in what He Suffered in His state of Humiliation for to us a Childe was born and to us a Son was given He was made under the law for us that he might redeem such as â—ere under the law that they might receive the Adoption of Sones Esai 9 5. Gal. 4 4 5. 2. This active obedience of Christ saith he was serviceable to that same great End whereunto our righteousness and obedience are subservient viz. the glory of God the advancement of His Kingdom Ioh. 8 49. 7 18. Ans. And was not His death Sufferings also subservient unto this great end Will it therefore follow that He died not to make Satisfaction to justice for the sinnes of His people And if this cannot follow what ever Socinians imagine how shall it or can it hence follow that His obedience was not to satisfie the demands of the law and to procure the reward to His people Is there any Inconsistency betwixt His fulfilling the law as Mediator and Surety in the room of His people His doing it for the glory of God the advancement of His Kingdom 3. Another enâ— saith he is the exemplariness of it Ans. This is but another arrow taken out of the quiver of the Socinians is of no force to weaken our argument seing a subordinat less principal end doth not destroy a more principal end Was He not exemplary to us in His death Sufferings shall we therefore say That there was no satisfaction for sins intended thereby And what is there here peculiar unto Christ as Lord Mediator seing the lives of other Saints are also exemplary 4. It had saith he an excellent Importance to draw to Imitation Ans. This is the same with the preceeding and deserveth no further answere 5. It was saith he a meanes of continueing His person in the love and complacâ—ncy of His Father which was a thing of absolute necessity for the carrying on of the great work of Redemption for if He had once miscarried who should have mediated for Him Ioh. 15 10. 8 29. Ans. As to His Person He was God equal with the Father in power and Glory It were therefore blasphemy once to suppose that His person stood in need of this for any such end or to suppose that He could have failed as to any act of obedience thereby have displeased God Wherefore His obedience being the obedience of one who was is God over all blessed for ever it could not be necessary to Himself unto any such end Therefore it behoved to be wholly for us for whom He was made under the law as He was given to us and borne for us 6. It was saith he of absolute necessity to qualify fit the Sacrifice for the Altar and render Him a person meet by His death and Sacrifice of Himself to make attonement for the world and to purge and take away the sin of it Ans. Shall we think that He who was God was not a fit enoug Sacrifice for the world but that He must be made fit and prepared by acts of obedience And as for His Humane Nature which was no person but did subsist in the Divine Nature being assumed into the subsistence thereof was it not sufficiently fitted to be a Sacrifice by its personal union with the Godhead was it not thereby Holy Harmless undefiled separat from sinners which is all that the Apostle requireth Heb. 7 26 Was not the Humane Nature personally united unto the Godhead from the very first moment of conception The holiness then that consisteth in Acts of Actual obedience was not required unto this Union and after this Union it was not possible that He could sinne as it is not possible that the glorified now in Heaven can break the Lawes that we break here while on earth and yet it will not follow that they are under the same particular obligations to particular acts of commanded duties that we stand under So nor was Christ as to Himself under the obligation of the pâ—rticular duties of the law to which He willingly submitted Himself gave obedience but all this was for us Nor was this necessarily required to make His Sacrifice Holy for His Humane Nature being once united to the Divine could not otherwayes be but holy and without sin and so a sinless and holy Sacrifice And withall we would take notice that the Actions of the Mediator were the Actions of the person and not of either of the Natures alone therefore must not be looked upon as the Actions of a meer man So that His acts of obedience were the acts of obedience of God man or of that person that was God He needeth not then tell us that the Absolute holiness and Righteousness of the humanity it self was of necessary concurrence unto His obedience for we grant it and this flowed from the hypostatical union but that which we deny is That there was an Holiness and Righteousness in acts of outward obedience to the law requisite thereunto as if the humane Nature by vertue of the hypostatical union had not been holy and harmless untecedently unto those outward acts of obedience and so had not been a sinless and holy Sacrifice if He had been offered up in His Infancy or before He was in capacity to do any commanded acts He needeth not say as he doth pag. 204. that we conceive that Christ-man might have been righteous without doing the works of Righteousness which is all one as to say that He might have been Righteous though He had transgressed for not to keep the law in those to whom the law is given is nothing else but to transgress For we neither do nor need assert any such thing for by vertue of the hypostatical union He was Righteous and could not transgress or do any thing contrary to what was imposed upon Him but we say that by vertue of this union as to Himself the Humane Nature was not under the law as we are but He was under the law that He might fulfill it for others not to fit and qualifie Him to be a meet Sacrifice as if for this His Humane Nature had not been meet enough before To this he saith pag. 205. Let this Supposition be admitted that Christ had suffered in the womb and that this Suffering of His had been fully Satisfactory yet had He been as perfectly righteous in this case and consequently had kept the law perfectly as now He hath done for the law requireth of Infants during their Infancy nothing but holiness of Nature I Ans. 1. This is enoug to confirme what we say viz. That all His after actual obedience was not necessary to this end 2 And beside though this holiness of Nature was conforme to the law upon the matter yet it was not a formal obedience unto the law if we speak of Him in reference to Himself for the Humane Nature had this Holiness by vertue of the Hypostatical union and Christ when
fault guilt charged on him by the law So that here is a long series of efficient causes bringing down from Adam's person guilt a distinct numerical person guilt of everyone of this later posterity Ans. 1. The fundamentum of that relation of guilt is more properly proximely the foederal relation of the person to Adam than the Natural relation and the fundamentum of this foederal relation is not Generation but the free Ordination and Constitution of God 2 What he meaneth by these words and Adam's generation being the communication of a guilty nature with personality to his Sons and Daughters is the fundamentum next following his personal fault and guilt charged on him by the Law I do not know If his meaning be that the Communication of a guilty Nature by the peccatum originale originatum is the fundamentum of the following personal fault and guilt by reason of the peccatum originale originans that is if he say that the corrupted Nature is the ground of the Imputation of Adam's transgression it is not consonant to truth nor to what himself said above pag. 34. against Placeus But if he meane that Adam's Generation being the communication of a guilty Nature is the fundamentum that next followeth his personal guilt charged on him by Law I must say I do not understand what he would be at though the words seem to express some such thing But the truth that I shall lay down is this That all Adam's posterity being federally in him sinned in him and fell with him in his first transgression by vertue whereof when they come physically by natural Generation to partake of his Nature they are first in order of Nature guilty of Adam's transgression and then have a corrupt Nature communicated as a punishment and consequent of the other this Corrupt Nature being sin hath its own guilt attending it also 3 Though this long series of Efficient causes be requisite to the production of a distinct numerical person from Adam's person in a physical and natural sense yet every one of these physically distinct numerical persons do immediatly derive from Adam their legal and foederal personalities that is these same persons considered foederally are equally and alike neer to Adam their federal Head and Representative And therefore the guilt of Adam's sin cometh from him immedratly to each one of them foederally considered and is consequently the same numerical guilt and all this is founded upon their Federal Union with and Interest in Adam He saith 2. And it is not the same sort of guilt or so plenary which is in us for Adam's act as was on him but a guilt Analogical or of another sort that is he wes guilty of being the wilfull sinning person so are not we but only of being persons whose being is derived by Generation from the wilful sinning persons besides the guilt of our own inherent pravity that is the Relation is such which our persons have to Adam's person as makes it just with God to desert us and to punish us for that our pravity together This is our guilt of original sin Ans. 1 Hereby that original sin whereof we are speaking here viz Adam's breach of Covenant seemeth quite to be taken away for not only is it said that original sin as in us is another sort of thing than what it was in Adam and so not only not the same numerically as he formerly said but not the same specifically but moreover it is said to be only an Analogical guilt yea in end it is made just nothing for it is said that we are guilty of being persons whose being is derived from the wilfull sinning persons and this is no guilt at all no mans simple being let it be by generation from the most prodigiously guilty and wicked persons that can be can be imputed to him for guilt for his receiving a being is contrary to no Law And beside when he addeth by way of Explication that the Relation is such which our persons have to Adam's person as makes it just with God to deserte us he must either make the simple Relation to be the guilt or the ground of guilt and its Imputation The Simple Relation without some guilt following it and founded upon it cannot make it just with God to desert us c. For sin only can do this that Relation is not sin If he say That guilt is Superadded upon this account it is just with God thus to punish I would ask what is this guilt It is not Adam's sin but some analogical thing which Scripture knoweth nothing of and Reason can give us no account whence it came He cannot say that it came from Adam's sin for if we be federally united to Interessed in Adam as we are as he confessed we were and if upon that account we be reputed guilty the same Individual guilt which was on Adam must be upon us and if our guilt be of another sort he must give us another Adam from whom that other analogical sort floweth The Scripture saith that we all sinned in Adam Rom. 5 12. which were not truth if his individual sin were not ours or if ours were of another sort and only analogical But this is the fruit of Mr. Baxter's casting all these things in Aristotle's mould But moreouer 2 It hath a foule aspect towards Pelagianisme to make our guilt another than Adam's because that Adam was the wilful sinning person and so are not we for this is to confirme the Pelagians who say that that sin was only Adam's because he was the only wilfully sinning person we had no will therein 3. He saith And this guilt cometh to us by Natural propagation and resultancie from our very Nature so propagated Ans. It is true we come to be actually charged with this guilt to have it imputed to us when we partake of our beings by Natural Generation or propagation and that because of our federal Union with Interest in Adam and exclusive of this it cannot be said to come to us by resultancy from our very Nature so propagated for the guilt of all Adam's after-Transgressions should as well be said to come to us after this manner as the guilt of that one Transgression Disobedience of which only the Scripture maketh mention Rom. 5. He cometh next to consider our contrary Interest in Christ tels us 1. Our persons are not the same as Christ's person nor Christ's as ours nor ever so judged or accounted of God Ans. Physically this is true but it is not true legally for when he came in the Law-place of the Elect become Surety for-them they and he became one person in Law He saith 2. Our persons were not Naturally seminally virtually in Christ's person any further than He is Creator Cause of all things as they were in Adam's Ans. Adam was a natural Head our Lord is a Spiritual Supernatural Head as to
pledge or hostage suffer for those he standeth for may not he be said to suffer in their Law-person If a Surety be put in prison for the debtor may he not be said to suffer in the debtor's Law-place in his person in Law-sense He addeth And we mean that He took upon Him the person of a sinner in as much as He consented to suffer for sin Ans. This is good we accept of it cheerfully in tantum for it explaineth to us in part the meaning of these words He made Him sin for us And so he addeth personating here is not meant becoâ—ing any other mans person in Law-seuse so as that other legally suffered what he did but it is only his own persons becoming a sufferer in the stead of sinners for their sins As the Apostle saith He was made sin for us that is so far by Imputation as that he undertook to suffer what sinners suffer for their sins Ans. But when Christ came in the Law-place of sinners did substitute Himself in their room suffered what they were obliged to suffer sure He took on their person in a Lawsense they for whom He suffered can be said in His in His Fathers designe so far legally to have suffered what He suffered as never to be made to suffer the same themselves But he seeth that this is but a wordy Controversie therefore to free the matter of ambiguity of words he pag. 77. addeth several things as 1. That as we hold that Adam was the Natural Root or parent of Mankind so also that Christ was the foederal root of all the saved in several respects though not all a second Adam Ans. We hold that Adam was not only the Natural Root but he was also the federal Root of all mankinde for the Covenant was made with him and with all his posterity in him and hence it was that all sinned in him fell with him in his first transgression Rom. 5 12. 1. Cor. 15 20 21. He addeth 2. Adam was but one single Natural person nor did God by errâ—ur or arbitrary reputation esteem or account Him to be any other than he was None of our persons were distinct persons in Adam nor those persons that now they are Therefore we were not so personally in him at his fall But all our persons are in time mediatly by our progenitors derived lineally from him not as having been persons existent in him but being persons caused remotely by him Ans. Adam it is true was but one single Natural person in a physical sense yet in a Law-sense as he was constitute the federal Head Root we were all that one Adam or he was us all representing all so did God esteem or account him not by errour but by a Right Reputation founded on His own Constitution 2 None of our physical persons were distinct persons in him yet our legal persons were in him when he represented us all as a federal Head 3 We know that our physical persons were only seminally or virtually in him we grant also that to be only virtually in Adam is terminus diminuens as to personal inexistence but I know not how we could be personally in-existent in him even when existent in a physical sense But all this taketh not away that federal inexistence whereby in a Law-sense we were in him as our federal Head Root But it seemeth Mr. Baxter doth not acknowledge this because he maketh our Natural relation to Adam to be the only reason of out partaking of his sin We do not deny our Natural Interest in Adam but we superadde to it this federal Interest He saith It is our Natural relation to Adam supposed in God's Law which is the reason of our participation in his sin not any will or judgment of God without or beyond our Natural Interest for else it should be God most properly who by His arbitrary Imputation should either make us sinners or repute us such when we are none Ans. I have granted that we have a Natural relation to Adam but I adde that that is not the sole ground or reason of our participation in his sin but the federal relation with the Natural relation And hence it doth no way follow that God doth properly make us sinners or repute us such when we are not by His arbitrary Imputation for this Imputation being founded upon this double preconstituted relation cannot be called meerly arbitrary nay nor could it be so called though it were said to be solely founded upon this federal relation more than when it is said to be grounded upon the Natural relation Though in another sense it might be so called as well when said to be founded on the Natural as when said to be founded on the federal Relation God being the free Author Constitutor of both 3. He addeth So Christ is though not the Natural yet the federal Adam Root of Beleevers When he satisfied merited we were not in Him either as in Adam seminally as in a Natural Generator nor as existent persons nor did God falsly so repute us to be But He was then the Cause materially or had that virtus effectiva which would justifie Sanctifie Glorifie us in due time Ans. Christ it is true is no Natural but a federal Root so keepeth Correspondence with the first Adam a federal Root 2 It is true also we were not in Christ when He satisfied as in Adam seminally as in a Natural Generator but yet the Elect were in Him in a more noble supernatural manner as given of God to Him as undertaken for by Him when He did substitute Himself in their Law-place became their Surety 3 If Christ had only been the material cause as having that virtus effectiva how could He be called their federal Head or how could they be said to be chosen in Him before the foundation of the world It was the nature of sinners saith he though not a sinful Nature which He assumed But that Nature which He undertook was existent in His Individual person no other individual person was existent in His existent personal Nature What then So that he addeth when we say it was the common Nature of Man we mean only specificè that Nature which is of the same species with all other mens but not that which existed individually in any but himself Ans. Notwithstanding of all this Christ was a federal Head a Publick Person undertaking for and therein representing all those that were given to Him to save and this his following words confirme when he saith But it was individual persons in whose stead or place Christ suffered whom He undertook to justifie sanctify save gather into an holy Society to that end to that end He undertook performed His office merited all this by His perfect Righteousness so that hereby He made Himself a federal Head Root of an holy
satisfie that demand by dying the shameful death of the cross undergoing the wrath curse due to us for sin thereby making a more perfect Satisfaction unto the Sanction and threatning part of the Law than we could have done by lying in hell for ever more And by faith closeing with Christ resting upon Him as such a satisfying Cautioner Redeemer the sinner acknowledgeth the Law in all its force confessing himself a Transhressour and obnoxious to the Curse now presenting to the Law Law-giver the obedience Satisfaction of Christ whereby both its commands Sanction are fully answered resting thereupon as the only ground of his Absolution from the sentence of the Law for his guilt and of his right to the Crown which he formerly had forfeited 4. Here is another mystery That such as are unrighteous and Ungodly should be declared and pronunced Righteous In justification the person is declared not guilty of what was laid to his charge in order to punishment that juridically and so he is declared free from the punishment that the Accuser was seeking to have inflicted upon him and so is declared pronunced to be a righteous man though not one that hath not sinneth yet now one that is juridically righteous But how can this be seing every man and woman is guilty before God and is come short of the glory of God The mystery lyeth here as was said The righteousness of their Cautioner Christ is reckoned upon their score and is imputed to them they receive it by faith and so it becometh theirs for now by faith they are united unto Christ become members of His mystical body He being the Head and true Representative thereby He and they are one Person in Law being one Spirit as the Husband and the Wife are one person in Law being one flesh and as the Representer and Represented the Cautioner principal debtor and thus they have a true Interest in His Righteousness obedience to the Law which He yeelded not upon His own account being not obliged thereunto antecedently to His own voluntary condescension for us for as to His person He was God and so not obnoxious to any such Law imposed upon man who is in the way to the obtaining of a Crown as the end of his race yea nor was this requisite as to His humane Nature which by vertue of the personal union with the God-head was as to it self either in Patria and in possession of the State of blessedness or in a capacity thereto without working therefore And it is certaine that therefore His being made under the Law was for His owne people that in their room He might in the Nature of Man give perfect obedience to the Law and so make up a righteousness with which they might all become clothed by Imputation on Gods part by faith receiving it on their part and so be justified Hence-saith the Apostle by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous Rom. 5 19. And thus are they who are unrighteous in themselves being Transgressours of the Law constituted righteous as to the Commands of the Law by the righteousness of their Cautioner As also they are though guilty in themselves obnoxious to wrath yet pronunced free and absolved from that charge by the Imputation of the Satisfaction of Christ made in His sufferings death who did bear our griefs and carry our sorrowes and was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was upon Him and with His stripes we are healed Esai 53 4 5. 1 Pet. 2 24. And his own self bear our sins in His own body on the tree 3. There is likewise a mystery here That the Imputation of the obedience and Righteousness of Christ doth not take away the Imputation of His Satisfaction nor make His Satisfaction useless of no Importance or necessity as Socinians imagine who cast the whole Gospel in the mould of their own corrupt Reason and understanding For they think if Christs Righteousness be imputed to us we are perfectly righteous and if we be perfectly righteous we have no sin if we have no sin there is no need of Satisfaction for our sin But they little consider that we are both guilty of the broken Law and also nothwithstanding obliged to perfect obedience It is unreasonable to think that Adam by his breach of the Law was exeemed delivered from any obligation to obey the Law sin doth not neither can dissolve that obligation otherwayes the best way of being freed from the Lawes of God or Man were to break them cast them at our heels We then being transgressours still under the obligation of obedience to the whole Law our Mediator and Cautioner must not only obey the Law for us to the end we may inherite the promised reward but must also make Satisfaction for the Violation of the Law to the end we may escape Gods Curse wrath threatned in the Law and due to us for the breach of the same Had we perfectly kept the Law we had then had no need of any Satisfaction for our breach thereof but being guilty of sin this Satisfaction and the Imputation thereof to us is absolutely necessary And though we need not nicely here distinguish betwixt this Righteouness Satisfaction in reference to the different ends and say that by His Righteousness imputed to us we have right to the Crown by His Satisfaction freedom from death which was the penalty of the broken Law for God hath joined both together for both ends what He hath thus joined together as we should not separat so neither may we nicely scrupulously distinguish but adore the wonderful wisdom of God in this contrivance and observing our necessity of both sweetly acquiesce in and thankfully accept of both But you will say if we be perfectly righteous by the Imputation of Christs righteousness what need have we of any more are we not possessed of right to the reward and being righteous are we not free of our sin I answer It is true indeed if we said that Christs Righteousness or compleet obedience was first imputed to us or if the Scripture gave any ground to say so there might be some coloure for this Exception but as the Scripture giveth no such ground so neither do we assert it Only we have need of both both are graciously imputed and received by faith yea we being sinners if we might speak of an order here Satisfaction must first be imputed that thereby we may be freed from the sentence of the Law which most presseth a wakened convinced sinner who is most anxious hereanent crying out How shall I escape the wrath and curse of God But as the Lord hath graciously and wonderfully knit the effects together so is the Cause Both Christs obedience and Sufferings were so woven together that they belonged both to made up His
otherwise than by the Imputation of it then must it needs be imputed to us in our justification But the former is true Ergo. c. He excepteth p. 225. The Righteousness of Christ concurreth toward justification by qualifying His person for that Sacrifice of himself by which justification hath been purchased for all those that beleeve Ans. The Argum. is to be understood of His whole Surety-righteousness and not of His active obedience only 2 Even as to this it was answered above that it was not requisite unto this end His humane nature being sufficiently hereunto qualified by the personal union by which His bloud became the bloud of God and all He did and Suffered was the deed Suffering of Him who was God Arg. 11. If we may truely be said to be dead crucified with Christ to be quickened have risen againe with Him c. then may we truely be said to have fulfilled the law with Christ consequently that should be imputed to us But the former is true Ergo c. These expressions pointe forth the closs union that is betwixt Christ and Beleevers thereupon their Interest in what He did and suffered as Mediator Surety publick person to the end they may have right to and possession of the great benefites purchased and procured by Him So they hold forth Christs suffering dying riseing c. as a publick person in their room in their stead as their Representative so that it is râ—ckoned for them and upon their score and they are so interessed therein as that they are to be dealt with as if all these things had been done suffered by themselves And though in these expressions mentioned there be no express mention made of Christs fulfilling the law yet they sufficiently hold forth that which by parity of reason will enforce this as well as the other for they pointe forth Beleevers their union communion with Christ as to His Mediatory work to which His fulfilling of the law did belong Against the consequence he saith These expressions have no such Inference for if we could be said to have fulfilled the law with Christ our own fulfilling it in Him should rather be said to be imputed to us than His fulfilling it for us Ans. 1 This will say as much against the Imputation of Christs sufferings for we are said to be dead with Christ therefore not Christs death but our own death in Him should be said to be imputed to us But the Scripture knoweth no such thing 2 The meaning of the expression is we say but to denote emphatically the imputation of what Christ did suffered unto us for our own fulfilling of the law in Him is but His fulfilling of it for us the same imputed to us so as we are dealt with no otherwayes than if we had done it our selves as our being dead buried with Christ is but His dying in our place stead or our having such an Interest in His death burial as that we are dealt with as if in a manner we had died our selves But he supposeth there is a difference as to this betwixt Christs dying His fulfilling the law saying When the Scripture saith we are dead c. with Christ the meaning is not that God looked upon us as if we had laid down our Natural lives by death when he laid down His as if this laying down our lives were a satisfaction to His justice for then we might be said to have satisfied for redeemed our selves But these expressions import either a profession of such a death in us which holds proportion with or hath a likeness to the death of Christ or else this death it self really wrought in us by that death of Christ. Ans. We do not asserte the meaning of these expressions to be That God looketh upon us as if we had laid down our Natural lives c. But that beleevers have such an Interest in Christs death as being the death of their Surety Redeemer Head Husband and publick person that they receive the benefites advantagâ—â— thereof no less really effectually than if they themselves in their own persons had dyed satisfied the same being now imputed unto them laid hold on by faith 2 Though these expressions at least some of them in some places of Scripture as Rom. 6. may do import what is here expressed yet the full import of these Expressions is not hereby exhausted as the scope circumstances of the places may cleare as particularly that expression Gal. 2 20. I am crucified with Christ these Ephes. 2 5. 6. He addeth against this That Gal. 2 20. The expression is taken in the latter sense importing that the natural death of Christ for Paul others had wrought upon him in a way of assimilation to it self had made him a dead man to the world Ans. Paul is rather clearing confirming how he was become dead to the law and alive unto God vers 19. in through the vertue of Christs death crucifixion in which he had such an Interest that he accounted him self as it were hinging-on the cross in with Christ did so rest upon that by faith owne that Sacrifice alone that he Christ as it were were become one person he owed his being dead unto the law onely thereunto had it as really flowing therefrom following thereupon as if he himself had hung upon the cross as a satisfactory Sacrifice To that Ephes. 2 5 6. he saith The meaning is not that God looks upon them as quickened from a natural or corporal death as Christs quickening riseing againe was Ans. Nor do we say that this is the meaning nor need we either think or say so but this we say that the expression holdeth this forth that Christ dyed rose againe as a publick person Surety that Beleevers have so neer an Interest in His Mediatory work so closs an union with the Mediator that they are as one person in law so that they are really made partakers of some of the fruites of what Christ did suffered already shall as really partake of what is yet to be communicated as if they themselves had laid down that purchasing price Let us hear what he giveth for the meaning The meaning saith he is either to signifie the profession that is made by us of that newness of life which in way of a Spiritual Analogy answers that life whereunto Christ was quickened and rose againe or else the new life it self wrought in us Ans. That the Apostle is not here speaking of a meer profession is manifest nor is he speaking only of a new life wrought in them for he addeth and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Iesus Nor doth that which he saith invalidate the meaning which we give for that effect or inwrough quickening is spoken of as flowing from Christs
That one mans deed can no more be the deed of another than one mans death or paine can be the death or paine of another that in deeds of the law the deed it self is not simply called for but the proper deed of every one who is under the law that nothing can be more ridiculous than to say that one mans righteousness can be the righteousness of another who is unrighteous in himself that it is against common sense to say that one may obey for another But howbeit we easily grant there neither is nor can be any physical translation or removing of Righteousness from one to another yet to deny all legal translation is to deny all Suretiship cautionry yea and all Satisfection therefore the Socinians who see the force of this consequence do peremptorily deny that Christ made any Satisfaction to justice or payed the debt of the chosen ones as their Surety such as deny this legal translation of Christ's Righteousness would do well to consider if they do not hereby weaken the truth concerning Christ's Satisfa ion His dying in the Room place Stead of the Elect. As for the thing it self every one that knoweth what a Surety is knoweth that his payment of the debt is by law reckoned on the score of the principal debtor so transferred upon him as he is no more liable to the charge of the Creditor or to the execution of the law against him for non-payment than if he himself had laid down the full Summe He would prove what he alleigeth thus This Scripture doth not barely and simply deny a possibility of translation of the Righteousness of the law from one person to another but denieth it emphatically Ans. Howbeit it be a truth that no meer-mans righteousness is derivable from him to another set this Text proveth no such thing but only telleth us the nature 〈◊〉 of the Covenant of works viz. that it required personal and perfect obedience of him that would have right to the promised reward Which speaketh nothing against the new contrivance of the Gospel wherein the Supream God and Law-giver the great Rector of the world did in Mercy Love appoint Jesus Christ to be the Mediator Surety for the chosen ones to pay their debt suffer for them did ordaine a way how they should in due time come to have an Interest in to partake of that Surety-righteousness of Christ Jesus that so they might be justified dealt with as Righteous persons having Christ's Surety-righteousness imputed to them reckoned upon their score when by faith they close with Him and lay hold on it He addeth for proof for it denies a possibility of it to be done even by faith which was the likeliest hand to have done it if the nature of the thing had not resisted the doing of it Ans. The meaning of these werds the law is not of faith is only to shew That the way of justification by faith by the law are so far different that they cannot agree together but not to show that by faith Beleevers are not made partakers of the Righteousness of Christ or have it not imputed unto them reckoned upon their score as the whole scope circumstances of the place show That therefore is not true which he addeth By which it appeareth also that be i.e. the Apostle had an Intent particularly to make the righteousness of the law as performed by Christ himself uncapable of this translation or Imputation For though the law should be against the Imputation of the Righteousness of one man who is Naturally and every way under the law obliged by his being to obey the law unto another yet it is not against the Imputation of the Righteousness of one who is God so under the law only by voluntary Submission is appointed thereunto by the Supream Law-giver Rector unto all such as were committed given to Him to save that way in a way condescended upon by Jehovah and the Mediator He proceedeth The meaning of these words the law is not of faith must be this that the righteousness of the law doth not arise or come upon any man out of his faith or by his beleeving this is proved because the very doer shall live in or by them Ans. It is true the law-way of justification or the way of justification revealed in and by the law and hold forth in the old Covenant saith only that the man that doth these things shall live in them and doth not prescribe the way of justification through faith But the Gospel revealeth how the righteousness of the law which was part of our debt being performed and payed by the Lord Jesus the Surety appointed of God is transferred and imputed unto those He did represent He addeth further The word law here is put for the Righteousness or fulfilling of the law Ans. And why also shall not the word be taken in that sense in the following vers where it is said Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law so the meaning will be from the curse of the righteousness or fulfilling of the law Againe what though the word had that Import here can any thing more hence follow than that personal Righteousness is not derivable now from one man to another so as to stand for his personal righteousness But how shall this sense of the words make them a proof or confirmation of what was said in the former verse He answereth to this saying The Apostle in the former verse had delivered it for a truth that no man could be justified by the law i.e. by the righteousness or works of the law because the Scripture saith the just shall live by faith Now because this consequence might seem doubtful upon this account that it might be said why may not the just live by faith by the works of the law too may not the righteousness of the law be made over to them by faith No saith the Apostle The law is not of faith there can be no legal rigteousness drawn upon men by faith c. Ans. This confirmation is manifestly perverted for there was no occasion for that question whether the righteousness of the law could be made over by faith whether it be taken in his sense viz. Whether the Righteousness of Christ performed to the law could be made over and received by faith as appeareth from what he had said of the Gospel-way vers 8 9. Or whether it be taken in this sense that the righteousness of the law performed by a meer-man only for himself according to his obligation can be now made over to another by faith for no man over dreamed of such a thing But enough of this froathy trash What he talketh afterward of the opposition betwixt the law and faith in the matter of justification is utterly impertinent because quite mistaken and misunderstood by him for he only
the whole thereof as he saith but rather something antecedent thereto What in fine he saith is but what we have often heard viz That forgiveness of sins is a true compleat righteousness in the kind a passive righteousness as absolute perfect in the kind of it as any Active righteousnest And for him that hath once sinned there is no other righteousness applicable to him but only this which for all other ends purposes advantages privileges what som ever is as offectual as the active righteousness it self could be Ans. 1. No Scripture calleth pardon of sins a righteousness 2. A passive righteonsness is no righteonsness as we lately made appear 3. That another righteousness even the positive Surety-righteousness of Christ is applicable unto a sinner hath been hithertil evinced 4. pardon as such can give no Right to the reward promised to obedience therefore cannot be as effectual as an active righteousness to all Ends purposes Apvantages privileges Obj. 21. Chap. 20. That which having been dhne in our own person could not have been our justification nor any part of the righteousness by which we could have been justified cannot be made our justification nor any part of it by Imputation from another But such is the righteousness of the Law pretended to be imputed from Christ. Ergo c. Ans. 1. We do not call the righteousness of Christ our justification nor do we say that it is made our justification or any part of it by Imputation unto us nor yet do we make it a part only of the righteousness by which we are justified for His righteousness is the whole of that righteousness Nor by His Surety-righteousness imputed to us do we understand only His Active obedience to the Law 2. He here Supposeth that we say there is nothing imputed to us in order to our justification but Christ's Obedience to the Law without His Satisfaction by Suffering And thus we see the maine pillaâ—s of this Argument are weak its whole foundation being sandy it cannot stand He confirmeth the Major thus If a personal fulfilling of the Law could have been no justification nor part of justification to us certainly an Imputative fulfilling of it could not have been either The Imputation of a thing from another cannot adde any strength to it above a personal acting yet the Nature of Imputation is only to supply the defect of personal performance therefore cannot exceed it Ans. Though obedience to the Law cannot availe us now we are sinners even though it were perfect which is in effect a supposition of what is impossible yea self contradictary therefore can lay the foundation of no truth in an Argument yet it could have availed Adam while standing us in him 2. The Righteousness which is now imputed is not the Righteousness of a sinner so cannot be called the same with that Rightoeusness which is supposed to be done by us who are sinners for the Righteousness in the supposition had been no righteousness at all not being compleet perfect Now who seeth not that the Imputation of a perfect righteousness hath other strength vertue then that hath which is personal Imperfect 3. The Imputation of an Obedience perfect compleet can availe such as are recocciled by the death of Christ when personal obedience suppose it never so full if the supposition could be made cannot availe such as are under God's curse because of sin already committed He confirmeth the Minor thus Man being once fallen made obnoxious to condemnation can never be recovered againe by ten thousand observations of this Law Ans. Though the observation of the Law could it now be done by fallen man which is impossible cannot availe unto justification yet as is said it could have availed man while standing man remaining still under the obligation it is his debt seing it is now impossible for him to pay this debt his Surety must pay it for him the Surety's payment must be reckoned on his score Obj. 22. That which men are not bound by any Law or command of God to do in their own persons for their justification cannot be imputed from another to any such and. But men are not bound by any such Law to observe the Law for their justification Ergo c. Ans. The Major I distinguish thus That which men neither now are nor never were bound to do in their own persons for their justification by any Law or command of God cannot be imputed from another to any such end this is granted but the assumption speaketh only of what men now are obliged unto so the Argument is inconcludent That which men though once obliged unto in their own persons in order to justification yet now are not obliged unto by the Law of God cannot be imputed from another to any such end this is false Let us hear his proof Because saith he Imputation is found out ordained by God to supply personal defects But where there is no Law there can be no personal defect Ans. Imputation is not found out ordained by God to supply the want of that which men are now obliged unto by the Law of God but to supply what once they were obliged unto is not yet done and the reason is because the Law being not abrogat by the breach thereof continueth in force to oblige to perfect Exact Obedience every violation thereof is a sin before God because it must be satisfied even as to this ere any can think to enjoy the reward promised to perfect obedience no man can satisfie the demands of the Law by himself therefore every one who would have the Reward partake of Life must have a perfect obedience imputed to him to the end that without any infringing of the Law the sinner may be-justified the Law established To the Minor I only say That albeit no Man be under any command of God now to observe the Moral Law perfectly that thereby they may be justified the Lord having now provided another way in the Gospel which all to whom it is revealed are bound to take Yet all out of Christ who have not yeelded obedience unto the Gospel are still under the old covenant being not as yet brought in into the New so while they abide there have no other way whereby to expect justification but the old way hold forth in the old covenant viz. Perfect Obedience which is now become Impassible for till they beleeve in Christ they are still in Nature are not translated into the Kingdom of Jesus Christ though as to such as hear the Gospel there is a command to beleeve in Jesus Christ to the end they may be justified But as to such as either hear not the Gospel or hearing it would not yeeld obedience thereto they have no other way whereby they can expect justification but doing of the Law Rom. 2 13. that is also a desperat
is therefore a Third sense wherein neither Christ's Righteousness that is His Habites Acts Sufferings are said to be physically translated and put in us or upon us nor are they said to be Imputed to us meerly in their Effects as Socinians say but wherein Christ's Surety-righteousness consisting in His Obedience Suffering is in a Law-sense made over to beleevers put upon their score now accounted theirs they because thereof accounted Righteous legally and juridically and have therefore the Effects bestowed on them This being so obvious I wonder that Mr. Baxter cannot see it When a debtor is lying in prison for debt and a friend cometh Satisfieth the creditor for him by paying the summe in his place stead the Law doth not impute that payment to the debtor meerly in the effects but imputeth the payment it self not in its Physical acceptation as if it judged that he was the man that in his own Physical person told the money with his own hands brought it out of his own purse as the other did but in its legal force vertue efficary unto him accounted him in this Legal sense to be no more a debter unto the creditor therefore one that hath right to his liberty must therefore be set free from prison So in our case the Righteousness of Christ in a legal sense as to its efficary vertue is made over to the Beleever he thereupon is accounted Righteous and no more a debtor and therefore free of the Penalty Further Although he say that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us in the Effects Yet he knoweth that that is in his judgment but very remotely and that really these effects are more proximely the effects of Faith which he calleth our Gospel-righteousness and that the Immediat effect and product of Christ's Righteousness is the New Covenant and this New Covenant being made with all Mankind as he thinketh Christ's Righteousnes is in this immediat Effect imputed to all flesh Reprobat as well as Elect. And this is in part cleared from the words Immediatly following when he saith In as much as we are as really pardoned justified Adopted by them as the Meritorious Cause by the Instrumentality of the Covenants Donation as if we ourselves had done suffered all that Christ did For this Instrumentality of the Covenant includeth the performance of the Condition thereof i. e. faith this Faith is properly imputed for Righteousness as he saith And therefore as the Covenant is the Effect of the merites of Christ so pardon and Salvation must be the Effects of Faith and the Effects of Christ's Righteousness only in that he did procure the Covenant which conveyeth these to us upon Condition of our performing of this faith which is therefore called by him our Gospel-Righteousness He giveth us next foure wayes n. 31. pag. 60. wherein the Lord is said to be our Righteousness an Expression that doth emphatically more than sufficiently express the meaning of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness 1. In that saith he He is the meritorious cause of the pardon of all our sins our full justification Adoption Right to glory by His Satisfaction and Merites only our justification by the Covenant of Grace against the Curse of the Law works is purchased Ans. He cannot be said by him to be the Meritorious Cause of pardon c. But in as far as He is the Meritorious cause of the Covenant in which these benefites are promised upon Condition of faith our Gospel-righteousness which properly and only is our Imputed Righteousness according to him and so Christ is our Righteousness in meriting that faith shall be repute our Gospel-righteousness in order to our obtaining of Pardon and Right to glory But moreover where is our Righteousness For Pardon is no Righteousness neither is justification Adoption or Right to Glory properly a Righteousness But do presuppose a Righteousness after which we are enquiring and cannot finde that Christ is made to be that to us and consequently either faith must be it or there is none The other senses are 2. In that He is the legislator Testator donor of our Pardon justification by this new Covenant 3. In that He is the Head of Influx King Intercessour by whom the Spirit is given to Sanctifie us to God cause us sincerely performe the Conditions of the Iustifying Covenant 4. In that He iâ— the righteous judge justifier of Beleevers by sentence of judgment Ans. All these three will make the Father to be our Righteousness as well as the Son for He is legislator He draweth to the Son sendeth the Spirit to Sanctifie us He judgeth by the Son justifieth 2. But none of these nor all of these give us the true Import of that glorious Name according to the true scope of the place Ier. 23 6. of which we have spoken above In like manner n. 32. he giveth us four senses of these words we are made the Righteousness of God in Him The 1. is In that as he was used like a sinner for us But not esteemed one by God so we are used like innocent persons so far as to be saved by Him Ans. As He was used by God like a sinner so was He legally accounted a sinner otherwise God would not have used Him as a sinner Therefore if we be used like innocent persons we must be in God's esteem legally juridically innocent through Christ's Righteousness imputed so must be saved by Him The 2. is In that through His Merites upon our union with Him when we beleeve consent to Hiâ— Covenant we are pardoned justified so made Righteous really that is such as are not to be condemned but glorified Ans As I said neither pardon nor justification maketh us Righteous but suppose us to be Righteous and therefore in justification we are declared pronounced Righteous thereupon pardoned Moreover all our Righteousness that we have in order to justification pardon is according to Mr. Baxter our Faith which is is reputed to be our Gospel Righteousness is said to be properly Imputed to us thus Christ suffered in our stead that our faith might be accounted our Righteousness Though pardon will take away condemnation yet as we have cleared above more must be had in order to Glorification His 3. 4. are In that the divine Nature Inherent Righteousness are for His merites In that God's justice holiness truth wisdom mercy are all wonderfully Demonstrated in this way of Pardoning justifying of sinners by Christ. Ans. This last hath no ground as the sense of the words And as for the. 3. Before he make it the sense of the place 2 Cor. 5 21. he must say That Christ was a sinner inherently which were blasphemy for otherwayes that beautiful correspondence that is betwixt the First the Last part of the verse must be laid a side
the person pardoned doth legally remaine obnoxious to punishment though it will be eternally true that he is the man that did contract that dueness onbnoxiousness so it is inconsistent with justification to say that the person justified is legally chargable with the offence though it will be eternally true that he is the man that did contract that guilt sin He saith 2. Therefore if by Reatus culpae you meane an obligation to punishment for that fault this being in deed the reatus poenae is done away So that we are I think all agreed de re de nomine you may say that the Reatus culpae is done away or remitted or not in several senses in se it is not nullified nor can be but as dueness of punishment followeth that is pardoned Ans. The Reatus culpae is the ground of the obligation to punishment not the same with Reatus poenae it is a being chargable with such a crime offence and this as we said much be as well done away in a legal sense as the obligation to punishment Nay in our case the obligation to punishment cannot be taken away untill first this chargableness with the sin be removed The Lord will not declare that man non-obliged to punishment who remaineth legally and Juridically reus culpae chargable with the crime And so long as we differ herein we are not agreed de re nor de nomine The Reatus culpae in se is as well nullified in a legal sense as the Reatus poenae and neither the one nor the other can be otherwayes nullified But I see Mr. Baxter is so for pardon as to destroy all Justification or he thinketh that Pardon and Justification are all one thing and by both nothing is taken away but the obligation to punishment and thus the pardoned and justified person is still chargable with the sin the obligation to punishment is taken away where the charge of guilt remaineth and thus God is supposed to justifie a person that is not justifiable except by an iniquous sentence Yea hereby we have the Socinian pardon owned but not the orthodox pardon for the Socinian-Pardon can well consist with this chargableness of guilt because they acknowledge no Satisfaction to remove the Reatus culpae but the orthodox pardon doth presuppose the removal in a legal sense of the guilt or chargableness of sin and is a Native consequent thereof for because of Satisfaction made by the Surety Christ and the same now imputed to the sinner and made his guilt is taken away he is no more chargable with that guilt but looked upon as Righteous and therefore all obligation to punishment is actually removed he is no more obnoxious thereto in Law being rectus in curia Object 7. You have said that though we are not personally but seminally in Adam when he sinned yet when we are persons we are persons guilty of his actual sin And so we must be persons that are partakers of Christ's actual Righteousness and not only of its effects as soon as we are beleevers for Christ being the second Adam publick person we have our part in His Righteousness as truely and as much as in Adam's sin His answere to this is long He saith 1. Our Covenant Union Interest supposeth our Natural Union Interest it is an adding to God's word Covenant to say that He Covenanted that Adam should personat each one of his posterity in God's Imputation or account any further than they were naturally in him so that his innocency or sin should be reputed theirs as far as if they had been personally the Subjects Agents Ans. If the Covenant Union Interest supposeth the Natural Union Interest then there is a Covenant Union and Interest here to be considered and therefore it can be no adding to God's word or Covenant to say That Adam did personat each one of his posterity foederally as well as Naturally Yea to deny this were a corrupting of truth a denying of all Covenant-Union Interest Whence it is manifest that in a Federal or legal sense we must needs say that Adam's Innocency or sin is reputed ours as far as if we had been personally not physically but legally the Subjects Agents If Mr. Baxter shall prove that the Foederal Union Interest which he saith is superadded to the Natural will admit of no other Consideration of the posterity Interessed than what is physical Natural followeth upon the Natural Union he shall then lay a ground for what he would say here but till then he shall but beat the aire when he hath done that he shall destroy what he hath granted viz. all Foederal Union Interest for a Foederal Union Interest will ground a foederal legal Consideration of the persons interessed as well as a Natural Union and Interest will ground a Natural and physical Consideration of the same persons And Mr. Baxter's not adverting to this confoundeth all for hence it is that he will have all things here considered only physically and according to Aristotle's notions with which we have nothing to do while speaking of a Foederal Union and Interest and of what followeth thereupon This being premitted we may quickly dispatch the rest The person of Peter saith he never was in reality or God's reputation the person of Adam nor Adam's person the person of Peter but Peter being virtually seminally in Adam when he sinned his person is derived from Adam's person so Peter's guilt is not numerically the some with Adam's but the accident of another Subject therefore another accident derived with the person from Adam from neerer parents Ans. All this is only true in a physical Natural sense but notwithstanding if we consider Adam and his posterity in a legal foederal sense as we must if there be as is granted a foederal Union Interest then all runneth in another channel The person of Peter is foederally and legally in the person of Adam yea God reputeth them both to be one Federal person and the person of Peter was thus actually in the person of Adam and not virtually and seminally for these notions have no place here And hence Peter's original guilt is numerically the same with Adam's and in this sense Peter had as neer a Relation to Adam as Abel had for here Adam is considered as the Head Center and all his posteriâ—y as equal members of this Political Foederal Body and as Lines coming equally from the same Centre He addeth The fundamentum of that Relation of guilt is the Natural Relation of the peâ—son to Adam so it is relatio in relatione fundata The fundamentum of that Natural relation is Generation yea a series of Generations from Adam to that person And Adam's Generation being the communication of a guilty Nature with personality to his Sones Daughters is the fundamentum next following his personal
society His Church when ever any person doth beleeve is united federally to Him he then receiveth the effects of that which was before in Christ as a virtus effectiva Ans. But Christ being a federal Head to His own whom in due time He was to bring in to an holy Society beleevers receive the effects of that which was in Christ as such a federal Head which is more than as a virtus effectiva Importeth His Obligation as a Surety to work these effects speaketh out His representing of them as a publick Person and paying their debt according to His Undertaking in the Covenant of Redemption Thereafter pag. 78. from this That the Law made to Adam did not assigne Christ to this office nor oblige Him to suffer for sinners according to it that therefore He suffered not by that obligation which bound us to suffer but by the obligation of His own consent he inferreth that the Law of works took not Christ for the Civil or legal person of Beleevers more than it made Him such Ans. But this consequence is denied for when a debtor is lying in prison a friend who was not formerly obliged undertaking to satisfie the Creditor making satisfaction is by Law taken for the legal person of the debtor who is accordingly dealt with as if he himself had satisfied the Creditor In the 4 5. 6. places he tels us That beleevers receiving Christ Himself receive title to His Grace Spirit Glory are personally actually His Subjects c and have a right to all His conferred benefites which right followeth not Immediatly to them from what Christ did or suffered but from the Covenant of grace therefore they have no right before the time nor any but on the Conditions specified in the Covenant Ans. 1 Though they have no full compleat actual right untill such time as is condescended upon yet by vertue of the compact betwixt Jehovah the Mediator wherein the Mediator undertook particularly for those given unto Him these may be said to have a real fundamental right though that right be not subjected in them nor pleadable by them before the time appointed yet a Right or something equivalent for I will not strive about words must necessarily flow from Christ's Satisfying for them and paying their debt according to His Undertaking As when it is contracted that the Eldest daughter of the marriage shall have such a summe of money when she cometh to be married or to be of such an age that daughter hath another right unto that summe than any other daughter hath that fundamentally from the contract Agreement though before the time designed her right be not such as she can plead it in Law in order to the possessing of the summe 2. Therefore the right that Beleevers have floweth from the Compact Christ's Suffering according to compact though it be conveyed by the Covenant of Grace their possession of the Benefites be immediatly therefrom as that daughters right to the summe is properly from the contract though her actual possession according to the contract be from her Marriage or coming to that age Though beleevers right to the actual possession of the benefites be so conveyed as to the conveyance some be granted absolutly as faith as himself will confess some upon condition of faith that is in that order according to that Methode that faith shall preceed Yet in respect of God their right to all is absolutly purchased by Christ so in a sense theirs though not subjected in them nor pleadable by them till the time appointed come This whole scheme of Mr. Baxter's seemeth to me to be founded upon and to flow from his Notion of Universal Redemption whereby he will have Christ to have died in the room stead of all which to me is in the room place of none to have purchased the New Covenant a Common good to all whereby all that would performe the New Conditions should have right to the benefites as having obtained the same by their performance of these proper Conditions anteriour to which there was no difference at all betwixt them others but this Scheme and the ground thereof I cannot owne 7. He tels us that as none till he was a person could be a person guilty of Adam's sin nor when he was a person any sooner than he was also guilty of his own inherent pravity none that had the use of reason was guilty of either or both these only without the guilt of his own actual sin So none till he be a beleever is related as a member of a perfectly Righteous Saviour that is done no sooner in time then he hath the inherent righteousness of his personal faith federal consent that obligeth him to the further active Righteousness of a holy life Ans. The Protasâ—s Apodosâ—s seem not to agree for as upon our personal existence we become persons guilty of Adam's sin that before as to nature though not as to time we have inherent pravity because this is an Effect Consequent Punishment of the former so upon our faith which is our personal existing grace corresponding to our personal existing in Nature by our Natural being should follow as answering to this Imputation of Adam's guilt the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness but in stead of this he mentioneth nothing but a Relation as a member of a righteous Saviour which according to the comparison should correspond to our relation to Adam which is in nature before our partaking of his sin 2 As answering to our inherent pravity he should have named our justification Adoption c. as the effects of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousâ—ess in stead of this he nameth the Inherent righteousness of our personal faith federal consent thereby Importing that this federal consent is posteriour to our Relation while as I suppose he will say that our Relation is upon the condition of our federal consent Not to mention here his errour hereafter discovered of making faith to be considered here as our personal Inherent Righteousness Then he tels us That all these three conjunct though not coordinat make up the total Righteousness of a Saint viz. 1. our Relation to Christ in Union as to a perfectly Righteous Head who fulfilled all Righteousness for us to merite our justification which is called Christ's Righteousness imputed to us as being thus far reputed ours 2. our penitent beleeving consent to his Covenant which is the condition of the foresaid relation to Christ. 3. And our Sanctification Ans. 1 Here we see that Righteousness made the second Righteousness which yet is the condition of the first as if our Inherent pravity were the condition of the Imputation of Adam's sin to us 2 our Relation to Christ is not one the same with the Imputation of Righteousness to us no more than our relation to Adam is the same thing with the Imputation of
Spirit of God Inclining Drawing Perswading Causing the heart beleeve are real strangers to this grace whatever great Enduements Gifts or ordinary effects of the Spirit they may be possessed of The author of a Discourse of the two Covenants a book recommended to us by Mr. Baxter in his preface prefixed thereunto as a Treatise which will give us much light into the Nature of the Gospel pag. 24. tels us that man himself is not wholly passive in this change or what goes to the making of it but is so far active in it as to denominate what he doth by God's assistance to be his own act Whereby he sufficiently discovereth an Arminian designe yet so qualifieth his expressions as may abundantly show he intendeth to evade For he will not say that man is not at all passive in this change but only that he is not wholly passive and yet he dar not say this confidently but must adde or what goes to the making of it and how much he may comprehend under this who can tell But if man be not passive he must be active How far then is he active So far saith he as to denominate what he doth by God's assistance to be his own act That the act of Faith is mans act is most certain for it is he that beleeveth but the question is what change is wrought in the soul by the Spirit of God before the act of faith be exerted and what hand mans labours and endeavours have in the infusion of the new Principle the Divine Nature Is not the man purely passive in the receiving of the effect of that creating act or in the work of Regeneration That the Lord prescribeth the use of ordinary means wherein the man is to waite for the free gracious working of the Spirit is true but there is no connexion made by the Lord by any Law or Constitution betwixt the use of these meanes and the gracious work of faith nor betwixt ordinary Light Conviction and the like common effects of these meanes and Saving Grace Yet he tels us afterward that if man do but what he can do through the assistance of God's common providente in whom we live move have our being God is most ready through his good pleasure or out of the goodness of his will pleasure to work in him both to will to do savingly to carry the work quite thorow But what Scripture doth teach us this Sure I am that Phil. 2 12 13. with which he ushereth in this discourse giveth no ground for this for that is spoken to such in whom the work of Salvation is already begun and who are commanded to work it out to say that the case is the same is to overturne the whole Gospel and present us with pure Pelagianisme is there as sure certane a connexion betwixt mans work of nature God's gracious works of Grace as is betwixt the work of grace Begun Carried on His adducing afterward p. 25. the commands to make ourselves a new heart to repent c. to enforce this is but the old Pelagian argument brought againe upon the stage to which I have said what I hope will befound Consonant to the Scripture in my book against the Quakers But this man discovereth himself more plainly afterward pag. 28 where after mentioning some acts of men which cannot be called acts of super-natural grace he tels us if men will but go thus far as they can out of a real-desire to â—e happy I should make no question but that the Spirit of God would yeeld them his assistance to carry them quite through in the work of conversion Beside that connexion whereof he maketh no question though the orthodox have hithertill denied it writting against Pelagians Iesuites Arminians we may observe this here That nature can carry the work of conversion quite through having only the assistance of the Spirit of God and what difference is there then betwixt Nature Begun Grace for begun Grace needeth the assistance of the Spirit of God to work Salvation quite thorow and Nature needeth no more where are then the Infused Habites Is Regeneration only brought about by assistance Need they who are dead no more but Assistance If this Author help us to clearness in the doctrine of the Gospel it must be the Gospel that only Pelagians Iesuites Arminians Quakers owne but not the Gospel of the Grace of God revealed to us in the Word which telleth us of something more requisite unto the Conversion of a sinner to the bringing of him to Beleeve Repent than the Cooperation of God's assistance as he speaketh pag. 25. mans endeavours He tels us pag. 26. that there is a promise of divine assistance to Man using his â—ndeavours in doing what he may can do towards the performing the condition of the Covenant But he showeth us not where that promise is to be found and pag. 17. he talks of an implicit promise and this he very wonderfully inferreth from the Gospel that was preached to Abraham for thus he speaketh for God in promising blessedness to the Nations through Abrahams seed therein promised all that was absolutly necessary for him to vouch safe to make them blessed without which they could not be blessed And if so then he therein implicitly promised to assist the endeavours of men to perform the condition of the promise without the assistance of whose grace they cannot savingly beleeve repent obey Whence it would seem 1 that all men are comprehended within this promise and 2 That no more is promised in reference to the Elect than to the Reprobat 3 That the promise of faith Repentance is but a promise of of Assistance 4 And this promise of Assistance is not to assist Grace but to assist Nature 5 That the promise of Faith Repentance was but an implicite promise This is a sufficient taste of this Authors Pelagian-Gospel 4. We proceed This work of the Spirit upon the soul whereby the man is brought to a closing with and to a resting upon Christ is ordinarily wrought by the word for faith cometh by hearing hearing by the word of God Rom. 10 17. The Lord hath established that great Ordinance of Preaching for this end and for this end he blesseth it unto his chosen ones we meane not this exclusivly as iâ— the word could no other way be-blessed for he blesseth as he seeth good for this end the Reading of Meditation on the word also though the grand special mean be the Preaching as we see Act. 2 37 41. 8 26-30 26 18. The Lord it is true may send wakenings by his Judgments by other like Occasions may blesse the private Endeavours of Parents friends by their private Instructions Admonitions yet all these are no way prejudicial unto but rather contribute to the confirming of the privilege of the word as the Principal Mean
rather its work acting in Justification is not meerly an accepting of Christ life offered on that condition but it is the accepting laying hold on leaning to applying the Surety-Righteousness of Christ presupposing the accepting of Christ himself 2 Though it may be said that the neerest formal Reason of Faiths office is the Lord's appointment yet this being too too Philosophical here contributeth nothing to the clearing up of the matter in order to practice so neither was Philosophical accuracy the ground whereupon they went who said that Faiths interest in Justification was as an Instrument but rather their end was to cleare the matter in order to Practice so as poor souls might not fall into mistakes this I judge to be the best Theological acuracie howbeit he should account many such speaches nothing but unintelligible phrases and such doctrine to containe such senselesness consequents as the opening up of would offend as he there speaketh 3 It is certaine that Repentance doth not so act on Christ and his Surety-Righteounsness in order to Justification as Faith doth Repentance as such is no acceptance of a free gift far less of a gift of Righteousness of an Atonement there-through Repentance acteth not thus on Christ Yea the reason he giveth Confess p. 39. why Repentance was made a condition of pardon doth sufficiently shew that it cannot have that interest that Faith hath His reason is this Because without it Repentance God the Redeemer cannot have their end in pardoning us Nor can the Redeemer do all his work for which we do accept him for his work is upon the pardoning of us to bring us back in heart life to God from whom we were fallen strayed This was Christ's work Therefore the condition which Christ maketh are as if he should say If you will be saved by me are willing that I shall bring you back to God I will both bring you into his favour by Pardon and into a capacity of personal pleasing enjoying of him Now our Repentance is our consent to return to God the change of our mindes by turning from former sin that was our idol being willing by Christ to be restored to obedience By this I say it is clear that Repentance hath a more direct aspect upon reference to the consequences of Pardon Justifiction itself we grant its necessity unto all the ends mentioned and its necessary presence in such as are Justified that its contrare or positive impenitency cannot consist with Faith in such as are to be Justified Yet that will not give ground to inferre that it hath the same Interest Influence Consideration in Justification that Faith hath Mr. Baxter In his Confess p. 39 40. seemeth to grant this whole Argument when he expresseth himself thus This I say that man may see I do not level Faith with Repentance much less as they charge me with actual external works of obedience which in this first remission justification I take not to be so much as existent What he addeth concerning the Ratio formaâ—ts why faith or Repentance have such an interest in our Pardon to wit because God hath made them the Conditions of the promise cannot hinder our conclusion untill first it be proved that God hath made Repentance such a Condition we are speaking here of the difference that is betwixt the two as to their Nature Aptitude which he confesseth to be very great also as to their place use because of the great difference that is betwixt them as to Nature Aptitude 4. If the Interest of Faith be not as it is a work or inward grace inherent in the soul but as such a going out of the soul from it self all its own inherent good and from all external privileges or what may be called adherent personal good unto an offered Mediator that it may embrace him lay hold on and lean to his jussorie-Righteousness then Repentance cannot share in this Interest with it But the former is true Therefore c. The Conncection may be cleared from what is already said we are not speaking of that here which Mr. Baxter will have to be the neerest formal reason nor of that only which he will have to be its nature aptitude but of its Use proper Actings in this office in reference to the end Justification which are such as cannot agree to Repentance as is manifest Himself tels us in his Confess p. 89 90. That he takes Repentance to be to our faith in Christ as the breaking off from other Suitors Lovers turning the mind to this one is to Marriage Whereby we see that though Repentance be necessarily required in one that is a beleever and that faith can not be without Repentance Yet Repentance hath no place in the office of Justification it hath no plaine formal immediat interest in the receiving of Justification as that turning to the minde from other Suitors to that one hath no formal interest or place in closeing the Marriage Covenant though it be a very necessary prerequisite unto right closing consenting the marriage Covenant This giveth ground for another Argument 5. As upon the account that a woman hath changed her minde from other Suitors to one it cannot be said or inferred that therefore the Marriage Relation is made up with that one Suitor which is done only by a formal full explicite Consent so upon the account that one is a penitent it cannot be formally inferred that that persons is in Covenant with Christ and is Justified Because as Mr. Baxter hath told us Repentance is unto Faith but as the womans changing her mind from other Suitors to one is to the consenting unto the Marriage proposal And if upon a Persons being a Penitent it cannot be formally inferred that he is in Covenant with God a Justified person then Repentance hath not that interest in Justification that Faith hath for upon a mans beleeving it can formally immediatly be inferred that he is in Covenant and is Justified I say formally because consequentially it will also follow that a Penitent man meaning one that is truely penitent is justified upon this account that where ever there is true Repentance there is also true Faith But as the change of the womans mind is not formally the making up of a marriage Covenant So neither is Repentance that which formally constitutes a man a Covenanter with Christ and a Justified person only Faith doth this as the womans consent maketh up the marriage-Relation 6. Iâ— Repentance hath the same interest in Justification with Faith then as our Adversaries say that Faith is imputed to us as our Gospel Righteousness so must they say that our Repentance is imputed to us for Righteousness But beside the reasons whereby we proved above that Faith was not imputed to us as our Gospel Righteousness which will also serve here mutatis mutandis we may adde
in rerum natura as a true Righteousness which doth not formaliter make the person so far Righteous Now a Righteous man can not be an ungodly man that were a contradiction It is not here enough to say that the man is ungodly before he be Justified for in the act of justifying or while he is a justifying he is considered not as ungodly but as Righteous yea antecedenter to his being Justified he is considered as a Righteous man is therefore justified because Righteous in himself having performed the conditions whereby he becometh personally Righteous And therefore while he is justified God doth not justifie an ungodly man But it will be said that this will as well follow upon our way I Ans. Not at all because though we place Faith in priority of Nature before Justification yet we make not faith a personal Righteousness so that while the beleever is justified a man guilty in himself void of all Righteousness in himself is justified so that God justifieth an ungodly man But it will be said By our way the beleever is considered as clothed with Christ's Righteousness upon that account cannot be called nor accounted an ungodly man I Ans. He is still notwitstanding an ungodly man in himself having nothing wherewith to satisfie justice or to procure Peace to himself but what he hath imputed to him from a Cautioner And thus God is justifier of the ungodly in himself that by his faith proclaimeth himself such one that is not in case to pay one farthing of his own debt Other Arguments may be brought from our foregoing debate against the Imputation of Faith in a proper sense and Faiths justifying as a work I shall now proceed to examine what is alledged for the Interest of Repentance Obj. 1. Mr. Baxter In his Confession pag. 37. n. 19. citeth some passages of Scripture whereby he thinks to prove that Repentance is made by God in the Gospel a proper Condition of our first general Pardon of sin as well as Faith is The first whereof is Luk 13 35. But this I judge is miscited there being nothing there that looketh here away possibly it should be Luk. 13. v. 3 5. of this place we will have occasion to speak afterward The next he citeth is Act. 3 19. Repent ye therefore be converted that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. Ans. But 1 Repent here can not be meaned of the acting of that Repentance whereof we are here speaking to wit of that particular special grace which is distinct from Faith that because of the exegetical terme added be converted So that Repent here can denote nothing else but a turning from all their sinful opinions wayes and an embraceing the Gospel way of Salvation that thereby they may be saved for ever And 2 Neither is the Apostle speaking here of constitutive justification or of our first general Pardon but of a blotting out of sins a long time hereafter to wit when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord at his second coming as the following verses shew So that 3 As by this blotting out of sins all the favours great rewards of free grace which the Righteous judge will give in that day are signified or comprehended under it which he mentioned especially that it might suite the charge of the grievous guilt of killing the Prince of life which he was laying home upon them so under the other two termes of Repenting being Converted the whole of the duties required in the Gospel are to be understood If it be said That Repent be Converted is as much as Repent beleeve so the Particular grace of Repentance is here understood I Ans. 1 Then it will follow that neither are conditions of Pardon here but both are requiâ—ed in order to Pardon at the great day when Christ shall come agaiâ—e for the blotting out of sins here mentioned is said to be at that time as the following words clear 2 This will say only though it were the true meaning thereof as it is not that Repentance is required of those that would expect of Christ Pardon at his second coming as well as faith which we deny not 3 This Repentance should not be compleet Gospel Repentance because it is anteriour to Conversion or to Faith while as the best part of true Repentance followeth as we cleared above Obj. 2. He citeth next Act. 2 38 Repent be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins Ans. 1 This would plead for Repentance alone without Faith 2 It would plead for as great an interest for Baptisme as for Repentance Neither of which can be owned as true Therefore the true meaning of the place is Turn from your former way of seeking slavation by your own corrupt Imaginations Superstitions which led you out of blinde zeal to crucifie the Lord Christ embrace the Gospel of Salvation now preached to you through that Lord whom ye crucified that ye may receive Remission of sins through Faith in him be baptized that you may have the outward signe of your professing of having Remission of sins through him a seal of Remission granted to you through him And this may be cleared from the promise subjoined ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost which is no where promised unto Repentance but unto the faith of the Gospel and the receiving of Christ therein was accordinglâ— bestowed Act. 8 12. with 15 17. 9 17. 13 52. 15 7 8. 19 1 2 6. And what Peter exhorted then unto they did vers 41. And what was it that they did They gladly received his word that is willingly and cheerfully they embraced the Gospel and so were added to the Church Obj. 3. He citeth Act. 26 20. that they should repent return to God and do works meet for repentance Ans. But here is no mention made of Justification or of Remission of sins And who denieth but people are to Repent return to God do works meet for Repentance This is not the thing that is here in question If he mean vers 18. where it is said To open their eyes to turne them from darkness to light from the power of Satan unto God that they may receive forgivness of sins inheritance among them that are sanctified by Faith that is in me I Ans. There is no word of Repentance here but express mention made of Faith It is true turning from darkness to light e. will include Repentance Yet it is by Faith that both Forgivness of sins the Inheritance Sanctification is had for by Faith that is in me may referre to all these three And though this should be denied Yet all that could be hence inferred would amount but to this That Repentance is necessarily called for in these who receive forgivness and
Faith to distinguish it from that Historical Faith which though true in its kind yet is not from the saving grace of God nor hath it effects accompanying Salvation 3. Though this Faith be one the same by which the Beleever liveth first last and which proveth serviceable useful to him on all occasions to all ends uses that his several necessities call for Yet in reference to these various ends uses it acteth not after one the same manner in all points Faith acteth not every way after one the same manner in order to get Strength for Duties that it acteth in order to get Sin Pardoned It acteth not the same way for Subdueing the reigning power of sin that it acteth for Justification nor doth it act the same way for Comfort and upholding strength in a day of trial that it acteth in order to Justification And yet we need not say that it acteth distinctly differently according to every distinct benefite and blessing that is had thereby The diffeâ—ent natures of the necessities we stand into with the different wayes of the â—ord's communicating what we stand in need of according to the various Relations he standeth in various offices he hath taken on in reference to his peoples good may satisfie us herein according as these several particular necessities may come under one head reliefe may be conveyed to them after one the same manner All which will be best discerned by the understanding Christian in his application to Christ according to his Condition wants which he would have helped supplied 4. Hence though the Principal Object of this Faith be alwayes one and the same Yet there may be some peculiarities in that object which Faith eyeth more in one case than in another As we finde the Saints in their adresses to God in their several straits necessities sometimes pitching upon one attribute of God sometimes upon another according as thereby Faith presented God to the soul in a sutablness to the present case it was in and so when dispensations seemed to crosse the promises Faith eyed God as Faithful Unchangable when enemies appeared strong difficulties invincible and the like Faith took hold on God as the Almighty to whom nothing was impossible when sin appeared as a discouragment to drive them from their hopes Faith took hold of the mercy of God c. So when a poor sinner is under the convictions of sin threatnings of the Law Faith must take up Christ in a sutableness thereto eye something in Him that peculiarly suiteth that case when againe the beleever hath need of Light Instruction Strength Comfort Throwbearing the like he fixeth his eye on some thing in Christ that suiteth that particular necessity and so Faith acteth accordingly And thus though the object remaine the same and Christ be alwayes made use of Yet Faith may and doth act more immediatly on Christ as Prophet when in one case whereunto this office carrieth a respect and at another time more immediatly directly on Christ as a King when the present necessity calleth for help from Christ as King againe faith acteth on him as a Priest when only that which Christ as a Priest did can answere their present necessitie Yet which is carefully to be observed to prevent Mr. Baxter's challenge I do not say nor see I any necessity to say that these several acts of Faith are as so many several Conditions unto the receiving of the several favours taking the terme Condition in his sense I do not say that Faith acting one way on Christ is a proper Condition of Justification Faith as acting another way on Christ is the proper Condition of Adoption that Faith acting a third way on Christ is the proper Condition of Sanctification c. but that as the effects benefiâ—es which sinners stand in need of are ascribed unto several effectuating acts of Christ to the several Relations offices he hath taken on so Faith in order to the receiving of these benefites acteth suitably on Christ the Beleever is taught so to do by the Spirit of the Lord to his Comfort Hope Encouragment 5. I presuppose here the Formal Object of all divine faith which is the Truth Veracity of God for all divine faith giveth credite unto divine Revelations upon the Credite the Truth Veracity of the Revealer Thus saith the Lord who is true who is Truth itself is the sole Formal ground Ratio of this Faith 6. I presuppose here also that Comprehensive Material Object of all divine Faith which is the whole will mind of God concerning whatsomever thing it be revealed whether by the Scriptures or by the Light of Nature If the Truth Veracity of God be the only Formal Ground of this Faith then all that this God revealeth must be beleeved received as true when known to be revealed by Him By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God Heb. 11 3. we beleeve all things which are written in the Law the Prophets Act. 24 14. Yea in the whole word of God I do not here determine what particular Truthes revealed in the word are necessarily to be expresly explicitly beleeved by every one that hath a true Saving Faith what not only this I say that many particular truthes are revealed whereof a true Beleever may be ignorant yet have a true Saving Faith receiving all which he knoweth to be revealed by the Lord rejecting no one Truth whatsomever that he knoweth to be revealed But we are here to speak of that Object of Faith which immediatly directly concerneth our delivery from our natural state of sin and miserie and our eternal Salvation And this we judge to be whole Christ Iesus as he is hold forth and revealed in the Gospel We say Christ Jesus 1 wholly and 2 as he is held forth and revealed in the Gospel And both these for explications sake may be branched out in several particulars I say then first That whole Christ is the object of Saving or Justifying Faith Hence are we so often times commanded to Receive him to Beleeve in on Him in his name Faith is expressed by a Coming to him Eating Drinking of Him Receiving of him c. Ioh. 1 12. 3 16 36. 6 29 35 37 40 44 47 51 54 55 58. 7 38. Act. 10 41 13 38 39. 26 18. Rom 3 22. Gal. 2 16. and many moe places Hence this Faith is called the Faith of Christ Gal. 2 16. and the Faith of the Son of God Gal. 2 20. So then Saving and Justifying Faith taketh whole Christ. 1. Faith taketh him closeth with him wholly as to his Natures Faith receiveth him as Mediator God Man in one person though it be formally terminated on him as God Ioh. 14 1. as the Son
of the Law but that which is through the Faith of Christ the Righteousness which is of God by Faith The question is not whether Christ be made Sanctification to us but whether that Sanctification be any part of that Righteousness which Christ is made of God to be unto us What more He addeth It is God who honoureth these that honour him praiseth his Saints as the excellent on the Earth his Jewels peculiar Treasure adorneth with his own lovely image partakers of the divine Nature and members of Christ as his own flesh And it is Satan wicked men that vilifie dishonour them Ans. This is but a Continuance of the same cheat for it is no part of the question whether the Saints should be vilified or honoured But the question is whether the Saints should rob God of his glory and ascribe that unto themselves which is due unto him be it in less or in more We know the Saints are God's excellent ones his Jewels his peculiar treasure but all this is through the free underserved grace of God making them beautiful lovely with his own graces and partakers of his divine Nature And therefore we say that for all that they ought to be humble knowing what their birth â—ativity was and whence all this is come and who ought to have the glory of all this and notwithstanding of this what is the sole ground of their justification before God and what is that Righteousness upon the account whereof they are justified in the sight of God And I have oft lamented it saith he furder that these very men that hold this kind of doctrine of self-abosement as having no part of Righteousness nor share at all in any good work are yet too oft so proudly conceited of their own goodness even for holding that they have none for which they are praise worthie as that their pride is no small trouble to the Churches all about them Ans. I shall not plead for pride or proud conceits in any but whether such as lay down doctrinal grounds of pride and teach men to be proud or such as lay down contrary grounds but do not practise accordingly be most blame worthie I leave Mr. Baxter to judge One thing I would ask How Mr. Baxter came to know that such as he opposeth here were proudly conceited of their own goodness Pride a proud conceit lyeth most within is not obvious to the view of every one especially being upon such a ground I hope Mr. Baxter will not take upon him to judge of hearts And if it be by their contendings for that which they conceive to be truth If this be an infallible mark no man can be judged more proud than is Mr. Baxter none having in this matter contended by so many so great volumnes as he hath since his Aphorismes come abroad that indeed to the no small trouble of the Churches And further some might think that if Mr. Baxter did aright lament that any were proudly conceited of their own goodness he should not have laid doctrinal grounds for fomenting of this pride nor moved such an objection against himself as he doth here for no man can rightly lament at the practice of that doctrine which himself embraceth teacheth He proceedeth â— 177. Whatever is of God is good whatever is good is laâ—dable or praise-worthie meriteth to be esteemed as it is Ans. True therefore God who is the Author thereof should have the glory it should be esteemed as it is to the glory of God not to puff us up with proud conceits or to be the ground we leane to in order to be justified accepted of God He addeth n. 178. All the Sanctified are inherently righteous but with an imperfect Righteousness which will no further justifie them in judgment save only against this Accusation that they are unholy Ans. Mr. Baxter then is much to blame who will have this Imperfect Righteousness to be a perfect Righteousness as being our Gospel Righteousness and the Poâ—estative condition of our Justification absolution at judgment and so the immediat sole formal ground of our Justification before God But this answere is also impertinent for these he here writteth against speak not of a particular justification from this or that false Accusation but of that justification before God whereof Paul treateth in his Epistles to the Romans Galatians which is a justification of the ungodly Rom. 4 5. He addeth n. 179. There is no Righteousness which will not justifie him that hath it in tantum so far as he is Righteous for the contrary is a contradiction for to be just is to be justifiable Ans. This is sick of the same impertinency with what went before for the question is not concerning a particular Righteousness a particular justification upon that account but of a general justification as to our state that from the just accusation of Law justice under which we stand by Nature in reference to which all our inherent Righteoâ—sness how great so ever it be is no ground nor part of the merite or formalis ratio of that Paul had no small share of this Righteousness when he said he knew nothing by himself And yet he addeth Yet am I not hereby justified 1. Cor. 4 4. and we would say the same speak after this manner if Mr. Baxter would suffer us Next n. 181. for 180. he saith All the Righteousness which formally justifieth us is our own or on ourselves where it justifieth us for to be made just or justified in the first sense constitutivly is nothing else but to be made such as are personally themselves just Pardon of sin is made our own Right to Christ glory is made our own though Christ's Righteousness was the only meritorious cause of all this which therefore is may be called our Material Righteousness as that which meriteth it is the matter Ans. There seemeth to be nothing here but confusion for 1 he speaketh ambiguously when he saith that all that Righteousness which formally justifieth us is our own or on ourselves for this may be true whether by that Righteousness he mean the Surety-Righteousness of Christ which he doth not meane for he is too much against the imputation of that as we have seen beeause we say that is made ours by imputation in order to our justification upon the account thereof or whether he mean our own inherent Righteousness but then if this be his meaning it is false that we are hereby formally justified unless he mean as before only a particular justification which is nothing to the point as was said 2 To be made just to be justified are not formally the same but to such only who Love confusion 3 He who is made just is but constituted justifiable is not eo ipso constitutive justified But Mr. Baxter loveth his own Expressions Explications of them
justification which is the hinge ground work as it were of his doctrine of the Gospel and to shew how poor sinners standing under the Curse for sin come to be justified before God as in his Epistle to the Romans And to Vindicate the same doctrine of the Gospel from the corrupt pervesions of false teachers as in his Epistle to the Galatians as also to commend the free grace of God in that noble contrivance both in the places mentioned and Ephes. 2. Phil. 3. Tit. 3. and elsewhere when he mentioneth the same Now as to the scope of the Apostle Iames there is nothing to declare unto us that it was his Intent or designe to explaine make known the way how poor convinced sinners standing under the sentence of the Law come to be justified before God and to receive pardon of their sins No such question proposeth he to be discussed No such point of truth doth he lay down to be cleared or Vindicated But his whole scope drift is to press the reall study of holiness in several points particularly spoken to through the Epistle And in that second Chapt. from vers 14. forward as will appear more fully in the explication vindication of the several verses in particular he is particularly obviating that grosse mistake of some who thought that a bare outward profession of the Gospel Faith or of Christian Religion was sufficient to save them and evidence them to be in a justified state and that therefore they needed not trouble themselves with any study of holiness And therefore sheweth that all such hopes of Salvation were built on the sand for they had no ground to suppose that they were truely justified so were in any faire way unto salvation so long as all their faith was no other than a general assent unto the doctrine of the Gospel to truthes revealed not that true lively faith hold forth in the Gospel whereby sinners become justified before God Mr. Baxter tels Cath. Theol. part 2. n. 364. that St. James having to do with some who thought that the bare profession of Christianity was Christianity that faith was a meer assent to the Truth that to beleeve that the Gospel is true trust to be justified by Christ was enough to justification without Holiness fruitful Lives that their sin barrenness hindered not their justification so that they thus beleeved perhaps misunderstanding Paul's Epistles doth convince them that they were mistaken that when God spake of justification by faith without the works of the Law he never meaned a faith that containeth not a resolution to obey him in whom we beleeve nor that is separate from actual obedience in the prosecution But that as we must be justified by our Faith against the charge of being Insidels so must we be justified by our Gospel personal holiness and sincere obedience against the charge that we are unholy wicked or impenitent or hypocrites or else we shall never be adjudged to Salvation that is justified by God Ans. 1 It is true for it is manifest and undeniable that Iames had to do with some who thought that the bare profession of Christianity was enough that an assent unto the truth was that faith that would prove justifying saving But 2 it is not so manifest that Iames had to do with such as thought that to trust to be justified by Christ was enough to justification without holiness fruitful lives that their sin barrenness hindered not their justification for whatever Mr. Baxter imagine we finde not in Scripture that justification followeth lives that is that there is no justification before this fruitfulness of life appear And himself useth to say that in order to the first justification this holiness of life is not requisite And beside this which he calleth the first we know no other unless he mean glorification But then 3 as to glorification final Salvation we grant that Iames hath to do with such as thought a meer assent to the truth without holiness was sufficient hereunto but that their beleeving thus could flow from their misunderstanding of Paul's Epistles is not any way probable seing Paul in all his Epistles even where he speaks most of justification by Faith without the deeds of the Law presseth the necessity of holiness in order to Salvation so as no imaginable ground hereof can with the least of shewes be pretended 4 That when Paul said justification was by Faith without the works of the Law he meant a true lively faith which only is to be found in that soul in which the seed of grace is sown and which is made partaker of the holy Ghost and of the divine Nature is true but yet justifying faith doth not formally containe in it a resolution to obey him in whom we beleeve as was shown elsewhere 5 Then we see that the faith whereof Iames speaketh is not the same with that Faith whereby Paul said we are justâ—fied And seing both do not speak of the same Faith there can be no appearance of discrepance 6 When he saith we must be justified by our Faith against the charge of being infidels I would know what he meaneth by this charge of infidelity If he meane the charge of not beleeving the Gospel he knoweth that a meer assent to the truth will â—ustifie from that Charge If he meane the charge of not receiving resting upon Christ according to the Gospel even that will be but a particular justification from that particular charge and is not that justification from the sentence of the Law whereof Paul speaketh 7 That we must be justified as he saith by our Gospel personal holiness sincere obedience against the charge that we are unholy wicked or impenitent hypocrites is true but what can all this say for a justification from the sentence of the Law under which we are all lying by Nature and of which the Apostle Paul speaketh And if Iames speak of justification by works in reference to this accusation he speaketh of no other kind of justification than that which the most wicked wreatch yea the devils are capable of when to wit they are falsely accused of having done some evil which they have not done And how can Mr. Baxter inferre from what Iames saith if he speak of no other kind of justification that works are required unto our justification as to state or unto our general justification from the sentence of the Law adjudging us to death because of transgression 8 But he addeth or else we shall never be adjudged to Salvation that is justified by God Then the Justification that Iames speaketh of that Mr. Baxter meaneth is final Salvation And we willingly grant that there must be personal holiness sincere obedience before this and that no wicked or impenitent person or hypocrite shall be adjudged to Salvation But the justification which Paul treateth of is different from
nobis communicat suam justitiam inter Patris judicium nostram injustitiam interponito sub ea veluti sub umbone clypeo a divina quam commeruimus ira nos abscondit tuetur ac protegit imo tandem nobis impertit nostram facit qua tecti ornatique audacter secure jam divino nos sistamus tribunali judicio justique non solum appareamus sed etiam simus i. e. In him that is Christ therefore are we justified before God not in ourselves not by our own but by his Righteousness which is imputed to us when now we communicat with him Being void of a Righteousness of our own he teacheth us to seek a Righteousness without ourselves in him when he saith he made him sin for us who knew no sin that is he made him a sacrifice for sin that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him By what Law By that of friendship which maketh a community of all things among friends according to the old well known proverb Being insert into Christ glued united unto him he maketh what is his to be ours he communicateth unto us his riches he interposeth his Righteousness betwixt the Fathers judgment our unrighteousness and under it as under a shield he hideth defendeth protecteth us from God's wrath which we had deserved Yea at length giveth it to us maketh it ours with which being covered adorned we may boldly saifly sist ourselves before the Tribunal of God and we not only appear Righteous but also are Righteous Ruardus Tapperus Tom. 2. Art 8. p. 36. Sicut Christo nostra scelera a Patre ob spontaneam eorum assumptionem corporis mystici intimam unionem imputantur ita ejus justitia quasi capitis nobis ejus membris ad justitiam viaâ—m aeternam imputatur i. e. As our iniquities were imputed by God unto Christ because of his voluntary assuming of them of the neer union of the mystical body so his Righteousness as head to us his members is imputed unto us unto Righteousness life eternal Yea Bellarm. granteth lib. 2. de justif C. 10. That Christ may be called our Righteousness because he satisfied the Father for us did so give communicat that Satisfaction to us when he justifieth us that it may be called our Satisfaction Righteousness And againe this way it were not absurd to say that Christ's Righteousness merites were imputed to us when they are given applied to us as if we ourselves had satisfied God So in Resp. ad 3. Arg. We are said to be the Righteousness of God not in ourselves but in Christ because he is our head what agreeth to thâ— head agreeth to the members not as they are distinct from the head but as they are one with it So c. 11. in Resp. ad Arg. 2. The similitude of putting on agarment may be saifly accommodat unto imputed Righteousness if one say we must put on Christ's merits some way be covered with them seek pardon of sins cap. 7. Arg. 4. he saith Christ's merits are imputed to us because gifted to us we may offer them to the Father for our sins because Christ took upon him the burden of satisfying for us of reconciling us to God the Father Thus he After Cardinal Bellarmin we may mention Cardinal Contarenus who is more orthodox here than any of them speaketh as plaine truth as any of the orthodox themselves can do for so doth he in Tract de Iustif. state the question Quoniam ad duplicem justitiam pervenimus per fidem justitiam inharentem nobis charitatem ac gratiam qua efficimur consortes divina naturae justitiam Christi nobis donatam imputatam quoniam inserti sumus Christi induimus Christum Praetat inquirere Utra-nam debeamus niti existimare nos justificari coram Deo id est justos Sanctos haberi i. e. Because by faith we obtaine a twofold Righteousness one inherent in us love grace whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature the other the Righteousness of Christ given imputed to us because inâ—ert into Christ because we have put on Christ It is fittest to Enquire unto which of these we ought to leane ourselves account ourselves justified before God that is looked upon as Righteous holy The question thus proposed he thus determineth Ego prorsus existimo piâ— Christianâ—egrave diâ—i quod debeamus niti niti inquimus tanquam rei stabili quae certâ—nos sustentet justitia Christinobis donota non autem justitia sanctitate nobis inhaerente hâ—c enim nostra justitia est inchâ—ata imperfecta quae impedirenon potest quin assidue peâ—cemus idcirco in conspectu Dei possumus eb hanc justitiam haberi justi boni quemadmedum deceret filios Dei esse bonos Sanctos Sed justitia Christi est vera perfecta justitia quae omnino placet oculis Dei in qua nihil est quod Deum offendat quod Deo non summopere placeat hâ—ac ergo sola re certa stabili nobis nitendum est ob eam solam credere nos justificari coram Deo id est haberi justos dioi justos Hic est pretiosus Thesaurus quem qui invenit vendit omnia quae habet emit illum i. e. I verily think that it is piously christianly said that we ought to lean I say lean as to a stable thing that shall certainly hold us up unto Christ's Righteousness given unto us but not unto the Righteousness holiness that is inherent in us for this Righteousness of ours is inchoate imperfect that cannot hinder us from ssinning dayly therefore we cannot for this Righteousness in the sigt of God be accounted just good as would become the Sones of God to be but the Righteousness of Christ is true perfect Righteousness which every way pleaseth God's eyes in which is nothing that can displease God doth not highly please him Therefore we must only leane to this certaine stable thing and beleeve that for it alone we are justified before God that is accounted Righteous and so called This is the Precious Treasure which who findeth he selleth all he hath buyeth it Yea this he confirmeth afterward by Experience saying Inde est quod pro experimento videmus viros Sanctos qui quanto magis in veritato proficiunt tanto minus sibi placent ac propterea tanto magis intelligunt se indigere Christo justitia Christi sibi donata ideoque se relinquunt soli Christo incumbunt â—â—c non obeam accidit causam quod facti sanctiores minus videant quam prius neque quia facti sunt animo dimissiori vel viliori imo quanto magis in sanctitate proficiunt tanto majore sunt animo tanto sunt perspicaciores i. e. Hence it is that by experience we see