The Life of Justification Opened

CHAP. VI.

By works, which Paul excludeth, is not meant the Merite of Works.

THere is one other Evasion, thought upon to shift by all the Apostles argueings, & yet to maintain the Interest of Works, as the Cause & ground of justification before God, to wit. That Paul only disputs against a groundless conceit of merit in works; not against the works themselves, but against a Pharisaical sense of merit & worth in their works, whereby they conceived & conceited, that thereby they could satisfy for their sins, & buy & purchase to themselves Justification & Salvation. But against this Evasion, we have these things to say.

1. By merit here must either be understood, that which is called meritum ex condigno, that is, that merit, which ariseth from the due proportion of worth, that one thing hath unto another, in the balance of equity & justice. And whoever imagine this merit in their works, must dream of an intrinsic worth in their works, which God, if he do according to justice, cannot but reward with eternal life: or that which is called meritum ex congruo, which floweth not from any inward Condignity in the work, but from a Promise or Covenant, & so it is meritum ex pacto, whereby the reward is not absolutely of grace, but of debt, because of a congruity in the thing, in respect of the Promise & Compact made. Our Adversaries cannot understand this last, when they say, that Paul disputeth against merit, because themselves own it, when they make works the Condition of the Covenant, & God to have promised justification & life unto our works. Neither are they shy of the word merit itself, as we saw lately from Mr. Baxter. But now, that Paul is not disputing against the merit of works, in the first sense, is manifest from these. (1) The very works required of Adam in the first Covenant, had not in them this intrinsic worth & merit ex condigno, and so the Apostle shall be disputing against that, which never was nor never will be nay, nor cannot be. (2) Then the Apostle saith nothing to disprove justification by the Old Covenant of Works made with Adam, but establisheth that, which who can believe? (3) No man, that is right in his wits, can imagine such a thing. And shall we think that the Apostle is disputing against that, which none, but such as are transported with mere ignorance & vanity, will own, or stand to, in their more sedate & composed thoughts. (4) Even the most proud & vain person, that is, will join the free mercy of God, with all the conceit of merit they have; but this merit ex condigno leaveth no imaginable room for the free mercy of God, in less, or more. (5) Paul disputeth not against the merit ex congruo, as separated from the works themselves, whereupon it is founded. As the following Arguments will evince. Therefore far less doth he dispute only against the fond & foolish conceit of the merit ex condigno.

2. It is strange, that the Apostle should dispute against that, which he doth never once mentione, in his dispute, or in his Conclusions. He every where mentioneth works & the Law, & the works of the Law; but no where mentioneth he this merit of works, as the thing he disputeth against, as abstracted & distinguished from the works themselves.

3. And that place, which they think, giveth some countenance unto their imaginations, viz. Rom. 4: 4. Now to him that worketh is the rewasd not reckoned of grace, but of debt, is directly against them: for, there the Apostle showeth that works are excluded, & all works (for there is no distinction made) are excluded; because, then the reward should be of debt: showing, that if works have any place, in the matter of justification, debt must have place also; but because debt hath no place, but grace (which two are inconsistent & incompatible) therefore all works are excluded. And to think, that the meaning of the Apostle is, now to him, that worketh, with a conceit of merit, attending his work, the reward is reckoned of debt; is to add to the word of God, to pervert the Apostles Argument, & to contradict the scope & cohesion of the words; as hath been shown elsewhere, far less can any hence infer a restriction of works to such only as make the reward of debt: for then the reward might be reckoned to him, that worketh, & yet be reckoned of grace & not of debt, & thus the Apostles Argument, should be manifestly false, & a plain Paralogisme: which were wickedness & blasphemy to assert.

4. The Apostle excludeth, in as plain terms, as can be, all the works of the Law: but even such works, as are performed without this fond & groundless conceit of mer • te, are works of the Law, being required & commanded by the Law. Yea the Law never commanded any works with this conceit of merit: And therefore by this opinion none of the works of the Law are excluded.

5. Adam was obliged to give perfect obedience to the Law, without the least thought of meriteing ex condigno thereby: And if no merit or works with a conceit of merit be now excluded, but the merit ex condigno, then is the Covenant of works established by the Gospel. Nay thus, our imperfect works, are made to merit as well ex congruo & ex pacto, justification & life, as Adam's perfect & sinless obedience could have done.

6. The man that hath works, without this conceit of merit, cannot be called an ungodly man, no more than Adam could have been called so, while he stood in his integrity: But the justification under the Gospel is of the ungodly, God justifieth the ungodly. Rom. 4: 5. Nor can the worker without this conceit of meriting, be said to be one that worketh not, but believeth on him, that justifieth the ungodly: as is manifest.

7. Either the Apostle establisheth works of justification by them, & only condemneth the apprehension of merit in our works: or he excludeth all works, in which men may conceit some merit to lie. If the first be said, then I conceive, the Apostle would have once mentioned this in argueings & conclusions, and not always have mentioned the Law & the works of the Law; for with our adversaries these are separable, and from the one the other cannot be inferred: but we see not the least appearance of any such thing in all the Apostles argueings. And if the last be said. We have all we desire, for thus all works shall be excluded, because men can & ignorant persons too oft do imagine & conceit a merit in what they do, though not that merit, which is ex condigno, Yet that which is ex congruo.

8. If the Apostle dispute not against works, but against a conceit of merit in works, why doth he not oppose works without this conceit unto this conceit, or to works with this conceit? Why doth he always oppose Faith unto works, & say, we are justified by faith without the deeds of the Law? Is works the same with conceit of merit, or with works having this conceit adjointed? and is faith the same with works, or with works without this conceit of merit? Then Adam should have been justified by faith, if he had stood in his state of innocence; for he should have been justified by works without this conceit. But what palpable & manifest perverting of the Scripture & of the works thereof, is this? To take this liberty of expounding the words of the Scripture, is plainly to make nothing of the Scripture, but what we please.

9. Are there no mediums to prove, that there is no merit in our works in reference to justification & Salvation, but such as the Apostle here useth, to exclude works from this Interest? If this had been all, which the Apostle had intended, his saying with Christ. Luk. 17: 10. So lilkewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things, which are commanded you, say, we are unprofitable servants; we have done that, which was our duty to do, had sufficiently confuted that mistake: But the long series of Arguments, with their variety, which the Apostle here useth, manifestly declare, there was some other thing in his eye; and he levelled at some other mark, even that, which he plainly declareth, in his repeated conclusions, viz. That we are justified by faith in Jesus Christ, without the works of the Law.

10. Gospel Justification is of Grace. And therefore is not of works: Rom. 4: 4. Ephes. 2: 9▪ 10. And the Apostle cleareth the consequence, because all works have a ground of merit with them, & make the reward of debt & give ground to the worker to boast & to glory before men: thought not before God: for upon these grounds doth the Apostle reject all works, in this affaire; as we see Rom. 3: 27. & 4: 2. Now to say, that the Apostle rejecteth only such works, as men conceit to be meritorious for their intrinsic worth, & not other works, that merit only ex pacto; is to destroy the Apostles Arguments, & to enervat all his discourse; for even works meritorious ex congruo, or ex pacto, will give ground of boasting before men, & make the reward of debt, as we know it would have been, if Adam's Covenant had stood: But whatever works lay the foundation of due debt, they stand in opposition to the way of grace; for grace & debt are not compatible.

11. If any were puffed up with this conceit of the meritoriousness of their works, ex condigno, it could be none beside the proud fantastic Pharisees; nor is there any ground to suspect any other. And if so, why, may we suppose, would the Apostle state a needless controversy, a controversy concerning all both Jews & Gentiles, when none of the Gentiles, and few, if any of the Jews, were concerned therein? And why, may we inquire, would the Apostle so laboriously prove both Jews & Gentiles to be guilty of sin? and why doth he speak of them all, without exception, seeing the question did only concern a few, & a very few, & such, as are never once named in all the dispute? These things look not very probable like.

12. Can we think, that the Galatians, who were seduced by false Teachers, to adjoine to their Christianity, the practice of some jewish Ceremonies, were also carried away with this absurd Phancie, that there was a meritoriousness ex condigno, in all their works? Though there be ground to imagine such a thing; Yet we see the Apostle followeth the same dispute against them, that he did, in writing to the Romans, of which no reason could be assigned if this merit was all, he disputed down.

13. We find it said of the Jews Rom. 9: 31. that they followed after the Law of Righteousness; and yet by so doing did not attain unto the Law of Righteousness; because ( verse. 32.) it was not by Faith, but as it were by the works of the Law. Now neither were these works of the Law, nor that Law of Righteousness which they were following after, a mere irrational conceit & groundless fancy of a merit in what they did, or of an intrinsic worth, meriting ex condigno the reward they expected. But a groundless apprehension, that their works themselves was the way of their attaining unto life, & therefore they followed that way of works, & would not take the way of faith, but stumbled at that stumbling stone.

14. Then, according to this interpretation, works performed without this conceit of merit, must be God's Righteousness, as works together with this conceit of merit must be our own: for these two are opposite. Rom. 10: 3. But there is no ground to imagine; that our works performed without this fond conceit of merit in them, are the Righteousness, for these are not Christ, or his Righteousness: And it is there added verse. 4. for explication of the Righteousdess of God, for Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness, to everyone that believeth.

15. The Righteousness of the Law is, that the man, which doth these things shall live by them. Rom. 10: 5. Gal. 3: 12. Levite. 18: 5. So that this Righteousness consisteth in man's own doing: and not in a mere irrational apprehension of a merit in what he doth: So that it is not this groundless phancie, that the Apostle is disputing against, but this Righteousness, which is of the Law, because he is laboring to establish by his doctrine, the Righteousness of Faith, which is opposite to & inconsistent with the Righteousness of the Law. And this Righteousness of Faith is not our own personal Righteousness, or obedience performed to the Law without this apprehension & conceit of merit, as is clear from verse. 8, 9, 10, 11. following, & from the whole Gospel.

16. If this be all that the Apostle is disputing down, to wit, justification by works, which we conceit to be meritorious, & not all justification hy works, why did the Apostle adduce the Instance of Abraham, & insist so much upon it, as he doth Rom. 4? Shall we think, that Abraham that holy Patriarch & friend of God, did obey with any such conceit of intrinsic worth, in his obedience? Was he infected with that leaven of Pharisaical pride? And if not, where is the consequence of the Apostles argueing from his practice? Is it a good consequence to say, Abraham was not justified by works performed in sincerity, without pharisaical pride & conceit of merits; therefore we cannot be justified by works, which we conceit to have merit in them: but by such works we can & must be justified, when we conceit no merit in them, but a simple merit ex congruo, or ex pacto? The like may be said of David, who had no conceit of merit in his works, & yet expected not to be justified by them, but looked for free pardon, & for justification through imputed Righteousness. Rom. 4: 6, 7, 8.

17. If the Apostle had been establishing justification by works performed without such a fond conceit of merit in them; what ground was there for that objection which he preoccupieth Rom. 6: 1. saying. Shall we sin, that grace may abound? The urging of justification by works, could give no show or apparent ground for this. Neither can any such purpose be in the least seen & observed, in all the answer at large prosecuted Chapters 6. & 7. which is given hereunto. There is not the least hint given of his rectifying of the misapprehensions, that any might have about works, as if they were or could be supposed to be meritorious ex condigno: Nor is there the least ground of surmise laid down, of their being meritorious of justification or of life eternal ex congruo, or ex pacto: but all things sound the contrary way: & life eternal is expressly said to be the free gift of God.

18. Then all that Paul meaned, when he desired to be found of his judge, not having his own Righteousness, which is of the Law, was that he desired not to be found puffed up with a pharisaical conceit of the perfection & meritoriousness of his works, as meriteing his justification & life ex condigno, by their intrinsic value & worth. But no such thing appeareth Phil. 3. 9. where he utterly renunceth his own Righteousness, which is of the Law; that is, a Righteousness consisting in his obedience & conformity to the Law: for in opposition to this, he desireth to be found in that Righteousness, which is through the Faith of Christ, the Righteousness, which is of God by faith; & this is some other thing, than his own works, performed without that pharisaical opinion.

19. We are saved by grace, through faith, not of works, lest any man should boast, Ephes. 2: 8, 9. & consequently not of any works, seeing all works give ground of boasting. And he meaneth such works, unto which we are created in Christ Jesus, as his workmanship: and which God hath before ordained, that we should walk in them verse. 10. Now these works are certainly works done without any vain conceit of merit: and yet we see, that by these works we are not brought into a state of Salvation.

20. The Apostle excludeth works of Righteousness, which we have done, as opposed to Mercy & grace. Tit. 3: 5, 7. Now grace standeth in opposition to all works, even to works performed without this conceit of merit, as we see Rom. 11: 6. else we must say, that the Apostle there granteth Election to be for foreseen works, performed without a conceit of merit, and nothing must be called works, but what is done with a Pharisaical conceit of merit & intrinsic worth in them, which is absurd.

CHAP. VII.

James 2: 14. &c. cleared & Vindicated.

ALI, who have been of old, and are this day Adversaries to the way of justification before God, which the Orthodox own from the Scriptures, have thought to shelter themselves, under the wings of of some expressions of the Apostle James; & have therefore labored so to explain & streatch forth the same expressions, as they with their corrupt Notions about justification may seem at least to have some countenance therefrom, yea and warrandise to hold fast the same: And for this cause they have labored so much, and do still labor, so to expound the words of Paul, as that they may carry no seeming difference unto the words of James: for it is received as a known truth, and it is willingly granted, that there is no real Contradiction betwixt the two Apostles, but what ever apparent or seeming disagreement there be betwixt their words; yet all that difficulty is removable; & their words, how contradictory soever they seem to be, are yet capable of such an interpretation, as shall manifest their harmonious agreement in the truth: so that James saying Ch. 2: 24, Ye see then, how that by works a man is justified, & not by faith only, dot not contradict the Apostle Paul, who saith & concludeth, that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law. Rom. 3: 28.

But a question is here made, whether we should interpret James's words by Paul's, or Paul's by James's. Our Adversaries are much for this later, to wit, that we must interpret Paul's words by the words of James, because, as they allege, Paul is obscure in his doctrine, & many were beginning to misinterpret & pervert the same & that therefore James was necessitate to clear up that doctrine of justification, so as Paul's words might be better understood. But how unreasonable this is, the leamed D. Owen hath lately manifested, & his grounds are indeed irrefragable; for (1) It is a received way of interpreting Scriptures, that when two places seem to be repugnant unto other, that place, which treateth of the matter directly, designedly, expressly & largely, is to regulate our interpretation of the other place, where the matter is only touched obiter, on the bye, and upon some other occasion, and in order to some other ends. And that therefore accordingly, we must interpret James by Paul, and not Paul by James; seeing it is undenible, that Paul wrote of this Subject of Justification, directly & on purpose to clear up the same, and that with all expresness & fullness, on several occasions, disputing the same, in a clear & formal manner, with all sorts of Arguments, Artificial & Inartificial, and answereth objections, that might be moved against the same, at large, and with a special accuracie: But on the other hand, it is as certain, that James hath not this for his scope to open up the Nature of Justification; but only toucheth there-upon, in order to the other end, which he was prosecuting. (2) There is no ground to suppose, that it was the design of James to explain the meaning of Paul, no footstep of any such purpose appeareth. For then his main business should be to explain & clear up the doctrine of justification, which neither is apparent from this part of the Epistle, nor from any part of it at all; his design being quite another thing, as is obvious. (3) Nor was there any necessity for James, to Vindicate the doctrine of Paul, from such corrupt inferences, as Adversaries suppose, were made therefrom: for as to any such, as might be made, to wit, as if he had given any countenance unto such, as were willing to lay aside good works; he himself did fully & sufficiently Vindicate his own doctrine, by showing, on all occasions, the necessity of good works, and particularly when he is speaking of Justification, not only in his Epistles to the Romans, and to the Galatians, where he largely & professedly treateth of that matter, but even when he is but mentioning the same on other occasions; as we see Ephes. 2: 8, 9, 10. Phil. 3: 9, 10, 11, &c. & Tit. 3: 5, 6, 7, 8. So that to imagine that James asserteth another interest of works in our justification, than Paul doth, and that to explain Paul's meaning, is not to reconcile these Apostles, but to set them at further varience & enmity. And it cannot comport with sobriety, to think or say, that James, to clear the Apostle Paul's doctrine, and to vindicate it from objections, should speak to the same objections, which Paul himself had spoken to & fully removed, and that James should give such answers unto these objections, as Paul would not give, but rather rejected: And yet this must be said by our Adversaries here.

It will be of great use to us here, to understand aright, what is the plain scope & drift of the Apostle James; for as for the design & scope of Paul, in his discourses of justification, it is so obviously manifest unto all that read the same, that no doubt can be made thereof, to wit. To clear up fully & plainly the Nature & Causes of this great privilege of justification, which is the hinge & ground work (as it were) of his doctrine of the Gospel, and to show how poor sinners, standing under the Curse for sin, come to be justified before God; as in his Epistle to the Romans: And to Vindicate the same doctrine of the Gospel from the corrupt pervesions of false teachers, as in his Epistle to the Galatians; as also to commend the free grace of God, in that noble contrivance, both in the places mentioned, and Ephes. 2. Phil. 3. Tit. 3. and elsewhere, when he mentioneth the same.

Now as to the scope of the Apostle James, there is nothing to declare unto us, that it was his Intent, or design to explain & make known the way▪ how poor convinced sinners, standing under the sentence of the Law, come to be justified before God, and to receive pardon of their sins. No such question proposeth he to be discussed; No such point of truth doth he lay down to be cleared, or Vindicated. But his whole scope & drift is to press the real study of holiness, in several points particularly spoken to through the Epistle. And in that second Chapt. from verse. 14. & forward (as will appear more fully in the explication & vindication of the several verses in particular) he is particularly obviating that gross mistake of some, who thought that a bare outward profession of the Gospel Faith, or of Christian Religion, was sufficient to save them, and evidence them to be in a justified state, and that therefore they needed not trouble themselves with any study of holiness: And therefore showeth, that all such hopes of Salvation were built on the sand, for they had no ground to suppose, that they were truly justified, & so were in any fair way unto salvation, so long as all their faith was no other, than a general assent unto the doctrine of the Gospel, & to truths revealed, & not that true lively faith, hold forth in the Gospel, whereby sinners become justified before God.

Mr. Baxter tells Cath. Theol. part. 2. n. 364. that St. James having to do with some, who thought that the bare profession of Christianity, was Christianity; & that faith was a mere assent to the Truth; & that to believe that the Gospel is true, & trust to be justified by Christ was enough to justification, without Holiness & fruitful Lives; & that their sin & barrenness hindered not their justification: so that they thus believed (perhaps misunderstanding Paul's Epistles) doth convince them, that they were mistaken; & that when God spake of justification by faith, without the works of the Law, he never meaned a faith that containeth not a resolution to obey him in whom we believe, nor that is separate from actual obedience in the prosecution: But that as we must be justified by our Faith against the charge of being Infidels; so must we be justified by our Gospel personal holiness, and sincere obedience, against the charge, that we are unholy & wicked, or impenitent, or hypocrites, or else we shall never be adjudged to Salvation, that is justified by God.

Ans. (1) It is true, for it is manifest, and undeniable, that James had to do with some, who thought that the bare profession of Christianity was enough, & that an assent unto the truth, was that faith that would prove justifying & saving. But (2) it is not so manifest that James had to do with such, as thought that to trust to be justified by Christ, was enough to justification without holiness & fruitful lives, & that their sin & barrenness hindered not their justification: for whatever Mr. Baxter imagine, we find not in Scripture, that justification followeth lives, that is, that there is no justification, before this fruitfulness of life appear: And himself useth to say, that in order to the first justification, this holiness of life is not requisite: And beside this, which he calleth the first, we know no other; unless he mean glorification. But then (3) as to glorification & final Salvation, we grant, that James hath to do with such, as thought a mere assent to the truth, without holiness, was sufficient hereunto; but that their believing thus could flow from their misunderstanding of Paul's Epistles, is not any way probable, seeing Paul in all his Epistles, even where he speaks most of justification by Faith without the deeds of the Law, presseth the necessity of holiness in order to Salvation, so as no imaginable ground hereof can with the least of shows be pretended. (4) That when Paul said, justification was by Faith, without the works of the Law, he meant a true & lively faith, which only is to be found in that soul, in which the seed of grace is sown, and which is made partaker of the holy Ghost, and of the divine Nature, is true; but yet justifying faith, doth not formally contain in it a resolution to obey him, in whom we believe, as was shown elsewhere. (5) Then we see, that the faith, whereof James speaketh, is not the same with that Faith, whereby Paul said, we are just • fied: And seeing both do not speak of the same Faith, there can be no appearance of discrepance. (6) When he saith, we must be justified by our Faith, against the charge of being infidels. I would know, what he meaneth, by this charge of infidelity; If he mean, the charge of not believing the Gospel, he knoweth that a mere assent to the truth, will • ustifie from that Charge. If he mean the charge of not receiving & resting upon Christ, according to the Gospel, even that will be but a particular justification from that particular charge; and is not that justification from the sentence of the Law, whereof Paul speaketh. (7) That we must be justified (as he saith) by our Gospel personal holiness & sincere obedience, against the charge, that we are unholy & wicked, or impenitent & hypocrites, is true; but what can all this say, for a justification from the sentence of the Law, under which we are all lying by Nature; and of which the Apostle Paul speaketh? And if James speak of justification by works, in reference to this accusation, he speaketh of no other kind of justification, than that which the most wicked wreatch, yea & the devils are capable of, when, to wit, they are falsely accused of having done some evil, which they have not done. And how can Mr. Baxter infer from what James saith, (if he speak of no other kind of justification) that works are required unto our justification, as to state, or unto our general justification from the sentence of the Law, adjudging us to death because of transgression? (8) But he addeth, or else we shall never be adjudged to Salvation, that is, justified by God. Then the Justification, that James speaketh of, & that Mr. Baxter meaneth, is final Salvation: And we willingly grant, that there must be personal holiness & sincere obedience before this, and that no wicked or impenitent person, or hypocrite shall be adjudged to Salvation. But the justification, which Paul treateth of, is different from this, though it be the sure way to this, seeing all who are justified, shall be thus saved. Thus we see, that according to Mr. Baxter, the meaning of James is, the same with Paul's, when he saith Heb. 12: 14. Follow peace with all men & holinoss, without which no man shall see the Lord. And then, James speaketh nothing of that justification, whereof Paul treatch & this is, what we say; whence it is manifest, that there is no appearance of contradiction betwixt the two holy writers.

But that we may come to some further clearness in this matter, we must see, whether Paul & James mean & speak of one & the same Faith: for if it be found, that they speak of diverse Faiths, all appearance of Contradiction is removed. Now that the Apostle Paul meaneth of a true, lively, saving Faith, which is a saving fruit of the Spirit of God & the special Gift of God, is easily granted on all hands: All the question is of that faith, which James speaketh of, Papist's say, that it is true justifying, that James speaketh of: for justifying. Faith, with them, is nothing but a real assent unto the Catholic Doctrine, or to divine Revelation: And indeed if Justifying. Faith be nothing else, it cannot be well denied, that James meaneth here a justifying faith. But the folly of this ground is obvious to all, that understand the Gospel: and we need not here insist in confuting the same. That which James here saith of this Faith, is enough to demonstrate of what Nature it is; and the Epithets he giveth it, do sufficiently manifest, that it is not Faith of the Right stamp, nor that true & lively Faith, by which Paul saith, that we are justified: and the discovery of this will be enough to our purpose; and every verse of his discourse hereanent will help us herein for (1) verse. 14. it is a profitless Faith, which cannot be said of justifying Faith, as the whole Scripture cleareth. (2) Ibid. it is a Faith, that hath no ground or reality, but a man's saying, nor no other evidenee, or proof, What doth it profit, my Brethren, though a man say, he hath Faith? There is no other proof adducable but his say so; which cannot be justifying Faith. (3) Ibid • can Faith save him; so that, it is a Faith, that hath no sure connection with, nor tendency to Salvation; which cannot be supposed of the true, lively justifying Faith, as is known. (4) verse. 15, 16. It is no more true Faith, than that is true charity, which saith to the naked & destitute brother, depart in peace, be thou warmed & filled & notwithstanding giveth not those things, which are needful to the body. (5) verse. 17. It is expressly called a dead Faith. But the precious Faith of God's elect is a lively Faith. (6) ibid. It is a Faith without works, having no connection therewith, nor being any ground thereunto; but the true Faith, that justifieth, worketh by Love, & is a living principle, and floweth from the infusion of life. (7) So verse. 18. It is a Faith uncapable of any true evidence, or demonstration, as to its being, from works of holiness▪ and so is not accompanied with any real change of soul: But it is not thus with true & saving Faith. (8) verse. 19. It is such a Faith; as devils may have: But devils are not capable of justifying Faith. (9) verse. 20. It is the Faith, that a Vain man▪ never humbled in the sense of his own lost Condition, nor driven out of himself to seek reliese elsewhere, in the free mercy & grace of God, through Jesus Christ, may have: But that is not the Faith of the humbled, hear broken man, that's sleeing to Christ for refuge, (10) verse. 21, 22, 23. It is not such a Faith, as Abraham had, that made him willing to offer up his son Isaac, when commanded, & so wrought with & was evidenced & demonstrated by works. (11) verse. 25. Nor is it like the Faith of Rahab, which prompted her to receive the Messengers, and send them out another way. (12) verse. 26. It is such a Faith, that is no better than a carcase without breath, which is no essential part of a living man. But the Faith that justifieth, is a far other thing. By these particulars, it is manifest, that this Faith, whereof James speaketh so much, and which he opposeth unto works, & denieth justification, & salvation unto, is not the precious faith that Paul speaketh of.

We have seen, that Paul & James speak not of one & the same faith, we shall now inquire, whether they speak of One & the same Justification: And if it be found, that therein they differ, all ground of imaginable difference will be further removed. What that justification is, whereof Paul speaketh, is manifest, & needeth not here be declared, for it is plain, that he treateth of that justification, whereby a poor sinner, convinced of his sin & misery, in lying under guilt, & under the Curse of God because of sin, is absolved before God from the sentence of the Law, & accepted of Him, and brought into an estate of Favor & reconciliation, having a right unto Salvation, through Faith in Jesus Christ. Upon the other hand, it is as obvious & clear, that James is not treating of this justification, whereby a change of state is made in the man. But of a justification of a far other nature, even such a justification, whereby the Mans Faith, the reality of his Christianity, & his justification before God, is evidenced, or may be evidenced to himself, or to others. So that, whether we take justification here, as mentioned by James, for the evidence & demonstration of justification, or for a justification of the truth of the Mans Faith & Christianity, it cometh all to one; for where true faith & true Christianity is, there is justification, and there only; so that what demonstrats the one, will demonstrate the other; and a justification, or manifestation of the one will be a justification of the other. Nor is this sense of the word justify, or justification alien from the Scriptures, as we see Psal. 51: 4. Rom. 3: 4. for God cannot other ways be justified, but by being declared, avowed, & proclaimed to be Righteous. So Ier. 3: 11. Ezek. 16: 51, 52. Mat. 11: 19. Luk. 7: 35, 29. 1. Tim. 3: 16.

Now that this is the justification, whereof James speaketh, may be further cleared by these particulars. (1) The scope, that James here levelleth at, being not to clear up the way & manner, how, or the causes by which, this change of Relation & State is wrought & brought about, but to discover the groundlesness of the vain pretenses of such, as supposed they were justified, & in a sure way to be saved, who had no more for their ground, but a loose & verbal outward profession of the preached truth, without any real fruit of godliness: So that this Enquirie is, what can truly evidence a person to be justified indeed before God? And he showeth that an empty fruitless profession will not do it, but works of Faith, or Faith proving itself lively by works. (2) The very Instance of Abraham, which he adduceth, cleareth this; for he saith verse. 21. Was not Abraham our Father justified by works, when he had offered his Son upon the altar? Now twenty five years, or as some compute, Thirtie years, or thereby before this time the Scriptures say, that Abraham believed God, & it was reckoned to him unto Righteousness. Gen. 15. & hence Paul proveth Rom. 4. that he was justified by Faith. Therefore if now he was justified, when he offered, his Son, he must have been twice justified & that in the same sense, with the same kind of justification, which cannot be said. Nor will it avail to say, That Gen. 15. he was justified by the first justification, which was by Faith, of which Paul speaketh Rom. 4. But Gen. 22. he was justified with the second justification, which is by works; & of this James speaketh: for this distinction of justification into First & Second, is but a mere device of the Papist's, having no ground in, nor countenance from the Scriptures: and beside, it would follow, that a mere historical, dead Faith is sufficient unto the first justification, and that Paul understandeth such a faith only, when he said Rom. 4. that Abraham believed God, & it was counted to him unto Righteousness, the contrary whereof is manifest. Nor will it serve here to say, that Paul speaketh of justification as begun: but James speaketh of justification as continued: for then it would follow, that justification at first, or as begun, is by a dead faith, and by such a kind of faith, as devils may have, & consequently, that of such a faith, as this, Paul speaketh; because of such a faith James speaketh, as we have seen: But this cannot be said, for it was a true & lively faith, that Abraham had, when he believed the promise of the Messiah & a dead faith is not the faith, that justifieth, first, or last. Yea because James maketh an opposition betwixt faith & works, in reference to justification, in the sense, wherein he speaketh of it, it will follow, that faith should not be requisite unto the Continuance of justification. (3) James said verse. 20. that Faith without works was dead: and to confirm this, he addeth verse. 21. was not Abraham our Father justified by works &c. As if he had said. The faith by which Abraham was brought into an estate of justification & life, was a lively faith, having works of obedience attending it, and his obedience declared that his faith was lively, and that he was truly justified by faith, Ergo a faith, that is lifeless, and wholly without works of obedience, is but dead, & can give no ground to conclude one justified, & in the way to life; So that what mention he maketh of justification by works is but to prove the reality of lively faith; & by works true justification by faith is evidenced & demonstrated, & not by a bare idle & vain fruitless profession. (4) When Abraham was justified by his works, the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed God, & it was imputed unto him for Righteousness, as is manifest from verse. 22, 23. Now by this mentioned of Abraham in the Scripture Gen. 15: 6. Paul proveth Rom. 4. that he was justified by faith. But if James were here speaking of the way of our becoming justified, before God, as Paul doth, there could be no connection here, yea the proof should contradict the thing to be proved; for to say, that Abraham was justified by faith, will not prove, that he was justified by works: nor could his being justified by works, be a fulfilling, a clearing & confirming of that truth, that faith, he was justified by faith; for faith & works, in the matter of justification, are inconsistent, & perfectly opposite, as Paul teacheth us, & as here James also teacheth us. But taking justification here for its declaration & manifestation, it can be by works, and a declaration of justification by works can be & is a very signal confirmation & clearing of that Testimony, which saith, that Abraham was justified by faith. (5) By that work of offering up his son, at a the command of God, Abraham declared, that he was no hypocrite, but a true believer, and thus was he justified (as Mr. Baxter will have it, as we heard lately) from any such accusation. But a Justification from this accusation, is but a justification of the truth & sincerity of faith, & so a confirmation & evidence of justification; or justification as evidenced & declared; and not justification as produced by its causes. (6) When James saith verse. 23. That the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed God & it was imputed to him unto Righteousness, when he was justified by offering up his son verse. 21. this fulfilling of the Scripture-testimony was, either because at that time, when he offered up his Son, Righteousness was imputed unto him, & he was justified, or because it was then manifest, to be a truth, that he was justified indeed: But the former cannot be said, because Righteousness was imputed unto him, and he was justified long before this. Therefore it can be only understood, as to its manifestation. (7) This is also clear from what the Lord spoke at that time, Gen. 22: 12. Now I know, that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy Son, thine only Son from me. No word here of imputing Righteousness unto him, or of his being brought into a justified state; but only God's solemn declaration, that he was a true fearer of God, & so one, that had true faith, & was really justified. (8) Vers. 22. he saith Seest thou, how faith wrought with his works & by works was faith made perfect. But how could this follow upon what he had said verse. 21? Justification by works (if justification be taken absolutely here & not for its declaration & manifestation,) will not prove faith's working with works. But if justification be here taken for justification declared & manifested, the sense is plain: for such works as do evidence & declare, that a person is justified, will manifestly prove, that faith is working with these works, because justification presupposeth always a true & lively faith, that will work with works of obedience. (9) Far less could it follow from justification (taken absolutely) by works, that faith was made perfect by works: but from such a work as will evidence a man to be justified, it is manifest to everyone, that that work is a clear evidence of a true & lively faith, & by it faith is perfected, that is declared, evidenced & demonstrated, to be faith indeed, as the word perfected is used 2. Cor. 12: 9. for my strength is made perfect in weakness. (10) That other Inference verse. 24. ye see then, how that by works a man is justified & not by Faith only: will not follow from what went before, if justification be here taken absolutely: for the command so Abraham to offer up his son was no promise, and to did not call for faith, but for ready obedience, though upon another account he believed that God was able to raise him up from the dead Heb. 11: 17, 18, 19. But Gen. 15. promises were made unto him, & he is said to have believed, & upon this Righteousness was imputed unto him. So that Gen. 15. he was justified by faith only, as the Apostle proveth Rom. 4. for thereby he confirmeth his Conclusion set down Rom. 3: 28. that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law. And from that other place Gen. 22. James could not infer, that Justification is by faith & works together, for then he could not infer therefrom that the Scripture was fulfilled, which said, Abraham believed God, & it was imputed unto him for Righteousness, because Paul doth hence infer Rom. 4. that justification is by faith without works: And what is a ground for justification by faith without works, cannot also be a ground for justification by works & not by faith only; And thus the Apostles are made in plain terms to contradict other: by inferring contrary or contradictory conclusions from the same premises: which ought not to be thought, let be said. But it will be said, that Paul speaketh of the beginning of justification, which is by faith without works; but James speaketh of justification, as continued, which is by works, and not by faith only. This cannot satisfy: for beside what is said, it must first be granted hereby, that this faith, which James mentioneth, when he saith & not by saith only, must be the same faith, that Paul faith, we are justified by, without the deeds of the Law: but this cannot be, for the faith, that James speaketh of is, as we saw above, a dead, useless, fruitless carcass & no saving Faith, as that is, whereof Paul speaketh, and whereby we are justified. But now taking justification for its manifestation & declaration, the words of James are most clear, & carry no appearance of contradiction, unto what Paul taught; For his meaning is, ye see then, how that by works, a man evidenceth, proveth & declareth his Justification, or maketh it manif • st, that he is a justified person; & not by that faith only, which is but a naked fruitless, & dead profession. (11) The same may be said of the other Instance of Rahab verse. 25. She was justified by works, when • he had received the messengers; not that she was brought into a justified state by that act; for she received the Spies by faith Heb. 11: 31. & declared her faith unto them Ios. 2: 10, 11. And so was a believer & consequently justified, before she received the Spies, or they came to her. Yet by this deed, accompanied with so much hazard, unto herself & all her families, she proved & evidenced her faith & justification. (12) The Conclusion of his discourse verse. 26. for as the body without the Spirit is dead, fo faith without works is dead also, declareth manitestly, what he would be at, to wit, to show, that works can only demonstrate true faith & consequently prove justification; for a naked profession of faith, that wanteth works, is dead, and like a body wanting breath & soul, which is but a dead carcass. This cannot be said of that faith, whereby Paul saith and proveth, that we are justified, for it is true & lively, flowing from the Spirit of life, although it be not as yet proved by outward works of obedience, whereof there may be, as yet, no opportunity or call.

What is brought against this sense, of the word justify & justification, which we have now confirmed, by the Socinian Author of the book, entitled Consensus Paul • & Iacobi &c. pag. 2. &c. and by the Remonstrants in their Apology Cap. 10. is of no great weight. When they say. That the proposition set down verse. 14. is subordinate to what is said verse. 12. where the judgment of God is spoken of, & therefore saving justification must be here understood. Ans. We grant, that It is saving justification, but yet it is justification that is distinct from Final Salvation. We grant, that James speaketh here of saving justification; Yet he handleth not that question, how & by what Causes this justification is brought about; but how it is evidenced & proven to be true, and not a mere presumptuous conjecture. They say next. It is said verse. 25. that the Scripture was fulfilled; not, that it was shown to be fulfilled. A • s. That saying of Scripture was a truth before this time, even when Abraham first believed; which was before he was circumcised as we see Gen. 15. comp. with Gen. 17. & Rom. 4: 9, 10, 11. And therefore was not now first fulfilled, or verified. And to talk of the increase of imputation according to the increase of Faith, and to measure the excellency of faith, by the excellency of that obedience which it produceth, as that Socinian Author doth, is to give us nothing but the Popish justification; for Relations (of which Nature we hold Justification to be) are not intended & remitted in themselves, but only as to their evidence: We esteem it a Socinian dream, to say, that the first Narration of Faith & Justification, which is Gen. 15. was but a rude draught of that, which was afterward Gen. 22. Abraham's faith was afterward said to be perfected by that special work, of offering up his son, no • in itself, for he had a strong faith before Rom. 4: 19, 20, 21. but in its manifestation after that signal trial, It is said further. Mans justification cannot be here understood, for that is not necessary to salvation, nor universally true, seeing men may justify other, upon vain grounds. Ans. No • do we understand any such justification pronounced by men here, but a true justification before God, yet as evidenced, proven & declared by effects, unto all, that will judge understandingly & spiritually, so that works here are mentioned as the Effects, and yet as the Causes of justification. But then they object further. Thas, as the Apostle from that Faith, which the vain man boasted of denieth the man to be justified, so from works he proveth justification, & that as antecedent. Ans. The Apostle showeth, that the vain man, who had no more, but a vain dead empty faith, had no ground to conclude himself a justified Man: for this is no Cause or Condition of Justification: And hence it will not follow, that works, by which both the reality of sa • ing Faith, & of Justification thereupon, may be evidenced, are antecedent Causes, or Conditions of Justification. It is objected again by the foresaid Socinian Author. That if the meaning of these words, the Scripture was fulfilled, be, that the Scripture was shown to be fulfilled: then the meaning should be, that it was demonstrated to Abraham's two servants, who went with him to the mountain, & by them to others; But then it must be supposed, that before this time, that which passed Gen. 15. was known unto them: & it must he said, that by a work done long afterward, men may see, that the worker was justified. But that should not sutte James's scope, seeing by this means they might think to delay for a long time their good works, & yet suppose themselves presently justified. Ans. All this is but vain language; for it is all one to the scope of James, whether this come to the actual knowledge of few, or of many, & who they were to whose knowledge it came; He is only showing, that such, as had but a dead faith, that brought forth no works of obedience, when called for, had no evidence, or clear ground to assert their own justification, seeing Abraham's justification was thus declared by his signal obedience, to all that came or ever should come to the knowledge of that act of obedience of his, to the end of the world: Yea, had it been unknown to any, yet hereby he had a sure proof, to ascertain his own heart & conscience of his justification. But say the Arminians, Good works cannot be such a proof & demonstration, because it cannot be known to others, whether these good works proceed from faith, or not. Ans. Nor is any infallible judgment here necessary, or requisite; nor doth the scope of James require any such thing, who is only showing, that such as wrought not works of obedience, when called for, could not conclude themselves justified, & in a safe estate, notwithstanding of all their fair profession. Notwithstanding we cannot judge infallibly of principles, motives & ends of the good works of others, yet by what may be seen of these, God may be glorified Mat. 5: 16. 1. Pet. 2: 12.

Thus we have seen, that neither is that faith, whereof Paul speaketh, when he saith. We are justified by faith without the deeds of the Law; & whereof James speaketh, when he saith. Ye see then, how a man is justified by works & not by faith only, is not one & the same. Nor is it the same justification, or justification in the same sense & consideration, that both the Apostles speak of. And therefore how ever, as to their words, they seem to speak contrary to other: Yet in their true sense & meaning, there is nothing but a sweet harmony & agreement. But now as to works, whereof both make mentione, the question remaineth, whether they be one & the same? The forenamed Socinian Author saith, that both do not speak of the same works▪ and that Paul excludeth from justification only legal works, & not Evangelical. And consequently, that James must speak of Evangelical works only: But sure we are, James cannot be supposed to speak of Evangelical works, in their sense; seeing, they cannot say, that Abraham's offering up Isaac or Rahab her receiving & sending away the spies, were Evangelical works. James speaketh of works commanded by the Moral Law, which he mentioneth both in general, & in its particular commands I am. 2: 9, 10, 11. And all the duties, which he presseth them unto, & the sins, which he dissuadeth them from, relate unto the Moral Law. And what these works are, whereof Paul speaketh, we have seen before. Others think, that James by Works here meaneth a working faith: & so that his meaning, when he saith, that by works a man is justified, is, that by a working faith, such as Abraham had, a man is justified. But though it be a truth, that justifying faith is a working lively faith? And that we are justified only by such a faith, as is lively, & prompteth to obedience, in every duty called for; & though this truth will follow by consequent, from what the Apostle James here saith; Yet I judge, that both Paul & James understand the same thing by works, even duties of obedience, performed to the Law of God, & that by Works here in James, is not meant a working faith, this not being the scope & design of James to clear up justification in its Causes, or to show by what means it is brought about; but only to show, what way it is or may be evidenced proved & demonstrated to ourselves or others, so as we may not be deceived thereanent; And real works of obedience, as they evidence a true & lively faith, so they prove the reality of justification: And the Apostles intention being, to show the vanity of that pretence, whereby many deceived themselves, thinking that their profession of the truth of the Gospel was enough to secure their Salvation, & to prove them to be in a justified safe state, though they indulged themselves a liberty to walk loosely, according to the flesh; this acception of the word works, in a proper sense, is most contributive unto that design, & no other acception, how consonant so ever unto the Analogy of Faith, doth so directly & clearly contribute assistance thereunto. Therefore he opposeth faith & works, & denieth that to faith, which he ascribed unto works: though by consequence he put hereby a difference betwixt a dead faith, & a working faith; Yet his principale Thesis verse. 14. is, that by works, & not by a bare profession of the truth, we come to Salvation. And the inquiry prosecuted is, whether we have that faith, that will indeed prove saving, & this can only be evidenced by works, as his whole following discourse evinceth, especially when he saith verse. 18. show me thy faith without thy works, & I will show my faith by my works. And verse. 20. when he saith, faith without works is dead & verse. 26. that it is as dead, as a body is without breath or Spirit. And this he fully confirmeth by the following instances of Abraham & Rahab.

From what is said, it is apparent, how little ground there is to think, that there is any real appearance of contradiction betwixt Paul & James; & how needless it is, in order to a reconciliation, to say with Papists, that Paul speaketh of a first justification & James of a second; or with others, that Paul speaketh of justification, as begun, & James of justification as continued, or with Socinians, that Paul denieth justification by the works of the Law, James affirmeth justification by the works of the Gospel.

CHAP. VIII.

No countenance given to Justification by Works, from Jam. 2: 14. &c.

BEcause all, who ascribe our justification in one sense or other (all are not agreed in one & the same sense) unto our works, seek countenance unto the same from these words of James Chapt. 2: 14, & forward: notwithstanding that what was said concerning this passage, in the fore going Chapter, might be sufficient, to discover the groundlesness of any such pretence, where it was shown, that the whole face of this place looked towards another airth, and had not the least aspect unto any such conclusion; Yet for a fuller Vindication of this place from this too ordinary abuse & perversion, we shall examine every part thereof, & see, what ground there is; for any to alleige the same, for confirmation of their particular opinions.

The Papists generally say, that this place speaketh of the Second Justification: But their opinion of a first & second justification is vain, having no ground in the word, and the whole of their fabric is sufficiently demolished by the Reformed, writing against them; so that we need not insist thereupon. Others there are, who suppose that James is here showing, how justification is continued, & therefore say, though faith alone be the Condition of Justification, as begun; Yet unto the continuance thereof works are required, as the Condition. But all that speak thus, & think that James pointeth forth the Condition of Justification as continued, must say, that those persons, who had this faith, whereof James speaketh, were really justified, & that James doth presuppose them to be justified, & speaketh to them & of them, as such▪ But then it must be granted, that the Popish faith, consisting in a mere assent unto the truth revealed, is justifying faith; and that that faith, which is no more true & saving faith, than that is true & Christian Charity, which saith to a brother or sister, that is naked & destitute of daily food, depart in peace, and giveth not those things, which are needful to the body, is sufficient to bring one into a justified state; and that a dead faith, & a faith of the same nature & kind, with the faith of devils & a faith, which a vain man, puffed up with a vain conceit & a fleshly mind may have, & a faith, that cannot & will not work with works, is a justifying faith: which if true, it would follow, that all men, who believe that God is, & Devils also, who believe this, should be justified. But none, who understand the Gospel can think or speak thus. And therefore this place carrieth no show of proof, that works are the Condition of Justification▪ as continued.

Nor can this place give any countenance to such, as say that Faith & Works together are the Condition of Justification, making no difference betwixt justification, as begun, & as continued. For (1) James' • scope (as we manifested above) is not to clear up & explain the way, how justification is brought about, or to show, what are the Causes, or Conditions thereof: but to discover the vanity of that ground, whereupon some professors, who indulged their Lusts, deceived themselves & supposed that they were in a state of justification, & salvation, notwithstanding they neglected all duties of holiness. (2) James opposeth a faith here unto works, a faith, which he called unprofitable, dead &c. & doth not ascribe justification hereunto, as to a Condition, in whole, or in part: But such, as speak thus, include faith & works, as making up one full & complete Condition. (3) The Instances, which James here adduceth, should not then serve his design, if his purpose was to prove faith & works to be the Condition of Justification; for Abraham was long justified before that particular act of obedience in offering up his son Isaac, was called for: And so was Rab •• justified before she sent away the spies. (4) This work, by which Abraham is said to have been justified, was a work, that seemed contrary unto the Moral Law: And therefore if this be urged, as a ground of justification by works, it will rather prove justification by other works, then by works commanded in the Moral Law of God. (5) The works, mentioned in both the Instances, are outward external works, obvious to the eyes & ears of others: And hence it may as well be proved, that only external works, are required unto justification, and no other. And indeed, if it had been James's design to prove justification by works, he had named other works, then merely external, that he might have prevented a mistake.

But more fully to discover the vanity of this supposition, let us see, what can be alleiged from the several parts of this passage, for justification by works, from verse. 14. it is said. Faith alone cannot save, but is unprofitable; but yet faith & works is profitable & will save. Ans. This maketh nothing for justification by works; because it is denied, that whatever is requisite before Salvation, is requisite also before justification, for if so, no man could be said to be justified, as long as he lived. But next, the faith, whereof James here speaketh, availeth not to Salvation, because it is not of the right kind, & we say also, that this faith availeth not to justification, because it is but mere empty profession, deceiving & puffing up & it is but a faith, that a man saith he hath.

From verse. 15, 16, 17. It is said As charitable wishes, joined with real acts of Love & Alms deeds is, profitable & no other charitable wishes; so Faith with works, is available to justification, but not without them. Ans. These charitable wishes, not accompanied with Alms deeds, as they are not profitable unto the indigent brother & sister, so they are far from that Christian charity, that is called for in the Gospel: & as that charity is not true, Christian & saving charity; so neither is the Faith, which he proveth to be dead, true, saving or justifying Faith. Nor doth the Apostle say, that faith with works is available unto justification; but that that faith, which hath not works, is dead, & not available to prove & evidence, that the man that hath it, is in a safe & in a justified state.

But the main ground of this apprehension is verse. 21, 22, 23, &c. for it is objected that it is expressly said, that Abraham was justified by works. Ans. That it is so said, we grant; but the difference is about the sense & meaning, in which it is said so. We have shown, that the meaning is. That by works Abraham was declared, proved & manifested to be a justified person, and one that had a true & lively faith; for it is added, that hereby the Scripture was fulfilled declaring him to have been justified by faith, or that he believed God, & it was accounted to him for Righteousness. And this is it, which others have called justification before men, in opposition to justification before God, that is, a justification declared & manifested to the man's own conscience & to others, & not the justification before God in its causes. And this Mr. Baxter seemeth to have mistaken in his Aphorisms, when he argued against this justification before men, as if it had been merely a justification from Men's Accusation, & not the true justification before God, as evidenced & proved to men: And when we speak of justification in this sense, we do not make the world lawful judges of our Righteousness before God, or in reference to the Law of God, or say, that they are competent, or capable judges: But we only say, that by works of obedience Faith & Justification by Faith is evidenced. And where as he saith. That works are no certain medium, or evidence, whereby the world can know us to be Righteous: for there is no outward work, which an hypocrite may not perform, & inward works they cannot discern: nor yet the principles from which, nor the ends to which our works proceed & are intended. There is as much need of a divine heart-searching knowledge, to discern the sincerity of works, as of faith itself. He may see, that all this will make as much against Christ's saying Mat. 5: 16. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, & glorify your Father, which is in heaven. And that John. 13: 35. By this shall all men know, that ye are my disciples: if ye love one another: and that 1. Pet. 2: 12. Having your Conversation honest among the Gentiles— they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God, in the day of Visitation. Nor is it to the purpose to say, that he was the justifier, who was the imputer of Righteousness, that is, God; for works of obedience may declare, that God hath imputed Righteousness unto the person, & hath justified him; and this is all; we say that Abraham was in this sense justified by his works, that he was declared to be justified indeed before God, by his works.

Some were pleased to express their sense of James's words thus, That James speaks of works as justifying our faith, & not as justifying our persons, meaning only, that the Apostle did not consider works here, as the Cause, or Condition of the persons being justified before God, but as the effect & evidence proving the man's faith to be sound & saving, and consequently the man thereby to have been justified: which sense is the same with what we have given: but Mr. Baxter, saith, it is as plain, as can be, that it is the person & not his Faith, which is here said to be justified. Ans. The person, it is true, is said here to be justified, but not causatively, but declaratively, that is, It is not said, that by works his justification is effectuated, but that it is declared, & that because it is hereby declared, that the man is a true believer, & thus his faith is manifested to be of the right kind, which is all that was intended by that expression.

Yet Mr. Baxter will not say, that works do effectually produce our justification (for Faith doth not so.) But yet he will have both to justify, as Conditions, or as parts of one Condition: Only he addeth, that they do not justifio, as equal parts of the Condition; for Faith is the principal; but as the secondary less principal part of the Condition. Ans. Yet, James hinteth at no such thing, but giveth the preference to works: Yea excludeth the faith, whereof he speaketh; altogether from having any interest in justification, as being nothing but a dead, carcass, a vain, fruitless & unprofitable thing, & so hath no kind of causality or procurement in justification. But he addeth as a reason. 1. That when it is said we are justified by works, the word by implieth more than an idle concomitanoy. Ans. I shall easily grant this, but withal say, that this will not give unto works any causality in justification; but only evince works to be an evidence of justification, as the cause is said to be manifested by the effect.

He addeth 2. When the Apostle saith. By works & not by faith only, he plainly makes them concomitant in procurement, or in that kind of causality, which they have. Especially seeing he saith not, as he is commonly interpreted, not by faith, which is alone; but by faith only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ans. Then hath fruitless dead faith, which devils may have, a kind of causality in justification; which is expressly contrary to the scope & all the reasonings of the Apostle: And therefore the common interpretation must be admitted; But he addeth. 3. Therefore he saith, that faith is dead being alone, beca • se it is dead, as to the use & purpose of justifying;—This appears from his comparison in the former verse. 16. that this is the death he speaks of; & so works make faith alive, as to the attainment of its end of justification. Ans. If it be thus, how could he then say before, that faith was the principal part of the Condition? can that be the principal part of the Condition, which is dead & useless without the other, & must be quickened, in order to its usefulness by the other: I would think, that other looked rather like the principal part, and most considerable & necessary, seeing this were but a dead Cypher without it. But the truth is, the Apostle, as is said, hath a far other design, & showeth, that that faith, which they pretended unto, as sufficient to ground their concl • sion of their justification, & hope of Salvation, was no true saving faith at all, but a dead thing & so no works could make it of any use as to justification; because it behooved first to flow from another principle, even from a principle of saving grace; and then it would evidence & prove itself to be of the right kind, by good works, that would flow from it.

But saith he. When the Apostle saith, that faith did work in & with his works, it clearly aimeth at such a working in & with, as maketh them conjunct in the work of justifying. Ans. No such matter; for the Apostle is only there showing (as the whole context cleareth) that Abraham's faith was another sort of faith, than that, whereupon they relied; even a faith that did prompt to the most difficulte duties, when the call of God came, & so did work in & with his performances; but not in order to justification, for he was justified already, many years before this.

He addeth. And when he saith, that Faith was made perfect with works, it is not only a manifesting to be perfect, But as the habit is perfected in its acts, because they are the end to which it tendeth: & as marriage is perfected per congressum & procreationem; or any Covenant, when its Conditions are performed. Ans. The whole of the context showeth, that faith was perfected purely, as to its manifestation, as by the like expression is clear 2. Cor. 12: 9. Col. 4: 12. Mat. 5: 48. Nay, though It were granted, that faith were perfected by works as the end to which it tendeth, that would say nothing for the interest of faith in justification, but in Salvation; let is be granted, that justification is perfected by faith without works, as marriage is by consent, without what he addeth, & we have what we desire. That works are a Condition of entering into Covenant, or of the Covenant, in order to justification, as required before justification, is still denied. He saith further elsewhere, against Mr. Cartwright p. 212. That by works faith was made perfect, as is hath naturam medii viz. conditionis to the continuation & consummation of justification. Ans. That the continuation of justification hath other media or Conditions, than the beginning hath, is not yet made apparent: far less can any such thing be drewn from this passage to continuance the same, the Apostles scope not being to speak to any such thing; nor can it be supposed, that he looketh on such, whose proud conceits he was here depressing, as already justified, as to the beginning of justification, seeing a dead faith, (which was all the faith they had) is no Condition of justification at all. And as to consummation of justification (as he speaketh) Abraham's saith was not yet perfected, neither could be before his death. He addeth finally. That obedience perfecteth faith, as it is part of that necessary matter (not necessary, at the first moment of believing, but necessary afterward, when he is called to it) whereby he is to be justified against the charge of non-performance of the New Covenants Condition, even against the Accusation of being an unbeliever or hypocrite. Ans. If obedience perfect faith thus, it is only as evidenceing & proving the man a true believer, & no hypocrite, or one that hath only a mere profession; which is the thing we say? if it be looked on as the Condition of the Covenant, & so as the ground of justifying the man from the charge of nonperformance of that Condition, it standeth only for itself, & for its own part, & cannot not be said upon that account, to perfect faith; as when both abstaining from murder, and from stealing is called for; the absteaning from stealing cannot be said to perfect the other, though it ground a Mans justification from the charge of stealing. And therefor by this assertion, faith can as well be said to perfect works, as works be said to perfect faith.

Mr. Baxter giveth this ground of Agreement betwixt Paul & James; that Paul is about this question, What is the Righteousness, which we must pload, against the Accusation of the Law? or by which we are justified as the proper Righteousness of that Law? And this he well concludeth is neither works, nor faith: But the Righteousness which is by faith, that is, Christ's Righteousness, Ans. Paul speaketh to this question, how sinners come to be justified before God, & therefore cleareth up the matter of justification, in all its causes; and not only showeth what that Righteousness is, which must be pleaded against the accusation of the Law; but also what way we come to be partakers of that Righteousness in order to our being justified before God, to wit, by faith, without the deeds of the Law. If faith be not that Righteousness, why did Mr. Baxter say▪ that Rom. 4. where it is said, that faith is imputed unto Righteousness, faith is taken for our act, & not for the object of faith, or Christ's Righteousness laid hold on by faith. But now, what question handleth James? His question is, saith he. What is the Condition of our • ustification by this Righteousness of Christ, whether faith only, or works also? Ans. And doth not Paul also speak to this question, when he saith. We are justified by faith? Will not Mr. Baxter grant, that faith is the Condition of our justification by this Righteousness? If James then handle this question, there shall be no agreement betwixt him & Paul, but a manifest contradiction, for Paul saith that we are justified by faith without the deeds of the Law, that is upon Condition of Faith, as Mr. Baxter will grant, & James saith, that we are justified not by faith only, but by works, as the Condition: & here is a perfect contradiction, both speaking ad idem & the one saying we are justified by faith without works, & the other saying by faith & works. What the true question is, whereof James speaketh, we have shown above; & the • eby manifested a clear harmony betwixt the Apostles, & left no ground of suspicion of any contradiction.

He saith, next that Paul doth either in express words, or in the sense, & scope of his speech, exclude only the works of the Law, that is, the fulfilling of the Conditions of the Law ourselves. But never the fulfilling of the Gospel Conditions, that we may have part in Christ. Ans. Whether the works of the Law, which Paul excludeth, be so to be understood, or not, we have seen above: only I say, now, that both speak of the same Law, that is, the Moral Law, & both consequently, speak of the same obedience, that is obedience to the same Law: And nothing can be alleged to prove that Paul meaneth works as taken for the fulfilling of the Conditions of the Law ourselves & James meaneth the same works as taken for the fulfilling of the Conditions of the Gospel ourselves. And further, the faith that James speaketh so much of, is none of the Gospel Conditions of justification, for it is but a dead carcass, & an unprofitable thing. But his following words, saying. Indeed if a man should obey the commands of the Gospel with a legal intent that obedience should be but legal show that by the works of the Law he meaneth something in opposition to the commands of the Gospel, wherein he joineth with Socinians. But we own no commands of the Gospel, but such as are enjoined by the Law of God, even the Moral Law, of which James speaketh expressly verse. 10, 11.

He tells us 3. for clearing of this agreement, That Paul doth by the word Faith especially direct our thoughts to Christ believed in: for to be justified by Christ, & to be justified by receiving Christ, is with him all one. Ans. This is all very true, & sure, he must also say, that to be justified by Christ, & to be justified by works, is not all one, for all obedience or works is not receiving of Christ. But now, what doth James direct us to by the word Faith, which he mentioneth? doth he not direct our thoughts to Christ believed in? If not, it cannot be justifying Faith, he speaketh of, as Mr. Baxter supposeth. If yea, why doth he add works more than Paul doth? Shall Paul's directing our thoughts to Christ believed in, exclude works, and James's directing our thoughts the same way include them? Where is then the agreement?

But 4. he addeth, that when Paul doth mentione Faith, as the Condition, he always implieth obedience to Christ. Ans. It is denied, that he implieth obedience, as the Condition of Justification: And Mr. Baxter himself will grant this, I suppose, as to justification begun, or as to our fi • st justification as he speaketh, in replying to Mr. Cartwright: which is enough for us, for we know no second justification, distinct from the first, whereof either of the Apostles do speak. And I like not that which he addeth, saying. He i.e. Paul) implieth obedience in requiring Faith, as truly, as he that subjecteth himself to a Prince, doth imply future obedience, in his engagement to obey: for this maketh justifying faith a plain engagment to obey. And thus to be justified by faith is to be justified by a formal engagment to obey, & a formal engagment to obey, is a receiving of Christ: for to be justified by faith, & to be justified by receiving Christ is all one.

Mr. Baxter in his Catholic Theol. part. 2. n. 365. giveth us five particulars of justification by works, that James standeth for, & that he accounteth undeniable by anything but prejudice, Ignorance, & siding peevishness. So that it must be unquestionable, that James speaketh of all those particulars, & that he speaketh of justification by works, in no other sense, the contrary whereof we have seen already: Yet let us see what these particular respects are, wherein (as he saith) works are not excluded from being Conditions of our justification, or the matter of it.

1. Saith he. That faith itself, which is our act, & an act of obedience to God, & is the fiducial accepting belief in God the Father Son & Holy Ghost, for the benefits of the Covenant, is the Condition of our first Cevenant-Right to these benefits. Ans. To speak of Saving Faith in its full latitude, or of that faith, whereby the Covenant is fi • st made up, as such, is not to the present purpose; but of faith only, or of its acting, in order to justification: and as to this, himself lately told us, that Paul by the word Faith doth especially direct our thoughts to Christ believed in: so that faith in this matter is not considered as our work, or as an act of obedience in us, & as our personal Righteousness; but as the Mean, Hand, or Instrument laying hold on Christ & his Righteousness. And if this be the meaning of James, when he saith, we are justified by works, that, we are justified by faith, we shall not contend, as to the thing; though we conceive James handleth another purpose, as is said.

2. Saith he, That this faith is not actual obedience to Christ, as Christ ( at first, but only to God, as God) But it is the souls subjection to Christ, as Christ, which is our Covenant-consent, to our future obedience, & virtually, though not actually, containeth our future obedience in it. Ans. This upon the matter, is but the same with the former, & needeth no further answer, as to our present question, concerning the meaning of James, when he saith we are justified by works; for if this faith be not actual obedience, James doth not mean actual obedience by the word works, but only that Faith, which is a consent to future obedience. But what the Faith is, whereby we are justified, & what is its peculiar acting, in order to justification, we have shown elsewhere. And to distinguish betwixt obedience to Christ, as Christ, and to God as God, is to be unnecessarily critical: & by Mr. Baxeer we see, that all the after obedience of believers is obedience to God, as God, though their first Faith be said to be a fiducial accepting belief in God the Father, Son & Holy Ghost, and this be said virtually to contain after obedience, which therefore must be obedience, to God Father, Son & Holy Ghost; And their first Faith is no obedience to Christ, as Christ, though Christ, as Christ call & invite, yea & command sinners to come unto him, & believe in him.

3. He saith. That there is somewhat of Love Consent or willingness, of Desire, of Hop, of Repentance, which goeth to make up this Moral work of Faith, as it is the Condition, even our first Christianity itself. Ans. All this somewhat of Love, Consent &c. which necessarily attendeth Faith (for that they make up this moral work of Faith, as integral parts thereof, I see no ground to assert) only show the true nature & genius of that Faith, whereby we are justified, for it is nowhere said, that we are justified by Love, Hop, or Repentance (as for Consent or willingness & desire, they are included in Faith.) But all this yet saith nothing for the Interest of Works (as it is pleaded) in our justification: And if James mean no other thing by works he shall give little ground to any to assert justification by works, as is done this day, by too many.

4. He saith, That at the making of a Covenant, is for the performing of it; & subjection is for obedience; & Marriag for conjugal duties; so our said first Covenanting-faith is for our future faith, Hop, Comfort, & grateful obedience & Holiness. And these are the secondary parts of the Condition of Salvation. And so are the secondary parts of our justifications Condition, as continued, or not lost & consummat. For to justify us is to justify our Right to Impunity & Glory. Ans. How different Faith as justifying, or in its acting in order to justification, is from this Covenant making, Subjection & Marriage, as explained & applied to this purpose by Mr. Baxter, is elsewhere shown. (2) That these graces are required in order to Salvation, we grant, & shall not stand to call them secondary parts of the Condition of Salvation, as to its possession. But (3) we are here speaking of justification, and not of Salvation, which two differ, as we conceive, much more being required to the one, in case persons live after their first Faith, than to the other. (4) We have shown elsewhere, that justification, as continued hath the same Conditions, that justification as begun hath, & of loseing of justification we read not in the Scriptures, nor yet consummat justification: these are Mr. Baxter's new Notions, with which we are not satisfied. (5) Our Right to Impunity & Glory is had by Christ alone, when we are possessed of his Surety-Righteousness, through Faith; and thus are justified by Faith: And how justification is a justification of that Right, Mr. Baxter would do well to explain.

In the last place he saith. That our own performance of the Condition of the free Gift of Impunity & Glory, by the New Covenant, purchased by Christ's Righteousness is the thing to be tried & judged in God's judgment. And therefore we must so far be then justified from the charge of not performing that Condition of being Infidels, unsanctified, Impenitent, hypocrites, Apostates; & so of having no part in Christ & the free gift, even by our personal, Evangelical Faith, Holiness, Repentance, Sincerity & Perseverance, Ans. Then, it seemeth, James speaketh only of works, in order to final Salvation, or our justification; at the day of judgment, and not in order to our justification here, when first brought out of nature into the State of Grace: And if so, what ground can any hence have, to infer our present justification to be by works, unless they think, that whatever is required antecedent unto our Final Salvation, is required also antecedent to our first justification? which I know Mr. Baxter will not say. And if this be all that James saith, why did not Mr. Baxter give this as a ground of reconciling James with Paul, that James speaks of works, in order to Final Salvation, but Paul, excludeth them, in reference to justification? This would have had greater agreement with what the Orthodox say, than to tell us of works being the secondary parts of the Condition of our Justification, and that James includeth them as such, when he saith, we are justified by works, and not by Faith only.

CHAP. IX.

John Forbes his Arguments, against the Imputation of Christ's active obedience, examined. With a View of Wendelin's reasonings against it.

John Forbes in his Treatise tending to clear the doctrine of justification Chap. 24. pag. 93. &c. cometh to speak of the matter of our Righteousness, that is, that, wherein Christ is made of God Righteousness unto us; And tells us, that this in one word, in the Scripture, is said to be his obedience Rom. 5: 19. But this obedience he restricteth pag. 94. unto the passive Obedience of Christ only in his death: And by this restriction, not only excludeth all his obedience to the Law, but even all his suffering, in his state of humiliation; Yea & his soul-sufferings also, for anything that appeareth.

He mentioneth a distinction betwixt those things, wherein the Righteousness itself standeth, which is imputed to us, & those things, which are requis •• e in Christ, to the end, that in the other he may be Righteousness unto us. And this distinction is good in itself; but not rightly applied, when he referreth all to this last head, which Christ did and suffered, except only in his death.

He granteth pag. 95. that the word obedience is oft times in the Scripture referred to the whole work of Christ's humiliation: But we do not take it so largely here, as to comprehend even his Incarnation; but as comprehending that, which belonged to his work of Mediation, as our Sponsor, in satisfying the Law & the Law-giver, for what we were owing, and were not able to pay: Nor can we so restrict it, as he doth: Let us therefore see his grounds.

His first ground is this. We are not to esteem Christ to be our Righteousness, in any thing, but in that only, wherein God hath purposed, & according to his purpose ordained, & according to his ordinance set forth Christ to be our Righteousness & Propitiation. For the purpose of God, he citeth Col. 1: 19, 20. for the Ordinance 1. Pet. 1: 18, 19, 20. For his setting forth Rom. 3: 25. Ans. We are not to esteem Christ to be our Righteousness in anything, but in that only where in the Scriptures hold him forth to be so: And in that, wherein the Scripture holdeth him forth to be so, God purposed, ordained & set him forth to be so: But we must not restrict the whole Seripture to these three or four places cited: If the Scriptures elsewhere pointe forth Christ to be our Righteousness in other acts, than in his death, all this argueing is to no purpose. Sure the Scriptures speak of his sufferings in soul, & of his being made a curse for us, & of his being obedient even to the death, of his being made under the Law to redeem them, that were under the Law: And that what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, & for sin condemned sin in the flesh, that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us. See Phil. 2: 7, 8. Gal. 4: 4. Rom. 8: 3, 4. (2) There is nothing in these texts exclusive of Christ's obedience: And it is loose argueing to say, Christ's death only is mentioned in three or four places of Scripture. Ergo nothing else is mentioned, or to be understood, anywhere else: the particle Only is not here to be found, neither expressly, nor tacitly. (3) Beside that in all these passages, there is not one word of a Righteousness, no expression, signifying the matter of imputed Righteousness to consist therein; or that Christ was our Righteousness, upon the account thereof: Nay, neither here, nor no-where find we Christ called our Righteousness, because he died for us. Nor doth the Apostle attribute our Righteousness unto his blood only Rom. 5: 9. Ephes. 1: 7. Col. 1: 14. No such thing appeareth there. Neither Pardon, nor Justification, which only are there spoken of, are a Righteousness, or our Righteousness, but the consequences, fruits or effects thereof.

His argueing, That without shedding of blood, there is no remission, & from Heb. 6. & 10. That Christ dieth no more. Therefore Christ is appointed our Righteousness & peace, in nothing, but in his death & blood of his cross, is most loose, & can only conclude against those (if there be any such, that say, By Christ's obedience active only, & not at all by his death & sufferings have we peace & remission of sins. We willingly grant, that without shedding of blood there is no remission; But this saith not, that shedding of blood alone is all our Righteousness. We conjoine both his active & his passive obedience, & so we take in his whole Mediatory work, which maketh up his complete Surety-Righteousness: and say that this must be imputed to us, in order to our Justification, Peace, Pardon & Acceptance.

He▪ argueth next from Adam, as the Type Rom. 5. & saith, that this Type teacheth us four things. 1. That our Righteousness should proceed from one man Jesus Christ. 2. That our Righteousness should consist in the obedience of that one man. 3. That our Righteousness should consist in one obedience only of that one man. 4. That our Righteousness should consist in the only one obedience of that one man, once only performed. Ans. (1) If our Righteousness consist in the obedience of Christ, & that in opposition to Adam's disobedience to the Law; then it must not consist in his sufferings alone; for sufferings, as such, are no obedience to the Law: And further Christ's obedience is called his Righteousness Rom. 5: 18. but suffering & dying is no Righteousness. (2) There is no ground to assert either of the two last, much less both: for though Adam's act of disobedience was one, and that done at once; Yet it will not follow that therein he was a Typ of Christ; or that therefore Christ's obedience must be one act only, & that performed at one time only: for Paul hinteth no such comparison, and we must not make typical similitudes without warrand. And again, one act of disobedience, once committed, is a violation of the Law, & enough to constitute one unrighteous; but one act of obedience, howbeit frequently performed, far less once only performed, cannot be a complete Righteousness, which requireth conformity to the whole Law, in all points, & that all the days of our life. Wherefore Christ's obedience, being a Righteousness (which consisteth in full conformity to the Law) must be perfect, & correspond with the whole Law, & cannot be one only act, once only performed; & that such an act too, is no formal act of obedience to the Law at all.

His Second ground is taken from the signs & seals of the Righteousness, which is by faith, that is Baptism & the Lord's supper, & tells us, that they signify & represent to us, what is the Righteousness itself, whereby we are justified, & seal & confirm unto us, that that Righteousness is ours. Ans. I should rather think, that they represent & exhibit whole Christ, & seal to believers, or the worthy receivers their interest in Him, & Right to Him, and to all his Spiritual benefits. And though these Sacraments, do in a more special manner, represent Christ, as suffering, or as dying; Yet it is no good consequence hence to infer, that his dying alone & shedding his blood is our Righteousness; for his death is principally & specially there held forth, as being the last & compleeting act of his Mediatory obedience, in his state of humiliation, unto which all his former acts of obedience had a special respect; & in which they did all ultimately terminate. And by what reason, will it be proved, that nothing done or suffered by Christ, can be any part or portion of our Righteousness in him, but what is distinctly & expressly represented & pointed forth by these seals; What shall then become of his soul sufferings in the Garden, & on the Cross? these were not his blood, nor his broken body: & therefore, according to him, make no part of our Righteousness in Christ. But we dar not say this.

His Third ground is from Heb. 10: 5, 6, 7. &c. cited out of Psal. 40. And thus he argueth. The obedience of Christ, in the matter of our Righteousness, is of no larger extent, than is the will of God, which he did obey & by which we are sanctified. But this is restrained only to the offering of Christ. Ans. The minor is here denied, there being no such restraint made, as is alleiged: for he came to do all the will of God & therefore was baptized, that he might fulfill all Righteousness: It was not se • ving to the Apostles scope, to mentione any other act of obedience, than his offering up of himself; but his mentioning no other there, will not exclude all, mentioned elsewhere: Sure, the Adversarie will not exclude the promptitude & readiness of mind, that Christ had unto the offering up of himself, long before the appointed time, as being no part of that obedience, that he performed; It cannot then be said, that by his once offering up of himself, at the last, alone, we are sanctified, & by nothing going before in conjunction with this. But he tells us, that our Justification, Reconciliation, &c. are ever attributed unto the blood, death & Cross of Christ. Ans. Never exclusively as to his preceeding obedience: Yea we are to be saved by his life Rom. 5: 10. & justification is upon Christ's Righteousness verse. 18. And all this will as well conclude for the exclusion of his foregoing obedience from being requisite in Christ (as he said above) to the end he may be Righteousness to us, as for excluding of it from being any part of our Righteousness: as also the next thing he saith, concerning Paul's respecting in his preaching only the cross of Christ: for the Apostle is not there speaking merely of the matter of our Righteousness, but of the Gospel way of Salvation, through a crucified Mediator, which the wisdom of this world despised; And to this, sure, our Author will willingly acknowledge that more belongeth, than his death abstractivly considered.

His fourth ground is from Heb. 10: 18. whence it followeth, saith he, that i • nothing, which is in Christ himself, before his death, consisteth the remission of our sins, & so consequently our righteousness. Ans. We willingly grant, that in nothing, that Christ did before his death, considered abstractly from his death, and separatly by itself, did remission of sins consist, or to speak more properly, was satisfaction made, in order to remission; Yet hence it will not follow, that all his preceeding obedience was no part of his Righteousness, or of that, whereof we are made partakers in him; more than it will follow, that it was not requisite in him, to the end, he might become Righteousness to us: If any said (as he seemeth to alleige) that all our iniquities both original & actual were pardoned in his preceeding actual obedience, (which I shall be loath to say, nor know I who speaketh so) then his argueing were good, that then Christ should be made to die without a cause. If any say, (as he insinuateth also pag. 104.) that Christ was offered only to remove the punishment of our sin, and not the sin, or guilt thereof, I shall not approve of it. Yet I cannot assent to what he saith. Ibid. That the very offering of Christ for sin, secludes all things preceeding whatsoever, from all virtue or efficacy of removing iniquity; for then it should seclude his soul sufferings, which, sure, were no small part of the Satisfaction made by him for sin. Neither will it hence follow, that all his foregoing acts of obedience made no integral part of that Surety-Righteousness, which he undertook to perform. He citeth for his first ground 1. John. 1: 7. To which we say, That it is true, the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin, because it was the blood of him, who had fulfilled all Righteousness, & in his death had compleeted that Satisfaction he undertook to do: He tells us again pag. 105. from Rom. 4. That unto eternal blessedness it is sufficient to have remission of sins. But he remembereth not, that all such as have remission of sins, there, have Righteousness also imputed without works: & we deny, that Righteousness consisteth, in remission of sins alone: But in all this, he is disputing only against such, who say, that remission of sins is had by the imputation of Christ's actual obedience, & by his death, freedom from punishment is obtained; & with such, I have nothing to do. To what he here addeth of the difference betwixt an innocent man, & a just man, enough hath been said already elsewhere.

His sixth & last ground pag. 108. is built upon the Law of the Priesthood, which saith he, was ordained of God, for this end to make expiation of our sins, & to bring us unto God, which two were shadowed in two actions, in the day of Expiation viz. in offering sacrifice &c. & in carrylng the names of the tribes, engraven in the stones on his shoulder & breast plate. And this is so far from making against us, that it consirmeth rather our opinion: for that carrying of the names of the Tribes, on the Ephod, which was upon the other holy garments, together with that plate of pure gold, that was upon the mitre, on the forefront having engraven upon it HOLINESS TO THE LORD Exod. 28. was sufficient to typify & hold forth Christ's holy obedience & Righteousnest, & could not typify his death & sacrifice. And without a Righteousness, there is no coming or approaching unto God, & this Righteousness is some other thing, than mere remission of sins. His argueing from the Priests first entry on their office at 30. Yeers of age, & Christ's doing the like Luk. 3: 21. to infer, that no action performed by Christ before that time, can be accounted the action of expiation of sin, or of reconciliation of us to God, is most vain; for (1) we make no limitation or restriction of his expiatory work to what he did before he was 30 years of age. (2) This will make against himself, & nothing for limiting & restricking all to his last act of death. Therefore he addeth. That no action done after by Christ, can be accounted a Priestly action of expiation except only the offering of himself, & entering with his own blood into the heavens for us. But then (1) what will he do with his prayer & intercession before his death, specially John. 17? (2) There was more than expiation of sins requisite to bring us unto God; Therefore the High Priest was to carry that memorial on the front of his Mitre.

The learned Wendeline, in his Great System of Theology lib. 1. c. 25. Thes. 7. pag. 1116. &c. disputeth against the imputation of the Active obedience of Christ together with the Passive, making it only a Condition requisite in the Mediator, so as without it, he could not be our Mediator, & merit any thing to us, by his death: So that in his judgment, Christ's active obedience, whereby his obedience to the Law of God is understood, & that no doubt, moral, Ceremonial & Judicial, did only contribute to qualify him, to be a fit Mediator, which it seemeth then, according to him, he was not by his hypostatical union; & to put a value upon his passive obedience, (by which he understands his suffering & dying, so undergoing the Curse of the Law, & paying the penalty in our room) which his being God did not, as it would seem, sufficiently do: And thus all his acts of obedience, while under the Law, & in the state of humiliation, howbeit in all he may be conceived as a sufferer, are excluded from being any part of the Satisfaction, he was to make unto justice, & to the Law-giver, for us & in our room, or any part of that Righteousness, which is imputed to us, in order to Justification.

He first proposeth his Arguments & Vindicateth them, & then proposeth, some, used for the contrary opinion, adding his Answers.

His 1. Arg. is, Christ, as man, was bound to give active obedience to the Law, for himself; every Creature is bound to obey his Creator. Therefore it is not imputed unto us. Ans. The Antecedent is denied; neither doth the proof adduced confirm it; for the human Nature of Christ, now in the state of glory, is & will be a creature forever; Yea the confirmed angels, & Saints made perfect are Creatures, yet not subject to any Law as Viatores, but as Comprehensores; such was not the obedience of Christ, while in the flesh. He was obedient, as a Viator, but in respect of himself, he cannot be looked upon as a mere Viator, his Human Nature being personally united unto the divine, & subsisting therein, in respect whereof he became heir of all things, & Lord of life; & therefore stood in no need of working out a life of obedience for a crown to himself: wherefore, what he did as a Viator was for us, for whom he subjected himself, & became obedient, even to the death: And moreover all his acts of obedience were not the acts of obedience of a mere creature, out of one who was God-man; for his human Nature did not subsist of itself, and so did not of itself as a nature not subsisting, perform acts of obedience, but in the Godhead, & performed acts of obedience, as so subsisting. We have said enough to this at several occasions before.

It was Answered Christ was made man, not for himself, but for us; Therefore he obeyed not for himself, but for us, that is, in our place. He Replyeth. 1. The Anteced. is ambiguous: If you say Christ was made man for us, that is, for our good, it is granted, if for us, that is in our room, it is denied: for what Christ was made, in our place, that we are not bound to do & to be, as he was made a curse for us, that we might not be an eternal curse. But Christ by his Incarnation did not obtain, that we should no more be men, or be bound to do things congruous to human Nature. Ans. We grant that he was made man for us, not in our room, but for our good: Yet do hence gather, that he being made man for our good, to the end he might come under the Law, both as to its duty, & as to its curse, under both which we were lying, what he did, as well as what he suffered, while in that Condition, in order to the ends of his being made man, for our good, was in our room & stead; because this was our debt & he became man for our good, that in our stead, he might pay our debt. The reply is not grounded upon that word alone, he was made of a woman, but on that, with what followeth. Made of a woman, made under the Law. And if it would have necessarily followed, from his being made of a woman, that he would have been under the Law for himself; to what purpose was this added, made under the Law? And yet we see the main emphasis lieth here, because of what is added to redeem them, that were under the Law. And why did the same Apostle Phil. 2: 7, 8. after he had said, that he took upon him, the form of a servant, & was made in the likeness of men, & found in Fashion, as a man, tell us moreover, that he humbled himself, & became obedient unto death, seeing this did necessarily follow his being man, & that for himself? And may it not hence be inferred, that the exaltation afterward mentioned verse. 8, 9. was given to him, not as Mediator, but for himself, as an humble, obedient man?

He R • plieth 2. denying the Conseq. for (saith he) albert Christ was made man, not for his own, but for our good; Yet after he was made man, he was a man by himself, & therefore subject to the Law by himself, & for himself, as man • as after he assumed a body subject to corruption of itself, he stood in need for himself, of meat, drink, rest &c. As it was not necessary for man to be created, so nor for the Word to be incarnate, & to assume the form of a servant, but only upon supposition. Yet as man, being created, is necessarily subject to the Law of his Creator; So the Word being made man, is, as man, necessarily subject to the Law of God. Ans. (1) Christ, being made man, for our good, & particularly for this end, that he might come under the Law, & pay our debt, he was not subject to the Law for himself. (2) Though he was true man, having man's Nature, yet he was not made man, as other men are; for his human Nature had no subsistence of its own, as other men have; & therefore could not for itself be subject to the Law, as other men are. (3) How or what way Christ's body was subject to corruption, of itself, we need not here debate; it is sufficient, to note, that our question here is about moral actions as such, the performance of which was a part of our debt. (4) What is added, is but a repetion of what is denied, to wit that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the word, becoming man, did become, upon that account, necessarily subject to the Law for himself.

His 2. Arg. is. If Christ did perform active obedience, in our room, so as it might be imputed to us unto Righteousness, then we should be no longer obliged to perform active obedience to the Law. The reason of this, he taketh from the like, saying; as we are not obliged to undergo eternal death, because Christ hath sustained that, in our room. Ans. To this enough hath been said elsewhere: I shall only here say, That it will no more hence follow, than from the Satisfaction of Christ (whatever Socinians alleige) that we are loosed from all obedience to the Law; but only that we are loosed from that obedience, which was required, under the Old Covenant of works, to wit, to perfect obedience, & thereby obtain the prize, as our reward of debt; and fail in the least, & lose all, which were the Conditions of the Old Covenant; and as to this we deny the minor.

He replieth by denying, what is now in question, to wit, That Christ performed active obedience, in our room, to procure eternal life to us, affirming that he was bound to do it for himself, & so did merit nothing to ut thereby. Ans. This is but, what was said above; & hence it is clear, that, in his judgment, Christ wrought for the crown of glory to himself, & did merit it to himself: & so had no Right thereto before, by virtue of his hypostatical union, let be possession, albeit all the Angels were to worship him, & his throne was forever & ever Heb. 1: 6, 8.

He addeth. If notwithstanding of Christ's active satisfaction, we be obliged to satisfy actively; so, notwithstanding of his passive satisfaction we should be bound to satisfy passively, that is suffer eternal death. Ans. All the obedience now required, is no satisfaction to the Old Covenant-Conditions: Christ hath satisfied that, and left no part thereof for us to do; And therefore it will not follow, that we are bound to suffer eternal death, or any part of the Curse, as such.

To that answer, that some gave, that by Christ's active obedience we have this advantage, that we are more obliged unto rigide & exact obedience. He replieth. That then we should not sin by short-coming, or negligence. Ans. But by that rigide & exact obedience, is not meaned full conformity unto the Law; but such a conformity, as was the Condition of the Old Covenant, as is said; that is, we are now freed from obtaining the crown, or right thereto by perfect conformity (which to us is impossible) & from loseing of the crown upon the least escape or failing. All obedience runneth now in another channel, though the commands & the Law, as a Law & rule of walk, remain the same.

His 3. Arg. is. The Scripture everywhere, speaking of our justification & pardon, mentioneth Christ's passive, & not his active obedience. As Isaiah. 53: 5, 6. Rom. 3: 24, 25. & 5: 9. Gal. 3: 13. 1. John. 1: 7. Ans. It is denied, that the Scripture doth everywhere mentione only Christ's passive obedience, and the contrary hath been frequently shown. And as to the places mentioned, none of them contain any exclusive particle, or hinte the exclusion of his active obedience: And our Adversaries themselves must understand these & the like passages, Synecdochically, other ways they shall exclude Christ's soul sufferings, as well, as his active obedience, & restrick all to his death & blood shed on the cross; which yet they will not do.

Now followeth his answer to some Arguments for the contrary Arg. 1. Two things are required unto our Salvation, delivery from death, & the gift of life; that is had by expiation of sin by his suffering, this by the donation of Righteousness, or imputation of his active obedience.

He answereth. The passive obedience of Christ both expiateth sin, & giveth life, his death giveth life 1. Pet. 2: 24, & 3: 18. Ans. True, but the reason is, because it was the death of one, who had fulfilled all Righteousness: we need not speak of his obedience & of his sufferings, so distinctly, as to ascribe to each severally, these several effects; It is better, I judge, to take both conjunctly, as one complete Righteousness, for us, & one meritorious cause of all the benefits procured thereby.

Arg. 3. (for the Arg. 2. I pass, as judging it not cogent.) The actual disobedience of Adam made us sinners.

He answereth. If by actual obedience of Christ, in the Conseq. his active obedience be understood (for his passive may also be called actual, in that actually & not potentially only he suffered) & that imputed to us, the consequence is denied: for Christ's passive obedience imputed hath restored unto us what we lost by Adam's disobedience. Ans. But thus the comparison, that Paul maketh Rom. 5. betwixt Adam's disobedience & Christ's obedience is taken away: He opposeth the Righteousness of Christ to the offense of Adam: now Christ's death & suffering is nowhere called his Righteousness: So he opposeth obedience to disobedience, & therefore, as the disobedience was the violation of the Law, obedience must be the keeping of the Law. Christ's death imputed is no Righteousness answering the commands of the Law; and therefore, though it did merit the recovery of what we lost in Adam, being the death of one, that fulfilled all Righteousness; Yet considered abstractly, by itself without his active obedience, it cannot be our formal Righteousness, with which we must be covered & as having which we must be considered, when justified of God, who pronunceth none Righseous, but such as are Righteous indeed.

Arg. 4. With Christ's active obedience, his passive was conjoined.

He ans. Denying the conseq. that therefore the one cannot be imputed without the other: for things conjunct can be distinguished; & as the one can be known, so also imputed without the other. Ans. But they are so conjoined, as being integral parts of one complete Surety-Righteousness & Satisfaction for our debt; & therefore belong to his Estate of humiliation; during which in all his obedience there was suffering, for a part of his subjection was, that he was made under the Law, even under the commanding power thereof; because other ways, being God & Man in one person, he was not subject to the Law, as a Viator, in reference to himself. So in all his sufferings, there was obedience. And what is thus inseparably conjoined, we ought not to separate, especially seeing our case & necessity calleth for the imputation of both.

Arg. 5. If only Christ's passive obedience were imputed, then only the half of Christ should be given unto us; contrary to Isaiah, 9: 6.

He Ans. denying the Conseq. because it is one thing to be given to us, & another thing to be imputed, even Christ's humanity & deity is given unto us. Ans. But Christ was so given, as that all he did & suffered, as such a given & public person & which our case called for, was to be made over to us, in order to our receiving the grand benefits of pardon & life: Now it was necessary for us, to have a Righteousness, consisting in perfect obedience to the Law, because of that Constitution, Do this & live, & Suffering, as such, is no obedience to the Law.

He addeth. Their opinion is hard, who deny that Christ's passive obedience is imputed to us unto Righteousness, & that it is the cause of the reward, or of life eternal. How could Christ's blood purge us from all sin, if it were not the Cause of our Righteousness? how should he give his flesh for the life of the world, if life were not restored to us thereby; ho • should we be healed by his stripes, if we were not sanctified by him? how should Christ's death be our life, if we gote not life thereby? betwixt freedone from the Curse of the Law, & right to the everlasting inherita • ce, there is no middle state. Ans. (1) We deny only, that Christ's passive obedience alone is imputed to us, unto Righteousness; for alone considered, being only the paying of the penalty, it is not the Righteousness required in the Law. (2) The paying of a penalty, though it may deliver from punishment; yet cannot procure a right to the reward, promised to keeping of the Law; as is manifest; & therefore Christ's passive obedience, considered alone, cannot procure a right to that reward of life, that was promised to the fulfilling of the Law by obedience. (3) Christ's blood, being the blood of one, that fulfilled also the Law; and conjunct with that obedience, both purgeth from sin, & meriteth life: And so we say of the rest following; only I cannot see how pertinently, in the last, sanctification is mentioned; for we are speaking of right to life eternal. (4) It is true, as to us now, there is no midd'le state, betwixt freedom from the Curse of the Law, & Right to the Inheritance • because Christ's whole obedience both active & passive is imputed, as a complete Satisfaction & Righteousness, whereby we come to obtain both a freedom from the Curse, & a right to the Inheritance: But in Adam before he fell, there was a middle state, for so long as he stood, he was free of the Curse, & yet was to finish his course of obedience, in order to obtaining the right to the promised reward; unless it be said, that no more was promised, than the continuance of what he possessed.

It was excpted, That the Law is not fulfilled by suffering the punishment: for the Law & the command is one; but punishment fulfilleth not the commandment, it only satisfieth the threatening. Therefore the suffering of the punishment cannot be the cause of the reward.

He ans. by denying the Antec. & saying, that by suffering of the punishment the Law is fulfilled by the Mediator, partly formally, in that he suffered the punishment due to us by the Law, partly efficiently, in that by his sufferings he not only took away the Curse, but acquired a holiness to us, & with holiness, life eternal. Ans. This answer is no way satisfying; for suffering of the punishment, as such, is no obedience to the Law; and of the fulfilling of the Law by obedience to the commands thereof, did the Exception only speak, no man will say, that such as are now suffering the punishment in hell, are any way fulfilling the Law. Neither is that holiness, procured by Christ's death, any fulfilling of the Law, according to the Old Covenant; & such a fulfilling is required, in order to the obtaining of a right to the reward of life, promised in that Covenant.

He answereth again, that when the threatening of the Law is satisfied, that is done, which the Law commandeth to be done; & so in part the Law is fulfilled. Ans. Suffering as such is no commanded thing, & the Law constituting a penalty, maketh only suffering to be due, but doth not enjoine any suffering: So that though the Law be satisfied with a Satisfaction laid down by another, so far as that the other is not to suffer; Yet by this paying of the penalty, the Laws commands are not fulfilled, in whole, nor in part; And the Law, as to the commands, must be fulfilled, ere a right to the reward, promised to obedience • , be obtained.

Arg. 6. is taken, from passages of Scripture, mentioning the active obedience of Christ, such as Dan. 9: 24. Ier. 23: 6. 1. Cor. 1: 30. Rom. 5: 19. Phil. 2: 8.

He Ans. 1. That these places do not prove, that Christ's active obedience is imputed, so as by it we are accounted observers of the Law. Ans. These passages sufficiently prove, that his active obedience belongeth to that Righteousness & Satisfaction, which is imputed unto us; & the fruits of the Righteousness of Christ, imputed, are here as well ascribed to his active, as to his passive obedience: of the places in particular, we have said enough elsewhere: our dispute here is not about imputation, but about that which is imputed, or that, which is reckoned to us, as our Righteousness, & this, we say, cannot be pure suffering of the penalty; for that, as such, is no Righteousness nor nowhere is it so called.

He Ans. 2. That it only followeth, that the reforming of our corrupt nature could not be had from Christ & by Christ, without his active obedience. Ans. The same may as well be said of the passive obedience; & so the cause shall be yielded unto the Socinians: But the matter is clear. That Christ is our complete Righteousness, not effectivly: for he worketh no complete legal Righteousness in us, that is a Righteousness according, as was required in the Old Covenant: And beside the expiation of sin, he brought in a Righteousness, which is called everlasting Dan. 9: 24. which cannot be understood of our imperfect sanctification. And beside that he is our Sanctification, he is our Righteousness 1. Cor. 1: 30. & therefore must be our Righteousness another way, than by working it in us; for so is he our Sanctification. And Rom. 5. our justification & life is directly ascribed to his Obedience & Righteousness.

To that Phil. 2: 8. he saith. The meaning is, that Christ from his birth to his death, did so accommodate himself to his Fathers will, that he suffered all most patiently, that was to suffer, even the cursed death of the cross. Ans. It was a suffering of what he was to suffer, even to come under the Law, for that was a part of his humiliation; & the text saith, he humbled himself, & became obedient; and there is no ground to restrick the word Obedient, to his suffering only.

Arg. 7. Christ was made under the Law for us Gal. 4: 4, 5.

He Ans. He was made under the Law for our good, that he might be a fit Mediator. Ans. Why may not we as well admit the same sense of Christ's being said to be made a curse for us, to wit, that it was only for our good; and so give up the Cause to the Socinians? Then it seemeth all the Hypostatical union, & his having the Spirit, without measure, was not sufficient to make him a fit Redeemer for us. Nor was he a fit Mediator, until he had finished his whole course of obedience. And yet he was borne a Savior Luk. 2: 11. And was the Lord's Christ verse. 26. & Salvation verse. 50.

Arg. 8. We are made acceptable unto God in the beloved, Christ, Ephes. 1: 6.

He Ans. We are acceptable to God by inherent obedience, which Christ hath purchased by his sufferings. Ans. But the Text is to be understood of a being made acceptable, in order to our obtaining the redemption, mentioned verse. 7. that is, the forgiveness of sins; & so cannot be meaned of that acceptation, which is upon our inherent holiness, which followeth our Justification & Pardon.

Arg. 9. Christ hath purchased his Church, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle Ephes. 5: 27.

He Ans. That Christ did purchase by his death the churches inherent Righteousness. Ans. This is granted. But not withstanding▪ the expressions here used, & in the foregoing verse, will hold forth a full cleansing, not only from the stain & power of sin, in Sanctification; but also from the guilt of sin in justification, the Church must be presented without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, & cleansed with the washing of water, & holy & without blemish: Now in order to justification, the sinner must be clothed with a complete Righteousness.

Arg. 10. Believers are found in Christ, having a Righteousness Phil. 3: 9. How forceable this place proveth our point, hath been shown elsewhere.

He Ans. The Righteous • ess of Faith is twofold, one is imputed & apprehended by Faith, which is Christ's passive obedience; the other is inherent, which is also by Faith. Ans. But Paul here layeth by all his inherent Righteousness, which was his own, & was according to the Law; & only betaketh himself, to that Righteousness, which is of God by Faith: & this is not to be restricked to Christ's sufferings only; for these, as such are not a Righteousness, as hath been oft said, & the contrary hath never yet been proved, though it be the main ground of all.

Arg. 11. We are perfect & complete in Christ Col. 2: 10.

He Ans. Christ maketh us perfect in justifying, sanctifying & glorifying us, by the imputation ef his passive obedience only. Ans. This is but to assert the thing, that is a disproving: we say, we cannot be justified, without the imputation of a complete Righteousness, because in justification we receive a right to life, & this cannot be had, according to the Constitution of God, do this & live, till the Law be satisfied by obedience, & because we could not do it, we must have it in & from Christ, in whom we are complete, & have all, we need.

Arg. 12. Christ hath delivered us from all our debt, both of yielding perfect obedience, & of suffering for disobedience Col. 2: 14.

He Ans. He denieth this, & saith; Christ hath not delivered us from giving perfect obedience, for we remain obliged thereunto, & wherein we come short it is pardoned for his satisfaction imputed to us, & it is piece & piece made up by begun holiness, which hereafter shall be perfected. Ans. This looseth not the force of the argument; for though we be obliged to keep the Law in all points, yet we are not under that obligation, by virtue of the Old Covenant, so that the least breach should frustrate us of heaven, & so as the reward should be of debt, and of this obligation the Argument is to be understood: Now because, by virtue of this Covenant, which must be satisfied, we cannot partake of the prize, because it is violated, therefore, it must be satisfied by the perfect obedience of another, of our Surety, which must be imputed unto us, in order to life; for all our begun sanctification will not avail us; & Christ's satisfying by his suffering, according to that, that day thou eats, thou shalt die, doth not withal satisfy that other part of the Law, do this & live.

Arg. 13. We must not only not be unjust, but we must be just, if we would have life eternal. Therefore Christ's Righteousness must be imputed, as well as his death.

He Ans. denying the Conseq. And saith. We are freed from the Curse of the Law by Justification, whereby the Passive Righteousness of Christ is imputed to us: Purity is begun in us in Sanctification. Ans. By justification we have no Righteousness imputed to us, for we must be Righteous, before we be justified; & therefore must have a Righteousness imputed before. (2) Our begun Sanctification, is no purchase of the reward of life (3) delivery from the Curse, is but a freeing us from punishment, or from the guilt of punishment, but this is nothing but a being not unjust, as Adam was before he fell; It is not a being positivly just, in order to the reward; for to this is required complete obedience to the Law, & that unto the end, in which respect Adam was never just, having never finished his course of obedience, that he might have had a right unto the reward promised, I mean in himself.

CHAP. X.

The Fathers give Countenance to the Doctrine of Imputation; and some Papists approve it.

THat it may not be thought, that the Doctrine of the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, is a new up-start opinion, I shall here set down some of their Testimonies unto this truth▪

Justin. Martyr. Epist. ad Diognet. p. 386. Quid enim aliud peccata nostra potuit tegere, quam ejus justitia? in quo alio nos iniqui & impii pro justis haberi possumus, quam in solo Dei filio? O dulcem permutationem! o impervestigabile artificium! O beneficia expectationem omnem superentia! ut iniquitas quidem multorum in justo uno abscondatur; justitia autem unius faciat, ut multi injusti pro justis habeantur. i. e. for what else could cover out sins, but his (i. e. Christ's) Righteousness? in whom else, could we, who are naked & ungodly, be accounted for Righteous persons? than only in the Son of God? O sweet permutation! O unsearchable Contrivance! O benefits exceeding all expectation! that the iniquity of many should be hid in one just one, & the Righteousness of one should make many, who are unrighteous, be accounted Righteous.

Again in lib. de Expositione fidei. Filius Dei, quatenus homo, vitam ab crimine remotam traduxit; mortemque voluntariam pertulit; per exactam & accuratam Conversationem, peccatum obliterans, & per mortem indebitam debitum delens. i. e. The Son of God, as Man, led a life free of all fault, and suffered a voluntary death; obliterating sin by his exact & accurat Conversation, & deleting the debt by an undue death.

Irenaeus Adv Haeres. c. 15. Dominus in Amicitiam nos reduxit per suam in • arnationem, mediator De • & hominum factus, propitians quidem pro nobis Patrem, in quem peccaveramus, & nostram inobedientiam Consolatus: nobis autem donans eam, quae est ad Factorem nostrum, Conversationem & Subjectionem. i. e. The Lord brought us into friend shipe by his Incarnation, being made a Mediator betwixt God & Man, Propitiating the Father for us, against whom we sinned & comforting us over our disobedience: but freely giving us that Conversation & Subjection, which is to our Maker.

Athanasius Tom. 2. p. 270. Necessarium est, maximeque necessarium, • re • dere Scriptures Sanctis, confiteri ex nostro genere primitias, celebrare singularem • assumentis in genus humanum amorem, obstu pescere magnâ oeconomiae atque dispo sitionis miraculum, non timere execrationem legis (Christus enim nos a maledictione legis liberavit) impletionem legis a primitiis factam toti massae asscribere (imputare, in the Greek it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) i. e. It is necessary, yea most necessary, to believe the holy Scriptures, to confess the first fruits (i. e. Christ) of our kind, to celebrat that singular love of him that assumed ( viz. Mans Nature) unto mankind; to be astonished at that miracle of the great Oeconomie & disposition; not to fear the Curse of the Law (for Christ hath delivered us from the Curse of the Law) ascribe or impute the fulfilling of the Law, done by the first fruits, unto the whole mass.

The same Author de Incarn. Verbi contra Samosat. Tom. 1. p. 461. Impossible est puritatem & innoeentiam in humana natura exhiberi, nisi Deus credatur in carne esse, qui justitiam omni peccato liberam in mundum introduxit, cujus quia participes redditi sumus, vivemus & salvabimur. Illud enim non est justus in terra, qui bonum faciat, & non peccet, in commune, ad omnes homines pertinet, unde ex coelo descendit, qui immaculatam ex se justitiam daturus erat. i. e. It is impossible that purity & innocence shall be exhibited in man's nature, unless we believe, that God is in the flesh, who hath brought into the world a Righteousness free of all sin, of which because we are made partakers, we shall live & be saved: for that there is not a just man upon earth, who doth good & sinneth not, doth appertain to all men in common, wherefore he descended from heaven, who was to give a pure Righteousness of himself.

Chrysost. When a Cavilling jew shall object, how can the world be saved by the Rectitude, or Obedience of one Christ? Answer him again, by asking, how came the world to be condemned by the disobedience of one Adam?

Greg. Nyssen. Orat. 2. iu Cantic. Christus in se transtatis peccatorum meorum sordibus, puritatem suam mecum communicavit; meque pulchritudinis ejus, quae in ipso est, participem fecit. i. e. Christ having translated the filth of my fins upon himself, did communicate unto me his own purity, & made me a partaker of that beauty, which is in him.

By these we may see, that even before Augustine's days, this Truth was asserted, though Mr. Baxter, in his book against D. Tully Ch. 1. § 3. intimate the contrary.

Cyrillus Alexander. in John. lib. 11. c. 25. Quemadmodum praevaricatione primihominis, ut in primitiis generis nostri, morti addicti sumus: eodem modo per obedient • am & justitiam Christi, in 〈◊〉 seipsum legi subjec • quamvis legis Author esset, benedictio atque vivificatio, quae per Spiritum est, ad totam nostram penetravit naturam. i. e. As by the transgression of the first man, as in the first fruits of our kind, we are adjudged unto death; so the same way by the Obedience & Righteousness of Christ, in as much as he subjected himself to the Law, though he was the Author of the Law, the blessing & Vivification, which is by the Spirit, did reach to our whole Nature.

Leo Epist. 72. ad Iuvenalem. Ut autem repararet omnium vitam, recepit omnium causam, & vim veteris chirographi pro omnibus solvendo vacuavit: ut sicut per unius reatum omnes facti f • erant peccatores, ita per unius innocentiam, omnes fierent innocents, inde in homines manante justitia, ubi est humana suscepta Natura. i. e. But that he might repair the life of all, he undertook the cause of all, & paying for all made void the force of the Old obligation, to the end that as by one man's guilt all were made sinners, so by one man's innocence, all might become innocent; Righteousness coming unto men thence, where the human Nature is taken on.

August. ad Laurent. Cap. 41. Ipse peccatum, ut nos justitia; nec nostra, sed Dei sumus: nee in nobis, sed in ipso; sicut ipse peccatum, non suum, sed nostrum, nec in se, sed in nobis constitutum, similitudine peccati, in qua crucifixus est, demonstravit. i. e. He was sin as we were Righteousness, not our own, but of God, not in ourselves but in him: as he did demonstrate himself to be sin, not his own, but ours; not in himself, but in us, by the similitude of sinful flesh, in which he was crucified.

Idem in Psal. 30. Cone. 1. in tua justitia erue me & exime me, quia non invenisti in me justitiam meam, erue me in tua, hoc est illud, quod me eruit, quod me justificat, quod ex impio pium facit, quod ex iniquo justum. i. e. Deliver me in thy Righteousness. Because thou didst not find my Righteousness in me, deliver me in thine; that is it which delivereth me, which justifieth me, that maketh me of ungodly godly, & of unrighteous Righteous.

Id. in Psal. 70. Erue me in justitia tua, non in mea, sed in tua; si enim in mea, er • exillis, de quibus ill ait, ignorantes Dei justitiam, & suam volentes constituere, justitiae Dei non sunt subjecti. i. e. Deliver me in thy Righteousness. Not in mine, but in thine; for if in mine, I should be of them, of whom he saith, being ignorant of God's Righteousness & willing to establish their own, they did not subject themselves unto the Righteousness of God.

Id. Tom. 9. Tract. 3. in John. Omnes qui ex Adamo cum peccato, peccatores, omnes qui per Christum justificati, justi; non in se, sed in illo; nam in se, si interroges, Adam sunt; in illo si interroges, Christi sunt. i. e. All that are of Adam with sin are sinners, all who are justified by Christ, are Righteous; not in themselves, but in him; for if you ask, what they are in themselves, they are Adam's; if you ask what they are in him, they are Christ's.

Bernard. Serm. 61. in Cantic. Nunquid justitias meas? Domine, memorabor justitiae tuae solius: Ipsa est enim & mea; nempe factus es mihi tu justitia a Deo. Nunquid verendum, ne non una duobus sufficiat? non est pallium breve, quod secundum Prophetam, non possit operireduos, justitia tua justitia in aeternum, & te pariter & me opertet larga & aeterna justiti • , & in me quidem operit multitudinem delictorum. i. e. Shall I make mention of my Righteousness? Lord, I will make mention of thine only: for that is also mine, because thou art made of God unto me Righteousness. Is it to be feared that that one shall not serve two? It is not a short cloak, that according to the Prophet, cannot cover two; thy Righteousness is an everlasting Righteousness, & that large & eternal Righteousness shall cover both thee & me, & in me indeed it shall cover a multitude of sins.

Id. Dom. 1. post Octav. Epiph. Serm. 1. Veruntamen, ut jam non sit quod causeris, O homo, contra inobedientiam Adae, datur tibi obedientia Christi, ut si gratis venundatus es, gratis & redimaris. i. e. But, that thou ô man, should not have whereof to complean, fore against the disobedience of Adam ( which he said before, was imputed ) the obedience of Christ is given unto thee, to the end, that if thou be sold for nothing, thou shalt also be redeemed for nothing.

Idem Epist. 190. ad Innocent. Pont. Rom. Quid namque ex se agere poterat, ut semel amissam justitiam recuperaret homo, servus peccati, vinctus diaboli? assignata est ei proinde aliena, qui carui • sua, & ipsa sic est. Venit Princeps mundi & in Salvatore non invenit quicquam, & cum nihilominus innocenti manus injecit, justissime quos tenebat amisit; quando is qui morti nihil debebat, accepta mortis injuria, jure illum qui obnoxius erat & mortis debito & Diaboli solvit Dominio Qua enim justitia id secundo exigeretur? homo siquidem qui debuit, homo qui solvit: nam si unus, inquit, pro omnibus mortuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt, ut viz sa • factio unius omnibus imputetur, sicut omnium peccata unus ill portavit, nec alter jam inveniatur, qui forte fecit, alter qui satisfecit, quia Caput & Corpus unus est Christus. Satisfecit ergo Caput pro membris; Christus pro Visceribus suis &c. quod si dixerit, Pater tuus addixit te, Respondeb • , sed Frater men's redemit me, cur non aliunde justitia, quia aliunde reatus? alius qui peccatorem constituit, alius qui justificat a peccato? alter in semine, alter in sanguine. An peccatum in semine peccatoris, & non justitia in sanguine Christi? - non convenit filium portare iniquitatem patris, & fratern • fieri exortem justitiae. i. e. For what could man, a servant of sin & a bound slave of the devil, do of himself, to recover the Righteousness, which he had once lost? Therefore another is assigned unto him, because he wanted his own, & the same is so. The Prince of the world came, & found nothing in the Savior, & when notwithstanding he put hands on the Innocent, he lost those most justly, when he held; when he, who owed nothing to death, having received the injury of death, he did by right loose him, who was liable to the debt of death, & deliver him from the Dominion of Satan, for by what Right could he exact that the second time? seeing as it was man, who owed, so it was man, who paid: for if one, he saith, died for all, then are all dead, that, to wit, the Satisfaction of one, might be imputed to all, as that one did bear the sins of all; Neither now is it found, that one did the wrong & another satisfied, for the Head & the body are one Christ: the Head therefore did satisfy for the members; Christ for his own bowels. But if he shall say. Thy Father bound thee over; I shall answer, but my Brother hath redeemed me, why should not Righteousness be from another; as guilt was from another▪ one who made man a sinner, & another who justifieth from sin; the one in the seed, the other in blood. Was sin in the seed of a sinner; & shall not Righteousness be in the blood of Christ. It is not right, that the Son should bear the iniquity of the Father, & be defrauded of the Righteousness of his Brother.

Idem Serm. ad Milites Templi c. 1. Qui peccati meritum tulit, suam nobis donando justitiam; ipse meritis debitum solvit, & reddit vitam; sic namque mortua morte, revertitur vita, quemadmodum ablato peccato redit justitia; porro mors in Christi morte fugatur, & Christi nobis justitia imputatur &c. Qui nostram & induit carnem & subiit mortens, putas suam nobis negabit justitiam? Voluntarie incarnatus, voluntarit passus, voluntary crucifixus, solam à nobi • retinebit justitiam; afterward ibid. Unus peccavit & omnes tenentur rei, & unius innocentia soli reputabitur uni? Unius peccatum omnibus operatum est mortem, & unius justitia uni vi • am restituet? Haud Dei justitia magis ad condemn • ndum, quam ad restaurandum valuit? aut plus potutt Adam in malo, quàm Christus in bono? Adae peccatum imputabitur mihi, & Christi justitia non pertinebit ad me? i. e. He who took away the desert of sin, giving to us his Righteousness, the same by his merits, paid the debt, & restored life; for if death be dead, life returneth; even as sin being taken away, Righteousness returneth: Moreover death is banished away in Christ's death, and Christ Righteousness is imputed to us &c. He who took on our flesh, & underwent death, thinks thou, that he shall deny to us his Righteoysness? He who willingly was incarnate, willingly suffered, willingly was crucified, shall he withhold his Righteousness from us?-one man sinned & all are guilty, & shall the innocence of one be accounted only to one? One man's sin hath wrought death unto all, & shall the Righteousness of one restore life only to one? Shall God's Righteousness be more powerful to condemn, than to restore? Could Adam do more in sin, than Christ in good? Shall Adam's sin be imputed unto me, & shall not Christ's Righteousness belong unto me?

Ambrose. lib. 3. de Virginit. p. 100. Om • ia Jesus est nobis si volumus. Si vulnus curari defideras, Medicus est: Si febribus aestuas, sons est: Si gravaris iniquitate, justitia est: si auxilio indiges, virtus est: Si mortem times, vita est: si c • lum desideras, via est: si tenebras fugis, luxest: si cibum quaeris, alimentum est. i. e. Christ is all things to us, if we be willing, if thou desirest to have thy wound cured, he is the chyrurgen: if thou burn with fevers, he is a fountain: If thou be burdened with sin, he is Righteousn • ss: If thou want help, he is virtue: If thou fear death, he is the life: if thou desirest heaven, he is the way: If thou fleest from darkness, he is light: if thou seek meat, he is aliment.

Idem de side lib. 2. c. 4. O sides the sauris omnibus opulentior! O vulnerum nostrorum peccatorumque medicina praestantior! Consideremus, quia nobis prodest been credere. Mihi enim prodest scire, quia propter me Christus suscepit infirmitates meas, mei corporis subiit passions, pro me peccatum, - pro me maledictum factus est, pro me atque in me subditus atque subjectus. i. e. O faith more rich than all treasures! O most excellent medicine for all our wounds & sins! Let us consider, for it is profitable for us to believe well: It is profitable for me to know, because Christ for me took on my infirmities, he underwent the passions of my body, he was made sin for me-for me was he made a curse, for me & in me, was he made a subject.

Macarius Homil. 20. Quicunque enim in propria sua justitiâ & redemptione consistit, in vanum & cassum laborabit; nam omnis opinio de propria justitia concepta, tanquam pannus menstruat • mulieris, in novissimo die manifestabitur, sicut inquit Isaiah Propheta-Petamus itaque & obtestemur Deum, ut induat nobis vestem salutis, Dominum nostrum, Jesum, Christum, ineffabilem lucem, quem ferentes animae in aeternum non exuentur. i. e. Who ever standeth in his own Righteousness & redemption laboreth in vain: for all conceived opinion of our own Righteousness shall be manifest to be a menstruous cloth, in the last day, as the Prophet Isaiah saith - Let us ask therefore; & beseek the Lord, that he would cloth us with the garment of Salvation our Lord Jesus Christ, that ineffable light, whom if our souls put on & wear, they shall never be denuded thereof.

Even some Papists of old, (though few or none now since the Council at Trent, ) did assent unto this Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ.

In Colon there was a book written an. 1475. directing, how to comfort dying persons, wherein these words are found. Age ergo dum superest in te anima, in hac sola morte fiduciam tuam constitue, in nulla re fiduciam habe, huic mortite totum committee, hac sola tetotum contege, totum immisce te in hac morte, in hac morte totum te involve; & si Dominus Deus te voluerit judicare, dic Domine, mortem D.N.I.C. objicio inter me & tuum judicium, aliter • ecum non contendo. Et si tibi dixerit, quia peccatores, dic mortem D.N.I.C. pono inter te & peccata mea. Si dixerit tibi quod meruisti damnationem, dic Domine, mortem D.N.I.C. obtendo inter te & mala mea merita, ipsiusque merita offero pro merito, quod ego debuissem habere, nec habeo, Si dixerit, quod tibi est iratus, dic, Domine, mortem D.N.I.C. oppono inter me & iram tuam. i. e. Go to then, while thy soul is in thee, put all thy confidence in this death alone, have confidence in no other thing, commit thyself wholly unto this death, cover thy self wholly with this death alone, mixe thyself wholly in this death, roll thyself wholly in this death; & if the Lord will judge thee, say, Lord, I cast up the death of our Lord. J. C. betwixt me & thy judgment; no other way do I contend with thee. And if he say to thee, that thou art a sinner, say, I put the death of the Lord Jesus Christ betwixt thee & my sins. If he say, that thou hast deserved damnation, say, Lord, I hold forth the death of our Lord J. C. betwixt thee & my evil merits; & I offer his merits, for the merit, which I should have had, & have not. If he say, that he is angry at thee; say, Lord, I set up the death of our Lord J. C. betwixt me & thine anger.

Isidorus Clarius Orat. 40. in Luc. Nos dicimus neque fide primo, neque charitate, sed una Dei justitiâ in Christo nobis impertitâ justificari. i. e. We say, we are justified at first neither by faith, neither by charity, but by the Righteousness of God alone in Christ, bestowed upon us.

Albertus Pighius Controv. 2. de side. Fortassis etiam nostram hanc damnarent (n. Scholastici) sententiam, qua propriam, & 〈◊〉 ex suis operibus esset 〈◊〉 Deo, justitiam derogamus omnibus Adae filiis, & docuimus una Dei in Christo niti nos pesse justitid, una illa justos coram Deo, destitutos propria, nisi hoc ipsum astruxissemus aliquanto diligentius. i. e. It may be they (i. e. the Scholasticks) would condemn this opinion of ours, whereby we take away from all the Sons of Adam, their own Righteousness, which is of their own works, before God, & did teach, that we must lean upon the Righteousness of God, in Christ, alone, & that by that alone, we are Righteous before God though destitute of our own, if we had not confirmed it a little more diligently.

Idem ibid. Nam quod nen operibus nostris, non in justitia nostra, sed in una ignoscente iniquitates nostras misericordia, benevolenti • erga nos divinae, & salutis a Deo assignandae nobis spes sit Davidis Testimonio Apost. ad Rom. comprobans, non alia justiti • niti nos posse, nisi quam imputari nobis absque nostris operibus affirmat-non dicit, beati qui ex operibus suis justi coram Deo sunt, beatus vir, qui non commisit, nec fecit injustitiam, sad beati, quorum a Deo misericorditer remissae sunt iniquitates quorum ipse, sua justitia tegit & abscendit peccata. i. e. That our hope of the Lord's good will, & of life is not by our works, nor in our Righteousness, but only in the mercy of God, forgiving iniquities, Paul to the Rom. confirmeth by the testimony of David, proving to us, that we may lean to no other Righteousness, but that, which he affirmeth to be imputed to us without our works.—He saith not blessed are they, who are Righteous before God by their own works; blessed is the man, that hath done no iniquity; but blessed are they, whose iniquities are mercifully pardoned, whose sins he covereth, and hideth with his own Righteousness.

Thereafter the same man saith. In illo ergo justificamur coram Deo, non in nobis, non nostra sed illius justitia, quae nobis cum illo jam communicantibus imputatur. Propriae justitiae inopes extra nos in illo docemur justitiam quaerere. Cum inquit, qui peccatum non noverat, pro nobis peccatum fecit, hoc est hostiam pecc • ti expiatricem, ut nos efficeremur justitia Dei in ipso: non nostra, sed Dei justitia justi efficimur in Christo: quo jure? Amicitiae, quae communionem omnium inter amicos facit, juxta vetus & celebratissimum proverbium, Christo insertis, conglutinatis & unitis, & sua nostra facit, suas divitias nobis communicate, suam justitiam inter Patris judicium & nostram injustitiam interponito, & sub ea, veluti sub umbone & clypeo, a divina, quam commeruimus, ira nos abscondit, tuetur ac protegit, imo tandem nobis impertit, & nostram facit, qua tecti, ornatique audacter & secure jam divino nos sistamus tribunali & judicio; justique non solum appareamus, sed etiam simus. i. e. In him (that is, Christ) therefore are we justified before God, not in ourselves; not by our own but by his Righteousness, which is imputed to us, when now we communicate with him. Being void of a Righteousness of our own he teacheth us to seek a Righteousness, without ourselves; in him, when he saith he made him sin for us, who knew no sin, that is, he made him a sacrifice for sin, that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him. By what Law? By that of friendship, which maketh a community of all things among friends, according to the old & well known proverb. Being insert into Christ glued & united unto him, he maketh what is his to be ours, he communicateth unto us his riches, he interposeth his Righteousness betwixt the Fathers judgment & our unrighteousness, and under it, as under a shield, he hideth, defendeth, & protecteth us from God's wrath, which we had deserved; Yea at length giveth it to us, & maketh it ours; with which being covered & adorned, we may boldly & saifly sist ourselves before the Tribunal of God, and we not only appear Righteous, but also are Righteous.

Ruardus Tapperus Tom. 2. Art. 8. p. 36. Sicut Christo nostra scelera a Patre, ob spontaneam eorum assumptionem, & corporis mystici intimam unionem, imputantur: ita ejus justitia, quasi capitis, nobis ejus membris, ad justitiam & via • m aeternam imputatur. i. e. As our iniquities were imputed by God unto Christ, because of his voluntary assuming of them, & of the near union of the mystical body: so his Righteousness, as head to us his members, is imputed unto us unto Righteousness, & life eternal.

Yea Bellarm. granteth lib. 2. de justif. C. 10. That Christ may be called our Righteousness, because he satisfied the Father for us, & did so give & communicate that Satisfaction to us, when he justifieth us, that it may be called our Satisfaction & Righteousness. And again; this way it were not absurd to say, that Christ's Righteousness & merits were imputed to us, when they are given & applied to us, as if we ourselves had satisfied God. So in Resp. ad 3. Arg. We are said to be the Righteousness of God, not in ourselves, but in Christ, because he is our head, & what agreeth to th • head, agreeth to the members, not as they are distinct from the head, but as they are one with it. So c. 11. in Resp. ad Arg. 2. The similitude of putting on agarment may be saifly accommodat unto imputed Righteousness; if one say, we must put on Christ's merits, & some way be covered with them, seek pardon of sins. cap. 7. Arg. 4. he saith Christ's merits are imputed to us, because gifted to us, & we may offer them to the Father for our sins, because Christ took upon him the burden of satisfying for us, & of reconciling us to God the Father. Thus he

After Cardinal Bellarmine. we may mention Cardinal Contarenus, who is more orthodox here, than any of them; & speaketh as plain truth, as any of the orthodox themselves can do: for so doth he, in Tract. de Iustif. state the question. Quoniam ad duplicem justitiam pervenimus, per fidem, justitiam inharentem nobis & charitatem ac gratiam, qua efficimur consortes divina naturae; & justitiam Christi nobis donatam & imputatam, quoniam inserti sumus Christi, & induimus Christum: Praetat inquirere Utra-nam debeamus niti, & existimare nos justificari coram Deo, id est, justos & Sanctos haberi. i. e. Because by faith we obtain a twofold Righteousness, one inherent in us, love & grace, whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature; the other the Righteousness of Christ, given & imputed to us, because in • ert into Christ, & because we have put on Christ: It is fittest to Enquire, unto which of these we ought to lean ourselves, & account ourselves justified before God, that is looked upon as Righteous & holy.

The question thus proposed he thus determineth. Ego prorsus existimo, pi • & Christian • egrave, di • i, quod debeamus niti (niti inquimus, tanquam rei stabili, quae cert • nos sustentet) justitia Christinobis donota, non autem justitia & sanctitate nobis inhaerente: h • c enim nostra justitia est inch • ata & imperfecta, quae impedirenon potest, quin assidue pe • cemus; idcirco in conspectu Dei possumus ebb hanc justitiam haberi justi & boni, quemadmedum deceret filios Dei esse bonos & Sanctos; Sed justitia Christi est vera & perfecta justitia, quae omnino placet oculis Dei, in qua nihil est quod Deum offendat, quod Deo non summopere placeat; h • ac ergo sola re certa & stabili nobis nitendum est; & ob eam solam credere nos justificari coram Deo, id est haberi justos & dioi justos. Hic est pretiosus Thesaurus, quem qui invenit, vendit omnia quae habet, & emit illum. i. e. I verily think, that it is piously & christianly said, that we ought to lean (I say lean, as to a stable thing, that shall certainly hold us up) unto Christ's Righteousness, given unto us; but not unto the Righteousness & holiness, that is inherent in us: for this Righteousness of ours is inchoate & imperfect, that cannot hinder us from ssinning daily; therefore we cannot for this Righteousness, in the sigt of God be accounted just & good, as would become the Sones of God to be: but the Righteousness of Christ is true & perfect Righteousness, which every way pleaseth God's eyes, in which is nothing that can displease God, & doth not highly please him: Therefore we must only lean to this certain & stable thing, and believe, that for it alone we are justified before God; that is, accounted Righteous, and so called. This is the Precious Treasure, which who findeth, he selleth all he hath, & buyeth it.

Yea this he confirmeth afterward by Experience, saying. Inde est, quod pro experimento videmus viros Sanctos, qui quanto magis in veritato proficiunt, tanto minus sibi placent; ac propterea tanto magis intelligent se indigere Christo & justitia Christi sibi donata; ideoque se relinquunt, & soli Christo incumbunt: •• c non obeam accidit causam, quod facti sanctiores minus videant quam prius; neque quia facti sunt animo dimissiori vel viliori; imo quanto magis in sanctitate proficiunt, tanto majore sunt animo, tanto sunt perspicaciores. i. e. Hence it is, that by experience we see, holy men, how farther they advance in the truth, please themselves the less, & therefore do more understand, that they have need of Christ, & of his Righteousness given unto them: wherefore they relinquish themselves; and lean upon Christ alone: This cometh not to pass, because they become of a more base & Law spirit: Yea the further they advance in holiness, they are of greater spirits, & see more clearly.

Arguments against Universal Redemption.

AS concerning the point of Universal Redemption, we find various sentiments, or various explications of the matter, given to us by Adversaries; for they do not all agree in their apprehensions of the thing. Some explain the matter thus, God sent his only begotten Son to be a Redeemer and Propitiator for Adam and all his Posterity; who by his death did pacific an angry God, and restore Mankind to their lost inheritance; so as all, who are now condemned, are not condemned for their former sins and guilt; for Christ hath abundantly satisfied for these; but for their Unbelief, for not believing in the Redeemer of the world, and for rejecting the Reconciliation made, & the grace of God declared in the word. And thus, they must say, that Christ hath died for all sins, but Unbeleefe; and that salvation doth not certainly follow upon this Reconciliation; and so that it is rather a Reconciliableness, than a Reconciliation; and they must necessarily maintain, that this matter is revealed unto all and every son of Adam, who otherwise cannot be guilty of Rejecting this reconciliation, other ways it shall be of no advantage to them; unless they say, that the want of the Revelation putteth them out of a capacity of being guilty of Unbeleefe; and so they must necessarily be saved; and thus their condition shall be undoubtedly better, than is the condition of such, as hear the Gospel; and then the revelation of the Gospel shall be no Favor, but a Prejudice rather. And in reference to this, they devise an Universal Antecedanious Love, whereby God, out of his Infinite Goodness, was inclined to desire the happiness and salvation of every mothers son; and therefore to send his Son to die for: as if God had such Natural & Necessary Inclinations; and as if all his Love to Mankind, and every appointment of his concerning us, were not the free act of his good pleasure; and as if there were any such Antecedent & Conditional will in God, that could or might have no issue or accomplishment, but as Lord Freewil would; and as if the Love that sent Christ, were only such a Poor Conditional Inclination towards all Mankind, which the Scripture holdeth forth, as the greatest of Loves, & as the ground or all the Effects & Grants, which man's full Salvation calleth for. But why could not this Love effectuat the good of all? Therefore, they tell us, that Justice being injured by sin, unless it were satisfied, that Love of God, whereby he wisheth well to all sinners, could effectuat nothing, as to the recovery of any: & upon this ground they imagine, Christ was sent to make an Universal Atonement; & so, Justice, being satisfied, might not obstruct the salvation of any, whose Freewill would consent unto terms of new to be proposed.

Others hold forth the matter thus [Christ, according to the eternal Counsel of God, did properly die for this end, and by his propitiatory sacrifice obtain, that all and every man, who believe in Him, should for his sake actually obtain Remission of sins, & Life Eternal; but others, in case they would Repent & Believe, might obtain it.] But thus we hear no word of Christ's obtaining anything to any in particular; no word of his obtaining Faith & Repentance: and what Counsel of God can this be, to send Christ to die for persons, upon that condition, which he knew they would not & could not perform? And what by this means hath Christ's Propitiatory Sacrifice obtained more, than a mere possibility of salvation, to either one or other? Shall we imagine, that God designeth good to persons, who shall never enjoy it? Or that God hath Conditional Intentions & Designes? By this means, Christ's death was designed, and no person designed thereby to be saved, yea Christ should be designed to die, and that for no certain end, unless to procure a mere possibility, by stopping the mouth of justice, that it should not stand in the way: but then we cannot say, that God sent Christ to die for any man, much less for all.

Others express the matter thus [Christ, out of the gracious Decree & Purpose of God, did undergo death, that he might procure & obtain Reconciliation with God for all sinners whatsomever, without any difference, before that God would open again the door of salvation, & enter into a new Covenant of Grace with sinners.] But this Reconciliation hath no more force, or import, but that God might enter again into a Covenant with sinners: and so there is no Actual Reconciliation of sinners unto God. And all that is obtained, is for God, & nothing for man, save a Possibility of Salvation by a new Covenant; nor are we told, whether Christ hath satisfied for the breach of the First Covenant, so that that sin is fully pardoned unto all; or not, until the condition of the second Covenant be performed: nor are we told, upon what account the sins against the second Covenant are pardoned; Or if they be unpardonable.

Others explain the matter thus [Christ died for all and every man, not only that God might, without any violation of Justice, enter into a new Covenant with sinners, upon what condition he pleased; but that it should be upon this Condition, that man should be united with Christ the Cautioner: and not only, that Redemption & Salvation should be possible to all, but that really & most certainly Salvation should be bestowed on such, as Christ thought good.] But seeing Christ knew, that his death would profit none, but these few, whom he had designed, to what purpose should he have laid down his life for the rest? And how can his death be a price of Redemption for the rest? How can Christ be said to satisfy for the rest? Did he purchase Faith to these few; and would he not purchase Faith to the rest, & yet lay down the great price for them? What was the end obtained for the rest? was it only a Possible Call of all, Justice bein satisfied? But of what import could that Possible Call be, if Salvation was not also possible unto them? And whereunto is that Call? They will not say, it is unto Salvation, but to Faith: But did not Christ know, that this call would not be obeyed by them? Did he procure Grace unto them, to obey it? then he procured Faith, and if he procured Faith, than he procured Salvation. Again, if Justice be satisfied for these others, why are they not liberat? If they say, the new Condition is not fulfilled. Then it cannot be simply said, that Christ satisfied Justice on their behalf, for he knew before hand, that these would not perform the new Condition; how can he then be supposed to die for them not withstanding?

Thus we see what difference is among men, that hold Universal Redemption, about the Proper & Immediat End & Aime, of the purpose of God, in sending Christ to die; and of Christ in coming to died: and how, for the most part, it cometh all to little, or nothing, for it was, saith Arminius, That God might save sinners, what way it pleased Him, his Justice, which stood in the way, being satisfied, or as Corvinus: That God might will to save sinners, & That Christ intended by his death, to make such satisfaction to justice, as that he might obtain • to himself power of saving upon what Condition the Father pleased. And thus Christ is said to have obtained Reconciliation & Redemption to all, not that they should actually be partakers thereof, but that God, his justice now being satisfied, might prescribe a Condition, which when they had performed, he might & would actually make them partakers thereof: Some say, that all men are put into a new Covenant, in which Adam was a common person, as well, as in the old, by virtue whereof, none shall be damned that do not sin actually against the Condition, & fall thereby from that new state, whereunto they are borne. And this opinion differeth not much from that of Jacobus Andreae at the conference at Mompelgard, which afterward Huberus maintained (as Kimedoncius showeth, in his refutation of the same) which was this in short, [That Christ suffered & died for all, none excepted, Effectually, and obtained for all a Reconciliation, without any respect to Faith, or Unbeleefe; so that all who receive this Reconciliation & continue in it, shall be saved, but as to those who refuse it by unbelief, it is made null, and they perish.] Others say, [That Christ by his satisfaction removed Original sin in all, so that all Infants, dying in infancy, are undoubtedly saved.] Others [that he died for all sins alike, but conditionally.] Some say, [that after the price was paid, it was absolutely undetermined, what condition should be prescribed; so as God might have re-established the Covenant of works:] Others, [that the procuring of a new way was part of the fruit of Christ's death.] As for this condition, some say, [that man can perform it with the help of such means, as God affordeth to all] and thus establish the Diana of Freewill. But others [assert the necessity of grace flowing from election hereunto,] and so destroy Universal Redemption, which yet they assert. So that some say [Christ died for all Conditionally, if they believe] making the Act the cause of its own object; for Faith with them is a believing that Christ died for them. Some say [that he died for all Absolutely; Yet so as they partake not of the benefire, until they perform the Condition, which was to be prescribed;] and thus they affirm, that Christ did no more sustain the persons of the Elect, than of the Reprobat, but of all alike. If we inquire therefore, what was the Immediat Result & Product of the death of Christ, they agree not to tell us, whether it was a Power, or a Will, or a Right, to God, to save any he pleased.

However all the Arminians & Cameron with them agree in this. That Christ did not purchase faith for any: and that as to all (say some) or as to the most part (say others) Christ hath only procured a Possibility of Salvation: And what is this Possibility? Some call it an Exemption from that necessity of perishing, under which they came by the violation of the former Covenant, if a satisfaction had not interveened; and by this Exemption, they say, it cometh to pass, that Christ, if he will, justice being now satisfied, may bring all to life: And hereby also, say they, all may be saved, if they will: But what is this else then a mere Possibility? What efficacy hath it, seeing notwithstanding thereof, all may perish again? They say, it is really Efficacious as to this Possibility, which was not, before Justice was satisfied: But yet notwithstanding of this Efficacious Possibility, it might come to pass, that not one should have been saved: for how can salvation be possible without faith? So that if faith be not hereby purchased, it would seem, that Salvation is not possible. And further, it doth hereby appear, that all which is procured, is but some power to God & to Christ; But what is man's advantage? They say, That a way to life is opened unto man, that so he may now come to God by Faith & Repentance. But how can he come, who hath no power to Believe or Repent, without grace? Or is it in corrupt man's power to Believe or Repent?

What that truth is, which we stand for, is plainly & fully enough set down in several places of Our Confession of Faith: as Chap. 3. §. 6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory; so hath he, by the Eternal and most free purpose of his Will, fore ordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are Elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit, working in due season; are Justified, Adopted, Sanctified, & Keeped by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are other Redeemed by Christ, effectually Called▪ Justified, Adopted, Sanctified & Saved; but the Elect only. So Chap. 8. §. 1. It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to chose & ordain the Lord Jesus, his only begotten Son, so be the mediator between God & man. • Unto whom he did from all eternity give a people to be his seed, and to be by him in time Redeemed, Called, Justified, Sanctified & Glorified. And ibid. §. 5. The Lord Jesus by his perfect obedience, & sacrifice of himself; which he through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the Justice of his Father, & purchased, not only Reconciliation, but an Everlasting inheritance in the Kingdom of heaven, for all those, whom the Father hath given unto him. So ibid. §. last, To all those, for whom Christ hath purchased Redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply & communicate the same, making intercession for them, & revealing unto them, in & by the word, the mysteries of salvation, effectually persuading them by his Spirit to believe & obey; and governing their hearts by his word & Spirit, overcoming all their enemies by his Almighty power & wisdom, in such manner & ways, as are most cansonant to his wonderful & unsearchable dispensations. Our judgment is this, in short, That Christ, according to the good pleasure of his Father, laid down his life a Ransom for the Elect only, who were given to him to save from Wrath, and Destruction; and by that price purchased Salvation, & all the Means necessary thereunto, for them only to whom in due time, & after the method, which he thinketh best, doth effectually apply the same unto them, & actually save them.

Though grounds sufficient, considering the places of Scriptures, annexed in the margin of the Confession, confirming all, are clearly hinted & laid down, in these passages cited; yet I shall, with what brevity is possible, point forth our grounds in plain terms. And (1.) The Scripture is full & plain, in holding forth 2 Covenant betwixt • ehova, and the Mediator, a transaction concerning man; or the purposes of God concerning the Salvation of Man, in way of a mutual Compact; both for our better understa • ding of that solid ground of our Peace & Hope, & for the confirming of our staggering & weak Faith. And though the full explication & confirmation hereof, would, I judge, fully undermine & destroy the rotten grounds of Socinians & Arminians, and of all, who are for the Diana of Freewill, and enemies to the Grace of God; yet I cannot digress thereunto here; and shall only refer such, as would see the same confirmed, unto Mr. Dicksons Therapeutica sacra, & Mr. Rutherfords book upon the Covenant. Taking it therefore for granted, till what is by these Worthies said anent it, be confuted; and finding, that Arminius himself in his Orat. de Sacerdotio Christi, saith, there was a Covenant betwixt the Lord & Christ, I shall but shortly infer therefrom, That it is repugnant to reason, to say, that the result of that Eternal Transaction: and the whole intended by it, was only to procure a mere Possibility of Salvation; and that such a Possibility, as that though it was equally for all; yet it might so fall out, that not one person should be saved, among all the sones of Adam. How unreasonable is it to imagine such a bargane betwixt the Father and the Son, as among men, considering what they are doing, can have no place? If Christ was to see his seed, by virtue of this Contract, then certainly God had a special eye and respect unto that seed; and that feed must be distinguished from all the rest, for it cannot be all, else all should be saved: and so Christ did not undertake to buy all, nor did the Father give him all, for his feed: and in reference to that feed, the Redemption purchased must be an Actual, & not a mere Potential, or Possible Redemption; and the Lord must have full Power & Dominion over the Will of that Seed, whereby he may determine their hearts unto a following of the Method, which he was to prescribe; and all these means, whereby this actual Closeing with the Conditions was to be effectually wrought, must have been secured: for a transaction betwixt persons, infinite in Wisdom, must of necessity be, in all things, contrived in deep Wisdom. So then, if by virtue of this Covenant, a feed was ensured to Christ, it was these concerning whom the transaction was made; for what interest could others have in this, or advantage by it? And so the Rademption was neither Universal; nor yet merely Possible, & no more.

Again (2.) The Scripture everywhere pointeth out the end of Christ's coming & dying, to have been, to Procure & Obtaine some good to man; it were endless to cite the Scriptures speaking this out plainly: But if it had been only to have procured a Possibility, then the proper & immediate end of his dying, had been only to have procured something to God, viz. a Power to Him, that he might, without hurt to his Justice, prescribe a possible way of salvation. Now, not to discuss that question, agitated among Orthodox Divines, viz. whether it was impossible for God to have pardoned the sins of man, without a satisfaction made by his Son, or not; meaning antecedently to a decree, determineing this way of manifestation of the Justice of God; only I must say, that as yet I can see nothing from Scripture, determineing the egresses of the Relative Justice of God, to be more essential to God, & less subject to the free determinations of his good will and pleasure, than are the egresses of his Mercy; nor do I see any necessity for asserting this against the Socinians, seeing our ground, walking upon a decree, is proof against all their Assaults; far less see I any necessity of founding our whole debate with the Socinians, upon that ground; yea I cannot but judge it the result of great imprudence so to do, seeing the Socinians may reply, that the sole ground of that Opposition to them is not only questioned, but plainly denied, by such as we account Orthodox & learned; and may hence gather, that we have no other solid ground, whereupon to debate with them, but such as the learned of our own side overthrow. The depths of God's Counsel are beyond our fathoming; and it is hard for us to say, hithertil the omnipotent can come, but not one ince further. I dar not be wise above what is written; and I would gladly see one passage of Scripture, declareing this to have been in itself utterly impossible, & inconsistent with God. B • whatever may be said of this. what Scripture tells us, that Christ was sen to die, that he might obtain this Power unto God? And further, what was this power? Was it a mere Power & Liberty, that should never have any Effect? If it was to have an Effect, what was that? Was it only to make a new Transaction with man, in order to his salvation? If that was all, notwithstanding of all this Power & Ability, not one man might have been saved. Was it certainly to save some? Then, the Redemption cannot be called Universal, nor yet merely Possible. Nay, if by the death of Christ a Right & Power only was obtained to God, God was at full liberty to have exerced that Right & Power, or not, as he pleased; and so notwithstanding thereof man might have remained in the same Condition, whereinto he was, and never so much as have had one offer of life, upon any terms whatever; or only upon the old terms of the Covenant of works; and what then should the advantage of this have been? The whole Scripture, speaking of the death of Christ, mentioneth far other Ends, respecting man.

If we (3.) Consider how the Scripture mentioneth, • number given of the Father to Christ, to be Redeemed & Saved, we shall see, that there is neither an Universal, nor yet a mere Possible Redemption: for this gift is utterly repugnant to, & destructive of both: for if, conform to the Covenant betwixt the Father and the Son, there were some given to Christ to save & redeem, these he must actually save & redeem; and for these only, was Christ ordained & designed of the Father to be a Redeemer; and upon the account of these only, did he undertake the work, & lay down the ransom-money: for it is not rational to suppose, that, the design of Father & Son being to save actually these gifted ones, Christ would shed his blood for others, who were no • given to him, & who should receive no salvation by his blood; for cui bono? what could be the design of Father & Son in this? The matter goeth not so in human transactions, where the price is considerable. Now, that the Scripture mentioneth some given to Christ, & that in distinction from others, is clear John. 17: 2.— that he should give eternal life to as many, as thou hast given him. So verse. 12. Those that thou gavest we, I have kept, and none of them are lost, &c. So John. 6: 37. All that the Father hath given me, shall come unto me, & verse. 40. And this is the Fathers will, that hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing Joh. 17: 9. I pray for them, I pray not for the world, but for them, which thou hast given me; for they are thine. 10. And all thine are mine & mine are thine, and I am glorified in them. 11. - Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me. 24. Father I will, that they also whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am, &c. Whence we see, that Christ had no charge of the rest; was under no tie to save them, nor would be so much as pray for them: but as for the given ones, Joh. 10. called his sheep, for these he laid down his life, & prayed; and for these was • e to give an account: nay, which is more, these had a special Interest in God's heart & affection & were thereupon given to Christ. They were the Father's, & given of the Father to the Son; and so fully discriminated from all the rest; and both Father & Son stand engaged to carry these thorough unto salvation: all which considered, it is most plain, that the Redemption was Particular & Actual, conform to the Undertaking, & Transaction.

Nay (4.) If we will consider the fountain love, from whence the sending of Christ came, we will see how unreasonable it is to imagine an Universal mere Possible Redemption, as the proper end & effect, of Christ's death & merits. It is said John. 3: 16. A place, which our Universalists look upon, as most favorable for them) that God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that all believers in him, might have eternal life. This love is held forth as unparallelable, a love greater than which cannot be conceived, & a love demonstrated by the greatest effect imaginable, sending & giving his only begotten, to give his life a ransom, & to die for sinners; and it must be contrary to all reason, to imagine, that all this was to procure a Redemption, by which it was possible, that not one man should be Actually Redeemed. Christ himself saith, Joh. 15: 13. greater love hath no man, tha • this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. See also Rom. 5: 8. And shall we think, that the effect of all this Non-such Love, both of the Father, & of the Son, was only a Possible Salvation, and Redemption? and that all this love should be outed; and possibly not one man saved? Either the Lord knew, that some would get good by this fruit of wonderful love, or not? then he was not omniscient: and then the Father gave his Son, & the Son came, & both were the effect of the greatest love imaginable, & yet neither of them knew, that any one soul should be saved for all that. If he knew, that they would get good by it, either by themselves alone, without his Grace, or not. If the first, why would he send his Son to die, & why would Christ come to die for such, as they saw would never have a will to be saved by his death? If the last be said, then, seeing the greatest expression of of love was to send his Son, & in the Son to come & die, how can we think, that that was for all, when the grace to improve that death, & profit by it, was not designed for all? Sayeth not Paul Rom. 8: 32. He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall not with him also freely give us all things? Importing that that was Impossible. Shall we imagine that that is the greatest love, which is common to all, & is not able to effectuate the salvation of those upon whom it is set? and how can this be, that the greatest effect of this greatest love shall be common to all, & smaller effects not common also? See also 1. John. 4: 9, 10, 11. where this special love, by which Christ was sent, is made peculiar unto believers; for John is speaking of none else: So is this love peculiarly terminated on Christ's Wife & Church Ephes. 5: 26, 26. & hath gracious & saving effects Gal. 2: 20. Tit. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Ephes. 2: 4; 5, 6. Rom. 8: 36, 37. 2. Thes. 2: 16, 17. Revel. 1: 5, 6. Beside, that this love is mentioned as an Old, Everlasting, & Unchangeable Love, Ier. 31: 3. Ephes. 1: 3, 4. Rom. 9: 11. John. 13: 1. Zeph. 3: 17. And is all this nothing but a General Common thing, that cannot save one soul, if Lord Freewil do not consent, of his own accord?

Moreover (5.) if we consider the ends assigned to the Death of Christ, mentioned in Scripture, we shall see that it was some other thing, than a mere Possible Delivery & Redemption, common to all mankind. Mat. 8: 11. He came to save that which was lost; and not to make their salvation merely possible; for if that were all, Christ's argument should have had no strength: So 1. Tim. 1: 15. - Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinner: if it were a mere possibility, that might never take effect, how should this faithful saying be worthy of all acception; So Luk. 19: 10 where the matter is exemplified in Zacchaeus Mat. 1: 21. the reason of the name Jesus, given to the Redeemer is, because he shall save his people from their sins, that is, Actually & Really, and not Potentially or Possibly only: and this cannot be meaned of all; for he saveth not the Reprobat from their sins; at least, not from the sin of unbelief, by the confession of Adversaries; But here, no sin is excepted, and therefore is his death restricted to his people, whom he saveth from all their sins. Heb. 2: 14, 15. there is another end of his death mentioned, viz. that he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil, and deliver them, who through fear of death, were all their life time subject to bondage. This was no mere Possible Deliverance, but Actual & Effectual; and it was not common to all; for it is restricted to his Brethren verse. 11, 12, 17. and to sones 13. & to the children which God gave him verse. 13, 14. & to the Seed of Abraham verse 16. and again verse 17. wherefore in all things it behooved him to be make like unto his brithren, that he might be a Merciful & Faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the people. Behoved Christ to be a Merciful & Faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, only to make a Possible Reconciliation, whereby it might be, that not one person should be reconciled? & are the Reprobate his brethren? Ephes. 5: 25, 26. To what end did Christ give himself for his Church? (And all the world of mankind belong not to his Church.) It was, that he might sanctify & cleanse it with the washing of water, by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spotor wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it sh • uld be holy and without blemish. Is this a mere Possibility? Then might Christ have died, & have no Church to present to himself fair & spotless: his Church might have remained full of spots & wrinkles, unholy & full of blemishes, yea should have been no Church. Tit. 2: 14. He gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works. Do all the world belong to his peculiar people? doth Christ redeem all the world from all iniquity? Is all the world purified & made zealous of good works? Or is all this mere may be, which may not be? 2. Corinth. 5. verse. 21. He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him. Was Christ made sin, or a sacrifice for sin, that all the world might possibly be made the Righteousness of God in him? that is, that possibly not one person might be made the Righteousness of God in him? who can dream thus, that God's intentions & designs should be so loose & frustrable, & that God should be so uncertain in his purposes? Gal. 1: 4. why did the Lord Jesus give himself for our sins? It was, that he might deliver 〈◊〉 from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father. This is no mere Possible Deliverance; and it is such as was designed not for all the world, but for the us, there mentioned. So Chap. 4: 4, 5.— God sent forth his son, made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of sones. This Real Benefit is manifestly here restricked. John. 17: 19. for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified through the truth, Christ sanctified himself, to be an ob • ation, not to obtain a mere may be; but 〈◊〉 they, for whose sakes he did sanctify himself, that is, they that were given to him verse. 6: 9. and were his own verse. 10. & were in due time to believe in him verse. 20.) might Really & Actually be Sanctified through him. Heb: 13: 12. wherefore did Jesus suffer without the gate? it was, that ho might sanctify the people with his own blood; sure, this is more, than a may be. Rom. 3: 25, 26. Why did God set forth Christ to be a propitiation? It was to declare his Righteousness, for the remission of sins that are past, that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus: a Certain Real thing. Many moe passages might be added to this purpose, but these may suffice, to discover the absurd falsehood of this doctrine.

Add (6.) such passages, as mention the Actua • Accomplishment & Effect of Christ's death, where it will yet more appear, that this was no mere may be, or Possible thing, but that which was to have a certain Being & Reality as to the persons, for whom it was designed; Such as Heb. 1: 3 • — when he had by himself purged our sins. Can their sins be said to be purged, who pine a way in hell forever, because of their sins? could this be true, if no man had been saved? and yet, if it had been a mere possible & may be Redemption, it might have come to pass, that not one person should have been actually saved. So Heb. 9: 12. - by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. Is a mere possible Redemption to be called an eternal Redemption? and was that all that Christ obtained? Then Christ's blood was more ineffectual in the truth, than the type was, in its typicalness; for the blood of bulls & goats, and the ashes of an hiefer sprinkling the unclean, did not obtain a possible and may-besanctification, and purifying of the flesh; but did actually & really sanctify to the purifying of the flesh verse. 13. Again verse. 14. (which also confirmeth what is now said) how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works, to serve the living God. So that all such, for whom he offered himself, and shed his blood, and none else, have their consciences purged from dead works, to serve the living God: and who darsay, that this is common to all, or is a mere may be, which the Apostle both restricteth & asserteth, as a most certain real thing; Again verse. 26.- but now once in the end of the world, hath he appeared, to put away sin, by the sacrifice of himself. So that he did Actually & Really, and not Possibly & Potentially only, put away sin; the sin viz. of those, for whom he was a sacrifice, even of them, that look for him, and to whom he shall appear the second time, without sin unto salvation verse. 28. and sure, no man in his wits will say, that this is the whole world. Gal. 3: 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, being made a curse for us. 14. That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit, through faith. Here are three Ends & Effects of Christ's Redemption mentioned, which no Man will say, are common to all viz. Redemption from the Curse of the Law; and this was Really, & not potentially only done, by Christ's being made a curse for us; the Communication of the blessing of Abraham, and the Promise of the Spirit, which are ensured to such as are Redeemed from the Curse of the Law, and to none else. So Ephes. 2: 13, 14, 15, 16. But now in Christ Jesus, ye, who sometimes were afar off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ; for he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, the Law of commandments in ordinances; for to make to himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God, in one body, by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby. To which add the paralled place Col. 1: 21, 22. & 2: 14, 15. was all this delivery from Wrath, Enmity, Law of commandments & whatever was against us, but a mere Potential thing, and a may be, common to all, in whose power it was to cause it take effect, or not, as they pleased? Isaiah. 53: 5. He was wounded for our transgressions, • e was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed with 1. Cor. 15: 3. - Christ died for our sins & 1. Pet. 2: 24. who his own self bear our sins in his own body, on the tree - by whose stripes we are healed: How can we then imagine, that all this was a mere may be, seeing he was so bruised for our iniquities, so died for our sins, so bear our sins, in his own body; as that thereby all, in whose room he stood, are healed by his stripes? The Apostle doth moreover fully clear this matter, Rom. 5: 6.- Christ died for the ungodly: was this for all? Or was it to have an uncertain End & effect? No, verse. 9. much more then being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. The ungodly and the sinners, for whom he died, are such as become justified by his blood, & shall at length be fully saved from wrath. And again verse. 10. for if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God, by the death of his son; much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life: Upon his death followeth Reconciliation with God, & then Salvation; and his death is for no more than his life is for. By him also they receive an atonement verse. 11. As the consequences & effects of Adam's sin did Certainly, and not by a may be, redownd to all, that he represented & engaged for; so the fruits & effects of Christ's death do as certainly come unto such, as are his, as the Apostle cleareth, in the following verses, laying the advantage on the side of Christ & his; verse. 15.— much more the Grace of God, and the gift by grace, by one man Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many, verse. 16.— but the free gift is of many offenses, unto justification, verse. 17. - much more they, which receive abundance of grace and of the Gift of Righteousness, shall reign in life, by one Jesus Christ, verse. 18.— even so by the Righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men to justification of life, verse. 19.— so by the obedience of one shall many be made Righteous, verse. 21.— so might grace reign, through Righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ, our Lord. Is all this a Common thing, and a mere may be, or Possibility? John. 10: 11. he giveth his life for his sheep & verse. 15. But may they for all that perish? No, in no wise verse. 28. and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish. He came that they might have life, and might have it more abundantly, verse. 10. To the same purpose he saith John. 6: 33. that he giveth life unto the world, not such a life, sure, as may never quicken any. Upon Christ's death doth the Apostle infer Rom. 8: 32. that the Elect shall have all things, & verse. 33, 34, 35. that they are free from all Accusations, or any Hazard therefrom, being justified, and having Christ's Death, Resurrection, and Intercession to secure them at all hands; & thereupon they have assurance, that nothing shall separate them from the love of God. Act. 20: 28. Christ hath purchased a Church with his own blood. The whole world is not this Church; nor is this purchase an uncertane may be; And all this Real & Certain Effect of Christ's death, was foretold by Daniel Chap. 9: 24,— to finish the transgresion, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting Righteousness, &c. And who can imagine, that this is Universal, or Uncertane?

If we will (7.) Consider some other Ends of the death of Christ, which the Scripture pointeth forth, which are not to be found among Heathens, or any except the few Chosen ones, Ordained to life, we shall see, how unreasonable the Adversaries are. Gal. 4: 5. Christ died to redeem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of sones. Was this end, & fruit left at an Uncertanty? Shall we thinks, that Christ might have died, & yet one man receive this Adoption? Was this Adoption purchased upon an uncertain Condition? Or was this purchased equally for all? Then such as received it, might have thanked their own well natured Freewill, upon that account. But let us consider some other fruits. Gal. 1: 4. who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world. So 1. Pet. 2: 24. He bear our sins, in his own body, on the tree: but for what end: That we being dead to sin, should live unto Righteousness: & Chap. 3: 18. Christ suffered for sins, the just for the unjust: To what end and purpose? To bring us to God. Heb. 10: 10. by the which will we are sanctified. How came this to pass? Through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all, So he suffered without the gate, that he might sanctify the people Chap. 13: 12. Revel. 1: 5, 6.— he loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood. But was this all? No, it is added, And hath made us Kings & Priests unto God, and his Father. So Ch. 5: 9, 10.— thou was • tain, and hast redeemed us to God, by thy blood; and what more? And hast made us unto our God, Kings & Priests, &c. So 2. Cor. 5: 15. He died for all: But for what end and purpose? That they which live, should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him, which died for them, and rose again. See Col. 1: 22. These & the like passages do clearly pointe forth a special end of Christ's Death, which was designed both by the Father, that sent him, & by himself: and shall we suppose, that this great & chief design was made to hang upon the lubrick & uncertain will of man? Shall Christ be beholden to man's good will for the purchase he made, at so dear a rate? If not, why are not all these ends attained, in all, for whom he died? Did Christ fail in laying down the Ransom? Or doth not the Father keep condition? Who can say either of these? Then surely, there can be no reason to say, that Christ made an uncertain bargain, & purchased only a Possibility of these fruits, which he knew not if ever he should attain, in any one; Nor to say, that he died for all.

Let us further (8.) take notice: That for whom Christ died, he died to take away their sins; And that so, as they may be fully Pardoned, & never brought on reckoning again: that is, that they be Remitted & Pardoned; and that the poor sinner may not suffer therefore. This sure must be the import of that prayer, forgive us our trespasses. If then Christ by his death hath taken away sin, and purged it away, making satisfaction to justice therefore, how can we think, that justice can punish the sinner in hell fire, for these same sins? But let us see, what the Scripture saith, 1. John. 3: 5.— he was manifested to take away our sins. Ephes. 1: 7. we have redemption in his blood: what Redemption? forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace. So likewise Col. 1: 14. Now when sins are thus taken away, they are blotted out, & not remembered Isaiah. 43: 25. Fer. 31: 34. Heb. 8: 12. Yea they are blotted out as a cloud, and as a thick cloud Isaiah 44: 22. So they are said to be subdued,