Righteousness unto which he would restrick all is not the thing enquired after nor is it at all to the point for upon Adam's having of that simply he could not expect the reward of life that was promised because the Covenant he was under required continuance perseverance in all the several duties called for by the Law even to the end ere he could challenge a right to the reward And further Adam had this truth substance of Righteousness at the first it was concreated with him Yet he could not upon that account have challenged glory as his due He addeth Even as the second Adam was as compleatly perfectly Righteous from the womb so from his first entrance upon his publick ministrie as he was at last when he suffered death Ans. If we speak of our Lord Jesus as the second Adam that is as standing in the room of sinners as the Head publick Person engadging in their behalfe whom he did represent to pay all their debt though he knew no sin and upon that account was perfectly Righteous and separat from sinners Yet he was to finish the work laid upon him and to performe the whole debt both of duty suffering which he had undertaken and till the last penny of that debt was payed his work was not finished and untill his work was finished he could not challenge his reward And so this confirmeth what we have said of the first Adam To say he addeth that Adam was not perfectly Righteous consequently in a justified estate or condition before God untill his fall by sin is to place him into an estate of condemnation before his sin there being no middle or third estate betwixt these two Ans. This was obviated before Adam's state before his fall was a state of Innocencie wherein he enjoyed the favour presence of God he being perfectly Righteous in reference to that state to what was required of him but justified he was not for the reward was not adjudged unto him So that as to him there was a middle state betwixt a State of Justification a State of Condemnation though as to us there is not as the places which he citeth afterward namely Rom. 5 18. 8 1 2 shew the whole Scriptures evince He closeth this matter thus Therefore to grant that forgiveness of sins puts a man into the same estate condition wherein Adam stood before his fall which is generally granted by men of opposite judgment in this controversie nothing granted neither in this but the unquestionable truth is to grant the point in question to acknowledge the truth laboured for throughout this whole discourse Ans. It is not granted that remission of sins as such putteth a man every way into the same Condition wherein Adam stood before his fall for it putteth not a man in the same estate of inherent holiness wherein Adam was but it putteth a man into the same estate of freedome from any obligation to punishment for it taketh away the reatus poenae so that a pardoned man as such is no more under the actual obligation unto the curse wrath of God threatned for transgression than was Adam before he fell and this is all that is confessed Which is far yea very far from granting the point that he goeth about to establish for he would have remission as such put a man in the state of full right to the reward to the end he might exclude the imputation of the obedience or Righteousness of Christ as not being necessary unto this end contrary to the Scriptures of truth Adam before he fell had not right unto the promised reward because he was to finish his course of obedience before he could obtaine that And therefore the granting that remission putteth a man into the same Condition wherein Adam stood will contribute nothing to his end His 4. Conclusion is That perfect remissien of sins includeth the Imputation or acknowledgment of the observation of the whole Law even as the imputation of the Law fulfilled necessarily includes the non imputation of sin or the forgiveness of all sin in case any hath been committed Ans. The conclusion is manifestly false if we speak of remission simply abstractivly as such And the ground here alleiged for it is ambiguous for the imputation of the Law fulfilled may either be to sach as never broke it then it doth not include remission but taketh away all necessity of it or to transgressours and then indeed it may presuppose remission but doth not include it as such But to remove ambiguities we shall distinguish say that perfect Remission of sins includeth the acknowledgment of the observation of the whole Law in respect of Punishment but not in respect of the Reward that is perfect Remission of sins exeemeth a man from Punishment as well as if he had perfectly keeped the Law but doth not give him right to the Reward for unto this
flow therefrom be accounted one the same thing but two distinct parts of one compleet effect And therefore the mentioning of the one in stead of the whole proveth no confusion or sameness but rather an inseparablness which is yeelded He move â—in an objection against himself â— 5. thus How can God be said to impute a Righteousness to a man which never was nor ever had a being no Righteousness at least of that kind whereof we now speak having ever been but that perfect obedience which Christ performed to the Law This indeed is a very rational question for our Author talketh much of an imputed Righteousness and never doth nor yet can tell us what that is that can deserve the name of a Righteousness Let us heare what he answereth 1. saith he There is as express compleet a Righteousness in the Law as ever Christ himself performed Ans. But what Righteousness is or can be in a Law but what is there by way of prescription And who doubts 〈◊〉 the perfection of this that acknowledgeth the perfection of the Law This is utterly impertinent to the purpose in hand where the question is of a Righteousness consisting in conformity to the Law and which must be attribute to man to whom the Law is given And what if it be said saith he that God in remission of sins through Christ from out of the Law imputeth to every man that beleeveth such a Righteousness as is proper to him Ans. To say this is to speak plaine non-sense for what is that to furnish a man with a Righteousness out of the Law Can a man be changed into a Law or can a man have any Righteousness prescribed by a Law but by thoughts words deeds bearing a conformity to the commands of the Law And how can 〈◊〉 pardon cause this transformation can the pardon of murther or of any prohibited act make that act conforme to the Law Pardon thus should be a self destroyer for an act that is no transgression of a Law can need no pardon and thus pardon should make itself no pardon What he subjoineth hath bin spoken to elsewhere He giveth a 2. answere saying To say God cannot impute a Righteousness which never had a being i.e. which never was really actually performed by any man is to deny that he hath power to forgive sinâ— Ans. This hath been is full denied it never hath been nor never shall be proved that forgivness of sin is the imputation of a Righteousness Though he addeth from Rom. 4 6. 3 28. c. that it is the imputation of such a Righteousness as consisteth not noâ—es made up of any works performed to the Law by any man which is but a Righteousness that never had a being Ans. This is but a plaine perverting of the Scriptures which speak only of works in that exclusion done performed by us as the whole scope and all the circumstances of the passages demonstrate to any man who will not willingly put out his owne eyes and it were a meer imposing upon the Understandings of the most ordinary Reader and a miserable mispending of time to goe about the evincing of this which is so obvious But what desperat shifts will not a wrong cause put men to use who will not be truths captives His 5. Conclusion cometh here also to be considered It is this He that is fully discharged from his sins needeth no other Râ—ghteousness to give him-Right 〈◊〉 unto life This is as false as the rest for the Law is do this live and pardon for transgressions is not the same with doing of the Law What is his reason death is the wages of sin is of sin only being due to no creature in any other respect nor upon any other terme whatsomever But what then Now he that it free of death no wayes obnoxious thereunto cannot but be conceived to have a right unto life there being neither any middle condition between death life wherein it is possible for a reasonable creature to subsist nor againe any capacity of life but by some right â—itle thereunto Ans. Though this be true as to us now that he who is no wayes obnoxious unto death hath a right unto life Yet the consequence that he would draw from it is not good to wit that that only which taketh away the obnoxiousness unto death giveth also a right to life because God hath inseparably joined these effects together as also their distinct causes together and giveth them inseparably so that he who is pardoned hath also a right to life not meerly upon the account that he is pardoned but because together with the imputation of the Satisfaction of Christ whence floweth pardon he imputeth also Christ's Righteousness upon which followeth the right to life And howbeit now as to us there is no middle state betwixt these two Yet in Adam there was for while he stood he was not obnoxious unto death and yet he had not right unto life but was to work out perfect his rask to that end But he tels us That while Adam stood he was already in possession fruition of life else he could not be threatned with death Ans. This is not the life whereof we are speaking we are speaking of the life promised by that Covenant unto perfect obedience But it seemeth that he joyneth with the 〈◊〉 in this granting no life promised to Adam but a Continuance of what he was already in possession of He enquireth If he had not a right unto life by his freedome from sin but was to purchase this right by an ctlual fulfilling of the Law it would be known what quantitâ—eâ— of obedience to the Law he must have paid before he had made this purchase how long he must have obeyed keept the Law Ans. There is no necessity of any exact knowledge of these things our maine question doth not â—â—and or â—all with the knowledge or ignorance of them Yet we may say and that is sufficient that that Law or Covenant requiring perfect obedience and perpetual without the least omission or commission he must have paid all that obedience which the Law required of him to the day of his transâ—â—â—gration or change to glory before the 〈◊〉 had been made He addeth for had he lived a two yeers in his integrity uprightness without the least touch of any transgression he hâ—d still but a debtor of obedience to the Law upon the same termes that he was at the beginning the least interruption or breach in the course of his obedience had even now been the forfeiture of that life he enjoyed Ans. How long Adam should have lived upon earth before his translation to glory we know not nor is it of use for us to enquire it is sufficient to know that he was to finish his course to persevere in obedience to the end if he would not both forfeit the life he had and the expectation of
not expresly say so and yet this he will not say seing he granteth that his obedience was an essential requisite absolutly necessary to the constitution of him our Priest and his Sacrifice propitiatory But we read of his being made under the Law to redeem these that were under the Law Gal. 4 4 5. and of his Righteousness obedience as necessary to our Righteousness justification and as having a no less direct influence into the same than Adam's offence disobedience had unto our death damnation Rom. 5 17 18 19. CHAP. II. Christ underwent the Curse of the Law MR. Goodwine tels us in his 14. Conclusion That the sentence or Curse of the Law was not properly executed upon Christ in his death But this death of Christ was a ground or consideration to God where upon to dispense with his Law to let fall or suspend the execution of the penalty or curse therein threatned Ans. 1 This is directly contrary to what the Apostle saith Gal. 3 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law being made a Curse for us for it is written cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree It was the Curse of the Law that we were under were to be delivered from and this Christ hath delivered us from by coming in our stead bearing it for us yea bearing it so that he is said to have been made it being made a Curse for us which is a most emphatick expression to hold forth Christ's bearing the very penalty threatned in the Law which cursed every one that continued not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them vers 10. Deut. 27 26. If Christ underwent the Curse of the Law he sure did suffer the very sentence or punishment threatned in the Law for the Curse of the Law can import no other thing 2 If Christ did not bear the sentence or Curse of the Law how could he be said to have died or suffered in our place room or stead No man is said to suffer in the place stead of another who doth not suffer that same particular kind of punishment that the other is obnoxious to and is obliged to suffer 3 Why was Christ said to be made sin for us 2. Cor. 5 21. to bear our iniquities Esai 53 6. 1. Pet. 2 24. If he did not undergoe the very punishment that was due to us because of sin 4 This is to give away the cause in a great measure unto the Socinians who will not yeeld that Christ's death was any satisfaction to the justice or payment of our criminal debt or a suffering the punishment of sin due to us for if Christ did not suffer the curse sentence of the Law he did not suffer the punishment which the Law threatned and justice required he did not suffer any punishment at all if he suffered not our punishment or that which was due to us he did not stand in our Law-place to answere all the demands of justice according to what we were liable unto by the Law nor did he bear our sins in his own body on the cross 5 If Christ's death was a ground or consideration to God whereupon to dispense with his Law then it is apparent that the consideration of Christ's death was anterior to the dispensing with the Law whereas the contrary is rather true to wit that the Lord's dispensing with the Law was anteriour to his sending of Christ because the Law properly knowing no mediator and requiring none to suffer the penalty for another must first in order of nature be considered as dispensed with before Christ be substituted in the room of sinners to undergo what they deserved 6 If it was only a ground to God whereupon to let fall or suspend the execution of the penalty then it seemeth Christ's death was no full payment or Satisfaction for a full Satisfaction requireth more than a suspension of the execution of the punishment even a full delivery there-from Let us heare his reason Because saith he the threatning Curse of the Law was not at all bent or intended against the innocent or Righteous but against transgressours only Therefore God in inflicting death upon Christ being innocent and Righteous did not follow the purport or intent of the Lawâ—but in sparing forbearing the transgressours who according to the 〈◊〉 of the Law should have bin punished manifestly dispenseth with the Law and doth not execute it Ans. All this being granted yet it will not follow that the sentence Curse of the Law was not executed upon Christ in his death for notwithstanding of this dispensing with the Law as to the persons Yet was there no Relaxation of the Law as to the punishment threatned Though the Law did not require that the innocent should suffer Yet the Supream Lord Ruler dispensing with his own Law so far as to substitute an innocent person in the room place of sinners the Law required that that innocent person taking on that penalty and thereby making himself nocent as to the penalty should suffer the same that was threatned consequently bear the Curse threatned in the Law As saith he further for explication when Zaleucus the Locrian Law-giver caused one of his own eyes to be put out that one of his son's eyes might be spared who according both to the letter intent of the Law should have lost both he did not precisely execute the Law but gave a sufficient account or consideration why it should for that time be dispensed with Ans. This speaks not home to our case wherein we pay not the half nor no part of the penalty But Christ payeth the whole as substitute in our room If Zaleucus had substituted himself in the room of his son suffered both his own eyes to be put out though the Law had been dispensed with as to the persons yet the penalty of the loss of both eyes had been payed the same punishment which the Law required had been exacted And so it is in our case as is manifest Yet he granteth that in some sense Christ may be said to have suffered the penalty or Curse of the Law as 1. It was the Curse or penalty of the Law saith he as now hanging over the head of the world ready to be executed upon all men for sin that occasioned his sufferings Ans. If this were all all the beasts senseless creatures may be as well said to have suffered the penalty Curse of the Law consequently to have suffered for man to have born mans sin in order to his Redemption as Christ for the sin penalty of sin whereunto man was liable did occasion their suffering or being subjected to vanity Rom. 8 20 21. Thus our whole Redemption is subverted the cause yeelded unto the wicked Socinians for if this be so Christ had not our sins laid upon him he did not beare our sins
justification which is the hinge ground work as it were of his doctrine of the Gospel and to shew how poor sinners standing under the Curse for sin come to be justified before God as in his Epistle to the Romans And to Vindicate the same doctrine of the Gospel from the corrupt pervesions of false teachers as in his Epistle to the Galatians as also to commend the free grace of God in that noble contrivance both in the places mentioned and Ephes. 2. Phil. 3. Tit. 3. and elsewhere when he mentioneth the same Now as to the scope of the Apostle Iames there is nothing to declare unto us that it was his Intent or designe to explaine make known the way how poor convinced sinners standing under the sentence of the Law come to be justified before God and to receive pardon of their sins No such question proposeth he to be discussed No such point of truth doth he lay down to be cleared or Vindicated But his whole scope drift is to press the reall study of holiness in several points particularly spoken to through the Epistle And in that second Chapt. from vers 14. forward as will appear more fully in the explication vindication of the several verses in particular he is particularly obviating that grosse mistake of some who thought that a bare outward profession of the Gospel Faith or of Christian Religion was sufficient to save them and evidence them to be in a justified state and that therefore they needed not trouble themselves with any study of holiness And therefore sheweth that all such hopes of Salvation were built on the sand for they had no ground to suppose that they were truely justified so were in any faire way unto salvation so long as all their faith was no other than a general assent unto the doctrine of the Gospel to truthes revealed not that true lively faith hold forth in the Gospel whereby sinners become justified before God Mr. Baxter tels Cath. Theol. part 2. n. 364. that St. James having to do with some who thought that the bare profession of Christianity was Christianity that faith was a meer assent to the Truth that to beleeve that the Gospel is true trust to be justified by Christ was enough to justification without Holiness fruitful Lives that their sin barrenness hindered not their justification so that they thus beleeved perhaps misunderstanding Paul's Epistles doth convince them that they were mistaken that when God spake of justification by faith without the works of the Law he never meaned a faith that containeth not a resolution to obey him in whom we beleeve nor that is separate from actual obedience in the prosecution But that as we must be justified by our Faith against the charge of being Insidels so must we be justified by our Gospel personal holiness and sincere obedience against the charge that we are unholy wicked or impenitent or hypocrites or else we shall never be adjudged to Salvation that is justified by God Ans. 1 It is true for it is manifest and undeniable that Iames had to do with some who thought that the bare profession of Christianity was enough that an assent unto the truth was that faith that would prove justifying saving But 2 it is not so manifest that Iames had to do with such as thought that to trust to be justified by Christ was enough to justification without holiness fruitful lives that their sin barrenness hindered not their justification for whatever Mr. Baxter imagine we finde not in Scripture that justification followeth lives that is that there is no justification before this fruitfulness of life appear And himself useth to say that in order to the first justification this holiness of life is not requisite And beside this which he calleth the first we know no other unless he mean glorification But then 3 as to glorification final Salvation we grant that Iames hath to do with such as thought a meer assent to the truth without holiness was sufficient hereunto but that their beleeving thus could flow from their misunderstanding of Paul's Epistles is not any way probable seing Paul in all his Epistles even where he speaks most of justification by Faith without the deeds of the Law presseth the necessity of holiness in order to Salvation so as no imaginable ground hereof can with the least of shewes be pretended 4 That when Paul said justification was by Faith without the works of the Law he meant a true lively faith which only is to be found in that soul in which the seed of grace is sown and which is made partaker of the holy Ghost and of the divine Nature is true but yet justifying faith doth not formally containe in it a resolution to obey him in whom we beleeve as was shown elsewhere 5 Then we see that the faith whereof Iames speaketh is not the same with that Faith whereby Paul said we are justâ—fied And seing both do not speak of the same Faith there can be no appearance of discrepance 6 When he saith we must be justified by our Faith against the charge of being infidels I would know what he meaneth by this charge of infidelity If he meane the charge of not beleeving the Gospel he knoweth that a meer assent to the truth will â—ustifie from that Charge If he meane the charge of not receiving resting upon Christ according to the Gospel even that will be but a particular justification from that particular charge and is not that justification from the sentence of the Law whereof Paul speaketh 7 That we must be justified as he saith by our Gospel personal holiness sincere obedience against the charge that we are unholy wicked or impenitent hypocrites is true but what can all this say for a justification from the sentence of the Law under which we are all lying by Nature and of which the Apostle Paul speaketh And if Iames speak of justification by works in reference to this accusation he speaketh of no other kind of justification than that which the most wicked wreatch yea the devils are capable of when to wit they are falsely accused of having done some evil which they have not done And how can Mr. Baxter inferre from what Iames saith if he speak of no other kind of justification that works are required unto our justification as to state or unto our general justification from the sentence of the Law adjudging us to death because of transgression 8 But he addeth or else we shall never be adjudged to Salvation that is justified by God Then the Justification that Iames speaketh of that Mr. Baxter meaneth is final Salvation And we willingly grant that there must be personal holiness sincere obedience before this and that no wicked or impenitent person or hypocrite shall be adjudged to Salvation But the justification which Paul treateth of is different from
of what is denied to wit that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word becoming man did become upon that account necessarily subject to the Law for himself His 2. Arg. is If Christ did performe active obedience in our room so as it might be imputed to us unto Righteousness then we should be no longer obliged to performe active obedience to the Law The reason of this he taketh from the like saying as we are not obliged to undergo eternal death because Christ hath sustained that in our room Ans. To this enough hath been said elsewhere I shall only here say That it will no more hence follow than from the Satisfaction of Christ whatever Socinians alleige that we are loosed from all obedience to the Law but only that we are loosed from that obedience which was required under the Old Covenant of works to wit to perfecte obedience thereby obtaine the prize as our reward of debt and faile in the least lose all which were the Conditions of the Old Covenant and as to this we deny the minor He replieth by denying what is now in question to wit That Christ performed active obedience in our room to procure eternal life to us affirming that he was bound to do it for himself so did merite nothing to ut thereby Ans. This is but what was said above hence it is cleare that in his judgment Christ wrought for the crown of glory to himself did merite it to himself so had no Right thereto before by vertue of his hypostatical union let be possession albeit all the Angels were to worshipe him his throne was for ever ever Heb. 1 6 8. He addeth If notwithstanding of Christ's active satisfaction we be obliged to satisfie actively so notwithstanding of his passive satisfaction we should be bound to satisfie passively that is suffer eternal death Ans. All the obedience now required is no satisfaction to the Old Covenant-Conditions Christ hath satisfied that and left no part thereof for us to do And therefore it will not follow that we are bound to suffer eternal death or any part of the Curse as such To that answere that some gave that by Christ's active obedience we have this advantage that we are more obliged unto rigide exact obedience He replieth That then we should not sin by short-coming or negligence Ans. But by that rigide exact obedience is not meaned full conformitie unto the Law but such a conformitie as was the Condition of the Old Covenant as is said that is we are now freed from obtaining the crown or right thereto by perfect conformity which to us is impossible from loseing of the crown upon the least escape or failing All obedience runneth now in another channel though the commands the Law as a Law rule of walk remaine the same His 3. Arg. is The Scripture every where speaking of our justification pardon mentioneth Christ's passive not his active obedience As Esai 53 5 6. Rom. 3 24 25. 5 9. Gal. 3 13. 1. Ioh. 1 7. Ans. It is denied that the Scripture doth every where mentione only Christ's passive obedience and the contrary hath been frequently showne And as to the places mentioned none of them containe any exclusive particle or hinte the exclusion of his active obedience And our Adversaries themselves must understand these the like passages Synecdochically otherwayes they shall exclude Christ's soul sufferings as well as his active obedience restrick all to his death bloud shed on the crosse which yet they will not do Now followeth his answere to some Arguments for the contrary Arg. 1. Two things are required unto our Salvation delivery from death the gift of life that is had by expiation of sin by his suffering this by the donation of Righteousness or imputation of his active obedience He answereth The passive obedience of Christ both expiateth sin giveth life his death giveth life 1. Pet. 2 24 3 18. Ans. True but the reason is because it was the death of one who had fulfilled all Righteousness we need not speak of his obedience of his sufferings so distinctly as to ascribe to each severally these several effects It is better I judge to take both conjunctly as one compleet Righteousness for us one meritorious cause of all the benefites procured thereby Arg. 3. for the Arg. 2. I passe as judging it not cogent The actual disobedience of Adam made us sinners He answereth If by actual obedience of Christ in the Conseq his active obedience be understood for his passive may also be called actual in that actually not potentially only he suffered that imputed to us the consequens is denied for Christ's passive obedience imputed hath restored unto us what we lost by Adam's disobedience Ans. But thus the comparison that Paul maketh Rom. 5. betwixt Adam's disobedience Christ's obedience is taken away He opposeth the Righteousness of Christ to the offence of Adam now Christ's death suffering is no where called his Righteousness So he opposeth obedience to disobedience therefore as the disobedience was the violation of the Law obedience must be the keeping of the Law Christ's death imputed is no Righteousness answering the commands of the Law and therefore though it did merite the recovery of what we lost in Adam being the death of one that fulfilled all Righteousness Yet considered abstractly by it self without his active obedience it cannot be our formal Righteousness with which we must be covered as having which we must be considered when justified of God who pronunceth none Righseous but such as are Righteous indeed Arg. 4. With Christ's active obedience his passive was conjoined He ans Denying the conseq that therefore the one cannot be imputed without the other for things conjunct can be distinguished as the one can be known so also imputed without the other Ans. But they are so conjoined as being integral parts of one compleat Surety-Righteousness Satisfaction for our debt therefore belong to his Estate of humiliation during which in all his obedience there was suffering for a part of his subjection was that he was made under the Law even under the commanding power thereof because otherwayes being God Man in one person he was not subject to the Law as a Viator in reference to himself So in all his sufferings there was obedience And what is thus inseparably conjoined we ought not to separate especially seing our case necessity calleth for the imputation of both Arg. 5. If only Christ's passive obedience were imputed then only the halfe of Christ should be given unto us contrary to Esai 9 6. He Ans. denying the Conseq because it is one thing to be given to us another thing to be imputed even Christ's humanity deity is given unto us Ans. But Christ was so given as that all he did suffered as such a given publick person
holy men how farther they advance in the truth please themselves the less therefore do more understand that they have need of Christ of his Righteousness given unto them wherefore they relinquish themselves and leane upon Christ alone This cometh not to passe because they become of a more base Law spirit Yea the further they advance in holiness they are of greater spirits see more clearly FINIS Arguments against Universal Redemption AS concerning the point of Universal Redemption we finde various sentiments or various explications of the matter given to us by Adversaries for they do not all agree in their apprehensions of the thing Some explaine the matter thus God sent his only begotten Son to be a Redeemer and Propitiator for Adam and all his Posterity who by his death did pacific an angry God and restore Mankinde to their lost inheritance so as all who are now condemned are not condemned for their former sins and guilt for Christ hath abundantly satisfied for these but for their Unbeleef for not beleeving in the Redeemer of the world and for rejecting the Reconciliation made the grace of God declared in the word And thus they must say that Christ hath died for all sinnes but Unbeleefe and that salvation doth not certainly follow upon this Reconciliation and so that it is rather a Reconciliableness than a Reconciliation and they must necessarily maintaine that this matter is revealed unto all and every son of Adam who otherwise cannot be guilty of Rejecting this reconciliation other wayes it shall be of no advantage to them unless they say that the want of the Revelation putteth them out of a capacity of being guilty of Unbeleefe and so they must necessarily be saved and thus their condition shall be undoubtedly better than is the condition of such as hear the Gospel and then the revelation of the Gospel shall be no Favour but a Prejudice rather And in reference to this they devise an Universal Antecedanious Love whereby God out of his Infinite Goodness was inclined to desire the happiness and salvation of every mothers son and therefore to send his Son to die for as if God had such Natural Necessary Inclinations and as if all his Love to Mankinde and every appointment of his concerning us were not the free act of his good pleasure and as if there were any such Antecedent Conditional will in God that could or might have no issue or accomplishment but as Lord Freewil would and as if the Love that sent Christ were only such a Poor Conditional Inclination towards all Mankinde which the Scripture holdeth forth as the greatest of Loves as the ground or all the Effects Grants which mans full Salvation calleth for But why could not this Love effectuat the good of all Therefore they tell us that Justice being injured by sin unless it were satisfied that Love of God whereby he wisheth well to all sinners could effectuat nothing as to the recovery of any upon this ground they imagine Christ was sent to make an Universal Atonement so Justice being satisfied might not obstruct the salvation of any whose Freewill would consent unto termes of new to be proposed Others hold forth the matter thus Christ according to the eternal Counsel of God did properly die for this end and by his propitiatory sacrifice obtaine that all and every man who beleeve in Him should for his sake actually obtaine Remission of sins Life Eternal but others in case they would Repent Beleeve might obtaine it But thus we hear no word of Christs obtaining any thing to any in particular no word of his obtaining Faith Repentance and what Counsel of God can this be to send Christ to die for persons upon that condition which he knew they would not could not performe And what by this meanes hath Christs Propitiatory Sacrifice obtained more than a meer possibility of salvation to either one or other Shall we imagine that God designeth good to persons who shall never enjoy it Or that God hath Conditional Intentions Designes By this means Christs death was designed and no person designed thereby to be saved yea Christ should be designed to die and that for no certain end unless to procure a meer possibility by stopping the mouth of justice that it should not stand in the way but then we can not say that God sent Christ to die for any man much less for all Others express the matter thus Christ out of the gracious Decree Purpose of God did undergoe death that he might procure obtaine Reconciliation with God for all sinners whatsomever without any difference before that God would open againe the door of salvation enter into a new Covenant of Grace with sinners But this Reconciliation hath no more force or import but that God might enter againe into a Covenant with sinners and so there is no Actual Reconciliation of sinners unto God And all that is obtained is for God nothing for man save a Possibility of Salvation by a new Covenant nor are we told whether Christ hath satisfied for the breach of the First Covenant so that that sin is fully pardoned unto all or not untill the condition of the second Covenant be performed nor are we told upon what account the sins against the second Covenant are pardoned Or if they be unpardonable Others explaine the matter thus Christ died for all and every man not only that God might without any violation of Justice enter into a new Covenant with sinners upon what condition he pleased but that it should be upon this Condition that man should be united with Christ the Cautioner and not only that Redemption Salvation should be possible to all but that really most certainly Salvation should be bestowed on such as Christ thought good But seing Christ knew that his death would profite none but these few whom he had designed to what purpose should he have laid downe his life for the rest And how can his death be a price of Redemption for the rest How can Christ be said to satisfie for the rest Did he purchase Faith to these few and would he not purchase Faith to the rest yet lay downe the great price for them What was the end obtained for the rest was it only a Possible Call of all Justice bein satisfied But of what import could that Possible Call be if Salvation was not also possible unto them And whereunto is that Call They will not say it is unto Salvation but to Faith But did not Christ know that this call would not be obeyed by them Did he procure Grace unto them to obey it then he procured Faith and if he procured Faith than he procured Salvation Againe if Justice be satisfied for these others why are they not liberat If they say the new Condition is not fulfilled Then it cannot be simply said that Christ satisfied Justice on their behalfe for
1 7. forgiveness of sins is with justification hath blessedness attending it Rom. 4 6 7 8. 3. Salvation necessarily followeth upon this Ransome Redemption as is clear 1. Tim. 2 4. compared with vers 6. 4. This Redemption is from a vaine Conversation 1 Pet. 1 18. consequently is attended with Salvation 5. It is attended with justification Rom. 3 24. being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Iesus Christ. 6. Hence it is called the Redemption of the transgressions Heb. 9 15. that is either of Transgressours by a metonimy or of us from the evil of transgressions that upon a valuable compensation satisfaction for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Redemption from evil by the Intervening of a Price a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Ransom 7. This was a Redemption from the Law for God sent forth his son made under the Law to redeem them who were under the Law Gal 4 4 5. so by this redemption there is a liberation had from the Law its Curse Penality 8. And it is a Redemption of such as were under the Law for this end that they might receive the adoption of sones Gal. 4 5. But this Adoption of sones is not common to all 9. All which receiveth confirmation from this that the Father who received this ransome did himself send his Son to lay it down so it was his own Ransome and therefore must have been payed upon a certaine designe of actually Redeeming delivering from Sin Satan Death Hell those for whom it was laid downe 10. So is there an other end of this Redemption mentioned Gal. 3 13 14. Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ. 11. Seing the Lord Iehovah might have refused to free the sinner upon any Redemption or Satisfaction offered exacted all of the sinners themselves that they lay under by the Law it was a great condescendence in love of this great Lord a gracious act of Soveraignity to accept of a mediation of Love free grace to provide a Redeemer we cannot but in reason think that His good pleasure did regulare this matter as to the Persons who should be Redeemed as to the manner method after which they should actually partake of the Redemption And that therefore the persons to be redeemed were condescended upon and the persons condescended upon were certanely to be Redeemed the Lord having intended in the contrivance of this Redemption the certaine Salvation Redemption of those who were condescended upon of none else and the Intentions Designes Purposes of God are not vaine nor frustrable Further 23. Christ's death ha◠a real Merito in it that is a worth and value to procure the good things it was given for so that thereby there was a Purchase made Act. 20 28. And therefore we cannot suppose that all that was Procured Purchased hereby was a General Uncertaine meerly Possible thing If it had a value worth in it as no question it had to purchase procure grace glory unto all for whom it was given and was accepted as a valuable price of the Father why should not the thing hereby purchased be given granted in due time To say that all was suspended upon a condition is to made all Uncertaine or we must say that Christ's death did procure that Condition also and then all is right for that is it we say 24. Christ's death is to be considered as the death of a Testator Heb. 9 15 16 17. And for this cause he is the Mediatour of the New Testament that by meanes of death for the redemption of transgressions that were under the first Testament they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance for where a Testament is there must also of necessity be the death of the Testatour for a Testament is of force after men are dead otherwise it is of no strength at all while the Testatour liveth So he said himself of the cup in the Sacrament that it was the blood of the New Testament Mat. 26 28. Mark 14 24. that it was the cup of the New Testament in his blood Luk. 22 20. and Paul calleth it the New Testament in his blood 1. Cor. 11 25. So that his Death Bloodshed was the death of a Testatour for the confirmation of the New Testament and for ascertaneing of the Legatees of the good things bequathed to them in legacy by the Testament Now a Testament commonly is a declaration of the Testatours free Absolute Voluntary Purpose of bestowing such such benefites to such such friends and so it is the Testatours letter will whereby he willeth that this legacy be given to this person that to another It is true men may insert some Conditions as to some legacies because they are but men know not contingent future things nor have they the wils dispositions of such they appoint legatees in their own hand and power But it is otherwayes with our Testatour and therefore we cannot think that He left the legacies in his Testament at the uncertainty of conditions to be performed by men especially considering how as he died to ratify the Testament so he rose againe to administrate the same as the sole executor thereof by his Spirit that what legacies he left to be bestowed upon such such conditions he left not the matter at an uncertainty for the condition it self was bequeathed as the necessary good of the Testament without which all would have been to no purpose It is unreasonable then to think that Christ died to give force to his Testament and yet it might come to passe that he should have no heire to enjoy the goods left in legacy Nor is it reasonable to think that all the world were equally his heires seing the Inheritance and Kingdom is for the little flock Luk. 12 32. and a peculiar select number 1. Pet. 1 4. Ioh. 17 24. Col. 1 12. who are heires of the promises of God of salvation of the Grace of God of the Kingdom c. Rom. 8 17. Gal. 3 29. 4 7 30. Ephes. 3 6. Heb. 1 14. 6 1. 11 7. Iam. 2 5. 1. Pet. 3 7. Therefore all whom Christ hath appointed heires in his Testament shall certainly enjoy the good things tested in due time for his Death gave force to his Testament as being his Last Unchangeable will so that they cannot misse of the inheritance and be disappointed especially considering that Christ by his death laid down a valuable rich price to purchase all these good things which he left in legacy to his friends heires Christ's death moreover 25. is to be considered as the death of a Sponsor Cautioner and this will further confirme our point Hence he is called a Surety Heb. 7 22. and is said
exception upon condition of acceptance as also an offer of Faith Repentance Conversion with all the consequences thereof 7. An Universal will in God to call into this Covenant and unto the Participation of the benefites thereof all every man 8. An Universal execution of this will or promulgation of this Gospel or New Covenant unto all every one by common favours benefites bestowed on all whereby all are called to believe in a merciful pardoning God and all have abundance of Mercies Meanes of Recovery of life for the Lord now governeth the world only on termes of grace 9. Upon this followeth an Universal Command to all men to use certaine duties meanes for their Recovery by Faith Repentance 10. An Universal pardon of the first Sin so far at least that no man shall perish for the meer Original sin of Nature alone unless he adde the rejection of grace 11. Hence followeth an Universal Judgment Sentence on all in the great day only according as they have performed the new Gospel Conditions 12. Some also adde an Universal Subjective Grace whereby all are enabled to performe the conditions of the new Covenant 13. Universal proper Fruits Effects of this death whereby all the outward favours that Heathens enjoy are said to be purchased for them by Christ why not also what Devils enjoy Finally 36. This assertion of Universal Redemption layeth the ground of maketh way to a new frame of the Covenant of Grace quite overturning its Nature and transforming it into a new Covenant of Works making it one the same with that as to kinde only to differ as to the change of Conditions to be performed by man for as in the first Covenant Adam was to obtain right to possession of life promised in by for through and upon the account of his fulfilling the Condition of perfect obedience imposed by the Lord so in the New Covenant man is to obtaine acquire to himself a right to possession of the Life promised in by for through upon the account of his performance of the Condition of Faith new obedience now imposed in the Gospel and all the difference is that in stead of perfect obedience to the Law which was the Condition of the first Covenant now Faith sincere Gospel Obedience is made the Condition And thus we can no less he said to be justified by works of the Law or which we do then Adam should have been said to have been so justified had he stood and this justification giveth as great ground of boasting unto man of making the reward of debt not of grace as justification by the first Covenant would have done for though it be said that Christ hath made satisfaction to justice for the breach of the first Law thereby purchased to all upon Condition Justification Salvation yet this removeth not the difficulty for what is purchased by Christ's death is made Universal Common to all and so can be nothing according to our Adversaries but a putting of all men in statu quo prius in case to run obtaine the prize for themselves as God's absolute free love put Adam in that Condition at first Christ's death though thereby as they say he purchased the New Covenant which with them is the chiefe if not the only effect fruit of his Death Merites can be no more than a very remote ground of Right to Life Salvation unto any person for it is made Universal Common to all so that all have equal share therein advantage thereby man himself by performing the new Conditions only making the difference so that the immediat ground of the Right to life which any have is their own Faith Obedience or performance of the New Covenant-conditions Whereby it is manifest that as to our Particular and Immediat Right to Happiness we are to plead our own works lean to them as our ground whereupon we may stand appear before God's Tribunal and upon the account thereof plead for the crown as our due debt having now run for it performed the Condition agreed upon and so sing praises to our selves in stead of singing praises to our Redeemer Hence the Righteousness wherein we must appear before God is not the Righteousness of Christ but our own for the Righteousness of Christ say they is only imputed in regard of its effects whereof the new Covenant is the All or the Chiefe and so that doth not become the Righteousness of any man nor can be said to be imputed to any man properly which also they assert but his own Faith is only imputed properly which also they plead for as his Righteousness not as a Way Medium or Methode of Gospel-Righteousness especially when Gospel-Obedience is adjoyned The Righteousness of Christ being thereby only accounted to be imputed in that it hath procured that our own Gospel Righteousness Faith new Obedience shall be imputed to us as our Immediat Righteousness the ground of our Right to Glory What accord is betwixt this frame of the Covenant of Grace that way of justification held forth by Socinians Arminians Papists the learned will easily see and how contrary it is to the Covenant of Grace held forth in the Gospel hitherto professed maintained by the orthodox every one acquainted therewith cannot be ignorant it is obvious how opposite this is unto what the Apostle saith Phil. 3 8 9. yea doubtless and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Iesus my Lord for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and do count them but dung that I may win Christ and be found in him not having mine own Righteousness which is of the Law but that which is through the Faith of Christ the Righteousness which is of God by Faith And Tit. 3 5 6 7. Not by works of Righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost which he shed on us abundantly through Iesus Christ our Saviour that being justified by his grace we should be made heâ—rs according to the hope of eternal life And Rom. 3 20 21 22 24. Therefore by the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified but now the Righteousness of God without the Law is manifest even the Righteousness of God which is by Faith of Iesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe being justified freely by his grace through the Redemption that is in Iesus Christ. And many other places It is no less clear how hereby the true nature of justifying faith and Gospel Obedience is perverted withall how dangerous this is if put into practice or if men act live accordingly every serious exercised Christian knoweth FINIS The Contents of the Chapters CHAP. I. THE Introduction to the Work and the Text Gal 3.
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