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
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
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
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
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. 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
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
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
in what He Suffered in His state of Humiliation for to us a Childe was born and to us a Son was given He was made under the law for us that he might redeem such as â—ere under the law that they might receive the Adoption of Sones Esai 9 5. Gal. 4 4 5. 2. This active obedience of Christ saith he was serviceable to that same great End whereunto our righteousness and obedience are subservient viz. the glory of God the advancement of His Kingdom Ioh. 8 49. 7 18. Ans. And was not His death Sufferings also subservient unto this great end Will it therefore follow that He died not to make Satisfaction to justice for the sinnes of His people And if this cannot follow what ever Socinians imagine how shall it or can it hence follow that His obedience was not to satisfie the demands of the law and to procure the reward to His people Is there any Inconsistency betwixt His fulfilling the law as Mediator and Surety in the room of His people His doing it for the glory of God the advancement of His Kingdom 3. Another enâ— saith he is the exemplariness of it Ans. This is but another arrow taken out of the quiver of the Socinians is of no force to weaken our argument seing a subordinat less principal end doth not destroy a more principal end Was He not exemplary to us in His death Sufferings shall we therefore say That there was no satisfaction for sins intended thereby And what is there here peculiar unto Christ as Lord Mediator seing the lives of other Saints are also exemplary 4. It had saith he an excellent Importance to draw to Imitation Ans. This is the same with the preceeding and deserveth no further answere 5. It was saith he a meanes of continueing His person in the love and complacâ—ncy of His Father which was a thing of absolute necessity for the carrying on of the great work of Redemption for if He had once miscarried who should have mediated for Him Ioh. 15 10. 8 29. Ans. As to His Person He was God equal with the Father in power and Glory It were therefore blasphemy once to suppose that His person stood in need of this for any such end or to suppose that He could have failed as to any act of obedience thereby have displeased God Wherefore His obedience being the obedience of one who was is God over all blessed for ever it could not be necessary to Himself unto any such end Therefore it behoved to be wholly for us for whom He was made under the law as He was given to us and borne for us 6. It was saith he of absolute necessity to qualify fit the Sacrifice for the Altar and render Him a person meet by His death and Sacrifice of Himself to make attonement for the world and to purge and take away the sin of it Ans. Shall we think that He who was God was not a fit enoug Sacrifice for the world but that He must be made fit and prepared by acts of obedience And as for His Humane Nature which was no person but did subsist in the Divine Nature being assumed into the subsistence thereof was it not sufficiently fitted to be a Sacrifice by its personal union with the Godhead was it not thereby Holy Harmless undefiled separat from sinners which is all that the Apostle requireth Heb. 7 26 Was not the Humane Nature personally united unto the Godhead from the very first moment of conception The holiness then that consisteth in Acts of Actual obedience was not required unto this Union and after this Union it was not possible that He could sinne as it is not possible that the glorified now in Heaven can break the Lawes that we break here while on earth and yet it will not follow that they are under the same particular obligations to particular acts of commanded duties that we stand under So nor was Christ as to Himself under the obligation of the pâ—rticular duties of the law to which He willingly submitted Himself gave obedience but all this was for us Nor was this necessarily required to make His Sacrifice Holy for His Humane Nature being once united to the Divine could not otherwayes be but holy and without sin and so a sinless and holy Sacrifice And withall we would take notice that the Actions of the Mediator were the Actions of the person and not of either of the Natures alone therefore must not be looked upon as the Actions of a meer man So that His acts of obedience were the acts of obedience of God man or of that person that was God He needeth not then tell us that the Absolute holiness and Righteousness of the humanity it self was of necessary concurrence unto His obedience for we grant it and this flowed from the hypostatical union but that which we deny is That there was an Holiness and Righteousness in acts of outward obedience to the law requisite thereunto as if the humane Nature by vertue of the hypostatical union had not been holy and harmless untecedently unto those outward acts of obedience and so had not been a sinless and holy Sacrifice if He had been offered up in His Infancy or before He was in capacity to do any commanded acts He needeth not say as he doth pag. 204. that we conceive that Christ-man might have been righteous without doing the works of Righteousness which is all one as to say that He might have been Righteous though He had transgressed for not to keep the law in those to whom the law is given is nothing else but to transgress For we neither do nor need assert any such thing for by vertue of the hypostatical union He was Righteous and could not transgress or do any thing contrary to what was imposed upon Him but we say that by vertue of this union as to Himself the Humane Nature was not under the law as we are but He was under the law that He might fulfill it for others not to fit and qualifie Him to be a meet Sacrifice as if for this His Humane Nature had not been meet enough before To this he saith pag. 205. Let this Supposition be admitted that Christ had suffered in the womb and that this Suffering of His had been fully Satisfactory yet had He been as perfectly righteous in this case and consequently had kept the law perfectly as now He hath done for the law requireth of Infants during their Infancy nothing but holiness of Nature I Ans. 1. This is enoug to confirme what we say viz. That all His after actual obedience was not necessary to this end 2 And beside though this holiness of Nature was conforme to the law upon the matter yet it was not a formal obedience unto the law if we speak of Him in reference to Himself for the Humane Nature had this Holiness by vertue of the Hypostatical union and Christ when
otherwise than by the Imputation of it then must it needs be imputed to us in our justification But the former is true Ergo. c. He excepteth p. 225. The Righteousness of Christ concurreth toward justification by qualifying His person for that Sacrifice of himself by which justification hath been purchased for all those that beleeve Ans. The Argum. is to be understood of His whole Surety-righteousness and not of His active obedience only 2 Even as to this it was answered above that it was not requisite unto this end His humane nature being sufficiently hereunto qualified by the personal union by which His bloud became the bloud of God and all He did and Suffered was the deed Suffering of Him who was God Arg. 11. If we may truely be said to be dead crucified with Christ to be quickened have risen againe with Him c. then may we truely be said to have fulfilled the law with Christ consequently that should be imputed to us But the former is true Ergo c. These expressions pointe forth the closs union that is betwixt Christ and Beleevers thereupon their Interest in what He did and suffered as Mediator Surety publick person to the end they may have right to and possession of the great benefites purchased and procured by Him So they hold forth Christs suffering dying riseing c. as a publick person in their room in their stead as their Representative so that it is râ—ckoned for them and upon their score and they are so interessed therein as that they are to be dealt with as if all these things had been done suffered by themselves And though in these expressions mentioned there be no express mention made of Christs fulfilling the law yet they sufficiently hold forth that which by parity of reason will enforce this as well as the other for they pointe forth Beleevers their union communion with Christ as to His Mediatory work to which His fulfilling of the law did belong Against the consequence he saith These expressions have no such Inference for if we could be said to have fulfilled the law with Christ our own fulfilling it in Him should rather be said to be imputed to us than His fulfilling it for us Ans. 1 This will say as much against the Imputation of Christs sufferings for we are said to be dead with Christ therefore not Christs death but our own death in Him should be said to be imputed to us But the Scripture knoweth no such thing 2 The meaning of the expression is we say but to denote emphatically the imputation of what Christ did suffered unto us for our own fulfilling of the law in Him is but His fulfilling of it for us the same imputed to us so as we are dealt with no otherwayes than if we had done it our selves as our being dead buried with Christ is but His dying in our place stead or our having such an Interest in His death burial as that we are dealt with as if in a manner we had died our selves But he supposeth there is a difference as to this betwixt Christs dying His fulfilling the law saying When the Scripture saith we are dead c. with Christ the meaning is not that God looked upon us as if we had laid down our Natural lives by death when he laid down His as if this laying down our lives were a satisfaction to His justice for then we might be said to have satisfied for redeemed our selves But these expressions import either a profession of such a death in us which holds proportion with or hath a likeness to the death of Christ or else this death it self really wrought in us by that death of Christ. Ans. We do not asserte the meaning of these expressions to be That God looketh upon us as if we had laid down our Natural lives c. But that beleevers have such an Interest in Christs death as being the death of their Surety Redeemer Head Husband and publick person that they receive the benefites advantagâ—â— thereof no less really effectually than if they themselves in their own persons had dyed satisfied the same being now imputed unto them laid hold on by faith 2 Though these expressions at least some of them in some places of Scripture as Rom. 6. may do import what is here expressed yet the full import of these Expressions is not hereby exhausted as the scope circumstances of the places may cleare as particularly that expression Gal. 2 20. I am crucified with Christ these Ephes. 2 5. 6. He addeth against this That Gal. 2 20. The expression is taken in the latter sense importing that the natural death of Christ for Paul others had wrought upon him in a way of assimilation to it self had made him a dead man to the world Ans. Paul is rather clearing confirming how he was become dead to the law and alive unto God vers 19. in through the vertue of Christs death crucifixion in which he had such an Interest that he accounted him self as it were hinging-on the cross in with Christ did so rest upon that by faith owne that Sacrifice alone that he Christ as it were were become one person he owed his being dead unto the law onely thereunto had it as really flowing therefrom following thereupon as if he himself had hung upon the cross as a satisfactory Sacrifice To that Ephes. 2 5 6. he saith The meaning is not that God looks upon them as quickened from a natural or corporal death as Christs quickening riseing againe was Ans. Nor do we say that this is the meaning nor need we either think or say so but this we say that the expression holdeth this forth that Christ dyed rose againe as a publick person Surety that Beleevers have so neer an Interest in His Mediatory work so closs an union with the Mediator that they are as one person in law so that they are really made partakers of some of the fruites of what Christ did suffered already shall as really partake of what is yet to be communicated as if they themselves had laid down that purchasing price Let us hear what he giveth for the meaning The meaning saith he is either to signifie the profession that is made by us of that newness of life which in way of a Spiritual Analogy answers that life whereunto Christ was quickened and rose againe or else the new life it self wrought in us Ans. That the Apostle is not here speaking of a meer profession is manifest nor is he speaking only of a new life wrought in them for he addeth and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Iesus Nor doth that which he saith invalidate the meaning which we give for that effect or inwrough quickening is spoken of as flowing from Christs
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
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
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
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
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
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
all who work well keep the Law of Moses shall have free Pardon Right to life And thus they were as well justified by the works of the Law as by faith for faith was also required of them And then the meaning of the Apostles Conclusion Rom. 3 28. is therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith and by the deeds of the Law for both faith works with Mr. Baxter belong to this Subservient Righteousness as he calleth it If this be consonant to the Apostles doctrine which doth so contradict it let the Reader judge 3. Saith he That therefore it appeareth that the Jewes did so fondly admire the Law their National Privileges under it that they thought the exact keeping of it was necessary sufficient to Iustification Salvation And they thought the Messiah was not to be their Righteousness as a Sacrifice for sin meriter of free Pardon the Gift of life but only a great King Deliver to redeem them by Power from all their Enemies Bondage Ans. This mistake of the Jewes concerning the Messiah speaketh nothing to the point whereupon we are that is that Paul denieth justification to be by the Law And their errour mistake about the Law is not to be limited restricted to the Ceremonial Law so the thing that we say is confirmed hereby 2 They thought the Messiah was not to be their Righteousness And Mr. Baxter will not have him to be our Righteousness save only in that he hath purchased the New Covenant wherein our faith obedience to the Law is to be looked upon as all our proper immediat Righteousness upon the account of which we are to receive Pardon Right to life 4. He saith That is was not Adam's Covenant of Innocencie or persection which the Jewes thus trusted to or Paul doth speak against as to justification though a minore ad majus that is also excluded for the Jewes knew that they were sinners that God pardoned sin as a Merciful God that their Law had Sacrifices for Pardon Expiation with Confessions c. But they thought that so far as God had made that Law sufficient to Political ends to Temporal Rewards Punishments it had been sufficient to Eternal Rewards Punishments that of it self not in meer subordination to the typified Messiah Ans. Though the jewes knew that they were sinners yet they did also suppose that by their works of obedience to the Law Moral as well as Ceremonial they might make amends so think to be justified pardoned thereby and that God would accept of them grant them life for their own Righteousness sake therefore did they laboure so much to establish their own Righteousness followed after the Law of Righteousness sought Righteousness as it were by the works of the Law What Mr. Baxter talks here of the jewes not using of that Law in subordination to the Typified Messiah hath need of Explication for as to his sense of it we see no ground thereof in all the Apostles discourse 5. He saith That the thing which Paul disproveth them by is 1. That the Law was never made for such an End Ans. Yet he said that the man which doth those things shall live by them Rom. 10 5. Levit. 18 5. Gal. 3 12. that the doers of the Law are justified Rom. 2 13. And therefore speaketh of that Law which according to its primitive institution was made for such an end 2. saith he That even then it stood in subordination to Redemption free given life Ans. This we cannot yeeld to in Mr. Baxters sense often mentioned for Paul no where giveth us to understand that their obedience to this was their immediat Righteousness Condition of Justification the meritorious cause ex pacto of their Right to Christ to life c. 3. saith he That the free Gift or Covenant of Grace containing the promise of the Messiah and Pardon life by him was before the Law and justified Abraham others without it Ans. It is true this Argument did particularly militate against the Ceremonial Law Yet this not being the Apostles onely Argument other Arguments reaching the Moral Law as well as the Ceremonial we must not limite the Apostles disput only to the Ceremonial Law 4. saith he That their Law was so strick that no man could perfectly keep it all Ans. Adde also that they could not perfectly keep any one command thereof 5. saith he That every sin deserveth death indeed though their Law punished not every sin with death by the Magistrate Ans. And this holdeth true of the Moral as of the Ceremonial Law 6. saith he That their Law was never obligatory to the Gentile world who had a Law written in their hearts therefore not the common way of justification Ans. The Apostle maketh no such conclusion that therefore it was not the common way of justification for this would suppose that it were the way of justification unto them which is directly against the Apostles disput 7. saith he That their Law as such discovered sin but gave not the Spirit of Grace to overcome it in so much as though he himself desired perfectly to fulfill it without sin yet he could not but was under a Captivity that is a moral necessity of Imperfection or sins of infirmity from which only the grace of Christ could as to guilt power deliver him Ans. Therefore the Moral Law is as well here to be understood as the Ceremonial as is manifest 8. saith he That no man ever come to heaven by that way of merite which they dreamed of but all by the way of Redemption Grace free Gift Pardoning Mercy Ans. But that way of merite attendeth all works in the matter of justification as the Apostle assureth us Rom. 4 4. Ephes. 2 8 9. is opposed to the way of Redemption Grace free Gift Pardoning Mercy Rom. 11 6. 3 21 24. Tit. 3 5 7. From these things Mr. Baxter draweth this Conclusion Therefore their conceite that they were just in the maine forgiven their sins so justifiable by the meer dignity of Moses Law which they keept by the works of the Law not by the free Gift Pardon Grace of a Redeemer by the Faith Practical Beleife of that Gift and acceptance of it with thankful penitent obedient hearts was a Pernicioue Errour Ans. 1. Nothing is here said to ground a restriction of this erroneous conceite of theirs unto the Ceremonial Law for this conceite of being justifiable by the Law and the works thereof in opposition to the free Gift Pardon Grace of a Redeemer is as applicable to the Moral as to the Ceremonial Law 2 The Apostle doth not ground his disput upon the Iewes their express rejecting of a free Gift of Pardon c. But from justification by Faith laying hold on the free Grace
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
price is considerable Now that the Scripture mentioneth some given to Christ that in distinction from others is clear Ioh. 17 2. that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him So vers 12. Those that thou gavest we I have keept and none of them are lost c. So Ioh. 6 37. All that the Father hath given me shall come unto me vers 40. And this is the Fathers will that hath sent me that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing Joh. 17 9. I pray for them I pray not for the world but for them which thou hast given me for they are thine 10. And all thine are mine mine are thine and I am glorified in them 11. Father keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me 24. Father I will that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am c. Whence we see that Christ had no charge of the rest was under no tye to save them nor would be so much as pray for them but as for the given ones Joh. 10. called his sheep for these he laid downe his life prayed and for these was â—e to give an account nay which is more these had a special Interest in God's heart affection were thereupon given to Christ. They were the Father's given of the Father to the Son and so fully discriminated from all the rest and both Father Son stand engadged to carry these thorow unto salvation all which considered it is most plaine that the Redemption was Particular Actual conforme to the Undertaking Transaction Nay 4. If we will consider the fountaine love from whence the sending of Christ came we will see how unreasonable it is to imagine an Universal meer Possible Redemption as the proper end effect of Christ's death merites It is said Ioh. 3 16. A place which our Universalists look upon as most favourable for them that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that all beleevers in him might have eternal life This love is held forth as unparallelable a love greater than which cannot be conceived a love demonstrated by the greatest effect imaginable sending giving his only begotten to give his life a ransome to die for sinners and it must be contrary to all reason to imagine that all this was to procure a Redemption by which it was possible that not one man should be Actually Redeemed Christ himself saith Joh. 15 13. greater love hath no man thaâ— this that a man lay down his life for his friends See also Rom. 5 8. And shall we think that the effect of all this Non-such Love both of the Father of the Son was only a Possible Salvation and Redemption and that all this love should be outed and possibly not one man saved Either the Lord knew that some would get good by this fruite of wonderful love or not then he was not omniscient and then the Father gave his Son the Son came both were the effect of the greatest love imaginable yet neither of them knew that any one soul should be saved for all that If he knew that they would get good by it either by themselves alone without his Grace or not If the first why would he send his Son to die why would Christ come to die for such as they saw would never have a will to be saved by his death If the last be said then seing the greatest expression of of love was to send his Son in the Son to come die how can we think that that was for all when the grace to improve that death profite by it was not designed for all Sayeth not Paul Rom. 8 32. He that spared not his owne Son but delivered him up for us all how shall not with him also freely give us all things Importing that that was Impossible Shall we imagine that that is the greatest love which is common to all is not able to effectuate the salvation of those upon whom it is set and how can this be that the greatest effect of this greatest love shall be common to all smaller effects not common also See also 1. Ioh. 4 9 10 11. where this speciall love by which Christ was sent is made peculiar unto beleevers for Iohn is speaking of none else So is this love peculiarly terminated on Christ's Wife Church Ephes. 5 26 26. hath gracious saving effects Gal. 2 20. Tit. 3 4 5 6 7. Ephes. 2 4 5 6. Rom. 8 36 37. 2. Thes. 2 16 17. Revel 1 5 6. Beside that this love is mentioned as an Old Everlasting Unchangable Love Ier. 31 3. Ephes. 1 3 4. Rom. 9 11. Ioh. 13 1. Zeph. 3 17. And is all this nothing but a General Common thing that cannot save one soul if Lord Freewil do not consent of his own accord Moreover 5. if we consider the ends assigned to the Death of Christ mentioned in Scripture we shall see that it was some other thing than a meer Possible Delivery Redemption common to all mankinde Mat. 8 11. He came to save that which was lost and not to make their salvation meerly possible for if that were all Christs argument should have had no strength So 1. Tim. 1 15. Iesus Christ came into the world to save sinner if it were a meer possibility that might never take effect how should this faithful saying be worthy of all acception So Luk. 19 10 where the matter is exemplified in Zaccheus Mat. 1 21. the reason of the name Iesus given to the Redeemer is because he shall save his people from their sinnes that is Actually Really and not Potentially or Possibly only and this cannot be meaned of all for he saveth not the Reprobat from their sins at least not from the sin of unbeleef by the confession of Adversaries But here no sin is excepted and therefore is his death restricted to his people whom he saveth from all their sinnes Heb. 2 14 15. there is another end of his death mentioned viz. that he might destroy him that had the power of death that is the devil and deliver them who through fear of death were all their life time subject to bondage This was no meer Possible Deliverance but Actual Effectual and it was not common to all for it is restricted to his Brethren vers 11 12 17. and to sones 13. to the children which God gave him vers 13 14. to the Seed of Abraham vers 16. and againe vers 17. wherefore in all things it behoved him to be make like unto his brithren that he might be a Merciful Faithfull High Priest in things pertaining to God to make reconciliation for the people Behoved Christ to be a Merciful Faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God only to make a Possible Reconciliation whereby it might be that not
also considerable 14. That no where in Scripture we finde it expresly said affirmed That Christ died for all men Far less finde we it said that Christ died for all and every man Why then is all this trouble made But they say as much as all that is said by consequence And this we deny if they will rationally presse this matter they should evince that such expressions as they make so much work about can be no otherwise understood than they suppose in the places where they stand and this they shall never be able to do Though it be said that Christ gave his life a Ransome for all yet no reason can evince that that is necessarily to be understood of all every man so nor can they conclude any thing rationally from the word world They may as well inferre from these words all and the world that Christ died for devils beasts sensless creatures as that he died for all every man for they are comprehended under these terms as well as Men And if they will restrict these termes to men because of other Scriptures why may not we restrick them also to the Elect because of the correspondence of other passages of Scripture They cannot deny us the liberty they take to themselves If they say that there is a vast difference betwixt Devils an Men in reference to such favours We deny it not but shall adde that in reference to spiritual favours amongst which we cannot but reckon with the good leave of our Adversaries the death of Christ being the fruit expression of the greatest Love of God to Man we finde also a great difference in Scripture Some are Loved some Hated Rom. 9 11 12. Some whom he Knoweth some whom he Knoweth not Ioh. 10 14. 13 18. Mat. 7 23. 2. Tim. 2 19. Some Chosen Ordained to life others not but to Wrath Act. 13 48. Rom. 8 30. 9 18. c. Ephes. 1 4. 1. Thes. 5 9. Some Sheep others Goats Mat. 25 32. Some on whom God hath Mercy others whom he Hardeneth Rom. 9. Some his Church others not Act. 20 28. Ephes. 5 25. Some of the World others not Ioh. 17 9 10. Some his Brethren others not Heb. 2 10 12 13. And as plainly read we that Christ died for his People Mas. 1 21. his Sheep Ioh. 10 11 12 14. his Church Act. 20 28. Ephes. 5 25. his Elect Rom. 8 32 34. and his Children Heb. 2 12 13. If we would consider aright 15. What Christ did undergoe suffer while he was made sin or was making satisfaction for sin we should hardly think it probable that Christ Jesus God-man who was the brightness of tho Fathers glory and the express image of his person Heb. 1 3. and thought it no robbery to be counted equal with God Phil. 2 6. Should have undergone what he did undergoe and that the Father should have laid all that upon him which he did lay upon him and that to purchase only a meer Possible Redemption from sin wrath whereby not one person should be saved or pardoned if so it had seemed good to captaine Free will Not to mention his condescending to be Born of a woman to be made under the Law Gal. 4 4. nor his being in the forme of a servant Phil. 2 7. nor his Poverty mean Condition in the world 2. Cor. 8 9. nor his Conflicting with the indignities of the world Psal. 22 6. Heb. 12 2 3. with the temptations of Satan Math. 4 1-12 Luk. 4 15. and his being under the infirmities common to the nature of man being in all things like us except sin Heb. 2 17. 4 15. Esai 52 13 14. Nay nor his sufferings in his Body Name Honour at death when he was betrayed by Iudas Mat. 27 4. forsaken by his disciples Math. 26 56. Scorned Reviled by the world Esai 53 2â— 3. Condemned as a malefactor by Pilat Tormented by his persecutors Mat. 27 26-50 Ioh. 19 34. Endured the Painful Shameful Cursed death of the crosse Phil. 2 8. Heb. 12 2. all which the like being endured by Him who was the Son of God could be no mean suffering nor undergone for an uncertain end or for the procureing of a meer Possible Uncertain good But that which we would most take notice of here is his Soul sufferings being persued by divine justice when that Zach. 13 7. was accomplished awake O sword against my shepheard against the Man that is my follow saith the Lord of hostes smite the shepheard and the sheep shall be scattered Mat. 26 31. and the Lord did bruise him and put him to griese Esai 53 5 10. and he began to be sorrowful even unto death Mat. 26 37 38. and was sore amazed and very heavy Mark. 14 34. and was put to offer up prayers and supplications with strong cryes and teares to him that was able to save him Heb. 5 7. when notwithstanding that an angel appeared unto him from heaven strengthening him yet being in an agony he prayed more earnestly and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground Luk. 22 43 44. and at length was made to cry out my God my God why hast thou forsaken me Psal. 22 1. Mat. 27 46. Mark 15 34. This was no mean business when the Rayes Irradiations of Divine Love were drawn-in withheld from him who had such a sharp sense of the happiness in the enjoying of God's favour because of the Personal union with the Godhead But that which is most of all to be considered is his being made a Curse Gal. 3 13. and so made to wrestle with the Justice and Wrath of a sin revenging God This was the gall and the worm wood that made him cry Ioh. 12 27. Now is my soul troubled and what shall I say Father save me from this hour Shall we suppose that all this was about an Uncertane Bargane Shall we think that he died the cursed death of the crosse and bore the weight of God's wrath Luk. 22 41. Mat. 27 46. and so became a sacrifice to satisfie divine justice Heb. 9 14 18 all to purchase a meer Possibility or a meer Possible Redemption Shall we think that the Second person of the Trinity should do suffer all these things for to redeem man when possibly if Freewill should be so ill natured not one man should reap any advantage thereby Me thinks the asserting of this should be a great temptation to cause people turne Socinians and deny all these soul sufferings of Christ his bearing the wrath of God making any satisfaction to justice Adde to this 16. That the Scriptures speak of Christ's Death Sufferings as being not for himself but for others and that not only for the good advantage of others and doubtless the advantage of all this should be but little if it were nothing else but a meer Possible Redemption which
manifest that Christ must Intercede for such as he did Offer up himself for or he shall not be a Perfect Compleet High Priest or not faithfull to performe all the Offices of the High Priest neither of which can be said 2. The ground of his Intercession is held forth to be his Oblation as the High Priest went into the holy of holies with the blood of the sacrifices which he had offered so Christ entered into the holy place having first obtained by the sacrifice of himself an Eternal Redemption Heb. 9 12. So he is an Advocate with the Father being first a Propitiation for sinnes 1. Ioh. 2 1 2. 3. Both his Death Intercession make up one Compleet Medium are intended designed as one Medium for the end designed viz. the bringing of many sones unto glory saving to the uttermost all that come to God through him c. 4. How unreasonable is it to think that Christ would refuise to Pray for such whom he loved so dearly as to lay down his life for yet he saith expresly that he prayeth not for the world but for others distinguished from the world Ioh. 17 9. 5. As His Death was for such as the Father had given him is we saw above so his Intercession Prayer is restricted to such Ioh. 17 9. I pray not for the world but for them which thou hast given me for they are thine 6. Christ's end in coming into the world was to save his people Hence he gote that name Iesus but he should not be able to save them Perfectly Compleetly to the Utermost if he did not joyne his Intercession with his Oblation Yea upon this account he continueth ever a Priest having an unchangable Priesthood Heb. 2 24 25. But this man because he continueth ever hath an unchangable Priesthood wherefore he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him seing he ever liveth to make intercession for them 7. The Apostle so joyneth them together Rom. 8 34. that they must do manifest violence to the Apostles reasoning who would pull them asunder separate the one from the other It is sais he Christ that died yea rather that is risen againe who is even at the right hand of God who also maketh intercession for us 8. Yea they are so joyned together here that his death alone considered could not yeeld that ground of triumph boasting nor security from Accusations Yea rather that is risen againe c. 9. So that the separating taking of these asunder is greatly prejudicial to the consolation of his people for though they should attaine to some apprehensions of Christ's dying for them as an Advocate with the Father upon new sinnes 1. Ioh. 2 1 2. Though Christ died yet they might be condemned for he must also Interceed and if he do not Intercede for them their Hopes Comforts are gone And so there should be no force in that who is he that condemneth it is Christ that dieâ—â— Rom. 8 34. And a poor soul might be hal saved but not to the uttermust contrare to Heb. 2 25. 10. And that place Rom. 8 33. restricteth both equally unto the Elect who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect 11. When Christ laid down his life a Ransome for sinners he could not but know that by that Ransome none should be actually saved without his Intercession it being accorded betwixt Father Son that the mediator should mediate both by Price by Prayer And he could not but know for whom he purposed intended to Interceed how shall we then suppose that he would lay down his life for those for whom he was purposed not to Pray Or that he would do the most for them For whom he would not do the least 12. Christ's intercession is really a presenting unto God the Oblation made Therefore sayes the Apostle Heb. 9 24. that Christ is entered into heaven it self to appear in the presence of God for us And so by appearing he Interceedeth his appearing is in his owne blood whereby he obtained Eternal Redemption Heb. 9 12. so his Intercession must be for all for whom the Oblation was the eternal Redemption was obtained 13. Yea both these are so joyned together by Esaias Chap. 53 12. as that they are made one ground procureing cause of God's divideing him a portion with the great of Christs own divideing the spoile with the strong Because he hath poured out his soul unto death and he bare the sin of many and made â—ntercession for the transgressours 14. This is further clear from the reasons we gave to confirme that fast connexion betwixt Christ's Impetration Application in the foregoing paragraph for the Actual Application of the benefite fruit of his oblation is attributed to his Intercession 15. Nay that whole Chapter Ioh. 17. confirmeth this for there Christ is both Offering himself or sanctifying himself thereunto vers 19. and Interceding and these are so lincked together both in themselves as to the persons for whom that it must argue at least much incogitancy to imagine a divulsion separation of these two acts of his Priesthood 16. If Christ Intercede not for the same persons for whom he died we ask for whom he Intercedeth Is it for actuall beleevers Then we ask a Scripture ground for this restriction And then it is manifest hence that Christ Intercedeth not for the working of faith in any And yet Esaias tels us that he maketh Intercession for transgressours And we see Ioh. 17 20. that he prayeth not only for those who were already beleevers but for such also as were not yet beleevers He told us Himself also that he would pray the Father for the Spirit Ioh. 14 vers 16. And among other things this is one work of the Spirit to cause a sinner beleeve 2. Cor. 4 13. Ephes. 1 17 18 19. The point we are upon will be further cleare if we consider 22. That Christ's death was a Redemption we are said to be Redeemed thereby Gal. 4 5. 3 13. Rom. 3 24. Ephes. 1 7. Col. 1 14. â— Pet. 1 8. Revel 5 9. Tit. 2 14. And therefore all such as he laid down this Redemption or Redemptionmoney for must of necessity be redeemed saved consequently he died not for all seing all are not redeemed saved His Ransome or Price of Redemption which he laid down viz. his blood which he shed is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a ransome Mat. 20 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Tim. 2 6. That all such for whom this Redemption-money was payed this Ransome was given must be saved is cleare for 1. Other wayes it were no Redemption a Ransome given for Captives doth say that these Captives in Law Justice ought to be set at liberty 2. This Redemption is the same with as to the effect or hath attending it forgiveness of sins Col. 1 14. Ephes.
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.