〈◊〉 are reputed or accepted as righteous for that Righteousness alone trusted iâ— by us upon the ground of God's own Premise of accepting us in Christ anâ— Christ's Intention of doing and suffâ—â—ring all he did for us alone to the â—â—tent that our sins should be taken awâ—â— and we are made Heirs of Eternal Lâ—â— thereby Our Opposites on the other side affâ—â—â— That Christ did not obey or suffer 〈◊〉 Penalty of the Law of Works for 〈◊〉 properly that we should be justified 〈◊〉 that Obedience or Death of his Bâ—â— that God imposed on him a certain â—â—culiar Law made up partly of the Mâ—ral Law and partly of some Speâ—â— Commands to him which he fulfillâ—â—â— as a Mediatour betwixt God and Mâ—â— God thereupon might justly and perhaps would give men as moderate 〈◊〉 easie a Law by fulfilling whereof theâ— should be saved the obedience wheâ—â— to should be their Righteousness thâ—â— which should give them right to Life Against this Opinion divers Learnâ— and Pious Men wrote in the form Generation As Mr. Caple in an Aâ—pendix to his Treatise of Temptations Mr. Anth. Burgess in his Second Part of Justification Mr. Lyford his Book against Errors Mr. Blake and reverend Mr. Norton of New-England Anno 1653 in Answer to one Mr. Pinchin who denyed the Imputation of Christ's Active and Passive Obedience â—o us or that it was performed for us â—s Obedience to the Moral Law But â—hat Christ was a Mediatorial Sacrifice for us much after the same notion that 〈◊〉 now vented of his fulfilling the Law â—f a Mediatour Which Book of Mr. Norton because it is not very common I will transcribe the Sum of it â—s it is reduced by himself into three Particulars in the Conclusion and the â—ather because it declareth the thoughts â—f the danger of this Opinion which maâ—y would persuade us differs but in words from the Orthodox and the Difference 〈◊〉 of no great consequence and that â—â—e do not rightly understand the meaning of their Authors for whom they â—ave so great reverence Like the Phyâ—â—cian who seeing in a dissected Body â—hat all the Nerves have their Original from the Brain said he should have believed it was so indeed if Aristotle 〈◊〉 not writ that they proceed from the Heaâ—â— Mr. Norton's words are Taking Heresie for a Fundamentâ—â— Error p. 267. i. e. such as whosoever â—â—â—veth and dieth in cannot be savedâ— The Dialogue containeth three Hâ—resies The first denying the Imputation of the Sin of the Elect unâ—â— Christ and his suffering the Punishment due thereto The second denying that Christ as God-man Mediator obeyed the Law and there with that he obeyed for us as ouâ— Surety The third denying the Imputation of Christ's Obedience unto Justification destroying the very Being of a Sinner's Righteousnessâ— by taking away the Obedience oâ— Christ unto the Law and Imputation which are the Matter and Form i. e. the essential Causes of Justification and placing a Sinner's Righteousness in a fictitious Atonement or Pardon of sin such as in effect manifestly doth not only deny it self to be the Effect of but denieth yea and defieth the very Being of the Mediatorial Obedience of Christ to the Law for us With him in this his apprehension concurred divers Ministers in New-England as appears by their Letter annexed to his Book which is subscribed John Cotton Rich. Mather Zech. Simmes John Willson William Thompson And having prefaced so much concerning the nature and weight of the Controversie I commend the Book to the serious consideration of the Reader and am Thine in the VVork of the Gospel J. TROUGHTON Lutherus Redivivus OR The Protestant Doctrine of Justification by Christ's Righteousness imputed to Believers Explained and Vindicated CHAP. I. The Nature of Justification explained and that it is not a meer forgiving of Sin THE Doctrine of Justification by Free Grace and the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us hath been so abundantly defended by our Protestant Writers of every Nation and every University professing the Reformed Religion that I need say little to confirm it and especially seeing I have met with nothing in our late Authors objected against it but what hath been frequently objected against it by the Papists before and as frequently answered by our Writers The chief Work is to discover the Artifice wherewith the New Doctrine of Conditional Justification is covered and made plausible whereas it is indeed the Old Popish and Arminian Doctrine of Justification by Works as I hope I have in some measure proved in the former Part. Yet that this Treatise may be compleat and that we may not seem only distruere aliena and not at all adstruere propria I shall endeavour briefly to explain the received Doctrine of Justification and imputed Righteousness And first of the Nature of Justification Our fore cited Authors and their Friends generally affirm That the Justification of a Sinner before God is nothing else but a full Pardon of all Sins both of Omission and Commission whereby all guilt and obligation to punishment being removed Man is restored ipso facto to his former State and to all those Priviledges which by Sin he forfeited This they maintain that they may the more effectually overthrow the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness supposing that if the bare Remission of Sin doth both acquit from Punishment and restore a Right to Life or Blessedness then there needeth no positive Righteousness to be imputed to intitle to life and to make us acceptable with God This is the main drift of Mr. Hotchkis his Book about Imputation of Righteousness Great Propi p. 110. c. and is largely prosecuted by Mr. Trueman not without many confident mistakes But this Opinion overthroweth their own Doctrine of Justification upon condition of our Obedience as well as ours of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness and more which I thus prove Meer Pardon of Sin is nothing else but a Discharge from the Process of the Law that a Man should not suffer the Penalties of it but enjoy quietly his former freedom and priviledges notwithstanding his Offences Now this Discharge requireth no Righteousness at all our own no more than Christs This Pardon makes a Man righteous in the Law they say i. e. The Law hath no more to do with him or to say against him he is as free from all condemnation as if he were innocent and had fulfilled the Law Hence it follows that a Man is justified without the intervening condition of his own Obedience If any positive righteousness be necessary to pardon it is not meer pardon And why may not Christ's Righteousness imputed be joyned with and be the Cause of Pardon as well as our own sincere Obedience To say a Man is justified upon the condition of Gospel Obedience which is our Inherent Righteousness and that he is justified by the bare Remission of Sins is a Contradiction Moreover these Authors do acknowledge that Christ merited the Pardon of Sin so that a Sinner is
justified or pardoned and so restored to favour for the sake of Christs Satisfaction Doth it not then follow that the Death of Christ is the Cause of Pardon then it is not meer pardon but pardon procured or merited and if Christs Death be the meritorious cause of pardon to every Believer then it is imputed or applyed to every pardoned sinner For no cause can produce its effects without Application to the Subject in whom the effect is wrought and the Application of a meritorious cause to the Subject for whom it meriteth is Imputation or accounting that what was done by that Cause was done for that Person And thus we see this Doctrine maketh more against themselves than against us But that Justification includeth more than Pardon of Sin even a positive Righteousness whereby Man is accepted to Life Eternal I shall thus evince 1. From the Notation of the Words To Pardon is only to release from the Penalty of the Law but to Justifie is to Acquit in Judgment to discharge from guilt and accusation Rom. 8.33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect it is God that Justifieth It is confessed that to justifie an innocent person is to acquit but to justifie a Sinner they say is only to forgive him But in what Language doth the word so signifie When the King pardoneth an Offender doth any man say doth the Law ever say the King justifies him A Brother is commanded to forgive his Brother from the Heart and so Job did no doubt forgive his Friends and yet he saith God forbid I should Justifie you Job 27. v. 4. Is any Man said to justfie him whom he pardoneth Why should the Scripture besides the familiar words of Pardoning and Forgiving use another term viz. to Justifie which in its Etymology and common use signifieth to declare Righteous and yet mean no more by Justification than bare Forgiveness 'T is said A full Pardon makes a Man righteous forasmuch as he that is discharged from all Sin is accounted not to have broke the Law and not to have broke it is all one as to have fulfill'd it But this is a mistake He that forgives an Offender does not therefore account or make him Righteous though he will not exact the Penalty of him Pardon doth suppose a Man to have been a Sinner and so it leaves him as one that hath deserv'd punishment though by favour he is exempted from it the Law still chargeth him with sin and sentenceth him to punishment though the Judge supersedeth his Sentence and will not execute the Law But it is said Great Prop. p. 121. Pardon is dissolutio obligationis ad poenam dissolveth the Obligation to punishment and when there is no obligation to punishment a man is innocent and hath right to impunity I Answer The Antecedent is untrue The Obligation to punishment ariseth from the intrinsecal Nature of the Law which being broken exacteth punishment as a due Debt The Wages of Sin is death Rom. 6.23 So that if pardon take away the obligation to punishment it maketh sin to be no sin But sin is sin though forgiven and the Sinner deserves to die although he shall not die Pardon taketh away the Ordination or Destination of a Man to Punishment that he is not appointed to die but not the Obligation that he doth not deserve to die I conclude Pardon doth not render a Man as innocent as no Transgressor and therefore 't is not all one with justifying or declaring righteous 2. From those Phrases whereby Justification is expressed Eph. 1.4 It is paraphrased thus As he hath chosen us in him that we should be holy and without blame before him in love He who is only forgiven his Sins is not accounted as holy and blameless Pardon supposeth guilt and that which some call reatum culpae the guilt of the fault remaineth after pardon viz. That such a Man hath broken the Law and by such habits or actions he hath been disobedient to the Commands Pardon only takes away reatum penoe the appointment of a Man to punishment therefore there must be something more to render men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy and blameless before God and Objects of his Love Rom 4.3 4 5. Justification is called Imputing of Righteousness And Rom. 10.5 6. Justification by Works and by Faith are opposed by the Names of the Righteousness of the Law and the Righteousness of Faith To justifie therefore is to reckon or to declare in judgment that a Man is righteous and as if Man had been justified by the Law of Works he had then been pronounced righteous So now he is to be justified by Faith he is to be declared righteous by the Righteousness of Faith though not of Works Therefore Justification is more than Forgiveness Object 'T is said Pardon maketh a Man Righteous as if he had not brok'n the Law Answ Ans w. This hath been answer'd before I am sure we should take it very ill if one that hath greatly offended us and received his life and all from our Mercy should plead that he is as good as an innocent or righteous person because he is exempted from the Punishment he deserved Object A person of quality argues thus If pardon be not a Sinners Righteousness and maketh him not righteous then a man may be pardoned and be unrighteous still in the eye of the Law which he thinketh absurd Justific Evangelical p. 18. or else there must be a medium betwixt being righteous and unrighteous which he thinketh impossible Answ Both parts of the disjunction are untrue the first that he that is pardoned is not unrighteous still for if by favour punishment be remitted and no satisfaction be made to the Law then the Law remains broken still and he is a Sinner still though forgiven For it is not the Law that pardoneth if that might take effect it would condemn but the Law-Giver by his own Prerogative which pardon is not therefore looked upon as the fulfilling or the Righteousness of the Law But if as in our case the Law was satisfied and by reason of that satisfaction man is pardoned as this worthy Author acknowledgeth a little before then that satisfaction of the Law repaireth the Breach of it and so there is the real righteousness of the Law first imputed to a Man and then by reason thereof he is pardoned i.e. acquitted from punishment to which he was obnoxious before And thus here is a fair Contradiction that a Man is justified by a righteousness satisfactory to the Law yet barely pardoned The second part of the Disjunction That there is no medium betwixt being righteous and unrighteous is also untrue we speak of a declarative Righteousness Now it is apparent that there is a Middle betwixt being justified and being condemned viz. Medium negationis or rather privationis Adam before he fell was not condemned having not yet sinned nor was he justified having not finished
meer pardon if it must rest upon him to satisfie or to provide satisfaction for the Law But doth this hinder God's providing and bestowing on him the righteousness of his Son As a Bankrupt is capable of nothing but to have his debt freely forgiven him for ought that he can do towards satisfaction yet this hindreth not but his Friend may pay the Debt for him and so render him solvent in Law 'T is once more said Object Iustâ—â— Evang p. 35 36. If a Sinner be not made Righteous by pardon but may be counted a Sinner still then by the same reason when Christ his Righteousness is imputed that being not his own Obedience he may be counted a Sinner still and so be Righteous and a Sinner at the same time which implieth a loud Contradiction Answ It is no Contradiction being not eodem respectu not in the same respect or in the same sence A man is a Sinner in himself and righteous in Christ the Law pronounceth him a Sinner and sentenceth him to death but the Law-giver who is above the Law accepteth Christs fulfilling the Law for him and thus being admitted upon Christs account the Law it self must acknowledg him Righteous CHAP. II. The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to Believers explained and proved HAving proved that to Justifie is to accept as Just or Righteous and likewise that our own Obedience is not cannot be the Righteousness wherein we must appear before God it remaineth that it must be the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us for and by which we must be justified and this is now to be proved But before we come to the Proof we shall briefly inquire What we mean by Christs Righteousness and what by the Imputation of it The Righteousness of Christ which we say is imputed to a Sinner for his Justification is that Righteousness which he fulfilled or wrought in conformity to the Law of God whereby the Law violated by us was fulfilled and satisfied for us and in our stead Rom. 10.4 Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth Therefore it is not the Righteousness of his Divine Person which is imputed to us for that is Infinite such as men are uncapable of and 't was never required from them Yet the Perfections of his God-head do add the meritorious Dignity to his Satisfaction Nor is it the connate habitual Righteousness of his Man-hood For this is presuppos'd to enable to the performance of the Law but not properly required by the Law yet the Law requireth the preservation and exercise of perfect inherent righteousness Adam was created perfect to make him capable of receiving a Law of perfect obedience therefore that Law supposed a Holy Nature and only required continuance in that perfection of Nature which he had received In like manner it was necessary that Christ should be born with a perfect holy Nature that he might undertake the fulfilling of the Law for us and the preserving and exercise of that Holiness once received was a part of his obedience to the Law but that Holiness as natural and habitual was antecedent to the obedience of the Law and therefore no prober part of it Christ's Righteousness then which is imputed to us is his Holy Life in obedience to the Law of God and his voluntary obediential suffering the Penalties of the Law unto death it self for us and in our stead By the latter he made satisfaction for our sins and breach of the Law and by the former he fulfill'd the Law in the proper and principal design of it and thereby purchased eternal life which was promised by the Law to them that fulfill it By obeying the substance of the Moral Law as given to Man-kind and suffering death the Penalty thereof he satisfied the Law and wrought Righteousness for men in general and by obeving the Jewish Law and suffering the penalties and that kind of death threatned and accursed particularly by â—t he wrought righteousness for the Jews Gal. 4.4 5. Now when we say This Righteousness of Christ is imputed to Believes reckoned or accounted theirs Rom. 4.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we do not mean that they are accounted to have done and suffered those Actions and Penalties which Christ was Author of and endured Christ and Believers are still distinct natural persons and so the actions and passions of one person cannot be reckoned properly the actions and passions of the other Nor do we teach by imputing Christs Righteousness to Believers that God looketh upon them as if they had done and suffered in their own persons what Christ did in his in any proper sence For Christ only is accounted the Author of his own Righteousness and though Believers be justified by it yet the honour of working that righteousness and of being the proper subject of its Inherence belongeth to Christ alone But by Imputation we mean that God accounteth the Righteousness of Christ to have been wrought by him for every one that believeth and doth justifie or accept them to life eternal for that very righteousness believed or trusted in according to the promise of the Gospel and so Christs Righteousness is reckoned theirs or reckoned to them put to their account as if it were theirs not efficienter but effectivè not as if they had wrought it but that they may have the full benefit of it and be justified by it as effectually as if they had obeyed the Law perfectly in their own persons This is that which our Divines mean by saying Christ righteousness is ours in law that Christ and Believer are one in Law viz. that the Law â—f God is as truly and sully satisfied for us by â—he righteousness of Christ as if we had fulfilled it our selves and that God being pleased â—o admit of the fulfilling of the Law by Christ â—or us the Law doth pronounce us righteous â—nd Heirs of life for that righteousness which Christ wrought in obedience to it In this â—ence also they say That the very formal righteousness of Christ is a Believers righteousness or imputed to him viz. not that a Believer is reckoned to have wrought that righteousness as an efficient cause of it nor that Christs righteousness is transfused into him implanted in him as the subject of inherence â—ut that the very righteousness which Christ wrought was intended and wrought for him by the Son and is accepted for him by the Father that he is justified for it and intituled to life eternal Christ is the efficient the subject of Inherence of his own active passive obedience but the immediate benefit of it as satisfactory to the Law is a Believers and he is the subject of it a subject of external denomination he is denominated righteous from that righteousness wrought for him and accepted in his behalf Thus it is not forma inhaerens but denominans not an internal but an external Form When a Debtor is discharged his Surety paying the Debt
to be called by the same Name This is the Name whereby she shall be called The Lord our Righteousness Answ But the Context sheweth that it speaketh of the same Person and almost in the same words sc the righteous Branch of David c. And therefore learned men translate it This is the name of him who shall call her viz. The Church The Lord our Righteousness So Junius translates it also the Geneva and the Dutch Annotions and others but if it be meant of the hurch as Mr. Gataker contends it must Gataker in locum it only because the Name of Christ is put upon or as being clothed with his Righteousness the New Jerusalem the Gospel Church named Jehovah Shammah the Lord is there â—â—om his Presence in her and as God himself pleased to take upon himself the Name of â—â—s People Ps 24.6 Ezek. 48.35 This is the Generation 〈◊〉 them that seek thy Face O Jacob i. e. the â—â—â—d of Jacob. Dan. 9.24 Seventy weeks are determined â—â—on thy People and upon thy Holy City to finish the Transgression and to make an end of â—â—ins and to make reconciliation for Iniquity and 〈◊〉 bring in Everlasting Righteousness Daniel â—â—d prayed for the deliverance of the Jews â—â—d the forgiveness of their Sins and that not â—â—r the sake of their own Righteousness but â—â—ods great Mercy v. 18 19. He is answerâ—â—d that the City shall be built again and the â—eople saved by the Messiah v. 25. and that 〈◊〉 his being cut off not for himself v. 26. â—â—plying that it should be for them and that â—â—en should be brought in everlasting Righteousness whereby Israel should be justified and â—â—ved This is the Righteousness of the Mesâ—â—ah for none else is a standing and everlasting â—ighteousness Ours is mutable and subject 〈◊〉 fail Hos 6.4 Neither was our righteousness in special manner to be brought in by â—â—e Death of Christ it had been before in the Sanctified in all Ages of the Church It was a new Righteousness then to be wrought and brought in at the Death of Christ though by the Virtue of it the former Saints were saved yet it was not actually wrought and Justification by it distinctly declared till now Therefore it is all one with finishing transgression making an end of sin making reconciliation for the people which is plainly Justification to be had by this Everlasting Righteousness Rom. 5.18 19. As by the offence of one Judgment came upon all men to condemnation even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life All men were condemned by the offence or sin of Adam So they that believe shall be justified by the righteousness of Christ the free gift oâ— grant of life comes by the righteousness of Jesus Christ as the sentence of death came by Adams unrighteousness The 19 v. makes it clearer As by the disobedience of one many are made sinners so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous Adam did not make way by his Sin for mens condemnation he did not only render them liable to death if they should sin as he did and break the same Covenant But he brought them under the Curse and Sentence of death absolutely by and for his Sin so that all that are of his Seed are under the Judgement of Condemnation ipso facto as soon as they have a Being In like manner Christ must not only make way for mens Justification or procure them a Covenant whereby they shall be justified if they perform it as he performed the Covenant of a Mediator but he must also justifie them intitle them to life so soon as they believe in him by and for his own Righteousness and Obedience One Exception against this place hath been answered in the former Chapter Another excepteth Object The Apostle doth not say IN one mans obedience many shall be made righteous Just Evang p. 72. but BY one mans obedience as a consequent and effect of it many shall be made righteous As the effect of one mans disobedience many come to be shapen in iniquity and brought forth in a sinful condemned nature so as the effect of one mans obedience many come to be new born and brought forth in a Righteous and Saving State Answ The vanity of the exception from the word BY hath been manifested before The Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used signifieth BY or WITH which is the proper sence of the place the term IN would be more obscure And thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated Rom. 14.20 To him that eateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with offence but the Sum of this Exception is as it is largely prosecuted p. 68. c. That Adams personal disobedience is not imputed to his Posterity but he virtually containing all men in his Nature and Sinning before the Act of Propagation he did corrupt his Nature and so begat Children in a sinful mortal State But I have before proved the Imputation of his Actual Sin I now add Do Mankind derive a sinful mortal Nature from Adam by meer necessity of Nature seeing the effect must be like the cause or by virtue of Divine Constitution that his Posterity should inherit the Fruits of his Sin If by necessity of Nature as this Author seems to intimate then the Soul of Man must be ex traduce derived from the Parents else it could not be born sinful by necessity of Nature and then it must be corrupted with the Body and cannot exist without it and at best must be raised with the Body and sleep in the dust till the last day as the Socinians teach Nor would the want of original righteousness no nor positive dispositions to sin in our Nature as derived from Adam be sinful in us they be poena causa peocati the Punishment of Adams Sin and the cause of Sin in us but not peccatum our Sin no more than the natural Diseases of the Body which we derive from our Parents For that which comes by meer natural necessity cannot be a Sin But if it be by Divine Constitution then the meaning must be either that God appointed that if Adam should sin that one Sin then not only he should perish but that he should also propagate a sinful mortal Nature to all his Seed without exception and then the sin and misery of all Mankind is directly and properly the punishment of Adams personal sin only which besides the horrour of the thing that so many millions in all Ages should be made miserable both here and for ever as the punishment of another mans Sin in which they were no way concern'd is also against Gods own Law The Children shall not be put to death for the Fathers nor the Fathers for the Children but â—very man for his own sin Deut. 24.16 Or â—lse this Constitution must mean that God appointed that Adam shall stand or fall for all his â—osterity and then
oâ— that he was accounted to have sinned to have been the Author or any way the Cause of our sins or that God lookt upon him as such These things we account blasphemous but we mean that Jesus Christ in all he did and suffered did intend to satisfie the Law of God which Man should have kept and particularly in his Sufferings did intend and actually bare the punishment due to our sins to satisfie the Law thereby and that the Father in imposing this Obedience and in inflicting these Sufferings upon Christ did intend that his Law which man had broken should be satisfied thereby and that Christ should bear the Punishment of our Sins and further that God did accept of these Sufferings of Christ as a satisfaction for our Sins and did look upon his Justice as executed and satisfied in him Thus our sins are said to be imputed to Christ because he was truly and in the Fathers and in his own intentions punished for them He was not reckoned an Offendor but he was reckoned and dealt with as he who had undertaken to bear the Punishment due to Offenders Many labour to make this Position odious by misrepresenting it and putting it into harsh and unscriptural terms But the Question is plainly this Whether the Sufferings of Christ were truly and intentionally the Punishment of the Sins of Man laid upon him whether Christ was properly punished for their Sins And this the Scripture abundantly and expresly affirmeth Isaiah 53.4 He hath born our griefs and carried our sorrows Yet more plainly v. 5. He was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed v. 6. We have gone astray c. and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all v. 8. For the transgression of my people was he stricken v. 10. His Soul was made an offering for sin v. 11. By his knowledge shall my righteous Servant justifie many And the means whereby he cometh to justifie them is because he shall bear their iniquities v. 12. He bore the sin of many Can any thing be more express If Christ was wounded bruised stricken offered as a Sacrifice for sin then he was properly punisht for sin and though the other terms bearing of sin carrying our griefs c. may have a larger interpretation yet being joyned with those other more express and significant words they are to be taken in the same sence Galat. 3.13 He was made a Curse for us c. The Curse is the Punishment of Sin laid upon a person in pursuance of the Sentence of the Law Christ then was punisht the Sentence of the Law executed upon him with intention to satisfie the Law 2 Corinth 5.21 He was made Sin for us Our Authors paraphrase this He was made a Sacrifice for Sin the Sin-offering being sometimes in Hebrew called Sin And the Interpretation is not much amiss but the Sacrifice for sin died for the Sinner and did typically bear the punishment of his Sin Therefore Christ the Antitype did really undergo the punishment of Sin It is to be observed that our Lord was put to death without the City on purpose to answer the Type of the Sin offering in special above the rest of the Sacrifices which was to be carried out and burnt without the Camp Lev. 6.3 Heb. 13.11 12. 1 Peter 2.24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own Body on the Tree by whose stripes ye were healed Here it is exprest that Christ in his own person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bore our sins upon the Cross in his own Body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore his Sufferings upon the Cross were the punishment for our sins Our Opposites interpret this to be spoken figuratively Trueman â— â—rop p. 89. The Sufferings of Christ were not properly an Execution of the Law though they may figuratively be so called but a satisfaction to Justice that the Law-threat might no be executed They mean That Christ's Sufferings were for sin i. e. to take away Sin by bringing in a Covenant of Grace and possibility of Pardon but not that he satisfied offended Justice by bearing the Punishment of Sin in his own person Now this is not to die for sin at all nor to bare sin be wounded for it or stricken for it but only to suffer by occasion of sin as sin was the occasion that Christ suffered to bring in a way of Pardon and so as Christ's Righteousness is not the cause of our Justification but the occasion of it that which made some way for it as we have proved above so also by this Doctrine our sins were not the cause had no proper influence upon the death of Christ but were an accidental occasion of it because if we had not sinned he had not died to bring in a Covenant of Grace and pardon What can be spoken full and clear enough if these plain Scriptures may be so easily waved The same Author saith p. 86. That Christ's death was a Satisfaction to Justice that God might be Just if he should pardon not an Execution of the Law but a satisfaction to Justice that the Law might not be executed I answer The Justice of God is twofold Absolute and Essential which is the infinite Holiness of his Nature whereby he can do nothing but what is becoming himself or limited and ordinate which is a voluntary Obligation which God hath laid upon himself to proceed in his dealing with Creatures according to the Law which he hath prescribed them I demand which of these Christ satisfied not the first any further than as it is included in the second viz. as it is becoming God's infinite and essential Holiness to proceed with his Creatures according to his own Laws when he hath given them Laws to act by For this Author and his Friends do not deny that Essential Justice might have been content to have pardoned and restored Adam and us in him without the death of Christ it must therefore be limited and ordinate Justice which Christ satisfied Now by this Justice God is obliged to proceed according to his own Law to see his Law fulfilled and executed and that it attain the end for which it was made therefore there is no satisfying of this Justice but by having the Law executed To talk of satisfying Justice of which the Law is the Rule without executing the Law yea that the Law might not be executed but taken out of the way is by fair consequence a Contradiction Argument 7. 7ly I argue Either Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us we are justified immediately by believing in it or Christ only purchased a Law of Grace by fulfilling whereof we should be justified There is no medium betwixt these two in the Question about Imputation but the latter is false therefore the former is true This is that our Opposites contend for That Christ only purchased that we should be saved
Sanâ—tification Glory and all the good which ever â—â—e receive to be given us freely in his own time and on his own terms by his New Covenant by â—is Spirit and by his Providence and that we are as justly and certainly justified pardoned and saved by and for this meritorious Righteousness and Sacrifice of Christ as if we had done and suffered all our selves and that he suffered for us and in our stead that we might not suffer and fulfill'd all Righteousness for us that were Sinners to those proper uses we have and need no other Righteousness and though it be not Scripture Phrase we may truly say that thus Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us c. This was writ to avoid the charge of denying Imputation of Christ's Righteousness and therefore worded in Protestant Phrases as much as could be and yet a different sence couche in them viz. in those words to be given us on his own terms and by his New Covenant whereby is intended that Christ merited â—â— Reconciliation Justification c. to be given to us as the immediate Effects of his Purchase but to be given us upon the fulfilling the Commands of the Gospel so that it is â—â— Christ's Righteousness that justifies us or â— imputed to us to Justification but it did only merit a New Covenant or Law by fulfilling whereof we should be justified We shall not endeavour to make plain what these men would obscure and hide viz. the difference betwinâ— them and us in the point of Imputation It is the usual Protestant Doctrine that Jesus Christ undertook to fulfill that Law which men broken and to bare that Punishment which their Since deserved in the behalf of his Elect and that God accepting this undertaking of his from Eternity and the performance of it in time did therefore promise and grant pardon of sin right to eternal life and his Spirit and all spiritual blessings to be conferred upon each of these Elect Persons when by the Grace of Christ they should claim them and put their trust in him Hereupon we say when a man is actually pardoned and intituted to life by virtue of this undertaking and grant that Christ's Righeousness is imputed to him i. e. that these benefits are bestowed upon him for that Righteousness which Christ wrought and â—â—d accepted and he flyeth to for Salvation â—â—d for no other reason And hereupon ariâ—â—h in justified persons an immutable right to â—â—e and the Grace of God to bring them to it â—ereupon they may be certain of their Perseâ—â—rance and Salvation But on the contrary â—â—ese men teach first That though Christ â—â—d materially fulfill the Law broken by men â—â—d bore the Punishment due to their sins 〈◊〉 did many things which the Law commanâ—â—d and suffered many things which it threatâ—d against Sin yet that he did not intend directly and properly to satisfie that Law by oâ—â—ying the Precepts and undergoing the Penalâ—â—s of it but did only fulfill the Law of a Meâ—â—ator imposed upon him and peculiar to him which was to do and suffer such things as God â—â—eased to enjoyn him 2ly That this which â—hrist did and suffered did respect and was intended not for any particular persons but â—â—r all mankind equally as Adam's Sin did â—â—y That therefore this Obedience or Righâ—â—ousness of Christ did not purchase Pardon â—â—stification or any of the Fruits of it for all 〈◊〉 for any man immediately 4ly But that 〈◊〉 procured this only That God being content â—â—ot to insist upon the Law of Innocency and 〈◊〉 hold man to that which was now become â—â—possible through the weakness of sinfull â—â—esh he should grant a Covenant of sincere â—bedience to them that would repent of their â—â—rmer sins and receive Christ for their Lord â—â—nd Saviour that they should be saved as â—ertainly as if they had not broke the Law of Innocency or had satisfied it when broken 5ly And therefore their Justification must be mutable as their sincere obedience is 6ly This is then that which they mean by Impuâ—â—tion of Christ's Righteousness and its pâ—â—chasing Justification for us viz. That it waâ— a means of taking the Covenant of Works on of the way and of procuring a New Covenant of sincere Obedience which if men do perform they shall be justified or live by it notwithstanding their sins and imperfections aâ—â— much as they should have been justified bâ— doing the Law of Works so that this Coâ—â—nant being the Effect of Christ's Death 〈◊〉 the Benefits of it Justification Adoption c. are to be reckoned the Fruits of it alâ—â— and when we enjoy these Benefits his Righteousness is imputed to us i.e. we receive the Benefit of that Covenant which his righteouâ—â—ness purchased Now I demand what it is thâ—â— justifyeth or giveth us a right to life immediately and properly By this Doctrine it is our fulfilling of the New Govenant the Christ's Righteousness doth not properly â—â—stifie us or immediately procure our Pardâ—â— or Life then this Righteousness is not impâ—â—ted to us for Justification To call this Impâ—â—ting of Christ's Righteousness to us is a sence so remote from the state of the question which is By what Righteousness we are justified immediately before God and from the very Notion of the word Imputation and impâ—â—ting or reckoning to one that I cannot callâ—â— less than equivocation or trifling Object But they say that Faith and Repentance or â—ur fulfilling of the Gospel-Covenant is a means â—f applying Christ's imputed Righteousness 4 disp of Just p. 264. â—nd so is a Righteousness subordinate and subservient to his not at all derogating from 〈◊〉 Answ By applying Christ's Righteousness they â—â—ean that then we have the Benefits and Effects of Christ's satisfaction when we have fulfilled the Terms of the Gospel As when a Man hath served his Apprentiship in a Corporation then he enjoyeth the Privileges of the Charter which was boutht or given many â—ears before but will any man say that then â—he buying or procuring of the Charter is â—mputed to him They teach that God hath â—romised to pardon and save them that obey â—is Gospel what is it then that gives the immediate right to Pardon and Salvation that â—s constitutive of a man justified in Law is it â—ot this Obedience to the Gospel Then this â—s it which is imputed to a man for righteousness but Christ's righteousness is not applied is that which doth constitute us righteous for which we are justified but when we are justified by our obedience to the Gospel this is a favour which we should never have had if Christ had not purchased it To call this applying or imputing of Christ's Righteousness â—s to hide a Heterodoxie with usual and Orthodox terms Object But the same Author acknowledgeth that Christ's Righteousness is our only legal righteousness or rather pro-legally p. 274. Ibid. a righteousness instead of our righteousness or obedience to the Law passim Answ If Christ fulfilled the
preserve the state of Justification Bona opera sunt necessaria ad Justificationis statum retinendum conservandum But how Not as causes that work or deserve the continuance of Justification but as means without which God will not continue it Non ut causae quae per se efficiunt aut mereantur hanc conservationem sed ut media seu conditiones sine quibus Deus non vult justificationis gratiam in hominibus conservare He explaineth himself That a life of obedience is necessary that a justified man may improve and enjoy the Fruits of Justification and also obtain the remission of following particular sins and to prevent a course of sin which is contrary to the nature of a justified man In a word That they are no otherways necessary to the continuance then they were to the beginning of Justification sc by way of concomitance and order not of influence Nam ut nemo recipit Justificationem generalem quae liberat à reatu omnium praecedentium peccatorum nisi concurrente paenitentia c. ita nemo retinet statum à reatu liberum respectu peccatorum consequentium nisi mediantibus iisdem actionibus credendi c. Ratio est quod haec abesse non possint perpetuo ut non ad esse incipiant illorum opposita quae pugnant cum natura justificati Ibid. Again Quia Deus non vult carnales c. frui beneficio justificationis requirit assidua opera fidei c. quorum praesen tiâ arcentur incredulitas c. aliáque gratiae justificationis venena at que particularium peccatorum particularis condonatio obtinetur p. 405. And Hae autem actiones non conservant vitam gratiae propriè per se attingendo ipsum effectum conversationis sed impropriè per accidens excludendo removendo causam destructionis He acknowledgeth also that the falls of the Godly do not lose their Justification Ibid. Concl. 7. Vtcunque justificati in via bonorum operum claudicare atque aliquandiu extra hanc viam per abrnpta libidinum suarum aberrare possint statu filiorum haud amisso Lastly He saith good works are necessary to â—alvation and our coming to Heaven Non necessitate causalitatis sed ordinis not as causes â—f it but as the order that God hath appointed that we should first glorifie him on earth and then be glorified with him in Heaven Now what they have gained by the Bishop's Testimony let the Reader judge We willingly â—ubscribe to all this in substance Mr. Bradshaw's Testimony will serve them to better Praefat. de Just they cite his Preface for their purpose his words are Quid enim prohibet quo minus â—traque Christi obedientia ad peccati cujusque reâ—tum tollendum ad peccatorum nostrorum omnium veniam consequendam necessaria statuaâ—ur quid obstat quo minus etiam ad imputationem utriusque hoc sufficere dixerimus quod Deus utramque cum bono nòstro admiserit obediâ—ntiam propter cam utramque nos acceptos â—abeat ac si nos ipsi eo quo par erat modo legem â—livinam implevissemus qut paenas aeternas ex eaâ—em nobis debitas apud inferos sustinuissemus Here he endeavoureth to reconcile those that contend for the Imputation of either the Active or Passive Obedience alone and saith That we may say they are both imputed both performed for us i. e. for our benefit in that way that God thought fit and that we are justified by both as much as if we had fulfilled the Law or suffered Eternal Death But doth Mr. Bradshaw here express the manner how we are accepted by the Obedience of Christ doth he at all derogate from our being justified immediately by Christ's Righteousness or doth he lay any foundation for Justification by fulfilling the Gospel-Covenant There is not a word of that here or in all his Book He doth indeed speak more accurately and cautiously of the notion of Imputation and what Obedience of Christ may be said to be imputed and what not than others do yet in substance he agreeth with them and asserteth the old Protestant Doctrine particularly Chap. 22 23 24. per totum He affirmeth Christ's satisfaction to be the onely matter of our Justification Chap. 22. Th. 1. In satisfactione Christi supradicta vera sola justificationis posita est materia And that by this Satisfaction we are not onely freed from eternal wrath but made truely righteous before God Th. 2. Redemptio sive satisfactio illa qua pretium ejusmodi persolvitur cujus vi peccator non à debita tantùm poena liberetur sed etiam in foro divino vere justissiméque justus factus dicitur non est fucata metaphorica c. And that the form of our Justification is the alledging of Christ's Righteousness Chap. 23. Th. 2. Hujus Justificationis forma est satisfactionis sive justitiae illius in gratiam ejus pro quo praestita est coram Deo factae vel alligatio vel declaratio quaevis And lastly he saith That the immediate effect of Justification is Reconciliation whereby all sins are forgiven and God receives a Sinner into favour for the Satisfaction of Christ accepted in his behalf Chap. 24. Th. 2. Hominis cum Deo reconciliatio ex vera justificatione orta est qua Deus propter Christi satisfactionem gratiosissimè admissam cum peccatore in gratiam rediens remittit eidem peccata universa ipsámque pro verè justo habet In the Conclusion of his Book he gives us the Sum of what he had delivered immediately touching the point of Justification 1. Deus Pater justificat admittendo imputando 2. Deus Filius satisfaciendo advocatum agendo 3. Sacro-Sanctus Spiritus revelando obsignando 4. Fides apprehendendo applicando 5. Bona opera manifestando declarando This is the whole and usual Protestant-Doctrine We must now seek some other Authors of this Opinion Art 24. Arminius in answer to the 31st Article objected to him saith Christi justitia imputatur in justitiam mihi non probari dixi Having in general terms as our Authors profess to acknowledge that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us and that we are justified by it yet he here denyeth That Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us for Righteousness and gives this reason Quicquid imputatur in justitiam vel ad justitiam vel pro justitia ad ipsum non est ipsa justitia strictè rigidè sumpta At Christi justitia quam ille praestitit Patri obediendo est ipsissima justitia strictè rigidè sumpta Ergò non imputatur in justitiam i. e. That which is imputed to us for righteousness must not be righteousness strictly and properly so called But Christ's Righteousness was a strict and proper Righteousness or obedience to his Father Ergò Arminius we see taketh imputing Christ's Righteousness for nothing else but that it procureth Justification for us not that
Christ say they did in no proper sence satisfie 〈◊〉 and therefore his Obedience could have â—o proper respect to Divine Justice much less â—o sin that had offended Justice 5ly Nor was Christ's Death a Propitiation â—r Atonement for our sins The Apostle 1 Joh. 2.1 saith That Christ was a Propitiation for our Sins that he loved us and washed us from our sins with his own Bloud Apâ—â— 1.5 But this is true only accidentally and eventually if the immediate effect of Christ's death was only that God might pardon not that he must and it was not the prime and principal intention of his death Since God hath pleased to grant terms of Salvation upon the death of Christ his death may improperly be said to have made atonement or reconciliation for them because it occasioned it 〈◊〉 made some way for it but that which left God still intirely free to pardon or not that did not appease his Anger remove his displeasure reconcile him or obtain his good Will as is the nature of a Propitiation or propitiatory Sacrifice nor was it immediately 〈◊〉 directly intended for that end 6ly Nor can it properly be ascribed to God's Love to the World that he gave his Son to die or to the Son's Love to Mankind that he gave himself For if love to men were the Motive of Christ s Obedience and Death both to the Father and the Son men's Salvation would have been immediately designed and intended in it it would have been medium ordinatum a proper means design'd to bring about their Salvation But they tell us it was designed only to save God's Honour in case he should forgive Sinners but not that he had obliged himself any way to do it no nor that he had resolved with himself or deliberately purposed to grant terms of Salvation when he sent his Son into the World or when he laid his wrath a curse upon him it seems God did not yet know what use he would make of the Death of his Son neither could the Son know when the Father was not resolved Thus we see this Opinion overthroweth the whole Nature and Intendment of Redemption and Christ's Merit Satisfaction Ransom Sacrifice and all that belong to it are but improper Metaphors and the greatest Mystery of Godliness must fly for refuge to a poor Trope to save it from being an untruth and Christ himself must be at most but an honorary Mediator and Redeemer The Second Opinion concerning the End of Christ's death is That he died to purchase the Covenant of Grace or Conditions and Terms of Salvation by the fulfilling whereof men might be saved Thus the Arminians used to speak That Christ died viam salutis pandere to open a way for Mens Salvation to purchase conditions whereupon they might be saved whereas before their Salvation was impossible by reason of the Curse or Sentence of the Law of Works Act. Syn. Dort Art 2. Remon Christus merito mortis suae Deum Patrem universo generi humano hactenus reconciliavit ut Pater propter ipsius meritum salva justitia veritate sua novum gratiae foedus cum peccatoribus damnationi obnoxiis hominibus inire sancire potuerit voluerit Thus Mr. Baxter faith That Christ purchased Justification and life to be given by his New Covenant not that he purchased these absolutely to be certainly given to any persons but that he purchased a Covenant or Law of Grace whereby these are promised upon condition of Faith and Obedience And this must be the sence if any of those that assert Christ dying for all men to make them salvabiles salvable and to render their Salvation possible being impossible before while the Law of Works stood in such sorce For before Christ's death Mens Salvation was possible to God no new power was acquired to him and possible in its self Men being subjects naturally capable of Salvation this possibility then must be a possibility in Law as we say id possumus quod jure possumus that Christ purchased a Law and grant of Salvation upon certain Terms whereby it now became possible for all Men to be saved if they should have sufficient notice of it This Opinion is a little more plausible but no more true than the former which I thus prove 1. It cannot be conceived how Christ did purchase this Covenant according to the rest of their Notions The occasion or ground of this Purchase was That God was bound by his own Law of Works violated by Men to condemn them without Mercy Now then could this Obligation be dissolved without satisfaction to and fulfilling that Law which yet they will not allow Christ to have done unless per accidens as part of it is comprised in that special Law of Mediator which was given to him If it was the Law which hindered God from shewing mercy and made mans Salvation impossible then that Law doth oblige God to see it fulfilled or else to grant no life to Sinners and if Christ did not fulfil it nor was made properly subject to it as they teach then he could not properly purchase a Covenant of life if he did fulfil it for sinners then they must be discharged by his satisfaction without further conditions imposed on them as hath been often said They say the Law of Works was neither abolished nor fulfille by Christ but relaxed I suppose they mean That God did not insist upon the absolute performance of the Law but was pleased to admit of an aequivalent reparation of his Honour by the Obedience of Christ to that Law which he should impose on him wherein should be comprehended a great part of the Moral Law I reply If God did relax the Law so as not to require the proper fulfilling of it then he did lose the obligation which was laid upon him to see it fulfilled The ordinate or relative Justice of God obliged him to proceed according to that Law and if he admitted of another way of reparation to his Honour he did not proceed in a way of Justice in all that he laid upon Jesus Christ and he might as well have saved Man without the Obedience of Christ as with it his Justice or Law allowing that relaxation no more than a total superseding or laying aside the Law by this purchase therefore they can mean no more but that Jesus Christ did so honour the Father by his Obedience and Sufferings that he might with Decorum to his Majesty give to Sinners terms of Salvation and would do it but this is no purchase which transferreth a legal right to the Purchaser if the Purchase be accepted but dependeth meerly upon Promise or Terms of Honour It is also great presumption for Men to judge what is becomming Divine Majesty and what will salve his Honour other then what is according to his Law or Promise wherers here they make him to wave his own declared Law founded in the highest reason and equity 2ly Nor in this sence is the death
of Christ a ransome satisfaction or propitiation A ransome respecteth persons to be redeemed it is a price given for them not for Laws and Covenants Whoever paid a ransome without agreeing to whom it should extend and that it should take certain effect whereas here is nothing purchased but a Covenant or Promise that all those that believe and obey the Gospel should be saved which perhaps might be none nor was it agreed how long the World should stand and so what number of Men should be made or should need or be capable of this Redemption A satisfaction to God in this case is a satisfaction to his Law whereby the Sinner must immediately be discharged A Propitiation is a Sacrifice appeasing and reconciling God to Man neither of which it done if only a Promise be procured to save Men upon their fulfilling the conditions of a New Law 3ly If Christ only purchased a Covenant of life then his Redemption is much more in-effectual to fave than Adam's Fall was to destroy Man The Apostle Rom. 5.17 18 20. comparing the Death of Christ with Adam's Fall saith As Sin reigned to death so Grace much more reigneth to life as Sin abounded to condemnation Grace much more aboundeth to justification and life but where is this much more the Obedience of Christ falls far short of Adam's Disobedience in its effects if he only purchased conditions of life Adam in a few moments by one transgression procured a sentence of certain death upon every individual person that should naturally descend from him as soon as they should have a Being but Jesus Christ by his transcendent Obedience of thirty four years by induring the Wrath of God the rage of Men and Devils and a most ignominious death purchased life for no one certain Man but only conditions whereupon they that should hear of them not half Mankind should be saved if they did fulfil them which for any thing he purchased or was contained in the Covenant of life was a meer contingency viz. whether any should ever believe and be saved or not 4ly If Christ only purchased a Covenant of life then he purchased no more for the Elect than for others no more for the Sheep than the goats and they that go to Heaven may hereafter say Christ redeemed them no more than he did those in Hell the difference betwixt them proceeded from their applying and performing the Covenant and its conditions which others neglected For the Covenant is equal to all that hear it promising life upon conditions only which every one is equally concerned in alike capable of Salvation and one no more likely to perform the conditions than another The Arminians grant this that Christ died for all alike Syn. Dordr Ibid. Th. 2. Heterodox Christi mortem impetrasse omnibus hominibus restitutionem in statum gratiae salutis 5ly It follows also That for any efficacy there was in the death of Christ there must have been no man saved For the Covenant of Grace which only he purchased would have been as true and as firm a Covenant viz. That they should be saved who would believe and obey the Gospel though no man had fulfilled it and so been saved by it as the Covenant of Works was which according to them was never fulfilled nor ever gave life to any The Covenant required no more then that God should be ready faithfully to give eternal life ro all that fulfilled it and all that Christ purchased was a Promise that he would so be which would have been true though all men had perished by their unbelief and so Christ might have had the empty Title of a Redeemer without any person being redeemed by him And this Arminius Gravirch and others are not ashamed to confess Arnoldus contra Molin Omnino credo futurum fuisse ut finis mortis Christi constaret etiamsi nemo credidisset Some of ours fay That God had his Elect whom he purposed to bring to Christ and save by him But the Scriptures are as express that Christ died for the Elect as that God elected them And if Christ purchased no more for them then for others they might have perished as well as others for any thing his Redemption or Purchase could do for them or had done 6ly If Christ intended his death for certain particular persons then he purchased more than a meer covenant or conditions of Life The consequence is evident If he purchased life to be given to certain men certainly infallibly then he purchased more than offer of life to them upon conditions which they might or might not perform The Minor That Christ in his death intended the redemption of certain particular persons the Scriptures assirm He laid down his Life for the Sheep Joh. 10.15 16. even for those of the Gentiles that were not of the Jewish Fold and so yet knew him not And the effects of this laying down his life for them was on purpose to call them in due time v. 16. to teach and make them follow him v. 27. and to keep them safe to life eternal by his own and the Fathers power v. 28 29. and from these Sheep are distinguished those who are not of his Sheep and therefore all means are ineffectual to make them believe v. 25 26. He died to gather together in one all the Children of God Joh. 11.52 that were scattered abroad i. e. all the Elect of God dispersed throughout all Nations And the Apostle Paul saith of himself He loved me and gave himself for me Gal. 2.30 Therefore Christ redeemed particular persons and did not only purchase Grants and Covenants 7ly Christ purchased the Spirit and Grace to make his Death effectual to those he died for therefore he purchased more than a Covenant of Grace A meer Covenant of Grace only promiseth Life upon conditions of Faith and Obedience leaving it to men whether they will perform them or not as the Covenant of Works promised life to perfect obedience and then left it to Adam whether he would obey or not A meer Covenant makes no provision of grace and strength to enable men to perform it If then Christ purchased grace to believe and to obey for the Elect he purchased more than a Covenant of Grace and that he did so hath been partly proved and may be further evidenced by this That when Christ saith he laid down his life for the Sheep Joh. 10.16 c. he presently adds he must bring home all the Sheep and make one Fold under one Shepheard himself and that he will make them follow him and will preserve and lead them to Eternal Life and no Wolves shall pluck them out of his hand v. 27 28 29. Also that he died to gather into one all the Children of God This must be done by his Spirit and Grace purchased by his Redemption and that power which is given to him not only to purchase but also to apply the blessed Fruits of Redemption to them Thus our
curses and natural evils may be inflicted without sin Even Arminius Episcopius and others of their chief Friends grant That God may without injustice lay temporal evils upon men without respect to sin of his own meer pleasure If Afflictions be part of the Curse to the godly it must be by some Law 2ly It cannot be by the Law of Grace for that is a remediating Law threatning no curse to them that obey it If by the Law of Works then Believers are in part still under the Law whereas the Apostle makes these inconsistent to be under the Law and under Grace Rom. 6.14 Moreover Afflictions if they be punishments must be satisfactory to Divine Justice For the Law requires nothing but in order to satisfie Divine Justice by obedience or punishment for failure and then Christ hath not redeemed us from the Curse of the Law part of it remaining for us to bare and so Christ's Redemption must be diminished he having onely purchased that the Law should not have its full force viz. to condemn us for ever but that we should have terms of grace or life eternal nevertheless that we should be left in the hands of the Law for this life that God may lay what curses upon us he pleaseth so that he save our Souls The same is to be said concerning sin and spiritual evils some sins are proper chastisements when men are suffered to run into some sins to correct them for former sins As David's Murder was a correction for his Adultery but these chastisements proceed really from the love of God though mixed with fatherly displeasure but for the general that God hath left sin in the hearts and lives of the Godly is not to satisfie his Law or the Curse but to magnifie his Grace and Wisdome in over-ruling sin and death to his own Glory and to further man's Salvation by those things which the Devil designed to undermine and overthrow both Object 6 If Faith only justifie and give right to life then is there no use of the Law to Believers nor any thing for them to do in way of obedience but only to expect that God should bring them to Heaven by his Grace to which Faith gives right as well as to life it self Answ As Faith it self is commanded though it be the work of God so is the use of all means whereby Grace is to be improved and exercised and in the use of them in dependance on God's Grace lies a Christian's Obedience The Promises of Grace and Perseverance do encourage to obedience but alter not the nature of obedience Phil. 2.12 13. As you have always obeyed c. work out your Salvation with fear and trembling For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure Our Saviour came not to dissolve the Moral Law nor gave he commission to any man to do it but requireth better obedience to it than that of the Pharisees though they expected to be justified by it Mat. 5.18 19 20. and upon all occasions he directs men to the Law as the rule of Life Mat. 19.17 Chap. 22. v. 37. c. Though Faith encourage and Love incline to good works yet these works are properly obedience because done upon the Command of God It is true the Law is not a Covenant of Works or a Law of Life to Believers promising Life to Obedience perfect or imperfect and threatning death to the want of it Nor is this essential to a Law that life and death must depend thereon though they do so upon some Laws nor is it essential to obedience that it must proceed from hope of life and fear of death For there is no such thing with Saints in Heaven where yet is perfect obedience yet is it a Rule of Obedience a Declaration of God's Will how his Children ought to walk and to please him which is the very nature of a Law But it is not necessary to the Sanction of every Law Quest that there should be Promises to obedience and Threatnings to disobedience Answ Not from the nature of a Law but because of man's infirmities it is needful Gal. 3.19 So the Gospel hath promises of Blessings in this Life peace of Conscience increase of Grace and the Fatherly Love and Presence of God to obedience and diligence and the threatning of the contrary to negligence and disobedience yea the knowledge of the Covenant of Works as it restrains the ungodly so it is of use to the godly in this life to curb the flesh and to make them more afraid of sin and to quicken them to diligence But life and death eternal are not the Sanctions of the Law as properly given to Believers But do not the sins of Believers deserve Hell and put them into a damned state Quest Answ No. They interrupt their peace with God and the Work of Grace but make them not Children of wrath their sins in their own nature tend to death as they are an aversion from God but he will recover them out of them by repentance at death if not before and they deserve death according to the Law of Works by which they must judge of the â—inousness of them and be humbled accordingly But as the Law is tempered by the Gospel they shall not bring death And deâ—â—rt of sin being obligatio ad poenam ex lege the Laws binding a man over to punishment 〈◊〉 may be truly said they do not deserve death according to the Gospel because that doth not threaten death eternal to them yet they 〈◊〉 deserve other corrections threatned thereâ—y which are more effectual to restrain the godly than the threatning of Hell is to the â—icked But doth not this open a way to Sin and Sloth Quest. â—hen men that think they are Believers shall â—hen conclude their sins shall not damn them Answ No. For it is not the promise of great Retards nor threatning of great Punishment that 〈◊〉 keep men from sin else the Angels and Adam would never have sinned but it is the certain assistance of effectual grace which can 〈◊〉 will make men obedient without such â—â—nctions by other Reasons and Motives If Christians were left to their free will as much is Adam was then would there be a necessity 〈◊〉 the like Promises and Threats to keep them 〈◊〉 their Duty but because God hath undertaken to work all our Works in us it is enough â—â—at God declare his Will to them and will make them obedient Promises and Threaâ— of another nature are added because of the infirmity of the Flesh but they could not keeâ— them in obedience if there were not a certainty of prevailing grace and when these infirmities shall be taken away then the Declaration of God's Will without any Promise 〈◊〉 Threat will be a sufficient Obligation to Obedience for ever by the perfect and full concurrence of the Grace of God For it is the Spirit of Grace that holdeth
themselves with that yet they that be throughly woundeâ— and humbled can never build their peace upon purposes or promises of obedience but upon the free Mercy of God in Christ from whence also they must have their power to obey or their purposes are in vain and also the acceptance and forgiveness of their poor imperfect obedience Whatever are the disputes of curious Wits or of rational Parts who would sain bring the Methods of Sovereign Grace to the Rules of Humane Reason yet I never met with any serious man nor I believe never shall who would soberly say That he expected to be saved or justified for and by his Obedience to the Gospel CHAP. X. An Answer to the Arguments for Obedience being the Condition of Justification WE come now for a close of this Work to consider the Principle Arguments that are brought to prove That Obedience to the Gospel or Faith as comprehending all Obedience is the Condition by fulfilling whereof we must be justified and it is alledged 1st That this way of Justification seemeth most rational obvious and agreeable to the whole Tenour of Scripture which maketh the Promises both of this Life and that which is to come to Obedience 1 Tim. 4.8 And that the way of Justification by trusting in the Promise of Mercy putteth some force both upon Reason and many Texts of Scripture Thus Mr. Trueman often 1st It was Melancthon's Observation Answ Lex com de isustif judic in Rom. That man's Reason which he call'd humana Philosophia doth always cherish a notion of being justified by Works and therefore Justification by Faith ever hath been and ever shall be opposed both by curious Wits and by grave Moral Men not only among Heathens but in the Church also which cometh partly from the Pride of Man who would fain be something but chiefly from the impression of the Law of Nature or Works which taught and allowed no other way of Justification and therefore men's Consciences though they hear the Letter of the Gospel do not cannot believe that they can be justifyed by Free Grace without any respect to their Works till they are inwardly persuaded by the Spirit of Christ Christ crucifyed was a stumbling Block to the Jews who trusted to the Works of the Law and Foolishness to the Greeks who thought themselves wise and rational men 1 Cor. 1.23 It is therefore no inconvenience that Justification by obedience is most agreeable to carnal and unsanctified reason and Justification by Faith not suitable to it But I suppose this Author by rational meant That the several parts and consequences of the Dostrine of Justification by Obedience did better cohere and agree together than if it were affirmed to be by Faith only Of this let the â—ious Reader that hath been sensible of sin â—â—d guilt and feelingly understands the grounds of a Christian's Hope and Peace â—â—dge They say That man being under â—rath for breaking the Law of Works destiâ—te of the Image or Grace of God did yet receive a New Law purchased by the Death â—f Christ to repent believe and obey the â—recepts of it and for so doing he should be â—â—aved his former sins forgiven yet all this â—hile he is not able to repent believe or oâ—â—y nor is there any promise that he shall be â—ade able and if he receive Grace to do this â—any measure yet it is not insured to him he may and many do lose it yea he may recover and and lose it again and if death should seise him in any of these sad intervals all his obedience profiteth nothing but he perisheth for ever if this will comfort or settle an afflicted unsettled conscience or be agreeable to the tasts any have had of the Grace oâ— God let such judge On the other side we teach That man being utterly lost by guilâ— and inability to obedience God sent his Soâ— fully and absolutely to satisfie his Justice and to purchase eternal life for as many as he had chosen This purchase he declared in the Gospel promising pardon and eternal life to alâ— that humbly fly to and trust in him for it that when his promise is published God sendetâ— forth his Spirit and perswadeth the hearts oâ— his Elect to trust in it that hereupon he giveth them pardon of all their sins and a right to eternal life for the sake of his Son's satisfaction and purchase that being thus reconciled to them he doth further make them hâ—â— Children and heirs of Glory for his Son sake and because they are his Children hâ— giveth them the Spirit of his Son to reneâ— them after his Image to continue and perseâ— grace in them and forgiveth all their infirmâ—ties and blesseth them with all temporal anâ— spiritual blessings in Christ and ordereth aâ— his providences for their good to purge oâ—â— sin and to perfect grace till at last of his Fatherly Goodness he crowns them with eternâ— life after their hard service on Earth to eâ—â— courage them in which Heaven was proposed as a Reward to them wherein is this irrational or inconsistent with it self The Scripture for the most part speaketh to the Conscience and Affections 2dly more than the Judgement and therefore handleth not things distinctly and didactically but putteth many things together saith and obedience in general or in particular duties as is most suited to practice and therefore it is no good Argument Faith and Obedience are joyned together often times as the means of Salvation without distinguishing the several Offices of each and what influence each have upon the several parts of our Salvation ergò both together and alike do justify us before God Yet it is evident from the whole Tenour of the Scripture That forgiveness of sin reconciliation peace with God hope of Heaven all come by our flying to and hope in Mercy and Grace alone This was renew'd to Adam by promise of the Seed of the Woman Gen. 3.17 And by Sacrifices in like manner renewed to Abraham by promise with the Seal of Circumcision and a more particular promise of Christ The Psalms practically exemplify That our only refuge is Free Mercy The Prophets are full of promises of Pardon of healing Backslidings Jer. 3.12 of loving freely Hos 14.4 of forgiving beyond man's thoughts Isa 54.6 7 8. and the like Our Saviour and the Apostles preached this Doctrine to convinced and humbled Sinners though they insist much upon Obedience to convince and reclaim the hypocritical backsliding Jews To the Heathens who had no excuse for sin they preached nothing but pardon at first and besides this when the Doctrine of Justification is distinctly propounded and proved it is wholly ascribed to Faith in the Promise in two most argumentative Epistles to the Romans and Galatians upon which they that would bring in obedience are fain to make a manifest force whereas we force no Scripture but explain those that speak generally by shewing the several Acts of Faith and ascribing to it and to
that course of obedience to which life was promised It is true he was righteous inherently and also in the eye of the Law so far as he had obeyed and so far might be said to be justified viz. Inchoatively But in this Question we take justification for that perfect Act whereby a Sinner is fully acquitted and accepted to life eternal and thus Adam was not justified and therefore in a middle state So then Pardon doth not make a Man righteous or justified but in the precise Notion of it it is a Middle betwixt condemnation and justification viz. Non-condemnation but if you add that a Man is forgiven for Christ's sake then you add something besides Meer Pardon and so desert the Question 3. I argue from the nature of Justification â—s it is discovered in its immediate and most proper Effects the chief whereof is this That â—t giveth a firm and immutable Right to Eternal Life Our Opposites and we differ about â—ustification in this Life They say it is imperfect and mutable we say 't is perfect and immutable but we agree in this That Justification whenever it is perfect and compleat giâ—eth an immutable Right to life such as shall â—ever be lost as Adam's was Hence I argue Meer Pardon or Relaxation â—f punishment doth not give an immutable â—ight to life but only restores a Man to the â—ondition he was in before and leaveth him as subject and liable to lose it by new sins as eâ—er he was But Justification by Christ doth â—ot only restore Man to the Condition he was â—n before subject to change but giveth him â—n unchangeable Right to Life Eternal therefore it is more than Pardon And further that which gives an immutable right to life must suppose the Law to be fulfilled which promised life which being fulfilled there is nothing further to be required nor any further danger of a threatning of death but man is to be â—eclared Righteous and to receive the promised Reward But Justification giveth such a â—ull and immutable right to life therefore it supposeth fulfilling of the Law by our selves â—r another and a Righteousness thence ariâ—ng for which we are declared Righteous â—nd receive the promised Life Object 'T is said Full pardon such as God's Pardon is delivereth from all punishment sensu damni Trum. ut supra from all positive punishment and from the privation of all Priviledges which were or should have been enjoyed before and this is equivalent to a right to life in the nature of the thing For when a Man is exempted from all punishment and restored to his for men Estate or Favour with God he is then in statâ— quo prius in the condition he was in before he sinned Answ By this Argument Pardon should restore man into the Condition of Adam before hiâ— Fall which is apparently false For that iâ— the State from whence he fell by sin and to which Meer Pardon must restore him at leasâ— when it is compleat at the last Judgment but neither then is man restored into Adam's condition but to a new State of Happiness by the Redeemer Besides this Argument makes strongly against themselves for the Condition from which man fell was but a State of Probation wherein he had no immutable right to life therefore Pardon restoring him but to his former Condition putteth him again but into a State of Probation and giveth no certain right to life Nay by this Doctrine Sin is not pardoned in this Life A Man is not acquitted or put out of danger of punishment seeing his Salvation dependeth upon conditions which must be in fulfilling till his lives end So that Pardon with them is no more than a Suspension of punishment together with a promise of life and impunity if man fulfill the Conditions of the Gospel This putteth a Man into a possibility of life but giveth him no actual or certain Title to it and therefore is not Justification 4. The next Effect of Justification is a new Heart or Grace to fit and bring man to life which Justification entitleth to The Spirit of Sons and the Glory of Heav'n are the Fruits of Adoption but Life and Happiness simply and the Spirit of Sanctification are the Effects of Justification Heb. 8.10 11 12 13. The new Heart is promised as an Effect of forgiveness of sin Hence I argue That which gives with the right to life all the means necessary to attain life is more than pardon of sin But Justification by Christ gives a right to all the Means necessary to attain eternal life as well as to life it self Ergò The Reason of the Major is pardon in the common notion of it and with our Opposites doth only put a man into that state or favour he was in before but in that condition there was no certainty of grace to persevere and to come to life When we pardon an Offendor we receive him into our former favour and lay aside all thoughts of enmity but we do not count our selves engaged by all means possible to endeavour to prevent his offending for the future that care resteth on him therefore if Justification give a right to the Grace of God which shall be effectual to bring us to life it is more than pardon or putting us into our former condition wherein we had no such promise Mr. Truman ingeniously confesseth what is the natural consequence of his Opinion That Christ by his Satisfaction did not purchase grace to bring men to life Great Propit p. 203. c. but only a Law of Grace whereby it was possible for all men to be saved iâ— they would and God might justly save them if they performed the Terms of that Law He saith Indeed Christ by the supereminency of his Person and Redemption did deserve that his Death should not be in vain and consequently that some men should have grace given them 〈◊〉 bring them to Heaven but that he did not preperly merit this Grace should be giv'n them So that this is a point of honour to Christ not oâ— Justice or Debt upon the account of his Sufferings that some should have Saving and Persevering Grace Yet he acknowledgeth that thâ— Father of his own good Pleasure giveth this gracâ— to those whom he hath chosen So then the gift oâ— Grace is the immediate Fruit of Election not of Justification But this Doctrine is as fallâ— as new Man's Sin deprived him of Grace as well as of Happiness and therefore if Christ purchased a right to Happiness for him which shall be proved in the next Chapter he purchased Grace also to attain it the Means are included in the end The loss of the denial oâ— Grace is the Effect of Sin therefore the restoring of Grace is the Effect of full Pardon and Justification The Scriptures teach that all sulness of Grace was given to Christ that we might receive of his Fulness Grace for Grace John 1.14 16. He hath power to send the Holy
such as the Law will accept perfect or imperfect it is all one if the Law doth require a positive righteousness then a man cannot be justified without it And do not they themselves teach that the Gospel requireth obedience to it as our Evangelical Righteousness therefore that cannot justifie us without a righteousness conformed to it self 'T is said further Legal Justification Ibidem i. e. according to the Law of Works requireth a fulfilling of that Law but not Evangelical Justification A fallacy in words Legal and Evangelical Justification differ not specie sed modo applicationis not in the righteousness which justifieth but in the manner of its application to us Had we fulfilled the Law of Works we had been legally justified by our own righteousness but now Christ hath fulfilled that Law for us we are still legally justified to wit by the righteousness of that Law yet in an Evangelical or Gracious manner that righteousness being not our own but Christ's imputed to us a◠shall be proved in the next Chapter and I beseech you when men are justified i. e. pardoned say you what Law is it that accuseth them for the violation whereof they are pardoned Is it not the Law of Works for i◠they break the Gospel Covenant there is n◠more sacrifice for sin There must then be a legal Justification by that Law of Works unless it be wholly waved and made void by the Gospel Object But the Law of Works is satisfied by the suffering of Christ and so pardon of all sins i◠a sufficient Justification from it Great Prop. p. 116. There needeth not Obedience and suffering too Answ The Law doth not directly and immediately require both obedience and suffering the penalty but obedience only is the end of the Law suffering the penalty is no fulfilling of or proper satisfaction to the Law but a recompence to Justice for the breach of the Law that so contempt may not lie upon it so that if the Law be broken it doth accidentally require both obedience and suffering of punishment the latter for the recompence of injured Justice that the Law may not be despised or broken impunè and the former as that which is the proper and natural end of the Law When a man suffereth the penalty of any Law the Law is so far satisfied that it can exact no farther punishment but doth he therefore deserve the rewards of the Law as if he had obeyed it He is indeed restored to his former State i. e. punishment ceaseth and he is admitted to the priviledge of other men to live in obedience to the Law for the future but he hath not the reward of obedience nor is accounted for his suffering to be upon the same terms with the obedient In like manner our Lord Christ by suffering the penalties of the Law did recompence the injured Honour and Justice of God and of the Law so that it could require no more punishment of him or of those that believe in him but he did not therefore deserve the rewards of the Law they were procured by his obedience to it It is not true of the Law of God that it requireth either to be obeyed or that the penalty should be endured for so men should obey and fulfill the Law in a sort by going to hell for breaking it The Law promised life only to obedience not to the suffering of death therefore Christ by suffering of death did fulfill what the Law required but accidentally and secondarily by reason of sin but by obeying the Law he fulfilled the primary and immediate end of the Law and so merited the promised reward There must therefore be a righteousness of conformity to the Law whereby must be procured a right to life as well as a suffering of the penalty whereby a stop is put to further punishment which is all that meer pardon of sin amounteth to Upon these grounds I take leave to describe Justification an Act whereby God doth acquit and accept a Sinner as righteous unto life eternal for the righteousness of Christ whereby he hath fulfilled the precept and suffered the penalty of the Law Justification actively taken is Gods Act acquitting or declaring a man righteous passively taken it is a mans state or relation to that Act of God being declared and accepted as righteous of which as it supposeth a change from a former state of guilt and condemnation the terminus a quo or state from which he is tranflated is a state of Sin and wrath the terminus ad quem is a state of absolution or being righteous before God pardon of sin or stop of punishment is included in it or doth immediately result from it so that Justification is one single Act and not several concurring to make it up though divers things are given or granted by it either immediately or consequentially as flowing from the immediate effect or benefit of it The main Argument against this Doctrine is That the Scripture doth frequently describe Justification by pardon and forgiveness as if they were aequipollent terms But the reason of this is First Because men being sensible of sin and misery do first look after pardon and therefore pardon is promised as that which will be most welcome and comfortable to them and also because men should be fensible of their own guilt and in capacity of making satisfaction to God and therefore that the righteousness by which they must be justified is not their own but Christs nor contrived or provided by them but by God himself for them What then Justification is called pardon of sin ergò it is nothing else but Pardon This is no consequence Object But the Apostle Rom. 4. fully describeth Justification the nature of it and he saith v. 6 7. That Blessedness cometh by forgiving Justif Evang p. 27. covering not imputing sin Answ But he saith also Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness Now in the place here quoted Gen. 15.6 and the context there is a promise of positive Blessing made to Abraham and he believed that promise and this was accounted to him for righteousness Shall we say Abraham believed and this was accounted for pardon of sin There is a positive righteousness intimated as well as a positive act whereby it was procur'd and appli'd and positive promises granted thereupon David indeed under great horrors for his sin comforts himself most with apprehensions of forgiveness as most suitable to his case but what good will the fullest pardon imaginable do a man without a certain right to eternal life and a promise of effectual Grace to bring him to it will he not sin again and so lose the benefit of his former pardon Object But a Sinner is capable of no other righteousness but that of forgiveness Answ What then must become of the Evangelical Righteousness of Faith and Works which they contend for A Sinner can have no other righteousness but
if that be imputed then Christs Righteousness is imputed also to them that believe Moreover if Adams Sin be not imputed to us then are we not guilty of the breach of the First Covenant â—en we were never obliged to yield perfect obedience nor is the want of it properly a â—â— in us and so men are born in such a forworn and lost state as the Scripture prescribes â—â—em to be The reason of the consequence is â—e were never under the first Covenant in â—r own persons it was made with Adam â—t with us and if his breach of it be not impted to us it must follow that the Covenant is intended for him only not for his Posteriâ—â— his Obedience should not have profited them to Justification as well as his Disobedience not hurt them to condemnation and â—â—s the Covenant of Works is wholly made and by Adams Fall nor was it ever renewed a Covenant of Life Moreover Mr. Baxter's Preface to the Treat of the 2 Covenants p. 2 3. our Opposites teach that the Covenant of Grace was â—â—de with all Mankind immediately after 〈◊〉 Fall they had all new Terms of Life given â—â—m in Christ If then Adams Sin be not imâ—â—ed to his Posterity they have indeed lost â—â—se blessed Priviledges which Adam sinned â—â—ay and so could not convey to them but â—â—y were not at all oblig'd to the Covenant of â—â—fect obedience but were all immediately in under the Covenant of Grace and are â—â—y to answer for their neglect of and disobedience to that Thus much for the first argument from the Imputation of Adam's Argument 2. Christ was made subject to Bradshaw de Just c. 18. and fulfilled the Law to which Man was subject and the which Man had broken Ergò his Obedience of Righteousness is imputed to us For he was not made subject to that Law for his own saâ—â— but for ours nor did he fulfill it for himself but for us he fulfilled it not simply as a general Law of Obedience but as the Law give to Man and broken by him therefore what he did in this case was done in Mans stead aâ—â— to be imputed to him for his Righteousness that the Curse of the Law might be remove and the Blessing of the Law might descend up on Mankind Sermon of the Salvation of Mankind Vid. Homilies of the Church of England Christ is the Righteousness of all them that 〈◊〉 truely believe in him He for them paid the Ransom by his Death He for them fulfilled 〈◊〉 Law in his Life So that now in him and 〈◊〉 him every true Christian Man may be called Fulfiller of the Law forasmuch as that which their Infirmities lacked Christs Justice has supplied But this consequence will not 〈◊〉 denied it is the Antecedent that must be proved viz. That Christ fulfill'd the Law whâ—â— was given to and broken by Man and that was made Subject to that Law For to avâ—â— this Argument our Authors have devised new Notion That Christ fulfilled not the Law as given to Man knowing that then his Righteousness must be imputed to Man but the teach that Christ fulfilled only a particular Law given to himself which they call the Law of a Mediator which consisteth so much of the Law given to Mankind in general and of so much of the Jewish Law as the Father thought fit to appoint him to perform and also of some particular precepts peculiar to Christ alone wherein Men were not concern'd which Law if Christ would fulfill Men should have a New Covenant of Life given them But they could not be justified by his fulfilling this Law because it contained not all things to which they were obliged and moreover did contain some things peculiar to Christ in which Men were not concerned It must therefore be proved That Christ was oblig'd to and did fulfill the Law of perfect Obedience given to Men and the Jewish Law which concerned that Nation It is sometimes said by our Opposites That Christ is our Legal Righteousness that Righteousness which the Law of Works required of us If so then he must have fulfill'd and satisfied that Law but this hath been touched before I argue therefore Christ was subject to the Law of Mankind else he needed not to have been Man The only reason why Christ was made Man is that the same Nature that sinned might also satisfie for Sin it must therefore be by fulfilling that Law which concerned Humane Nature For if any other way of satisfaction might be admitted why might it not be accepted from a Person of another Nature that was not Man If there was no necessity that the Law broken by Man should be fulfilled but that it was sufficient that something should be done to repair God's Honour some other way though his Law was not properly satisfied Why might it not have been enough if Christ as God only without assuming any created Nature would have undertaken to conquer the Devils to bring all Mankind to Repentance to accept once of Pardon and to restore them to perfect Obedience again This would have repaired the Honour of God and of the Law as much or more than the procuring a New Covenant of Salvation for Sinners which for any thing Christ did merit might have never took effect in any Why might not this have served without his taking Mans Nature upon him Moreover the Angels are obliged by the same general Law of Love to God and their Fellow creatures that Men are though the particular Wages of exercising it be different If then it were enough that Christ fulfill'd some Generals of the Law without being obliged to all the Particulars that concerned Men why might it not have sufficed him to have taken the Nature of Angels and not to have come down into this miserable World for in that he might have performed the Law of a Mediator However à fortiori he needed not to have been the Son of Adam born of a Woman and in the same condition with other men or to have taken upon him the Form of a Servant Phil. 2.7 He might have been immediately created as Adam was and not have derived his Nature from him if it were not that he must be subject to the same Law which Adam had broken It is said Gal. 4.4 That God sent forth his Son made of a Woman made under the Law to redeem them that were under the Law that we might receive the Adoption of Sons If Christ could not redeem the Jews without being born a Jew subject to their Law then neither could he redeem the Sons of Adam in general without being himself the Son of Adam subject to the same Law that he was I argue also from the Nature of the Law The End of the Law was Obedience and for failure that the Penalty of it should be suffered and this was the absolute establisht Decree or Sanction of God It must therefore be fulfilled by some one it was not done by Men therefore
it must be by Christ To say that some of it was fulfilled and some Honour done to it by the Mediatorial Law is of small moment for this did not fulfill it or satisfie the End of it The Law as a Law and as a Covenant betwixt God and Man was clearly laid aside if Christ fulfill'd it not and all Mankind after the Fall were by him brought under a Covenant of Grace and so the Law is made void by Faith contrary to the Apostle Rom. 3.31 Our Saviour also testified of himself Mat. 5.17 That he came not to destroy but to fulfill the Law This was the End of his coming into the World and his fulfilling was his obeying performing the Law as he had said before Mat. 3.15 It becometh us to fulfill all Righteousness Therefore he was Baptized and therefore much more ought he to observe the Law which was of ancienter Institution This is confirmed by the Reason he giveth for his fulfilling the Law Mat. 5.18 viz. That not one Jota or Tittle of the Law should pass away till all was fulfilled though Heaven and Earth might pass away The Sanction of the Law is more stable than the Ordinances of Heaven and Earth and must attain its End Therefore every Child of Adam must be subject to it Our Saviour adds v. 19 20. That he was so far from relaxing of the Law that on the contrary he affirmed whosoever should break the least Commands and teach others so should be shut out of Heaven Nay that he required a stricter Observation of it than the Scribes and Pharisees for all their pretended severities in some things Now that all this was meant of the Law as given by Moses chiefly of the Moral Law is manifest by his proceeding to expound and vindicate the Commandments in his following Discourse v. 21. to the end from the slight Comments of their present Teachers In like manner when it is said Christ is the End of the Law for Righteousness to all them that believe Rom. 10.4 It is meant of the Law of Moses for it is immediately added v. 5. Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law that the Man that doth them shall live in them Now Christ is the End of the Law not simply by waving it and disannulling its Obligation for then the Law should not have its End nor be unchangeable as he had told us it was but He is the End of it for righteousness to them that believe by fulfilling it in his own person for them so that their Righteousness or Justification may not depend upon their own Obedience to it Again Christ redeemed us from the Curse of the Law Gal. 3.13 being made a Curse for us How was Christ made a Curse but by bearing the Penalty of the Law for Sin For the Curse is not only the Matter of Punishment the evil inflicted but formal punishment viz. Evil inflicted for Sin for the satisfaction of Justice and the violated Law Now how came this Curse to fall upon Christ Even by the Law it self adjudging him to it For thus the Apostle argueth v. 10. They that are of the Works of the Law under the power of it are under the Curse And v. 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law by being made a Curse for us This is the Argument Men cannot be justified by the Law for that curseth all that are under it but we shall be justified by Faith in Christ v. 12. because he bore the Curse of the Law for us He must therefore be under the Law as we were And it is further proved because it is written i. e. the Law saith Cursed is every one that hangeth on a Tree Deut. 21.23 What is this to the Death of Christ if he were not under the Law And if he were under the Jewish Law which pronounced the Death of the Cross accursed in special manner then by the same reason he was under the Law of Adam which pronounced Death in general as a Curse for Sin Lastly If the Sufferings of Christ were not inflicted by virtue of the Law of Works then they were not Penal nor had they any thing of God's wrath in them for it was that Law only that threatned a Curse They were only Prudential viz. that something should be suffered which that Law threatned that so it might decently be laid aside Now if Christ were subject to the Law as to the Curse he was also subject to the Precept and so his Obedience was in our stead and therefore to be imputed to us for our Justification We were not obliged to the Law of a Mediator Christ fulfilled not that in our stead if then he did and suffered any thing in our stead it was in obedience to our Law and so to be placed to our Account CHAP. III. More Arguments to prove the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us Argument 3. THirdly I argue from those Scriptures which call Christ our Righteousness and say we have Righteousness in him He is not our Righteousness inherently his Righteousness is not implanted in us therefore it is ours by imputation or not at all Isai 45.24 25. Surely shall one say in the Lord have I Righteousness and Strength This is a Prophesie of Christ and Salvation by him which is to be brought about by this means viz. having Righteousness and Strength in him If we translate it as some do In the Lord there is Righteousness and Strength the sence is the same but our Translation agrees best with the following Verse Now how have we strength in Christ Surely he communicates grace and life to us and doth not only procure and grant a Covenant of Grace he must likewise communicate Righteousness to us and that his own not a Righteousness wrought in us or else it is not distinct from grace or strength mentioned in the Text which the next words also confirm In the Lord shall all the Seed of Israel be justified and shall glory It is a justifying Righteousness distinct from Grace or Strength infused into us which we have in Christ and this cannot be ours but by Imputation Jeremiah 23.5 6. This is the Name whereby Israel shall call him The Lord our Righteousness Who this is the former words shew sc the Righteous Branch to be raised up to David i. e. Christ as also the Reason of this Name because in his days his People shall be saved and chiefly with a Spiritual Salvation this is because he is Jehovah our Righteousness Our Salvation springs primarily from hence That we are made righteous or justified before God and this righteousness comes from Christ As God is our Wisdom our Strength c. because he is the Author of it in us and to us as also our Guide and Protector so Christ is our righteousness i e. the Author of righteousness to us and that he will justifie us by it Object Some object against this That in chap. 33. v. 15 16. Jerusalem the Church seems
his Obedience or Disobedience must be imputed to them and be Cause â—f their life or death even the immediate Cause Object Some say this Obedience of Christ is only is Sufferings according as he is said to be obedient to the death Phil. 2.6 and to have â—â—me to do the Will of God in offering up his â—wn Body Heb. 10. v. 6. to the 11th Answ 1. This maketh nothing against our main posiâ—â—on viz. That the Righteousness of Christ is â—â—puted to us and we justified by it For â—hether it be his Death only or his Life and â—eath both for which we are accepted and â—stified it is all one in this Question so long 〈◊〉 imputation of that Righteousness to us be â—e way whereby it justifies us And if they â—ean that his Sufferings are his only obedience here mentioned to make us righteous by â—â—ocuring a Covenant of Grace to be fulfilled â—â— us then they might as well have said His â—â—tive Obedience without his Sufferings doth â—â—ake us righteous For the Text leads to â—â—e no more than the other And Mr. Trueâ—â—an when he had disputed against the Imputation of Christs Active Obedience and for the Passive only and yet that must be only to procure a Law of Grace afterwards fairly grants That in this sence viz. of procuring the Covenant of Grace both Active and Passive may be said to be imputed to us 2ly But the words will not bear this sence Adam's Actual disobedience made us formally Sinners and guilty of death So the Obedience i. e. the Sufferings of Christ procureth right to life for us Thus they must run but when is the Parallel The Sufferings of Christ can not be said to make us righteous formally aâ— this Author tells Sufferings are not righteousness much less suffering the Penaltys oâ— the Law for the breach of it but Christ suffered the Curse of the Law for our sin against it his Sufferings delivered us from the Curse oâ— the Law it having been born by him but could not make us righteous according to thâ— Law that we should obtain the reward 〈◊〉 Life It is true Christ was obedient in his Sufferings and did the Will of his Father in offering himself if they had not been voluntary and obediential they could not have been meritorious but that his Sufferings as suffering of the Penalty of the Law are his only Obedience that justifies us or that he performeâ— no other obedience for us doth not folloâ— at all 1 Cor. 1.30 Christ is made unto us of God Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption that he that glorieth may glory in the Lord. Here is exprest that God hath made Christ our righteousness sc by giving him to satisfie the Law for us and accepting us for his righteousness And here we may observe that the Apostle purposely proveth against the despisers of Christ the Greeks who boasted of their own Wisdom and the Jews who trusted in their own Works v. 22 23. that Believers have all in Christ v. 24. and that they are in themselves weak foolish nothing v. 25.28 29. all their excellency is in and from Christ and therefore their righteousness and Justification as well as their Sanstification Farther observe that Righteousness here is distinguished from Wisdom and Sanctification and therefore must mean that Christ is our justifying Righteousness or that we are justified by Christ as our righteousness â—f we were to be justified by our habitual and â—ctual holiness as the Condition of the Gospel â—hen righteousness and sanctification are all â—ne Lastly The Apostle saith we have all these â—n Christ that he that glorieth may glory in the Lord We may glory in Christ in that we â—ave all grace from him but how shall we glory in him as to our Justification if we be not justified by his Righteousness but by our own though wrought by the help of his grace even as Adam if he had kept the Law of Works would have been justified by his own righteousness and might have gloried in himself that he had done his duty though it was by the power of the grace and assistance of God 2 Cor. 5.21 Christ was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him Here righteousness by a usual Hebraism is put for righteous we are made the righteous of God i. e. before God or acceptable with him in Christ by or through Christ as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Dative case is often used and how are we made righteous by Christ even by his being made sin for us as he satisfied for our sin so by that satisfaction are we made righteous as he that knew no sin was sacrificed punished for our sins so we that had no righteousness are made righteous by him and this must be by imputation Thus B Vsher out of Claud. and Sedul in locum That this righteousness therefore is not ours nor in us but in Christ in whom we are considered as Members in the Head Non nostra non in nobis sed in Christo quasi Membra in Capite Rel. Just p. 15. Object Against these two Scriptures it is excepted that in the former it is only said that Christ is made our righteousness Hotchkis p. 191. not that his obedience is imputed to us for righteousness Answ Christ cannot be made our Righteousness any other way than by imputing his perfect Obedience to us and therefore the Scripture in saying the one in words sayeth the other also in sence Object To the latter place 't is said That it saith only that we are made righteous by Christ being made a Sin Offering for us not by imputing his Obedience to us Answ If Christ was made a Sacrifice for our Sins then our Sins were so imputed to him as that he was punished for them and if this make us righteous then his bearing the Punishment of Sin is imputed to us and so his Righteousness is imputed Phil. 3.8 9. That I may win Christ and be found in him not having my own Righteousness which is of the Law but that which is through the Faith of Christ the Righteousness which is of God by Faith The Apostle in this place exhorteth to rejoyce in the Lord i. e. Christ v. 1. and to beware of Judaising Christians who joyned the Works of the Law with Christ v. 2. saying That true Believers are the true Circumcision the true people of God even they who rejoyce in Christ and have no confidence in the Flesh i. e. their own Works v. 3. And then reckoning up what he had to alledge for himself from the observation of the Ceremonial and Moral Law v. 4 5 6. he saith That he counted all this loss for Christ v. 7. and not only what might be alledged from observing the Law but whatever else might be thought excellent or a ground of self-confidence and rejoycing v. 8. Yea doubtless and I count all things but loss for the
we are accounted to have done personally what he did then our being justified by his Works is all one as if we were justified by our own For we do not maintain that Believers are accounted to have wrought what Christ did but only that it was accounted to have been wrought for them and yet it is not true that upon supposition that they are accounted to have wrought in Christ that it is all one as if they had wrought it themselves For still they did not obey the Law but another for them nor did the Law account it self to have been fulfilled by them but the Law-maker accepted anothers Obedience for them and so discharged and rewardeth them in the right of that Obedient Person But this manner of expression holdeth only when the Law alloweth a Delegate or Substitute and the persons concern'd do chuse and give him his Authority and Instructions to act in their name which is not in our case Object It is further objected If our Sins be imputed to Christ so that his Righteousness should be properly imputed to us then would they corrupt his person and he must be accounted a Sinner guilty of all that we have done Answ Our Sins are imputed to Christ not as if he should be accounted the Subject of our evil Nature and Habits or the Author of our Commissions or Omissions but that he should bear the Punishment of them and so satisfie the Law which was broken by us This doth not corrupt his Person or make him morally a Sinner If a Surety pay a Debt for another it maketh him not guilty of the imprudence dishonesty or ill-husbandry whereby the debt was contracted but he having undertaken to satisfie for the Debt the Law requireth payment of him as if he were the Debtor and so imputeth the Debt to him If an innocent person be accepted by the Law-giver to die for an Offender it maketh not him an Offender though he be punished in the Offenders room and the offence as to the Punishment be imputed to him Yet we may say That legally Christ was made a Sinner and his Person corrupted in that he having undertaken to satisfie the Law for Sin who had not broken it in his own person nor was obliged to such satisfaction before doth now become a Debtor to the Law to suffer the Penalty of it having interposed himself betwixt the Law and the Persons that had offended And thus saith Dr. Twiss â— vind Grot. lib. 1. sect 26. p. 211. Col. 1. Look on what manner Christ bore our sins on the Cross in the same manner may our Sins be said to have been in him or upon him and we Sinners to have been in him as he bore our person or suffered the punishment of our Sins Negari non potest Christum tulisse sive gestasse peccata nostra in ligno ergò qua ratione gestavit peccata nostra eadem ratione peccata nostra illi inerant aut saltem incumbebant atque eadem ratione nos peccatores illi incubuimus idque nondum habita à nobis posthumis in ipsum fidei decimus omnes redimendos fuisse in Christo non quidem â—er fidem insitos sed quatenus dari dicuntur ipsi à patre quatenus ipsorum personam sustinuit Bellarmin to add strength to this Objection de Just. lib. 2. ch 7. saith If our sins be imputed to Christ then must be not only be counted a Blasphemer Murderer c. but also a Child of the Devil seeing those for whom he died were Children of the Devil Answ This is but in terrorem to affright us with hard words A Child of the Devil is taken two ways First by Imitation for one that is like him and doth imitate his Nature and his Actions So the Jews are said to be of their father the Devil because they do his Works John 8.44 And Elymas a Child of the Deâ—il as being very subtile and obstinate in perâ—erting the right ways of God Acts 13. Thus all men by nature are the Children of the Devil but Christ was not nor doth it follow That because our sins were laid upon him â—â— bear the punishment of them he was theâ— fore the Child of the Devil i.e. like him â—â— Nature and Disposition The Imputation â—â— our Sins did not alter Christ's Nature though it did alter the State and Relation of his Person for a time making him obnoxious to the Law as if he had been an Offender Secondly A Child of the Devil may meaâ—â— one that is delivered to the Power of Sataâ—â— as the Executioner of God's Wrath he hâ—â—ving the power of Death Heb. 2.14 〈◊〉 Children of wrath are those that are born oâ—â— noxious to wrath and thus though the teâ—â—â— is hard and irreverent we grant the thing viâ— That Christ suffering for sin was also made oâ—â— noxious and subject to the Power of the Devil both in his Temptations and in his last Sufferings of which he said to the Jews This â—â— your hour and the power of darkness Luke 2â—â— 53. of the Prince of darkness And again The Prince of this World cometh and findâ—â— nothing in me John 14.30 This is so far froâ—â— making against us that it confirmeth our Doctrine The Devil is God's Executioner 〈◊〉 inflict punishment for sin but Christ the innocent and perfect Son of God was delivered inâ—â— the Power of the Devil for a time to be vered and troubled by him therefore it was 〈◊〉 the Punishment of our Sin Object These Authors unanimously complain that â—he Scripture no where saith in express words That Christ's Righteousness is imputed to â—s Answ All Scholars know that this is the first Caâ—il of Innovators to weaken the Faith of the â—nwary For themselves grant this concludeth â—ot It is not read expresly in Scripture thereâ—â—re it is not the Doctrine of the Scriptures say themselves grant it as in express terms 〈◊〉 other Questions so by their Practice in the â—resent Controversie They having new mouled Divinity in this last Age and put it into â—â—ew terms and unknown both to Scripture â—â—d Antiquity They that complain of us for â—sisting upon the term of Imputation of Christs â—ighteousness as not contained expresly in â—cripture ought in all justice and prudence to â—â—ve shewed us first the Chapters and Verses â—here their Terms of condition causa sine qua â—â—n first and second Justification remediaing Law a Law of Grace and the like are 〈◊〉 be found Moreover they know that Imâ—â—tation of Righteousness is a Scripture Term â—â—n times used in the 4th to the Romans and â—â—at Righteousness is said to be imputed without Works to him that worketh not but beâ—â—eveth on him that justifieth the ungodly v. 4. â—herefore this Righteousness cannot be a man's â—wn Obedience and also that Christ is said Scripture to be our Righteousness made of â—â—od Righteousness to us and we made the Righteousness of God in him which are equivalent
in it for his Glory and their good CHAP. V. The adverse Opinion propounded and examined Pelagius and Arminius the Authors of it OF all that ever troubled the Church with their Errours the Pelagians and their â—ate Off-spring the Arminians have most perplext it with their Opinions partly by their importunity reviving them and urging them â—afresh from time to time so that the Church hath had little quiet from them for the last twelve hundred years though their Opinions have been most frequently and most fairly examined and unanimously refuted above any Errours whatsoever and that both by particular Writers of all Ages and also many Syâ—ods greater and smaller But principally by their dishonest Art of misrepresenting the Orthodox Doctrine to perswade the Simple that they oppose particular mens Sentiments not the Doctrine of the Church and by covering their own Opinions propounding them plausibly and ambiguously that the Falshood may â—ot be easily discern'd that at once they may â—nsinuate with the Simple and have retreats â—o avoid the Arguments of the Learned wherein they do like those that sculk in Woods and Thickets whom it is as hard to find out as it â—s to conquer It was a sit Epithite that Hieâ—om gave Pelagius Coluber ille Britannus that British Snake For he had his many windings and foldings and for his advantage could cast his Skin to When he was taxed to deny Grace ascribing all to mans free Will he protested to ascribe all to Grace and yet meant thereby nothing but Nature or Free Will which he called Grace because it was the Gift of God Vossius Hist Pelag lib. 1. pars 1. Joh. Latius Hist Pelag lib. 1. par 1. and when all his Opinions were summed up and objected to him in the Synod of Diospolis or Lydda he openly and severally renounct them all with Anathemas and all by equivocal words keeping the same meaning The like did his Scholar Caelestius when called to an account before the Bishops of Rome and Africa Fostus and Cassianus the Semipelagian Leaders trod in their steps as the same Authors out of Augustin and Prosper have shewed Arminius and his Followers have not come behind them in this Art The Preface to the Synod of Dort and Lubertus sufficiently insorm us how Arminius strove to cover his Opinions contra Bersium till he might by secret insinuations gain a party to stand on his defence When he was suspected of novelty by the Presbytery of Amsterdam Sancté protestatusest c. he solemnly profest that he knew no man in the Low-Countries that had a mind to bring in Innovations in Religion His Disciples were of the same temper which they shewed both in the Synod and in their own Writing By the same Art their Followers amongst us at this day create us much trouble especially in this point of Justification by Christ's Righteousness imputed about which they had their Doctrine from Arminius Popular Insinuations is the best of their Rhetorick Generals Equivocation and Tergiversation is the greatest part of their Logick which we shall make now to appear by enquiring what is their Opinion concerning the Effect of Christs death and obedience who deny us to be properly justified by it or it to be imputed to us They do agree to retain the Term of Imputing Christ's Righteousness Just Evang p. 51. The notion of Imputation in general saith one of them is no way to be opposed it being impossible that we should receive benefit by and the effects of what another doth without some kind of Imputation But thus Socinus will say What Christ did was imputed to us i. e. it was nostro bono for our good and benefit Mr. Baxter chargeth Dr. Tully with the breach of all that is Sacred Answ to Dr. Tully p. 18 172. for saying that he denyeth all Imputation of Christs Righteousness and telleth us that he doth not only hold it in some sence but in a larger sence than many do viz. That not only his Passive Obedience is imputed to us but his Active also yea his Habitual and Divine Righteousness so far as influential to give merit to his Obedience and yet all this is but words For whosoever asserteth the infinite value of the death of Christ must and doth acknowledge the concurrence of his Active Habitual Papaeus and Divine Righteousness to make his death an infinite Prize which it could not be unless the person dying were God of a perfect holy Nature and of perfect holy Life till the time of his death But he that useth a common word as this of Imputation is and in that Question and Matter to which it belongeth properly and useth it in a sence quite different from the common acception and state of the Question doth but equivocate in retaining that Term. Though Protestants have differed about the Righteousness of Christ imputed whether it be the Passive only or the Active also yet till of late there hath been no question among them about the meaning of the term Imputation all understanding thereby that we were justified and accepted to Life Eternal for the Righteousness of Christ intended and wrought for us But it is more strange that he who is so earnest to be accounted a maintainer of Imputation should no better defend himself from the accusation of denying it For when a few lines would have expressed any mans meaning in this point who was willing to be understood he gives us many distinctions divisions chap. 2. p. 48 c. and sub-divisions and fifty Propositions to explain in what sence he holdeth Christ's Righteousness imputed and in what not and yet confesseth after all these that he doubteth he hath not made his meaning plain enough to those who are not exercised in the Controversie who had most need of his Explication and therefore addeth more distinctions and propositions to make his meaning plainer chap. 3. p. 79. which is as well performed as if a man endeavouring to wash an Aethiopian white should first plunge him into a River of Water and afterwards into a Vessel of Ink He goes â—n with the same Art and Chap. 4. p. â—9 instead of opposing the Drs. sence of Imputation and deâ—ending his own he thrusts together all the â—ences of Imputation which he denieth both â—he sound and the unsound and then disputes against Imputation with 43 Reasons but against what or in what sence he would not have â—he People but only his Friends to understand 〈◊〉 this be reconciling to devize new terms and â—ew questions if confounding things be clearing of them if hiding ones meaning with mulâ—itudes of words be to explain onesself then â—his Author hath acquitted himself well I will â—dd another instance of his Explications I did assert that Christ's Righteousness even habiâ—ual Appeal to the Light p. 1. active and passive exalted by his Divine â—ighteousness being the fulfilling of his Law and Covenant of Mediation hath perfectly meâ—ited Reconciliation Pardon Adoption
it self doth justifie us or make us accepted and that the righteousness which is imputed to us whereby we are justified is not Obedience to the Law but something else which God for Christ's sake graciously accepteth to our Justification Declar. sentent oper p. 102. What this is he expresseth having said that Christ's Righteousness is the onely meritorious cause of Pardon Statuo hoc censeo benè propriè dici fidem homini credenti in justitiam ex gratia imputari quatenùs Deus Jesum Christum filium suum proposuit tribunal gratiae sive propitiationem per fidem in sanguine ipsius h. e. Faith is imputed to us for righteousness in as much as God hath made Christ the Tribunal of Grace which is all one as to say with ours Christ as a King and Judge doth justifie us by and for believing in him And again in answer to the 26th Article objected to him he contendeth That though Faith may be said to concur as an Instrument to Justification yet the Act of Faith doth justifie as it is graciously accepted for our Righteousness Apprehensio Christi est proprior quam instrumentum apprehendens vel quo objectum apprehenditur Apprehensio autem est actio itaque fides non quà instrumentum sed quà actio imputatur in justitiam quanquam propter illum quem apprehendit Bertius in his Epistles explaineth this that Faith is required by the Gospel instead of perfect Obedience to the Law of Works contra Lubbert and so justifyeth us that should have done as the fulfilling of the Command of God with this difference That perfect Obedience needed no Pardon and Grace but Faith per gratiosam accepti lationem of God's Gracious condescension is accepted as a Man's Righteousness he being pleas'd to require no more of him because of his inability to keep the Law so then Christ's Righteousness hath purchased that we should be justified by our Faith but it self doth not justifie us But do the Arminians by Faith mean only the apprehending or trusting in Christ's Righteousness in opposition to or contradistinction from all other Graces and Works in the matter of Justification Nothing less By Faith they mean Obedience to the whole Gospel and all good Works they say are intended in Faith that Faith and Repentance are all one though sometimes they are separated and spoken of apart for clearness sake Thus Hornbeck proposeth their Opinion Sum. Contro lib. 8. Quest 20. Num coram Deo justificemur non fide apprehendendo Christi justitiam quae sola nobis imputetur in peccatorum remissionem â—sed fide ut est actus opus nostrum includens in se obedientiam operum Evangelicorum propter quam quamvis non ex ejus dignitate merito justificemur i. e. That we are not justified by Faith as it apprehendeth the Righteousness of Christ but as it is an Act or Work of ours including Obedience to all the Commands of the Gospel Harm Remonstr Socin Art 12 17. Joh. Peltius hath largely shewed That by Faith the Remonstrants mean Obedience to the whole Gospel and that this is it by which they would have us justified Take 2 or 3 citations Art 12. Parag. 6. p. 157. ex Remonstr confes cap. 10. Hac ratione considerata fides totam hominis conversionem Evangelio praescriptam ambitu suo continet Faith comprehends man's whole Conversion Episcop disput 22. Fides illa quae credenti imputari dicitur in justitiam bona opera non tantum non tollat sed ea ipsa aut eorum saltem faciendorum propositum natura sua in se contineat comprehendat i.e. Faith which is imputed for righteousness doth not exclude Works but containeth them or at least a purpose of doing them Joannes Geister Confess Bona opera gratia non pugnant inter sese sub fide etiam bona opera comprehenduntur i.e. Grace and Works are not opposite and Faith comprehends Works Yea this Man was so ingenuous as to tell us that we do not contend with the Papists whether we be at all justified by Works in this the Remonstrants and Papists are agreed the question only is By what Works we must be justified Quando cum Papistis disputatur non est inquirendum an per bona opera justificemur sed per quae opera He would only exclude Popish superstitious Works as our Authors would have The Apostle Paul only excludes Jewish Works or Ceremonial Observations from our Justification Would you have the matter yet plainer Adolph Venator will put it out of question Justificamúrne etiam ex operibus Certè ita i.e. Are we justified by works also Yes verily And the Remonstrants in their Apology boldly affirm ex operibus hominem justificari istud non tantum non est absurdum sed verissimum esse totidem verbis pronuntiat Apostolus Jacob. 2. Nec evadent hunc ictum censores cùm hunc locum pro suo more de declaratione justificationis intelligendum esse dicunt i.e. It is so far from being absurd that a man is justified by works that it is most true and the express words of the Apostle James which cannot be evaded by interpreting them of declarative Justification Thus we see that the Arminians meant the same thing when they said the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere the Act and Work of Faith it self doth justifie us that our late Authors do when they ascribe Justification to Faith and Obedience both agree that Faith in its usual acceptation and full latitude comprehendeth assent and obedience to the whole Gospel and that thus it justifies and no other way and in this how the Remonstrants do conspire with the Socinians Peltius doth clearly demonstrate ut supra which also the Arminians do not deny as in their Apology Si quis dicat hanc sententiam Quod Fides quà tenus viva est justificat esse ipsissimam Socini sententiam is dato quod id verum sit necesse est ut fateatur tandem Socinum hac in parte conspirare cum reformatis Ecclesiis quoad substantiam ipsam i.e. If any man say that this is Socinus's Doctrine he must confess that Socinus doth so far agree with the Reformed Churches in substance And this also seemeth to have been the true sence of Pelagius vid. Vos Hist Pelag lib. 3. par 1. viz. That men are justified and saved by their acknowledging and obeying the Gospel for as much as he taught that under the Gospel men were saved by obeying it as the Jews were by observing the Law of Moses and those before Moses by observing the Law of Nature He also ascribeth to the Death of Christ nothing but the pardon of sins acceptance with God must depend upon mens own obedience Christ helping them in it by the instructions and encouragements of the Gospel and by his own Example and this doth not much differ from the Doctrine in hand Thus we see that the First Authors of these
Opinions were the Pelagians and Arminians and that herein the Socinians differ little from them Let us now inquire seeing we must not be justified by the very Righteousness of Christ's Obedience and Death to what End Christ died according to those men CHAP. VI. This Doctrine overthroweth Christ's Merit and Satisfaction THE Apostle Rom. 4.25 saith That Christ was delivered i. e. to death for our Offences and raised again for our Justification Whence our Protestants have taught that the proper and immediate Effect of the Death of Christ was the procuring or grant of Pardon Justification Life Eternal to all the Elect in the Purposes of God and that accordingly God in due time publisheth to them the Promises of the Gospel by which through the effectual operation of the Holy Ghost they are perswaded and drawn to Christ to believe and trust in him for Life and so they are made actual partakers of his Death and justified But these Authors denying us to be justified immediately and properly by the Righteousness of Christ must and do deny Justification to be the immediate and proper Effect of it and assign some other immediate End of Christ's Death What this is we shall shew and how it doth make void the Merit and Satisfaction of Christ I meet with two Opinions in this matter The First saith That the immediate and proper End of the Death of Christ was not to procure Reconciliation Justification c. for all or any man but to render God placable or reconcileable to man i. e. not that God upon the Death of Christ doth grant purpose or covenant the Justification and salvation of any man but that he may now justifie forgive and save men in what way and upon what terms he pleaseth Thus Mr. Trueman as before Gr. Prop. p. 86. The immediate Effect of Christ's Satisfaction is that God might be Just though he should pardon Sinners that he might pardon salvâ justitiâ not that he must pardon them come what will of it or be unjust And again The Justice of God as a flaming Sword obstructeth all treating with us upon any terms of Reconciliation whatsoever and this would have been an eternal Bar to all Influences and Effluxes of Favour and now this Justice being satisfied and this Bar and Obstacle removed Divine Grace and Benignity is left at liberty freely to act how it pleases and in what way and upon what terms and conditions it thinketh meet This he had from Arminius who having said That Justification Pardon or Reconciliation of any man is not immediately purchased by the Death of Christ He tells us The proper Effect of it is Reconciliatio Dei remissionis justificationis redemptionis apud Peum impetratio contra Perkins fol. 76. apud Twiss qua factum est ut Deus jam possit utpote justitiâ cui satisfactum est non obstante hominibus peccatoribus peccata remittere spiritum gratiae largiri i. e. the Reconciliation of God the obtaining of remission and redemption viz. That God may forgive and sanctifie men if he please without breach of Justice which is now satisfied Hereupon they go so far as to tell us That when Christ had done and suffered all which was appointed him God was free to save or not to save men or to save upon what terms or whom he pleased Thus Grevinch contra Ames fol. 8. Peltius p. 126. Postquam impetratio praestita ac peracta esset Deo jus suum integrum mansit pro arbitratu suo eam applicare vel non applicare nec applicatio finis impetrationis propria fuit sed jus potestas applicandi pro liberrimo suo placito quibus qualibus vellet i. e. After Christ's Purchase was made and finished God was perfectly free to apply â—t or not to apply it as he should please nor was the Application of it the proper End of Christ's Purchase but that God might have power to apply it to whom and how he should think fit Episcopius goes a step further and saith There could not be a deliberate purpose in God of saving men and opening a way of â—ise to them till Christ was sacrificed Disp 5. Ibid. Deliâ—eratum mortale salvandi salutisque ostium apetiendi propositum in Deo esse requirit priusquam sacrificium oblatum esset Now if this be the only proper Effect of the Obedience and Death of Christ that God who was before bound to condemn Sinners by the Law of Works violated by them might now think of a way to save them if he pleased and withal might chuse whether he would save them or propound terms of Life to them or not It followeth â—ence 1. That the Obedience of Christ was not meritorious nor did merit any thing of the father It is true there was an intrinsecal infinite value in Christ's Obedience by reason of the Divine Excellency of his Person and so there was an equality or proportion betwixt his Obedience and the Happiness which was to be procured for men But this is the Foundation of Merit not Actual Merit To merit is to deserve a Reward to do something whereupon a Reward is due so that Merit in its proper notion doth imply an actual Right or Obligation to a reward which Obligation ariseth from some Law Promise or Compact betwixt the Parties and he which doth not give that Reward according to Merit offendeth against some Law either of strict Justice or at least of Gratitude Generosity Kindness c. If then God was not bound by Covenant Promise or so much as deliberate Purpose to save men or to give them any terms of Life for all that Christ did or suffered then his Obedience merited nothing there was nothing due no reward proposed to him which he would challenge for God was still free to do what he pleased with men God they say would not have been unjust if he had not saved men though Christ died he was not then bound by the Law of Justice and he could not be bound by any other Law to remunerate the Death and Sufferings of his Son with such an happy Effect as man's Salvation Christ's Death say they was a refuseable payment for sin even when it was presented to the Father God might then have refused it and yet have been Just But it would not have been just to have denyed Jesus Christ that which he merited that would be due debt to him They say indeed Christ was the meritorious cause of our Justification But what did he merit Justification Then God was not free to deny it he must justifie those for whom Christ merited Justification or be unjust unless there can be a cause without an effect or causality The effect of merit is some reward deserved given for the sake of the merit the causality of merit is some compact Law or Promise whereby one is bound to reward that merit If then God was bound to nothing upon the Obedience of Christ but still had jus
integrum intire freedom to do what he pleased then Christ did as freely offer his Obedience to the Father to do what he pleased with it or upon it and certainly this is not to merit Thus Slatius declar apert Jesus Christus per passionem mortem suam nihil meritus est nec solvit pro nostris peccatis veluti vas pro debitore qui non est solvendo If they say that he took away the Covenant of Works and the necessity which God was under to condemn men and this might be the Effect of his Merit this is not true By this Opinion Christ did not take away the Covenant of Works nor the Sentence of it For then man must have been discharged without any further Covenant or Terms which is the thing they oppose They must say Christ offered himself to his Father in such manner that he might take occasion from it if he thought it justly to lay aside his Obligation to Punish by the Law of Works and proceed to terms of Grace but not that he must do either and so Christ merited nothing at all of his Father 2ly It followeth from this Doctrine That Christ's Obedience and Death were not properly satisfactory to Divine Justice The say That by Christ's Death God's Justice wâ— satisfied the obstacle of Justice was removed But how God's Justice in this case is nothing else but his Will or voluntary Obligation of himself to deal with men according to his Law To satisfie God's Justice is to satisfied his Law and to satisfie the Law is to fulfill 〈◊〉 by obedience to it or suffering the penalty 〈◊〉 it or both But they will not allow That Christ properly satisfied the Law of God Mr. Trueman saith Ibid. p. 89. His death was not proper Payment at all And if Christ did properly satisfie the Law then those for whom be did it must be hereupon discharged without any further conditions to be required or 〈◊〉 be performed of them But if Christ satisfied not the Law how could he satisfie Divine Justice which hath the Law for its Rule 〈◊〉 is tied to it It was of Divine prerogative or infinite Soveraignty that God did accept of Christ to fulfill the Law for man to whâ—â— it was given and who only was obliged by 〈◊〉 But when the Law-makers Prerogative 〈◊〉 accepted of the Surety and of his underâ—â—king for the Sinner then he himself was mâ—â—â— under the Law and satisfied Justice by satisfying the Law but if he satisfied not the Law then his Obedience was not performed as Obedience to the preceptive part of the Law or his sufferings indured as subjection to the unitive part of it and so neither of them â—ere exacted in a way of Justice or performed as submission to Justice either preceptive or punitive and so Justice could no â—ay be satisfied by his Obedience Moreover 〈◊〉 after all the Obedience of Christ God was â—ree to save or not to save men then he was â—ree either to give them new conditions of Life â—r to proceed to destroy them according to â—he sentence and curse of the Law of Works and is it possible that Gods Justice should have received real satisfaction from an infinite Price and Person and yet the Persons for whom satisfaction was made not be discharged but Justice still be left in full force to take vengeance if the Judge pleased Surely among men if Justice be satisfied either by the guilty person or by his Surety by the Judge's consent even Justice it self must acquit and discharge the party concerned The truth is By this Doctrine there was no satisfaction made to Divine Justice by Christ's Obedience and therefore the Sinner hath no discharge procured but the whole transaction of the business of Man's Redemption betwixt the Father and the Son was but a point of honour or a kind of generosity if we may so speak As if a young generous Prince should perform some noble and difficult exploits for the honour of his Father and the Father again should pardon some condemned Rebels and restore them to his Favour hereupon not as being any way obliged to it but as an act of a Noble and generous mind and to express some honour and requital to his Son Thus Slatiâ—â— Epist ad N. Martin An Christus pro nobâ— satisfecit Respondeo Nos negare i. e. Did Christ satisfie for sin We deny it And he gives five reasons the last whereof is The God could neither punish for sin nor require Faith as a condition in order to Salvation 3ly It followeth also that Christ's Death was no Ransom Redemption or Price for Sinners For if God after the death of Christ was still free to save or not to save Sinners then this death had properly bought or purchased nothing of him A ransom or price is not a valuable consideration only for a thing worth it or equal in value to it but it must also be paid with the Compact or Agreement that the thing bought or ransomed shall for that price become the Buyers and the property be transferred to him and no longer remain in the Seller If then Christ propetly bought us ransomed us c. then our Salvation became his de jure he had a right to it upon his death and it could no longer remain in the free power of God to grant or not to grant it But if there were no compact that life should be granted to Sinners if Christ would die for them if to give Life was still in God's absolute disposal then his obedience is no ransom nor was he a Redeemer he did not purchase his Church with his own Bloud nor was that Bloud a Price of their Redemption 4ly It followeth that Christ did not at all die for sin The Prophet saith He was wounded and bruised for our iniquities yea his Soul â—us made an Offering for Sin Isa 53.5 10. But if Christ did not take away sin and procure pardon but left God still free to pardon or â—ot then he did not die for sin sin was not â—he meritorious cause of his Death nor was â—he pardon of sin the immediate end of his Death but only to free the Father from the necessity of condemning Sinners Sin could be â—t the most but a remote occasion or causa â—ne qua non of the death of Christ if that had not been God would not have been bound up from the exercise of his natural goodness and â—o there would have been no occasion of Christ â—o die to remove that obstacle out of the way And yet it is not easie to imagine what these â—en mean by the obstacle of God's Justice which hindred his Mercy to Sinners which was removed by Christ's Obedience For â—oth they and their Friends the Arminians â—eem generally to grant That God of his infinite Sovereignty might have pardoned sin without satisfaction so that his absolute Justice 〈◊〉 as not an obstacle to his Mercy and for his Law and that Justice which respecteth it
end of justifying Sinners is to glorifie the Mercy of God without providing for the Honour of his Justice or Holiness both which seem better secur'd if Justification depend upon man's works as well as faith that he cannot be reconciled to God without a holy life as well as believing in Christ For thus God would appear not only merciful but just and holy also in that he will not pardon Sinners but in a way of holiness Answ 1. The Justice and Holiness of God were abundantly declared in exacting satisfaction to the Law of Jesus Christ his obedience and death did more declare and vindicate the Justice and Holiness of God infinitely more than the worthless imperfect obedience of men can do Hereby it was declared That God would not justifie Sinners but in a way of Holiness and perfect obedience to his Law There was perfect holiness and justice towards Christ though infinite Mercy towards Sinners Though man be justified by Faith not by Holiness yet he is not saved without Holiness it is that which qualifies him to receive the Kingdom and Faith also procureth and obtaineth his Holiness For we believe not in Christ for pardon only but for grace to bring us to glory Nor doth Christ purchase oâ— God promise pardon only but grace and power to obey him He gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purchase to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works Tit. 2.14 So then Faith trusting in God's mercy and free grace supposeth for its foundation the Obedience of Christ whereby God's Justice and Holiness hath been highly glorified and also obtaineth for men by and from Jesus Christ the Spirit of Adoption by whom they shall in due time be make conformable to the Image of his own Son and so more excellently holy than they would have been if they had not sinned Therefore in justifying a Sinner in the whole design Holiness and Justice are as much magnified as Mercy though Mercy only appear in the Act of justifying him without his own Righteousness This Doctrine seems to lead to Enthusiasm Object 2. If there be nothing for man to do that he may be justified but only to believe in God's Mercy and Christ's Righteousness then may they fancy themselves justified when they please and if this Faith must be wrought by God then must men onely expect till God will infuse Faith and so justifie them What use then of the preaching of the Gospel Answ For Fancy May not men as well fancy their obedience to be sincere and their works â—o be such as argue them good Christians and give them hopes to be saved yea do not most men thus think and profess If works must be tried by the Scriture so must faith also and â—hen this is no more liable to fancy than the â—ther Answ 2. For Enthusiasm which is nothing else but infusion or inspiration of something into the Mind we grant all the godly do injoy it in the working and increase of supernatural grace and so must our Opposites also unless they will turn down right â—elagians and say That all Grace is the meer work of Nature and Reason Thus Enthusiasm follows from the Doctrine of Supernatural Grace whether we be justified â—y Faith or Obedience But Enthusiasm is were taken in the worst sence and so the meaning must be The Doctrine of Justification by Faith doth necessarily lead to ungrounded unwarranted Enthusiasm Now this may be reduced to two sorts for matter and for manner for matter when men pretend Inpiration of God for things contrary to â—cripture which God hath given as a standing rule to the Worlds end for manner â—hen Inspirations are expected to exclude and â—upersede the use of reason Scripture and â—ll Divine Ordinances these are properly called Enthusiasts who pretend to these Now our Doctrine of Faith naturally leads to neither of these Not to the first in the matter for faith apprehends resteth only upon the Promises revealed in the Scripture out of that it seeâ—eth nothing for its foundation and that somâ— Antinomians have leaned to unwarranted Revelations and Fancies is no more a natural consequence of Justification by Faith thaâ— the Papists pretending Revelation for Image worship and many of their Will-worship do naturally flow from from the Doctrine 〈◊〉 Justification by Works Not the second 〈◊〉 the manner We are so far from teachingâ— That men must expect Faith to be wrought oâ— increased without the use of means appointed that on the contrary we say with thâ— Scripture That faith cometh by hearing anâ— hearing by the Word of God Rom. 10.15 Thaâ— God requires men to know understand anâ— meditate on his Word to use their Reason Conscience and Affections and while they thuâ— do he inspires faith into his Elect which enables them to do it effectually and savingly much like as our Saviour John 9. made Clay anointed the Eyes of the blind man with iâ— sent him to wash in the Pool of Siloam anâ— while he thus did by his divine Power he restored his Sight The same also may be said if we must be saved by our Obedience wâ— may sit still and expect God to work all 〈◊〉 us unless they will say we need no supernatural Grace or at least that it depended on and followeth the Will of man Enthusiasms therefore are the abuses not the just consequences of this Doctrine It is objected If we be justified by Faith only Object 3. then there need be no care of good works Answ This follows as much as that objected to the Apostle Rom. 3.8 We are slanderously reported to say let us do evil that good may come of it and Rom. 6.1 Let us continue in sin that grace may abound Surely there is more shew of reason to say if we are justified by free grace only then no matter though we sin grace will be but the more magnified in our forgiveness than to say Because God justifies freely through Faith therefore we need need not care to please him The Apostle was not moved to mitigate this Doctrine for the said slanders Ungodly men will speak and act according to their own lusts whatever their Opinions be and Calvin observes among the Papists as we may the same among Protestants that none are more zealous maintainers of Justification by good Works than they who have fewest good works to shew it seems therefore that the Doctrine of Justification by Works is not such a real incentive to holiness as some men think but rather that the Doctrine of Justification by Faith crosseth corrupt nature more and stirs up to more deep and inward holiness else why should profane Wits and unsanctified hearts so generally oppose it But that this Doctrine doth not naturally lead to unholiness but to most strict and spiritual holiness may thus appear 1. As Faith trusteth in the promise of eternal life it doth naturally stir up men to use all means to attain that and