The Life of Justification Opened

CHAP. XXXV.

Faith is the only Condition on our part, of the continuance of justification.

HAving spoken of Justification, as to its beginning, or as to a Believers entering into that State of Life: & having spoken to some Questions for further clearing of the truth: We come to speak a word or two of the Continuance of this Privilege & State: That it is a continueing and permanent State, we have seen above. The Question then, that we have to discuss, is, Upon what terms & Conditions is this State continued? or what is it, which the Lord requireth in order thereunto? or whether anything more be required of us for continueing this Relation than was at first required to the making of it? that is, whether Faith alone, or Faith together with Works of sincere obedience, Mr. Baxter in his Confess, p. 47, n. 40. tells us, that there is much more goeth to the continuing & consummating our Justification, then doth at first to justify us as to the condition on our parts, to be performed to that end: This Continueing of our State of Justification, & Not-losing of it, he maketh one & the same, and that, which he requireth, as necessary unto the Not-losing or Continueing of this State, he maketh to be Sincere obedience, & many particular materials of that obedience, as to be humble, to forgive others, to confess Christ, & suffer for him, if called to it.

That we may know both the State of the difference, & the Consequence thereof, we would premit these things.

1. It is readily & on all hands granted & yielded unto, that there is an Holiness & Personal Obedience & Conformity to the Law, called for at the hands of all Justified persons, that are come to age: The denial therefore of what Mr. Baxter & others, that join with him, do here assert, cannot, with any show of reason, be loaded with this foul inference, that hereby we cry down, or lay aside all necessity of Holiness, & of sincere obedience: for we still affirm that the Law is in force, & obligeth unto obedience, and that all such as are justified, have received a new frame & disposition of soul, inclineing them to obedience; Yea & that they have now both peculiar Obligations unto Holiness, and also Advantages & Helps thereunto: They are his wormanship created in Christ Jesus unto Good Works, which God hath before ordained, that they should walk in them Ephes. 2: 10.

2. Mr. Baxter tells us Confess. p. 102. that it is his strong opinion, & that he is confident of it, that no justified person shall ever lose his justification; & that God hath promised to cause them persevere. This State then is not to be compared with other States, which are losable & changeable among men: nor can we with such freedom speak of Conditions of not loseing that, which is fully secured from all loseing; as we may speak of the Conditions of keeping & Not-loseing that, which may be & oft is lost. We cannot then speak of the State of Justification, as we do of Marriage betwixt man & woman: here there may be & are indeed Conditions required of each part, in order to the keeping up of the Relation, & they may be called Conditions of not loseing that Relation or Privilege: But as to justification, which is not so loseable, to speak of Conditions of not loseing it, may occasion Apprehensions in the minds of men of its being losable. It were saifer then, in my apprehension, to inquire how or what way is this State & Relation continued? or what is required on our part, in order thereunto? then to inquire? what are the Conditions of Not-loseing this State?

3. Seeing Mr. Baxter granteth Confess. p. 109. that no new sin destroyeth their State of Justification, nor maketh them cease to be God's reconciled Children, seeing they are still united unto Christ, and have his Spirit, and have Faith & Repentance, (at least as to the habit) & ( pag. 129.) That the habit of Faith & Repentance, which is ever in them, qualifieth them for present Remission of ordinary sins of infirmity, at least: And it is undeniable, that the Lord's Spirit preserveth them from such sins as are inconsistent with a State of Justification, or that make an intercision in that State, & consequently in their Adoption & Union with Christ: seeing, I say, all this is granted, to what purpose is such a question as this here moved and stated, anent the Conditions of Not-loseing this state?

4. The term Condition here is taken in the same sense, that it was understood in, when the question was about the Condition of our first entry into the State of Justification: and so they must take it here for a proper legal antecedent Potestative condition: for if by condition here were meaned no more than a mere Consequent Evangelic Condition: the question only would be. What is the Lord's Way, Method & Manner, how & by which he preserveth his own, in that State of Justification? But, according to their acceptation of the word condition, the question really cometh to this, What that is, which believers betake themselves unto, & which they can, may, & should plead with God upon, for the continuance of their state, that is, of their Reconciliation unto, & Acceptance with God, of the Pardon of their sins, & Right to glory?

5. The question is not, what is the Condition, or what is required on our part for keeping the sense & evidence of our justification in our own▪ Consciences: many things may be useful herein, that yet cannot be called▪ Conditions of the Continuance, or Not-loseing of Justification: But the Justification here spoken of, is that which is before God, whereby the Believer is indeed brought into a State of Peace & Reconciliation with God, & hath obtained a Right unto the Inheritance of Life.

6. When we speak here of the continuance, or Not-loseing of Justification, the Justification spoken of must be that State or Relation, where into the Believer is already brought: for that only can be said to be continued, while we are living, and that only can be said properly to be loosed, or Not-loosed, which a man hath: These seem then to be two distinct questions, What is the Condition of our final Absolution in Judgment; & what is the Condition of the continuance of our justification here; which Mr. Baxter seemeth to confound Confess. p. 83. as the Papists do confound their second justification with the last judgment, when they are pleading for works, being required as the causes thereof.

7. Though, as we have seen before, Justification importeth more than Remission of sins; Yet in this question of the Condition of the Continuance of Justification, the matter seemeth to be brought to this issue; whether works of Obedience be the Condition of future Remission of sins, in the justified. And though these may be conceived of, as distinct questions, yet the clearing of the way of the Remission of future sins, may serve much to clear the present Question; for if it befound, that the same course is taken for Remission of future sins, that was taken at first, it will be manifest, that justification is continued upon the same terms, or in the same manner, that it was at first obtained, if properly we can speak at all of the Conditions of its Continuance.

Having premitted these things, the Question is, Whether faith alone, or works alone, or faith with works, are the condition required on our part, for the Continuance, or not-loseing of the state of justification? And I judge as faith alone was required at first, in order to justification, so that alone is to be called the Condition of the continuance of justification: or that the Condition both of our first installing in that state of justification, & of the Continuance of the Privilege, or of Believers continueing in that state, is the same grace of Faith. Yet these two things would be noted. 1. That though the first act of Faith in Christ, doth suffice to the entering of a soul into the state of justification; Yet we do not mean, that that one first, solitary, & numerical act sufficeth for all time coming, albeit it sufficeth for making up of the Relation, according to the appointment of God; for the same Faith is to continue in its habit; Yea & in its actings. So that we state not the Question so strickly, as Mr. Baxter seemeth to do, Confess. p. 47. when from the Continuance of the habit of Faith, & from the renewing acts of that Faith, required after the first act of Faith, he inferreth, that much more goeth to the continueing of our justification, than doth at first justify us. But our question is about the addition of sincere Obedience which he there mentioneth. 2. When we suppose the Continuance of Faith, not only as to its habit, but as to its renewed actings; we do not suppose, that the actings & Effects, or Concomitans of Faith afterward, are every way the same, with what they were at first; so that we may also yield to this difference, & grant that something more may be requisite afterward, Particularly, in order to the Remission of some heinous sin, in the acting of Faith, or in the Effects or Concomitants thereof, at least as to measure, or outward significations, to wit, in Godly sorrow, Humiliation, Forgiving of others, Restitution, or the like; & yet it will still remain true, that justification is continued by Faith, & not by Works.

For the proof of what we conceive to be truth, we lay down these grounds, both from Scripture & Reason; as

1. The words of the Text, whereupon we are, do evince this: for it is said, the just liveth by Faith: And, as was cleared at the beginning of our discourse, the words, as used by the Prophet Habakkuk, from whom they are cited, are spoken of such, as were already Believers & Justified; and pointed out the way, how they were to have a life, in an evil time; and how they were to continue, or be keeped in that State of Favoure with God, whereinto they were brought; to wit by Faith; for the just shall live by his Faith; and accordingly the same words are cited by the Apostle Heb. 10: 38, 39. Now the just shall live by faith; but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them, that draw back, unto perdition, but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. Where living by Faith is opposed to drawing back, to wit, through unbelief; and as drawing back is unto perdition, so believing is to the saving of the soul; & therefore the Continuation of this life of justification unto the end, even unto the final Salvation of the soul, is by Faith. This life of justification, as it is begun by Faith (as the Apostle evinceth Rom. 1: 17. and in our present Text citing in both places these same words, for that end) so it is continued by Faith, as the only condition thereof. And to say, that the particle only is not here added; & therefore, other Works of Obedience must be, or may be adjoined here, in this matter, notwithstanding it be said, the just liveth by Faith, were in effect to destroy the Apostles Argument, in our Text, where he useth this same expression, without the addition of only, to prove, that we are not justified by the works of the Law. Therefore, as this assertion, that the just liveth by faith, proveth justification by faith without the works of the Law; so the same proveth the Continuation of Justification, without the works of the Law, as the Condition thereof.

2. The Grounds & Causes of Justification, mentioned by the Apostle Rom. 3: 22, 24, 25, 26. hold good als well in the Continuation, as in the first beginning of justification; for there, as well as here, the Righteousness of God without the Law is manifested, even the Righteousness of God, which is by Faith of Jesus Christ, unto all, and upon all them, that believe; for there is no difference. Justification first & lastly is free by his grace, through the Redemption, that is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set fort to be a Propitiation, through faith in his blood. And there is not the least hint given, that the matter is altered, in the Continuation of justification.

3. As the beginning of justification is so contrived, as all boasting is taken away, so must the Continnance thereof be conceived to be? But if works be admitted, as Conditions of the Continuance of Instification, though they be denied to be the Condition of the Beginning thereof, all boasting shall not be excluded, contrary to Rom. 3: 27. for if a sinner, after that he is Justified by the merit of Christ, at first, should have it to say, that for the Continuance of his justification, he were beholden to his own Works, he should surely have matter of boasting in himself, in so far at least. Papists think to evite this Argument against their Second Justification by works, by saving that all these good works are not of themselves, but of the Father of Lights. But this shift will not help, for all these works are not the Righteousness of Christ, but are works of Righteousness, which we do, & are excluded in this matter, as occasioning boasting, or giving ground thereunto; as the next Argument will more fully clear.

4. Abraham is said to have Righteousness imputed unto him, & Faith imputed unto Righteousness, and so to be justified by faith, not only when he was first justified, but many years after, even when he offered up Isaac his son. Rom. 4. & I am. 2: 21, 23. So was he justified first & last, as, to have no ground of glorying, and therefore not by works. Rom. 4: 1, 3, 4. But it will be said, that the Apostle James saith expressly, in the place cited, that our father Abraham was justified by works, when he had offered his Son Isaac on the Altar. I Ans. Not to engage in the whole explication & vindication of that Passage of Scripture here, which is of late to good purpose, & most satisfyingly done by the learned Doctor Owen; I only say, that Abraham's being justified by works, was such, as thereby the Scripture was fulfilled; which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for Righteousness &c. verse. 23. Now if Abraham had been justified by works, properly so taken, the Scripture had not been fulfilled, which said, he was justified by Faith, but the contrary had been made good, to wit, that works were imputed to him, & he was justified by them, as by his Righteousness. But the meaning is, that Abraham was justified by faith, a true faith, that proved itself such, in time of a trial, by works of obedience, & particularly by obedience to that command, whereby the Lord tried or tempted him Gen. 22: 1, 2. and by such a Faith as wrought with his works, & was perfected, or discovered & manifested to be real, after the trial of the fire. I am. 2: 22. It is a good direction that the learned Cameron giveth here Op. fol. pag. 83. That we should hóld fast the scope of the Apostle James, & to this end, that we should take notice of the Apostles Proposition, and of the Conclusion thereof. The Proposition is set down verse. 14. What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he, hath faith, & have not works, can faith, (or that faith) save him. Whereby we see, that the Apostles scope is to prove, that that Faith, which the man supposeth he hath, who hath no works, is not that Faith, by which we are Justified & saved; & that because it is unprofitable to poor indigent brethren, in necessity verse. 15. 16. is dead verse. 17. 20, it cannot be shown by works verse. 18. it is a Faith that devils have verse. 19. All which & what followeth is cleared from the Conclusion verse. 26. for as the body without the Spirit is dead, so faith with works is dead also.

5. It will always hold true, that God is he who justifieth the ungodly & so justifieth him, that worketh not, but him to whom saith is counted for Righteousness. Rom. 4: 5. But if the Continuance of Justification were by works; & works were counted for Righteoulness, in order to the continuance of justification; God should not continue to be the justifier of the ungodly: but should justify the ungodly at first, & thereafter justify the Godly; whereof the Text giveth not the least hint.

6. The Instance of David cleareth this also Rom. 4: 6, 7, 8. for David is there Psal. 32. speaking of himself, long after he was first justified, and yet his words saying, blessed are they, whose iniquities are forgiven &c. prove Justification by faith, without the works of the Law (which is the Apostles scope, & the end, for which he adduceth this prove; and we must not think, that any of his probations are impertinent) but this they could not prove, if the • ontinuance of justification were by works, & not by Faith only; as is manifest; for who can infer, that the beginning of Justification is by Faith alone, from this, that the continuance of justification is by works? but when the Continuance of Justification is by Faith alone, it followeth manifestly, that the beginning of it must be by faith alone. Yea, it is hence also manifest, that Pardon of sins committed after Justification, is not had by works, but by the imputation of Righteousness, without works, for saith Paul, David describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth Righteousness, without works: And how did David describe this? When he said, blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven &c.

6. Paul tells us Rom. 5: 2. that as by Christ, we have access by Faith into grace, so in the same we stand, & rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Access into this grace must import the State of Justification, & as this is by Faith, so is the standing & abiding therein; and consequently, the continuance of Justification: and there is no word of works here at all, in this whole affaire.

7. Paul likewise confirmeth this, in his own Experience Gal. 2: 20. where he tells us, how, and what way he lived unto God, being dead to the Law, to wit by the Faith of the Son of God: and as this was true of the life of Sanctification: so much more of the life of justification, both as begun & as continued; for the whole life of a Christian, now crucified with Christ, & living unto God, is here spoke to: And this is in opposition to the works of the Law, as is clear from verse, 16. & from the following verse. 21.

8. The same is confirmed by the doctrine of the Apostle Ephes. 2: 8, 9, 10. for by grace are ye saved, through faith - not of works lest any man should boast: for we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, unto good works, which God hath before ordained, that we should walk in them. This Salvation takethin both the Beginning, Continuance & End of our life, of Justification; & all this is by Faith alone, & expressly it is said, not to be by works, and that, lest any man should boast (which confirmeth our third argument) & these works are works of Gospel-obedience, and he tells us of another end & use of these, than to be the Condition of the Continuance of our Justification, even to be the way we should walk in, according to the fore-ordination of God, and carry as his workmanshipe, created thereunto.

9. We have the Apostles own practice again set before us, to clear this matter Phil. 3: 9. where he tells us, what was his main design & work, not at first only, when he was Justified; but long thereafter, to show what was his constant design, & should be to the end; even labor to be found in Christ, renuncing his own Righteousness, and to seek to be hid under & covered with that Righteousness, which is through the faith of Christ, & which is of God by Faith: So that, as he believed in Jesus Christ, that he might be justified by the Faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law. Gal. 2: 16. So here he showeth, that he will continue in this exercise to the end.

10. We may add to these, that passage of Paul. Tit. 3: 5, 6, 7. Not by works of Righteousness, which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us (and this Salvation, sure, will take-in the Continuation of justification) by the washing of regeneration, & renewing of the holy Ghest; which he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ, our Lord: that being Justified by his grace, we should be made heirs, according to the hope of eternal life. And when he willeth Titus in the following verse, to affirm, that they which have believed in God, may be careful to maintain good works, as being good & profitable unto men; he addeth nothing of their being the Condition of the Continuance of our justification, as sure, he had a fair occasion to do, if the matter were so: but he had fully excluded them from all interest therein verse. 5.

We may add to these a few Reasons.

1. Is it not considerable, in this point, that Paul speaking so frequently & disputing at such a length of justification & clearing so many things about it; Yet, in all his discourses thereupon, he never mentioneth this Condition (to wit works of obedience) of its continuance. And, which is also considerable, though he oftentimes press to holiness, & useth many Arguments to that end; Yet he never maketh mention of this place & office it hath, in & about the Continuance of justification; which sure, is supposed by the Assertors, to be a mighty argument unto the constant exercise of Holiness.

2. We have proved above, that justification at first is by the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, received by faith; and we have shown, that Faith in Justification specially eyeth the Righteousness of Christ, & resteth thereupon. If then our personal Obedience be brought in to be the Condition of the Continuance of Justification, Christ's Righteousness is quite laid aside from having any Further interest therein, and the Believer is never, after the first time, to act faith upon the Righteousness of Christ; and the reason is, because works do not act so upon the Righteousness of Christ, as Faith doth; neither have they that capacity to do so. But how absurd is it to think or say, that the Believer hath no more to do with Christ's Righteousness? And how contrary is it to the fixed resolution of Paul Phil. 3: 9. And how inconsistent with the whole scope of the Gospel, which is the power of God unto Salvation to everyone that believeth, and wherein is the Righteousness of God revealad from faith to faith, as it is written, the just shall live by faith Rom. 1: 16, 17? If it be said, That this cannot militate against such, as take-in Faith with works. I Ans. It will militate against such; for works cannot act upon the Righteousness of Christ, as faith doth; & therefore if faith & works concur as conditions, in one & the same manner, Faith is not here considered, as acting on the Righteousness of Christ, but only as a work, & another moral virtue: and so the Righteousness of Christ is quite excluded.

3. Believers by Faith in Christ, are completely justified, as to their state & have all their bygone iniquities pardoned, and they are accepted as children in his Favor John. 1: 12, they are made heirs of God & joint heirs with Christ Rom. 8: 17, and are discharged (as Mr. Baxter granteth himself Confess. p. 102. Concl. 9.) from all guilt of Eternal Punishment, yea & of all destructive Punishment in this life. Yea they are justified from all things, from which they could not be justified by the Law Act. 13: 39. They are blessed Rom. 4, 5, 6. And all this is so fixed, that none can lay anything to their charge Rom. 8: 33, 34. Yea they are said to have Everlasting Life, John. 5: 24. Now, seeing all this is by Faith: what necessity is there for another Condition, beside this same Faith, keeping fast by Christ, unto the Continuance of this State? If it be said, that notwithstanding hereof, they are liable to future sins, and these must also be forgiven; and in reference to the Pardon of these, other Conditions may be required, & in that respect, these may be called Conditions of the Continuance of Justification.

4. The answer to this will furnish us with another Argument; for answer therefore I say. That works are not the Condition of Pardon of after sins, but faith going to Christ, and washing in his blood 1. John. 2: 1, 2. If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous, & he is the propitiation for our sins. Christ is here proposed to sinning believers, in his Priestly office, as the object of their Faith, in order to Pardon: And Mr.Baxter, in the forecited place Concl. 11 saith, that when ever the Justified do commit any sin, they have a present & effectual certain remedy at hand for their pardon, that is, the merit of Christ's blood, & his Intercession, the Love of God, the Promise of Pardon, in which they have interest, & the Spirit to excite them to Faith & Repentance. No word of works of obedience, as Condition here. David in order to the obtaining of the pardon of his sin, did betake himself to the free mercy of God, that he might get his sin covered, his iniquities forgiven, and his sin not imputed unto him; Psal. 32: 1, 2. and this was, in Paul's judgment Rom. 4: 6, 7, 8. a betaking himself to imputed Righteousness without works. So he betook himself to mercy, and withal he desired to be purged with hyssop, Psal. 51: 1, 7. which looked to the blood of Christ, that only sprinkleth consciences. Heb. 9: 13, 14, 22.

5. If Justification be continued upon Condition of works, we inquire what these works are? Are herein comprehended all commanded duties? or all that is required of justified persons by way of duty? then a faloure in any of these, whether by Omission, or Commission, should cause an intercision of that State, and a breach of that Relation: But this is utterly false; Yea, if so, the justified should become Unjustified every day, for no man liveth & sinneth not. The reason of the Consequence is, because the nonperformance of the Condition, upon which the State & Relation of the justified is continued, must make a breach in that State. If it be said, That not every sin, but only such sins as are inconsistent with the State of Justification, will make an Intercision. Then it must consequently be said, that upon these alone, or on the non-performance of these alone doth the Continuance of Justification depend, as on a Condition. And what be these? David's sin, I hope, nor Peters sin, were none of these. And whatever they be, I suppose it will be granted, (except by Arminians ) that there is sufficient provision against these laid-in in the New Covenant of Grace; and that such, as are justified indeed, shall never fall into such sins. And then, what need it be said, that the State of Justification is continued upon such terms?

6. By this way, Proud Nature should have occasion to boast, and say. It was of God's Grace & Mercy, that I was brought into a justified State, & had all my former sins pardoned; but for my abiding & continueing therein; and for the pardon of all my sins, that I have committed, or do commit since, I am beholden to my own Gospel-obedience immediately; for Remission is granted, and my Justification continued, upon Condition of my personal & Gospel-obedience. But how inconsistent this is with the whole strain of the Gospel, cannot be unknown. We nowhere read, that our sins are pardoned, or not imputed to us, in or by our Evangelic Obedience; but as we are justified freely by grace, through the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus, Rom. 3: 24. so it is in & through Him, & his blood, that we are washen, & our sins purged away Mat. 26: 28. Revel. 1: 5. Ephes. 1: 7. Col. 1: 14.

7. The daily experience of the people of God, may clear to us, what that is, upon which their State is continued; and upon which they seek & obtain new Remission of their new Transgressions, and show us, that it is not their own personal Obedience; but the Grace & Mercy of God, in Jesus Christ: for it is to this they betake themselves daily, both in reference to their being keeped in the favor of God, & in reference to their getting new extracts of Pardon; It is to the blood of sprinkling they go daily, that there they may be washen, & cleansed from all their sins & sailings. It is to this fountain opened to the house of David & to the Inhabitans of Jerusalem, that they run with their sins & uncleannesses. Zach. 13: 1. For it is his blood alone, that cleanseth from all sin. 1. John. 1: 7. And so they find by experience, that they stand only by Faith, and that it is through Faith in this blood, that they are kept in the favoure of God, & get their sins pardoned.

These proofs may serve for confirmation of what we say; Let us now see what Mr. Baxter saith for the contrary.

In his Confess. p.47. he adduceth three Arguments. The first is this. The word expressly constituteth these Conditions of our not-loseing our State of Justification, or of Continueing it. And this he tells us, he hath formerly shown in many Scriptures, meaning, I suppose, the passages he had immediately before cited on the margin. But to these I Answer in general. That not one of them maketh mention of the continuance of our justification, or of our not loseing of it: And therefore it cannot be said from these, that the word expressly constituteth these Conditions of our not-losing Justification. But we shall consider them particularly.

Mat. 12: 36, 37. speaketh not of justification, whereof we are now treating, but of the last judgment, and we see no cause of confounding this Justification, whereof we speak, or its Continuance, with the last Judgment, as Papists do confound their second justification with this judgment; and abuse the same Scriptures here adduced by Mr. Baxter & the like, to prove their second justification to be by works.

Jam. 2: 24. speaketh not of the Continuance or not losing of justification; but of the very beginning of justification, which is not by a dead faith or by a faith, that cannot produce works of Obedience, or by such a faith, as devils have; but by a faith that is working, & making the soul prompt & ready to yield all Obedience unto the Lord: and this is the true meaning of the words, as was shown above, and the whole scope of the place evidenceth. Will Mr. Baxter say, that by a dead Faith, and by a Faith that cannot save, and by a Faith that is in devils & is attended with no Christian Love, we are brought into a justified state at first? No sure: and yet this is the faith, that James opposeth unto works, or rather unto a working faith, whereby we are justified first & last, as was Abraham verse. 21. whose faith was such, as it wrought with his works, and by the same was manifest to be what it was, the true & saving faith of God's Elect. And sure, this Faith of Abraham, and the faith that wrought in Rahab, was another sort of Faith, than is the Faith of devils, or that Faith, that is but a dead carcase.

Mat. 6: 14, 15. speaketh of Remission of sins: And I suppose, it will not be said, that everyone, who forgiveth his neighbor, doth thereby and thereupon obtain Remission of his own sins, at the hands of God; other ways Heathens, & wicked persons may be said to have their sins Pardoned before God, because they may forgive others, some wrongs done unto themselves. If it besaid, that such cannot forgive others a right, not having a principle of grace, and not being in Christ. True, but then we see, that it is not this forgiving abstractly considered, that is spoken of here, but a Forgiving, flowing from faith & principled thereby; and so the meaning of the place is, That without such a Faith in Christ, as principleth & prompteth to Pardoning of others, we can expect no pardon of our own sins from God; not have ground to suppose that we are indeed pardoned of God: our forgiving of others then is here mentioned as the native Effect, & evident Sign of Faith; as our Commentators manifest upon the place, speaking against the Papists. See Pareus, Gwalther & others. Pareus particularly disproveth the Papist's gloss; & saith, that our pardoning of others must follow upon God's pardoning of us, as he cleareth from Mat. 18. and will not have our forgiving of others said to be the causa sine qua non of our obtaining Remission from God. This place then saith, That while we cannot find in our heart, a readiness cheerfully & heartily to forgive others, we have no ground to imagine, that our sins are pardoned; for all such as are pardoned of God, have this Christian disposition flowing from faith in Christ: They may have this, as to the seed & root; but till it grow up to yield this fruit, they want the evidence of their faith & consequently of pardon.

1. John. 1: 9. meaneth such a Confession of sins, as is accompanied with the making use by faith of the blood of Christ, that cleanseth from all sin verse. 7. and with a running to the Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous, who is a Propitiation for sins Chap. 2: 1, 2. Most wicked persons, as Saul may make confession of their sins; but not so as to run to the fountain, the blood of sprinkling: And by a Confession, that is not accompanied with this acting, they can attain to no Remission before God: And therefore faith only acting in humble Confession to the glory of God, & to the taking of shame to themselves, is the condition of Pardon, & of Continuance of Justification, as to this.

Revel. 22: 14. is also abused by the Papists. to prove their second justification to be by works. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , hereused, doth not always denote right, or jus: for it sometimes signifieth mere freedom, liberty & power to do such or such a thing, as 1. Cor. 9: 4, 5, 6. And so here the words import that such as do his commandments, are blessed; for thereby they have free access unto the tree of life, unto Christ, their objective blessedness, which is the same with that, which is commonly said, viz. that Works of Obedience are the way of the Kingdom, but not the cause of reigning. It will not suite with the Gospel, to say, that by our works of obedience we buy a right to the tree of life, even in part, or in subordination to Christ's blood; for Christ hath purchased the whole Right: & nothing of ours must be joined, as a part of that price, otherwise must we have a proportionable share of the glory to ourselves. Nor can it be said, that by our works of Obedience we obtain a Right to Christ & to his Merits; for before we have a Right to Christ, we can do no works of Christian Obedience, and Christ alone hath bought to us both Grace, & Glory: But our works of Christian Obedience, though they cannot precede our Right to, yet they may go before our Possession of the Inheritance purchased; now Right & Possession are different things. But in fine we say, that this place, speaking of the possession of glory, is not apposite to the purpose now in hand, for Justification is different from Glorification. Rom. 8: 30. And of justification, as continued are we here speaking.

John. 15: 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10. Verse. 3. & 9. can prove nothing, in reference to what we are upon. Vers. 4. showeth that there is no fruitfulness in Grace, but by a constant abiding in, & sucking of sap by faith from Christ the true Vine, which none denieth. Verse 8. showeth that by fruitfulness in good, the Father is Glorified, & thereby a demonstration is given to the world, who are indeed the true disciples of Christ, verse. 6. holdeth forth the dreadful punishment that attendeth Apostates; but we hope, true believers are secured against full & final Apostasy. Vers. 10. proveth indeed, that keeping of Christ's commands, is a mean to keep the sense of our being beloved of Christ fresh in our souls, & to enjoy the fruits of his Love of Beneficence: but saith nothing of good works being the Condition of our Continuance in the state of justification: unless we will also say, that Christ's obedience was the Condition of his Continueing in the State of Justification.

1. John. 2: 24. &c. proveth, that full & final Apostasy from the faith & truth of the Gospel will indeed cut off from all Interest in Christ, & from benefit by him; But as true believers are secured from this, as verse. 27. cleareth. So this will only prove, that continuance in Faith, is the Condition of continuance of Justification.

Mat. 18: 35. Only proveth (and so confirmeth what was said to Mat. 6: 14.) that such as do not from their hearts forgive their brethren their trespasses, can have no ground of Assurance, that God hath forgiven them theirs. ... our Cruelty & Unmercifulness towards our Brethren, may give us sufficient ground to doubt of 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 new nature of a Covenanting with Christ, & giving ourselves to him, & taking him for our Lord & Redeemer: therefore it follows, 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, Soldier to a commander, Scholar 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 inferior to obedience, which is promised, though in other respect it may be superior.

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 Merits for refuge. (2) Nor doth faith, in order to Justification, (as we cleared above) receive Christ, or go 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 terms. (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 find 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 Soldier; these are mere 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 contrary 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 Apostasy? From which there is full security laid-in, in the New Covenant, (which is not in any of the Covenants among men, which he hath mentioned.) And this total Apostasy 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, adhering 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 Justification, 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 yield 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-sins.

WE spoke before Chap. 29. of Repentance in order to the first pardon of sins, or to justification; and in the foregoing Chapter we show 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 Believer, 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 f • om sin, and to turn unto God, and to all the ways of his Commandments Psal. 119: 59. The very body of death is constant matter of groaning and mourning unto him Rom. 7: 24. & his daily iniquities & transgressions ought to keep him low, and to put him to this exercise. Beside what at extraordinary times of public wrath or judgment against the Land, Church, or Place he liveth in, or judgments upon his own near Relations, Family &c. or upon occasion of his own more heinous out breakings: as in David. Psal. 51.

2. It is also granted. That where is no Repentance, or no true Repentance, for sins 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 infer 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 infer 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 he mindeth to Pardon, he giveth also a Spirit of Repentance, as both Scripture & Experience proveth:

3. Yet notwithstanding of this, it is true, that an outward Repentance; where there is no inward, real & sanctified change wrought, may hold off for a time, or prorogue the inflicting of temporal strokes; as we see in Aabh, Nineveth & others.

4. It will be granted also by all the orthodox, that Repentance is no proper, meritorious cause of pardon; not doth it make any Satisfaction to God, or appease his wrath & anger.

4. I shall also grant, that where there is true & unfeigned Repentance, after some sin committed, there that person may saifly infer that his sin is pardoned: Repentance is a good sign of Remission; because it is a good evidence, that the man hath run to the fountain, to the blood of Jesus, and there hath washen himself, & made himself clean. See Isaiah. 1: 16, 17, 18.

5. The Exercise of Repentance is very useful, to make sin become bitter, mercy welcome, & to make the soul more careful & watchful in time to come.

But the Question is, whether Repentance be a proper Condition of Pardon of sins, committed after Justification: or not? And when we speak of Repentance here, we consider it by itself, & not as being the sensible signification & expression of Faith; for the Question is not, whether Faith acting in & through Repentance, or working the soul up unto unfeigned Repentance, be the Condition of Remission; for that is not Repentance, but Faith, accompanied with, & acting the soul to Repentance; but the Question is of Repentance considered in itself, & as a distinct grace from Faith: And speaking of Repentance, as such, & considered in itself, I say, that it is not the Condition of Remission of after sins; but faith only, acting in a Gospel manner, on Jesus Christ, & his Blood & Merits.

And the reasons are. 1. Because it is Faith & not Repentance, that carrieth the sinner away to the Blood of Jesus Christ, & to his Merits, through whom, & by which alone Remission is had Ephes. 1: 7. Col. 1: 14. Zach. 13. 1. Heb. 9: 14, 22. Revel. 1: 5. Repentance as such, layeth not hold on Christ, grippeth not his Merits, maketh no application of these; but is wholly exercised about another object, about sin.

2. This would give man too great ground of boasting in himself: if upon his Mourning, Sorrow & Repentance, Pardon were to be had; and would give occasion to think, that there were some merit & worth, in that work, & something satisfying or appeasing to God: for the man hereby is keeped within himself: & upon the account of something within himself, or done by himself, is he pardoned, as he might suppose.

3. This should be derogatory to the Blood & Merits of Christ, by which alone we have pardon first & last; and the Gospel is so contrived, as that Christ must have all the Glory; and all the methodes, means & order of the Gospel, and new Covenant, are in like manner framed, so that man may be abased, free grace exalted, Christ acknowledged the only Redeemer; But if our Repentance were made such a Condition, there should be no application made of Christ & of his blood by the sinner; No acting on him, & on his merits, in order to the obtaining of Pardon; and so, no occasion of exalting free grace, and Love in Christ; no occasion of wondering at the wise contrivance of the Covenant of Grace, in all points: If it be said, There is no derogating from Christ & his Merits here; because it is by virtue of his Merits, that Repentance is made such a Condition: I Ans. This is not cleared from the Scripture; nor is it suitable to the frame of the Gospel-Covenant; for the whole of it is so contrived, as that Christ is immediately to be made use of: But this way keepeth the soul off all immediate going to, applying of, and resting upon Christ, in order to Remission of new sins; & setteth them only upon the exercise of Sorrow & Repentance within themselves.

4. The Apostle John pointeth out the way to believers of obtaining Remission-of sins 1. John. 2: 1, 2. - And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he is the Propitiation for our sins. Now, Repentance doth not make use of Christ, as an Advocate, & as a Propitiation; but Faith doth. And it is the proper work of Faith, in order to Remission, to make use of Christ, in his Priestly office, & to carry the soul away to his Propitiation & Intercession.

5. The daily experience of the Saints evidence this, when upon conviction of sin, they betake themselves to the free Mercy of God, in Christ, to the Blood of sprinkling, crying out for Pardon for the Lord's sake, and seeking to be washen, in his blood. It is not their Repentance, or Sorrow, that they flee to, as the ground of their hope of Pardon; but the merits of Christ, held forth in the new Covenant, is that fountain, wherein they must wash & be clean. See Psal. 25: 11. & 51: 7.

6. This was sufficiently held forth under the Law, when for their Errors, Failings & daily Transgressions, the people were to bring their Sacrifices to the Priest, which were to be offered up, as types of Christ & they were to lay their hands upon the head of the Sacrifice, in sign of their resting upon the Sacrifice typified, & of rolling their sins upon that only Sacrifice, & of expecting Acceptance & Pardon, through it alone. See Levite. 4: 20, 26, 31, 35. & 5: 10, 13, 16, 18. & 6: 7, 19, 22.

7. If Repentance be the Condition, then this must either be said of that part of Repentance, which preceedeth the acting of faith, or of that which followeth: This last cannot be said; for then it would follow, that upon the acting of faith, that preceedeth, there were no Remission; & so faith laying hold on Christ & his Merits, should be utterly excluded from having any Interest in the pardon of sins. Nor can the first be said, for then there should be Remission, before & without all application made of Christ by Faith: Yea & the very imperfect beginnings of Repentance should be judged sufficient for Remission: which cannot be said. If it be said, that this is meaned of complete Repentance. I Ans. Compleet Repentance cannot be without Faith: & it is against what is said, to make Repentance, considered alone & by itself, or as abstracted from Faith, the only Condition; seeing this would be a manifest exclusion of Faith altogether. If it be said, that Repentance & Faith may be considered together, & as joined together called the Condition of Pardon. I Ans. Seeing it is manifest, that both do not, neither can act one & the same way on Christ; they cannot be considered as equally sharing in the place & interest of a condition: And therefore, I judge it saifest to say, That faith, acting in & by Repentance, or so discovering itself to be true & lively, is the sole Condition of Pardon.

8. As at first, so always 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 believeth in him, shall receive Remission of sins. As the stung Israelit was always, in order to his cure, to look to the brazen serpent: so is the Believer, that would be cured of the guilt of new transgressions, to have his recourse by Faith unto the Mediator, crucified & lifted up John. 3: 14, 15.

Obj. 1. It is said, that Repentance is necessary both as commanded, and as a mean 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 means to attain 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 mean: and yet it cannot be called the Condition; for then everyone that prayeth should have pardon, though he act not faith: And if it be said, that it must be prayer in faith I am. 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 press it in the Gospel way & method.

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 suitable that a penitent sinner should have Pardon, than an impenitent. Ans. So this same may be said of Prayer; for it is also more suitable, that a praying sinner, be pardoned, than a sinner that nev • 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 blood, 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 believer. 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 alms 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 immediately for Faith, & but mediately & remotly for Pardon. (3) The promise of Pardon is not made to the penitent properly, & as such; but to the Penitent believer; that is, to faith acting & exerting itself in & by Repentance.

Obj. 4. Isaiah. 1: 15, 16. put away the evil of your doings, cease to do evil, &c. this is Repentance: & then verse. 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 clean; which could only be, by the blood of the Messiah, for that only cleanseth. 1. John. 1: 7. and this they had neglected, in going about their Sacrifices, which therefore were abominable in the eyes of the Lord verse. 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 turn from their wicked ways. 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 find mercy. Ans. True, because none will do that a right, but the believer; who laith hold on the Merits 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.

CHAP. I.

Imputation both of Christ's Active and Passive Obedience necessary.

MR. John Goodwin in his Treatise of justification part. 2. Ch. 2. laith down several conclusions, whereby he might overturn 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 threatened; 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 complete satisfaction be made, to wit, such as may comprehend also perfect conformity 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 cattle, or otherwise, hath made spoil in his nieghbours Corn, & 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 own, was glory, by faithful & constant obedience, that he might receive the reward to the glory of God's faithfulness, & goodness. Now when Adam dishonored the Lord by disobedience. & robbed him (as it were) of his Authority, as just & righteous Governor, 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 injury we have done unto him. Therefore he that tenders a valuable consideration or satisfaction for an injury 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: no • was it betwixt God and Adam, as it is betwixt one man & another. God is to be considered, as a supreme Law-giver & Ruler, enjoining obedience to his Laws, under penalties, and promising rewards unto the obedient: Now when his Laws 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 withal no complete 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, until the Law be compleetly obeyed.

His 2. Conclusion is. There is no medium between a perfect absolution & freedom from all sin; & a perfect & complete 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 help 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 recompense 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 & complete 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 nothing can hinder the perfection of light, but darkness in one degree, or other. So that as the air, 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 believe, that he is here speaking of sin itself, and not of its guilt and demerit, 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 Conclu • on. If he speak here of sin in respect of guilt & demerit, his simile doth not quadrate; and opposite to this guilt he should set Righteousness or obedience with its merit: 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 days work may be required, than one or half of one days 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 withal 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 mere 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 days in dressing a garden, & then to receive the reward promised, & if he fail in his work any of the days, to be punished; this man, so long as he worketh 2, 3, 4. 5. days cannot be charged with sin, nor said to be defective, as to his duty; and yeth he hath not full right to the reward until he hath wrought Eight days, but is defective in some part of his Righteousness, as to this reward. And according to this may we understand that logical axiom.

Further he saith, The Scriptures themselves still make an immediate opposition, between sin & Righteousness. - To find out a third estate between sin & Righteousness, we must find 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; & remain so, until we be translated into a state of Righteousness, which is not by mere pardon of sins, but 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 complete Satisfaction & merit, which comprehendeth, or consisteth of both.

His 3. Conclusion is this, Adam, whilst his innocence 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 completely Righteous, that is, was changable with no transgression, it is true: That he was completely Righteous, that is, had full right to the reward, as having done all his duty, and completed 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 inquired 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 completely & perfectly Righteous from the womb, & so from his first entrance upon his public ministry, 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 & public Person, engadging in their behalf, whom he did represent, to pay all their debt; though he knew no sin, and upon that account was perfectly Righteous, and separate from sinners; Yet he was to finish the work laid upon him, and to perform the whole debt, both of duty & suffering, which he had undertaken; and till the last penny of that debt was paid, his work was not finished, and until 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, until 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 Innocence, wherein he enjoyed the favor & 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, show, & 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 controversy; & nothing granted neither, in this, but the unquestionable truth) is to grant the point in question, & to acknowledge the truth labored 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 freedom 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, threatened 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 obtain 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 transgressors, 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 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 & immediately 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 dream of a remission, but withal 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 withal, 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 transgressors, all the imputation of Righteousness in the world cannot make us to have been no sinners.

Yet he inferreth. So that besides that perfect remission of sins, which hath been purchased by the blood 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 tells 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 verse. 7. & 11. Ans. This is but the same thing, & needeth no new answer; 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 connection 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 speech, 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 connection 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 air 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 diversity 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 forgiveness of sins, & sometimes an imputing of Righteousness; & the forgiveness of sins is sometimes called an imputing of righteousness, to show & signify that a man needs nothing to a complete Righteousness, or Justification, but the forgiveness of his sins: And again the Imputing of Righteousness is sometimes called the forgiveness of sins, to show that God hath no other Righteousness to confer 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 complete favor, and blessing granted of God, in order to one complete blessedness, consisting likewise in two parts, to wit, in freedom 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 & signify both, by a Synecdoche: And hence no man, with reason, can infer, that they are both one & the same precise thing, flowing from one & the same precise cause, and import only the different names, expressio • 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 complete Surety-Righteousness: no more can the effects, that flow therefrom, be accounted one & the same thing, but two distinct parts of one complete effect: And therefore the mentioning of the one, instead of the whole, proveth no confusion, or sameness, but rather an inseparablness, which is yielded.

He move • in an objection against himself • ▪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 hear, what he answereth. 1. saith he. There is as express & complete 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 believeth, such a Righteousness, as is proper to him? Ans. To say this, is to speak plain 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 murder, or of any prohibited act, make that act conform 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 been spoken to elsewhere.

He giveth a 2. answer, 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 sin • . Ans. This hath been & is full denied; it never hath been, nor never shall be proved, that forgiveness 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, no • 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 plain 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 own eyes: and it were a mere imposing upon the Understandings of the most ordinary Reader, and a miserable misspending of time, to go about the evincing of this, which is so obvious. But what desperate 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 R • 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 term whatsomever. But what then? Now he that it free of death, & no ways 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 again any capacity of life, but by some right & • itle thereunto. Ans. Though this be true, as to us now, that he who is no ways 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 merely 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 tells us, That while Adam stood, he was already in possession & fruition of life; else he could not be threatened 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 joineth with the 〈◊〉 , in this, granting no life promised to Adam, but a Continuance of what he was already in possession of.

He inquireth. If he had not a right unto life by his freedom from sin, but was to purchase this right, by an ctlual fulfilling of the Law, it would be known, what quantit • e • of obedience to the Law he must have paid, before he had made this purchase; & how long he must have obeyed & kept the Law? Ans. There is no necessity of any exact knowledge of these things; our main question doth not •• and or • 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 trans ••• gration, or change to glory, before the 〈◊〉 had been made. He addeth; for had he lived a two years in his integrity & uprightness, without the least touch of any transgression, he h • d still but a debtor of obedience to the Law, upon the same terms, 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 inquire; 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 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 immediate right, or capacity, which believers 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 mere 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 hear his reason. The reason whereof may (haply) be this, because the life & blessedness, which come by Jesus 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 favor. 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 believe, 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 largely, 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 commonly 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 innocence, & imposed by God upon Adam before his fall; Yea & still lieth & shall lie to the days of eternity upon men & Angels. Ans. Yet for all this, it might be & was penal unto Christ, who was not mere 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 form 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 perform 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 & Jesus 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 innocence, 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, seeing no Law required such obedience of him, who was God; nor was it necessary even to his human 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 human 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 nowhere ascribe this satisfaction to Christ's Active obedience; but still to his passive. And here he citeth many passages of Scripture, to no purpose, seeing 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 not expressly say so; and yet this he will not say, seeing he granteth, that his obedience was an essential requisite, & absolutely 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 offense & disobedience had unto our death & damnation. Rom. 5: 17, 18, 19.

CHAP. II.

Christ underwent the Curse of the Law.

MR. Goodwin tells 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 threatened. 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 everyone, 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, threatened in the Law, which cursed everyone, that continued not in all things, which are written in the book of the Law to do them. verse. 10. Deut. 27: 26. If Christ underwent the Curse of the Law, he, sure, did suffer the very sentence, or punishment threatened 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 Isaiah. 53: 6. 1. Pet. 2: 24. If he did not undergo 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 yield, 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 threatened, 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 answer 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 hear his reason. Because (saith he) the threatening & Curse of the Law was not at all bent or intended against the innocent or Righteous, but against transgressors only. Therefore God in inflicting death upon Christ being innocent and Righteous, did not follow the purport or intent of the Law • but in sparing & forbearing the transgressors (who according to the 〈◊〉 of the Law should have been 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 threatened? Though the Law did not require, that the innocent should suffer; Yet the Supreme 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 threatened, & consequently bear the Curse, threatened in the Law.

As (saith he further for explication) when Zaleucus ( the Locrian Lawgiver) 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 paid, & 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 man's 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 yielded unto the wicked Socinians, for if this be so, Christ had not our sins laid upon him, he did not bear our sins 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.

Again 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 & kind (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, until it be explained, what that part, is in respect of which, only Christ's sufferings were of the same Nature & kind, with what the Law threatened. 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 system & historical body (as it were) of penalties & evils, which the Law itself intends in the term; 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 explain 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 System & historical body of penalties & evils, which the Law itself intends in the term Curse, or death: for this is but to explain 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 threatened in the Law: that is, everything that necessarily attended the punishment, as inflicted on man, did not directly & essentially belong thereunto, as threatened by the Law, such as the everlastingness of death, despair, & 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 threatened by the Law, which is to be abstracted from what floweth not from the Law itself, but merely 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 answer 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 kind of punishment, that the Law threatened under the terms 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 mean upon those, who being otherwise ohnoxious unto it should believe. 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 threatened; 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 sinful man should escape the punishment.

In the next place he tells 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 believe, more (if so much) in a way of Satisfaction to his justice, than to his wisdom. Ans. This savoreth rankly of Socinianism. 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 tells us, that God set forth Jesus Christ ts 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 believeth in Jesus. 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 terms, used in Scripture, in the expressing of this matter, have a direct aspect, & bear a manifest relation unto justice, and correspond di • ectly there with, yea clearly enough infer the same, though there were no other mention made expressly 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 Sovereignty, antecedent to his design & 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 & govern the world thus, & to have the glory of his relative justice manifested in the Salvation of lost man, could not according to justice, pass by transgressions, without a satisfaction. He adds. No man will say, that in case a man hath been injured & wronged, that therefore he is absolutely 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 Governor, who is resolved to demonstrate his justice & equity, and who therefore cannot suffer sin to go unpunished without a due satisfaction had, for the violation of his Laws.

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, seeing 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 benefits, on such conditions as are most suitable to his ends & honor; & that he did not suffer the same, which the Law threatened. 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 mere sandy and loose consequences, such as those seem to me, by which Mr. Baxter maketh out this Charge.

For he tells us. The Idem is the perfect obedience, or the full punishment that the Law requires. It is supplicium ipsius delinquentis. Ans. But now, seeing 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 inquire 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 transgressors 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, threatened 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 mere s •• 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 mere 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 sum of money, on a person transgressing such a Law; common discourse would say, & I suppose the Law give allowance thereto, that, when another came, & paid the same penalty for him, without the least abatement, he paid the same penalty, which he Law impofed, and not another; and not merely a valuable consideration. It is true, the Law threatened only the transgressor, & obliged him to suffer; but notwithstanding, another might pay the very same thing, which the Law threatened & requireth.

He saith next (p. 290.) the Law never threatened a Surety: nor granteth any liberty of substitution: that was an act of God above the Law? If therefore the thing due were paid, it was we ourselves morally or legally, that suffered. Ans. Sure, some Laws 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 threatened only the transgressor; & 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 threatened. And if Mr. Baxter think, that the laws not threatening 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 paid, 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 transgressor. 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 threatened there) be paid, either we in our own persons, or our Surety for us, & in our room & Law place, paid 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 clear his meaning; for he addeth; And it would not be ourselves legally, because it was not ourselves naturally. And what lawyer, I pray, will yield 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 other ways here also, that nothing can be accounted to be done by us legally, but what is done by ourselves 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 threatened, but the delinquent himself.

At length he tells us, That if it had been ourselves legally, then the strickest justice could not have denied us a present & perfect deliverance ipso facto, seeing no justice can 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 forever: how then doth their legal suffering the idem help 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 axiom? 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 tantund • m by another person, is more effectual for their liberation, than their paying of the Idem in their own persons. And again the Law, in many cases granteth liberation, even when the Idem in Mr. Baxter's sense is paid, that is, when another payeth down the same: Yea & likewise if the Creditor be satisfied, when another thing is paid: So that neither part of this assertion holdeth true, universally.

But yet some may say; That if the Idem or the very same, were paid by Christ, our liberation should immediately 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 actual liberation would immediately 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 threatened, for us, it will not follow, that our deliverance should immediately 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 benefits 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 another's suffering for him full • illeth not the Law (which never said either thou, or another for thee shall die) but only satisfieth 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 transgressor; Yet when the Law-giver dispenseth with the Law, & accepteth of the punishment & suffering of a • 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 enjoined by the Law; as is obvious; when • ne man suffereth death for another, the Law being dispensed with, that made death due to the transgressor 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 certain & universal rule in the Law, I much doubt: but though it were : Yet no man can hence infer, that aliud quoad genus & gradus, eo ipso solvitur: for it is a rule in logic, that a genere ad speciem non sequitur affirmativ • , 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 far aliud solvitu • ; 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 threatened in the Law, by way of punishment, & which was therefore due by Law unto the transgressor. 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 threatened as punishments by the Law, & so do not belong to the essence & substance of that punishment, which the Law threatened, & which Christ was called to undertake. 3. Saith he. And the immediate 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 Favor & Kingdom. Ans. To be hateful & displeasing unto God • 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 • s. 2. Cor. 5: 21. The sinner that is such inherently only, loseth right to God's Favor, & 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 the torment of an accusing conscience, for rejecting & offending God, for casting away our own felicity & running into hell &c. the sense of God's hatred of us, as real sinners. Ans. All this is granted, but these belonged only to the punishment as inflicted on the sinner & transgressor himself, but did not belong to its essence & substance abstractly considered, & so could not accompany the same, as inflicted upon one, who was in himself wholly free of all sin. And this is yet more manifest in that which he mentioneth. 5. Saying much less the Desertions of the Spirit of holiness, to be left without goodness, in a state of sin, & to hate God for his justice & holiness, which will be the damneds case; for these did not belong to the essence & substance of the punishment, threatened in the Law; but were only consequents thereof, as inflicted on sinners inherently. We do not say, that Christ suffered, what the damned do suffer, or that he was in the damneds case. Thus, though we make them not of the same kind, with all that the damned do suffer; Yet without any blind zeal (as he is pleased to censure) we may say, that Christ suffered the same curse & death, that was threatened in the Law properly, as a punishments, as to substance; and yet no way be guilty of intolerable blaspheming of our Savior.

The same answer may serve to that, which he saith (n. 50.) Nor could Christ's sufferings be equal in degree, intensively & extensivly, to all that was deserved by the world, as is easily discernible by perusing what is now said, seeing our deserved suffering lay in things of such a nature, as to be left in sin itself, destitute of God's image & love & communion, under his hatred, tormented in conscience, besides the ever-lasting torments in hell, which are more than these, upon all the millions of sinners, which were redeemed. This is already answered: & it is not demonstrated, that all these consequents & concomitants of the punishment, as inflicted on such as were sinners inherently, did properly belong to the essence & substance of the punishment threatened, in itself considered; And of this we only speak, for as to this, we only say, that Christ suffered the same. If two men be condemned to pay, each a thousand pounds, which none of them are well able to do, & a rich man undertaketh to pay the sum for one of the two, that rich man may well be said to have paid the same sum, that the poor man was obliged to pay, though his paying of that sum be not attended with such consequents & circumstances, as it would have been, if the poor man himself had been put to pay it, or as the other poor man findeth it, who is made to pay it; in the poor man it is necessarily attended with poverty to himself & all his family, & possibly he & all his must be sold for slaves to make up the sum; but the rich man can pay it without any such concomitants, or consequents, & yet be said to have paid the same sum.

It is to be observed, that Papists & some others use all these same arguments to prove, that Christ did not suffer anything of the penalty of sin in his soul, as may be particularly seen in Parker de descensu lib. 3. But Mr. Baxter granteth (n. 51.) that Christ did suffer more in soul, than in body: And yet what answers are made by Parker & other reformed divines, in this matter, against Papist's, may also serve our turn against Mr. Baxter & others: Socinians also, (as may be seen in Smalci • Refut. lib. de Satisf. Christ Chap. 6. & 7.) upon these same grounds, deny, that Christ's sufferings were a proper satisfaction, he thereby not paying the Idem, the same, that man should have suffered. And Socinus Prael. Theol. Cap. 18. fol. 205. saith in plain terms, That Christ did no way satishe the justice of God by his sufferings, unless it be said, that he suffered the same things, which we should have suffered because of our sins. Therefore there is a necessity, to hold that Christ suffered the same for substance, that the Elect were liable to suffer, that it may the more clearly appear, that his sufferings were indeed a Satisfaction.

But Mr. Baxter tells us, in the same book (n. 149.) that Solution of the debt & satisfaction, strickly taken, thus differ, that Satisfaction is solutio tantidem, vel aequivalentis, alias indebiti. And if Christ be said to have paid the very same duty & punishment, which the Law required, he is denied to have satisfied, for our non-payment; for a Law that is fully performed can require no more, nor the Law-giver neither: And therefore both Satisfaction & Pardon are shut out. Ans. Thus we seem to be hardly straitened, for if we say, that Christ paid the Idem, the Same, Mr. Baxter thinketh we destroy thereby all Satisfiction & all Pardon, and so yield the cause to the Socinians: If upon the other hand, we say, that Christ did not suffer the Idem, we yield the cause unto the Socinians, and deny all Satisfaction, in t • er judgment; and their consequence seemeth to be as rational, as Mr. Baxter's. But truth may be affirmed, without all hazard: And to make such a difference betwixt Solution & Satisfaction, is to play needlessly upon words, & at length will but recur unto this, Sialius solvit, aliud solvitur; and so by saying that Christ's Satisfaction was also a solutio ejusdem, we shall deny both Satisfaction & Pardon; or by calling it so: But, as was said above, it is not fit to lay so much weight upon the simple use of a term or word; and sure it is most unfit for Mr. Baxter to do so, who on all occasions, venteth his displeasure so much against others, who lay so much weight on meet terms of art, or words. But, as to the thing, sure, the creditor will think himself satisfied, when the same sum, which was oweing by one, is paid by another for the debitor, & that in the same species of Silver, or of Gold. And if that hold, that sialius solvit, aliud solvitur, Mr. Baxter may see, that if another pay, his payment may become a Satisfaction, because it is so far aliud another thing, though really & upon the matter, it be the same. And here lieth the truth, that we assert, Christ paid the very same suffering, that we were obliged to pay; but he being another, and not the persons guilty themselves, his sufferings were not only a solutio debiti, a payment of our debt, but also, as being performed by him, they were a Satisfaction to justice, and so much the rather a complete Satisfaction, that they were the same sufferings, we were liable to, & not strickly equivalent. And this appeareth to me the more clear from what Mr. Baxter said before (n. 5 • . & 53.) where he hath these words. [ The true reason of the Satisfactorieness of Christ's suffering was, that they were a most apt means for the demonstration of the Governing justice, holiness, Wisdom & Mercy of God, by which God could attain to the ends of the Law & Government, better than by executing the Law on the world in its destruction.] Where we hear no word of its being solutio equivalentis alias indebiti. and next, all this is more clear by Christ's suffering the very same, that we were to suffer, than by saying that he suffered some other thing; The most clear demonstration of the Governing justice of God was in exacting of Christ the full penalty, & the very same punishment both in Soul & Body, that the Law of God made due unto transgressors; No other thing could give such a demonstration hereof, justice could not have required more; and justice had not fully been demonstrated by exacting less: and the exacting of the very same, both as to Kind, and as to degrees keeped a just correspondence with the requisite demonstration of the Governing justice of God. Hereby also was his Holiness Wisdom & Mercy, whereby he attained the ends of the Law & Government, most clearly manifested, when he did not execute the Law upon the sinful world, but upon the substituted Cautioner, that the Elect world might be saved: This, I am sure, was evidently a full salvo to God's justice, when the same punishment was paid down, that Law & justice called for. Not that God might give pardon & life to sinners, upon the new terms of the Covenant of Grace (as he speaketh n. 53.) for that looketh too like the Arminian Satisfaction : as if nothing but a possibility & freedom were here obtained for God to bestow pardon & life, upon such conditions; whereby notwithstanding of this Satisfaction, it might come to pass, that not one should be saved. See Colloq. Hag. p. 172. Impetratio salutis pro • omnibus, est acquisiti • possibilitatis, ut nimirum Deus, illaesâ suâ justitiâ, hominem peccatorem possit recipere in gratiam. See also Grevinch. ad Ames. fol. 9. Posita & praestita Christi morte & Satisfactione, fieri potest, ut, nemine novi foederis conditionem praestante, nemo salvaretur. Therefore I judge it saifest to say. That justice was so satisfied, as that all such, for whom the Satisfaction was given, shall in due time, and according to God's own method, certainly receive both pardon & life, both grace & glory, both grace to believe in Christ, and all the other graces that follow thereupon, with life everlasting.

CHAP. III.

We must not lean to any Righteousness within us, whereby to be justified.

Mr. Baxter in his Cathol. Theol. part. 2. n. 176. speaketh thus. It is ordinary (saith he) with some writers & preachers, to tell men, that no part of their Righteousness is in themselves, & with others, that at least, none which they are justified, by in any part is in them; And that it is all in Christ only: And that nature is loath to yield to this, but thinketh it a fine thing, to have some little part of the honor to itself: And as to the honor of a good Action, if it be but 999. parts, that it ascribeth to God, & taketh one part of a thousand to ourselves, it is a dangerous arrogation: We must have none. And it might be thought, that such as ever understood the Gospel, considered the particular expressions, used in Scripture, to abase man, yea & the whole Contrivance of the Gospel Salvation, through a Crucified Cautioner, and that such as ever understood & were acquainted with the Natural Pride, deceit, & Treacherie of their own heart; and had any experience in the devices of Satan, in & about wakened consciences, to keep them from an hearty closing with & willing accepting of, and cleanly resting upon the way of Salvation, revealed in the Gospel, should be far from condemning this saying, & from making exceptions against it. But indeed, the grounds, that Papists, Socinians & Arminians lay down, as the Basis of their antievangelick Fabric, & Contrivance of the way of Salvation, are more favorable to Self, and are therefore the more cordially embraced by many, & more stiffly maintained. Mr. Baxter seemeth to say here, that these are different things, to say, That no part of our Righteousness is in ourselves, and that no part of our Righteousness, by which we are justified, is in ourselves, where with the Orthodox, these are but different expressions of the same thing; for when they deny a Righteousness within ourselves, it is not a denying of begun Holiness & Sanctification; but a denying of a Righteousness as the ground of justification, for all this they acknowledge to be wholly & only in Christ, the Lord our Righteousness. And to adjoine to this, the Question about the honor of a good Action, as whether that should be wholly ascribed to God, or one part of a Thousand may not be ascribed to ourselves; is neither very savory in itself, nor pertinent to the clearing of the other.

But what answereth Mr. Baxter? This (saith he) well explained may be made sound : But thus grossly delivered, it is but a popular cheat, under the taking Pretence of self abasement & giving Christ all. Ans. I should readily fear, that Mr. Baxter's explication should be so far from making the expressions sounder than they are, that it should rather prove a Commentary corrupting the text, seeing I find him thus dissatisfied with expressions so consonant to the strain of the Gospel, to the holy genius of all savingly illuminated, and to the very language of the Saints, in Scripture. But as to his Consure, calling this no less than a popular cheat, it is sharp, and, more befitting, in my judgment, a Papist, or a Non-Christian Socinian, than Mr. Baxter.

Yet let us hear the ground of this so sharp & so unseemly censure. The Devil (saith he) is as willing as any one, that you should have nothing honorable or praiseworthie in you; & be as vile, as he can make you. Ans. If it would not be displeasing, I would say, that this answer is a plain cheat: for the question is not, whether we should have anything in us, truly honorable & praise worthy, or whether we should be as vile, as the devil would make us; No protestant ever spoke so; But the question is. Whether for any thing in us truly honorable & praise worthy, we should Sacrifice to our own net, & burn incense to our own drag; or give the glory unto God, who worketh all our works in us; and worketh in us both to will, & to do Isaiah. 26: 12. Phil. 2: 13. The question is not, whether we should have good in us, or not? but whether we should not say, with Paul 1. Cor. 4: 4. Even when we know nothing by ourselves, yet are we not hereby justified? and whether we should not say with him Phil, 3: 8, 9. that we count all things but loss, for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, our Lord, & count them dung, that we may win Christ, & be found in him, not having our own Righteousness, which is of the Law, but that which is through the Faith of Christ, the Righteousness which is of God by Faith. The question is not, whether Christ be made Sanctification to us; but whether that Sanctification, be any part of that Righteousness, which Christ is made of God to be unto us? What more?

He addeth. It is God, who honoreth these, that honor him, & praiseth his Saints, as the excellent on the Earth, & his Jewels & peculiar Treasure, adorneth with his own lovely image, & partakers of the divine Nature, and members of Christ, as his own flesh. And it is Satan & wicked men that vilify & dishonor them. Ans. This is but a Continuance of the same cheat: for it is no part of the question, whether the Saints should be vilified, or honored? But the question is, whether the Saints should rob God of his glory, and ascribe that unto themselves, which is due unto him, be it in less, or in more? We know, the Saints are God's excellent ones, his Jewels & his peculiar treasure; but all this is through the free underserved grace of God, making them beautiful & lovely with his own graces, and partakers of his divine Nature: And therefore we say, that for all that they ought to be humble, knowing what their birth & • ativity was, and whence all this is come; and who ought to have the glory of all this; and notwithstanding of this, what is the sole ground of their justification before God, and what is that Righteousness, upon the account whereof they are justified in the sight of God.

And I have oft lamented it (saith he further) that these very men, that hold this kind of doctrine of self-abosement, as having no part of Righteousness, nor share at all in any good work, are yet too oft so proudly conceited of their own goodness ( even for holding, that they have none for which they are praise worthy) as that their pride is no small trouble to the Churches & all about them. Ans. I shall not plead for pride, or proud conceits in any: but whether such as lay down doctrinal grounds of pride, and teach men to be proud, or such as lay down contrary grounds, but do not practice accordingly, be most blame worthy; I leave Mr. Baxter to judge. One thing I would ask: How Mr. Baxter came to know, that such, as he opposeth here, were proudly conceited of their own goodness? Pride & a proud conceit lieth most within, & is not obvious to the view of everyone, especially being upon such a ground. I hope Mr. Baxter will not take upon him to judge of hearts: And if it be by their contendings for that, which they conceive to be truth: If this be an infallible mark, no man can be judged more proud, than is Mr. Baxter, none having in this matter contended by so many & so great volumnes, as he hath, since his Aphorisms come abroad, & that indeed to the no small trouble of the Churches. And further, some might think, that if Mr. Baxter did aright lament, that any were proudly conceited of their own goodness, he should not have laid doctrinal grounds for fomenting of this pride; nor moved such an objection against himself, as he doth here; for no man can rightly lament at the practice of that doctrine, which himself embraceth & teacheth.

He proceedeth ( • . 177.) Whatever is of God is good: & whatever is good is la • dable or praise-worthy, & meriteth to be esteemed as it is. Ans. True, & therefore God, who is the Author thereof, should have the glory, & it should be esteemed, as it is, to the glory of God, & not to puff us up with proud conceits, or to be the ground we lean to, in order to be justified & accepted of God. He addeth (n. 178.) All the Sanctified are inherently righteous, but with an imperfect Righteousness, which will no further justify them in judgment, save only against this Accusation, that they are unholy. Ans. Mr. Baxter then is much to blame, who will have this Imperfect Righteousness to be a perfect Righteousness, as being our Gospel Righteousness, and the Po • estative condition of our Justification & absolution at judgment, and so the immediate & sole formal ground of our Justification before God. But this answer is also impertinent; for these he here writeth against, speak not of a particular justification, from this or that false Accusation; but of that justification before God, whereof Paul treateth, in his Epistles to the Romans & Galatians, & which is a justification of the ungodly. Rom. 4: 5.

He addeth (n. 179.) There is no Righteousness, which will not justify him, that hath it in tantum, so far as he is Righteous: for the contrary is a contradiction: for to be just, is to be justifiable. Ans. This is sick of the same impertinency with what went before: for the question is not concerning a particular Righteousness, & a particular justification, upon that account; but of a general justification, as to our state & that from the just accusation of Law & justice, under which we stand by Nature, in reference to which, all our inherent Righteo • sness, how great so ever it be, is no ground, nor part of the merit, or formalis ratio of that. Paul had no small share of this Righteousness, when he said, he knew nothing by himself: And yet he addeth▪ Yet am I not hereby justified 1. Cor. 4: 4. and we would say the same, & speak after this manner, if Mr. Baxter would suffer us.

Next (n. 181. for 180.) he saith. All the Righteousness, which formally justifieth us, is our own, or on ourselves, where it justifieth us: for to be made just or justified, in the first sense constitutivly, is nothing else, but to be made such, as are personally themselves just. Pardon of sin is made our own, Right to Christ & glory is made our own; though Christ's Righteousness was the only meritorious cause of all this; which therefore is & may be called our Material Righteousness, as that, which meriteth it, is the matter. Ans. There seemeth to be nothing here, but confusion: for (1) he speaketh ambiguously, when he saith, that all that Righteousness, which formally justifieth us, is our own, or on ourselves; for this may be true, whether by that Righteousness, he mean the Surety-Righteousness of Christ (which he doth not mean, for he is too much against the imputation of that, as we have seen) because we say, that is made ours by imputation, in order to our justification upon the account thereof: or whether he mean our own inherent Righteousness; but then if this be his meaning, it is false, that we are hereby formally justified, unless he mean, as before, only a particular justification, which is nothing to the point, as was said. (2) To be made just & to be justified, are not formally the same, but to such only, who Love confusion. (3) He who is made just, is but constituted justifiable, & is not eo ipso constitutive justified: But Mr. Baxter loveth his own Expressions & Explications of them. (4) When he saith that to be justified constitutively is nothing else but to be made such, as are personally themselves just, he speaketh very indistinctly; not only as confounding, being made just & being justified, as if they were formally the same; but also as not giving us to understand, what he meaneth by these words personally th • mselves just: Hereby he would seem to say, that only by something inherent in our persons, we are constituted Righteous, & are justified; and not by anything imputed to us: And if so, the ground of all Anti-evangelick boasting & glorying in ourselves is laid. (5) Pardon of sin, as such, is neither a making a just, nor a justifying: and the same we say of Right to Christ & to Glory. (6) Christ's Righteousness, according to Mr. Baxter, cannot be called the meritorious cause of our pardon, justification, & Right to Glory &c. because it is only made by him the meritorious cause of the New Covenant, wherein pardon, Right to Christ & to Glory are promised upon New Conditions, & so is made the meritorious Cause of the connection betwixt the performance of these New Conditions, & the obtaining of Pardon & that Right; so that by virtue of Christ's Merits, these New Conditions are made the proper & immediate meritorious cause ex pacto of these favors: And by this way, Man cannot but boast & glory in himself immediately, and give Christ only some remote far-off thanks, for procuring the New terms. (7) Christ's Righteousness cannot be called our Material Righteousness, any other way, than as it hath purchased the New Covenant, according to Mr. Baxter; & this being equally for all, Christ's Righteousness shall be the Material Righteousness of the Reprobat, as well as of Believers: And how can that be called ours, which is not ours, nor our own, nor are we by it made personally just ourselves? as he spoke before (8) According to this doctrine, Christ Righteousness meriteth to us another Righteousness, which is our own & on ourselves & by this we are formally justified: that is, according to what went before, & to what followeth, we are formally justified by our own personal inherent holiness (for of this, he is speaking only) and yet that which he here mentioneth, as the Righteousness, which formally justifieth us, is said to be pardon of sin, & a Right to Christ & to Glory, which formally is no Righteousness at all, nor nowhere so called in Scripture, & is but a consequent of that, which elsewhere he calleth our Gospel Righteousness, and the Condition of Justification.

He goeth on (n. 182.) He that is no cause of any good work, is no Christian, but a damnable wretch, & worfe than any wicked man I know in the world: And he that is a cause of it, must not be denied falsely to be a cause of it. Nor a Saint denied to be a Saint, upon a false pretence of self-denial. Ans. Of such a cause of any good work, he knoweth the objection speaketh, that should have the glory & praise thereof; and & of good works, as the ground & formal Cause of justification; which these against whom Mr. Baxter here disputeth, do deny. But we may see here, what Mr. Baxter accounteth good works; even such as the most damnable wretch, and possibly the devil himself may do; that is a work materially good, though far different from the good works described to us in Scripture. And thus the Justification upon good works, which Mr. Baxter here meaneth, must be a Justification, that all Heathens, damnable wretches, yea & devils themselves are capable of: But this is not the justification we speak of, of which whoever are partakers shall be glorified Rom. 8: 30. We say nothing, that giveth him ground to think, that our thoughts are, that a Saint should be denied to be a Saint, upon pretence of Self-denial. Only we say that such as are Saints indeed will be loath to rob God of his glory, or take any of that to themselves, which is due to him alone, in so far as they act as Saints; And they should not, because Saints, glory & boast, as if their justification before God, were by their Sanctity & good works; & not of mere grace, through the imputation of the Surety-Righteousness of Christ. One thing I would ask. Doth Mr. Baxter think, that Christ's Righteousness hath merited that justification, which those damnable wretches & devils may partake of, by any good work, which they do? himself told us in the foregoing (n. 81.) that all Righteousnuss which formally justifieth, is our own, & that to be made just & to be justified are the same, or equipollent; and to be Justified constitutively is nothing else, then to be made such as are personally themselves just. Now, when devils & damnable wretches may be the causes of some good work, that good work cannot but formally justify them, and they thereby become constitutively justified, I would inquire, whether this Justification be purchased by Christ or not? And again I would inquire, whether this Justification be accompanied with pardon of sin, & with Right to Christ & to glory, or not? If not, how can it be called a justification? & if it be not a justification, how can they be hereby formally justified, & constitutively justified?

He tells us next (n. 183) As God is seen here in the glass of his works, so he is to be loved & praised, as so appearing. This is, say I, good & reasonable. What then? Therefore (saith he, he that dishonoreth his work, dishonoreth God, & hindereth his due love and praise. This consequence, I grant, is good; but what is it to the point in hand? And his most lovely & honorable work (saith he) on earth is his holy image on his Saints; & as Christ will come to be admired & glorified in them at last, so God must be seen & glorified in them here in some degree▪ Neither, say I, is anything of this to the purpose in hand. He addeth. And to deny the glory of his image is the malignants way of injuring him, & that in which the worst will serve you. And what then? He that will praise God (saith he further) as Creator & Redeemer must praise his works, of Creation & Redemption: And is it the way of praising him, as our Sanctifier, to dispraise his work of Sanctification? Ans. What maketh all this to the purpose? Must all such be guilty of this malignant wickedness, who tell men, that no part of their Righteousness is in themselves, by which they are to be justified, but that it is all in Christ only: or that say, that God must have all the glory of what good action they do? This is hard, that either we must be wicked Malignants, or Sacrilegious robbers of God of the Glory, due unto him, But I see no connection, and Mr. Baxter hath not yet demonstrated the same. He must then prove the Consequence of this argueing.

He addeth (n. 184.) Those poor sinners of my acquaintance, who lived in the grossest sins against Conscience (as Drunkeness, & horedome &c.) have been glad enough of such doctrine, & forward enough to believe, that there is nothing in man, that in any part can justify him, or that is any part of Righteousness, but it is all out of us in Christ, & therefore they are as justifiable, as any. But Conscience will not let them believe it, as they desire, Ans. To this cannot answer, not knowing, nor having acquaintance with those poor sinners; Yet this I may say, (& others will say the same with me) that Mr. Baxter's way is that, which I find more relishing unto carnal Souls, than the self denying way of the Gospel, which we use to preach: And that the way, which Mr. Baxter is not satisfied with, is the way, that is most pleasant & acceptable unto the truly gracious, and rightly exercised Souls. But surder, what of all this? Knoweth not Mr. Baxter that some can turn the grace of God into lasciviousness? Must therefore the mountains be removed for them?

He saith Moreover (n. 185.) It is arrogant folly to divide though praise of any good act between God & man, & to say God is to have so many parts & man so many: for the whole is due to God; & yet some is due to man: for man holdeth his honor only in Subordination to God, & not dividedly in Co-ordination. And therefore all is due to God: for that which is Mans is God's; because we have nothing; but what we have received. But he that arrogateth any of the honor due to God or Christ, • ffendeth. Ans. If it be thus, Mr. Baxter is the more to blame, in being dissatisfied with such, as are but expressing their care, that God have all his due, and that man do not proudly arrogat to himself any of that honor & glory, which is due to God alone: And if Mr. Baxter knoweth not, that there is a strong propension in corrupt nature, to spoil God of his glory, he knoweth nothing: And woe to such, as would indulge nature in this Sacrilege. Them that honor God, He will honor. What honor is justly due unto man, in subordination unto God, none of those, I suppose, whom Mr. Baxter here opposeth, will grudge him of; but all their care is, to have God's due keeped for himself, & that is all; & it is not commendable in any, to oppose them in this.

But next he saith (n. 186.) If all had been taken from God's honor, which had been given to the creature, God would have made nothing, or made nothing good; heaven & earth & all the world would derogate from his honor; and none of his works should be praised. And the better any man is, the more he would dishonor God, & the wickeder the less. But he made all good, and is glorious in the glory, & honorable in the honor of all: & to justify the holiness of his servants, is to justify him. Ans. All this is little or nothing to the purpose: for such as are careful that man rob not God of his glory, do not deny the honor due to the creature, knowing that when honor is given to the creature, upon a right ground, and in the right manner, it redounded unto the honor of the Creator: But who knoweth not, how ready the Creature is to steal into the throne of God; and how ready men are to transcend • , and transgress all due limites? And is it not saifest to keep far from such a dangerous precipice? Is it to edification thus to gratify with our pleadings proud Nature, and to blow at this fire of corruption, that the Saints have dailyhard work about to suppress & exstinguish? Must we thus, on so small occasions, plead so stoutly for man, & pretend to plead for God too?

He addeth next (n. 187.) If these Teachers mean, that no man hath any power freely to specify the acts of his own will by any other help of God, besides necessitating predetermining premotion; & so that every man doth all that he can do, & no man can do more than he doth; They di honor God by denying him to be the Creator of that f • ee power, which is essential to man, & which God himself accounteth it his honor to creat. And they feign God to damn & blame all, that are damned & blamed, for as great impossibilities, as if they were damned & blamed for not making a world, or for not being Angels. Ans. This is not a fit place to treat of that Question of Predetermination, though Mr. Baxter pull it in here by the ears; It is enough for us, that we see now, whither all that Mr. Baxter hath here been saying, tendeth, even to give unto Man, the glory of all the good he doth, of his Faith, Repentance, Love of God, obedience & perseverance, in the first, chief & immediate •• ace; for by his own Natural Power he did freely specify the acts of his own will, and so believed, when he might have rejected the Gospel, Loved God & Christ, when he might have hated both, Repented, when he might have remained impenitent, Converted himself, when he might have remained in his former state (& Mr. Baxter maketh no difference of acts here, and so his words must be looked on as meaned of supernatural acts, as well as of Natural) & that without any predetermining grace or motion of God. This glory shall we never yield to be due unto man, Let Mr. Baxter load the Doctrine of Predetermining grace, with all the reproaches, and absurdities, he can invent. He needs not think now to restrick his opinion of denying Predetermination unto natural acts, for as the good spoken of by those he here opposeth, is supernatural good, as such; so his discourse here is expressive enough of this: And thus the cause is yielded unto Pelagians, Jesuits & Arminians, and the crown is put upon the head of man, and he is to honor & praise himself for what good he doth, for all began at his own self-determining power & will; and the Almighty himself could not have bowed & predetermined his will, except he had overturned the course of Nature, & destroyed that free power, which is essential to man. And thus it is made to be to the honor of God, to creat a Creature, that is absolute Lord & Master of all his own actions, & so must be the first Cause of his own actions, as to their specific moral nature, & what is this, but to make man an independent Creature, as to his actions, & consequently a God to himself: Mr. Baxter hinteth some other help of God besides Predetermination; but what that is, he telleth us not; is it his Concourse? From this the same inconveniences will flow, that flow from Predetermination. And beside Mr. Baxter seemeth to incline more to Durand's his opinion, & A dola's, which even the Jesuits are ashamed to own, and his friend D. Strang doth directly confute; as loving to set man yet higher up, than they dar do. Doth Mr. Baxter think that it is essential to man to have such a free power, as that of himself he can specify the acts of his own will, without any predetermining Motion of God? Can he then believe in Christ. Hope savingly in God, yield Christian Obedience to all the commands of God, without God's Predetermining motion upon his heart? And is that Common General influx, whereby he is preserved in his being, & his faculties & power not taken away, enough to make a man turn from Nature unto Grace, if he will be so good natured as to bow his own will, & determine himself, as he may? Why do we then condemn the Pelagians? What did or could Pelagius say more? But enough of this here.

In the following, Paragraph (n. 188.) He tells us, that some men teach, that Christ strippeth a Christian of two things, his Sins, & his Righteousness. Or that two Things must be cast away for Christ, Sins & Righteousness. And he is not satisfied with such speeches, though they be consonant to, yea upon the matter, the very same with the speeches of Paul Phil. 3: 8, 9. He faith they should speak better, if they would not deceive. And why saith he not so of the Apostle Paul also? May it serve him, that we speak, as Paul did? Nothing (saith he) is to be cast away, as evil, but sin. True; and yet the Apostle desired to be found in Christ, not having his own Righteousness; & what was a Righteousness in his eyes before; and was a Righteousness, which is in the Law, and wherein he was blameless, he now accounted loss for Christ, yea he accounted them but dung; which includeth a rejecting & casting of it away with detestation. He addeth, Righteousness truly such is good, & never to be cast away. If it be no Righteousn • ss, why do they falsely say, that we must cast away our Righteousness? Ans. Let the Apostle Paul answer this, whom it concerneth as much, as us: And let Mr. Baxter in soberness consider how this reflecteth upon the Spirit of the Lord, inspiring the Apostle to speak so. As for us, we are not very anxious in this matter, but can freely tell Mr. Baxter, that though our personal Righteousness be good; Yet in the matter of justification before God, and absolution from the condemnatory sentence of the Law, & adjudication to life, we must lay it aside, and betake ourselves solely to the Righteousness of Christ, and seek to be found in him alone, after the example of the Apostle, & according to the clear doctrine of the Gospel; And this we are resolved to do, how displeased soever Mr. Baxter be with us upon that account.

He addeth. To cast away a false conceit of Righteousness, is not to cast away Righteousness, but Sin only; indeed beside sin, we are said justly to cast away that, which would be the object & matter of sin: And the phrase is fitlier applied to a thing Indifferent; than to a thing necessary, lest it seduce. Ans. To account our Righteousness, consisting in our obedience to the Law, to be dung, as Paul did, in the business of justification, is all we plaid for, let Mr. Baxter call it a casting away of a false conceit of Righteousness, if that will satisfy him, but even in this we cast away our Righteousness, when we will not trust to it, as our Righteousness, in order to justification; or as that Righteousness, upon the account of which we expect to be justified in the sight of God. And if Mr. Baxter be afraid of Seducing here, he may know where we ground our expressions: I suppose Paul was far from seducing, when he spoke, as he did Phil. 3: 8, 9.

There is nothing so good (saith he) which may not be made the object of sin; not Christ, or his Righteousness, or God himself excepted; But we must not thus objectivly abuse them. Ans. And what is all this to the purpose? Doth he think that those teachers, he here opposeth, were enemies to holiness; or would have men laying aside all thoughts of it, and care about it when they spoke so? He may as well infer such things from the Apostles speeches. But what is meaned secundum quid, should not be understood as spoken simpliciter. His reasoning here then is impertinent, as also is that which followeth, when he saith. So holiness & true Righteousness (inherent or imputed) may be objects of sinful pride & boasting; But it is not edifying doctrine therefore to say, that we must cast away inherent & imputed Righteousness. For we plead not for casting away everything that may be abused, but for casting away our own Righteousness, in the matter of justification, that impured Righteousness may only take place. But how imputed Righteousness can be the object of sinful pride & boasting, he would do well to teach us; that Inherent Righteousuess may be so, we know; and to plead for justification upon that account, is to lay the foundation of sinful pride & boasting, as the Scriptures teach us.

He addeth. But yet true self deny • l requireth that we deny our Righteousness ( inherent or Imputed) to be that which indeed it is not. Ans. And therefore we deny, that our inherent Righteousness is the ground, or formalis ratio objectiva of our justification: But what way Self-denial teacheth us to deny our imputed Righteousness to be what it is not, he must be pleased to inform us; and to speak thus alike of both our inherent & imputed Righteousness, is not very fair; as if there were no difference.

Further he tells us. And so when men accounted the jewish observations to be a justifying Righteousness, in competition with, & in opposition to Christ, Paul counteth it as loss & dung, & nothing in that respect: when yet elsewhere he saith, I have lived in all good conscience to this day: And Christ himself fulfilled that Law & Righteousness. Ans. What meaneth Mr. Baxter by these jewish observations? Meaneth he nothing but their observance of the Ceremonial Law? But did Paul mean nothing but his conscientious observance of this Law, when he said, I have lived in all good conscience to this day? And did he mean nothing else, by that Righteousness, which he counted loss & dung. Phil. 3? The Apostle himself distinguisheth betwixt the Law, touching which he was a Pharisee; and that Law touching the Righteousness whereof, he had been blameless: And sure before the writing of this Epistle, he had preached down the observation of the Ceremonial Law, and was far from the observation thereof, & yet now, he accounted that same Righteousness, which formerly was gain to him, now to be loss & dung, so that this could not be, his Ceremonial Observances; for it had been a small demonstration of his excessive desire to win Christ, to count tha • loss now, which he had before comdemned as unnecessary. Yea as unlawful, & had laid aside, as such. So that he meaneth all that, which could be called his own Righteousness, & which is of the Law, and was not that Righteousness, which is through the Faith of Christ, and of God by Faith. And it is also observable, that the Apostle useth a very comprehensive term beside, saying, And I count all things but loss &c. Moreover, th • jewish observances, while that Law stood in force, were useful & good, & a Righteousness, as well as the observation of the moral Law, to which they were also reducible, being enjoined by virtue of the Second Command. And if these observances could be brought (through men's corruption,) in competition, with & set in opposition to Christ, and therefore were justly accounted as loss & dung & nothing, in that respect: why ought not also moral observances be • o accounted, seeing they through man's corruption, can be & are too oft brought in competition with, & set in opposition against Christ, & his Righteousness? If Mr. Baxter will yield to this, he needs dispute no more at this rate.

He addeth. So if a man will conceit, that his common grace will justify without holiness; or his holiness without pardon, & the Righteousness of Christ, he must deny this Righteousness; that is, he must deny it to be what it is not, & must cast away (not it, but) the false conc • its of it. Ans. We think them in an error, who conceit, that either common grace will justify without holiness, or holiness with or without pardon & the Righteousness of Christ: and it is not proper for him, who will not hear others saying, that Faith justifieth, to say, that holiness justifieth. And it is as improper to say, that pardon justifieth: Let him tell me, how holiness with pardon can justify? And as for the Righteousness of Christ, all men (with Mr. Baxter ) are justified by it alike, for it only purchased the New Covenant, and that it did to all alike, and is no other way imputed unto any whatsomever. And so, according to his judgment it must be denied, that Christ's Righteousness becometh the believers through God's imputation, & that believers are there with clothed, and thereupon made juridically Righteous, and then justified, or pronounced Righteous, through that imputed Surety Righteousness of Christ: this is the self-denial that Mr. Baxter will teach us; and stead of this Surety-Righteousness of Christ, we must be clothed (according to him) with our own Gospel Righteousness, Faith & New Obedience, and upon that ground, as the only nearest formal reason; or meritorious cause, expect to be justified; because Christ's Righteousness hath purchased this Covenant, and connection. Mr. Baxter must not be offended, that I mention the word Merite here, remembering what he saith himself (n. 194.) where his friendliness to Papists, & his displeasure at Protestants is so remarkable, in these words. [And those that reject the saying of some Papists, who in this sense say, that Christ merited that we might merit, placing our Evangelical merit in a mere subordination to Christ's, do but show, what prejudice & partiality can do, and harden those, who perceive their errors.]

Finally he saith here. And so if any Libertine will say, that Christ's Righteousness imputed to him, will justify him without Faith, or be instead to holiness to him, he must deny imputed Righteousness thus to be, what indeed it is not. Ans. Though I know, the Lord hath thought good to ordain Faith, as a mean, whereby we may be made partaker of Christ's Surety-Righteousness, and so be justified; Yet I may say, that Christ's Righteousness imputed, as being the sole meritorious cause & Ratie formali • objectiva of our justification, will justify without Faith, as any part of that Righteousness, which we are considered as clothed with, when declared & pronounced Righteous. And though it be not instead of holiness, as if holiness were no more required of us; Yet it is & must be instead of that holiness & Righteousness, which was required of us in the Old Covenant & by the Law, in order to our being accepted & justified thereupon.

He tells us in the margin, that none deny. That all that are saved have inherent Righteousness; and that in tantum we are Righteous by it; That a man accused, as being an Insidel, Atheist, Impenitent, Ungodly, a Hypocrite &c. must be justified by pleading all the contraries in himself; or else perish; And that this inherent Righteousness is imperfect, and in us found with sin, & that therefore no man can be justified by it without pardon of sin, nor at all against the charge of being a sinner, & condemnable by the Law of innocence. But what is all this to the point? Must we not therefore say with Paul, that in the business of justification, we must account our own Righteousness to be but dung, and only lean to the Righteousness of Christ? What would he hence conclude? And what remaineth then (saith he) but to trouble the world with contending de nomine, whether this Imperfect Righteousness, shall be called Righteousness, & the giving of it, called justifying, or making us Righteous so far. Ans. And who, I pray, more guilty of troubling the world with these contendings, than he? But to the matter, it is no mere contending de nomine, that he hath caused, when instead of the Surety-Righteousness of Christ, with which the Orthodox Asserted believers to be clothed, as the immediate ground of their justification before God, and which they by Faith were to lean to, and rest upon in order to justification, he substituteth, in its place, our imperfect holiness, & maketh that to merit justification & Salvation, as a subordinate Righteousness (so called, though indeed in this case the principal.) advanced to that dignity by the merits of Christ's Righteousness; and as all that Righteousness, which can properly be said to be ours, and to be imputed to us, as the only Potestative Condition of our Justification & Salvation, according to the New Covenant, purchased by Christ. This is something more, and a great something more, than a mere contest about a word, or a name. This toucheth the foundation of the Gospel, let Mr. Baxter think as little of it, as he will. I need not take notice of his making these two one thing, justifying & making us Righteous, and of his calling the giving of Righteousness or holiness a justifying of us, for this is but suitable to him, who would confound all.

This is all he speaketh to this matter in this place: But thereafter Sect. 5. of merit (n. 196.) he tells us, It is a great question, whether a man may trust to his own Faith, Repentance or Holiness. And I should think, that no orthodox man should once make a question about it; but should reject the very insinuation of such a thing with detestation: seeing Trusting to these things is the native consequent of the Popish, Socinian & Arminian error about justification; or of all, who speak of the Imputation of Faith &c. as our Righteousness, instead of the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ. What answer giveth he? But some men (saith he) will trouble the world with unexplained words, where no sober men differ. Ans. The words are plain enough, and need no explication, & every ordinary Christian understand their meaning; but against such, as will seek knots in rushes, and raise dust in the most clear air, for their own ends, there is no remedy. I am afraid the point of difference shall be found such here, as that our agreement shall not be expected in • haste, unless our sobriety be such, as well make us embrace inconsistences.

Let us hear what he saith. No wise man can dream, that we may trust to those for more than their proper part, as that we may trust them to do anything proper to God, to Christ, to the Spirit, to the promise &c. And to use the phrase of Trusting to our own Faith, or holiness, when it soundeth absolutely, or may tempt the hearers to think, that they may trust them for God's part, or Christ's part, & not only for their own, is a dangerous deceiving course. Ans. It is true, no wise man will say, that we may trust to these for more than their proper part, but when we are mistaken about their proper part, & conceive them to have that place & part, which they have not, and accordingly trust unto them, do we not amiss? And Mr. Baxter maketh it their part to be the immediate meritorious cause expacto (which he other ways expresseth to be the Potestative Condition) of Justification & Salvation: which we say is the part of Christ & his Righteousness alone: And sure, whoever shall trust unto them for this part, which according to the Gospel is Christ's part, trust unto them for more than their proper part. Neither is it any dangerous or deceiving course, to speak thus, when the meaning is obviously known (except to such as have wit enough to darken things) to be this, that we must not Trust to Faith &c. as the price, the merit, ex pacto (as perfect obedience was under the first Covenant) of our Justification, Adoption, & Salvation. But it is a most dangerous & deceiving course to call them only Conditions, or cause fine quibus non, when in the mean time, they are made to have the same place in the New Covenant, that perfect obedience had in the old; & are made our Gospel-Righteousness, for which we are justified, yea & put in the same place, that the Orthodox put Christ & his Surety- Righteousness, that is, to be the immediate ground, formal cause, Ratio formalis objectiva of our Justification.

What more? But that really they may be trusted, for their own part, and must be so, no sober person will deny: for so to believe, obey, pray to God &c. & not to trust to them in their place, that is not to think, that we shall be ever the better for them, is unbelief & indeed distrusting God, & saying, it is in vain to seek him, and what profit is it that we call upon him & such diffidence & despair will end all endeavors. Let every man prove his own work &c. This is our Rejoicing &c. If we are justified by Faith, we may trust to be justified by it. But the rare use of such a phrase in Scripture, & the danger of it, must make us never use it without need. Ans. As I said, all the question is concerning what is their own part: And by saying that they are not to be trusted unto, we deny them to have that part, or place in the matter of our Justification & Salvation, that others give unto them: And if there were no more, this is a shreud ground of presumption to us, that Mr. Baxter, owneth not the Orthodox doctrine in this matter, viz. That he cannot with patience hear it said, That we must not trust to our own Faith, Repentance or Holiness, but accounteth such expressions dangerous, and deceiving. (2) It is but a wrong gloss put upon this expression, We must not trust to our own Faith &c. to make the meaning of it to be, we must not think, that we shall be ever the better for our Faith. &c. And therefore his following words are vain, and to no purpose. (3) It is one thing to trust to be justified by Faith, which is but believe God, and trust in his word; and a far other, to trust in our Faith; For this is to lay our stress, & lean our weight, & found our hopes of Justification & Salvation on our weak & feckless Faith, instead of trusting to, & relying upon Jesus Christ & his Surety Righteousness, as the only immediate ground, & as that Righteousness by & upon consideration of which, we are justified, & have a Right to Glory: And if Mr. Baxter do not see a difference betwixt these two, it is not because he cannot, but because he will not, as some may suppose. (4) He talks of the rare use of such a phrase in Scripture; but I would know, where he findeth it used at all iu Scripture? And it is well, that he confesseth there is danger in it: which two, me thinks, should be enough to make him, as great an enemy to this expression, as we are: But the truth is, according to his principles, we are as much now to Trust to our Faith Repentance & Holiness, in order to Justification & Salvation, as Adam was to trust to his perfect obedience, according to the Covenant of works; & as much, as, according to our doctrine, we are to trust to Christ & his Surety-Righteousness.

CHAP. IV.

The Law, by the works whereof Paul denieth that we are justified, is not the jewish Law.

WE find the Apostle Paul directly & pro • essedly proving & concluding, that we are not justified by the Law, nor by the works of the Law: Yet such as differ from us, about the interest of works, in justification, not being willing to yield & submit unto the truth, do seek what Evasions they can, to evite the force of the Apostles a gueings & peremptour Conclusions; and therefore say, that Paul is to be understood, as speaking only of such, or such a Law; & excludeth only such & such works, in which they think they may yield unto, what the Apostle saith, the same being limited & restricted, according to their own mind, and yet do no prejudice to their own Hypothesis: But yet what this Law in particular is, and what are the works thereof, our Adversaries are not at all agreed among themselves; but some imagine one thing, and some another, as we shall hear.

Some by the Law, and the works thereof, which Paul excludeth from justification, do mean the Ceremonial Law, and the Observances thereof; or as others express it, the Jewish Law, including their judaical Law, & so understanding hereby all that Law, which is called Moses's Law: this is owned by some Papist's, as Bellarmine showeth us. De justif. Lib. 1. Cap. 19. but he himself rejecteth it, upon this ground, that the Apostle Rom. 4. Ephes. 2. Tit. 3. doth simply exclude works, making no mention of the Law of Moses: The Socinians do choose this way of interpreting the Apostle, as particularly may be seen in the Author of a book, in •••• led Consensus Pauli & Iacobi &c. printed. An. 1620.

But this opinion doth not correspond with truth, as may be manifest from these particulars.

1. If Paul dispute only against Justification by Ceremonial Observances, he had a far shorter cut, to confute that conceit, than the way he took, to wit, to tell them: that shortly that Law, with all its observances, was to be laid aside & no more to be observed, by virtue of the Gospel Administration, & because the end of all these observances, & He, who was typified thereby, was come, and had put an end to that dispensation. But we find not the Apostle making any use of this One & Only Argument, which had sured that purpose; but on the contrary he useth such Mediums & Arguments, as suite no less, if not more, other Laws, beside the Ceremonial.

2. Yea before the writing of these Epistles, wherein the Apostle did dispute against Justification by the Law, at least, before he wrote that to the Galatians, he had by his preaching & practice, opposed the observation of the Ceremonial Law, as himself telleth us Gal. 2. And in that same Epistle Chap. 3. & 4. he condemneth the observation of that Law, in most peremptory terms, as being no less, than a falling from grace: And yet when he is treating of Justification not by the works of the Law Chap. 3. he mentioneth not this ground, which would have taken away the very subject of the debate. Shall we think, that the Apostle would have disproved Justification, only by the works of the Ceremonial Law by such Arguments and Tipicks, out of Scripture, when he was within a little by forcible reasons to remove the very Law itself, and condemn all observation thereof?

3. It is strange, that Paul in writing to the Gentiles, should deny Justification to be by the works of the Law, meaning the Ceremonial Law only; and James writing to the Jews, should cry up the observation of that Law, and plead for justification thereby: This would say, that Jews & Gentiles were not both to be justified one way: or that James & Paul do clearly contradict other; neither of which must be said. That James speaketh of another Law, than Paul speaketh of, cannot be made good. And therefore when our Adversaries will prove from James, that we are justified by works, their meaning is, that we are justified by the Observation of the Ceremonial Law.

4. The several things mentioned of this Law, whereof the Apostle speaketh, showeth, that he is not speaking of the Ceremonial Law only: as (1) Rom. 3: 19. It is a Law that stoppeth all mouths, & whereby all the world becometh guilty before God: But this is not the Ceremonial Law, or the jewish, or Moses Law, under which the Gentiles were not, nor yet are. (2) Rom. 3: 20. It is that Law, by which is the knowledge of sin: but this is not by the mere Ceremonial Law, as we see Paul himself professing Rom. 7: 7 (3) Rom. 2: 13. It is that Law, the döers whereof shall be justified: But this cannot be asserted of the mere Ceremonial Law, or of Moses's Law. (4) Rom. 3: 27. It is that Law, which doth not exclude boasting: but it cannot be said, that the Law of Moses is only that Law. (5) Rom. 3: 31. It is that Law, that is not made void, through Faith. But this is not the Ceremonial Law; The Ceremonial Law is not established by Faith. (6) Rom. 3: 28. It is that Law, justification by which is inconsistent with & opposit to justification by Faith: but this is not the Ceremonial Law only. (7) Rom. 4: 1, 2. It is that Law, by the works whereof Abraham, was not justified. But the Apostles argument from the Instance of Abraham had not been pertinent, if no Law had here been understood, but Moses's Law; which was not in being in Abraham's days. (8) Rom. 4: 2. It is that Law, & works of obedience to it, that would give ground to man of glorying: But this is not true only of the Ceremonial Law. (9) Rom. 4: 4. It is that Law, obedience to which is a working, and maketh the reward of debt: But this cannot be said only of the Ceremonial Law. (10) Rom. 4: 15. It is that Law that worketh wrath: But other Laws do this, than the Ceremonial Law, (11) Rom. 8: 3, 4. It is that Law, that was weak through the flesh, and the Righteousness of which was to be fulfilled in us: but this cannot be applied to the Ceremonial Law only. (12) Gal. 3: 10. It is that Law • , of the works of which as many as are, are under the Curse, and of which it is said, cursed is everyone, that continueth not in all things, which are written in the Law to do them. But this agreeth not to the Ceremonial Law only. (13) Gal. 3: 12. It is that Law, by the doing of which, man should live: But by perfect obedience to the Law of Moses alone life was not to be had. (14) It is that Law, that cursed all transgressors, & under the Curse whereof all thoselay, for whom Christ died. Gal. 3: 13. But that is not the Ceremonial Law, which laid no Curse upon the Gentiles. (15) Ephes. 2: 9▪ 10. It is that Law, that enjoineth those good works, which God hath before ordained, that we (even Gentiles) should walk in them: But that is not the Ceremonial Law. (16. It is that Law, the works whereof are inconsistent with grace, as the ground of Election: Rom. 11: 6. But this is not Ceremonial Law only, else we must say, that Election is for works of the Moral Law, and yet is for grace. (17) Phil. 3: 9. It is that Law, obedience to which can be called our Righteousness: But this is not the Ceremonial Law only.

5. If Paul's mind had been only to dispute against Justification by Mosaical Observances; after he had stated the question, and proposed the Truth, he was minded to confirm Rom. 1: 17. to what purpose did he insist so much, to show, how guilty the Gentiles were, who were never under Moses's precepts, and thereby clear, what need they had of a justification by free grace through faith without the works of the Law? This seemeth not to have a clear tendency unto the clearing of justification to be by Faith, & not by Mosaical Observances; for what had the Gentiles to do with these?

6. We find like wise the Apostle to convince the Jews themselves to be under sin, in order to the necessity they had of being justified by faith, holding forth their breaches of the Moral Law Rom. 2: 21, 22. and speaketh of a Law distinct from that, to which Circumcision belonged, saying verse. 25. &c. for Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the Law; but if thou be a breaker of the Law, thy Circumcision is made uncircumcision: And this Law, is a Law, that he, by supposition, saith, one not circumcised, might observe, and so could not be the Law of Ceremonies. See also Rom. 3: 9▪ 19.

7. The Arguments, which the Apostle adduceth to disprove justification by the Law, cannot conclude against the Ceremonial Law only: for (1) all the world are not guilty of transgressing only the Ceremonial Law: and yet because all the world are become guilty before God, the Apostle inferreth Rom. 3: 20. Therefore by the deeds of the Law, there shall no flesh be justified. (2) So that other Argument ibid. for by the Law is the knowledge of sin, cannot conclude against the Ceremonial Law only. (3) Justifieation by the deeds of the Ceremonial Law only, repugneth not to the justification through the Righteousness of God without the Law, and which is by Faith of Jesus Christ; and through the Redemption, that is in Christ. (4) The Law of Ceremonies alone doth not exclude boasting. (5) Abraham's works were not works of the Ceremonial Law only (6) works of the Ceremonial Law only do not exclude glorying, nor make the reward of debt & not of grace. (7) Believing on him, that justifieth the ungodly, is opposed as well to him that worketh according to other Laws, as to him, that worketh according to the Ceremonial Law Rom. 4: 5. (8) Imputed Righteousness, mentioneth Rom. 4: 7, 11. is as much opposite, in the matter of justification, to other observances, as to Mosaical Observances. (9) Forgiveness of sins, mentioned Rom. 4: 7, 8. is as inconsistent with the observation of other Laws, as of the Ceremonial Law. (10) Justification by the Faith of Christ is as opposite to the Moral Law, as to the Ceremonial Law: And thus reasoneth the Apostle Gal. 2: 16. (11) That Curse denounced Deut. 27: 26. by which the Apostle proveth Gal. 3: 10. that justification cannot be by the works of the Law, is not against transgressors only of the Ceremonial Law. (12) Obedience, to the moral commands, is as little a living by faith, as was obedience to the Ceremonial Law: And by this Argument Paul proveth Gal. 3: 11. that no man is justified by the Law, in the sight of God, because the just shall live by faith. (13) This is clear also from verse. 12. & 13. to mentione no more. And the Law is not of faith (which holdeth not true only of the Ceremonial Law) but the man that doth them shall live in them (which was the Tenor of the Old Covenant Rom. 10: 5. Levite. 18: 5.) Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law (And sure this is from the Curse of other Laws, than of the Ceremonial Law.)

8. Though it were true, that Paul's conclusion was only against Justification by Mosaical Observances: Yet by good consequence it might hence be inferred, that there is no Justification by the works of the Moral Law. Partly because the Apostle's Mediums & Arguments are general, &, as we saw, reach further than to the Ceremonial Law: Partly because if it were not thus, all the Apostles dispute should be of no use or value unto us, now the subject of that controversy being quite removed: Partly because the Ceremonial Law belonged to the first table, being God's institute worship, & obedience thereunto required by the Second Command: Partly because so long as that Law was not abrogated, obedience thereunto was their Gospel Righteousness, as well as obedience to other Law's is now called our Gospel-Righteousness: And if that could not then justify them, no more can this now justify us.

We do not by all this say, that the Ceremonial Law had no place or interest in this dispute; for the Jews being pertinacious adherers unto this, & the false Teachers urging the observation of this, even upon the Gentile Churches, gave occasion & first rise unto this Question; for they alleiged, there was no Justification, or Salvation without the observation hereof: But as they did not restrict the Law & the works thereof, purely unto the Mosaical Rites & Typical Ceremonies; but urged the observation of the whole Law, which comprehended moral precepts, as well as Ceremonial Injunctions; so the Apostle argueth against Justification by the works of the Law in general, without any particular limitation (expressed or hinted) unto the Ceremonial Observances.

Mr. Baxter, in his Cathol. Theol. part. 2. Sect. 26. where he would tell us, how Paul & James agree, about justification by works (n. 362.) saith that, The key of understanding Paul's discourses of justification is, to know 1. That the grand question, which he first manageth, is, whether the Gentiles may not be saved, without keeping the Jewish Law, as well as the Jews with it? Ans. (1) But our Principal difficulty here is to understand, what Mr. Baxter meaneth by the Jewish Law? for if he mean all that, which was prescriscribed unto the Jews, as a Rule of their obedience, we assent; but then the Moral Law is as much concerned here, as the Ceremonial, or judicial: And these, as such being abrogated, the dispute concerneth us, as well as them, in respect of the Moral Law: But if he mean hereby, only the Law of Ceremonies, we have shown, that howbeit this might have given the first rise unto the dispute, yet the dispute was not wholly & purely restricted thereunto; Nor doth the Apostle only speak to that abstracted or restricted consideration of the Law, in his pleading against a justification by the works of the Law; as we have seen; This he doth, when he pleadeth for the Abrogation of that Law, & against the observation of it. (2) Mr. Baxter, as it would seem, supposeth, that Paul made no question concerning the Jews themselves, but yielded that they were justified & saved by their Law: for the question was, saith he, whether the Gentiles might not as well be saved thereby, as the Jews? But where findeth he this, either asserted, or granted by the Apostle, or the Question thus stated by the Apostle?

2. Saith he. To prove the Affirmative, he proveth, that the Jews themselves cannot be saved or justified merely or primarily by the Law, notwithstanding the divinity & great excellency of it; But must be justified by a Savior, & free given Pardon & Right to life, & to which the sincere keeping of Moses Law was intended to be but subservient. Ans. (1) Then the Question concerned the Jews, as well as the Gentiles, & Paul did no more grant justification by the Law to the one, than to the other. (2) Where findeth Mr. Baxter these restrictions, Merely or Primarily, in all the Apostles dispute? This is not fair, to pervert the Apostles plain peremptour, & absolute Conclusions, & restrick them to a certain limited sense, that they may the better be subservient to our designs, & our Hypotheses. Do the Apostles Mediums only serve to prove, that justification is not by the Law Meerly or Primarily? Which of them all, I pray, hath only this force? (3) Though the keeping of Moses's Law be here said to be but subservient; Yet, according to Mr. Baxter, it was all their Righteousness, no other was properly imputed to them, & upon it immediately they received Pardon & Right to life, as merited thereby ex pacto, the Savior only procuring the New Covenant: that is, that 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 Jews did so fondly admire the Law, & their National Privileges under it, that they thought the exact keeping of it was necessary & sufficient to Justification & 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 Jews, concerning the Messiah, speaketh nothing to the point, whereupon we are; that is, that Paul denieth justification to be by the Law: And their error & 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 & immediate 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 Innocence, or persection, which the Jews thus trusted to, or Paul doth speak against, as to justification (though a minore ad majus, that is also excluded) for the Jews 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 itself, & not in mere subordination to the typified Messiah. Ans. Though the Jews 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 labor 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 Jews 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. Levite. 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 yield to, in Mr. Baxter's sense, often mentioned, for Paul nowhere giveth us to understand, that their obedience to this was their immediate 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 only Argument, & other Arguments reaching the Moral Law, as well as the Ceremonial, we must not limit the Apostles dispute only to the Ceremonial Law. 4. saith he. That their Law was so strick, that no man could perfectly keep it all. Ans. Add 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 dispute. 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 merit, which they dreamed of, but all by the way of Redemption, Grace, free Gift, & Pardoning Mercy. Ans. But that way of merit 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 conceit, that they were just in the main & forgiven their sins; & so justifiable by the mere dignity of Moses Law, which they kept, & 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 Error. Ans. 1. Nothing is here said to ground a restriction of this erroneous conceit of theirs unto the Ceremonial Law: for this conceit 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 dispute upon the Jews their express rejecting of a free Gift, & of Pardon &c. But from justification by Faith, laying hold on the free Grace & Merits of a Mediator, he argueth against justification by the Law & the works thereof: And according to the Apostle's Method do we argue. (3) To cover Justification by our own inherent Righteousness, having the same place in the New Covenant, which inherent Righteousness & Obedience had in the old, by these fine words, Faith, & a Practical belief of the Gift, & acceptance of it, with thankful penitent & obedient hearts, is not such ingenuous dealing, as the Importance of the matter requireth: But this will be clearer by what followeth.

But (saith he) the true way of Righteousness was to become true Christians, that is, with such a penitent, thankful accepting, practical belief, or affiance to believe in God, as the giver of Salvation, in Christ as the Redeemer, & his Spirit, as our life & Sanctifier; and to accept Christ, and all his procured Benefits, Justification & Life, as purchased by his Sacrifice & Meritorious Righteousness, & given in the New Covenant on this Condition, and so to give up ourselves to his whole saving work, as to the Physician of our souls, & only Mediator with God. This is the sum of Paul's doctrine on this point. Ans. Not to speak of this matter here, which is elsewhere done, I shall only say, that we are not enquiring after the true way of Righteousness, but after the true way of Justification before God; And inquire where the Apostle teacheth, that all the Righteousness, required unto justification, must be within us, & none at all imputed; as this Sum holdeth forth? Where he teacheth that this faith, including works & all obedience, is the only mean of justification? Where he teacheth, that this inherent imperfect Righteousness of ours, is the immediate ground, and meritorious Cause ( ex pacto ) of our justification & Salvation? Where he teacheth, that Christ's Righteousness is no otherwise ours, than as purchasing the New Covenant, wherein our own personal Righteousness is made the Potestative Condition of our Justification & Salvation? And yet these and several other Particulars of this alloy doth Mr. Baxter hold forth, as taught, in Scripture; as hath been seen elsewhere.

CHAP. V.

Works excluded in Justification are not works only done before Faith, nor perfect works required in the Law of Innocency, nor outward works only.

THe other Evasion, which such, as plead for the Interest of Works in Justification, fall upon, to evite the dint of the Apostle's argueing & concludings against Works, is, That by the works of the Law, which Paul excludeth from justification, works are meant, which are done before Conversion & Faith, by the strength of Nature; & not the works of grace done after. This is the Evasion of Bellarmine & others.

But against this we have these Reasons to propose.

1. When the Scripture saith, we are justified by faith, the meaning is that so soon as a soul believeth in Christ, by a true Faith, he is justified before God: But this opinion saith, That a man is not justified when he believeth in Christ; No not until he perform Works of Righteousness after he hath believed: And thus, we may conceive a man to be a believer, & yet not to be justified; which is contrary to the Gospel.

2. If we were justified by the Works of Regenerat persons, we should be justified by works, that are imperfect; and consequently by an imperfect Righteousness: for these works being made our Righteousness, if we be justified by them, as our Righteousness, we must be justified by an imperfect Righteousness; for they are not perfect, neither as to parts, nor as to degrees. Isaiah. 64: 5. 1. John. 1: 8, 10. 1. King. 8: 46. 2. Chron. 6: 36. Eceles. 7: 20.

3. Regenerat persons have renunced their own Righteousness, in the matter of justification before God; therefore they judged, that they were not justified thereby: And this is registrate in the word for our Instruction & example; that we may learn also to renunce our own works in this business. The Antecedent is clear from these Instances (1) David saying Psal. 130: 3. If thou Lord shouldest mark iniquity, o Lord, who shall stand: And in opposition to this, he betakes himself to free Remission, saying verse. 4. But there is forgiveness with those. So Psal. 143: 2. And enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified. So that if God should enter in judgment with the best, even with his servants; they could not expect to be justified by their works, even by their best works. So when he saith Psal. 32: 1, 2. Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered &c. he renunceth all justification by the best of his works; for Paul Rom. 4: 6, 7. giveth the meaning hereof to be, that David describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth Righteousness without works. (2) Paul also renunceth his Righteousness in this matter, & that several times? for he saith 1. Cor. 4: 4. for I know nothing by myself, yet am I not hereby justified. And he speaketh of himself, while in the State of Regeneration. So Gal. 2: 16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the Faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the Faith of Christ, & not by the works of the Law. And Phil. 3: 9. he desired to be found in Christ, not having his own Righteousness, which is of the Law. No man can think, that by his own Righteousness here he meaneth only works, done before he was regenerate.

4. The Instances, whereby Paul proveth Justification by Faith, without the works of the Law, confirmeth this, that works after regeneration are excluded as well as works before: for (1) Abraham was a regenerate man when his saith was said to be imputed to him Rom. 4: 1, 2, 3. compared with Gen. 15. for before this time Gen. 12: 1. he obeyed the call of God by faith. Heb. 11: 8. See also Rom. 4: 9, 10, 11. (2) David (another Instance of Justification by Faith) was also regenerate when he was justified, as Paul cleareth Rom. 4: 6, 7. by the imputation of a Righteousness, without the works of the Law.

5. The Apostle excludeth simply the works of the Law, from being the Righteousness of any, in point of justification: And we have no warrant to except or distinguish, where the Law excepteth not, nor distinguisheth. The works of Regenerat persons are works, & works of the Law, as well, as any other: And Paul doth absolutely & simply exclude works & the works of the Law, from being the ground of justification.