that they were all caused to meet together on Him Esai 53 6. He therefore was made a Sacrifice for sin or dealt with punished as a sinner though no sinner inherently but only by Imputation for He did bear our griefs carried our sorrowes was wounded for our transgressions bruised for our iniquities Esai 53 4 5. to wit now imputed to Him by God reckoned upon His account who knew no sin in Himself inherently So are we made the Righteousness of God in Him 2 Cor. 5 21. that is have His Righteousness who is God imputed to us who were in our selves inherently sinners being in Him by faith are dealt with as Righteous The manifest scope of the place the plaine Import of the word must enforce this truth on all who are not more than ordinarily blinded with prejudice Secondly as Adam's posterity who were not existing when he transgressed the Law of God but were only in his loines federally comprehended with him in that covenant by God's voluntary disignation appointment so did not actually really eat that fruit which Adam did eat yet have that sin guilt so imputed unto them that it is really accounted theirs not meerly in its Effects for its Effects are not truely Imputed neither can be saied to be so for that natural contagion corruption of Nature which is truely propagated to the posterity all actuall trangressions the fruits thereof cannot be said to be imputed because they are really theirs inherent in them But that original sin which is the guilt of Adam's first sin is only it which can be imputed unless we mean such an Imputation whereby our actual sinnes which we commit are said to be imputed to us when they are laid to our charge we actually punished therefore to them who did not actually commit it in their own person by vertue of this Imputation they are accounted guilty of that self same sin therefore are dealt with punished upon the account thereof no less than if they had actually committed it themselves in their own persons no less than Adam himselfs was punished therefore So are Beleevers being by faith united unto Christ made real members of His mystical body now interessed in Him as His Children Brethren made partakers of His Righteousness have it imputed unto them for all ends uses as if it had been their own without any Imputation The reading of the Apostles discourse Rom. 5. from vers 12. forward to the end may satisfy any as to this whole affaire who will yeeld themselves captives unto Truth for upon this doth the Apostle found His whole discourse explication of the rich advantages had by Christ His Righteousness clearing illustrating the same by that similitude of Adam whom He expresly calleth the figure of Him that was to come vers 14. so asserteth that as by one man sin entered into the world death by sin so death passed upon all beâ—ause all did sinne so by one man Jesus Christ the second Adam righteousness ontered into the world life by it so life passed upon all that were in Him because they are righteous in Him or have His righteousness imputed unto them Nay in the following verses the matter is cleared with an advantage unto Beleevers in Christ. But saith he vers 15 16 17 18 19. not as the offence so also is the free gift for if through the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God the gift by grace by one man Iesus Christ hath abounded unto many c. And so he goeth on to shew what how great things beleevers receive from Christ with no less Yea rather with much more of a certainety than the Posterity of Adam were interessed in what he did and therefore as judgment was by one to condemnation saith he so the free gift is of many offences unto justification if by one mans offence death reigned by one much more they who beleeve or receive aboundance of grace of the gift of righteousness shall reigne in life by one Iesus Christ. And as the offence of one Adam was imputed unto all thereby guilt judgment came upon all making them liable to condemnation So by the righteousness of one Jesus Christ imputed to all that receive this aboundance of grace of the gift of righteouseess the free gift of justification cometh unto them reconciling them to God instating them for life And the ground reason of this is laid down vers 19. for as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so were guilty made liable to judgment condemnation So by the obedience of one that perfect obedience to the Law that Christ performed opposite to Adam's transgression disobedience shall many be made righteous that is constituted righteous therefore dealt with as such through this imputed righteousness so justified made heirs of life for vers 21. he addeth as sin hath reigned unto death even so grace must reigne through righteousness unto eternal life by Iesus Christ our Lord. They then who will deny or oppose themselves unto this Imputation of Christ's righteousness must do manifest violence unto the whole discourse of the Apostle in this place Thirly Hence another evidencing ground of this imputation for as what is done by a publick person representing others whether upon one ground after one manner or another is accounted legally to be done by those who are represented they are dealt with accordingly as Adam was a publick person representing all his posterity that were to come of him by ordinary generation according to the ordination appointment of God So Christ of whom Adam was a figure was a publick person representing all whom the Father had given to Him for whom He had undertaken for whose sake He sanctified Himself Ioh. 17 19. become their Brother taking on their Nature Heb. 2 11 14. becoming like them in all things sin only excepted Heb. 2 17. comp with Heb. 3 15. Therefore He took not upon Him the Nature of Angels but the seed of Abraham Heb. 2 16. He was the Captaine of their Salvation vers 10. He is also made called the Head of the Church which is His body fulness Ephes 1 22 23. 5 23. Col. 1 18. and so He with His Church make up one mystical body whereof He is the Head Beleevers are members Thus there is a closs mystical union betwixt Christ Beleevers beyond any union that is in Nature whether it be that of Head members of Root Branches of King Subjects or of that betwixt Husband wife for all these are but dark resemblances of this Spiritual Union betwixt Christ Beleevers which is therefore compared unto these in part explained thereby for our better understanding of the matter but none of
before the bargane be made and may also be paid down some time before he obtaine the purchase We owne only such consequential conditions here as are but the means and Methods appointed of God for such and such ends which have an immedial connexion with the end here intended And therefore we neither say nor imagine that a man may have the Righteousness of Christ or Faith yet not be justified for in the very moment as was said that a Man acteth true Gospel-and so justifying faith he hath the Righteousness of Christ imputed to him and is justified Every priority in order of Nature doth not conclude also a priority as to time far less can a man be supposed to have the Righteousness of Christ without God's Act of Imputation But Finally all these Argueings returne upon his own head for when he saith that faith is Imputed for Righteousness meaning by faith our act of beleeving he must also say that a man may beleeve and yet not be justified untill his faith be Imputed unto Righteousness by God whose work alone this is and his reply to this will relieve us Obj. 24. That which was Imputed to Abraham for Righteousness in his justification is imputed to other beleevers also But the faith of Abraham was imputed to him for Righteousness Ergo c. And for proof of all he referreth us to what he hath said Chap. 2. upon Rom. 4. Ans. We shall not here anticipat the consideration of that place and of this Argument founded there upon seing afterward we will have a fitter occasion to speak hereunto Obj. 25. Here is his last argument which he largely prosecuteth Chap. 21. pag. 188. c. and it would seem that it is here adduced againe for we had it once if not oftner before that he may take occasion to vent his mind against the Imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity Thus he Argueth If the Righteousness of the Law be not imputable or derivable in the letter and formality of it from one mans person to another then cannot the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to any man in justification But the former is true therefore c. Ans. What may be answered unto this Argum. the Reader may see in the foregoing Chapter Object last I shall not here repeat but go on to take notice of what he saith to that objection which he moveth against himself and proposeth thus If the transgression of the Law be imputable from one Mans person to another then may the Righteousness of the Law be imputed also But the former is hence evident because the sin of Adam is imputed to his posterity He first excepteth against the Major and denieth the Consequence thereof and giveth reasons of his denial 1. There is saith he no such Emphatical restraint of the guilt and punishment to the transgressour as there is of the reward to the performer of obedience for Gal. 3 12. the very man that hath done them shall live by them which is no where said of the Transgressour Ans. But all this is loose reasoning for as the Law saith God will visite the iniquities of the Fathers upon the Children unto the third and fourth Generation so it saith that He will shew mercy to thousands of them that love Him and keep His Commandements and here the one is as Emphatick as the other 2 As he readeth Gal. 3 12. that the man that doth them shall live in them so we read Ezek. 18 3. the soul that sinneth it shall die and Gal. 3 10. Deut. 27 26. Cursed is every one that abideth not in all things which are written in the Law to do them which words do Import as emphatical a restraint as the other But of that Gal. 3 12. we have said enough above we might also mentione that which was said to Adam in the day thou eats thou shalt die which seemeth to have no less an Emphatick Import But 2. he mentioneth this difference Sin saith he is ever greater in ratione demerity than obedience is in ratione meriti Adam might by his transgression merite condemnation to himself and posterity yet not have merited by his obedience Salvation to both because if he had kept the Law he had only done his duty Luk. 17 10. so had been but an unprofitable servant Ans. All this saith nothing where a Covenant is made promising life to the obeyer as well as threatning death to the transgressour Albeit Adam could not be said to have merited life by his obedience in way of proper and strick merite yet in way of merite expacto he could have been said to have merited for the reward would have been reckoned to him not of grace but of debt and there would have been ground of boasting and glorying Rom. 3 27. 4 2 4. How beit he had done but his duty when he had obeyed to the end yet the condescending love of God promising the reward to perseverance in obedience to the end was sufficient to found this Whether Adam had merited Salvation to all his posterity if he had kept the Covenant to the end or not is not our present question to enquire j this we know that by one man sin entered into the world death by sin so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned Rom. 5 12. And upon the other hand this we know that Christ was made sin for His as a publick person and all His promised Seed and Children are made the Righteousness of God in Him 1. Cor. 1 30. 2. Cor. 5 21. and those are sufficient for our purpose 3. He saith The Imputableness of the transgression of the Law rather overthroweth the Imputation of the obedience of it than any wayes establisheth it for the more Imputable that is punishable the transgression is the less imputable that is rewardable is the obedience of it Ans. This is very true when we speak of the same man as of Adam in both for he could not both be a Transgressour and a Final Observer of the Law and so both obedience and Transgression could not be imputed to himself Let be to any other the Imputation of the one did quite evacuat the other But what maketh this meer shift to his present purpose which is to show if he could that the Righteousness and obedience of the Second Adam the Lord from heaven is not as imputable to His Spiritual Seed Issue as the Sin and Transgression of the first Adam who was of the earth earthy 1. Cor. 15 47. was imputable to his Natural Seed Next he cometh to the Minor and denieth the Imputation of Adam's sin and this seemeth to be his maine buliness wherein he complieth with the Socinians and others Let us hear him first saith he the Scripture no where affirmes either the Imputation of Adam's sin or of the Righteousness of Christ. Ans. The contrary is sufficiently proven above all his reasons cannot evince what he saith He tels us
flow therefrom be accounted one the same thing but two distinct parts of one compleet effect And therefore the mentioning of the one in stead of the whole proveth no confusion or sameness but rather an inseparablness which is yeelded He move â—in an objection against himself â— 5. thus How can God be said to impute a Righteousness to a man which never was nor ever had a being no Righteousness at least of that kind whereof we now speak having ever been but that perfect obedience which Christ performed to the Law This indeed is a very rational question for our Author talketh much of an imputed Righteousness and never doth nor yet can tell us what that is that can deserve the name of a Righteousness Let us heare what he answereth 1. saith he There is as express compleet a Righteousness in the Law as ever Christ himself performed Ans. But what Righteousness is or can be in a Law but what is there by way of prescription And who doubts 〈◊〉 the perfection of this that acknowledgeth the perfection of the Law This is utterly impertinent to the purpose in hand where the question is of a Righteousness consisting in conformity to the Law and which must be attribute to man to whom the Law is given And what if it be said saith he that God in remission of sins through Christ from out of the Law imputeth to every man that beleeveth such a Righteousness as is proper to him Ans. To say this is to speak plaine non-sense for what is that to furnish a man with a Righteousness out of the Law Can a man be changed into a Law or can a man have any Righteousness prescribed by a Law but by thoughts words deeds bearing a conformity to the commands of the Law And how can 〈◊〉 pardon cause this transformation can the pardon of murther or of any prohibited act make that act conforme to the Law Pardon thus should be a self destroyer for an act that is no transgression of a Law can need no pardon and thus pardon should make itself no pardon What he subjoineth hath bin spoken to elsewhere He giveth a 2. answere saying To say God cannot impute a Righteousness which never had a being i.e. which never was really actually performed by any man is to deny that he hath power to forgive sinâ— Ans. This hath been is full denied it never hath been nor never shall be proved that forgivness of sin is the imputation of a Righteousness Though he addeth from Rom. 4 6. 3 28. c. that it is the imputation of such a Righteousness as consisteth not noâ—es made up of any works performed to the Law by any man which is but a Righteousness that never had a being Ans. This is but a plaine perverting of the Scriptures which speak only of works in that exclusion done performed by us as the whole scope and all the circumstances of the passages demonstrate to any man who will not willingly put out his owne eyes and it were a meer imposing upon the Understandings of the most ordinary Reader and a miserable mispending of time to goe about the evincing of this which is so obvious But what desperat shifts will not a wrong cause put men to use who will not be truths captives His 5. Conclusion cometh here also to be considered It is this He that is fully discharged from his sins needeth no other Râ—ghteousness to give him-Right 〈◊〉 unto life This is as false as the rest for the Law is do this live and pardon for transgressions is not the same with doing of the Law What is his reason death is the wages of sin is of sin only being due to no creature in any other respect nor upon any other terme whatsomever But what then Now he that it free of death no wayes obnoxious thereunto cannot but be conceived to have a right unto life there being neither any middle condition between death life wherein it is possible for a reasonable creature to subsist nor againe any capacity of life but by some right â—itle thereunto Ans. Though this be true as to us now that he who is no wayes obnoxious unto death hath a right unto life Yet the consequence that he would draw from it is not good to wit that that only which taketh away the obnoxiousness unto death giveth also a right to life because God hath inseparably joined these effects together as also their distinct causes together and giveth them inseparably so that he who is pardoned hath also a right to life not meerly upon the account that he is pardoned but because together with the imputation of the Satisfaction of Christ whence floweth pardon he imputeth also Christ's Righteousness upon which followeth the right to life And howbeit now as to us there is no middle state betwixt these two Yet in Adam there was for while he stood he was not obnoxious unto death and yet he had not right unto life but was to work out perfect his rask to that end But he tels us That while Adam stood he was already in possession fruition of life else he could not be threatned with death Ans. This is not the life whereof we are speaking we are speaking of the life promised by that Covenant unto perfect obedience But it seemeth that he joyneth with the 〈◊〉 in this granting no life promised to Adam but a Continuance of what he was already in possession of He enquireth If he had not a right unto life by his freedome from sin but was to purchase this right by an ctlual fulfilling of the Law it would be known what quantitâ—eâ— of obedience to the Law he must have paid before he had made this purchase how long he must have obeyed keept the Law Ans. There is no necessity of any exact knowledge of these things our maine question doth not â—â—and or â—all with the knowledge or ignorance of them Yet we may say and that is sufficient that that Law or Covenant requiring perfect obedience and perpetual without the least omission or commission he must have paid all that obedience which the Law required of him to the day of his transâ—â—â—gration or change to glory before the 〈◊〉 had been made He addeth for had he lived a two yeers in his integrity uprightness without the least touch of any transgression he hâ—d still but a debtor of obedience to the Law upon the same termes that he was at the beginning the least interruption or breach in the course of his obedience had even now been the forfeiture of that life he enjoyed Ans. How long Adam should have lived upon earth before his translation to glory we know not nor is it of use for us to enquire it is sufficient to know that he was to finish his course to persevere in obedience to the end if he would not both forfeit the life he had and the expectation of
first to convince them of their Sin and Misery by setting home the Law wekening their Consciences as Paul doth Doctrinally follow this method when he is about to cleare-up explaine the truth about Gospel-justification in his Epistle to the Romans where in the first place he convinceth all of Sin both jewes Gentiles Chap. 1. 2. 3. concluding vers 23. That all have sinned come short of the glory of God vers 9. he giveth an account of his foregoing Discourse saying we have before proved both jewes Gentiles that they are all under sin And againe vers 19. that every mouth may be stopped all the world may become guilty before God Now this work of Conviction layeth the sinner low before God for thereby the Man is discovered to himself to be undone in himself to be under Sin Wrath under the Sentence of the Law having his mouth stopped having nothing to plead for himself neither by way of Extenuation nor of Apology having nothing in himself wherewith he can come before the Lord to make Atonement for his Transgressions to make Satisfaction to justice And thus the man is made to despare in himself as being irremediably gone undone if free grace prevent him not II. Whereupon the man is made to renounce all his former grounds of Hop Confidence all his former Duties good works civility Negative Holiness what else he placed his Confidence in formerly Yea all his Righteousnesses are as filthy rags accounted as loss dung So that he hath nothing within himself as a Righteousness that he can expect to be justified by before God but on the contrary he findeth himself under the Curse that what he thought before to be his Righteousness is now by the light of the Law the discovery he hath of his natural condition founde to be sin iniquity before God therefore to be so far from bringing any reliefe unto him that thereby his anxiety is made greater his case more desperat III. The way of Gospel-justification is so contrived the wakened man whom God is about to justifie is now convinced of it that Man must be abased for he is now made to see that he is empty poor hath nothing to commend him to God no Righteousness of his own to produce nothing within him or without him except the alone Righteousness of Christ the Mediator Cautioner that can stand him in stead Nothing of his own must here come in reckoning neither alone nor in conjunction with the Righteousness of Christ for what is of Grace must not be of works otherwise Grace is no more Grace Rom. 11 6. Christ must have all the glory he who glorieth must glory alone in the Lord. And therefore is Christ made Righteousness unto us 2. Cor. 1 30. is become the Lord our Righteousness Ier. 23 6. And all His must say That in the Lord they have righteousness Esai 45 24. IV. Nothing that preceedeth faith no motions or workings of the Law no legal Repentance the like have any infallible connexion with justification nor are they any congruous disposition thereunto or a Condition thereof there being no promise made that all such as are convinced awakened have some legal terrours works of the Law upon their Spirites shall certainely be justified experience proving that several who have had deep convictions Humiliations have with the dog returned to their vomite become afterward worse than ever doth also confirme this So that after the deepest legal Humiliations works of Terrour outward Changes the like Effects of the Law though when they are wrought by the Lord intending bringing about the Elect sinner's Conversion justification they have this kindly work upon the heart to cause the Soul more readily willingly listen to the offers of Salvation Mercy in the Gospel to submit to the termes Method which God hath in His great wisdom mercy condescended unto as to the actual Conferring bestowing of the blessings purchased by Christ for His own chosen ones justification is an Act purely of God's free Grace undeserved of them on any account an act of His meer mercy Love So that they are justified freely by His grace through the Redemption that is in Christ Rom. 3 24. V. Unto this justification their good Works are not required upon what somever account for good works must follow justification not preceed it They must be first accepted through Christ before their works of holiness can be accepted The whole Gospel doth most plainely exclude works of the Law under whatsoever Notion Qualification or Restriction as we manifested above shall more manifest hereafter Yea all works upon what somever account are excluded as opposite to justification by faith through Jesus Christ. The man who had no more to say but God be merciful to me a sinner went home justified when he who said God I thank thee I am not as other men nor as this Publican c. did miss that Privilege Paul hath so directly plentifully proved that no man is justified by works that we need say no more of it and therefore in this matter of justification man hath no ground of boasting but must glory in the Lord alone VI. As without a Righteousness no man can be justified before God because His judgment is alwayes according to truth He will pronunce no man Righteous who is not so or who hath no Righteousness And as no man hath a Righteousness of his own in himself that will abide the trial of God's judgment for if He should enter into judgment with any that liveth they should not be able to stand before His judgment seat be justified but all who are justified are in themselves ungodly void of all Righteousness that can ground a sentence of absolution from the Condemnation of the Law So it is the Righteousness of Christ as Mediator Cautioner which is to them the only ground of their absolution justification this Surety-Righteousness of Christ is imputed to them by God they are clothed therewith being considered as clothed there with are pronounced Righteous by the Lord the righteous judge dealt with as such So that all the Righteousness which is the ground of their absolution from the Condemnation of the Law is without them in another who was appointed their Cautioner therefore all appearance of any ground of boasting in themselves is quite taken away by the Law of faith Rom. 3 27. the reward is now wholly of grace not of debt Rom. 4 4. VII Though faith faith only be required of us in order to our having Interest in Christ His Righteousness to justification therethrough Yet this leaveth no ground of boasting unto man or of glorying in himself for it is in it self a plaine solemne Declaration of the Beleevers Sense
given out against him would think himself a living man if in stead of that sentence which he was every houre looking for he should hear of a free and gracious pardon Much more may this state of Remission be looked upon as a state of life 2 They are hereby freed from that death Slavery and Tyranny which the Law did exercise over them before and doth exerce over all such as are not yet justified for as the Law discovereth sin Rom. 3 20. So it worketh wrath Rom. 4. 15. And thereby hath dominion over a man binding him over in chains as it were unto the wrath Curse of God But Christ hath now delivered them from the Curse of the Law being made a Curse for them Gal. 3 13. And they by faith having fled to him are pardoned and the Law hath no more to say especially seing it is satisfied by the Cautioners being made a Curse and having fulfilled it in our Nature and place Rom. 8 3 4. Thus are they freed from and dead to the Law by the body of Christ Rom. 7 4. O what a noble sweet and refreshing life is this to be free of this Slavery and Bondage whereby the Law is alwayes lying about the neck of the poor sinner the Curse and wrath of God as oft as he sinneth And adde to this 3. That they are freed from the just and well grounded managment of the Law against them by Saâ—an or a wakened Conscience I say just and well grounded managment for I grant the Devil and a mis-informed Conscience can bring forth the Law and terrifie therewith a true beleever by charging him with the transgressions thereof even after these transgressions are pardoned but this is unjust and illegal and the beleever is under no obligation to acknowledge these Charges or to admit them but on the contrary to reject them as being groundless contrary to the tenor of the Gospel But the unbeleever and unjustified Soul is laid open to all these fearful charges and dreadful challenges to all those summons that are as so many poisoned darts shot into his very heart every one of which is a death to him which he seeth not how to evite Must not then this be a considerable and noble heavenly life to have sin pardoned and thereby be freed from these Soul-affrighting Heart-pierceing Conscience-burning and Mind-tormenting Acculations Charges Libels and Dittayes brought home and delivered by the wicked Accuser of the Brethren and a wakened enligtened Conscience Must there not be many lives in this one 2. Hereby they have peace and Reconciliation with God being justified by faith we have peace with God Rom. 5 1. God was in Christ reconciling the World unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them 2 Cor. 5 18 19. They are now reconciled Rom. 5 10. So Col. 1 20. And having made peace through the blood of His cross by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself Herein also they have received the Atonement Rom. 5 11. And the Enmity is abolished Ephes. 2 15. And slaine v. 16. So that the enmity on both hands is taken away they are reconciled unto the Lord who before were alienated and enemies in their mindes by wicked works Col. 1 21. And the Atonement being made the wrath of God is apaced towards them and that Law-wrath under which they did formerly lye is quite removed and they are no more looked upon nor dealt with as Enemies but owned and regarded as reconciled friends And who can express the good and sweet of this life or who can conceive what an heaven lyeth wrapped up here How justly may he be accounted a dead man who is an Out lawer and a Rebel to God who tasteth nothing of the Kindness and Friendship of God getteth nothing from Him as from a Friend but all as from an Enemie even all the outward favoures he enjoyeth in the World how great and glorious so-ever they be in the eyes of men And on the other hand how happy is he and how justly and deservedly may he be called a living man who can call God his Friend go to Him as to a Friend receive all from Him as from a Friend how inconsiderable so-ever in the eyes of the World the things be which he getteth This is a life the Good the Advantage the Joy the Comfort the Peace of which who can express 3. Hereby they are absolved and acquitted from all that could be justly laid unto their charge for justification in Scripture is expressive of a juridical Act of a just Judge absolving a person from the guilt laid to his charge and from the sentence of the Law due upon the account of that where with he was charged and never doth denote a making of righteous by infusing of tigteousness or by making any real physical change within whatever Papists say as wee see Deut. 25 1. 2 Sam. 15 4. Prov. 17 15. Esai 50 8. 1 King 8 31 32. Exâ—d 23 7. Mat. 12 37. Luk. 7 29. 16 15. And in multitudes of moe places O! what a life is here when a poor self-condemned sinner standeth before the Judge the righteous Lord hath his sinnes charged upon him and the Law brought forth cursing every transgressour for every transgression and justice appearing against him calling for the execution of the sentence according to Law and for death vengeance due by Law and upon all this can look for nothing but doom and present execution of the dreadful sentence what a life I say is it for such a sinner standing in this posture to have a sentence of absolution pronounced and be openly declared righteous and not worthy of death or free of the charge given in against him and thus is it with Beleevers according to the Gospel constitution for though they have sinned come short of the glory of God in themselves yet now they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ and that by faith Rom. 3 22 23 28. Gal. 2 16. Though they were Unrighteous Fornicators Idolaters Adulterers Effeminat Abusers of themselves with mankind Theeves Covetous Drunkards Revilers and Extortioners yet now they are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus 1 Cor. 6 9 10 11. God justified the Ungodly Rom. 4 5. The Circumcision by faith and the Uncircumcision through faith Rom. 3 30. 4. The ground of this sentence of Absolution passed upon them or in their favours will more manifest both the Reality and Excellency of this life Though they in themselves have been and are sinners and ungodly cannot plead not guilty nor adduce any ground in themselve where upon they can plead Exemption from the penalty of the Law but as they stand guilty in Law so they stand convicted in their own Consciences their mouthes are stopped and they are become guilty Rom. 3 19. They know and acknowlege that they have sinned and come short of the glory of God vers 23. so can expect nothing but
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
receive the Adoption of Sones and the blessing of Abraham Gal. 3 13 14. 4 4 5. As it is one thing to finish the Transgression to make an end of sin to make Reconciliation for iniquity another thing to bring-in Everlasting Righteousness Dan. 9 24. Yea the redemption from the Law and from its curse is mentioned as preceeding the other as the finishing of transgression is also mentioned before the bringing-in of Righteousness in the passages cited And thus as these Effects are distinguished though inseparable so is the Cause By the Imputation of Christs Satisfaction we have pardon of sin being redeemed from the curse of the Law by His being made a curse for us by the Imputation of His Rigteousness and obedience we are looked upon as Righteous so have a right to the promise and Inheritance Though we need not thus distinctly consider both save only to demonstrat the necessity of the Imputation of both for Christ by His death did also purchase the Inheritance for us and by His obedience made Satisfaction for sin it being a piece of His Humiliation So that both in the deep wisdom of God make up one cause of that one Effect which comprehendeth all Blessedness that is both pardon of sinnes and Right to the Inheritance c. By the Imputation of both or of this compleat Surety-righteousness of Christ including both beleevers are pardoned and adjudged unto life Hence our pardon and justification are often ascribed unto Christs death not as distinctly considered or as excluding His Righteousness obedience but among other reasons because that was the compleating Act of His obedience and to which all the rest preceeding had a respect as to that which should compleat the whole Meritorious part of His Mediation And hereby His obedience can no more be excluded than His foregoing soul-sufferings Nay His death did presuppose and include His obedience for it was the death of one who had perfectly obeyed the Law which death obedience being His Mediatory work in the state of His Humiliation was a compleat Righteousness for the blessedness advantage of all those for whom He appeared whose debt He undertook to pay 5. That the obedience of Christ must also be imputed to sinners is manifest from this That otherwise they should have no Righteousness at all imputed to them that properly can be called a Righteousness for if nothing but that which is commonly called Christs passive obedience or His Sufferings be imputed there can no Righteousness be said to be imputed for dying and suffering the penalty as such are no righteousness being no obedience to the commands of the Law in conformity to which consisteth proper Righteousness as when one dieth for his crime of Murther he cannot be said to be thereby a righteous man or to have obeyed the Law forbidding Murther nor can we be said properly to have obeyed the Law when Christ in our room did suffer the penalty of death due to us for the breach of it They who are in hell suffering the vengeance of eternal fire cannot be said to be obeying the Law It is true Christ in dying did obey a command Imposed upon Him by the Father but that was no command of the Moral Law prescribed unto man thereafter in dying Suffering He gave no obedience to that Law under the obligation to which we were standing no more than He can be said to have Suffered the penalty while He was obeying the Law these two being so manifestly different So that it is clear that if Christs obedience be not imputed to us no proper Righteousness is or can be said to be imputed to us Yea 6 If Christs obedience be not imputed to us that Law which saith do this and live is not fulfilled but rather abrogated quite abolished and it must be said that not withstanding of that constitution of Gods we live though we neither do this nor is our Cautioners doing of it imputed to us And so we have a right to the Reward get it at lenght without the Righteousness required in order thereunto Let us therefore admire the harmonious perfection of this Effect Work of infinite wisdom I know several things are objected against this Truth as there are many other grounds Reasons adduced for the same but these I shall speak to at more length afterward 7. This is also a mysterie here to be noticed That a Righteousness that is not ours inherently but Christs should be made ours made over to us reckoned upon our score or we become clothed therewith there upon justified as Righteous as really effectually as if we had wrought it our selves and it had been properly inherent in us Socinians Papists Arminians others who will not subject their reason unto this mystery and give credite to Revelation will acknowledge no such imputation of Righteousness but at most do grant but an improper imputation that is an imputation as to Effects so that with them Christ neither Suffered nor obeyed in our stead room but only for our good advantage that too conditionally only in case we beleeve and performe the Gospel-condition But this imputation as to Effects only is no imputation at all there being no thing thereby Imputed not the Righteousness of Christ it self for this they expresly deny nor yet the Effects themselves for we no where read of Imputed Justification Adoption Pardon c. which are the Effects Yea it is not enough to them to deny this Imputed Righteousness but in contempt scorne they call that which we name an Imputed Righteousness a putative Righteousness as if it were a meer imaginary thing But whatever such in decision think or say the Gospel holdeth forth to us a Righteousness imputed or the Righteousness of Christ graciously bestowed upon made over to belevers or freely given unto them so that they are dealt with by God as Righteous Juridically legally or as possessours of such a compleat perfect Righteousness that as really to all Effects as if it had been their own inherently performed by them so had been theirs without any such Imputation And because this as the cause is imputed to them made theirs therefore all the Effects thereof shall really certainely be bestowed upon them in God's appointed time methode This is the Truth which the Gospel holdeth forth to the solide peace joy comfort of Beleevers the full clearing vindicating of which would require a just Treatise I shall therefore here propose but a few clear manifest Grounds of this refreshful comfortable truth leaving the further prosecution vindication of them of other arguments that are used in this matter with the examination of what is objected on the contrary till afterward First therefore we say as Christ who knew no sin was made sin that is had the sinnes of His people laid upon Him imputed to Him so
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
as the Condition of the Covenant of works and as a Rule of Obedience A duty may be duty now as required by the Law still in force as to its commanding regulating power and yet not be a part of the Condition of the Covenant of works wherein we had failed which Christ fulfilled by giving perfect obedience to that Law as the Condition of Life to which we neither did nor could give perfect Obedience and all our Obedience now though commanded by the same Law is no fulfilling in whole or in part of the Condition of the Covenant of works and therefore can not be said thus to be done twice but once and that by Christ alone He addeth But what man is he that sinneth not Therefore seing it is certaine that no man doth all that he is bound to do by the Gospel in the time measure of his faith hope love fruitfulness c. it followeth that he is a sinner and that he is not supposed to have done all that by Christ which he failed in both because he was bound to do it himself because he is a sinner for not doing of it Ans. As there is a difference betwixt obedience to the Law and the performing the Condition of the Covenant of works so there is difference betwixt sin or failing in Obedience and Violation of the Condition of the Covenant of works as our Obedience now is not the performance so our sinning is not the Violation of the Conditions of the old Couenant Beleevers performed the Conditions of the Covenant only in Christ which they could not do in themselves and therefore their sins now though transgressions of the Law are not counted Violations of the conditions of the Covenant of works under which they are not He saith 3. Yea the Gospel bindes us to that which Christ could not do for us as to beleeve in a Saviour c. Ans. And what then were these part of the Conditions of the Covenant of works If they were Christ hath performed them for He gave perfect Obedience and thereby hath freed us from that obligation If they were not neither can they now be required as part of that Condition He saith 4. The truth which this Objection intimateth we all agree in viz. That the Mediator perfectly kept the Law of Innocency that the keeping of that Law might not be necessary to our Salvation and so such Righteousness necessary in ourselves but that we might be pardoned for want of perfect Innocency be saved upon our sincere keeping of the Law of Grace because the Law of Innocency was kept by our Mediator and thereby the grace of the New Covenant merited and by it Christ Pardon Spirit Life by Him freely given to beleevers Ans. The truth expressed in the Objection is very far different from this Sociniano-Arminian Scheme of the Gospel which we have had often times proposed to us by Mr. Baxter but never yet confirmed nor do we expect ever so see it confirmed We have also at several occasions given our reasons against it and need not therefore here repeat or insist upon it Last object The same person may be really a sinner in himself and yet perfectly Innocent in Christ and by Imputation How or upon what occasion this objection is used Mr. Baxter doth not show and therefore we cannot certainely know the true meaning and Import thereof In one sense it may be very true and yet in another sense it cannot be admitted It is true in this sense The same person may be Inherently a sinner and yet legally Innocent through the Imputation of the Surety-righteousness of Christ. But it cannot be admitted in this sense The same person is legally Innocent in Christ by Imputation for this were a Contradiction What saith Mr. Baxtor to it Remember saith he that you suppose here the person Subject to be the same Man then that the two contrary relations of perfect Innocency or guiltlesness guilt of any yea much sin can be consistent in him is a gross contradiction Ans. There is no contradiction unless the matter be ad idem here it is not so for he may be guilty Inherently as to himself and yet innocent legally as to his Surety But if both be understood of a person legally considered I grant it is a Contradiction for he that is legally Innocent cannot be legally guilty in so far as he is legally Innocent whether the Charge be particular for one sin that is brought in against him or for moe or for all He saith 2. But if you meane that God reputeth us to be perfectly Innocent when we are not because that Christ was so it is to Impute error to God Ans. This cannot be their meaning for they know that God reputeth no man to be other-wayes than he is But yet it must be said that God reputeth Beleevers who have the Righteousness of Christ imputed to them Innocent as to the Violation of the Covenant of works I mean legally Innocent and so not guilty of the charge of sin death upon that account brought in against them for they are so being justified therefore there is now no condemnation to such Rom 8 1. none can lay any thing of that Nature to their Charge vers 33. He addeth But He i. e. God doth indeed first give then Impute a Righteousness evangelical to us in stead of perfect Innocency which shall as certainely bring us to glory Ans. That God doth indeed Impute that is give put upon our score an Evangelical Righteousness that is the Surety-Righteousness of Jesus Christ revealed in the Gospel in stead of our perfect personal Innocency which we neither had nor could attaine to which shall certainely bring us to glory being the Meritorious Cause thereof But Mr. Baxter's sense hereof is a manifest Perversion of the Gospel for thus he senseth it And that is He giveth us both the Renovation of His Spirit to Evangelical obedience a Right by free gift to pardon glory for the Righteousness of Christ that merited it this thus given us he reputeth to be an acceptable Righteousness in us Ans. Now that this is a clear perversion of the Gospel is manifest from these particulars beside several others else where touched 1 Hereby the Covenant of Grace is changed into a Covenant of works only with a Mitigation of the Conditions 2 Christ's Surety-righteousness is not Imputed to us neither as our legal Righteousness nor yet as our Evangelick-righteousness for at most it is only granted to be Imputed as to its Effects 3. We have no other Righteousness hereby properly imputed to us but our own Inherent Righteousness 4 Christ is hereby made of God unto us Righteousness by being made of God Sanctification to us 5 Hereby the immediat ground of our Pardon Right to Glory is not Christ's Surety-righteousness but our own Inherent righteousness 6 Christ hereby meâ—ited neither Pardon nor Glory to be
effectually as if we our selves in our own persons had done and Suffered all When Mr. Baxter confoundeth and jumbleth these together as if they were the same he neither befriendeth Truth nor us Nor will it follow from our assertion as he suppseth n. 123. that then we could need no Pardon for though he who is reputed to be Innocent by fulfilling all the Law in his own physical person be reputed never to have sinned by Omission or Commission consequently to need no pardon yet he who is a transgressour consequently hath forfeited all right to the Reward is obnoxious to the Penalty hath need of a Remission through his Suretie's making Satisfaction of a new Title to Glory through his Suretie's Obedience So that the Non-necessity of Pardon will no more follow from our doctrine of Imputation than from our doctrine of the Satisfaction of Christ whatever Socinians think who plead as vehemently from free Remission against this as Mr. Baxter doth upon the same ground against Imputation But when any say that Christ's Sacrifice satisfied for all our sins that they may be forgiven His Righteousness is Impuâ—ed that we may also be accounted just he thinketh n. 122. that this is but either ambiguity or the fore-detected gross contradiction And why so for saith he if by justice they meane reputed sinlesness or perfection then these two cannot stand together for he that is supposed a sinner is supposed not sinless or perfect he that is supposed sinless cannot be supposed pardonable Ans. By justice or being accounted just we mean Righteous or rectus in curia in order to the Reward promised and when full obedience is imputed to this end we do not say that God reputeth such sinless that is such as in their own physical persons gave perfect obedience for such indeed need no pardon but that now God reputeth them such as are Righteous and have Right to the Reward through the perfect Righteousness of Christ Imputed and this carrieth no shew of Repugnancy to pardon of sins through the Satisfaction of Christ. But n. 123. he tels us that some think to avoid the Contradiction by distinguishing only of the moments of Nature double respect of the same Mans Actions saying that we are first in order of Nature supposed to be sinners pardoned then to be such as moreover need the Reputation of Innocency or Righteousness which is added to pardon What necessity there is for this curious distinguishing of Order Priority whether in respect of Nature or of Time I do not yet see And whether we say we are first pardoned then reputed Righteous or first reputed Righteous then pardoned which would seem most rational of the two it is all one to Mr. Baxter who equally argueth against both But though I see no necessity of asserting any of these orders Save that though the first thing that a wakened sinner is pardon freedom from the Curse Yet it is more rational to say the Reatus culpae first taken away and not the Reatus poenae yet I see a necessity of asserting both the Imputation of Christ's Satisfaction in order to our pardon of His Obedience in order to our obtaining Right to the Inheritance and both these Mr. Baxter comprehendeth in justification as we shall hear or of both His Satisfaction and obedience or of His compleat Surety-righteousness in order to our obtaining compleat justification its Effects or consequents Remission of sins Right to the Crown But saith Mr. Baxter 1. He that is pardoned of all sins of Omission Commission is accounted Innocent Righteous as to any guilt of punishment either of sense or loss Ans. True he is accounted Innocent or Righteous as to guilt of punishment of sense yea or of loss in so far as it is a punishment or belongeth to the punishment threatned But he is not accounted Innocent that is one that hath never sinned or one that hath never lest right to the reward therefore beside this pardon he must have a Righteousness in order to the Reward promised He saith 2 He that is after accounted Innocent just from his first being to that houre is judged never to have needed Pardon Ans. But by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness there is no such account made as if the man were reputed or accounted one that never sinned from his first being to that hour but that now hath as good right to the Reward as he could have had if so be he had never siuned not only from his first being to that hour but from the first to the last moment of being We need not then notice what followeth when he saith And so they make God come with an after act and condemne His own foregoing act of errour injurie or at least to contradict it and in the first instant to say I pardon this sinner in the second to say I now repute him one that never sinned nor needed pardon for as we have seen the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness hath no such Import He tels us n. 125. of some that say that the Law since the fall obligeth us both to obey to suffer not to one only else a sinner bound to suffer should not be bound to obey Therefore Christ must do both for us And this would seem to be a very Innocent assertion consonant to truth yet he saith This is too gross for any man to utter that ever know what Law or Government is Ans. And I had thought that it had been too gross for any Christian to have denied this who would not outstripe all the Antinowians that ever were for if it be thus one of two must follow either that now after the fall Adam all his posterity are loosed from all obligation to obedience to the Law of God or that they are not under the curse Neither of which I suppose Mr. Baxter dar say But what saith he do they mean that as to the same act time the Law bindeth us to obey and suffer or for diverse acts and Instants of time Ans. In regard that since the fall nothing can be done in perfect conformity to the Law both may be said Do they mean saith he further that the Law bound man both to perfection to suffering for perfection or to suffering for sin Ans. We are speaking of the Lawes obligation now since the fall it is certaine that because the Law is now broken we are obliged to suffer that because of that constitution do live no man can have life untill that Law be perfectly obeyed but because this is Impossible for man therefore it must be done by his Surety He querieth againe did the Law binde Adam to obey suffer before he sinned Ans. No. Did it binde him saith he againe both to obey suffer for his new sin the next Instant Ans. What himself addeth is a sufficient answere to this viz.
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
his sin to us 3 Thus we see by asserting the cause viz. our relation to Christ he taketh away the effect viz. the Imputation of His Righteousness as being no distinct thing as if one should say we are related to Adam a sinful Head who broke the Law for us this is called Adam's sin imputed to us as being thus far reputed ours But yet Christ's fulfilling all Righteousness for us if that for us were understood in the Scripture sense and not according to the Socinian or Arminian gloss would abundantly ground the Imputation we plead for and that as a fruit of our Relation to Christ. Passing what he saith 8 as not worth the noticeing We come to see what he saith 9. lastly Proposing this objection to himself if Christ's person be given us then His personal Righteousness is given us with it He replieth thus Yes as His person is He is not given us as proprietors Lords to become our own at our dispose nor is his person made one Person with each or any of us His person is not turned into ours nor ours into his Ans. This is all to no purpose for no man in his wits either said so or dreamed so at any time As the husband saith he is not the person of the wife nor the King of each Subject but as one that hath a Great wise learned Bountiful Holy King or Husband hath also his Greatness c. as they have him that is as his perfections for their good as far as his relation bindes him but not as if his enduements were removed from him to them or falsely reputed to be in them or his person to be their persons so here as we have a Christ so we have a perfect Righteous Christ given us to be our federal head when we beleeve and the Righteousness which is not in us but in Him is ours so far as to be for our good as far as His office Covenant do oblige Him Ans. This savoureth of making Christ's dying for us to be nothing else than His dying for our good as Socinians say and if it import more as it doth in truth he cannot but see that his simile here hath nothing of a similitude in it for the objection speaketh of Christ's person given to us not as a great wise c. King is given to his Subjects but as the Surety is given to the debtor i.e. as one whose payment of the debt must be reckoned on the score of the debtor in order to his liberation out of prison He addeth So that a Righteous Christ and therefore the Righteousness of Christ are ours relatively themselves quoad jus beneficii so as that we have right to these benefites by them which we shall possess and for the merites of His Righteousness we are conditionally justified and saved before we beleeve and actually after Ans. All this jus beneficii is but remote for in the foregoing pag. he told us as we heard that this right doth not flow immediatly from what Christ did and suffered but from his Covenant of Grace and I think he should have said rather from their performance of the condition for the Covenant conveyeth no title but conditionally he knoweth and therefore can give no title or Right untill the condition be performed upon the performance of which the conditional Title becometh actual And further there is no more here said than what a Socinian will say and particularly Sclightingius pro Socino cont Meisnerum pag. 250. whose words we cited above towards the beginning of our XIII Chapter CHAP. XVII Reasons enforcing the practice of the Truth hithertill Vindicated WE have now at some length as the Lord was pleased to help essayed to vindicat this noble fundamental Truth of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in order to the obtaining of this life of justification and ere we proceed I judge it will not be amiss to press the practice of this Truth the hearty practical embracing thereof by several Arguments Considerations for it will not be enough for us to know the Theory and to be orthodox in our judgments as to these Necessary soul-concerning truthes but we must also practise them that it may appear we do beleev them in very deed and that we beleeve them with the heart this will be the best way to be kept orthodox and stedfast in the truth I shall therefore propose a few Considerations moving to the practice of this so necessary concerning a Truth As 1. This way of justification through the Imputed Righteousness of Christ the Mediator Surety is a way thath hath the testimony of both Law Prophets confirming it is now more clearly revealed manifest under the Gospel dispensation than it was formerly Rom. 3 21 22. But now the Righteousness of God without the Law is manifested being witnessed by the Law the Prophets even the Righteousness of God which is by faith of Christ unto all upon all them that beleeve And the same Apostle tels us Rom. 1 16 17. That he was not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the Power of God unto Salvation to every one that beleeveth c. And what is the ground reason of this for therein saith he is the Righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith as it is written the just shall live by â—aith This then must be a very sure saife way being thus attested witnessed by all that are worthy of credite in this matter a way that is one the same as to its substance both before the Law under the Law now under the Gospel though it be now more clearly unfolded explained since the coming exaltation of the blessed Mediator than it was before His coming when it was darkly revealed shadowed under the Mosaical Ceremonies Observances None need to feare a Miscarrying or a disappointment in following of this way which even the Law it self or the Mosaical observances did point forth in the daily yeerly Sacrifices pointing forth the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world on which the offerers were to lay their hands before they were to be offered up in token of their devolving laying their sin guilt upon the same as the the type of that one only acceptable Sacrifice that was to come in the fuluess of time was to satisfie justice for their sinnes to shew forth declare their faith relying thereon expecting acceptance there through as we see Levit. 1 4 3 2. 16 21. And a way which also the Prophets or the Spirit of Christ which was in them did testifie and bear witness to when it testified before hand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow 1 Pet. 1 10. c. So Peter in his Sermon to Cornelius told him Act. 10 43. that to Him i.e. to Christ gave all Prophets witness that through His Name
ever accuse a Beleever of not being a beleever as for Satans or others accusations of this kind a well informed conscience from the light of the word of the Spirit clearing up the work of faith in the soul the true real works of a lively faith will be sufficient to quiet the beleever stop the mouth of all these Accusers without the fiction of a new distinct Justification whereof the Scripture is silent But Mr. Baxter in his last reply to Mr. Cartwright explaineth the matter far otherwayes telling us pag. 46. and forward That the first justification is by God as Rector only by the pure Law of works as Creator the other by God in Christ as Redeemer Rector of the Redeemed world The first is conditionally past upon the whole condemned world that without any condition in man whether faith or works so it is both absolute conditional In the first the Father first condemned his Son as it were see pag. 52. after satisfaction given justified first him as Sponsor then the world for his sake thus God forgave those all the debt who yet perish by taking their fellow servant by the throat Here is a justification both absolute conditional Here is pardon no pardon Here is a justification of all the Reprobat Here is a justification of persons not in being prior to without all faith This therefore is not the justification whereof the Scriptures speak as himself proveth in his Confession CHAP. XX. The state of justification remaineth notwithstanding of after sinnes punishments FOr further clearing up of this life of Justification as to its Continuance we shall remove two objections that may seem to stand in the way of the truth hitherto cleared For it would seem that Justification is not such a continueing uninterruptible state as it was said to be upon this double account first That the sinnes which Beleevers who are justified do commit especially such as are of a more hainous crying Nature do break off this state of favoure reconciliation seing they deserve even the least of them God's wrath curse so expose the sinner unto the just revenges of God which seemeth not to be consistent with a state of Justification And then secondly as their sinnes deserve God's curse wrath so the many sharp sore afflictions which they are made to lye under both are effects of the wrath of God fruites of the Curse also would say that that state is such as can be broken off or at least is not perfect as it was said to be Now for clearing of the truth formerly asserted vindicating of the same from these two Objections to which all others may be reduced we shall propose some few things to consideration 1. None will say that every sin of infirmity weakness which beleevers commit doth or can cut them off from the state of justification for then they should never remaine one day to end in that state for no man liveth that sinneth not the Righteous fall seven times a day if the Lord should stricklymark iniquity no man should stand even the best of their actions are defiled with sin and they cannot answere for one of a thousand So that either it must be said there is no state of justification or that it is consistent with sin in the justified Justification though it take away all the guilt of by paft sins and free the beleever from that obnoxiousness to the wrath curse of God which they were formerly under yet it preventeth not all future sinnes not doth it put the beleever into a perfect sinless state nay nor doth it kill any one sin as to its being but only taketh away the guilt offensiveness the obligation to punishment or the reatus poenae whereby the sinner is bound over unto the Penalty 2. As for such sins as we may suppose if committed would ipso facto as they say forfeit the transgressour of the state of Justification destroy all interest in Christ in the Covenant of grace so transferre them into their former state of Nature while they were under the Curse as being sins inconsistent with a state of Grace Reconciliation with God such as the sin against the Holy Ghost or of full final Apolstasie as for such sins I say the faithfulness of God Mediation of Christ the Operation of the Spirit of Grace are as it were engadged to keep the Iustified from falling into them as all the Arguments proving the perseverance of the Saints do abundantly evince 3. Though every sin being a transgression of the Law of God which still remaineth in force to oblige the beleever as all others unto obedience in all points doth in its own nature deserve God's wrath curse according to the threatning penalty of the Law yet these sins do not annul the state of justification nor interupt it 1 because notwithstanding thereof all their former sins of which they were pardoned remaine pardoned do not bring them againe under the curse their Right to the Inheritance remaineth fiâ—me through Jesus Christ. 2 Because all these after sins were virtually pardoned their obligation to the suffering of the penalty upon the account of these virtually removed in their Iustification for therein was there a legal security laid down given that all future sins should not actually bring them under the curse or into the state of condemnation this is much more than what was before their actual closing with Christ being thereby brought into an estate of justification for though it may be said there was sufficient security laid-in in the Covenant of Redemption betwixt Iehovah the Mediator concerning the Non-perishing of the Elect Yet this security was hid under ground lying in the unchangable purposes of God in the Fathers Election of them giving of them to the Son to be redeemed in the Son 's undertaking for them in due time becoming sin a curse for them so taking on their debt making full compleet satisfaction therefore And this fundamental remote Right as it may be called could not be pleaded by themselves But after they have closed with Christ and are brought into a state of justification their Right appeareth above ground and the security is laid open in the Covenant of Grace whereby they are in case to plead their virtual pardon to be made actual the promises to be made good according to the Gospel termes after the Gospel-method And thus 3. Not only doth the law's threatnings speak to them as shewing what de jure only they may look upon us due unto them not declaring what shall eventually befall them or that eventually they shall fall under the eternal curse for in a sense that is true even of all the elect not yet justified as was said but they have a legal ground Right in the
the Beleevers score and this indeed is no act of just debt but of grace 7. Againe as was said above if Faith properly taken or the act of Beleeving be imputed for Righteousness God should not be the justifier of the ungodly nor could Faith act upon God as such with truth And yet the Apostle tels us here expresly that Faith acteth upon God as one that Justifieth the ungodly He who hath a Righteousness in himself is no ungodly man and God justifying a righteous man could not be said to justifie the ungodly But if we take faith here for the object of faith or for the Righteousness of Christ which faith fleeth unto and layth hold on all is clear harmonious for then that man is not a worker but beleeveth he beleeveth on God that justifieth the ungodly that is one that hath no Righteousness in himself but must have it elsewhere even imputed to him and bestowed upon him through Faith when he thus heleeveth or layelh hold on Christ's Righteousness this Righteousness which by faith he leaneth to is counted on his score for Righteousness he is thereupon justified 8. Leaving what was formerly adduced against this glosse from vers 6 7. 8. of this Chapter Chap. XVIII we shall see what other passages in this chapter will say against it The Faith that was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness when he was in uncircumcision vers 9 10. is the same with the Righteousness of faith which he had being uncircumcised vers 11. But this Righteousness of faith is not his act of Beleeving nor Faith taken properly as an act of Obedience but the Righteousness of the promised seed of the woman in whom all Nations of the earth should be blessed embraced by faith for it is this and not the meer act of beleeving that was sealed by the signe of Circumcision vers 11. for this Sacrament was a seal of the Covenant we know Sacraments seal the whole Covenant all the promises thereof to such as beleeve never seal our Faith or the like to be our Righteousness 9. The same that was imputed to Abraham for Righteousness will be imputed to all beleevers vers 11. But that is not the pure act of Beleeving for Abrahamt act of Beleeving was a strong act and is declared and explained to be such but every beleever who yet must be justified hath not such a strong act of faith as Abraham had And we cannot say that some are lesse some are more justified because the faith of some is weak and the faith of others is strong and yet this must be said if the act of Beleeving be imputed for a Righteousness for the Righteousness of one shall be greater than the Righteousness of another their Justification must hold correspondence with the ground thereof 10. That which was imputed to Abraham will be imputed to all beleevers for a Righteousness vers 11. must be a Righteousness which such have imputed unto them who do beleeve for it is added that he might be the father of all them that beleeve though they be not circumcised that righteousness might be imputed unto them also Abraham had Righteousness imputed to him or reckoned upon his score through faith while he was uncircumcised that he might be the Father of Beleevers among the Gentiles to whom also when they beleeve a Righteousness will be imputed as it was to Father Abraham 11. It is againe called vers 13. the Righteousness of faith through it he sais the promise was to Abraham to his seed but the promise is not through faith as an act of virtue obedience in us for then it should be through the Law but as the promise was made upon the account of the Righteousness of the promised seed our faith can not be said to procure or purchase the promise so its application is by Faith laying hold on gripping to that Righteousness 12. If faith properly taken were imputed it should be made void the promise of none effect they that are of the Law should be heires for faith taken properly for the act of Beleeving belongeth to the Law when it is made our Righteousness it is opposite to the free promise for what is promised or given upon the account of Righteousness or any thing within us is not a free gracious promise And when a free gracious promise is taken away all the right use of Faith is taken away so Faith is made void for the very essence of justifying faith lyeth in looking to laying hold on leaning to a free gracious promise 13. The Apostle vers 15. proveth that they who are of the Law cannot be heirs consequently that Faith or the act of Beleeving cannot be imputed for Righteousness as it is our act done in obedience to the Law by this reason because the Law worketh wrath c. And this also maketh against the Imputation of faith properly taken because that is an act of obedience to the Law cannot become our Righteousness being Imperfect consequently not conforme to the Law which requireth Perfection in all duties or other wayes threatneth wrath And if any shall deny this of faith viz. that it belongeth to the Law they must say that there is no Law for it consequently that not to beleeve is no sin for the Apostle addeth where no Law is there is no transgression 14. The ground of the free promise is that which must be Imputed and laid hold on by Faith But that cannot be Faith properly taken as our act for then the promise should not be of grace as it is expresly said to be vers 16. nor should it be sure if it depended upon our faith not upon that which faith laith hold on These things beside what was mentioned before from this same Chapter vers 6 7 8 23 24. may satisfie us in this matter and sufficiently evince that it is not the Apostles meaning that Faith properly taken as our act or our act of Beleeving is imputed unto Righteousness but that the Object of Faith or the Righteousness of Christ laid hold on and applied by Faith is that Righteousness which is reckoned upon the beleevers score Let us now in the next place see what the Adversaries say to make us beleeve that Paul saith Rom. 4. That our very act of Beleeving is imputed to us for Righteousness that thus the Apostle must be understood not as meaning the object of faith or the righteousness of Christ. The forecited Author Iohn Goodwin of Iustifie Part. 1 Ch. 2. adduceth some grounds for his glosse which must be examined His first ground is the letter of the Scripture that speaks it once twice yea a third a fourth time vers 3 9 22 23 24. Certanely saith he there is not any truth in Religion not any article of â—he Christian beleefe that can boast of the letter of the Scripture more full expresse
also by the imputation of a Righteousness for being in this State of Righteousness we have not only the Obligation to wrath eternal punishment removed which is done by Remission upon the account of the Satisfaction of Christ imputed but we have also a right to the reward the crown of life which is had by imputation of Righteousness or of obedience though it were better to say we have both by both or we have both by the imputation of that compleet Satisfaction merite which comprehendeth or consisteth of both His 3. Conclusion is this Adam whilst his innocency stood with him and till his fall by sin was compleetly Righteous in an estate of justification before God Yea for the truth substance of Righteousness as Righteous as he could or should have been if he had lived to this day in the most entire absolute obedience to the Law Ans. Adam while he remained innocent was compleatly Righteous that is was changable with no transgression it is true That he was compleatly Righteous that is had full right to the reward as having done all his duty and compleated his work it is most false Therefore 2 it is false to say he was in a state of justification unless nothing else be hereby meaned than that he was not in a state of condemnation Though there be no mids betwixt these two now as to us but either we must be in a state of justification or in a state of condemnation Yet Adam while he stood was in neither Not in a state of condemnation because he had not yet transgressed the Law Nor yet in a state of justification because he had not yet done all his duty for he was to persevere in obedience to the end And if he had been justified he had full right to the reward so had been glorified for whom the Lord justifieth he glorifieth But Adam was not glorified upon his Law-obedience and consequently was not justified by his Law-obedience 3 The truth substance of Righteousness unto which he would restrick all is not the thing enquired after nor is it at all to the point for upon Adam's having of that simply he could not expect the reward of life that was promised because the Covenant he was under required continuance perseverance in all the several duties called for by the Law even to the end ere he could challenge a right to the reward And further Adam had this truth substance of Righteousness at the first it was concreated with him Yet he could not upon that account have challenged glory as his due He addeth Even as the second Adam was as compleatly perfectly Righteous from the womb so from his first entrance upon his publick ministrie as he was at last when he suffered death Ans. If we speak of our Lord Jesus as the second Adam that is as standing in the room of sinners as the Head publick Person engadging in their behalfe whom he did represent to pay all their debt though he knew no sin and upon that account was perfectly Righteous and separat from sinners Yet he was to finish the work laid upon him and to performe the whole debt both of duty suffering which he had undertaken and till the last penny of that debt was payed his work was not finished and untill his work was finished he could not challenge his reward And so this confirmeth what we have said of the first Adam To say he addeth that Adam was not perfectly Righteous consequently in a justified estate or condition before God untill his fall by sin is to place him into an estate of condemnation before his sin there being no middle or third estate betwixt these two Ans. This was obviated before Adam's state before his fall was a state of Innocencie wherein he enjoyed the favour presence of God he being perfectly Righteous in reference to that state to what was required of him but justified he was not for the reward was not adjudged unto him So that as to him there was a middle state betwixt a State of Justification a State of Condemnation though as to us there is not as the places which he citeth afterward namely Rom. 5 18. 8 1 2 shew the whole Scriptures evince He closeth this matter thus Therefore to grant that forgiveness of sins puts a man into the same estate condition wherein Adam stood before his fall which is generally granted by men of opposite judgment in this controversie nothing granted neither in this but the unquestionable truth is to grant the point in question to acknowledge the truth laboured for throughout this whole discourse Ans. It is not granted that remission of sins as such putteth a man every way into the same Condition wherein Adam stood before his fall for it putteth not a man in the same estate of inherent holiness wherein Adam was but it putteth a man into the same estate of freedome from any obligation to punishment for it taketh away the reatus poenae so that a pardoned man as such is no more under the actual obligation unto the curse wrath of God threatned for transgression than was Adam before he fell and this is all that is confessed Which is far yea very far from granting the point that he goeth about to establish for he would have remission as such put a man in the state of full right to the reward to the end he might exclude the imputation of the obedience or Righteousness of Christ as not being necessary unto this end contrary to the Scriptures of truth Adam before he fell had not right unto the promised reward because he was to finish his course of obedience before he could obtaine that And therefore the granting that remission putteth a man into the same Condition wherein Adam stood will contribute nothing to his end His 4. Conclusion is That perfect remissien of sins includeth the Imputation or acknowledgment of the observation of the whole Law even as the imputation of the Law fulfilled necessarily includes the non imputation of sin or the forgiveness of all sin in case any hath been committed Ans. The conclusion is manifestly false if we speak of remission simply abstractivly as such And the ground here alleiged for it is ambiguous for the imputation of the Law fulfilled may either be to sach as never broke it then it doth not include remission but taketh away all necessity of it or to transgressours and then indeed it may presuppose remission but doth not include it as such But to remove ambiguities we shall distinguish say that perfect Remission of sins includeth the acknowledgment of the observation of the whole Law in respect of Punishment but not in respect of the Reward that is perfect Remission of sins exeemeth a man from Punishment as well as if he had perfectly keeped the Law but doth not give him right to the Reward for unto this
in his body on the tree he was not wounded for our transgressions the chastisement of our peace was not on him He was not made sin for us He was not our Cautioner High Priest He died not in our room stead Againe 2. saith he some what more properly Christ may be said to have suffered the Curse of the Law because the things which he suffered were of the same nature kinde at least in part with these things which God intended by the Curse of the Law Ans. Though this seemeth to come nigher to the truth than the former Yet it cannot give full satisfaction untill it be explained what that part is in respect of which only Christ's sufferings were of the same Nature kinde with what the Law threatned Let us hear therefore what followeth see if thence satisfaction can come But if by the Curse saith he of the Law we understand either that entire systeme historical body as it were of penalties evils which the Law itself intends in the terme or else include take-in the intent of the Law as touching the quality of the persons upon whom is was to be executed in neither of these senses did Christ suffer the Curse of the Law Ans. 1 This doth not explaine to us what that part is in which Christ sufferings are of the same Nature kind with what was intended by the Curse of the Law 2 There is need of explication here to make us understand what is that entire Systeme historical body of penalties evils which the Law itself intends in the terme Curse or death for this is but to explaine one dark thing by what is more dark so can give no Satisfaction 3 But if the alternative added be explicative so the two particulars here mentioned be one the same then we deny that that doth properly belong to the essence of the penalty as threatned in the Law that is every thing that necessarily attended the punishment as inflicted on man did not directly essentially belong thereunto as threatned by the Law such as the everlastingness of death despaire the like necessarily accompanying this punishment inflicted on sinners so that notwithstanding Christ did not neither could endure these accidental consequential evils Yet he both did might be said to suffer the Curse death threatned by the Law which is to be abstracted from what floweth not from the Law itself but meerly from the Nature of the subject or Condition of the sinner punished But it may be these words of his the intent of the Law as touching the quality of the persons upon whom it was to be executed have some other import that he meaneth hereby no more but this that the intent of the Law was that the sinner should suffer And indeed if so it was impossible that Christ's sufferings could answere the intent of the Law But we have said above that as to this the Law was dispensed with yet notwithstanding Christ the substitute Sufferer did suffer the same kinde of punishment that the Law threatned under the termes of Death Curse What he addeth Further can give no Satisfaction So that God saith he required the death sufferings of Christ not that the Law properly either in the letter or intention of it might be executed but on the contrary that it might not be executed I meane upon those who being otherwise ohnoxious unto it should beleeve Ans. Though it be true that God required the death sufferings of Christ not that the Law either in the letter or intention of it might be executed as to that wherein it was dispensed with Yet God required the death sufferings of Christ that the letter intent of the Law might be executed as to that wherein it was not dispensed with that is as to the punishment therein threatned And unless the Law as to this had been executed no man obnoxious to it should have escaped and that because of the Veracity of God yea because of his justice which he had determined to have Satisfied ere sinfull man should escape the punishment In the next place he tels us that God did not require the death sufferings of Christ as a valuable consideration where on to dispence with his Law towards those that beleeve more if so much in a way of Satisfaction to his justice than to his wisdom Ans. This savoureth rankly of Socinianisme It is not for us to make such comparisons as if God's Wisdom justice were not at full agreement and were not one The Scripture tels us that God set forth Iesus Christ t s be a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his Righteousness for the remission of sins that are past To declare I say at this time his Righteousness that he might be just the justifier of him which beleeveth in Iesus Rom. 3 25 26. And so it is manifest that Satisfaction to justice was hereby intended And this is enough to us who know also that in the whole contrivance of the business the Infinite Wisdom of God is eminently relucent And Love not to make any such comparisons only we think that a Propitiation and Satisfaction the like termes used in Scripture in the expressing of this matter have a direct aspect bear a manifest relation unto justice and correspond diâ—ectly there with yea clearly enough inferre the same though there were no other mention made expresly of the justice of God in this matter What saith he next to prove this for doubtless God might saith he with as much justice as wisdom if not much more have passed by the er ansgression of his Law without consideration of satisfaction Ans. What God might have done by his absolute Soveraignity antecedent to his designe purpose as to the punishment or the reatus poenae which must not be extended to the reatus culpae is not to the question But now the Lord having declared his determination purpose to rule governe the world thus to have the glory of his relative justice manifested in the Salvation of lost man could not according to justice passe by transgressions without a satisfaction He adds No man will say that in case a man hath bin injured wronged that therefore he is absolutly bound in justice to seek satisfaction though he be never so eminent in the grace practice of justice but in many cases of injuries sustained a man may be bound in point of wisdom discretion to seek satisfaction in one kind or other Ans. This is the Socinian way of argueing nothing to the pointe for we are to look upon the Lord in this matter not as a private man who may dispense with injuries done him but as a Righteous Governour who is resolved to demonstrate his justice equitie and who therefore cannot suffer sin to go unpunished without a due satisfaction had for the violation of his Lawes
a Mediator Surety for us accept of His Mediation and Satisfaction most freely out of free Grace and Love when we neither had done nor could do any thing to move Him hereunto or to procure this at His hands yea when all our carriage all that He could see in us did rather cry aloud for the contrary dealing 4 Was it no Act of Soveraigne Grace that God should provide all this remedie for a few whom He did choose for Him self out of free Grace and Love and gave away to Christ to bee redeemed by Him leaving the rest passing them by though no more unworthy than such as were chosen 5 Is it no Act of grace mercy that in order to this great favour of justification no more should be required on our part than faith in Jesus Christ seing this very faith including an Union with and a marriag-consent unto Christ is in it self a favour nothing in a manner inferiour to the pardon of all our sinnes to the accepting of us as Righteous in His sight 6 Is justification no Act of grace and mercy though it be upon the account of the obedience and Satisfaction of Christ when that very faith which is only required of us in order to our full interest in Christ His merites is also the free gift of God Ephes. 2 8 If these particulars will not aboundantly say that we are saved in justification by grace by the exceeding riches of Gods grace kindness towards us through Christ Jesus according to Ephes. 2 7. what will 9. Here is a great and wonderful mystery in this matter That the Innocent should suffer and the guilty escape go free The Socinians that they may strengthen them selves in their mischievous prejudices against the Satisfaction of Christ imagine an Impossibility here an Inconsistency with Justice that an Innocent person should be put to suffer But what ever they dream who will walk in these mysterious matters by no other guide than the dim light of corrupt nature it comporteth aboundantly with Justice that the Surety be put to pay what he hath undertaken to pay for the principal debtor And here was no wrong done to our Surety Jesus Christ who willingly undertook this debt and was lord of His own life having absolute power to lay it down and power to take it up againe and to raise him self from the dead knowing withall how richly to compensate make up that loss another way so as He should be no loser when He should see His Seed and receive the rich reward of His laboures from the Father whose Servant He was in this affaire Here is then a mystery of wisdom Grace and Love that the Innocent Lamb of God who knew no sin who did no violence nor was guile found in his mouth 2 Cor. ◠21. Esai 53 9. Who when He was reviled reviled not againe 1 Pet. 2 22 23. Who was Holy harmless undesiled and separat from sinners Heb. 7 26. That He should be made sin by God 2 Cor. 5 21. And so legally guilty obnoxious to the punishment due for sin that He should be made an High Priest to offer up Him self a sacrifice for sin Heb. 9 14 28. That He should bear our grieves carry our sorrowes and be wounded for our Transgressions and bruised for our Iniquities that the punishment of our peace should be upon Him He should stripes be oppressed afflicted and be cutt off out of the Land of the living have strokes upon Him make His grave with the wicked be bruised be put to griefe and make His soul an offering for sin Esai 53 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. That he who could not be charged with sin should yet be put to suffer most grieveous torments immediatly in his soul Mat. 26 37 38. 27 46. Luk. 22 44 Ioh. 12 27. And paines in his body Mat. 26. 27. Chapters That He should die and that He should die the Shamful Painful and cursed death of the Cross Gal. 3 13. Phil. 2. 8. And upon the other hand that we who were the sinners and guilty and so obnoxious to all the miseries of this life to death it self and to the paines of hell and wrath of God for ever should escape and be healed by His stripes Esai 53 5. 1 Pet 2 24. become the righteousness of God in Him 2 Cor. 5 21. And be justified and made heirs of the promises O! what an unsearchable mystery of Love and free grace shineth forth here 10. This is also a Part of this Mystery That nothing should be forgiven yet all should be forgiven Nothing was forgiven to our Surety He paid all that was required of Him for the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all He gave full obedience to the Law in all its demandes made a perfect compleat Satisfaction for our Offences so that the Father was well pleased in Him the same was at two several times declared expressed out of heaven once at His Baptisme Mat. 3 17. againe at His Transfiguration Mat. 17 5. The sword of Justice was awakened against Him though He was Gods fellow Zech. 13 7. And did abate Him nothing of what was due The Lord Jesus gave him self for us an offering and a Sacrifie to God for a sweet smelling savour Ephes. 5 2. He is a perfect High Priest continueing for ever having an unchangable Priest-hood and therefore is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him for He needeth not daily as the High Priests under the Law to offer up Sacrifie first for His own sinnes then for the People for this He did once when He offered up Himself for the word of the Oath maketh Him a Priest who is consecrated for ever more Heb. 7 24 25 26 27. And yet though He had nothing forgiven or abated to Him while standing in our room but paid all to the outmost farthing all notwithstanding is freely forgiven to us and we have blessedness by the Lords forgiving our Iniquities covering our sins or not imputing them to us Psal. 32 1 2. Rom. 4 7 8. Our Redemption is forgiveness of sinnes Ephes. 1 7. Col. 1 14. And all sinnes must be forgiven to us or our Redemption should not be perfect nor we saved for one sin would ruine us for ever because if the Lord should mark iniquity enter in to judgment no man should stand no flesh should be justified Psal. 130 3. 143 2. 11. Here is another Mystery considerable in our justification That though thereby we be declared pronounced righteous so acquite absolved from what was or might be charged upon us Yet we have need of Pardor must be freely pardoned Socinians cannot or will not 〈◊〉 Conexion that Infinite Wisdom hath made here therefore make use of forgiveness free pardon of sinnes as an Argument wherewith to fight
sinners before He can be looked upon as a Righteous person or be dealt with as a Righteous person He must first have a Righteousness imputed to him and bestowed upon him for how can God whose judgement is according to truth look upon a person as Righteous and conferre privileges upon him due only to such as are Righteous who is not Righteous indeed Must He not first bestow a Righteousness upon him reckon a Righteousness upon his Score to the end He may be just and Righteous when He is the justifier of him that beleeveth Lastly He said Here is neither peer nor peep of the least ground or reason to perceive that by Righteousness in this Scripture should be meant the Righteousness of Christ. Ans. It is enough that the Text saith Righteousness is imputed for the man here spoken of hath not a Righteousness of his own as the Apostle hath proved in the preceeding Chapters doth here take for granted And therefore this Imputed Righteousness must be the Righteousness of another and it must be such a Righteousness of another as can found free Remission of Sins And whose Righteousness else can this be if it be not Christ's Is there any third competitour here imaginable must it not be the Righteousness of Him whom faith goeth out unto laith hold on in order to justification Must it not be His Righteousness who was the Mediator who laid down the price of Redemption was a propitiation as He told us in the preceeding Chapter Some men in alleiging a difference betwixt a Righteousness imputed to us Sinners and the Righteousness of Christ as if there could be any other Righteousness imputable to us except the Surety-righteousness of Christ as they expresly in this joine with Socinians See Volkel de vera Relig. lib. 5. cap. 21. p. 565. with Papists Arminians so they declare themselves utter strangers to the Gospel yea greater strangers than those were against whom the Apostle wrote who took it for granted that if any Righteousness from without or that was not by any thing which we do were imputed it behoved to be the Righteousness of the Mediator And this we may conceive is the reason why the Apostle doth not say in so many express words that it was the Righteousness of Christ for who could have thought of another Fourthly Rom. 5 19. a place with its whole contexture pregnant for our purpose for the Apostle is not onely here confirming but also illustrating this whole matter from the Imputation of Adam's Sin unto his posterity after many various and emphatick expressions used there-anent from vers 12. and forward he saith here vers 19 for as by one mans disobedience many were made Sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous Socinus de Servat lib. 4. cap. 6. is so bold as to tell us That he supposeth there is nothing written in the Scriptures that hath given us a greater occasion of erring than that comparison betwixt Adam Christ which Paul made did prosecute at length here And he would cleare to us the comparison thus That as by Adam's Sin disobedience it came to passe that all men were condemned and died so by Christ's righteousness and obedience it came to passe that they wero absolvod and did live for Christ by His own Righteousness and Obedience by vertue of the decree of God did penetrate the heavens there to reigne for ever and there he begote eternal life and everlasting blessedness both to Himself and to His. How aliene this is from the whole of the Apostle's discourse needs not be declared seing there is not one word giving the least hint of the Apostle's designe to be to declare how what way Christ obtained power and authority to save Yet He goeth on to tell us That as Adam's fault made him guilty of death whence it came to passe that all mankind that are procreat of him after that guilt is obnoxious to death so Christ by His Righteousness purchased to Himself eternal life whence it cometh te passe that who ever are procreat of him partake of this life But He never once taketh notice that Paul giveth for the ground of all mankind's becoming guilty of death their sinning in him vers 12. even such as had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression vers 14. yea in every verse this cause is noted or pointed at it being Notour of it self that ifall mankind did sin in Adan Adam's sin must be imputed unto them so Christ's Righteousness must be imputed unto all His inreference to their justification that with a much more Let us now see what Iohn Goodwine excepteth pag. 142. c. It is not here said He said that by the Imputation of Adam's disobedience men are made formally Sinners but simply sinners that is either obnoxious to death and condemnation or else sinners by propagation not Imputation Ans. This is the same upon the matter with Bellarmin's answer de justif lib. 2. cap. 9. here we have a distinction proposed without any explication to wit betwixt simply sinners and formally sinners And what can he meane by formally sinners possibly he meaneth that which otherwise is expressed by inherently sinners And if so though Adam's posterity so soon as they come to have a being have an universal corruption of Nature convoyed by propagation yet that is not it which is properly said to be Imputed for that which is imputed is the guilt of Adam's sin whereby they become sinners that is guilty legally and so obnoxious to punishment death condemnation this is enough for us for as the posterity of Adam have the sin of Adam so imputed to them that they become guilty and obnoxious to wrath so Beleevers have the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto them and they thereupon are accounted legally righteous 2 Whileas he will not grant that Adam's posterity are sinners by imputation he joineth with the Socinians who turne these words vers 12. 〈◊〉 not in whom but because or whereas which the Ethiopick version doth better sense saying Because that sin is imputed unto all men even unto them who know not what is that sin And the Arabick turne thus seing all have now sinned and the Syriack word is Behi or Bhi which may as well be interpreted in whom as because And in several other places this praeposition so construed as here in the Greek hath this same import as Mark 2. 4. Luk 5 25. 11 22. Rom. 6 21. Phil. 4 10. 1. Thes. 3 7. But enough of this here seing that matter is sufficiently cleared by the orthodox writting against the Socinians and we have also spoken of it against the Quakers Againe saith He Neither doth the Apostle here oppose unto or compare the Obedience of Christ with the disobedience of Adam as one Act unto or with another but as Satisfaction to and with the provocation or the Remedie to and with the
disease Otherwise he should make sins of Omission to be no disobedience be cause Omissions are no Acts. Ans. The Apostle so compareth the Obedience of Christ with the disobedience of Adam as the Satisfaction with the provocation or as the Remedie with the disease as that withall chiesly he cleareth up the manner way thereof to be by Imputation thus That as Adam's sin of disobedience which includeth both Omission Commission being a Violation of the Law of the Covenant was imputed to his posterity they hence became guilty obnoxious to death yea were punished with original Corruption which cometh by propagation the consequences thereof so Christ's obedience which was full compleat is imputed unto Beleevers whereupon they become Righteous in order to their recovery out of their Natural state of sin and misery Further He saith By that obedience of Christ whereby it is here said that many are or shall be made Righteous that is jusâ—ified we cannot understand that Righteousness of Christ which consists only in obedience to the Moral Law but that Satisfactory Righteousness or obedience which He performed to that peculiar Law of Mediation which was imposed upon him and which chiesly consisted in his sufferings Ans. By the obedience of Christ unto the Law of Mediation strickly so taken as distinguished from His obedience to the Moral Law beleevers could not be made Righteous as the posterity of Adam are made sinners by his disobedience for that could not be properly imputed as this is as hath been shown so Paul's similitude should halt But 2. Why is Christ's obedience to the Law of Mediation set in opposition to His obedience to the Moral Law seing this was a part of that unto this He obliged Himself in undertaking the Mediation Was He not by the Law of Mediation bound as well to give obedience to the Law as to suffer the penalty And was He not obliged to both as Surety in room place And then why may not both be imputed unto them 3. Why should obedience here be thus restricked to the Law of Mediation He addeth two reasons but neither are valide The 1. is this Because otherwise the opposition â—etwixt Adam's disobedience which was but one single Act and Christ's Obedience if it were his universal conformity to the Law would not hold Ans. This same man told us in his former exception That Christ's obedience in respect of Adam's disobedience was considered opposed as the Satisfaction to the provocation as the Remedie to the disease now if this be true Christ made Satisfaction for no provocation but for that single act of eating the forbidden fruit what He did suffered should be only a Remedie for that one distemper if so how shall the rest of the Provocations and diseases be taken away or are there no more Provocations or diseases 2. Adam's disobedience was no Single act of disobedience but a disobedience including the breach of the whole Moral Law Saith not Iames that he who offendeth in one is guilty of all Iam. 2 10. prove it too in the following vers The 2. is this The Effect that is here attributed to this obedience of Christ to wit justification or Righteous making of many is constantly appropriated to the death blood of Christ. Ans. This that is attributed to the blood death of Christ elsewhere to wit our justification sheweth that the death of Christ is not understood exclusively for by His death exclusivly considered we cannot-be made Righteous for the Imputation of another's suffering though it may exeem from death suffering yet it cannot constitute Righteous in reference to the commanding Law 2. The death of Christ must not be looked on as one act of obedience but as including all His foregoing acts of obedience belonging to His State of humiliation whereof His death was the crowning piece so as including as His whole suffering so His whole obedience to the Law under which he was made for He is said to have been obedient unto death even unto the death of the cross Phil. 2 8. not that the death of the cross was all His obedience as it was not the whole state of His humiliation but the terminating remarkable act thereof as it was not all His suffering His whole life being a life of suffering 3. If this obedience be understood of this one act of obedience in His dying justification be looked upon as the effect of this only what shall become of His Soul-sufferings while He was in an agonie in the garden But if the act of obedience in His death include these why not His whole state of humiliation And if it include all this why not also His obedience to the Law seing His being made under the Law belongeth to His state of humiliation as the Apostle tels us Gal. 4 4. He excepteth furder saying Suppose that by the obedience of Christ we should here undorstand His active obedience to the Moral Law yet it will not hence follow that men must be justified or made Righteous by it in such a way of imputation Ans. If by Christ's obedience to the Moral Law we be made Righteous as the posterity of Adam were made sinners by the disobedience of Adam that obedience of Christ must necessarily be imputed to us as Adam's disobedience was imputed to his posterity for there is no other way imaginable Let us hear his reason to the contrary For certaine it is said he that that justification or Righteous-making whereof the Apostle speaketh vers 19. is the same with that which He had spoken of v. 16 17 18. Now that Righteousness vers 17. is described vers 16. to be the gift i.e. the forgiveness of many offences i.e. of all the offences whereof a man either doth or shall stand guilty of before God unto justification and evident it is that that Righteousness c. cannot stand in the Imputation of a fulfilling of the Law Ans. 1. Though making Righteous and justification be inseparable yet they are not formally one the same but Righteous-making to wit by Imputation is antecedent unto justification the ground thereof as becoming sinners is not formally to be condemned but is prior to it the ground thereof 2. That free gift mentioned vers 16. is not free forgiveness but is that which is opposite to judgment or guilt or reatus tending to condemnation so is the same with that which is called the Grace of God the gift by Grace vers 15. and the gift of Righteousness vers 17. which is in order to justification free pardon As therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 guilt is not the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemnation but tendeth thereunto so neither is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the free gift the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justification but leadeth thereunto is followed therewith 3. Nor can the Adversary Himself take these words vers
16. the free gift is of many offences to be the same with free pardon of many offences else he must say that this free pardon goeth before justification consequently is not justification it self as he saith else where for the text saith that the free gift is of many offences unto justification as judgment or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was antecedent to condemnation 4. So then the true meaning is that the free gift of Righteousness hath respect unto many sinnes to the end that justification pardon that followeth thereupon might be full whileas the guilt that was imputed to Adam's posterity had respect only to his first breach of the Covenant for which all were made obnoxious to condemnation Lastly He saith It is but loose and unsavoury argueing to reason from a thing simply done to a determinat manner of doing of it so is it to reason from being made Righteous to a being made Righteous by Imputation Ans. The particular manner or way how we are made Righteous is aboundantly signified by our being made constitute Righteous by the Righteousness of another who was our Head Representative Surety that because it can be imagined to be no other way than by Imputation And Further the whole discurse of the Apostle here particularly the comparison so much here insisted upon putteth the matter beyond all debate As Adam's sin was imputed to his posterity whereby all were accounted sinners dealt with as such even as guilty by reason of Adam's act of sin So Christ's Righteousness becometh ours by Imputation we are made Righteous accounted such dealt with as such upon the account thereof No man can imagine how one shall be accounted guilty punished as guilty of a sinful act done by another unless the guilt of that sinful act be imputed to him so no man can imagine how one can be accounted Righteous dealt with as such upon the account of the Righteousness of another if that Righteousness of the other be not imputed to him And beside This is called a gift a free gift a free gift of Righteousness a free gift of Righteousness received which fully pointe forth this Imputation which we contend for Fiftly Rom. 8 3 4. For what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh for sin condemned sin in the flesh that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us The Law could not help a sinner from under the Curse nor unto the recompence of reward because it was weak through the flesh through the sin corruption of man whereby he could not give right and full obedience thereunto And therefore God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh who by His obedience suffering in His state of humiliation took away the sting of death the strength of sin by satisfying all the demandes of the Law the whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the jus right of the Law which consisted in yeelding full perfect obedience in making full Satisfaction for the violation committed for the Law said cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written therein to do them Deut. 27 26. Gal. 3 13. And the Righteousness which is of the Law is that the man who doth these things shall live by them And this was so ordered that the Righteousness of the Law the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Law the jus and demand of the Law mentioned might be fulfilled in us that is in our Nature by the Redeemer Surety who did suffered all this in for His own The Ethiopik Version is a clear commentary and when we were impotent to do the commands of the Law God sent His own Son for that sin who took on our body of sin condemned sin it self in our body that he might justifie us be propitious unto us and that so he might fulfill the work of the commands of the Law for them who walk in the Law of the holy Spirit Let us now see what John Goodwine excepteth p. 145. c. He saith 1. Some understand this rather of Sanctification than of justification by the fulfilling of the Righteousness of the Law that Evangelical obedience to the precepts thereof which all those that truely beleeve in Christ do in part performe and desire and strive to performe more perfectly Ans. Gospel justification Gospel-Sanctification agree well together and Christ is the true foundation cause of both But that this is to be understood rather of justification appeareth hence 1. That this is a further explication confirmation of what was said vers 1. There is therefore now no Condemnation to them which are in Christ Iesus 2. all that measure of Sanctification which the Saints through Grace attaine unto here cannot be called a fulfilling of the Righteousness of the Law the Lawes demands are not thereby satisfied for it calleth for perfect obedience which none of the Sanctified can give 3. If this were understood of Sanctification why are these words added who walk not after the flesh bue after the Spirit 2. He said By the Righteousness of the Law which is here said to be fulfilled in beleevers cannot be meant the Righteousness or active obedience of Christ imputed because it must of necessity be such a Righteousness and such a fulfilling as may be apprehended as a proper and sutable effect of Christ's condemning sin in the flesh as the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 declareth But it is unpessible that the active obedience of Christ or the imputation of it should be any proper effect of condemning sin in the flesh that is of the abolishing or taking away the guilt or the accusing and condemning power of sin for when the guilt of sin is purged away there needeth no other Righteousness nor Imputation of Righteousness for justification Ans. 1. Christ's obedience Suffering need not be distinguished both being done in His state of humiliation and belonging-thereto both being necessary to answere the demand of the Law which we did lye under Christ performed both to the end the whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or jus right of the Law might be fulâ—illed in us and for us by this Surety And before guilt be purged away we must have both imputed to us for justification by saith must not make the Law void but rather establish it 2. Neither is this vers 4. to be looked on as holding forth the end of that which did immediatly preceed in the end of vers 3. or of Christ's condemning sin in the flesh but rather as a further end of God's sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh or as a comprehensive end of all that was mentioned before 3. He saith That clause in them still notes either a subjective inhesion of some things in persons or else some kind of Efficiency But the Righteousness
which we were lying under Except 4. Many sound able expositors are for this sense understanding nothing by this but our justification or righteous making by Him some placeing this justification in Remission of sins some ascribing it to the Sufferings of Christ. Ans. We â—ould also cite sound able expositors for our sense bring-in beside the general Verdict of such as write against Socinians Papists others also but this is not our present work 2. Justification Righteous-making are not one the same If we be made righteous by Him it must be by His Righteousness anâ— if we made righteous by His Righteousness it must be imputed to us 3 That justifiâ—ation is nothing but Remission of sins is not yet proved 4. We have heaâ—d Paul say That by the obedience of one i e Christ in opposition to the disobedience of Adam whereby all his posterity were made sinners many are made righteous Rom. 5 19. Ninthly 2 Cor. 5 21. For he hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him This is added as a confirmation and further explication of what was said vers 18 19. Concerning the reconciliation of a sinâ—ul world unto God in through Christ and of Gods imputing their Trespasses unto them As if he had said all our Salvation all the way how it is brought about is of God who in and through Christ reconcileth the sinfull world of His own chosen ones to Himself and Pardoneth their sinnes by laying them all on Christ making Him bear the guilt and punishment of all that the chosen ones might be made partakers of that Righteousness and have it imputed unto them as their sinnes were imputed unto Christ and so become the Righteousness of God in Him or by being in Him and united to Him This place is pregnant and full of proof so that the whole matter cannot be more clearly emphatically expressed than it is here hold forth Yet Mr. Goodwine laboureth to darken it with his Exceptions pag. 164. c. let us hear him Except 1. Here is nothing said touching any Imputation of our sins to Christ consequently here can be nothing to build a reciprocal Imputation of His righteousness unto us upon Ans. If that Expression of Gods making Christ to be sin who knew no sin that for us will not enforce an imputation of our sinnes to Christ it must be so only with such as will hold fast their opinion let Scripture speak what it will to the contrary for when it is said that Christ who knew no sin i. e. was guilty of no sin by committing of it in thought word or deed was yet made sin by God that for us what words can be imagined that shall more emphatically express this Imputation And the Greek commentators whom our adversary doth oft cite when he findeth it any thing to his advantage give the meaning to be That he was made a great sinner was handled as if he had been the worst of sinners even very wickedness it self And Esaias tels us Chap. 53 6. That the Lord laid all our iniquities on Him or caused them to meet in one upon Him And nothing can be alleiged against this except it be said the meaning is He was made an offering or Sacrifice for sin But this is so far from weakening the truth concerning the Imputation of our sinnes to Christ that it aboundantly confirmeth it for there was a real imputation of the guilt of the sinner upon the Sacrifie as is expresly said Lev. 16 21 22. And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat and confess over him all this iniquities of the Children of Israel all their trespasses in all their sinnes putting them upon the head of goat and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited And the people were to lay their hands on the head of the Sacrifice to signifie their rolling of their guilt over upon the expiatory Sacrifie Levit. 1 4. 3 2 8 13. 4 4 15 24 29 33. So that if Christ was made sin that is a Sacrifice for sin though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no where in the New Test. so taken it must needs be granted that guilt was transferred upon Him in order to His becoming a Sacrifice for sin justice could not exact upon Him if it had not been so He having been free of all sin and guilt in His own person Except 2. Some of the most judicious learned assistants of the way of this Imputation absolutely reject this equality or reciprocation of Imputation between the sinnes of beleevers unto Christ and the Righteousness of Christ unto them There is not the same force and power of our unrighteousness to make Christ unrighteous which is of His Righteousness to make beleevers righteous Therefore we are not made formally righteous by such an Imputation Ans. We willingly grant several differences beside what is mentioned yet this agreement correspondency which is all we seek is manifest That as Christ who knew no sin as to Himself was made sin or had the guilt of sin laid upon Him and was handled by justice as a sinner legally so we who have no righteousness of our owne have Christs Righteousness imputed to us and bestowed upon us and upon the account thereof are dealt with as legally righteous We do not speak of Christs obedience only but assert the Imputation of His Sufferings too Nor do we say that we are hereby made formally Righteous if the terme formally import inherently but that by the Imputation thereof to us we are accounted looked upon by God as Righteous formally in a legal sense and as such are accepted of God justified Except 3. There is not so much as the face or appearance in this place of any comparison between Christs being made sin for us our being made the Righteousness of God in Him but only the latter is affirmed as the end consequent or effect of the former Ans. Though the latter be a consequent of the former yet every word holdeth forth a comparison or correspondence Christ made sin we become Righteous Christ made sin or a sinner for us and we made Righteousness or Righteous in Him Christ knew no sin and yet was made sin we who were sinners land rebels standing in need of reconciliation as the preceeding words evidence as is undeniable are made Righteous Except 4. That the weight of that particle in Him should be by the Imputation of His active obedience unto us hath neither Instance or parellel expression in Scripture nor rule in Grammar nor figure in Rhetorick to make probable in the lowest or lightest degree Ans. We plead not solely for the Imputation of Christs active obedience as is said but for the Imputation of His whole Surety-righteousness And though these words in Him
Gods act the person justified must be righteous ere God can judge pronounce him to be such for the judgment of God is alwayes according to truth no person having a righteousness of his own all that are justified must have a Righteousness imputed to them and there is no Righteousness that can be said to be imputed but the Surety righteousness of Christ and particularly in satisfying all the demands of the law He Excepteth pag. 211. against the Minor 1. That however it be true that justification cannot take place without a perfect Righteousness being nothing else than the making of a man perfectly Righteous yet a Righteousness consisting determinatly of such a tale of righteous acts as Christ performed unto the Moral law is not absolutely necessary for in reference to the jewes there must have been righteous acts performed unto the ceremonial law also Ans. 1 Justification is not the making of a man perfectly righteous but the judicial pronouncing declaring of a man to be so through the Righteouseness of Christ imputed to him received by faith 2 A perfect Righteousness consisting in compleat obedience the law is required we urge not such a determination of acts in number tale to the moral or to the Ceremonial law only we assert the necessity of a full obedience to the Rule of Righteousness which God prescribed unto men this was the Moral law Though as to the jewes there were other prescriptions proposed than were to others of the world yet these same prescriptions consisting in Ceremonials or in Judicials were reduced to the Moral law were enjoined thereby so long as they stood in force and were not repealed by the Supream Law giver Except 2. Neither is it so absolutly true that there is no perfect Righteousness to be found beside Christs There is a Righteousness in the law as absolut compleat And it is much more probable that if God Imputes a legal Righteousness unto Men in justification He fournisheth them this way out of the law Ans. But what is that Righteousness in the law doth the law hold forth any Righteousness but perfect obedience and how can God furnish them with this but by Imputing unto them the perfect obedience of Christ seing He hath not so ordered matters as they shall be in case while here perfectly to keep the law themselves 2 He remitteth us to what he said formerly in the same Treatise and in that place he maketh this compleat Righteousness to consist in Remission of sinnes And yet it is certaine that Remission is no obedience nor is it a Righteousness held forth in the law not is it any Satisfaction to the law yea it agreeth noth with common sense nor with Reason to say that by Remission of sins men are made formally Righteous Except 3. That perfect Righteousness wherein justification consisteth and where with men are made formally Righteous when they are justified is nothing else but Remission of sins Rom. 4 6 7. Ans. Remission of sins is not a perfect Righteousness This hath no countenance from Scripture nor from Reason or common sense Who ever thought or said that a pardoned Thiefe or Murderer was a Righteous man or that his pardon made him formally Rightheous and an observer of the law Though thereupon he be freed from the penalty or from the punishment threatned in the law against such transgressours yet is he nor thereupon either made or declared to be Righteous but his pardon is a virtual declaration that he is not Righteous but a Transgressour How that place Rom. 4 6 7. is perverted when adduced to give countenance to this fiction is declared already He addeth pag. 215. two Reasons for this the first is That remission of sins is equivalent unto and virtually containeth comprehendeth in it the most absolute and entire obedience unto the law Ans. Remission of sins as such is so far from being equivalent to this or from comprehending this in it that it is a plaine declaration of the contrary for where entire obedience is there Remission hath no place and Remission must presuppose a Transgression The next is Because swaith he it hath all these great and high privileges annexed to it and depending upon it which a Righteousness most strickly so called could have as the Love Favour acceptation and approbation of God Ans. If we speak of Remission of sinnes in it self and abstractly considered this is also false for though a pardoned man be freed from the punishment due to Transgressours yet as meerly pardoned he hath no right to Reward promised to the perfect observers of the law Nothwithstanding hereof we grant that the man pardoned of God hath all these high and great privileges but not by vertue of his meer pardon but because there is a Righteousness imputed to him upon which these privileges do depend and Exemption from punishment dependeth upon his pardon He hath two other Reasons elsewhere pag. 5 6. to this purpose as 1. That Remission includeth the acknowledgment of the observation of the whole law even as the Imputation of the law fulfilled necessarily includeth the non-imputation of sin Ans. Though in our justification this might be granted to be true upon the matter because there is an Imputation of the whole Surety-righteousness of Christ together and the one part is not separated from the other so that the one consequently inferreth the other But when it is thus reasoned against the Imputation of the one the Inference here must be understood of a formal Inference and so it is false that Remission includeth the acknowledgment of the observation of the whole law for it only includeth the non-Imputation of guilt notwithstanding that the law was broken yea as is said it manifestly supposeth the contrary viz. That the law was not perfectly observed for had the law been perfectly observed there had been no place for pardon Moreover Remission as such giveth no Right to the reward promised unto perfect obedience but only impunity from the punishment threatned for disobedience 2. saith he He cannot be said to have all this sinnes fully forgiven who is yet looked vpon as one that hath transgressed either by Omission or Commission intended to be dealt with all as such Ans. Though he whose sinnes are fully forgiven cannot be dealt with as one guilty of sin that is as one liable to the punishment yet he may be looked on as one that was guilty and so did not give full and perfect obedience and therefore though he cannot be dealt with as a Transgressour yet neither can he be dealt with upon the account of his Remission as one that hath yeelded perfect obedience did never transgress Wherefore seing he cannot be looked upon as one that never transgressed he cannot be looked upon as one that hath a perfect Righteousness and so a Right to the Reward The similitudes taken from a phisician restoreing his patient to health by recovering him from his sickness and
of justice truth in God in reference to Christ yet as to us it is of free grace so much the more of free grace that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us for that end And such as understand not this are more principled with Socinian abominations than with the doctrine of the Gospel of the grace of God Obj. 18. pag. 173. If men be formally just by God's act imputing Christ's righteousness then do men become formally sinful by the like act of God imputing Adam's sin But this is not true for then an Act of God should be as the life soul of that sin which is in men Ergo Ans. As this argument concludeth nothing against the truth now asserted this conclusion being different from the question now in hand so it is but a meer exhaling of vapores out of the fog of philosophical termes notions that thereby the truth may be more darkened We are not obliged by any Law of God to explaine or interpret these mysteries of Salvation according to these Notions which men explaine after their own pleasure knowing no Law constraining them to follow either one man or other in the arbitrary sense which they put upon these termes But as to the present â—rgument no answer can be given untill it be known what is the true meaning of these words formally just Possibly he will understand hereby the same that others meane by Inherently just so indeed do all the Papists And if so we can answere by saying That no orthodox man thinketh or saith that in this sense we are made formally just by God's act imputing Christ ' righteousness but by Holiness wrought in us by His Spirit And as to that righteousness which is imputed whether it be called the Formal or the Material cause of our justification it is but a nominal debate having no ground or occasion in the Word of God by which alone we should be ruled in our thoughts expressions in this matter Nor do they who say we are formally just by Christ's righteousness say we are formally just by God's Act imputing that righteousness But by the righteousness it self imputed by God received by faith Nor do they say that men become formally sinful by the like act of God imputing Adam's sin unto his posterity but by Adam's sin imputed though God's Act be the cause of this effect it is not the effect it self Adam's sin imputed doth constitute the posterity sinners that is guilty obnoxious to wrath so Christ's righteousness imputed doth constitute beleevers Righteous Obj. 19. pag. 175. If justification consists in the Imputation of Christ's righteousness partly in Remission of sins then must there be a double formal cause of justification that made up compounded of two several natures really differing the one from the other But this is impossible Ergo. Ans. 1. This Argument is founded upon another School-nicety or notion viz the Simplicity Indivisibility of Natural formes this Philosophical Notion is here adduced to darken the mystery we are treating of It were a sufficient answere then to say That the Minor though it be true in natural formes Yet will not necessarily hold in the privileges of Saints which may be single or compounded as the Lord thinketh meet to make them And can any reason evince that the Lord cannot conferre bestow in the grand privilege of justification moe particular favoures than one Can He not both pardon sins accept as declare to be Righteous Can He not both free the beleever from the condemnation of hell adjudge him to the life of glory or cannot these two be conceived as two things formally distinct though inseparable 2. But I shall not say That Imputation of Christ's righteousness is a part of justification But rather that it is the ground thereof necessarily presupposed thereunto Nor shall I say that Remission of sins is the forme or formal cause of justification a pardoned man as such not being a justified man It is true pardon of sins doth inseparably follow upon is a necessary effect of our justification a certaine consequent of God's accepting of us as righteous in His sight upon the account of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us received by faith I grant also that justification may be so described or defined as to take in that Effect without making it thereby a formal part thereof when strickly considered 3. But he will have Remission of sins to be the whole of justification nothing more included therein or conferred thereby abusing to this end as we heard above Rom. 4 6 7 8. Where the Apostle is citing the words of the Psalmist is not giving us a formal definition of justification nor saying that justification is the same with Remission nor that Remission's the formal cause of justification but only is proving that justification is not by our works as the ground thereof that by this reason Because that would utterly destroy free Remission which is a necessary Effect consequent of Gospel-justification cannot be had without it in order to which justification he there asserteth expresly an Imputation of righteousness Now an Imputation of righteousness is not formally one the same thing with Remission of sins nor can Remission of sins be-called a righteousness or the Righteousness of God or of Christ yet the Man is a blessed man whose sins are covered because that man is necessarily covered with the righteousness of Christ whose sins are covered for Imputation of righteousness free pardon do inseparably attend one another Nor is it to the purpose to say That pardon is a passive righteousness though not an Active righteousness for all righteousness rightly so called is conformity to the Law that is not a passive or Negative righteousness which may be in a beast that transgresseth no Law consequenly hath no unrighteousness Obj. 20. pag. 176. If such Imputation be necessary in justification this necessity must be found either in respect of the justice of God or in respect of His Mercy or for the salving or advancing of some other attribute But there is no necessity in respect of any of these Ergo. Ans. 1 This same man tels us that there is a necessity for the Imputation of faith as our Righteousness not withstanding of all that Christ hath done and why may he not grant the same necessity for the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ will it satisfie him that we found the necessity of Imputation of Christ's Righteoufness on the same ground 2 Though we should not be in case to assigne the real just ground of this necessity yet I judge it should satisfie us that the Lord in His wisdom Goodness hath thought fit to appointe and ordaine this methode manner of justification so far should we be from disputing against this Truth with such Arguments from rejecting of it untill we be satisfied as to
that neither is the phrase nor manner of such speaking any wayes agreable to the language of the Holy Ghost for still in the Scriptures wheresoever the word imputing is used it is only applied unto or spoken of something of the same persons to whom the Imputation is said to be made never to or of any thing of anothers Ans. Though it be true that some things are said to be imputed in Scripture unto persons which are or were theirs before the Imputation though that Instance of faiths being imputed to Abraham Rom. 4. which he adduceth doth not belong to this head as shall be evinced in due time whether it be good or evil as 2. Sam. 19 19 Act. 7 60. where this Imputation is deprecated So 2. Chron. 24 22. Gen. 30 33. Psal. 106 31. Yet it is also true that we read of an Imputation of Something that did not belong to or was not possessed by the person before the Imputation was made as when Paul desireth Philemon to impute to him what Onesimue was oweing and that he would reckon both the debt and the injury whereof Onesimus might beguilty upon his score and require it of him Philem. vers 18. Thus do Sureties take upon themselves what formerly was not theirs and so make that imputable to themselves which formerly was not so as we seen Gen. 43 9. 44 32. and the Sureties payment or Satisfaction according to what he voluntarily undertook is according to Law and equity imputable to be imputed unto or reckoned on the Score of the debtor to the end he may be dealt with by vertue of that imputed payment Satisfaction as if he himself had made the payment or given the Satisfaction And this is the very Nature End of this Imputation not that the person to whom the Imputation is made should be accounted one who had that before the Imputation was made but that the thing Imputed may become his to whom it is imputed and he thereupon be dealt with as now an owner possessor of that thing by Imputatioâ— Secondly he saith When a thing is said simply to be imputed as sin folly or righteousness the meaning is not to be taken concerning the bare acts of things as if to impute sin signified to repute the man to have committed a sinful act but to charge the guilt or demerite of sin upon his head of purpose to punish him for it Ans. This is true of such things as are either really or falsly by injustice supposed to be in the person before that imputation be made But notwithstanding hereof there is as we have seen as all acts of Suretiship do further cleare an imputation of what was not the persons before whereby the thing it self that is imputed is legally made over unto them reckoned upon their score thereupon they are dealt with as being now possessed of that which is imputed as when a person voluntarily becometh Surety for another as Paul for Onesimus Iudah for Benjamin first the debt it self is made their reckoned upon their score then they willingly undergo the consequences thereof that is the payment or punishment Thridly pag. 198. he cometh home to the point saying The expressions i.e. of Christ's Righteousness of Adam's sin are unknown to the Holy Gost in Scripture Ans. This is but the old exception of Bellarmin de Iustif. lib. 2. chap. 7. of the Socinians See Volkel do Vera Relig. lib. 5. pag. 564 565. who upon this same ground reject several other fundamental points as the Trinity others But we have already shown Scripture-proof enough of this matter himself in the following words granteth that there are expressions in Scripture concerning both the Communication of Adam's sin of Christ's Righteousness that will fairly enough bear the terme of Imputation So that all the difference betwixt him us is about the sense of the word Now we come to the matter He speaketh to Rom. 5 19 giving this for the only meaning thereof that the demerite or guilt of Adam's sin is charged on his posterity or that the punishment ran over from his person to them i a maine part of which punishment lyeth in that original defilement wherein they are all conceived borne whereby they are made truely and formally sinners before God Ans. But if that sin of Adam be imputed in its curse punishment the sin it self must be imputed as to its guilt else we must say that God curseth punisheth the posterity that is no wayes guilty which to do suiteth not the justice of God the righteous Governour of the world We do not say as he supposeth when he setteth down our sense of the words that that sinful act of eating the forbidden fruit in the letter formality of it an expression that on all occasions he useth whose sense is not obvious but needeth explication is excogitated meerly to darken the matter as it was Adam's own personal sin is imputed to the posterity but it is enough for us to say with the Scripture that by Adam's disobedience his posterity became guilty that all sinned in him therefore death passed on all that guilt was by that one sin to condemnation Rom. 5 12 15 16 18 19. so that the posterity sinned legally originally though not formally because not existing in Adam actually but legally originally became thereby obnoxious to the punishment threatned that is death both in body Soul here hereafter Whence it is manifest that punishment being relative to sin such as are punished because of sin must be sinners judged to be sinners so guilty before they be punished for sin Adam being the Head Root of Mankind God entering into Covenant with him as such therefore with all his posterity in him when he broke the Covenant transgressed all Mankind descending from him by ordinary generation being comprehended with him in the Covenant became actually partakers of that guilt so soon as they did partake of Nature actually being really guilty when existing they were justly punished But if this guilt were not imputed to them they could not be justly punished for it On the contrary he thinks they might be justly punished for that sin though not guilty thereof he laboureth to establish this upon three pillars 1. The demerite saith he sinfulness of that sin which had so many aggravations and in this regard was beyond the sin of devils that Adam had the estates of all his posterity in his hand knew that if he sinned he should draw all their souls after him into the same perdition Ans. But if by Adam's having the estates of all his posterity in his hand this truth be not included that his sin should become their sin they should be looked upon as guilty thereof chargable therewith how could he know that by his sin heshould draw the souls of all his
posterity after him into the same condemnation And how could they be punished for that same guilt if it was not some way theirs by the just righteous Judge Governour of the world The posterity can no more be justly punished for the great hainous sins of their progenitors than for their lesser sinnes if they have no interest in these sinnes nor partake of the guilt thereof But as to Original sin the Scripture giveth the Sin as the ground of the punishment maketh the one to reach all as well as the other telling us Rom. 5 12. that by one Man sin â—ntered in to the world death by sin so death passed upon all Men for that all have sinned or in whom all have sinned See vers 19. 2. The Narrownese or scantisness of Adam's Person who could not beat that fulness of punishment which God might require for that great sin we cannot think that God should sit down with loss Ans. This is his second pillar But neither is it sufficient for God could have punished Adam condingly for his sin but when the posterity is punished for that sin also that sin must be theirs Though for great crimes as Treason the like the Posterity suffeâ—eth when the guilty is forfeited I yet the posterity are not properly punished for that sin nor can be said to be so as we are punished for Original sin because it is ours we sinned in Adam 3. His 3d. maine pillar is the peculir near relation of the posterity of Adam to his person for then they were in it as it were a part or some what of it so that Adam was us all we were all that one Adam as Augustine speaketh the whole generation of mankind is but Adam or Adam's person expounded at large Ans. This is sufficient for us for it will hold forth the Covenant relation wherein Adam stood as representing all his posterity so they were as well in him a part of him in his sin as in his punishment which is all we desire for hence it appeareth that all sinned in that one Adam as well as they were all punished in him Then he tels us that all these three are jointly intimat Râ—â— 5 12. Where first there is the demerito Imported when death is said to enter the scantiness of Adam's person when it is said to have passed upon all men the relation of his posterity to him in that all are said to have sinned in him Ans. But the maine thing which he denieth is there also imported when it is said that all men sinned in him or became guilty of his sin for thereby it is manifest that only they had an interest in his person but that they had such an Interest in relation to his person as so stated as standing in a Covenant-relation to God that they sinned in him or became guilty of his sin therefore suffered with him the demerite thereof Whence it is evident howbeit he seemeth confident of the contrary pag. 207. That the Imputation of Adam's sin or of his sinful Act as sinful or as it was a sin not of the act as such for that himself faith once againe was directly efficiently from God himself therefore was good is the ground or cause of punishment that cometh on his posterity But he saith pag. 208. If any Imputation be in this case it is of every mans own sin in Adam for is was Adam alone that sinned but all sinned in him It is not said that Adam's sin is Imputed to his posterity but rather that his posterity themselves sinned in Adam Ans. If he wil stand to this we need not contend with him about the word Impute this expression of Scripture comprehending plainely holding forth all that we would say And if he will grant as much in reference to the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness as is here said of Adam who was the type of him that was to come he must I judge retract all that he hath said against the same What followeth in that Chapter being but founded upon what is already mentioned examined needeth not here againe be repeated or expressed considered Thus we have taken notice of all which this voluminous Adversary hath said upon this matter both against the Truth for his own Errour no doubt he hath scraped together all that he could finde giving any seeming contribution unto the Notion which he hugged hath laboured after his usual manner to set of with a more than ordinary measure of confidence with an affected pedantrie of language supplying with bombast expressions the want of reality of truth solidity of reasoning What remaineth in that book concerning the Imputation of faith in opposition to the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ shall be examined when we come to the second part of our Text to speak of the matter of justification And as for other things we may take notice of them elsewhere CHAP. XIII M. Baxter's opinion Concerning Imputation examined THere being so frequent mention made in Scripture of Imputation of Righteousness or of Righteousness Imputed of Christ's being our Righteousness or of our being Righteousness or Righteous in Him the like many that even plead much against the Doctrine of the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ maintained by the orthodox must yet yeeld to it in some sense or other at least in such a sense as may in their apprehensions not cross their other Hypotheses Dogmes Yea sometimes grant this Imputation in that sense at least in words which overthroweth or weakeneth all their Disputations to the contrary Schlightingius in defence of Socinus against Meisnerus pag. 250. will grant That Christ's Righteousness may be called accounted ours in so far as it redoundeth to our good righteousness is the cause of our justification And Bellarmin will also say de just lib. 2. cap. 10. That Christ is said to be our Righteousness because He satisfied the father for us so giveth communicateth that Satisfaction to us when He justifieth us that it may be said to be our Satisfaction Righteousness Mr. Baxter though he seemeth not satisfied with what is commonly hold by the Orthodox anent the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ yet will not professe himself an Enemie to all Imputation but on the contrary saith he owneth it in a right sense And it is true men have their own liberty in expressing their sense meaning of Truths where there seemeth to be some considerable difference as to words expressions yet there may be little or none upon the matter And it is not good I confess to make real differences of these that are but verbal nor is it good to be so tenacious of our own expressions as to exaggerat the expressions of others whose meaning may be good because not complying with our own in all points Let us
contrary to the manifest scope of the place He tels us n. 36. pag. 61. It is an errour contrary to the scope of the Gospel to say that the Law of Works or of Innocency doth justifie us as performed either by our selves or by Christ for that Law condemneth curseth us we are not efficiently justified by it but from or against it Ans. I shall not say that we are justified by the Law of works efficiently yet I hope Mr. Baxter will not say that upon the fall that Law or Covenant was quite abolished annulled if it was only dispâ—nsed with in order to the admitting of a Surety which it did not provide or give place to in its primitive Institution we may saifly say That it must be satisfied both as to the commands as to the penalty ere we can escape wrath obtaine Life for this Law said as himself confesseth pag. 63. Obey Perfectly Live sinne dye And though it condemne curse us sinners Yet it hath nothing to say against our Surety nor against any clothed with His Surety-righteousness whereby all the demands of this Law and Covenant were Satisfied Hence he inferreth n. 37. Therefore we have no Righteousness in Reality or Reputation formally ours which consisteth in a conformity to the preceptive part of the Law of Innocency we are not reputed Innocent But only a Righteousness which consisteth in Pardon of all sin right to Life with sincere performance of the condition of the Covenant of Grace that is true faith Ans. If by formally ours he mean Inherently ours I grant what he here saith but I deny it if by formally ours he meane that by which we may be denominated formally Righteous for by Imputation we have a Righteousness whereby we are formally righteous legally Juridically this Righteousness must needs consist in conformity to the Lawes commands It is true we are not repute inherently Innocent Yet we are repute non-sinners legally hence cometh our Pardon Right to Life which of it self is no Righteousness but the Result of a Righteousness So that with him Beleevers have no Righteousness in order to justification but faith the Gospel Righteousness as was said above this he saith here in effect yet more plainely fully pag. 64. He addeth n. 38. pag. 62. our Pardon puts not away our guilt of fact or fault but our guilt of and obligation to punishment God doth not repute us such as neversinned or such as by our Innocency merited heaven but such as are not to be damned but to beglorified because pardoned Adopted through the Satisfaction merites of Christ. Ans. Though pardon as pardon will do no more than he here granteth Yet Righteousness justification presupposing Righteousness will take away the Reatum culpae not as if it would make us such as never sinned for that is Impossible but because by Righteousness imputed we are now reputed sinless Legally that is not guilty of the fact in order to punishment this must be that we may not only not be damned but may be glorifeed according to the Constitution that said Obey perfectly live And though now every pardoned man shall be glorified Yet that is not meerly and formally upon the account of Pardon but because no man is pardoned till he have the compleet Righteousness of Christ consisting in obedience and iâ— Suffering imputed to him whereby beside pardon he obtaineth a right to glory He cometh to cleare the matter of Imputation of Christ's Righteouss by the Imputation of Adam's sin which is a good Medium the Apostle going before us herein Rom. 5. And though he saith somethings n. 41. p. 65. wherewith I am not Satisfied yet I passe because not much to our present purpose come to n. 42. p. 66. where he saith As Adam was an head by Nature therefore conveyed guilt by Natural Generation so Christ is a Head not by nature but by Sacred contract therefore conveyeth right to pardon Adoption and Salvation not by Generation but by Contract or Donation So that what was to be Naturally in Adam seminally and virtually though not personally in existence even that it is in order to our benefite by Him to be in Christ by contract or the New Covenant virtually though not in personal existence when the Covenant was made Ans. As Adam was an Head by Nature so was he by Covenant and as Christ is an head by Covenant so is He an Head by supernatural Influences and conveyeth His blessings by Regeneration as well as by Covenant And therefore what was to be Naturally in Adam seminally and virtually though not personally in existence that is to be in Christ by supernatural Regeneration virtually And as his Effects of Adam's fall are conveyed by Natural generation so that we are made partakers thereof actually by actual partaking of our Natural being so the Effects of Christ's Righteousness are conveyed by Spiritual Regeneration we are actually made partakers thereof when we partake of this Spiritual being He proceedeth n. 43 They therefore that look upon justification or Righteousness as coming to us immediatly by Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us without the Instrumental Intervention and conveyance or Collation by this deed of Gift or Covenant do confound themselves by confounding and overlooking the causes of justification That which Christ did by His merites was to procure the New Covenant Ans. Though the Instrumental Intervention of a Covenant be acknowledged Yet Righteousness must come to us immediatly by Imputation of Christ's Righteousness For His Righteousness imputed is our Righteousness and is only that Righteousness whereby we become formally Righteous in order to justification The difference lyeth here betwixt us Mr. Baxter thinketh thaâ— Christ's Righteousness is imputed in that it purchased the New Covenant and consequently is euqlly imputed to all for the Covenant with him is equally made with all and in and through the new Covenant which conveyeth pardon and life to such as performe the conditions thereof i.e. beleeve so are inherently Righteous these benefites are bestowed so Christ's Righteousness is not the immediat ground of our justification and Right to Glory but our own Personal Righteousness Faith called our Gospel-righteousness Christ's Righteousness is only the immediat ground of the Covenant being the Meritorious cause thereof the immediat ground whereupon our faith is so far advanced But our judgment is that though Christ convey the blessings purchased covenant-wayes yet the Covenant it self is not purchased by His Merites the way of conveyance is this that He first by His Spirit worketh the soul up to faith in Christ then communicateth Christ His Righteousness unto the beleever upon that immediat ground of Christ's Imputed Surety-righteousness whereupon they become Righteous in the sight of God they are justified pardoned receive a right to the Crown And though the difference here may appear to be but small yet to
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
granted as the Immediat fruites of His merites but He only merited the New Covenant wherein these favours are offered upon new Conditions 7 Thus Christ is made only a far off Mediating person procureing new and easier termes which yet are as Impossible to us till we be renewed by grace as the old but no Redeemer or Surety suffering and obeying in the room and stead of any 8 Thus are we justified by our own works of Evangelical Obedience 9 God is made hereby to repute a Right to Pardon Glory our Imperfect Evangelical Obedience to be an acceptable Righteousness the all of our Righteousness all which are against the Gospel of the Grace of God revealed to us in the Scriptures as hath partly been discovered already will further appear by what will hereafter come to be spoken unto CHAP. XVI Mr. Baxter's Further opposition to the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness examined WHat Mr. Baxter's opinion is about the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ in order to our justification we have hitherto been enquireing though in his book against D. Tully while he is giving an historical relation of the Controversie he plainely enough declareth that he is of the judgment as to the maine with Iohn Goodwine yet he there as we have heard so stateth the question against which he disputeth as the Orthodox will not owne it wherein he dealeth not so ingenuously with us as Mr. Goodwine did He will not deny that there is a midway betwixt the Socinians Papists Arminians on the one hand the Antinomians on the other though the Middle way which he hath seâ— down in his Confess pag. 152 153. c. seemeth to me not be the just orthodox way but to incline more unto the Socinians c. for all the Imputation which he seemeth to owne is nothing else than what Papists Socinians Arminians will subscribe unto for beside what we have seen examined above Chap. XIII XIV in his book against Mr. Cartwright pag. 179. he hath these words I have still acknowledged the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness sanosensu And what found sense is he tels us in a parenthesis that is saith he 1. per Donationem ejus fructus and 2. per adjudicationem justitiae nobis inde promeritae that is to say by giving us the fruits thereof 2. by adjudging to us Righteousness thereby purchased which two seem to me to be but one the last being comprehended in the first so all the Imputation by him granted is only in respect of the fruits thereof which are given And will not Papists Socinians Arminians yeeld unto this Imputation Nay doth not Bellarmine come a further length in the words formerly cited Mr. Baxter in his Catholick Theol. part 2. of Moral morks giveth us here there while speaking of other things without any apparent Connexion choosing this way rather than to give us his whole sense of that matter in one place together which might have been some ' ease to such as were desirous to know the same but I know he is at liberty to follow his own wayes methods some hints of his mind and that rather of his dissatisfaction with the orthodox and their manner of expressing their Thoughts Conceptions in this matter than any full positive declaration of his own Thoughts about the question We shall having seen examined his own judgment shortly here examine what he is pleased to say in one place or other of that Book so far as we can finde may be done without repetition against our doctrine Only we shall premit some few of his own words in the Appendix to the Premonition p. 2. whereby we may see how small the difference would appear to be how little cause he had to write so much against the Orthodox as he doth He there saith 14. No man is saved or justified but by the Proper Merite of Christ's perfect obedience Yea and His habitual holiness Satisfactory Sufferings advanced in dignity by His Divine Perfection 15. This Merite as related to us supposeth that Christ as a Sponsor was the Second Adam the Root of the justified the Reconciling Mediator who obeyed perfectly with that Intent that by His obedience we might be justified who suffered for our sins in our room and stead so was in tantum our Vicarius poenae as some phrase it or Substitute was made a curse for us that we might be healed by his stripes as He was Obedient that His Righteousness might be the reason as a Meritorious Cause of our justification which Supposeth the relation of an Undertaking Redeemer in our Nature doing this in our stead so far forth as that therefore perfect obedience should not be necessary to be performed by ourselves And Righteousness therefore is Imputed to us that is we are truely reputed Righteous because we as beleeving members of Christ have right to Impunity life as merited by His righteousness freely given to all penitent beleevers And Christ's own Righteousness may be said so far to be Imputed to us as to be reckoned reputed the Meritorious cause of our Right justification as aforesaid One might think the difference now to be little or none but all this is but Sutable to what is already examined and what might here further be animadverted upon will occurre hereafter He beginneth Sect. 8. n. 119. to speak against the Doctrine of Imputation taught by the Orthodox I shall yeeld to him that Christ's personal Righteousness Divine or Humane Habitual active or Passive is not given to us or made ours truely and properly in a Physical sense as if the same were transfused in upon us Yet the same being imputed to us is made ours more than in the meer Effects for according to the Gospel methode beleevers being by Faith interesâ—ed in Him have an Interest in His Surety-righteousness as to its vertue force and efficacy or as the cause and that morally and legally so that Christ and beleevers are one person in Law Noâ— do we hereby say That Christ's Merite Satisfaction are reputâ—d by God to be inherent in us or done by us in our own proper persons or that in a sence Natural we did all these things ourselves or that God judgeth us so to have done or that all the Benefites of Christ's Righteousness shall as fully and Immediatly be ours as if we bad been done Suffered merited and Satisfied in and by Christ. But we say that Christ being a Surety putting himself in our Law-place putting as it were His name in our Obligation being thereunto Substitute by and accepted of the Father His Satisfaction obedience being performed by Him in our Law-place as a Surety voluntarily taking on the obligation is accounted in Law and justice to be ours who beleeve in Him to all ends and uses that is in order to justification pardon and Right to Glory and that as
That it did binde him to suffer for his old sin adde also for his new sin yet the obligation to obey for time to come remained But all this is beside the purpose for the maine thing is not yet noticed by Mr. Baxter viz. That Adam by his sin was obliged to suffer that yet there was no way for him to come to the promised Crown but by perfect obedience to that Law that therefore neither he or any of his posterity can enjoy life untill their Surety fulfill that Law for them or undertake to do it as they cannot be freed from Suffering untill their Surety suffer the penalty for them or undertake to do it We need not speak so unaptly as he supposeth we do that is say that the Law commandeth lapsed man not to have sin or imperfect man to have been perfect for we know that were to binde to an Impossibility in Nature for sin existent cannot but be existent But this we say That by vertue of that Law constitution there was no way for lapsed man to enjoy the Reward-promised but by yeelding perfect obedience unto that Law and as this was Impossible in Nature so was it impossible for lapsed man to enjoy the Reward therefore the Lord provided a Surety who should yeeld perfect obedience unto that Law this perfect Obedience is made over unto the Beleever put upon his score as well as the Sureties Sufferings are But saith he if Christ's perfect Obedience and holiness be imputed unto them from their first being then they are reputed not lapsed nor sinners from the beginning so not pardonable Ans. There is no necessity for such a Reputation for this is not the end of that Imputation It is Imputed in order to their obtaining a Right to the Reward which was lost by vertue hereof they do obtaine the Reward as certainly as if they had never sinned Others he saith n. 126 would come neerer the matter say that we are reputed Righteous as fulfillers of the Law yet reputed sinners as breakers of the Law that though there be no medium in Naturals betwixt light darkness life death yet there is betwixt a breaker of the Law a fulfiller of it viz. a Non-fulfiller between just unjust that is not just ◠Ans. I Finde Wolls bius in his Compend Theol. Lib 1. Cap. 30. § 15. full plaine as to this who in order to prove that in justification there is a Remission or Abjudication of sins Imputation or Adjudication of a perfect Righteousuess that though these two benefites be the same as to Time Subjects yet they are really distinct both as to their proper definitions their proxime Causes proper Effects in clearing of the difference as to their definitions he tels us that there is a difference betwixt not just just not just unjust not unjust just that not just just are contradictory that unjust just are partly privative partly contrary that not just unjust unjust just are diverse as also that unjust just are not immediatly contrary for there is Medium betwixt them viz. Innocent who is such an one as is neither unjust nor yet just and that though now these two do not differ as to Subjects yet of old they did for Adam in Paradise before he fell was innocent but was not just for he was to obtaine this by perfect Obedience Now. what saith Mr. Baxter to this He saith this is meer darkness As it seemeth all things are that agree not to his Notions But why There is saith he a Medium negative in a person as not obliged but none between positive private in one obliged as such A stone is neither just nor privatively unjust nor a man about a thing never commanded or for bidden him But what is this to the matter God's Law is presupposed we talk of nothing but Moral Acts. The Law forbideddeth omissions and Commissions both are sin Ans. Though there be no medium betwixt positive and privative in a person obliged as to particular acts commanded or forbidden yet there is a Medium in such a person in reference to the Reatus poenae meritum praemii In reference to every moral act Adam was either just or unjust i. e. either one that obeyed or one that transgressed but in reference to the punishment threatned to the Reward promised before he fell he was neither unjust that is one that was a Transgressour reus culpae poenae nor was he just that is one that had purchased the Reward but was in his way thereunto himself saith little less as I judge in his premonit p. 19. saying 3. But that Law giving life eternal only to obedience to the end of his time of trial he merited not that life by Initial obedience This was Initial Imperfect Righteousness wanting perseverance but not a Medium between just unjust except as just signifieth the merite of life by persevering Righteousness to the last And so I never denied but in a disobliged Subject there is a Medium Adam was not bound to do a yeers work the first hour so was neither just nor privatively unjust as to the future yeers work but as to what he was presently obliged unto he was either Righteous or a sinner Here upon the matter is almost all I desire or say When a command is given to a person to run so many miles in an hour a Reward is promised in case he do it a punishment threatned in case he do it not while he is running as to his present acting he is not disobedient but obedient so in so far is just not unjust yet in reference to the Reward he cannot be called just untill he hath finished the course in the time appointed So Adam while standing though he sinned not yet he had not merited the Reward Mr. Baxter replieth 1. He merited what Reward he had viz. the Continuance of his blessings first freely given Ans. That was not all the Reward which was promised whereof we are speaking for Adam was not yet in Patria howbeit himself was not clear as to this when he wrote his Aphorismes yet afterward in his Book against Mr. Cartwright pag. 19. he tels us he became convinced hereof 2. He raiseth dust to darken the aire by saying That it is yet unresolved what that was by which Adam must merite Immutability Glory whether 1. Once obeying or Consent to his full Covenant 2. Or once loving God 3. Or conquering once 4. Or eating of the tree of life 5. Or persevering in perfect obedience to the end that is till God should translate him But this dust falleth to the ground when he addeth That this last is most likely And indeed it were much of his concernment to prove if he could that all that was required of Adam by vertue of that
Covenant was only one single act of obedience for then his Notions about just unjust as to Adam would have some ground but till this be done all he hath said is to no purpose 3. He saith That he maintainâ—th as well as we that Christ hath not only satisfied for sin merited pardon but also merited immutable Glory Ans. But we say further that He merited pardon Immutable glory not by His death sufferings only but by His whole Surety-righteousness consisting in Active Passive Obedience whereby He paid our whole debt But he willeth us to consider 1. That Adam's not doing that which was to merite glory was sin of Omission and to pardon that Omission is to take him as a Meriter of Glory 2. Therefore it must be somewhat more than he forfeited by that Omission and his Commission which cometh in by Christ's merite above forgiveness 3. That Christ merited all this by his active Passive habitual Righteousness by which he merited pardon 4. That it was not we that merited in Him but He to give it to us only in the termes of a Law of Grace Ans. I To pardon that Omission in Adam was not to take him as a Meriter of Glory but only to take him as one that was free of the obligation to punishment for that Omission It is false then to suppose or say that one pardoned as such is taken to be one that never sinned for the contrary is manifest to take Adam as a Meriter of Glory is to take him for one that never sinned yea for one that fulfilled his course of obedience which can never be supposed of a pardoned man as such 2 That by Christ's Merites the Elect obtaine more than what Adam forfeited to speak so I shall easily grant but notwithstanding thereof we stood in need of more than of meer forgiveness even of a Right to what Adam lost the expectation of and in order to this the Law was to be fulfilled 3 I yeeld the 3d. 4 Though we need not say that we Merited in Him yet we say That Christ merited as a Publick Person representing His own as a Sponsor and Surety coming in their Law-place and taking on their whole debt both as to punishment deserved and Duty required And I see no warrand to say that Christ only merited to give it to us only on the termes of a Law of Grace for this would make Him no Sponsor or Surety nor to stand in the room of any which yet he granteth n. 130. but only hold Him forth as a third unconcerned person no wayes related to them like a man buying a Bond or Obligation from a Creditor whereby he may be in case to distress the debtor and call for payment in his owne way and time Whereby the whole tenor of the Covenant of Redemption between Jehovah the Mediator is altered the Mediator's Place Relation to those for whom he died is changed His Righteousness of Active and Passive Obedience is made to have no necessary respect unto the old Covenant Man's Obligation He is supposed to have merited bought all for Himself immediatly He is supposed to have died for all that the New Covenant or Caw of Grace is wholly of Him To none of all which I can assent He saith next n. 127. that some come neerer say that to punish and not reward are all one so the respect that sin hath to the deserved punishment needed Pardon and Satisfaction but our deserving the Reward needed Christ's perfect obedience to be Imputed What saith he to this He granteth that there is some what of truth here but saith he there are errors also that lye in the way and so he willeth us to remember 1. without a 2. or 3. that man can have nothing from God but what is a meer gift as to the matter though it be a Reward as to the Order Ends of Collation Ans. True what then And in this case saith he punishment is damni as well as sensus so the loss of the Reward is the principal part of hell or punishment Ans. That there is poena damni as well as sensus I grant but I am sure the punishment threatned to Adam was more than the meer want of what was promised otherwayes we must say that Adam was punished before he fell because even while he stood he had received the Reward promised so that poena damni is some other thing than the meer want of the Reward even the want of that which man had already in his possession together with the hopes of what was promised The faithful yet living are not pofâ—essed of the Reward of Glory yet it may not be said that they have the principal part of hell being delivered there from So that all this is but loose Sophistrie from the word loss What more So that saith he if Christ's death hath pardoned our sins of Omission we are reputed to have done all our duty Ans. Passing the Impropriety of speach here we say that it is manifestly false as appeareth from what is said And if so saith he again we are reputed to have merited the Reward And. This is also false as is shown And if he pardon our sins saith he more-over as to all punishment of sense loss he pardoneth them as to their forfeiture of heaven at a gift if not as a Reward And. Neither can this be granted for there is more required to the taking away of the forfeiture of heaven if by this nothing else be meaned than a giving of a Right to heaven whether as a Gift or as a Reward than to the taking away of all punishment whether of Sense or of Loss as such as for example when a King covenanteth with his own Servant whom he hath already advanced to great honour dignity and promiseth him far greater honour if he will work one day to end in sueh an Imployment if not threatneth to deprive him of all he hath to cast him in prison untill he die This servant faileth performeth not the condition and therby hath both forfeited what he was in hope of and what he had and is now obnoxious to perpetual Imprisonment when the King 's own Son goeth to prison for some time to make Satisfaction and thereby deliver the Servant from perpetual Imprisonment he doth not thereby deliver him from his loss so as to give him a right to the far greater honour promised though he deliver him from the punishment of constant Imprisonment Yea it may be a doubt if he thereby procure his restauration to his former state but in order to this and to the end the servant may get the Reward promised beside his going so long to prison in the servants room stead that he may be delivered from the punishment he must also in his room stead performe that daies work We say that Remission of sin is a consequent or at most
Righteousness of Christ which meriteth our Impunity quoad damnum sensum which Meriteth our Right to the Gift of life both sub ratione doni as a Gift sub ratione Condonations as a forgiveness of the forfeiture of the poena damni And then addeth That so there is here no room for the conceite that Christ's Death was only to purchase pardon His Righteousness to merite life Ans. We have said before that we need not be so curious here in distinguishing if both be granted to make up a Compleat Righteousness to purchase both we have all we desire and from what hath been said formerly it is manifest that both are requisite Mr. Baxtor granted as much before as we see in the foregoing paragraph Note 6. Nor saith Mr. Baxter any thing here to invalidate what we have said Sure not to have this Gift was no punishment to Adam before he sinned what-ever it might be said to be after his sin Nor is forfeiture of that properly which a Man never had neither in Right nor in possession And therefore Adam could not be said properly nor we in him to have forfeited glory but only that blessedness and felicity wherein he was created and that Righteousness that was concreated So that beside the taking away of this forfeiture there will be a Righteousness of Obedience requisite according to that Constitution do this live in order to the obtaining of a Right for us unto the life of Glory And to this he assenteth in end when he saith That the same Merites of Christ's Active Passive Habitual Righteousness do causo our Glory For we do not separat them Nor need we curiously enquire whether Christ's Suffering were first Satisfactory then Meritorious His Obedience first Meritorious and then Satisfactory as he speaketh it being sufficient to us that both made up a compleat Righteousness performed for us by Him as our Surety coming in our Law-place whereby justice was satisfied and life merited Nor need I say as he supposeth n. 135. too many hold That heaven is our Reward for our perfection of Holiness and Obedience in and Christ more than that pardon is our Reward for our Satisfaction in by Christ. Yet as Christ satisfied as a Sponsor in the stead room of sinners as he confessed so it may be said that Christ obeyed as a Sponsor in their room stead that as the one was requisite for purchase of pardon so the other was requisite for purchase of Glory and that as we must be Interessed in the one imputed to us received by faith to the end we may be pardoned so we must be Interessed in the other imputed to us and received by faith both being Integral parts of one compleat Surety-righteousness to the end we may have a Right to Glory Nor can I say with him Ibid. That eternal life is ours by Christ's free Gift as a Reward to Christ for His own Merites for then we could not say that Christ suffered properly in the roome of any as their Sponsor and this would take away that fundamental relation betwixt Christ the Chosen ones that were given to Him of the Father and for whose sake He sanctified Himself was made a Curse made under the Law and became the Father's Servant and was made a Surety Blessings came through Christ as the appointed Mediator not from Him as the principal Donor speaking of Him as Mediator The blessing of Abraham cometh on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ Gal. 3 14. The God Father of our Lord Iesus Christ blesseth us with all spiritual blessings in Christ according as He hath chosen us in Him hath predestinat us unto the Adoption of Children by Iesus Christ hath made us accepted in the Beloved Ephes. 1 3 4 5 6. It is God who saveth us according to His mercy by the washing of Regeneration the renewing of the Holy Ghost which He shed on us abundantly through Iesus Christ our Saviour that being justified by His grace we should be made heirs according to the hop of eternal life Tit. 3 5 6 7. Christ is the way to the Father Ioh. 14 6. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself 2 Cor. 5 19. Yet it is true that Christ is now exalted as King and Prince and giveth the Crown of life Revel 2 10. as the great Administrator and Executor of His own Testament yet not as if He had purchased all these things firstly or primarily to Himself and were now become the Sole or Principal Donor for this doth overturn the tenor forme of the Covenant of Redemption He tels us n. 141. That Christ's Righteousness is made ours as our sinnes were made his Which is all that we desire We grant that Christ never had the Reatum culpae in it self he saith that sin was Imputed to Him as to the punishment deserved that is He assumed the Reatum poenae But sure the Reatus poenae being a dueness of punishment because of sin He could not come under this Obligation unless the Reatus culpae had been Imputed to Him not in it self physically but juridically in ordine ad poenam And accordingly we must have the Righteousness of Christ in order to its Effects and this is more than to have the meer Effects themselves as he saith we shall grant to him that we have it not in the relation of a Meritorious cause to all uses if he will grant to us that we have it in the relation of a meritorious Cause to those uses which God accepted it for hath assigned to it in the Gospel as he seemeth to grant ibid. Though we do not assert such an Imputation as he calleth the rigide sense thereof n. 142. whereby God is supposed to repute us to have done that in by Christ which we never did by Him yet we see no reason why we may not say that God judged Christ to be the publick legal person yea himself in the appendix to his Premonition yeeldeth that Christ may be called our Vicarius poenae or Substitute And when we say He is a Publick legal person we say not that He is as many persons as there be redeemed sinners in the world as Mr. Baxter speaketh but that He was such a publick legal person as did represent in Law all that were given to Him as their publick Head Surety And what he saith n. 143. of the various sorts of Sureties some of which are very Impertinent as the 3â— for no man calleth an Agent a Surety the 5. for no man calleth a pay-master who is the debtors Instrument servant or delegat a Surety doth not much help him seing there are no such Sureties among Men nor no manner of Suretyship that can quadrat with Christ's Suretiship in all things and therefore it is to no purpose to say Christ is not such a Surety as is among men in this or that or in the
for us according to any obligation that ever fell upon our persons How proveth he this For 1. saith he we were never personally bound to perfect personal perpetual Obedience as the Condition of life for that Covenant as to the promise condition ceased before any man was born Ans. That Covenant I grant ceased to be the way to life as it was to Adam at first because it became a thing impossible yet as Adam fell under the Curse of that broken Covenant so did all his posterity fall with him in him hence when his posterity come to be existent persons they are Children of wrath are under the Curse of that Covenant and all their Actions afterward committed are further sins violations of that Covenant for we may not think that Adam after his first sin was not in case to violat that Covenant any more And though before any man was born the new Covenant or Gospel was promulgat yet notwithstanding thereof all men were born under the Curse of the first Covenant and were never delivered from under that untill they closed with the termes of the second Covenant or Covenant of Grace But he saith 2. All the duty in the world which we are bound unto is to be done for Euangelical ends for recovery grace unto gratitude Ans. And was not Adam before the fall also bound unto gratitude But he possibly meaneth gratitude for Redemption yet he hath proved that all the world Heathens I meane such as never heard of the Gospel are obliged to Gratitude upon the account of Redemption or that all that is required of them is to be done for Gospel ends But in all this I am little concerned who see no necessity of restricking Christ's obedience so 8. He saith That we see not that our own answere implieth the truth of what he and others assert and is the same which they give but our cause is uncapable of What then saith he his We say saith he that Christ did indeed most perfectly obey the Law of Innocency so far for us in our stead though not in our persons as doing that which we should have done did not hath merited for us a better Covenant which obligeth us not at all to obey for the ends of the first Covenant viz. that our perfection might be our Righteousness or the Condition of life but only to obey for the ends of the New Covenant for the obtaining improving of recovering grace Salvation by Christ freely given us which we ourselves must do or perish Ans. 1 If Christ obeyed for us and in our stead I see not why he may not be said to do it as our Surety and so in our Law-person seing according to our Common discourse the Surety Principal debtor are one person in Law But about ambiguous termes we need not debate It is of greater moment to differ as to this that he thinketh the us comprâ—hendeth all persons Elect Reprobat 2 That Christ did merite the New Covenant is no where said in Scripturâ— yet this is all that Mr. Baxter here mentioneth as merited by Him 3 I think he is as much concerned as we are to loose his own difficulties formerly proposed for 1. How can He be said to have fulfilled all the Law for us that did not fulfill it to all due ends 2. Can the Law require more than absolute perfection 3. Was not absolute perfection in Christ's holy Obedience 4. Is not gratitude an end required in the Law of Innocency 5. If Christ fulfilled only the Law of Innocency did he not fulfill the Law for Adam Eve only or for us as in them c. Let him answere these himself and he shall help us Next n. 190. he bringeth some in saying That we may as wel say that man must not die because Christ died for us as not obey because Christ obeyed for us then tels us that we strangely use their reason against ourselves know it not But what if this be his mistake Let us hear his reason For we say saith he that we must die because we did not perfectly either obey the Law or suffer all its penalty by Christ as our legal person but he suffered only to satisfie justico in tantum to this end that man himself suffering death temporal afflictions obeying the Law of grace might be saved from all the rest of the punishment But if we had so fulfilled the Law as afore said by doing or suffering we could not have died or suffered the least affliction as a penalty for all punishment in the essence of the relation is for sin Ans. Though I had rather say That Christ Suffered Obeyed for His own in their stead as their Surety willingly undertaking the debt that they were under than that we Suffered Obeyed in Him yet it may be they who speak so are far from that meaning that Mr. Baxter putteth on their words when they call Christ our legal person they mean no more than that he was a Surety or a publick Person 2 Though he suffered not to deliver His own from temporal death yeth he did bear the Curse satisfied Vindictive justice and left nothing of that for them to suffer what chastisements they meet with yea death it self is made to work together for their good He bringeth them in againe n. 190. saying It is more Inconvenient to say that Christ was perfect in our person than that He satisfied in our peâ—son we by Him And here possibly the same mistake is but continued But as he taketh it up he thinketh that hereby the Gospel is subverted Ans. The whole dependeth upon the Explication of these words in our person Mr. Baxter thinketh that these words in our person in a Law sense import that we payed all in Christ as a man payeth a Summe of Money by his servant whom he sendeth to carry it or some such thing And if this be not their meaning who use this expression all this outcry is to no purpose and is only a fighting against his own imagination a meer striving about words yet he granteth that we may fitly say that Christ suffered in the person of a sinner but he bids us mark the sense saying 1. Suffering as penal belongeth to a sinner as such but Satisfaction is an effect of Christ's Suffering which resulteth not from the meer suffering nor from the person of a sinner but from the will Covenant of God made to that excellent person who was God perfect man Well what next 2. Note 2. saith he that it is not any other mans person that we mean that Christ suffered in but His own Ans. And no man ever dreamed that He either did or could suffer in any other man's physical person But seing He was made sin for us so died in our room stead why may He not be said to have died in our Law-person If a
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
third yea multiplied Regeneration whereof the Scripture is silent nay it clearly depones the contrary 10. And if it be enquired how it cometh to passe that after sins may not at least gradually impaire the State of Justification as sins do impaire and weaken Sanctification I answere and this may further help to clear the business under hand The reason is manifest from the difference that is betwixt these two blessing and benefites Iustification is an act of God changing the Relative-state of a man and so is done and perfected in a moment Sanctification is a progressive work of God making a real physical change in the man whence sin may tetard this or put it back but cannot do so with the other which is but one single act once done and never recalled the gifts and calling of God being without repentance Rom. 11 29. In justification we are meerly passive it being a sentence of God pronunced in our Favours in Sanctification as we are in some respect patients so are we also Agents and Actors and thus sin may retard us in our motion and as it evidenceth our weakness for acting so it produceth more weakness Moreover Sin and Holiness are opposite to other as light and darkness therefore as the one prevaileth the other must go under and as the one increaseth the other must decress But there is no such Opposition betwixt sin pardon which is granted in Justification And whereas it may be said that sin expelleth also grace Meritoriously yet that prejudgeth not the truth in hand for it can expell grace meritoriously no further than the free constitution of God hath limited and so though it can and oft doth expell many degrees of Sanctification yet it cannot expell make null the grace of Regeneration or the Seed of God so no more can it expell or annul Justification because the good pleasure of God hath secured the one the other made them both unalterable By these particulars we see how the first doubt is removed out of the way we shall next speak to the Second which is concerning afflictions Punishments which are the fruits and deserts of sin and seem to be part of the curse or penalty threatned in the first Covenant To which we need not say much to show that notwithstanding hereof the State of Justification remains firme and unaltered These few things will suffice to cleare the truth 1. Though all affliction and suffering be the fruite consequent of the breach of the Covenant by Adam the head of mankind for if he had stood and the Covenant had not been violated there had been no Misery affliction Death or Suffering and though in all who are afflicted in this world there is sin to be found And though it cannot be instanced that God ever brought an afflicting or destroying stroke upon a Land or Nation but for the provocations of the People yet the Lord may some rimes afflict outwardly or inwardly or both a particular Person in some particular manner though not as provoled thereunto by that persons sin or without a special reference to their sin as the procuring Cause thereof as we see in Iob and as Christ's answer concerning the blinde man Ioh. 9 3. Neither hath this man sinned nor his parents that he was born blinde but that the works of God should be made manifest in him giveth ground to think 2. Though it doth oftner fall out that God doth afflict Punish and Châ—sten his people even because of their sinnes as well as other wicked persons yet the difference betwixt the two is great though the outward Camitie may be materially the same To the godly they flow from Love are designed for good are sanctified and made to do good they are covenanted mercies but nothing so to the wicked They are mercies to the one but curses to the other They speak out love to the one but hatred to the other They are blessed to the one but blasted cursed to the other They work together for good to the one but for evil to the other and all this notwithstanding that the outward affliction calamity that is on the godly may be double or treeble to that which is upon the wicked Yea there is mercy and love in the afflictions of the Godly when the prosperity of the wicked is cursed Whence we see that all these afflictions cannot endanger or dammage their Justified state 3. Though the Lord may be wroth smite in anger his own people chasten punish them in displeasure yet this wrath anger is but the wrath and anger of a Father and is consistent with fatherly Affection in God and therefore cannot be repugnant to a state of Sonshipe in them Prov. 3 11 12. Heb. 12 5-8 Psal. 89 30 33 34. Revel 3 19. 4. In all these afflictions that seem to smell most of the Curse and of the death threatned and are most inevitable such as death c. there is nothing of pure vinâ—ictive justice to be found in them when Justified persons are exercised with them for Christ did bear all that being made a curse for them and as to this the Lord caused all their iniquities to meet together upon him He drunk out the cup of Vindictive anger and left not one drop of the liquor of the Curse of the Law for any of his own to drink He alone did bear the weight of revenging justice and there is nothing of this in all that doth come upon beleevers So that the very sting of death is taken away the sting of all these Afflictions is sucked out and now they are changed into Mercies Blessings 1 Cor. 3 21 22. Therefore we must not think that they contribute the least mite unto that Satisfaction which justice required for sins Christ payed down to the full justice was fully satisfied with what he paid down nor must we think that God will exact a new satisfaction for sins or any part thereof of the hands of beleevers after he hath received a full satisfaction from the Mediator Christ did rest satisfied therewith The afflictions and Punishments then that the godly meet with being no parts of the Curse nor of that Satisfaction that justice requireth for sin nor flowing from vindictive justice but being rather fatherly chastisments mercies meanes of God can do no hurt unto their state of justification nor can any thing be hence inferred to the prejudice of that glorious state 5. But it is said Pardon and Justification is one thing and a man is no more Justified than he is Pardoned and Pardon is but the taking off of the obligation to punishment and consequently of punishment it self and seing punishment is not wholly taken off but there remaineth some part of the curse or of the evil threatned for sin and will remaine untill the resurrection it is cleare that pardon is not fully compleet not consequently Justification so long as we live But
we were justified upon the account of it as our Righteousness God should not be he who justifieth the ungodly as he is expresly stiled Rom. 4 5. And the reason is because he cannot be called an ungodly person who hath a Righteousness inherent in him which is his own which the Lord accounteth to him for a Righteousness he is not unrighteous whom God accounteth Righteous he whom God accounteth Righteous cannot be called ungodly so that if God account Faith to us for our Righteousness putting it up upon our score as our Righteousness when God justifieth us as Righteous by vertue of our faith or as clothed with faith as a compleet Righteousness he cannot be said to justifie such as are ungodly But now the Scripture tels us that God is one that justifieth the ungodly that is one who hath no Righteousness inherent in him upon the account of which the just righteous God can justify him but one that must have a Righteousness from without Imputed to him upon the account of which he is Justified and accounted Righteous in Christ though unrighteous ungodly in himself our Faith cannot be said to be imputed to us as our Righteousness 8. If Faith as our act of obedience were imputed to us as our Righteousness Paul could not say as he doth Rom. 4 6. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputed righteousness without works for then Righteousness should not be imputed without works but a prime special principal comprehensive work for with our Adversaries here faith is in a manner all works or comprehendeth them as we heard towards the end of the foregoing Chapter should be imputed as our Righteousness not a Righteousness without works 9. Free pardon of sins will never prove the man blessed unto whom God imputeth Faith in a proper sense for his Righteousness as it doth prove him blessed unto whom God imputeth Christ's Righteousness or a Righteousness without works And the reason is because faith is no satisfaction to the justice of God therefore can not be our Righteousness upon which we are pardoned justified Now the Apostle argueth thus Rom. 4 6 7 8. Even a David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works saying blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven whose sins are covered blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin 10. The Righteousness imputed is something distinct from our Faith is not our faith it self for the Apostle saith Rom. 4 23 24. Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him but for us also to whom it shall be imputed if we beleeve on him c. If Faith it self were the Righteousness imputed these words could make no good sense Shall we think that the meaning of the Apostles words is nothing but this Faith shall be imputed if we have faith or our Beleeving shall be imputed to us if we Beleeve This looks not like one of the discourses of the Apostle 11. The imputation of our Beleeving as our Righteousness cannot ground our Peace with God not have we by it access into this grace wherein we stand nor can we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God nor glory in Tribulation for it is obvious how weak a ground that were for such a great building But the Righteousness of Christ laid hold on by Faith can be a sufficient basis for all this Rom. 5 1 2 3. 12. Faith as our work of obedience is not the grace of God and the gift by grace which must be imputed to us as our Righteousness upon the account of which we are to be justified as the offence transgression of Adam was imputed to his posterity as the ground of death passing upon them and of judgment or guilt to condemnation But is only our receiving of that abundance of grace and of the gift of Righteousness Rom. 5 17. But that which is imputed as the ground of Justification as Adam's disobedience was imputed as the ground of their Condemnation is the Righteousness of the Second Adam of whom the first was a figure vers 14 15 18 19. 13. When the Apostle saith 2. Cor. 5 21. for he made him sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him his meaning cannot be that our Faith is the Righteousness of God or that we are made the Righteousness of God upon that account of having faith for the Apostle is holding forth here a comfortable commutation which God maketh betwixt Christ us as the ground of that ministrie of Reconciliation to wit that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them mentioned vers 18 19. And therefore as Christ hath some thing that was properly ours imputed to him by God that is Sin or Guilt which he had not in himself so we must have something as the native fruit effect of that that is properly Christ's imputed to us of God that is his Righteousness which we have not in ourselves And beside this Righteousness of God is that whereupon Reconciliation is founded as is manifest comparing vers 19. with 21. But who will say that our Reconciliation unto God is founded upon our Faith as if that were our Peacemaker our Atonement Satisfaction as if that were Christ in whom God was reconciling the world unto himself Was Christ made sin that the imperfect grace of faith might be made a compleet Righteousness become our compleet Righteousness 14. When the Apostle saith Rom. 9 31 32. That Israel hath not attained to the Law of righteousness because they sought it not by faith he must meane a Righteousness that is distinct from Faith and therefore he cannot meane Faith it self for if he meaned faith it self as our work the words should have this sense they sought not Faith by Faith and therefore they did not attaine to Faith Shall we impute such jejune insipide expressions to Paul or rather to the Spirit of God speaking in by Paul 15. The same Apostle tels us Rom. 10 3 4. That the jewes being ignorant of God's righteousness going about to establish their own righteousness have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God And by this Righteousness of God he cannot meane Faith for their faith had been their own so their own Righteousness if Faith had been Righteousness but he must meane the Righteousness of Christ which faith laith hold on for he addeth for Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that beleeveth So that it is the Righteousness of him who is the end of the Law that is that Righteousness unto which they should have submitted themselves by Faith it is not Faith it self but a Righteousness which is had from Christ who is the end of the Law a Righteousness
Christ the ground meritorious cause thereof is a far other thing And when he saith Apologie ag Mr. Eyre § 4. that he is well content to call Christ's Righteousness of Satisfaction the matter of ours and that the imputation of Christ's Righteousness taken for Donation is the forme of Constitutive Iustification that sentential adjudication of Christ's Righteousness to us is the forme of our sentential Iustification That Faith in order to Justification doth in a special manner eye the Righteousness of Christ is clear from Esai 45 24 25 Surely shall one say in the Lord have I Righteousness then followeth In the Lord shall alâ— the seed of Israel be justified This truth is also clearly held forth when faith in the matter of Justification is called faith in Christ's blood Rom. 3 25. for when faith laith hold on the bloud of Christ it cannot but lay hold on his Surety-Righteousness whom God set forth to be a Propitiation and in through whom there was a Redemption wrought vers 24. for this hlood was the Redemption-money the price payed in order to Redemption 1. Pet. 1 18 19. And the blessedness of Justification is through the Imputation of Righteousness without our works Rom. 4 6. and therefore faith in order to the obtaining of this blessedness must eye and relye upon this Righteousness which is the Righteousness of him who was delivered for our offences and was raised againe for our Justification vers 25. where we may also observe a manifest difference betwixt this Righteousness which consisteth in his being delivered for our offences and our Justification the one being the Cause as was said the other the Effect Moreover this same truth is clear from Râ—m 5 17. where we read of the receiving of the gift of righteousness which is by faith and that in order to a reigning in life by one Jesus Christ where also we see a difference put betwixt this gift of Righteousness Reigning in life which is also more cleare in the following vers 18. Even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto Iustification of life this righteousness of one to wit one Jesus Christ is the Cause and the Iustification of life is the Effect And further this difference is againe held forth vers 19 20 21. Our being made Righteous is different from the obedience of one Christ Jesus and by the Imputation of this Obedience to us do we become Righteous as our being made sinners is different from Adam's act of Disobedience and we are made sinners by the Imputation of it to us And as sin death are different when it is said that sin hath reigned unto death so Eternal life is different from Righteousness when it is said so might grace reigne through righteousness unto eternal life We need say no more of this seing it clearly followeth from what was formerly at length confirmed to wit That justification is by the Righteousness of Christ imputed CHAP. XXXIV Faith in Justification respecteth not in a special manner Christ as a King but as a Priest MR. Baxter did long ago in his Aphorismes tell us That the Accpting of Christ for Lord is as essential a part of Iustifying Faith as the accepting of him for our Saviour that is as he explained himself That faith as it accepteth Christ for Lord King doth justifie And this was asserted by him to the end he might cleare confirme how Sincere Obedience cometh in with Affiance to make up the Condition of Justification for his Thesis LXXII did run thus As the accepting of Christ for Lord which is the hearts Subjection is as essential a part of Justifying Faith as the accepting of him for our Saviour So consequently sincere obedience which is the effect of the former hath at much to do in justifying us before God as Affiance which is the fruit of the later Hence the question arose and was by some proposed thus Whether faith in Christ qua Lord be the justifying act or whether the Acceptation of Christ as a Lord and not only as a Priest doth justifie And Mr. Baxter in his Confess p. 35. § 13. saith that it is not only without any ground in God's word but fully against it to say that faith justifieth only as it apprehendeth Christ as a Ransome or Satisfier of justice or Meriter of our Iustification or his Righteousness as ours not as it receiveth him as King or as a Saviour from the staine tyranny of sin I have shewed before that the moving of this question is of little use in reference to that end for which it seemeth it was first intended to wit to prove that Sincere Obedience hath as much to do in Justification as faith or Affiance hath where I did shew the inconsequence of that consequence That because Justifying Faith receiveth Christ as King Therefore Obedience is a part of the Condition of Justification yea or therefore a Purpose or a promise of Obedience is a part of the Condition of Justification So that in order to the disproving of that Assertion that maketh obedience or a Purpose or a promise of obedience an essential part of the Condition of Justification we need not trouble ourselves with this question Yet in regaird that the speaking to this may contribute to the clearing of the way of Justification by faith which is our great designe we shall speak our judgment there anent And in order thereunto several things must be premitted As 1. The question is not whether Christ as a King belongeth to the compleet adequate object of that faith which is the true justifying faith for this is granted as was shown above this faith being the same faith whether it be called True Faith or Saving Faith or Uniting Covenanting faith or Justifying faith it must have one the same adequate Object 2. Nor is the Question whether Faith in order to Justification doth so act on Christ as a Priest as to exclude either virtually or expresly the consideration of any other of his offices or of Christ under any other of his offices for under whatever office Christ be considered when faith acteth upon him whole Christ is received and nothing in Christ is or can be excludeth So that there is no virtual exclusion nor can there be any express exclusion of any of his offices when he under any other of his offices is looked to a right received for such an exclusion would be an open rejection of Christ and no receiving of him 3. When we speak here of receiving of Christ as a Priest or in respect of his Sacerdotal Office it is all one as if we named his Sacerdotal work or what he did in the discharge of that office offering up himself a Satisfactory Sacrifice and giving his blood and life for that end and suffering inwardly outwardly what was laid upon him by the Father in order to the making of full Satisfaction to justice
our Pardon whatever seeming assurance we had formerly So that this place speaketh nothing of the Condition of our pardon but of the condition rather of our Sense Feeling grounded Assurance of Pardon which is a far different thing These are the Scriptures whereby he would prove his first argument His 2. Arg. is this Our first faith having the nue nature of a Covenanting with Christ giving ourselves to him taking him for our Lord Redeemer therefore it followes that as the Covenant making accepting was of necessity as the condition of our first right remission so is our Covenant keeping of the same necessity to our continued right And that God is as it were disobliged if we should not keep Covenant And the keeping hath more in it than the bare making No Covenant-relations usually are entered among men but the Covenant keeping is more than the making and the conditions of their continued right more then of their first right So it is with a Subject to his Prince wife to a husband Souldier to a commander Scholer to his Teacher Servant to his Master c. Promising will give them the first right but performing in the essentials must continue it it or will cease for the end of the promise was its performance And in that respect faith which is the Covenant is inferiour to obedience which is promised though in other respect it may be superiour Ans. 1 Though Justifying Faith be also a Covenanting faith and of uniteth he soul with Christ Yet in order to Justification it hath not to use his words the true Nature of a Covenanting with Christ nor a giving up ourselves to Him but rather it is a receiving resting on Him and his Righteousness and a fleeing to his Merites for refuge 2 Nor doth faith in order to Justification as we cleared above receive Christ or goe to him as Lord King but rather as Priest 3 Nor doth the receiving of Christ at first as King formally include Obedience or a promise of obedience as was also manifested above 4 Therefore from this first acting of faith in order to justification it can no way follow that Obedience or Covenant keeping as he speaketh is the condition of our continued Right or of our continued justification 5 What God hath promised upon Covenant-keeping he is it is true disobliged from giving to speak so when the Covenant is not keeped But we find not that he hath promised Justification or the continuance thereof upon these termes 6 There is no Covenants among men that can fully quadrate either with God's Covenanting with us or with the matter of Justification about which we are now speaking The sentences of judges absolving the debitor upon the payment of the Cautioner instructed agreeth more with this and we finde not in such sentences any such-like Conditions mentioned of their Continuance in force 7 Some of these Relations or Covenants mentioned are purely aliene being betwixt a Master his servant and the Captain and the Souldier these are meer mercenary contracts having Obedience service for their only end promiseing a reward upon that Condition Our justification hath no likeness to this 8 Even in these Relations every act of disobedience or non-performance of the duties required doth not dissolve the Relation and therefore it cannot be said that upon the contrare performance as a condition the continueing of the Relation dependeth Mr. Baxter seeing this addeth a restriction in the essentials And in our case I would require what he will account Essential It must be that sure the contrary whereof is inconsistent with a Justified state and what can this be but a total Apostasie From which there is full securitie laid-in in the New Covenant which is not in any of the Covenants among men which he hath mentioned And this total Apostasie must include a full renuncing of Christ his Righteousness as to Justification And this rather would say that the continuance of Justification dependeth on the continuance of Faith adhereing to Christ his Righteousness to this I shall willingly assent And this taketh away the force of the 3. Arg. which he adduceth saying 3. Arg. If there were no more necessary to the continueing of our Iustification but only the same thing which did constitute it then we should be justified by no none act of faith to our lives end but only the first instantaneous act so our faith after that instant should never more be justifying faith But that 's false c. Ans. This whole argument I yeeld unto for I plead not against the interest of faith here but against our works being the condition of continued Justification as was said above CHAP. XXXVI Of the Interest of Repentance in the Pardon of after-sinnes WE spoke before Chap. 29. of Repentance in order to the first pardon of sinnes or to justification and in the foregoing Chapter we shew that the continuance of Justification did not depend on our works as the Condition thereof But now the question will be moved touching Repentance Whether it may not be said to be required as a Condition of the Continuance of Justification or at least as a Condition of the Pardon of sins committed after justification Concerning which we would premit these things 1. It is granted that Repentance is not only necessary at the first Conversion of a sinner but is a Grace that is constantly to be exercised by a Beleever so long as he liveth both in respect of its terminus a quo of its terminus ad quem or both in respect of its aversive of its conversive part for he is still more more to depart fâ—om sin and to turne unto God and to all the wayes of his Commandements Psal. 119 59. The very body of death is constant matter of groaning and mourning unto him Rom. 7 24. his dayly iniquities transgressions ought to keep him low and to put him to this exercise Beside what at extraordinarie times of publick wrath or judgment against the Land Church or Place he liveth in or judgments upon his own neer Relations Familie c. or upon occasion of his own more hainous out breakings as in David Psal. 51. 2. It is also granted That where is no Repentance or no true Repentance for sinnes committed there is no ground for that man to suppose that his sin is pardoned I do not here speak of the measure or expressions of Repentance for there may be mistakes on both hands some thinking their Repentance is naught because not in such a sensible measure as they think is required may therefore inferre that their case is worse than indeed it is others upon the other hand may suppose they have repented when it is not so so inferre pardon when they have no ground But this is granted that where true sincere Repentance is not there is no Pardon from God of sins whereof such are guilty for to such as
be true lively is the sole Condition of Pardon 8. As at first so alwayes that holdeth true which Peter saith Act. 10 43. To him i. e. to Jesus give all the Prophets witness that through his name whosoever beleeveth in him shall receive Remission of sins As the stung Israelit was alwayes in order to his cure to look to the brazen serpent so is the Beleever that would be cured of the guilt of new transgressions to have his recourse by Faith unto the Mediator crucified lifted up Ioh. 3 14 15. Obj. 1. It is said that Repentance is necessary both as commanded and as a meane appointed for attaining Remission of sins And therefore must be the Condition of Remission Ans. The consequence is not good for this same may be said of Prayer and other Duties which yet cannot be called proper Conditions of Pardon That prayer is a commanded duty none will deny That a praying sinner may be said to be using the meanes to attaine unto Pardon and to be in the way of obtaining of it will also be granted and so in that respect prayer may be accounted a meane and yet it cannot be called the Condition for then every one that prayeth should have pardon though he act not faith And if it be said that it must be prayer in faith Iam. 5 15. I Ans. True but then the Condition is not Prayer but Faith exerting itself and acting in through Prayer And the same we say of Repentance and so keep it in its due place and presse it in the Gospel way methode Obj. 2. It is said That there is a kind of congruity sutablness in this order by subjoining the promise of pardon to it for it is more sutable that a penitent sinner should have Pardon than an impenitent Ans. So this same may be said of Prayer for it is also more sutable that a praying sinner be pardoned than a sinner that nevâ— once asketh pardon And this tendeth more also to the exalting of free grace But the truth is in pardon there is not only a declaration exalting of Grace Mercy but also of divine Justice Rom. 3 25 26. and unto this Faith is singularly fitted because it layyeth hold on the Propitiation and on bloud for the declaration of God's Righteousness for Remission of sins and hereby is the Lord declared to be just when he is the Justifier Pardoner of the beleever So that neither prayer nor Repentance nor Self-searching c. can be properly called the Condition but Faith acting in by these Obj. 3. It is said that Repentance qualifieth the sinner in reference to the promise of pardon or putteth him within the reach of the promise so that he may take hold of the promise of pardon And it disposeth him to accept the offered Salvation freely and to rest upon Christ alone for that end Ans. 1 What disposeth to accept of Salvation c. cannot for that cause be called the Condition of Pardon unless we speak improperly as felt poverty in a beggar though it disposeth him to receive an offered almes thankfully Yet it is not the proper Condition No more self conviction in our case a Condition of Pardon 2 If it qualifieth for the receiving of the offered Salvation then it qualifieth immediatly for Faith but mediatly remotly for Pardon 3 The promise of Pardon is not made to the penitent properly as such but to the Penitent beleever that is to faith acting exerting itself in by Repentance Obj. 4. Esai 1 15 16. put away the evil of your doings cease to do evil c. this is Repentance then vers 18. full pardon is promised though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow c. Ans. Yet with all he bids them wash make cleane which could only be by the blood of the Messiah for that only cleanseth 1. Ioh. 1 7. and this they had neglected in going about their Sacrifices which therefore were abominable in the eyes of the Lord vers 11 12 13. because not accompanied with Faith that purifieth the heart Act. 15 9. Obj. 5. 2. Chron. 7 14. the Lord promiseth to forgive sin if his people would turne from their wicked wayes Ans. But with all it is required there that they seek the face of God that was in through the Messiah typified by the Temple to which their prayers were to be directed as we see Chap. 6 20 24 26 29 31 34 38. Obj. 6. Prov. 28 13. He that confesseth his sin forsaketh it shall finde mercy Ans. True because none will do that a right but the beleever who laith hold on the Merites of Christ. And so this the like places are not exclusively to be taken but principally to be understood of Faith so acting and evidencing itself to be true lively and of the right stamp by its acting so FINIS CHAP. I. Imputation both of Christs Active and Passive Obedience necessary MR. Iohn Goodwine in his Treatise of justification part 2. Ch. 2. laith down several conclusions whereby he might overturne this Truth what he saith must be examined His 1. Conclusion in this He for whose sins a plenary satisfaction hath been made either by himself or another for him hath been accepted by him against whom the transgression was committed is as just righteous as he that never sinned but had done all things that were requisite meet for him to do Ans. If by just righteous be meaned one who only hath not deserved the punishment threatned then his Conclusion is true but if by just righteous be meaned one who not only hath not deserved the punishment but hath also deserved the reward promised then his Conclusion is false for the Satisfaction if it respect only the transgression committed can only put the man for whom it is given accepted in the state of one that is under no obligation to be punished but it cannot put him in the state of one who not only is not to be punished but is also to be rewarded He addeth This is evident because there is as much justice righteousness in repairing the the wrongs injuries done to any as there is in abstaining from doing wrong Ans. True in reference to the wrong done and therefore such an one is rightly justly delivered from the obligation to punishment but is not made so righteous as to challenge the reward till a more compleet satisfaction be made to wit such as may comprehend also perfect conformitie unto the Law in all points to the end he for whom this is done may be looked upon as a fulfiller of the Law therefore to have right to the reward as he would have had if he had in his own person perfectly keeped it He that simply repaireth the wrong done doth not that which deserveth the reward The simile he annexeth confirmeth this and demonstrateth how far out he is
as to our case He that by his cattel or otherwise hath made spoil in his nieghbours Corne hath given him full satisfaction for the spoil done to his contentment is as good a Nieghbour deals as justly honestly with him as he that never trespassed in that kind upon him How impertinent this is as to our case any may see or he must say that there was no reward promised to Adam upon his perfect obedience that that word do this live had no place in the Covenant made with him The Satisfying Nieghbour deserveth no reward nor was there any reward promised to him upon Condition of his being a good Nieghbour He addeth The essence nature of justice or righteousness is suum cuique tribuere to give to every man his own i. e. that which is his own in a way of equity right is due from us unto them Ans. But that which Adam was obliged to give to God as his owne was glory by faithful constant obedience that he might receive the reward to the glory of God's faithfulness goodness Now when Adam dishonoured the Lord by disobedience robbed him as it were of his Authoritie as just righteous Governour a satisfaction for the wrong done excluding positive full obedience unto the Law is not a giving to God all that is due to him Now saith he when we have enjured or damnified any man in any of his rights or things belonging to him there is nothing more due to him than that which is his own i. e. that which is fully valuable to the injurie we have done unto him Therefore he that tenders a valuable consideration or satisfaction for an injurie done to another is just according to the height utmost exigency of justice consequently as just as he that never was injurious or did wrong Ans. All this is to no purpose as to our question for it is not betwixt God us noâ— was it betwixt God and Adam as it is betwixt one man another God is to be considered as a supreme Law-giver Ruler enjoyning obedience to his Lawes under penalties and promising rewards unto the obedient Now when his Lawes are broken he is doubly enjured the breaker is obliged unto punishment and also forfeited of his expectation of the reward When satisfaction is made and withall no compleet obedience to the Law the person is by the satisfaction made only exeemed from the obligation to punishment but hath thereby no right to the reward promised untill the Law be compleetly obeyed His 2. Conclusion is There is no medium between a perfect absolution freedome from all sin a perfect compleet righteousness But he that is fully discharged freed from sin ipso facto is made perfectly compleetly righteous Ans. The same distinction which we made use of in the other Conclusion will helpe us here If by perfectly compleetly Righteous be meaned one that is liable to no punishment it is true that he who is fully discharged freed from sin is made perfectly righteous but if by perfectly compleetly Righteous be meaned one that moreover hath a right to the recompence of reward that is promised than it is false freedom absolution from sin respecteth only the guilt dissolveth the obligation to punishment in that respect is a perfect compleet Righteousness i. e. the person so absolved is as free of punishment or of obligation thereunto as if he had never sinned but having sinned he cannot by this dissolution of the obligation to punishment be ipso facto made as perfectly compleetly Righteous as he would have been if he had never transgressed but had perfectly keeped the Law for if he had perfectly keeped the Law he had obtained full right to the reward which now he hath not and which no pardon or discharge as such can restore him unto Let us hear his reason Nothing saith he can any way diminish or prejudice the perfection of Righteousness but only sin as no thing can hinder the perfection of light but darkness in one degree or other So that as the aire when it is free from all degrees of darkness must of necessity be fully light so he that is perfectly freed from all sin must of necessity be fully perfectly Righteous Ans. This would make us beleeve that he is here speaking of sin itself and not of its guilt and demerite and so the opposite hereunto must be holiness which expelleth sin in a manner as light doth darkness or as one quality doth its contrary But then he is fighting all this while against his own shadow for we are speaking of the guilt of sin which also must be properly understood and nothing else can when he spoke of absolution freedom from sin in the Concluâ—on If he speak here of sin in respect of guilt demerite his simile doth not quadrate and opposite to this guilt he should set Righteousness or obedience with its merite and if any will do this they shall easily see the mistake for though a man hath not transgressed yet he hath not eo ipso right to the premium for in order to this moe dayes work may be required than one or halfe of one dayes work far less can the Pardon of or satisfaction for this transgression give a man right to the reward He addeth It is impossible to conceive a man defective in any part of Righteousness yet withall to conceive him free from all sin sin Righteousness being in subjecto capaci contraria immediata as Logicians speak Ans. Defective in Righteousness may be either understood in respect of the meer duty or command or in respect of full right to the reward In the first sense such an one cannot be free of all sin but taking it in the second sense he may as for example when one is to work eight dayes in dressing a garden then to receive the reward promised if he fail in his work any of the dayes to be punished this man so long as he worketh 2 3 4. 5. dayes cannot be charged with sin nor said to be defective as to his duty and yeth he hath not full right to the reward untill he hath wrought Eight dayes but is defective in some part of his Righteousness as to this reward And according to this may we understand that logical axiome Further he saith The Scriptures themselves still make an immediat opposition between sin Righteousness To finde out a third estate between sin Righteousness we must finde out a third Adam from whom it should be derived Ans. The state of sin of Righteousness whereof the Scripture speaketh admitteth indeed of no medium or third betwixt them and the reason is because we are all now borne in a state of sin are obnoxipus to wrath remaine so untill we be translated into a state of Righteousness which is not by meer pardon of sins but
was requisite the perfect observation of the Law Now perfect observation of the Law saith there was no transgression but remission saith supposeth that the Law was not perfectly observed So the imputation of the Law fulfilled either saith the Law was not broken or that now satisfaction is made for the breach thereof therefore the person unto whom this imputation is made hath a right unto the reward which this imputation doth directly immediatly respect as such But in our case both these go together perfect remission the imputation of the Law fulfilled because freedom from the obligation to punishment right to the reward go also together inseparably For how can he be said saith he to have all his sins fully forgiven who is yet looked upon or intended to be dealt with all as one that hath transgressed either by way of omission or commission any part of the Law Ans. He that hath his sins fully forgiven may well be looked upon as one that hath transgressed either by omission or by commission or by both because he must be so looked upon for pardon presupposeth sin no man can be pardoned but a sinner and no man can think or dreame of a remission but withall he must suppose that the person pardoned hath sinned But it is true he who is said to have all his sins fully forgiven cannot be intended to be dealt withall as one that hath transgressed for pardon destroyeth that obligation to punishment but doth not so destroy sin as to cause that it never was for that is impossible What more And he that is looked upon as one that never transgressed any part of the Law must needs be conceived or looked upon as one that hath fulfilled or keeped the Law Ans. This is very true But what then Which is nothing else saith he but to have a perfect Righteousness or which is the same a perfect fulfilling of the Law imputed to him Ans. This is also true taking this imputation of a perfect fulfilling of the Law to be to one who never broke the Law by sin but it is not true in our case who are transgressours all the imputation of Righteousness in the world can not make us to have been no sinners Yet he inferreth So that besides that perfect remission of sins which hath been purchased by the bloud of Christ there is no need of indeed no place for the imputation of any Righteousness performed by Christ unto the Law Ans. The inconsequence of this is manifest from what is said But he addeth a reason Because saith he in that very act of remission of sins there is included an imputation of a perfect Righteousness Ans. This is but the same thing which was said is manifestly false Remission regairdeth only the punishment or the obligation thereunto dissolveth it but as such giveth no right to the reward which was promised only to obedience to the Law But then he tels us more properly with Scripture-exactness as he saith that that act of God whereby heremitteth pardoneth sin is interpretativly nothing else but an imputation of a perfect righteousness or of a fulfilling of the Law compare Rom. 4 6 with vers 7. 11. Ans. This is but the same thing needeth no new answere for it is denied that that act of God whereby he pardoneth sin considered in itself as such is interpretativly an imputation of perfect Righteousness But it is true in our case it may be called so interpretativly in this respect that there is such an in dissoluble connexion betwixt the two that the one inferreth the other necessitate consequentis And this is all that can be proved from Rom. 4 6 7 11. He addeth Even as the act of the Physician by which he recovereth his patient from his sickness may withfull propriety of speach be called that act whereby he restoreth him to his health Ans. The Physician purging away the humors the causes of the distemper is the cause of health by being the causa removens prohibens because ex natura rei health followeth upon the removal of that which caused the distemper but the connexion of pardon of imputation of Righteousness is not ex natura rei but ex libera Dei constitutione connecting the causes of both together His next similitude of the sun dispelling darkness filling the aire with light is as little to the purpose because here is a natural necessary consequence light necessarily expelling darkness which is denied in our case Hence there is no ground for what he addeth when he saith In like manner God doth not heal sin that is forgive sin by one act restore the life of righteousness that is impute righteousness by another act at all differing from it but in by one the same punctual precise act he doth the one the other For we are not here enquiring after the oneness or diversitie of God's acts in a Philosophical manner God can do many things by one Physical act but we are enquireing concerning the Effects whether they be one precise thing flowing from one moral cause or so diverse as to require diverse moral causes grounds or whether the one doth naturally essentially include the other as being both but one thing His following words would seem to speak to this when he saith forgiveness of sins imputation of Righteousness are but two different names expressions or considerations of one the same thing one the same act of God is sometimes called forgivness of sins sometimes an imputing of Righteousness the forgivness of sins is sometimes called an imputing of righteousness to shew signifie that a man needs nothing to a compleet Righteousness or Iustification but the forgivness of his sins And againe the Imputing of Righteousness is sometimes called the forgivness of sins to shew that God hath no other Righteousness to conferre upon a sinner but that which standeth in forgiveness of sins Ans. This is but gratis dictum nothing at all is proved These two pardon of sins imputation of Righteousness are two distinct parts of one compleet favour and blessing granted of God in order to one compleet blessedness consisting likewise in two parts to wit in freedome from punishment which was deserved in right to the promised inheritance which was lost And because these two both in the cause and in the effect are inseparable conjoined by the Lord therefore the mentioning of the one may doth import signifie both by a Synecdoche And hence no man with reason can inferre that they are both one the same precise thing flowing from one the same precise cause and import only the different names expressioâ—s or considerations of one the same thing Christ's obedience to the Law and his suffering for sin were not one the same thing under various considerations or names but distinct parts of one compleet Surety-Righteousness no more can the effects that
the life of glory which was promised upon his compleeting his work of obedience He addeth Notwithstanding the Scriptures of the New Test. seem to place the immediat right or capacity which beleevers have to the Kingdom of heaven eternal glory rather in the grace of Adoption than in any Righteousness whatsoever even Remission of sins itself not excepted Ans. I have spoken to this elsewhere and shall only say here That hereby he hath destroyed his Conclusion for hereby we see that in order to the attaining of right to life more is requisite than meer Remission for he cannot say that Remission of sins Adoption is all one having clearly hinted the contrary here having also denied Righteousness to be the ground of Adoption while as before he made Righteousness Remission of sins all one He shall never prove that Adoption is without the Imputation of Righteousness Let us heare his reason The reason whereof may haply be this because the life blessedness which come by Iesus Christ are of far higher nature excellency and worth than that which was Covenanted to Adam by way of wages for his work or obedience to the Law therefore require an higher fuller richer capacity or title in the creature to interesse him therein than that did work faithfully performed is enough to entitle a man to his wages but the gift of an inheritance requirtth a special grace or favour Ans. As this is but dubiously asserted so it is to no purpose for though some difference may be granted betwixt the glory now had by the Gospel that promised to Adam in several respects Yet it was a life of glory that was promised to Adam our Adoption is not without the imputation of a Righteousness Nor was Adam's obedience such a work as in strick justice called for wages without a Covenant The Imputation of Righteousness is indeed a special grace Favoure therefore fit enough to found Adoption His 6. Conclusion is this That Satisfaction which Christ made to the justice of God for sin whereby he procured Remission of sins or perfect Righteousness reconciliation with God for those that beleeve consists only in that obedience of his which he performed to that peculiar special Law of Mediation which God imposed upon him which we commonly though perhaps not altogether so properly call his passive obedience not at all in that obedience or subjection which he exhibited to that common Law of nature which we call moral Ans. Though if we should speak strickly of satisfaction as distinguished from obedience as relating to the punishment for sin the substance of this Conclusion might be granted Yet taking Satisfaction more largly as relative to our whole debt it must necessarily include his obedience to the Law moral 2 Though for explications sake we may speak of Christ's Active of his Passive obedience distinctly Yet there was suffering satisfaction in all his Active obedience as it is commenly called there was action meriting in all his Passive Obedience as it is commonly called His supposing Remission of sins Perfect Righteousness is already discovered to be a mistake 4 The special Law of Mediation required of Christ both obedience suffering he speaketh without ground when he restricteth it to his passive obedience as it is commonly called only His reason is Because nothing can be satisfactory to divine justice for sin but that which is penal Heb. 9 22. for doubtless where there is Satisfaction there is may be remission Ans. This confirmeth only what we granted of satisfaction taken strickly But cannot prove that Satisfaction largely taken may not or cannot yea or must not include obedience this being part of our debt to the Law and to the Lawgiver nor will it prove that there was nothing of Satisfaction in Christ's obedience which he performed in his state of humiliation It is true where there is Satisfaction there is may be Remission but Remission is not all that we stand in need of But he will have that obedience which Christ exhibited to the moral Law no way penal And his reason is because it was required of man in his innocency imposed by God upon Adam before his fall Yea still lyeth shall lye to the dayes of eternity upon men Angels Ans. Yet for all this it might be was penal unto Christ who was not meer man but God man in one person And for Him who was God above all Law that man cometh under to subject him self to that Law which was imposed upon man as a Viator must needs be penal it being a part of his subjection as made under the Law a piece of his humiliation for thus in part he took upon him the forme of a servant was made in the likeness of men being found in fashion as a man he humbled himself became obedient unto death Phil. 2 7 8. Gal. 4 4. What they do who are in glory is not to the purpose for here we are speaking of the obedience subjection of such as are Viators not Comprehensors And Adam while innocent was a Viator and Christ to pay that debt which was required of us all as Viators did humble himself to performe the obedience of a Viator in our place in our stead that so he might give full satisfaction pay our whole debt From hence there is no ground for his Inference to wit that Therefore man was punished that by order appointment of God before his fall that now the glorified Saints Angels yea Iesus Christ himself are now punished in heaven For 1 it might be was penal to him who was God which was duty unto man in innocency as is cleared 2 The Obedience of Saints Angels now in glory far less that of Jesus Christ himself if it can properly be called obedience is not the duty of Viators therefore utterly impertinent to our purpose We do not say that Adam's obedience was penal it being his duty but Christ's was seing no Law required such obedience of him who was God nor was it necessary even to his humane Nature in order to life for himself for the hypostatical union fully removed that necessity either made him as to himself in respect of his humane nature a comprehensor or in the nearest capacity to it even when he was subjecting himself to the obedience of a Viator for us and as standing in our room But he saith the Scriptures themselves no where ascribe this satisfaction to Christ's Active obedience but still to his passive And here he citeth many passages of Scripture to no purpose seing none of these give any hint of the exclusion of his active obedience but rather do include it or else he may as well say that all Christ's active obedience was no way necessary or requisite unto the work of Redemption because these passages do
Nor is it to the point to tell us that some hold that God if it had pleased him might have pardoned Adam's transgression without the Atonement made by the death of Christ for they speak not of what God may now do having determined to manifest the glory of his justice but what he might have done in signorationis ante decretum And as for that word Heb. 2 11. It became him c. it will as well respect the justice of God as his wisdom seing it became him upon the account of justice which he would have glorified Mr. Baxter in his Confess Chap. IX Sect. 5. pag. 289. thinketh that to say that Christ paid the same thing that the Law required of us not only satisfied for our not payment is to subvert the substance of Religion But this is only in his apprehension as he taketh up their meaning who say so And others possibly may have no lower thoughts of some who hold that Christ only gave such a sacrifice to God as might be a valuable consideration on which he might grant us the benefites on such conditions as are most sutable to his ends honour that he did not suffer the same which the Law threatned The screwing up of differences to such an hight as to make either the one or the other subversive of the substance of Religion had need to be upon clear undeniable grounds and not founded on meer sandy and loose consequences such as those seem to me by which Mr. Baxter maketh out this Charge For he tels us The Idem is the perfect obedience or the full punishment that the Law requires It is supplicium ipsius delinquentis Ans. But now seing such as say that Christ paid the Idem will say as well as he that when Christ suffered that which they call the Idem the person himself that sinned did not suffer And I would enquire at Mr. Baxter whether paid Christ the Idem as to all other respects beside that is whether Christ suffered all that penalty which the Law did threaten to transgressours only this excepted which must be excepted that he did it in another person that he was not the person himself that sinned or not If he say Not then the difference goeth deeper but why doth he not then to make out this heavy charge Instance some particulars threatned in the Law which Christ did not undergo And why doth he insist only on this one that he was not ipse delinquens but another person If he grant that in all other respects Christ paid the Idem no man sure can see such difference here as shall make the one side subvert the Substance of Religion for it is a meer sâ—â—ife about a word it cometh all to this whether when one man layeth down his life to save another condemned to death after all satisfaction in money lands rents service or what else hath been rejected he can be said to pay the Idem which the Law required or not Some Lawyers would possibly say he did pay or suffer the Idem Mr. Baxter would say not because he was not ipsa persona delinquens was not the very person that was condemned but another And yet death unto which the other man was condemned was inflicted upon him and no less would be accepted as satisfaction at his hands which would make some say that all that debate whether it was the same or the equivalent were a meer needless contest about a word And if it be but just so here in our present debate every one will judge it very hard to call that a subversion of Religion which after examination trial is found to be but a strife about a word Now how will Mr. Baxter prove that the suffering of the Idem is only when it is supplicium ipsius delinquentis And not also when the same punishment in all its essential ingredients is undergone suffered by another When the Law imposeth the penalty of death or of such a great summe of money on a person transgressing such a Law common discourse would say I suppose the Law give allowance thereto that when another came payed the same penalty for him without the least abatement he payed the same penalty which he Law impofed and not another and not meerly a valuable consideration It is true the Law threatened only the transgressour obliged him to suffer but notwithstanding another might pay the very same thing which the Law threatned requireth He saith next p. 290. the Law never threatned a Surety nor granteth any liberty of substitution that was an act of God above the Law If therefore the thing due were payed it was we ourselves morally or legally that suffered Ans. Sure some Lawes of men will threaten Sureties grant liberty of substitution too But if he speak here only of the Law of God we grant that it threatned only the transgressour that it was an act of God above the Law dispensing therewith that granted a substitution Yet notwithstanding of this it is not proved that that Substitute did not or could not suffer the same punishment which the Law threatned And if Mr. Baxter think that the lawes not threatning a Surety nor granting liberty of a substitution will prove it it is denied Next His other consequence is as uncleare viz. That if the thing due were payed it was we ourselves that suffered personally all these consequences run upon the first false ground that no man can pay the Idem but the very transgressour What he meaneth by we ourselves morally he would do well to explicate And as for legally we ourselves may be said to do legally what our Surety undertaker doth for us And if this be all he meaneth viz. that if the thing due to wit by Law as threatned there be payed either we in our own persons or our Surety for us in our room Law place payed it it is true but subversive of his hypothesis It must then be some other thing that he meaneth by morally or legally it must be the same with or equivalent to personally or the like but his next words cleare his meaning for he addeth And it would not be ourselves legally because it was not ourselves naturally And what lawyer I pray will yeeld to this reason I suppose they will tell us that we are said to do that legally which our Cautioner or Surety doth for us But if he think otherwayes here also that nothing can be accounted to be done by us legally but what is done by our selves Naturally which is a word of many significations might occasion much discourse that is personally Yet it will not follow that no other can suffer the Idem that was threatned but the delinquent himself At length he tels us That if it had been ourselves legally then the strickest justice could not have denied us a present perfect deliverance ipso facto seing no justice can
all who work well keep the Law of Moses shall have free Pardon Right to life And thus they were as well justified by the works of the Law as by faith for faith was also required of them And then the meaning of the Apostles Conclusion Rom. 3 28. is therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith and by the deeds of the Law for both faith works with Mr. Baxter belong to this Subservient Righteousness as he calleth it If this be consonant to the Apostles doctrine which doth so contradict it let the Reader judge 3. Saith he That therefore it appeareth that the Jewes did so fondly admire the Law their National Privileges under it that they thought the exact keeping of it was necessary sufficient to Iustification Salvation And they thought the Messiah was not to be their Righteousness as a Sacrifice for sin meriter of free Pardon the Gift of life but only a great King Deliver to redeem them by Power from all their Enemies Bondage Ans. This mistake of the Jewes concerning the Messiah speaketh nothing to the point whereupon we are that is that Paul denieth justification to be by the Law And their errour mistake about the Law is not to be limited restricted to the Ceremonial Law so the thing that we say is confirmed hereby 2 They thought the Messiah was not to be their Righteousness And Mr. Baxter will not have him to be our Righteousness save only in that he hath purchased the New Covenant wherein our faith obedience to the Law is to be looked upon as all our proper immediat Righteousness upon the account of which we are to receive Pardon Right to life 4. He saith That is was not Adam's Covenant of Innocencie or persection which the Jewes thus trusted to or Paul doth speak against as to justification though a minore ad majus that is also excluded for the Jewes knew that they were sinners that God pardoned sin as a Merciful God that their Law had Sacrifices for Pardon Expiation with Confessions c. But they thought that so far as God had made that Law sufficient to Political ends to Temporal Rewards Punishments it had been sufficient to Eternal Rewards Punishments that of it self not in meer subordination to the typified Messiah Ans. Though the jewes knew that they were sinners yet they did also suppose that by their works of obedience to the Law Moral as well as Ceremonial they might make amends so think to be justified pardoned thereby and that God would accept of them grant them life for their own Righteousness sake therefore did they laboure so much to establish their own Righteousness followed after the Law of Righteousness sought Righteousness as it were by the works of the Law What Mr. Baxter talks here of the jewes not using of that Law in subordination to the Typified Messiah hath need of Explication for as to his sense of it we see no ground thereof in all the Apostles discourse 5. He saith That the thing which Paul disproveth them by is 1. That the Law was never made for such an End Ans. Yet he said that the man which doth those things shall live by them Rom. 10 5. Levit. 18 5. Gal. 3 12. that the doers of the Law are justified Rom. 2 13. And therefore speaketh of that Law which according to its primitive institution was made for such an end 2. saith he That even then it stood in subordination to Redemption free given life Ans. This we cannot yeeld to in Mr. Baxters sense often mentioned for Paul no where giveth us to understand that their obedience to this was their immediat Righteousness Condition of Justification the meritorious cause ex pacto of their Right to Christ to life c. 3. saith he That the free Gift or Covenant of Grace containing the promise of the Messiah and Pardon life by him was before the Law and justified Abraham others without it Ans. It is true this Argument did particularly militate against the Ceremonial Law Yet this not being the Apostles onely Argument other Arguments reaching the Moral Law as well as the Ceremonial we must not limite the Apostles disput only to the Ceremonial Law 4. saith he That their Law was so strick that no man could perfectly keep it all Ans. Adde also that they could not perfectly keep any one command thereof 5. saith he That every sin deserveth death indeed though their Law punished not every sin with death by the Magistrate Ans. And this holdeth true of the Moral as of the Ceremonial Law 6. saith he That their Law was never obligatory to the Gentile world who had a Law written in their hearts therefore not the common way of justification Ans. The Apostle maketh no such conclusion that therefore it was not the common way of justification for this would suppose that it were the way of justification unto them which is directly against the Apostles disput 7. saith he That their Law as such discovered sin but gave not the Spirit of Grace to overcome it in so much as though he himself desired perfectly to fulfill it without sin yet he could not but was under a Captivity that is a moral necessity of Imperfection or sins of infirmity from which only the grace of Christ could as to guilt power deliver him Ans. Therefore the Moral Law is as well here to be understood as the Ceremonial as is manifest 8. saith he That no man ever come to heaven by that way of merite which they dreamed of but all by the way of Redemption Grace free Gift Pardoning Mercy Ans. But that way of merite attendeth all works in the matter of justification as the Apostle assureth us Rom. 4 4. Ephes. 2 8 9. is opposed to the way of Redemption Grace free Gift Pardoning Mercy Rom. 11 6. 3 21 24. Tit. 3 5 7. From these things Mr. Baxter draweth this Conclusion Therefore their conceite that they were just in the maine forgiven their sins so justifiable by the meer dignity of Moses Law which they keept by the works of the Law not by the free Gift Pardon Grace of a Redeemer by the Faith Practical Beleife of that Gift and acceptance of it with thankful penitent obedient hearts was a Pernicioue Errour Ans. 1. Nothing is here said to ground a restriction of this erroneous conceite of theirs unto the Ceremonial Law for this conceite of being justifiable by the Law and the works thereof in opposition to the free Gift Pardon Grace of a Redeemer is as applicable to the Moral as to the Ceremonial Law 2 The Apostle doth not ground his disput upon the Iewes their express rejecting of a free Gift of Pardon c. But from justification by Faith laying hold on the free Grace
quidem pro nobis Patrem in quem peccaveramus nostram inobedientiam Consolatus nobis autem donans eam quae est ad Factorem nostrum Conversationem Subjectionem i. e. The Lord brought us into friend shipe by his Incarnation being made a Mediator betwixt God Man Propitiating the Father for us against whom we sinned comforting us over our disobedience but freely giving us that Conversation Subjection which is to our Maker Athanasius Tom. 2. p. 270. Necessarium est maximeque necessarium â—reâ—dere Scripturis Sanctis confiteri ex nostro genere primitias celebrare singularemâ— assumentis in genus humanum amorem obstu pescere magnâ oeconomiae atque dispo sitionis miraculum non timere execrationem legis Christus enim nos a maledictione legis liberavit impletionem legis a primitiis factam toti massae asscribere imputare in the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. It is necessary yea most necessary to beleeve the holy Scriptures to confesse the first fruits i. e. Christ of our kind to celebrat that singular love of him that assumed viz. Mans Nature unto mankind to be astonished at that miracle of the great Oeconomie disposition not to feare the Curse of the Law for Christ hath delivered us from the Curse of the Law ascribe or impute the fulfilling of the Law done by the first fruits unto the whole masse The same Author de Incarn Verbi contra Samosat Tom. 1. p. 461. Impossibile est puritatem innoeentiam in humana natura exhiberi nisi Deus credatur in carne esse qui justitiam omni peccato liberam in mundum introduxit cujus quia participes redditi sumus vivemus salvabimur Illud enim non est justus in terra qui bonum faciat non peccet in commune ad omnes homines pertinet unde ex coelo descendit qui immaculatam ex se justitiam daturus erat i. e. It is impossible that purity innocency shall be exhibited in mans nature unless we beleeve that God is in the flesh who hath brought into the world a Righteousness free of all sin of which because we are made partakers we shall live be saved for that there is not a just man upon earth who doth good sinneth not doth appertaine to all men in common wherefore he descended from heaven who was to give a pure Righteousness of himself Chrysost. When a Cavilling jew shall object how can the world be saved by the Rectitude or Obedience of one Christ Answere him againe by asking how came the world to be condemned by the disobedience of one Adam Greg. Nyssen Orat. 2. iu Cantic Christus in se transtatis peccatorum meorum sordibus puritatem suam mecum communicavit meque pulchritudinis ejus quae in ipso est participem fecit i. e. Christ having translated the filth of my fins upon himself did communicat unto me his own purity made me a partaker of that beauty which is in him By these we may see that even before Augustins dayes this Truth was asserted though Mr. Baxter in his book against D. Tully Ch. 1. § 3. intimate the contrary Cyrillus Alexandr in Ioan. lib. 11. c. 25. Quemadmodum praevaricatione primihominis ut in primitiis generis nostri morti addicti sumus eodem modo per obedientâ—am justitiam Christi in 〈◊〉 seipsum legi subjecâ— quamvis legis Author esset benedictio atque vivificatio quae per Spiritum est ad totam nostram penetravit naturam i. e. As by the transgression of the first man as in the first fruits of our kind we are adjudged unto death so the same way by the Obedience Righteousness of Christ in as much as he subjected himself to the Law though he was the Author of the Law the blessing Vivification which is by the Spirit did reach to our whole Nature Leo Epist. 72. ad Iuvenalem Ut autem repararet omnium vitam recepit omnium causam vim veteris chirographi pro omnibus solvendo vacuavit ut sicut per unius reatum omnes facti fâ—erant peccatores ita per unius innocentiam omnes fierent innocentes inde in homines manante justitia ubi est humana suscepta Natura i. e. But that he might repaire the life of all he undertook the cause of all paying for all made void the force of the Old obligation to the end that as by one mans guilt all were made sinners so by one mans innocency all might become innocent Righteousness coming unto men thence where the humane Nature is taken on August ad Laurent Cap. 41. Ipse peccatum ut nos justitia nec nostra sed Dei sumus nee in nobis sed in ipso sicut ipse peccatum non suum sed nostrum nec in se sed in nobis constitutum similitudine peccati in qua crucifixus est demonstravit i. e. He was sin as we were Righteousness not our own but of God not in ourselves but in him as he did demonstrat himself to be sin not his own but ours not in himself but in us by the similitude of sinfull flesh in which he was crucified Idem in Psal. 30. Cone 1. in tua justitia erue me exime me quia non invenisti in me justitiam meam erue me in tua hoc est illud quod me eruit quod me justificat quod ex impio pium facit quod ex iniquo justum i. e. Deliver me in thy Righteousness Because thou didst not finde my Righteousness in me deliver me in thine that is it which delivereth me which justifieth me that maketh me of ungodly godly of unrighteous Righteous Id. in Psal. 70. Erue me in justitia tua non in mea sed in tua si enim in mea erâ— exillis de quibus ille ait ignorantes Dei justitiam suam volentes constituere justitiae Dei non sunt subjecti i. e. Deliver me in thy Righteousness Not in mine but in thine for if in mine I should be of them of whom he saith being ignorant of God's Righteousness willing to establish their own they did not subject themselves unto the Righteousness of God Id. Tom. 9. Tract 3. in Ioan. Omnes qui ex Adamo cum peccato peccatores omnes qui per Christum justificati justi non in se sed in illo nam in se si interroges Adam sunt in illo si interroges Christi sunt i. e. All that are of Adam with sin are sinners all who are justified by Christ are Righteous not in themselves but in him for if you ask what they are in themselves they are Adam's if you ask what they are in him they are Christ's Bernard Serm. 61. in Cantic Nunquid justitias meas Domine memorabor justitiae tuae solius Ipsa est enim mea nempe factus es mihi tu justitia a Deo Nunquid verendum ne non una duobus
sufficiat non est pallium breve quod secundum Prophetam non possit operireduos justitia tua justitia in aeternum te pariter me opertet larga aeterna justitiâ— in me quidem operit multitudinem delictorum i. e. Shall I make mention of my Righteousness Lord I will make mention of thine only for that is also mine because thou art made of God unto me Righteousness Is it to be feared that that one shall not serve two It is not a short cloak that according to the Prophet cannot cover two thy Righteousness is an everlasting Righteousness that large eternal Righteousness shall cover both thee me in me indeed it shall cover a multitude of sins Id. Dom. 1. post Octav. Epiph. Serm. 1. Veruntamen ut jam non sit quod causeris O homo contra inobedientiam Adae datur tibi obedientia Christi ut si gratis venundatus es gratis redimaris i. e. But that thou ô man should not have whereof to complean fore against the disobedience of Adam which he said before was imputed the obedience of Christ is given unto thee to the end that if thou be sold for nothing thou shalt also be redeemed for nothing Idem Epist. 190. ad Innocent Pont. Rom. Quid namque ex se agere poterat ut semel amissam justitiam recuperaret homo servus peccati vinctus diaboli assignata est ei proinde aliena qui caruiâ— sua ipsa sic est Venit Princeps mundi in Salvatore non invenit quicquam cum nihilominus innocenti manus injecit justissime quos tenebat amisit quando is qui morti nihil debebat accepta mortis injuria jure illum qui obnoxius erat mortis debito Diaboli solvit Dominio Qua enim justitia id secundo exigeretur homo siquidem qui debuit homo qui solvit nam si unus inquit pro omnibus mortuus est ergo omnes mortui sunt ut viz saâ— factio unius omnibus imputetur sicut omnium peccata unus ille portavit nec alter jam inveniatur qui forte fecit alter qui satisfecit quia Caput Corpus unus est Christus Satisfecit ergo Caput pro membris Christus pro Visceribus suis c. quod si dixerit Pater tuus addixit te Respondebâ— sed Frater men's redemit me cur non aliunde justitia quia aliunde reatus alius qui peccatorem constituit alius qui justificat a peccato alter in semine alter in sanguine An peccatum in semine peccatoris non justitia in sanguine Christi non convenit filium portare iniquitatem patris fraternâ— fieri exortem justitiae i. e. For what could man a servant of sin a bound slave of the devil do of himself to recover the Righteousness which he had once lost Therefore another is assigned unto him because he wanted his own the same is so The Prince of the world came found nothing in the Saviour when notwithstanding he put hands on the Innocent he lost those most justly when he held when he who owed nothing to death having received the injurie of death he did by right loose him who was liable to the debt of death deliver him from the Dominion of Satan for by what Right could he exact that the second time seing as it was man who owed so it was man who payed for if one he saith died for all then are all dead that to wit the Satisfaction of one might be imputed to all as that one did bear the sins of all Neither now is it found that one did the wrong another satisfied for the Head the body are one Christ the Head therefore did satisfie for the members Christ for his own bowels But if he shall say Thy Father bound thee over I shall answer but my Brother hath redeemed me why should not Righteousness be from another as guilt was from another one who made man a sinner another who justifieth from sin the one in the seed the other in blood Was sin in the seed of a sinner shall not Righteousness be in the bloud of Christ. It is not right that the Son should bear the iniquity of the Father be defrauded of the Righteousness of his Brother Idem Serm. ad Milites Templi c. 1. Qui peccati meritum tulit suam nobis donando justitiam ipse meritis debitum solvit reddit vitam sic namque mortua morte revertitur vita quemadmodum ablato peccato redit justitia porro mors in Christi morte fugatur Christi nobis justitia imputatur c. Qui nostram induit carnem subiit mortens putas suam nobis negabit justitiam Voluntarie incarnatus voluntarit passus voluntarie crucifixus solam à nobiâ— retinebit justitiam afterward ibid. Unus peccavit omnes tenentur rei unius innocentia soli reputabitur uni Unius peccatum omnibus operatum est mortem unius justitia uni viâ—am restituet Haud Dei justitia magis ad condemnâ—ndum quam ad restaurandum valuit aut plus potutt Adam in malo quà m Christus in bono Adae peccatum imputabitur mihi Christi justitia non pertinebit ad me i. e. He who took away the desert of sin giving to us his Righteousness the same by his merites paid the debt restored life for if death be dead life returneth even as sin being taken away Righteousness returneth Moreover death is banished away in Christ's death and Christ Righteousness is imputed to us c. He who took on our flesh underwent death thinks thou that he shall deny to us his Righteoysness He who willingly was incarnate willingly suffered willingly was crucified shall he withold his Righteousness from us?-one man sinned all are guilty shall the innocency of one be accounted only to one One mans sin hath wrought death unto all shall the Righteousness of one restore life only to one Shall God's Righteousness be more powerfull to condemne than to restore Could Adam do more in sin than Christ in good Shall Adam's sin be imputed unto me shall not Christ's Righteousness belong unto me Ambros. lib. 3. de Virginit p. 100. Omâ—ia Iesus est nobis si volumus Si vulnus curari defideras Medicus est Si febribus aestuas sons est Si gravaris iniquitate justitia est si auxilio indiges virtus est Si mortem times vita est si câ—lum desideras via est si tenebras fugis luxest si cibum quaeris alimentum est i. e. Christ is all things to us if we be willing if thou desirest to have thy wound cured he is the chyrurgen if thou burn with feavers he is a fountain If thou be burdened with sin he is Righteousnâ—ss If thou want help he is vertue If thou fear death he is the life if thou desirest heaven he is the
holy men how farther they advance in the truth please themselves the less therefore do more understand that they have need of Christ of his Righteousness given unto them wherefore they relinquish themselves and leane upon Christ alone This cometh not to passe because they become of a more base Law spirit Yea the further they advance in holiness they are of greater spirits see more clearly FINIS Arguments against Universal Redemption AS concerning the point of Universal Redemption we finde various sentiments or various explications of the matter given to us by Adversaries for they do not all agree in their apprehensions of the thing Some explaine the matter thus God sent his only begotten Son to be a Redeemer and Propitiator for Adam and all his Posterity who by his death did pacific an angry God and restore Mankinde to their lost inheritance so as all who are now condemned are not condemned for their former sins and guilt for Christ hath abundantly satisfied for these but for their Unbeleef for not beleeving in the Redeemer of the world and for rejecting the Reconciliation made the grace of God declared in the word And thus they must say that Christ hath died for all sinnes but Unbeleefe and that salvation doth not certainly follow upon this Reconciliation and so that it is rather a Reconciliableness than a Reconciliation and they must necessarily maintaine that this matter is revealed unto all and every son of Adam who otherwise cannot be guilty of Rejecting this reconciliation other wayes it shall be of no advantage to them unless they say that the want of the Revelation putteth them out of a capacity of being guilty of Unbeleefe and so they must necessarily be saved and thus their condition shall be undoubtedly better than is the condition of such as hear the Gospel and then the revelation of the Gospel shall be no Favour but a Prejudice rather And in reference to this they devise an Universal Antecedanious Love whereby God out of his Infinite Goodness was inclined to desire the happiness and salvation of every mothers son and therefore to send his Son to die for as if God had such Natural Necessary Inclinations and as if all his Love to Mankinde and every appointment of his concerning us were not the free act of his good pleasure and as if there were any such Antecedent Conditional will in God that could or might have no issue or accomplishment but as Lord Freewil would and as if the Love that sent Christ were only such a Poor Conditional Inclination towards all Mankinde which the Scripture holdeth forth as the greatest of Loves as the ground or all the Effects Grants which mans full Salvation calleth for But why could not this Love effectuat the good of all Therefore they tell us that Justice being injured by sin unless it were satisfied that Love of God whereby he wisheth well to all sinners could effectuat nothing as to the recovery of any upon this ground they imagine Christ was sent to make an Universal Atonement so Justice being satisfied might not obstruct the salvation of any whose Freewill would consent unto termes of new to be proposed Others hold forth the matter thus Christ according to the eternal Counsel of God did properly die for this end and by his propitiatory sacrifice obtaine that all and every man who beleeve in Him should for his sake actually obtaine Remission of sins Life Eternal but others in case they would Repent Beleeve might obtaine it But thus we hear no word of Christs obtaining any thing to any in particular no word of his obtaining Faith Repentance and what Counsel of God can this be to send Christ to die for persons upon that condition which he knew they would not could not performe And what by this meanes hath Christs Propitiatory Sacrifice obtained more than a meer possibility of salvation to either one or other Shall we imagine that God designeth good to persons who shall never enjoy it Or that God hath Conditional Intentions Designes By this means Christs death was designed and no person designed thereby to be saved yea Christ should be designed to die and that for no certain end unless to procure a meer possibility by stopping the mouth of justice that it should not stand in the way but then we can not say that God sent Christ to die for any man much less for all Others express the matter thus Christ out of the gracious Decree Purpose of God did undergoe death that he might procure obtaine Reconciliation with God for all sinners whatsomever without any difference before that God would open againe the door of salvation enter into a new Covenant of Grace with sinners But this Reconciliation hath no more force or import but that God might enter againe into a Covenant with sinners and so there is no Actual Reconciliation of sinners unto God And all that is obtained is for God nothing for man save a Possibility of Salvation by a new Covenant nor are we told whether Christ hath satisfied for the breach of the First Covenant so that that sin is fully pardoned unto all or not untill the condition of the second Covenant be performed nor are we told upon what account the sins against the second Covenant are pardoned Or if they be unpardonable Others explaine the matter thus Christ died for all and every man not only that God might without any violation of Justice enter into a new Covenant with sinners upon what condition he pleased but that it should be upon this Condition that man should be united with Christ the Cautioner and not only that Redemption Salvation should be possible to all but that really most certainly Salvation should be bestowed on such as Christ thought good But seing Christ knew that his death would profite none but these few whom he had designed to what purpose should he have laid downe his life for the rest And how can his death be a price of Redemption for the rest How can Christ be said to satisfie for the rest Did he purchase Faith to these few and would he not purchase Faith to the rest yet lay downe the great price for them What was the end obtained for the rest was it only a Possible Call of all Justice bein satisfied But of what import could that Possible Call be if Salvation was not also possible unto them And whereunto is that Call They will not say it is unto Salvation but to Faith But did not Christ know that this call would not be obeyed by them Did he procure Grace unto them to obey it then he procured Faith and if he procured Faith than he procured Salvation Againe if Justice be satisfied for these others why are they not liberat If they say the new Condition is not fulfilled Then it cannot be simply said that Christ satisfied Justice on their behalfe for
1. Cor. 15 3. Christ died for our sinnes 1. Pet. 2 24. who his owne self bear our sinnes in his own body on the tree by whose stripes we are healed How can we then imagine that all this was a meer may be seing he was so bruised for our iniquities so died for our sins so bear our sinnes in his own body as that thereby all in whose room he stood are healed by his stripes The Apostle doth moreover fully clear this matter Rom. 5 6. Christ died for the ungodly was this for all Or was it to have an uncertaine End effect No vers 9. much more then being now justified by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him The ungodly and the sinners for whom he died are such as become justified by his blood shall at length be fully saved from wrath And againe vers 10. for if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life Upon his death followeth Reconciliation with God then Salvation and his death is for no more than his life is for By him also they receive an atonement vers 11. As the consequences effects of Adam's sin did Certainly and not by a may be redownd to all that he represented engadged for so the fruites effects of Christ's death do as certainly come unto such as are his as the Apostle cleareth in the following verses laying the advantage on the side of Christ his vers 15. much more the Grace of God and the gift by grace by one man Iesus Christ hath abounded unto many vers 16. but the free gift is of many offences unto justification vers 17. much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the Gift of Righteousness shall reigne in life by one Iesus Christ vers 18. even so by the Righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justification of life vers 19. so by the obedience of one shall many be made Righteous vers 21. so might grace reigne through Righteousness unto eternal life by Iesus Christ our Lord. Is all this a Common thing and a meer may be or Possibility Ioh. 10 11. he giveth his life for his sheep vers 15. But may they for all that perish No in no wise vers 28. and I give unto them eternal life and they shall never perish He came that they might have life and might have it more abundantly vers 10. To the same purpose he saith Ioh. 6 33. that he giveth life unto the world not such a life sure as may never quicken any Upon Christ's death doth the Apostle inferre Rom. 8 32. that the Elect shall have all things vers 33 34 35. that they are free from all Accusations or any Hazard therefrom being justified and having Christs Death Resurrection and Intercession to secure them at all hands thereupon they have assurance that nothing shall separate them from the love of God Act. 20 28. Christ hath purchased a Church with his own blood The whole world is not this Church nor is this purchase an uncertane may be And all this Real Certaine Effect of Christ's death was foretold by Daniel Chap. 9 24 to finish the transgresion and to make an end of sins and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in everlasting Righteousness c. And who can imagine that this is Universal or Uncertane If we will 7. Consider some other Ends of the death of Christ which the Scripture pointeth forth which are not to be found among Heathens or any except the few Chosen ones Ordained to life we shall see how unreasonable the Adversaries are Gal. 4 5. Christ died to redeem them that were under the Law that we might receive the adoption of sones Was this end fruit left at an Uncertanty Shall we thinks that Christ might have died yet one man receive this Adoption Was this Adoption purchased upon an uncertain Condition Or was this purchased equally for all Then such as received it might have thanked their owne well natured Freewill upon that account But let us consider some other fruits Gal. 1 4. who gave himself for our sins that he might deliver us from this present evil world So 1. Pet. 2 24. He bear our sins in his own body on the tree but for what end That we being dead to sin should live unto Righteousness Chap. 3 18. Christ suffered for sins the just for the unjust To what end and purpose To bring us to God Heb. 10 10. by the which will we are sanctified How came this to passe Through the offering of the body of Iesus Christ once for all So he suffered without the gate that he might sanctify the people Chap. 13 12. Revel 1 5 6. he loved us and washed us from our sins in his owne blood But was this all No it is added And hath made us Kings Priests unto God and his Father So Ch. 5 9 10. thou was â—tain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood and what more And hast made us unto our God Kings Priests c. So 2. Cor. 5 15. He died for all But for what end and purpose That they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves but unto him which died for them and rose againe See Col. 1 22. These the like passages do clearly pointe forth a special end of Christ's Death which was designed both by the Father that sent him by himself and shall we suppose that this great chiefe designe was made to hang upon the lubrick uncertain will of man Shall Christ be beholden to mans good will for the purchase he made at so dear a rate If not why are not all these ends attained in all for whom he died Did Christ fail in laying down the Ransome Or doth not the Father keep condition Who can say either of these Then surely there can be no reason to say that Christ made an uncertain bargain purchased only a Possibility of these fruites which he knew not if ever he should attaine in any one Nor to say that he died for all Let us further 8. take notice That for whom Christ died he died to take away their sins And that so as they may be fully Pardoned never brought on reckoning againe that is that they be Remitted Pardoned and that the poor sinner may not suffer therefore This sure must be the import of that prayer forgive us our trespasses If then Christ by his death hath taken away sin and purged it away making satisfaction to justice therefore how can we think that justice can punish the sinner in hell fire for these same sinnes But let us see what the Scripture saith 1. Ioh. 3 5. he was manifested to take away our sins Ephes. 1 7. we have redemption in his blood what Redemption forgiveness of sins according to the riches of
his grace So likewise Col. 1 14. Now when sinnes are thus taken away they are blotted out not remembered Esai 43 25. Fer. 31 34. Heb. 8 12. Yea they are blotted out as a cloud and as a thick cloud Esai 44 22. So they are said to be subdued casten into the depths of the sea Mica 7 19. Shall we now say that Christ hath died to purchase this Redemption the Forgiveness blotting-out as a thick cloud and casting into the depths of the sea of sin and yet multitudes of those for whom this was purchased and that by the blood of God should never obtaine this benefire but have all their owne score This so pincheth the Adversaries that the best evasion they can fall upon is to say that none shall have Original sin charged upon them But the Scripture no where restricteth this Remission to that sin only Others therefore say That no sin now shall be be charged upon any but the sin of Unbeleef Then Iudas doth not suffer to day for betraying his master was it for this sin only that the Old World was drowned or that the Cities of Sodom are suffering the vengeance of eternal fite Iude seemeth to say some other thing vers 7. so are there other sins there reckoned up vers 8 9 10 11 12. to which is reserved the blakness of darkness for ever vers 13. But some say that these are all but pardoned upon condition Then the Redemption is neither Actual Real nor Compleat but a poor may be and a may not be and how can such sins be said to be forgiven or blotted out and casten behinde God's back and into the depths of the sea Did Christ know whether or not this condition would be performed If not then He is not the omniscient God If he knew that it would not be performed by the greatest part how can we imagine that he would notwithstanding lay downe his life to purchase a Remission for them And how 〈◊〉 we think that He should purchase a Pardon to all and let the event hang upon the pendulous tottering will of a sinfull creature But as to that Condition we shall Propose 9. this consideration The not performance of that Condition was no doubt a sin and if Christ died for all the sinnes of the world he died for that too And if he died for that too that is taken out of the way or there must be another Condition imagined upon performance of which that is to be taken our or the way and the non-performance of this Condition being also a sin our proposition will recurre upon this and so in infinitum but if this sin be taken out of the way it cannot prejudge them of the pardon of therest and thus all their sins being pardoned they must needs be saved and yet it is not so But it is said that Christ died not for the sin of Final Unbeleef yet it seemeth that it will be granted that he died even for the sin of Unbeleefe of all the world and for unbeleefe continued in until the last houre of a mans life but not for that last act which yet is but the same Unbeleefe continued in an hour longer and shall we think that Christ bare the Unbeleefe of 20 40 60. or moe yeers in his body on the crosse not the same Unbeleefe for one houre or halfe houre yea or quarter of an houre Who seeth not how little ground there is for such an imagination But the thing I would have mainly here considered is this That for whose sinnes Christ hath died he hath died for all their sins and therefore if he died for the sinnes of all the world he died for the Final Unbeleefe of all the world But this will not be granted therefore neither can it be said that he died for the sinnes of all men Whose sinnes he took upon him to make satisfaction for he left none for them to answere for for he is a compleat Mediator and is sole Mediator If he died for all the rest of the sinnes of the Reprobat and of the whole world why not for that also Sure when the Scripture speaketh of Christs taking away of sin and of the Redemption that is forgiveness of sins which people enjoy through him there is no sin excepted He was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquitie Esa. 53 5. the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all vers 6. or made the iniquitie of us all to meet on him there is no ground for any exception here when he was stricken for transgression vers 9. and his soul was made an offering for sin vers 10. is there any appearance of the exception of any one sin when he bear their sin and their iniquities vers 11 12. what intimation is given of an exception of any Yea if this exception was to be made which would null destroy all what consolation could the declaration of this Redemption remission of sins yeeld unto poor sinners Col. 1 14. Ephes. 1 7. When the Lord made him to be sin for us was it only in part how then could we be made the Righteousness of God in Him 2. Cor. 5 21 was the Lord in Christ reconcileing the world unto himself not imputing only part of their trespasses to them but the imputing of one sin would mar the reconciliation for ever Is not final unbeleef a dead work Doutbles yet the blood of Christ purgeth Consciences from dead works Heb. 9 14. Did the blood of buls goats so sanctify as to the purifying of the flesh as to leave the most defileing spot of all untaken away How could healing come by his stripes if he bear but part of our sins in his body on the tree seing final unbeleef alone would mar all for where that is there is no coming to God imaginable But moreover the Scripture tels us that the blood of Iesus Christ his Son oleanseth us from all sin 1. Ioh. 1 7. and that if any man sin there is an Advocat with the Father who is a propitiation for sins 1. Ioh. 2 vers 1 2. and so must be for all sins otherwayes there were little ground of comfort here And it was foretold by Daniel Chap. 9 24. that he should make an end of sin finish the transgression so bring-in everlasting Righteousness Doth this admit of exceptions and of such an exception as would unavoidably make all null No certanely But you will ask of me if I think that Christ did die for final unbeleefe I Answ. Not for I judge it is the sin only of Reprobates who hear the Gospel and I judge that Christ did not die for any sin of Reprobats But this I hold and have cleared That for whose sinnes soever Christ hath died he hath died for all their sins And because he hath not died for Final Unbeleef therefore he hath not died for any sin of such as shall be guilty of this and as for
in so many words syllabs yet that same is said in a more clear convinceing emphatick manner so that he who seeth not this lying in these words must be more blinde than Bellarmine was When this righteous Branch is raised up by Jehovah gotteth this name the Lord our Righteousness what can be more manifest than that He is made Righteousness to His people Yea all their Righteousness that this Righteousness is made over to them so that He is in a manner wholly theirs nothing but theirs all that He hath is theirs particularly that His Righteousness is all the Righteousness they owne as their Righteousness He excepteth 2 That in no tolerable sense can Christ being a person be said to be imputed to us Ans. Do we not hear that a childe was born to us a Son was given to us Esai 9 6. was not that child Son a person And may not a person be as well said to be Imputed as given seing imputation upon the matter is nothing but a giving or bestowing Yet we do not say that Christ is Imputed but that this expression here used doth manifestly evince that we are righteous through the righteousness of Christ made ours that Christ is become the Lord our righteousness that true beleevers receive owne Him as such rest upon His righteousness alone by faith He excepteth 3. The plaine direct meaning is that He shall be generally acknowledged celebrated by his people of the jewes as the great author procurer of that righteousness or justification in the sight of God upon which aboundance of outward glory peace prosperity should be cast upon them Ans. 1. That this is not to be restricted to the jewes is manifest seing it is spoken of the Gospel times when the righteous Branch shall be raised up unto David a King shall reigne prosper 2. It is too carnal an Interpretation to think the text speaketh only of such a justification as is followed with aboundance of outward Glory peace Prosperity whileas the whole Gospel informeth us of something more spiritual attending upon following justification 3. Righteousness justification are here made Synonymous which ought not to be though these two be inseparably lincked together yet they are formally different 4. Wherein standeth this righteousness justification He tels us in the place to which he here referreth us that it standeth in Remission of sins But pardon of sins is no righteousness though a man pardoned hath freedom from the obnoxiousness to punishment yet righteousness is another thing respecteth the obligation to duty required in the Law 5. Though it is true Christ is indeed the author of our justification pardon which is an effect of God's pronouncing us righteous of His accepting of us as righteous in justification as of our peace yet that needeth not destroy what we assert there being no inconsistency here but a necessary essentiall agreement betwixt the Imputation of Christ ' righteousness justification but it rather contributeth to the establishment of our Assertion Yet it is obvious that when Christ is called the Lord our Righteousness there is more Imported than His being the author of our peace justification even the way also how He bringeth about our peace justification is here denoted to wit His being made of God righteousness to His people so that His righteousness becometh theirs in order to their peace justification But to confirme his Interpretation he tels us 1. That the Imposition of name upon either thing or person often notes the quality or proprity in either or same benefite redounding from either answereable thereunto as Esai 9. his name shall be called wonderfull that is he shall be acknowledged looked upon by men as a doer of things very strange Ans. Seing all these names given to Christ Esai 9. cannot be so interpreted as to have this import mentioned for who will say that the name everlasting Father the mighty God can be so interpreted as to denote only some answerable benefite redounding there from who seeth not how little this can satisfie But 2. be it so that this name shall denote some benefite redounding therefrom why may it not denote this Effect which is only answerable hereunto to wit that His people shall be made partaker of His Surety-righteousness have the same made over unto them as they become united unto Him have His name called upon them He tels us 2. That it is familiar to attribute the Effect to its Cause or Author by a verbe substantive only as when Christ is called our Hop our life Resurrection peace Glory meaning that he is the author purchaser of all these Ans. Yet this proveth not that He is the author of all these Effects after one the same way He is otherwise our hope of which He is the Object as well as the Author than He is our life And He is otherwise our life and peace which He worketh createth in us than He is our Resurrection and Glory So He is our Righteousness by making us partaker of His Surety-righteousness imputing it unto us that it may be reckoned on our Score for this the nature of the thing requireth seing a Righteousness we must have ere we be justified and a Righteousness of our owne we have not and therefore must have one imputed to us and what Righteousness can suite us better than His who is THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS He tels us 3. That by Righteousness is meaned that justification which standeth in Remission of Sinnes and the meaning is that through Him God would be reconceled to them and pacified with them Ans. Justification is something else than pardon of sins for a justified man is one that is declared and pronunced Righteous in order to pardon of Sins and in order to a persons being declared such by God who alway judgeth according to truth he must be Righteous Righteous can no man be in the sight of God in order to his justification by what is in himself therefore he must have a Righteousness from some other seing Christ is called the Lord our Righteousness it must be His Righteousness which must be bestowed upon them in order to God's being reconciled to them pacified with them Fiftly another passage is Dan. 9 24. to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in everlasting Righteousness That all this is to be understood of the grâ—at spiritual effects of power Grace which are to be brought about by the Messiah no Christian candeny and among the rest we see He is to bring in a Righteousness and a Righteousness of ages an everlasting Righteousness that shall endure for ever shall have everlasting effects and this Righteousness is something more than Remission of Sins is distinct from it which is
sufficiently held forth by the foregoing Expressions of finishing transgressions of making an end of Sins and of making reconciliation for iniquity which saith that to justification there is a Righteousness required that this Righteousness is not meer Remission of Sins but some thing beside that must endure when sin is taken away This Righteousness is to be brought in by the Messiah as a favoure distinct from the preceeding yet inseparable there from firmly connected therewith This Righteousness which the Messiah is to bring in being something beside Remission of Sins must be a Righteousness wrought by the Messiah brought in for the use and advantage of His people who as they are to be made partaker of the foregoing favoures are also to be made partaker of this and consequently must have it imputed to them seing no other way it can be made theirs Sixtly We way adduce to this purpose Zech. 3 4. take away the filthy garments from him and unto him he said behold I have caused thine iniquity to go from thee I will cloth thee with change of rayment Here by a vision is signified to the propher how the Lord would at length be reconciled to His Church bring her in to His favour againe that her service might become acceptable to Him which now was wholly defiled and so defiled that even their High priest who should weare the holy garments whereupon was engraven Holiness to the Lord is said to have had on filthy garments whereby the accuser of the Brethren Satan the enemie had no small advantage against them and the way is set down in borrowed termes which are in part explained First the Lord caused to take away the filthy garments from the High Priest and this is more plainely expressed in these words I have caused thine iniquity to go from thee But beside this there is a Righteousness required in order to acceptance with God as was said above therefore that this work of justification may be compleated it is added I will cloth thee with change of rayment Some it is true would referre this to Sanctification but others unto justification Iunius's Notes the English annot take in both and sure if this be true of Sanctification which is wrought in us it is much more true of the Righteousness that is required unto justification which is without us and must be put on And the Chaldee Paraphrase turneth it thus behold I have taken away thine iniquity have clothed thee with Righteousness The word in the original which is translated change of rayment importeth some suite of apparell that is not for ordinary wearing but kept for solemne times so may well import the Saints wedding or Marriage-suite that which is added in the sollowing verse may be understood as denoting Sanctification which is added with the Mitre on his head signifying the graces of the Spirit qualifying the High priest for his work CHAP. VIII Some passages of the New Test. confirming the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness Vindicated from the exceptions of JOHN GOODWINE HAving seen what countenance the Old Test. giveth unto the Truth we are asserting vindicat some of these passages from the Exceptions of Iohn Goodwine We come next to search for confirmation of this truth out of the New Test. and I shall here beginne with such as the said Author taketh notice of in order to excepting against them in his Treatise of justification First Rom. 3 21 22. But now the Righteousness of God without the Law is manifested being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets even the Righteousness of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ unto all and upon all them that beleeve But if men would disput against this truth they should except against whole Chapters in that Epistle and disput against the very scope designe yea and all the Arguments of the Apostle who in the first part of that Epistle is about to clear and confirme that which he setteth down Chap. 1 17. as the summe of the whole Gospel and clear demonstration of its being the power of God unto Salvation c. to wit that in it the Righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith a Righteousness revealed laid open and offered to all that hear the Gospel that they may lay hold on it by faith a Righteousness revealed from the true and faithful God unto our faith as Ambrose P. Martyr and others understand it or revealed from faith to faith that is only to faith as Pareus or as Calvin Beza Musculus and others from a weak faith to a stronger faith or rather to faith first and last through the whole of a Saints life here as the following words clear it as it is written the just shall live by faith Yet let us see what he excepteth pag. 136. He 1. Supposeth that he hath proved before that this passage speaketh plainly for the imputation of faith for Righteousness but no way for the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ for any such purpose And. We may have occasion hereafter to examine his grounds both from this and other passages for the Imputation of faith in opposition to the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness I shall only say at present that this Righteousness cannot be faith it self because it is revealed to faith it is called the Righteousness of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ so not faith it self One thing cannot be both the Act the Object of that Act. And what sense would that make to say faith is upon all them that beleeve 2. He said By the Righteousness of God some under stand here His truth and faithfulness in keeping promise Ans. But though God's Righteousness may elsewhere import signifie His faithfulness in keeping promise yet that is not the Righteousness here understood for this suiteth a guilty sinner such as the Apostle hath been proving in his foregoing discourse both jewes Gentiles to be is such a Righteousness as is requisite to such as would be justified in God's sight vers 20. cannot be had by mans doing the deeds of the Law by which is the knowledg of sin which therefore rendereth their case more desperat such a Righteousness as is had by faith which is unto all upon all them that beleeve vers 20 22. and such a Righteousness as is manifested without the Law vers 21. All which and much more which might be mentioned show that some other thing is here understood by the Righteousness of God than His Faithfulness Truth even the Righteousness of God which is imputed unto bestowed upon all that beleeve 3. He saith Hereby is meaâ—t that way method meanes which God himself hath found out to justisis or make men Righteous or else that very Righteousness by which we stand justified or Righteous in the sight of God But not the Righteousness of Christ nor is there the least appearance in the context of
not expresly say so and yet this he will not say seing he granteth that his obedience was an essential requisite absolutly necessary to the constitution of him our Priest and his Sacrifice propitiatory But we read of his being made under the Law to redeem these that were under the Law Gal. 4 4 5. and of his Righteousness obedience as necessary to our Righteousness justification and as having a no less direct influence into the same than Adam's offence disobedience had unto our death damnation Rom. 5 17 18 19. CHAP. II. Christ underwent the Curse of the Law MR. Goodwine tels us in his 14. Conclusion That the sentence or Curse of the Law was not properly executed upon Christ in his death But this death of Christ was a ground or consideration to God where upon to dispense with his Law to let fall or suspend the execution of the penalty or curse therein threatned Ans. 1 This is directly contrary to what the Apostle saith Gal. 3 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law being made a Curse for us for it is written cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree It was the Curse of the Law that we were under were to be delivered from and this Christ hath delivered us from by coming in our stead bearing it for us yea bearing it so that he is said to have been made it being made a Curse for us which is a most emphatick expression to hold forth Christ's bearing the very penalty threatned in the Law which cursed every one that continued not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them vers 10. Deut. 27 26. If Christ underwent the Curse of the Law he sure did suffer the very sentence or punishment threatned in the Law for the Curse of the Law can import no other thing 2 If Christ did not bear the sentence or Curse of the Law how could he be said to have died or suffered in our place room or stead No man is said to suffer in the place stead of another who doth not suffer that same particular kind of punishment that the other is obnoxious to and is obliged to suffer 3 Why was Christ said to be made sin for us 2. Cor. 5 21. to bear our iniquities Esai 53 6. 1. Pet. 2 24. If he did not undergoe the very punishment that was due to us because of sin 4 This is to give away the cause in a great measure unto the Socinians who will not yeeld that Christ's death was any satisfaction to the justice or payment of our criminal debt or a suffering the punishment of sin due to us for if Christ did not suffer the curse sentence of the Law he did not suffer the punishment which the Law threatned and justice required he did not suffer any punishment at all if he suffered not our punishment or that which was due to us he did not stand in our Law-place to answere all the demands of justice according to what we were liable unto by the Law nor did he bear our sins in his own body on the cross 5 If Christ's death was a ground or consideration to God whereupon to dispense with his Law then it is apparent that the consideration of Christ's death was anterior to the dispensing with the Law whereas the contrary is rather true to wit that the Lord's dispensing with the Law was anteriour to his sending of Christ because the Law properly knowing no mediator and requiring none to suffer the penalty for another must first in order of nature be considered as dispensed with before Christ be substituted in the room of sinners to undergo what they deserved 6 If it was only a ground to God whereupon to let fall or suspend the execution of the penalty then it seemeth Christ's death was no full payment or Satisfaction for a full Satisfaction requireth more than a suspension of the execution of the punishment even a full delivery there-from Let us heare his reason Because saith he the threatning Curse of the Law was not at all bent or intended against the innocent or Righteous but against transgressours only Therefore God in inflicting death upon Christ being innocent and Righteous did not follow the purport or intent of the Lawâ—but in sparing forbearing the transgressours who according to the 〈◊〉 of the Law should have bin punished manifestly dispenseth with the Law and doth not execute it Ans. All this being granted yet it will not follow that the sentence Curse of the Law was not executed upon Christ in his death for notwithstanding of this dispensing with the Law as to the persons Yet was there no Relaxation of the Law as to the punishment threatned Though the Law did not require that the innocent should suffer Yet the Supream Lord Ruler dispensing with his own Law so far as to substitute an innocent person in the room place of sinners the Law required that that innocent person taking on that penalty and thereby making himself nocent as to the penalty should suffer the same that was threatned consequently bear the Curse threatned in the Law As saith he further for explication when Zaleucus the Locrian Law-giver caused one of his own eyes to be put out that one of his son's eyes might be spared who according both to the letter intent of the Law should have lost both he did not precisely execute the Law but gave a sufficient account or consideration why it should for that time be dispensed with Ans. This speaks not home to our case wherein we pay not the half nor no part of the penalty But Christ payeth the whole as substitute in our room If Zaleucus had substituted himself in the room of his son suffered both his own eyes to be put out though the Law had been dispensed with as to the persons yet the penalty of the loss of both eyes had been payed the same punishment which the Law required had been exacted And so it is in our case as is manifest Yet he granteth that in some sense Christ may be said to have suffered the penalty or Curse of the Law as 1. It was the Curse or penalty of the Law saith he as now hanging over the head of the world ready to be executed upon all men for sin that occasioned his sufferings Ans. If this were all all the beasts senseless creatures may be as well said to have suffered the penalty Curse of the Law consequently to have suffered for man to have born mans sin in order to his Redemption as Christ for the sin penalty of sin whereunto man was liable did occasion their suffering or being subjected to vanity Rom. 8 20 21. Thus our whole Redemption is subverted the cause yeelded unto the wicked Socinians for if this be so Christ had not our sins laid upon him he did not beare our sins