our concernment to enquire after know the way how adult persones come to partake of these Privileges 5. We do not here speak of that Justification which some call a Iustification of the cause and distinguish from that which they call a justification of the person for that is but the justification of a person falsly accused as to some particular as David was frequently accused of many things by his Adversaries of which he was Innocent laying to his charge crimes he knew not about which he was in case as we finde he did several times in his Psalmes to appeal unto God the righteous Iudge being conscious to himself of no guilt in the particulars alledged knowing his own innocency in the sight of God who knew all things Such was the matter of that question concerning Job's sinceritie so much agitated betwixt him his friends in the book of Iob and at length decided in Iob's favours by God himself for though this was not concerning one or a few particular acts but concerning his whole deportment and concerning his State before God upon the account of his deportment and the Lord's dispensations with him yet it was a justification of his Cause rather than of his Person for in the justification of our Persons we have to do immediatly with God and not with man and the question was properly about a matter of fact to wit whether he had been a real beleever or an hypocrite though such a matter of fact as meerly concerned his whole State 6. Nor do we here speak of that justification even as to our state which is before men or in the judgment of men which oft proceedeth upon mistakes and unsure grounds as the now-mentioned instance of Iob's friends evidenceth and so varieth according to the various judgments apprehensions of men yea and of the same Man at several times according as the grounds whereupon he judgeth are to him clear or dark Neither is this sentence or judgment of men who are but fallible and judge by outward appearance not being able to see into the heart and judge how matters are there alwayes according to truth even though according to that judgment of Charity which the Law of God requireth Nor is it Constant and equable 7. Nor do we speak of that Iustification whereof the Apostle Iames speaketh Chap. 2. which is not the justification before God whereof the Apostle Paul speaketh in his Epistles but the evidencing proving and demonstrating thereof by effects and works obvious to the eyes of others and demonstrative of the cause Those I grant will oft admit of an intercision through Temptation and the prevalency of Corruption and so the cause or true justification may as to this manifestation he eclipsed though not in it self 8. Far less do we here speak of a groundless fancied supposed justification whether in the apprehension of deluded persons themselves or of others for this is no true Iustification but a meer delusion as to themselves and a conjecture as to others and the sooner this be quite cast away and renunced the better 9. Nor do we here speak of that Iustification which is in the court of mans own conscience or as it is there and opposed to that Iustification which is in God's court for it is certaing this Iustification which is said to be in the court of conscience is but a manifestation of the other unto the mans conscience and is some times had sometimes missed sometimes it is more clear some times more dark and therefore can be oft repeated and reiterated and intended and remitted yea and some may for a long time if not their whole life time be wholly without it Walking in darkness without all light as to this some may once get a cleare sight thereof and never see more of it till nigh the landing in eternity yet all this while the Iustification which is in the court of God remaine fixed invariable and without any interuption 10. By Justification here we meane not that which some call a Particular justification and do distinguish it from an Universal Iustification by this understanding an universal pardon of all sins past and committed and by the other understanding a particular pardon of this or that sin that is committed after the man hath been universally pardoned and accepted of God and now pardoned after a new act of faith in Christ Though it be needless to debate whether this Particular Pardon can be called a Iustification or not yet it is certaine it is not that Iustification whereof Paul speaketh so much and explaineth in all its causes in his Epistles nor that Iustification which connoteth a change of State before God and the translation of a person out of an estate of Enmity into an estate of Favour and Friedshipe in reference to which there must be a juridical sentence passed in the favours of the man through the impured Righteousness of Christ received by Faith while as this posterior act of pardon of a particular transgression is rather a Fatherly act pardoning the failing of his Son receiving him againe into his Fatherly embracements 11. Nor finally do we here speak of that sentence of Absolution that shall be pronunced at the last day for howbeit that may be called a Iustification yet it is not that Iustification whereof we are now speaking it doth not make such a change in the state of such as are thereby absolved as this doth and therefore in respect of this it is rather a publick Declaration and Manifestation before Angels and Men of their Iustification or being in a Iustified state who shall be adjudged unto eternal life than any Iustification connoteing a change of state seing none in that day will be justified but such as have been here partakers of this Iustification whereof we speak they who have been in heaven will need none such as have been in hell will expect none none of the living who have not by faith laid hold on Christ will hear any other sentence then depart from me ye cursed 12. The justification then whereof we here speak is That change of state before God which such are made partakers of as lay hold on Christ by faith through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ whereby they are brought into an estate of Favour Reconciliation with God who were before under his Wrath Curse and upon which they have all their iniquities whereof they are guilty actually pardoned are accepted of as Righteous and pronunced such through the Surety-Righteousness of Christ imputed to them and freed from the sentence Curse of the Law under which they were lying That we may cleare the nature of this life of Justification as to its continuance we shall lay down these few Propositions Propos. 1. Justification denoteth a State wherein the beleever is brought a real change as to state as a man accused of some crime keeped in prison till he be tryed
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
demand more than the idem quod dehitur rather debetur the whole debt of obedience or punishment Ans. But what if ourselves in our own natural persons had undergone the penalty had we therefore ipso facto attained a perfect deliverance It will be confessed I suppose that all that underlye this punishment underlye it for ever how then doth their legall suffering the idem helpe them If it be said that they must eternally suffer because never able to suffer so as to make satisfaction Yet still it is obvious that their undergoing the idem in their own persons naturally doth not advantage them as to a present perfect deliverance ipso facto or ever at all And where is then the truth of this axiome Or where is its pertinency to our purpose When a man is punished with death according to the Law is he ipso facto presently perfectly delivered It seemeth then that the paying of the Idem yea or the tantundâ—m by another person is more effectual for their liberation than their paying of the Idem in their own persons And againe the Law in many cases granteth liberation even when the Idem in Mr. Baxters sense is payed that is when another payeth down the same Yea likewise if the Creditor be satisfied when another thing is payed So that neither part of this assertion holdeth true universally But yet some may say That if the Idem or the very same were payed by Christ our liberation should immediatly follow I Ans. It will not follow so if we in our own persons had made full payment of that debt of suffering which is impossible to be done in time it might be granted that actuall liberation would immediatly follow but when we did not this in our own persons but Christ made full payment of what the Law could demand by way of punishment or threatned for us it will not follow that our deliverance should immediatly follow thereupon and the reason is because it was such a paying of the Idem as was refusable and as God himself provided out of wonderful love free grace and was accorded unto by a mutual compact according to the free wise Conditions of which the benefites were to be given out Mr. Baxter in his Cath. Theol. part 2. n. 48. saith the Very nature Reason of the Satisfactoriness of Christ's sufferings was not in being the very same either in kind or in degree which were due to all for whom he suffered Whence we see that he denieth that Christ suffered the same either in kind or in degree that was due by the Law to those for whom he suffered His reason why they could not be the same which was due by the Law he giveth n. 49. is the same we heard before viz. The Law made it due to the sinner himself Which notwithstanding it might be the same both as to kind degree which Christ suffered that the Law made due the substitution of a new person that the Law did not provide altereth not the punishment either as to kind or as to degree He addeth and anothers suffering for him fulâ—illeth not the Law which never said either thou or another for thee shall die but only satisfyeth the Law-giver as he is above his own Law could dispense with is his justice being satisfied saved dum alius solvit aliud solvitur Ans. Though the Law intend only the punishment of the transgressour Yet when the Law-giver dispenseth with the Law accepteth of the punishment suffering of aâ—other the punishment suffering of another doth not eo spso that it is the punishment suffering of another become different in kind degree from the punishment enjoyned by the Law as is obvious when â—ne man suffereth death for another the Law being dispensed with that made death due to the transgressour himself his death doth not become eoipso that it is the death of another than of him that transgressed another kind of death ar distinct as to degrees it may be the same as to both And yet this is all the force of Mr. Baxter argument dum alius solvit aliud solvitur which whether it be a certaine universal rule in the Law I much doubt but though it were Yet no man can hence inferre that aliud quoad genus gradus eo ipso solvitur for it is a rule in logick that a genere ad speciem non sequitur affirmativâ— so that though when the Law requireth that he who sinneth shall suffer die another suffereth dieth in the room stead of him who sinned it may be said that in so farr aliud solvituâ— Yet it cannot be hence inferred that the death or suffering of him who sinned not is quite of another kind differeth in degrees from that death which the Law made due to the sinner He mentioneth afterward in the 2 3 4. 5. places some particulars which were not in Christ's sufferings yet would have been in the sufferings of sinners themselves But all this is to no purpose for the question is not whether Christ's sufferings were the same every way with the sufferings of the damned as to all circumstances consequents flowing from the Condition of sinners suffering But whether they were the same as to kind with that death Curse which was threatned in the Law by way of punishment which was therefore due by Law unto the transgressour Let us now see the particulars 2. And sin saith he itself though not as sin was the greatest part of the sinners punishment To be alienated from God not to Love him delight in him but to be corrupted deluded tormented by concupiscence Ans. These are indeed necessary consequents of sin in the person who is a sinner and are consequently punishment but not directly such neither were they threatned as punishments by the Law so do not belong to the essence substance of that punishment which the Law threatned which Christ was called to undertake 3. Saith he And the immediat unavoidable consequents resulting from sin itself were punishments which Christ did never undergo as to be hateful displeasing to God as contrary to his holy nature to be related as criminal to lose right to God's Favour Kingdom Ans. To be hateful displeasing unto God â— agreeth only to a creature which God doth not hate as such as a sinner inherently and though Christ did not feel God's hatred anger against his own person yet he felt his anger hatred against sin sinners And Christ was also related as Criminal not inherently but by imputation when he was made sin for â—s 2. Cor. 5 21. The sinner that is such inherently only loseth right to God's Favour Christ missed the sense thereof when he cried out my God my God why hast thou forsaken me And 4. saith he none of the further punishment which supposed real faultiness could fall on Christ as