CHAP. I.

Imputation both of Christs Active and Passive Obe∣dience necessary.

MR. Iohn Goodwine in his Treatise of justification part. 2. Ch. 2. laith down several conclusions, whereby he might overturne this Truth: & what he saith must be examined.

His 1. Conclusion in this. He, for whose sins a plenary satisfaction hath been made (either by himself, or another for him) & hath been accepted by him, a∣gainst whom the transgression was committed, is as just & righteous, as he that never sinned, but had done all things, that were requisite & meet for him to do. Ans. If by just & righteous be meaned one, who only hath not deserved the punishment threatned; then his Conclusion is true: but if by just & righ∣teous be meaned one, who not only hath not deserved the punishment, but hath also deserved the reward promised; then his Conclusion is false; for the Satisfaction, if it respect only the transgression committed, can only put the man, for whom it is given & accepted, in the state of one, that is un∣der no obligation to be punished: but it cannot put him in the state of one, who not only is not to be punished, but is also to be rewarded. He addeth. This is evident; because there is as much justice & righteousness in repairing the the wrongs & injuries done to any, as there is in abstaining from doing wrong. Ans. True, in reference to the wrong done; and therefore such an one is rightly & justly delivered from the obligation to punishment; but is not made so righteous, as to challenge the reward, till a more compleet satisfaction be made, to wit, such as may comprehend also perfect conformitie unto the Law in all points, to the end, he, for whom this is done, may be looked upon as a fulfiller of the Law, & therefore to have right to the reward, as Page  432 he would have had, if he had in his own person perfectly keeped it. He that simply repaireth the wrong done, doth not that, which deserveth the re∣ward. The simile he annexeth confirmeth this, and demonstrateth how far out he is, as to our case. He that by his cattel, or otherwise, hath made spoil in his nieghbours Corne, & hath given him full satisfaction for the spoil done, to his contentment, is as good a Nieghbour, & deals as justly & honestly with him, as he that never trespassed in that kind upon him. How impertinent this is, as to our case, any may see; or he must say, that there was no reward promi∣sed to Adam, upon his perfect obedience; & that that word, do this & live, had no place, in the Covenant made with him. The Satisfying Nieghbour deserveth no reward, nor was there any reward promised to him, upon Condi∣tion of his being a good Nieghbour. He addeth. The essence & nature of ju∣stice or righteousness is suum cuique tribuere, to give to every man his own. i. e. that which is his own in a way of equity & right, is due from us unto them. Ans. But that which Adam was obliged to give to God, as his owne, was glory, by faithful & constant obedience, that he might receive the reward to the glory of God's faithfulness, & goodness. Now when Adam dishonoured the Lord by disobedience. & robbed him (as it were) of his Authoritie, as just & righteous Governour, a satisfaction for the wrong done, excluding po∣sitive & full obedience unto the Law, is not a giving to God all that is due to him. Now (saith he) when we have enjured or damnified any man, in any of his rights, or things belonging to him, there is nothing more due to him, than that which is his own, i. e. that which is fully valuable to the injurie we have done unto him. Therefore he that tenders a valuable consideration or satisfaction for an injurie done to another, is just, according to the height & utmost exigency of ju∣stice; & consequently as just, as he that never was injurious or did wrong. Ans. All this is to no purpose, as to our question; for it is not betwixt God & us: no• was it betwixt God and Adam, as it is betwixt one man & another. God is to be considered, as a supreme Law-giver & Ruler, enjoyning obedience to his Lawes, under penalties, and promising rewards unto the obedient: Now when his Lawes are broken, he is doubly enjured, & the breaker, is obliged unto punishment, and also forfeited of his expectation of the reward. When satisfaction is made, and withall no compleet obedience to the Law, the person is by the satisfaction made, only exeemed from the obligation to punishment, but hath thereby no right to the reward promised, untill the Law be compleetly obeyed.

His 2. Conclusion is. There is no medium between a perfect absolution & free∣dome from all sin; & a perfect & compleet righteousness: But he that is fully dis∣charged & freed from sin, ipso facto, is made perfectly & compleetly righteous. Ans. The same distinction, which we made use of in the other Conclusion, will helpe us here. If by perfectly & compleetly Righteous be meaned one, that is liable to no punishment, it is true, that he, who is fully discharged & freed from sin, is made perfectly righteous, but if by perfectly & compleetly Righteous be meaned one, that moreover hath a right to the recompence of reward, that is promised, than it is false: freedom & absolution from sin respecteth only the guilt, & dissolveth the obligation to punishment, & in Page  433 that respect, is a perfect & compleet Righteousness; i. e. the person, so absolved, is as free of punishment, or of obligation thereunto, as if he had never sinned; but having sinned, he cannot by this dissolution of the obligation to punishment be ipso facto made as perfectly & compleetly Righ∣teous, as he would have been, if he had never transgressed, but had per∣fectly keeped the Law; for if he had perfectly keeped the Law, he had ob∣tained full right to the reward, which now he hath not, and which no par∣don, or discharge, as such, can restore him unto. Let us hear his reason. Nothing (saith he) can any way diminish, or prejudice the perfection of Righ∣teousness, but only sin, as no thing can hinder the perfection of light, but darkness in one degree, or other. So that as the aire, when it is free from all degrees of dark∣ness, must of necessity be fully light; so he that is perfectly freed from all sin, must of necessity be fully & perfectly Righteous. Ans. This would make us beleeve, that he is here speaking of sin itself, and not of its guilt and demerite, and so the opposite hereunto, must be holiness; which expelleth sin (in a man∣ner) as light doth darkness, or as one quality doth its contrary. But then he is fighting, all this while, against his own shadow, for we are speaking of the guilt of sin, which also must be properly understood, (and nothing else can) when he spoke of absolution & freedom from sin, in the Conclu∣•on. If he speak here of sin in respect of guilt & demerite, his simile doth not quadrate; and opposite to this guilt he should set Righteousness or obe∣dience with its merite: and if any will do this, they shall easily see the mi∣stake, for though a man hath not transgressed, yet he hath not eo ipso right to the premium, for in order to this, moe dayes work may be required, than one or halfe of one dayes work; far less can the Pardon of or satisfaction for this transgression, give a man right to the reward.

He addeth. It is impossible to conceive a man defective in any part of Righteous∣ness, & yet withall to conceive him free from all sin: sin & Righteousness being in subjecto capaci, contraria immediata, as Logicians speak. Ans. Defective in Righteousness may be either understood in respect of the meer duty or com∣mand, or in respect of full right to the reward. In the first sense, such an one cannot be free of all sin; but taking it in the second sense, he may: as for example, when one is to work eight dayes in dressing a garden, & then to receive the reward promised, & if he fail in his work any of the dayes, to be punished; this man, so long as he worketh 2, 3, 4. 5. dayes cannot be charged with sin, nor said to be defective, as to his duty; and yeth he hath not full right to the reward untill he hath wrought Eight dayes, but is defe∣ctive in some part of his Righteousness, as to this reward. And according to this may we understand that logical axiome.

Further he saith, The Scriptures themselves still make an immediat opposition, between sin & Righteousness. - To finde out a third estate between sin & Righteous∣ness, we must finde out a third Adam, from whom it should be derived. Ans. The state of sin & of Righteousness, whereof the Scripture speaketh, ad∣mitteth indeed of no medium, or third betwixt them, and the reason is be∣cause, we are all now borne in a state of sin, & are obnoxipus to wrath; & remaine so, untill we be translated into a state of Righteousness, which is not Page  434 by meer pardon of sins, but also by the imputation of a Righteousness; for being in this State of Righteousness, we have not only the Obligation to wrath & eternal punishment removed, which is done by Remission upon the account of the Satisfaction of Christ imputed; but we have also a right to the reward, the crown of life, which is had by imputation of Righteous∣ness, or of obedience, though it were better to say, we have both by both; or we have both by the imputation of that compleet Satisfaction & merite, which comprehendeth, or consisteth of both.

His 3. Conclusion is this, Adam, whilst his innocency stood with him, and till his fall by sin, was compleetly Righteous, & in an estate of justification before God: Yea, for the truth & substance of Righteousness, as Righteous, as he could or should have been, if he had lived to this day, in the most entire & absolute obe∣dience to the Law. Ans. Adam, while he remained innocent, was compleat∣ly Righteous, that is, was changable with no transgression, it is true: That he was compleatly Righteous, that is, had full right to the reward, as ha∣ving done all his duty, and compleated his work, it is most false. There∣fore (2) it is false to say, he was in a state of justification, unless nothing else be hereby meaned, than that he was not in a state of condemnation. Though there be no mids betwixt these two now, as to us, but either we must be in a state of justification, or in a state of condemnation; Yet A∣dam while he stood, was in neither; Not in a state of condemnation, be∣cause he had not yet transgressed the Law; Nor yet in a state of justification, because he had not yet done all his duty; for he was to persevere in obedien∣ce to the end: And if he had been justified, he had full right to the reward, & so had been glorified, for whom the Lord justifieth, he glorifieth: But Adam was not glorified upon his Law-obedience, and consequently was not justified by his Law-obedience. (3) The truth & substance of Righteousness (unto which he would restrick all) is not the thing enquired after, nor is it at all to the point; for upon Adam's having of that simply he could not ex∣pect the reward of life, that was promised, because, the Covenant, he was under, required continuance & perseverance in all the several duties, called for by the Law, even to the end, ere he could challenge a right to the reward: And further Adam had this truth & substance of Righteousness at the first, & it was concreated with him; Yet he could not, upon that ac∣count, have challenged glory, as his due.

He addeth. Even as the second Adam was as compleatly & perfectly Righteous from the womb, & so from his first entrance upon his publick ministrie, as he was at last, when he suffered death. Ans. If we speak of our Lord Jesus, as the second Adam, that is, as standing in the room of sinners, as the Head & publick Person, engadging in their behalfe, whom he did represent, to pay all their debt; though he knew no sin, and upon that account was perfectly Righteous, and separat from sinners; Yet he was to finish the work laid upon him, and to performe the whole debt, both of duty & suffering, which he had undertaken; and till the last penny of that debt was payed, his work was not finished, and untill his work was finished, he could not chal∣lenge his reward: And so this confirmeth what we have said of the first Adam.

Page  435To say (he addeth) that Adam was not perfectly Righteous, & consequently in a justified estate or condition before God, untill his fall by sin, is to place him into an estate of condemnation before his sin, there being no middle or third estate betwixt these two. Ans. This was obviated before. Adam's state before his fall, was a state of Innocencie, wherein he enjoyed the favour & presence of God, he being perfectly Righteous, in reference to that state; & to what was required of him; but justified he was not; for the reward was not ad∣judged unto him. So that, as to him, there was a middle state betwixt a State of Justification & a State of Condemnation; though, as to us, there is not, as the places, which he citeth afterward namely Rom. 5: 18. & 8: 1, 2, shew, & the whole Scriptures evince.

He closeth this matter thus. Therefore to grant, that forgiveness of sins puts a man into the same estate & condition, wherein Adam stood before his fall (which is generally granted by men of opposite judgment in this controversie; & nothing granted neither, in this, but the unquestionable truth) is to grant the point in question, & to acknowledge the truth laboured for, throughout this whole discour∣se. Ans. It is not granted that remission of sins, as such, putteth a man eve∣ry way into the same Condition, wherein Adam stood before his fall; for it putteth not a man in the same estate of inherent holiness, wherein Adam was; but it putteth a man into the same estate of freedome from any obliga∣tion to punishment, for it taketh away the reatus poenae, so that a pardoned man, as such, is no more under the actual obligation unto the curse & wrath of God, threatned for transgression, than was Adam, before he fell: and this is all, that is confessed. Which is far, yea very far from granting the point, that he goeth about to establish: for he would have remission, as such, put a man in the state of full right to the reward, to the end he might exclude the imputation of the obedience or Righteousness of Christ, as not being necessary unto this end, contrary to the Scriptures of truth. A∣dam, before he fell, had not right unto the promised reward, because he was to finish his course of obedience, before he could obtaine that: And therefore the granting, that remission putteth a man into the same Condi∣tion, wherein Adam stood, will contribute nothing to his end.

His 4. Conclusion is. That perfect remissien of sins includeth the Imputation or acknowledgment of the observation of the whole Law; even as the imputation of the Law fulfilled, necessarily includes the non imputation of sin, or the forgiveness of all sin, in case any hath been committed. Ans. The conclusion is manifestly false, if we speak of remission simply, & abstractivly as such; And the ground here alleiged for it, is ambiguous; for the imputation of the Law fulfilled, may either be to sach, as never broke it, & then it doth not inclu∣de remission, but taketh away all necessity of it; or to transgressours, and then indeed it may presuppose remission, but doth not include it, as such. But to remove ambiguities, we shall distinguish, & say, that perfect Re∣mission of sins includeth the acknowledgment of the observation of the who∣le Law, in respect of Punishment; but not in respect of the Reward; that is, perfect Remission of sins exeemeth a man from Punishment, as well as if he had perfectly keeped the Law; but doth not give him right to the Re∣ward; Page  436 for unto this was requisite the perfect observation of the Law: Now perfect observation of the Law saith, there was no transgression; but remis∣sion saith, & supposeth, that the Law was not perfectly observed. So the im∣putation of the Law fulfilled either saith, the Law was not broken, or that now satisfaction is made for the breach thereof, & therefore the person, unto whom this imputation is made. hath a right unto the reward, which this imputation doth directly & immediatly respect, as such. But in our case, both these go together, perfect remission, & the imputation of the Law fulfilled, because freedom from the obligation to punishment, & right to the reward, go also together inseparably.

For how can he be said (saith he) to have all his sins fully forgiven, who is yet looked upon, or intended to be dealt with all, as one that hath transgressed either by way of omission, or commission, any part of the Law? Ans. He that hath his sins fully forgiven, may well be looked upon, as one that hath transgressed, ei∣ther by omission, or by commission, or by both; because he must be so loo∣ked upon: for pardon presupposeth sin; no man can be pardoned, but a sin∣ner, and no man can think or dreame of a remission, but withall he must suppose, that the person pardoned hath sinned. But it is true, he who is said to have all his sins fully forgiven, cannot be intended to be dealt withall, as one that hath transgressed: for pardon destroyeth that obligation to punish∣ment, but doth not so destroy sin, as to cause that it never was; for that is impossible. What more? And he that is looked upon as one, that never transgres∣sed any part of the Law, must needs be conceived or looked upon as one, that hath fulfilled or keeped the Law. Ans. This is very true: But what then? Which is nothing else (saith he) but to have a perfect Righteousness, or (which is the sa∣me) a perfect fulfilling of the Law imputed to him. Ans. This is also true, ta∣king this imputation of a perfect fulfilling of the Law, to be to one, who never broke the Law by sin; but it is not true, in our case, who are trans∣gressours, all the imputation of Righteousness in the world can not make us to have been no sinners.

Yet he inferreth. So that besides that perfect remission of sins, which hath been purchased by the bloud of Christ, there is no need of (indeed no place for) the im∣putation of any Righteousness, performed by Christ unto the Law. Ans. The incon∣sequence of this is manifest from what is said: But he addeth a reason. Be∣cause (saith he) in that very act of remission of sins, there is included an imputa∣tion of a perfect Righteousness. Ans. This is but the same thing, which was said, & is manifestly false. Remission regairdeth only the punishment, or the obli∣gation thereunto, & dissolveth it, but, as such giveth no right to the reward, which was promised only to obedience to the Law.

But then he tels us more properly, & with Scripture-exactness (as he saith) that that act of God, whereby heremitteth & pardoneth sin, is interpreta∣tivly nothing else, but an imputation of a perfect righteousness or of a fulfilling of the Law: compare Rom. 4: 6 with vers. 7. & 11. Ans. This is but the same thing, & needeth no new answere; for it is denied, that that act of God, whereby he pardoneth sin, considered in itself, & as such, is interpretati∣vly an imputation of perfect Righteousness. But it is true, in our case, it Page  437 may be called so interpretativly, in this respect, that there is such an in disso∣luble connexion betwixt the two, that the one inferreth the other, necessi∣tate consequentis. And this is all that can be proved from Rom. 4: 6, 7, 11.

He addeth, Even as the act of the Physician, by which he recovereth his patient from his sickness, may, withfull propriety of speach, be called that act, whereby he restoreth him to his health. Ans. The Physician purging away the humors, the causes of the distemper, is the cause of health, by being the causa removens prohibens; because ex natura rei, health followeth upon the removal of that, which caused the distemper; but the connexion of pardon & of imputation of Righteousness is not ex natura rei, but ex libera Dei constitutione: conne∣cting the causes of both together. His next similitude of the sun, dispelling darkness, & filling the aire with light, is as little to the purpose; because here is a natural necessary consequence, light necessarily expelling dark∣ness; which is denied in our case. Hence there is no ground for what he ad∣deth, when he saith. In like manner, God doth not heal sin, that is forgive sin, by one act, & restore the life of righteousness, that is impute righteousness, by another act at all differing from it, but in & by one & the same punctual & precise act he doth the one & the other. For we are not here enquiring, after the oneness or diversitie of God's acts in a Philosophical manner: God can do many things by one Physical act: but we are enquireing concerning the Effects, whether they be one precise thing, flowing from one moral cause; or so diverse, as to require diverse moral causes, & grounds, or whether the one doth natu∣rally & essentially include the other, as being both but one thing.

His following words would seem to speak to this, when he saith, forgive∣ness of sins, & imputation of Righteousness are but two different names, expressions, or considerations of one & the same thing one & the same act of God is sometimes called forgivness of sins, & sometimes an imputing of Righteousness; & the for∣givness of sins is sometimes called an imputing of righteousness, to shew & signifie that a man needs nothing to a compleet Righteousness, or Iustification, but the for∣givness of his sins: And againe the Imputing of Righteousness is sometimes called the forgivness of sins, to shew that God hath no other Righteousness to conferre upon a sinner, but that which standeth in forgiveness of sins. Ans. This is but gratis dictum; nothing at all is proved: These two, pardon of sins & imputation of Righteousness, are two distinct parts of one compleet favour, and blessing granted of God, in order to one compleet blessedness, consisting likewise in two parts, to wit, in freedome from punishment, which was deserved, & in right to the promised inheritance, which was lost: And because these two, both in the cause, and in the effect, are inseparable conjoined by the Lord; therefore, the mentioning of the one may & doth import & signi∣fie both, by a Synecdoche: And hence no man, with reason, can inferre, that they are both one & the same precise thing, flowing from one & the same precise cause, and import only the different names, expressio•s or con∣siderations of one & the same thing, Christ's obedience to the Law, and his suffering for sin, were not one & the same thing under various considera∣tions, or names, but distinct parts of one compleet Surety-Righteousness: no more can the effects, that flow therefrom, be accounted one & the same Page  438 thing, but two distinct parts of one compleet effect: And therefore the mentioning of the one, in stead of the whole, proveth no confusion, or sa∣meness, but rather an inseparablness, which is yeelded.

He move •in an objection against himself •▪5. thus. How can God be said to impute a Righteousness to a man, which never was, nor ever had a being, no Righteousness (at least of that kind, whereof we now speak) having e∣ver been, but that perfect obedience, which Christ performed to the Law? This indeed is a very rational question; for our Author talketh much of an imputed Righteousness, and never doth, nor yet can tell us, what that is, that can deserve the name of a Righteousness. Let us heare, what he answereth. 1. saith he. There is as express & compleet a Righteousness in the Law, as ever Christ himself performed. Ans. But what Righteousness is or can be in a Law, but what is there, by way of prescription? And who doubts 〈◊〉 the perfection of this, that acknowledgeth the perfection of the Law? This is utterly impertinent to the purpose in hand, where the question is of a Righteousness consisting in conformity to the Law, and which must be at∣tribute to man, to whom the Law is given? And what if it be said (saith he) that God, in remission of sins, through Christ, from & out of the Law, imputeth to every man, that beleeveth, such a Righteousness, as is proper to him? Ans. To say this, is to speak plaine non-sense: for what is that to furnish a man with a Righteousness out of the Law? Can a man be changed into a Law? or can a man have any Righteousness, prescribed by a Law, but by thoughts, words, & deeds, bearing a conformity to the commands of the Law? And how can 〈◊〉 pardon cause this transformation? can the pardon of murther, or of any prohibited act, make that act conforme to the Law? Pardon thus should be a self destroyer; for an act, that is no transgression of a Law, can need no pardon: and thus pardon should make itself no pardon. What he subjoineth, hath bin spoken to elsewhere.

He giveth a 2. answere, saying. To say, God cannot impute a Righteousness, which never had a being i.e. which never was really & actually performed by any man, is to deny that he hath power to forgive sin•. Ans. This hath been & is full denied; it never hath been, nor never shall be proved, that forgivness of sin is the imputation of a Righteousness. Though he addeth from Rom. 4: 6. & 3: 28. &c. that it is the imputation of such a Righteousness, as consisteth not, no•es made up of any works performed to the Law by any man, which is but a Righteousness, that never had a being. Ans. This is but a plaine perverting of the Scriptures, which speak only of works (in that exclusion) done & per∣formed by us, as the whole scope, and all the circumstances of the passages, demonstrate to any man, who will not willingly put out his owne eyes: and it were a meer imposing upon the Understandings of the most ordinary Rea∣der, and a miserable mispending of time, to goe about the evincing of this, which is so obvious. But what desperat shifts will not a wrong cause put men to use, who will not be truths captives?

His 5. Conclusion cometh here also to be considered: It is this. He that is fully discharged from his sins, needeth no other R•ghteousness, to give him-Right 〈◊〉 unto life. This is as false as the rest; for the Law is; do this & live: and par∣don Page  439 for transgressions is not the same with doing of the Law. What is his reason? death is the wages of sin, is of sin only, being due to no creature in any other respect, nor upon any other terme whatsomever. But what then? Now he that it free of death, & no wayes obnoxious thereunto, cannot but be conceived to have a right unto life, there being neither any middle condition between death & life, wherein it is possible for a reasonable creature to subsist, nor againe any capacity of life, but by some right & •itle thereunto. Ans. Though this be true, as to us now, that he who is no wayes obnoxious unto death, hath a right unto life; Yet the consequence that he would draw from it, is not good: to wit, that that only, which taketh away the obnoxiousness unto death, giveth also a right to life: because God hath inseparably joined these effects together, as also their distinct causes together, and giveth them inseparably; so that he who is pardoned hath also a right to life, not meerly upon the account, that he is pardoned, but because together with the imputation of the Satisfa∣ction of Christ, whence floweth pardon, he imputeth also Christ's Righ∣teousness, upon which followeth the right to life. And howbeit now, as to us, there is no middle state betwixt these two; Yet in Adam there was; for while he stood, he was not obnoxious unto death; and yet he had not right unto life: but was to work out & perfect his rask, to that end. But he tels us, That while Adam stood, he was already in possession & fruition of life; else he could not be threatned with death. Ans. This is not the life, whereof we are speaking; we are speaking of the life, promised by that Covenant, unto perfect obedience: But it seemeth, that he joyneth with the 〈◊〉, in this, granting no life promised to Adam, but a Continuance of what he was already in possession of.

He enquireth. If he had not a right unto life by his freedome from sin, but was to purchase this right, by an ctlual fulfilling of the Law, it would be known, what quantit•e• of obedience to the Law he must have paid, before he had made this purchase; & how long he must have obeyed & keept the Law? Ans. There is no necessity of any exact knowledge of these things; our maine question doth not ••and or •all with the knowledge or ignorance of them: Yet, we may say (and that is sufficient) that that Law, or Covenant, requiring perfect obedience, and perpetual, without the least omission or commission, he must have paid all that obedience, which the Law required of him, to the day of his trans•••gration, or change to glory, before the 〈◊〉 had been ma∣de. He addeth; for had he lived a two yeers in his integrity & uprightness, with∣out the least touch of any transgression, he h•d still but a debtor of obedience to the Law, upon the same termes, that he was, at the beginning, & the least inter∣ruption or breach in the course of his obedience, had even now been the forfeiture of that life he enjoyed. Ans. How long Adam should have lived upon earth, befo∣re his translation to glory, we know not; nor is it of use for us to enquire; it is sufficient to know, that he was to finish his course, & to persevere in obedience to the end, if he would not both forfeit the life he had, and the expectation of the life of glory, which was promised upon his compleeting his work of obedience.

He addeth. Notwithstanding, the Scriptures of the New. Test. seem to place Page  440 the immediat right, or capacity, which beleevers have to the Kingdom of heaven & eternal glory, rather in the grace of Adoption, than in any Righteousness what∣soever, even Remission of sins itself not excepted. Ans. I have spoken to this else∣where, and shall only say here, That hereby he hath destroyed his Con∣clusion; for hereby we see, that in order to the attaining of right to life, more is requisite, than meer Remission, for he cannot say, that Remission of sins & Adoption, is all one, having clearly hinted the contrary here, & having also denied Righteousness to be the ground of Adoption, while as before he made Righteousness & Remission of sins all one. He shall never prove that Adoption is without the Imputation of Righteousness. Let us heare his reason. The reason whereof may (haply) be this, because the life & blessedness, which come by Iesus Christ, are of far higher nature, excellency and worth, than that which was Covenanted to Adam, by way of wages for his work, or obedience to the Law, & therefore require an higher & fuller & richer capacity, or title in the creature, to interesse him therein, than that did: work faithfully performed is enough, to entitle a man to his wages, but the gift of an inheritance re∣quirtth a special grace or favour. Ans. As this is but dubiously asserted; so it is to no purpose; for though some difference may be granted betwixt the glory, now had by the Gospel & that promised to Adam, in several respects; Yet it was a life of glory, that was promised to Adam, & our Adoption is not without the imputation of a Righteousness. Nor was Adam's obedience such a work, as in strick justice called for wages, without a Covenant. The Imputation of Righteousness is indeed a special grace & Favoure & therefore fit enough to found Adoption.

His 6. Conclusion is this. That Satisfaction, which Christ made to the justice of God for sin, & whereby he procured Remission of sins (or perfect Righteousness) & reconciliation with God for those that beleeve, consists only in that obedience of his, which he performed to that peculiar & special Law of Mediation, which God imposed upon him (which we commonly, though perhaps not altogether so properly, call his passive obedience) & not at all in that obedience or subjection, which he ex∣hibited to that common Law of nature, which we call moral. Ans. Though, if we should speak strickly of satisfaction, as distinguished from obedience, & as relating to the punishment for sin, the substance of this Conclusion might be granted; Yet taking Satisfaction more largly, as relative to our whole debt, it must necessarily include his obedience to the Law moral. (2) Though for explications sake, we may speak of Christ's Active, & of his Passive obe∣dience distinctly; Yet there was suffering & satisfaction, in all his Active obedience (as it is commenly called) & there was action & meriting in all his Passive Obedience (as it is commonly called.) His supposing Remission of sins, & Perfect Righteousness, is already discovered to be a mistake, (4) The special Law of Mediation required of Christ both obedience & suf∣fering, & he speaketh without ground, when he restricteth it to his passive obedience, (as it is commonly called) only. His reason is. Because nothing can be satisfactory to divine justice for sin, but that which is penal. Heb. 9: 22. for doubtless, where there is Satisfaction, there is & may be remission. Ans. This confirmeth only what we granted of satisfaction taken strickly. But cannot Page  441 prove, that Satisfaction largely taken, may not, or cannot, yea or must not, include obedience, this being part of our debt to the Law, and to the Lawgiver: nor will it prove, that there was nothing of Satisfaction in Christ's obedience, which he performed in his state of humiliation. It is true, where there is Satisfaction, there is & may be Remission; but Re∣mission is not all, that we stand in need of. But he will have that obedien∣ce, which Christ exhibited to the moral Law, no way penal: And his rea∣son is, because it was required of man, in his innocency, & imposed by God upon Adam before his fall; Yea & still lyeth & shall lye to the dayes of eternity upon men & Angels. Ans. Yet for all this, it might be & was penal unto Christ, who was not meer man, but God & man in one person: And for Him, who was God, & above all Law, that man cometh under, to subject him self to that Law, which was imposed upon man, as a Viator, must needs be penal, it being a part of his subjection, as made under the Law, & a piece of his humiliation, for thus, in part, he took upon him the forme of a servant, & was made in the likeness of men; & being found in fashion, as a man, he hum∣bled himself, & became obedient unto death. Phil. 2: 7, 8. Gal. 4: 4. What they do, who are in glory, is not to the purpose; for here we are speaking of the obedience & subjection of such, as are Viators, & not Comprehensors. And Adam while innocent, was a Viator; and Christ, to pay that debt, which was required of us all, as Viators, did humble himself to performe the obedience of a Viator, in our place, & in our stead, that so he might give full satisfaction, & pay our whole debt.

From hence, there is no ground for his Inference, to wit, that. There∣fore man was punished, & that by order & appointment of God, before his fall, & that now the glorified Saints & Angels, yea & Iesus Christ himself, are now pu∣nished in heaven. For (1) it might be & was penal to him, who was God, which was duty unto man in innocency, as is cleared, & (2) The Obedien∣ce of Saints & Angels, now in glory, & far less that of Jesus Christ him∣self, (if it can properly be called obedience) is not the duty of Viators, & therefore utterly impertinent to our purpose: We do not say, that Adam's obedience was penal, it being his duty: but Christ's was, seing no Law re∣quired such obedience of him, who was God; nor was it necessary even to his humane Nature, in order to life for himself: for the hypostatical union fully removed that necessity, & either made him, as to himself, in respect of his humane nature, a comprehensor, or in the nearest capacity to it, even when he was subjecting himself to the obedience of a Viator, for us, and as standing in our room.

But he saith, the Scriptures themselves no where ascribe this satisfaction to Christ's Active obedience; but still to his passive. And here he citeth many passages of Scripture, to no purpose, seing none of these give any hint of the exclusion of his active obedience; but rather do include it; or else he may as well say, that all Christ's active obedience was no way necessary, or requisite, unto the work of Redemption; because these passages do not ex∣presly say so; and yet this he will not say, seing he granteth, that his obedien∣ce was an essential requisite, & absolutly necessary, to the constitution of Page  442 him our Priest, and his Sacrifice propitiatory: But we read of his being ma∣de under the Law, to redeem these, that were under the Law. Gal. 4: 4, 5. and of his Righteousness & obedience, as necessary to our Righteousness & justifi∣cation, and as having a no less direct influence into the same; than A∣dam's offence & disobedience had unto our death & damnation. Rom. 5: 17, 18, 19.

CHAP. II.

Christ underwent the Curse of the Law.

MR. Goodwine tels us in his 14. Conclusion. That the sentence or Curse of the Law was not properly executed upon Christ in his death: But this death of Christ was a ground or consideration to God, where upon to dispen∣se with his Law, & to let fall or suspend the execution of the penalty, or curse therein threatned. Ans. (1) This is directly contrary to what the Apostle saith Gal. 3: 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, being made a Curse for us; for it is written, cursed is every one, that hangeth on a tree. It was the Cur∣se of the Law, that we were under, & were to be delivered from; and this Christ hath delivered us from, by coming in our stead & bearing it for us, yea bearing it so, that he is said to have been made it, being made a Curse for us, which is a most emphatick expression, to hold forth Christ's bearing the very penalty, threatned in the Law, which cursed every one, that continued not in all things, which are written in the book of the Law to do them. vers. 10. Deut. 27: 26. If Christ underwent the Curse of the Law, he, sure, did suffer the very sentence, or punishment threatned in the Law; for the Curse of the Law can import no other thing. (2) If Christ did not bear the sentence or Curse of the Law, how could he be said to have died or suffered in our place, room or stead? No man is said to suffer in the place & stead of another, who doth not suffer that same particular kind of punishment, that the other is obnoxious to, and is obliged to suffer. (3) Why was Christ said to be made sin for us 2. Cor. 5: 21. & to bear our iniqui∣ties Esai. 53: 6. 1. Pet. 2: 24. If he did not undergoe the very punishment; that was due to us, because of sin? (4) This is to give away the cause, in a great measure, unto the Socinians, who will not yeeld, that Christ's death was any satisfaction to the justice, or payment of our criminal debt, or a suffering the punishment of sin, due to us; for if Christ did not suffer the curse & sentence of the Law, he did not suffer the punishment, which the Law threatned, and justice required; he did not suffer any punishment at all, if he suffered not our punishment, or that which was due to us; he did not stand in our Law-place to answere all the demands of justice according to what we were liable unto by the Law? nor did he bear our sins in his own body on the cross. (5) If Christ's death was a ground or consideration to God, whereupon to dispense with his Law; then it is apparent, that the Page  443 consideration of Christ's death was anterior to the dispensing with the Law: whereas the contrary is rather true, to wit, that the Lord's dispensing with the Law, was anteriour to his sending of Christ, because the Law properly knowing no mediator, and requiring none to suffer the penalty for another, must first, in order of nature, be considered, as dispensed with, before Christ be substituted in the room of sinners to undergo what they deserved. (6) If it was only a ground to God, whereupon to let fall, or suspend the execution of the penalty, then it seemeth, Christ's death was no full payment, or Satisfaction; for a full Satisfaction requireth more than a suspension of the execution of the punishment, even a full delivery the∣re-from.

Let us heare his reason. Because (saith he) the threatning & Curse of the Law was not at all bent or intended against the innocent or Righteous, but against transgressours only. Therefore God in inflicting death upon Christ being innocent and Righteous, did not follow the purport or intent of the Law•but in sparing & for∣bearing the transgressours (who according to the 〈◊〉 of the Law should have bin pu∣nished) manifestly dispenseth with the Law, and doth not execute it. Ans. All this being granted, yet it will not follow, that the sentence & Curse of the Law was not executed upon Christ in his death: for notwithstanding of this dispensing with the Law, as to the persons; Yet was there no Relaxation of the Law, as to the punishment threatned? Though the Law did not require, that the innocent should suffer; Yet the Supream Lord & Ruler dispensing with his own Law so far, as to substitute an innocent person, in the room & place of sinners, the Law required, that that innocent person, taking on that penalty, and thereby making himself nocent, as to the penalty, should suffer the same that was threatned, & consequently bear the Curse, threat∣ned in the Law.

As (saith he further for explication) when Zaleucus (the Locrian Law∣giver) caused one of his own eyes to be put out, that one of his son's eyes might be spared, who according both to the letter & intent of the Law, should have lost both, he did not precisely execute the Law, but gave a sufficient account or consideration, why it should for that time be dispensed with. Ans. This speaks not home to our case, wherein we pay not the half, nor no part of the penalty. But Christ payeth the whole, as substitute in our room. If Zaleucus had substituted himself in the room of his son, & suffered both his own eyes to be put out, though the Law had been dispensed with, as to the persons, yet the penalty of the loss of both eyes had been payed, & the same punishment, which the Law required, had been exacted: And so it is in our case, as is ma∣nifest.

Yet he granteth, that in some sense, Christ may be said to have suffered the penalty or Curse of the Law; as 1. It was the Curse or penalty of the Law (saith he) as now hanging over the head of the world, & ready to be executed upon all men for sin, that occasioned his sufferings. Ans. If this were all, all the beasts & senseless creatures, may be as well said to have suffered the penalty & Curse of the Law; & consequently to have suffered for man & to have born mans sin, in order to his Redemption, as Christ; for the sin, & pe∣nalty Page  444 of sin, whereunto man was liable, did occasion their suffering, or being subjected to vanity Rom. 8: 20, 21. Thus our whole Redemption is subver∣ted, & the cause yeelded unto the wicked Socinians, for if this be so, Christ had not our sins laid upon him, he did not beare our sins in his body on the tree, he was not wounded for our transgressions, the chastisement of our peace was not on him; He was not made sin for us. He was not our Cautio∣ner & High Priest; He died not in our room & stead.

Againe 2. (saith he) (& some what more properly) Christ may be said to ha∣ve suffered the Curse of the Law, because the things, which he suffered were of the same nature & kinde (at least in part) with these things, which God intended by the Curse of the Law. Ans. Though this seemeth to come nigher to the truth, than the former; Yet it cannot give full satisfaction, untill it be explained, what that part, is in respect of which, only Christ's sufferings were of the same Nature & kinde, with what the Law threatned. Let us hear therefo∣re what followeth; & see if thence satisfaction can come. But if by the Curse (saith he) of the Law, we understand either that entire systeme & historical body (as it were) of penalties & evils, which the Law itself intends in the terme; or else include & take-in the intent of the Law, as touching the quality of the persons, upon whom is was to be executed; in neither of these senses, did Christ suffer the Curse of the Law. Ans. (1) This doth not explaine to us, what that part is, in which Christ sufferings are of the same Nature & kind, with what was in∣tended by the Curse of the Law. (2) There is need of explication here, to make us understand, what is that entire Systeme & historical body of penalties & evils, which the Law itself intends in the terme Curse, or death: for this is but to explaine one dark thing by what is more dark; & so can give no Sa∣tisfaction. (3) But if the alternative added be explicative, & so the two par∣ticulars here mentioned be one & the same; then we deny, that that doth properly belong to the essence of the penalty, as threatned in the Law: that is, every thing that necessarily attended the punishment, as inflicted on man, did not directly & essentially belong thereunto, as threatned by the Law, such as the everlastingness of death, despaire, & the like necessarily accompanying this punishment inflicted on sinners; so that notwithstanding Christ did not, neither could, endure these accidental & consequential evils; Yet he both did & might be said to suffer the Curse & death threatned by the Law, which is to be abstracted from what floweth not from the Law itself, but meerly from the Nature of the subject, or Condition of the sin∣ner punished. But it may be, these words of his, the intent of the Law, as touching the quality of the persons, upon whom it was to be executed, have some other import, & that he meaneth, hereby no more but this, that the in∣tent of the Law was, that the sinner should suffer: And indeed if so, it was impossible, that Christ's sufferings could answere the intent of the Law: But we have said above, that as to this, the Law was dispensed with; & yet not∣withstanding Christ the substitute Sufferer did suffer the same kinde of pu∣nishment, that the Law threatned under the termes of Death & Curse. What he addeth Further can give no Satisfaction. So that God (saith he) required the death & sufferings of Christ, not that the Law properly, either in the letter or Page  445 intention of it, might be executed; but on the contrary, that it might not be exe∣cuted, I meane upon those, who being otherwise ohnoxious unto it should beleeve. Ans. Though it be true, that God required the death & sufferings of Christ, not that the Law either in the letter or intention of it might be executed, as to that, wherein it was dispensed with: Yet God required the death & suffe∣rings of Christ, that the letter & intent of the Law might be executed, as to that wherein it was not dispensed with: that is, as to the punishment therein threatned; And unless the Law, as to this, had been executed, no man obnoxious to it, should have escaped, and that because of the Veraci∣ty of God, yea & because of his justice, which he had determined to have Satisfied, ere sinfull man should escape the punishment.

In the next place he tels us, that God did not require the death & sufferings of Christ, as a valuable consideration, where on to dispence with his Law towards those that beleeve, more (if so much) in a way of Satisfaction to his justice, than to his wisdom. Ans. This savoureth rankly of Socinianisme. It is not for us to make such comparisons, as if God's Wisdom & justice were not at full agree∣ment, and were not one. The Scripture tels us, that God set forth Iesus Christ ts be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his Righteousness for the re∣mission of sins that are past, To declare, I say, at this time his Righteousness, that he might be just & the justifier of him, which beleeveth in Iesus. Rom. 3: 25, 26. And so it is manifest, that Satisfaction to justice was hereby intended: And this is enough to us, who know also, that in the whole contrivance of the business, the Infinite Wisdom of God is eminently relucent; And Love not to make any such comparisons: only we think, that a Propitiation, and Satisfaction, & the like termes, used in Scripture, in the expressing of this matter, have a direct aspect, & bear a manifest relation unto justice, and correspond di•ectly there with, yea clearly enough inferre the same, though there were no other mention made expresly of the justice of God, in this matter.

What saith he next to prove this. for (doubtless) God might (saith he) with as much justice, as wisdom (if not much more) have passed by the er ans∣gression of his Law, without consideration of satisfaction. Ans. What God might have done by his absolute Soveraignity, antecedent to his designe & pur∣pose, as to the punishment, or the reatus poenae (which must not be exten∣ded to the reatus culpae) is not to the question. But now, the Lord, ha∣ving declared his determination & purpose to rule & governe the world thus, & to have the glory of his relative justice manifested in the Salvation of lost man, could not according to justice, passe by transgressions, without a satisfaction. He adds. No man will say, that in case a man hath bin injured & wronged, that therefore he is absolutly bound in justice, to seek satisfaction, though he be never so eminent in the grace & practice of justice: but in many cases of injuries sustained, a man may be bound, in point of wisdom, & discretion, to seek satisfaction in one kind or other. Ans. This is the Socinian way of argueing: & nothing to the pointe; for we are to look upon the Lord in this matter, not as a private man, who may dispense with injuries done him; but as a Righteous Governour, who is resolved to demonstrate his justice & equitie, Page  446 and who therefore cannot suffer sin to go unpunished without a due satisfa∣ction had, for the violation of his Lawes.

Nor is it to the point to tell us, that some hold, that God, if it had plea∣sed him, might have pardoned Adam's transgression, without the Atone∣ment made by the death of Christ: for they speak not of what God may now do, having determined to manifest the glory of his justice; but what he might have done in signorationis ante decretum. And as for that word Heb. 2: 11. It became him. &c. it will as well respect the justice of God as his wis∣dom, seing it became him upon the account of justice, which he would have glorified.

Mr. Baxter in his Confess. Chap. IX. Sect. 5. pag. 289. thinketh that to say, that Christ paid the same thing, that the Law required of us, & not only satisfied for our not payment, is to subvert the substance of Religion: But this is only in his apprehension, & as he taketh up their meaning, who say so; And others possibly may have no lower thoughts of some, who hold, that Christ only gave such a sacrifice to God, as might be a valuable consideration, on which he might grant us the benefites, on such conditions as are most sutable to his ends & honour; & that he did not suffer the same, which the Law threatned. The screwing up of differences to such an hight, as to make either the one, or the other, sub∣versive of the substance of Religion, had need to be upon clear & undeniable grounds, and not founded on meer sandy and loose consequences, such as those seem to me, by which Mr. Baxter maketh out this Charge.

For he tels us. The Idem is the perfect obedience, or the full punishment that the Law requires. It is supplicium ipsius delinquentis → . Ans. But now, seing such as say, that Christ paid the Idem, will say as well as he, that when Christ suffered that, which they call the Idem, the person himself that sin∣ned, did not suffer: And I would enquire at Mr. Baxter, whether paid Christ the Idem, as to all other respects beside; that is, whether Christ suf∣fered all that penalty, which the Law did threaten to transgressours only this excepted (which must be excepted) that he did it in another person, & that he was not the person himself, that sinned, or not? If he say, Not, then the difference goeth deeper; but why doth he not then, to make out this heavy charge, Instance some particulars, threatned in the Law, which Christ did not undergo? And why doth he insist only on this one, that he was not ipse delinquens. but another person? If he grant that in all other re∣spects, Christ paid the Idem; no man, sure, can see such difference here, as shall make the one side subvert the Substance of Religion: for it is a meer s••ife about a word; & it cometh all to this, whether when one man layeth down his life, to save another condemned to death, after all satisfaction in money, lands, rents service, or what else, hath been rejected, he can be said to pay the Idem, which the Law required, or not? Some Lawyers would possibly say, he did pay, or suffer the Idem; Mr. Baxter would say not, because he was not ipsa persona delinquens, was not the very person, that was condemned, but another. And yet death, unto which the other man was condemned, was inflicted upon him, and no less would be accepted as satis∣faction, at his hands; which would make some say, that all that debate, Page  447 whether it was the same, or the equivalent, were a meer needless contest about a word. And if it be but just so here, in our present debate, every one will judge it very hard, to call that a subversion of Religion, which, after examination & trial, is found to be but a strife about a word. Now, how will Mr. Baxter prove that the suffering of the Idem, is only, when it is supplicium ipsius ← delinquentis? And not also, when the same punishment, in all its essential ingredients, is undergone & suffered by another? When the Law imposeth the penalty of death, or of such a great summe of money, on a person transgressing such a Law; common discourse would say, & I sup∣pose the Law give allowance thereto, that, when another came, & payed the same penalty for him, without the least abatement, he payed the same penalty, which he Law impofed, and not another; and not meerly a va∣luable consideration. It is true, the Law threatened only the transgressour, & obliged him to suffer; but notwithstanding, another might pay the very same thing, which the Law threatned & requireth.

He saith next (p. 290.) the Law never threatned a Surety: nor granteth any liberty of substitution: that was an act of God above the Law? If therefore the thing due were payed, it was we ourselves morally or legally, that suffered. Ans. Sure, some Lawes of men will threaten Sureties, & grant liberty of sub∣stitution too: But if he speak here only of the Law of God, we grant; that it threatned only the transgressour; & that it was an act of God above the Law, & dispensing therewith, that granted a substitution; Yet notwith∣standing of this it is not proved, that that Substitute did not, or could not, suffer the same punishment, which the Law threatned. And if Mr. Baxter think, that the lawes not threatning a Surety, nor granting liberty of a substitution, will prove it; it is denied. Next His other consequence is as uncleare, viz. That if the thing due were payed, it was we ourselves that suffered personally: all these consequences run upon the first false ground, that no man can pay the Idem, but the very transgressour. What he mea∣neth by, we ourselves morally, he would do well to explicate. And as for legal∣ly, we ourselves may be said to do legally, what our Surety & undertaker doth for us. And if this be all he meaneth, viz. that if the thing due (to wit by Law, as threatned there) be payed, either we in our own persons, or our Surety for us, & in our room & Law place, payed it, it is true, but subversive of his hypothesis: It must then be some other thing that he meaneth by morally or legally & it must be the same with, or equivalent to personally: or the like; but his next words cleare his meaning; for he addeth; And it would not be ourselves legally, because it was not ourselves naturally. And what lawyer, I pray, will yeeld to this reason? I suppose, they will tell us, that we are said to do that legally, which our Cautioner, or Surety doth for us. But if he think otherwayes here also, that nothing can be accounted to be done by us legally, but what is done by our selves Naturally (which is a word of many significations, & might occasion much discourse) that is, personally; Yet it will not follow, that no other can suffer the Idem, that was threat∣ned, but the delinquent himself.

At length he tels us, That if it had been ourselves legally, then the strickest Page  448 justice could not have denied us a present & perfect deliverance ipso facto, seing no justice can demand more, than the idem quod dehitur (rather debetur) the whole debt of obedience or punishment. Ans. But what if ourselves, in our own natural persons, had undergone the penalty, had we therefore ipso facto at∣tained a perfect deliverance? It will be confessed, I suppose, that all that underlye this punishment, underlye it for ever: how then doth their legall suffering the idem helpe them? If it be said, that they must eternally suffer, because never able to suffer so, as to make satisfaction: Yet still it is obvious, that their undergoing the idem in their own persons naturally, doth not ad∣vantage them, as to a present & perfect deliverance ipso facto, or ever at all. And where is then the truth of this axiome? Or where is its pertinency to our purpose? When a man is punished with death, according to the Law, is he ipso facto presently & perfectly delivered? It seemeth then, that the paying of the Idem, yea, or the tantund•m by another person, is more ef∣fectual for their liberation, than their paying of the Idem in their own per∣sons. And againe the Law, in many cases granteth liberation, even when the Idem in Mr. Baxters sense is payed, that is, when another payeth down the same: Yea & likewise if the Creditor be satisfied, when another thing is payed: So that neither part of this assertion holdeth true, univer∣sally.

But yet some may say; That if the Idem or the very same, were payed by Christ, our liberation should immediatly follow. I Ans. It will not follow; so if we, in our own persons, had made full payment of that debt of suffe∣ring (which is impossible to be done in time) it might be granted, that actuall liberation would immediatly follow: but when we did not this, in our own persons; but Christ made full payment of what the Law could de∣mand by way of punishment, or threatned, for us, it will not follow, that our deliverance should immediatly follow thereupon: and the reason is be∣cause it was such a paying of the Idem, as was refusable, and as God him∣self provided out of wonderful love & free grace; and was accorded unto by a mutual compact, according to the free & wise Conditions of which the benefites were to be given out.

Mr. Baxter in his Cath. Theol. part. 2. n. 48. saith, the Very nature & Reason of the Satisfactoriness of Christ's sufferings was not in being the very same either in kind, or in degree, which were due to all for whom he suffered. Whence we see, that he denieth, that Christ suffered the same, either in kind, or in de∣gree, that was due by the Law to those for whom he suffered. His reason, why they could not be the same, which was due by the Law, he giveth (n. 49.) is the same we heard before viz. The Law made it due to the sinner himself. Which notwithstanding, it might be the same both as to kind & degree, which Christ suffered, that the Law made due; the substitution of a new person, that the Law did not provide, altereth not the punishment either as to kind, or as to degree. He addeth: and anothers suffering for him ful•illeth not the Law (which never said either thou, or another for thee shall die) but only satisfyeth the Law-giver, as he is above his own Law, & could dispense with is, his justice being satisfied & saved, dum alius solvit, aliud solvitur. Page  449Ans. Though the Law intend only the punishment of the transgressour; Yet when the Law-giver dispenseth with the Law, & accepteth of the punish∣ment & suffering of a•other, the punishment & suffering of another, doth not eo spso, that it is the punishment & suffering of another, become diffe∣rent in kind & degree from the punishment enjoyned by the Law; as is ob∣vious; when •ne man suffereth death for another, the Law being dispensed with, that made death due to the transgressour himself: his death doth not become eoipso, that it is the death of another, than of him that transgres∣sed, another kind of death, ar distinct as to degrees; it may be the same as to both: And yet this is all the force of Mr. Baxter argument, dum alius solvit, aliud solvitur; which whether it be a certaine & universal rule in the Law, I much doubt: but though it were : Yet no man can hence inferre, that aliud quoad genus & gradus, eo ipso solvitur: for it is a rule in logick, that a genere ad speciem non sequitur affirmativ•, so that though, when the Law requireth, that he who sinneth shall suffer, & die, & another suffereth & dieth, in the room & stead of him who sinned, it may be said, that in so farr aliud solvitu•; Yet it cannot be hence inferred, that the death or suffe∣ring of him, who sinned not, is quite of another kind, & differeth in de∣grees from that death, which the Law made due to the sinner.

He mentioneth afterward in the 2, 3, 4. & 5. places some particulars, which were not in Christ's sufferings, & yet would have been in the suffe∣rings of sinners themselves: But all this is to no purpose; for the question is not, whether Christ's sufferings were the same every way with the suffe∣rings of the damned, as to all circumstances, & consequents, flowing from the Condition of sinners suffering; But whether they were the same, as to kind, with that death & Curse, which was threatned in the Law, by way of punishment, & which was therefore due by Law unto the transgressour. Let us now see the particulars. 2. And sin (saith he) itself (though not as sin) was the greatest part of the sinners punishment. To be alienated from God, & not to Love him & delight in him, but to be corrupted & deluded & tormented by concupiscence. Ans. These are indeed necessary consequents of sin in the per∣son, who is a sinner, and are consequently punishment; but not directly such; neither were they threatned as punishments by the Law, & so do not belong to the essence & substance of that punishment, which the Law threat∣ned, & which Christ was called to undertake. 3. Saith he. And the imme∣diat unavoidable consequents resulting from sin itself, were punishments, which Christ did never undergo, (as to be hateful & displeasing to God, as contrary to his holy nature, to be related as criminal, to lose right to God's Favour & King∣dom. Ans. To be hateful & displeasing unto God • agreeth only to a creatu∣re (which God doth not hate, as such) as a sinner inherently: and though Christ did not feel God's hatred & anger against his own person, yet he felt his anger & hatred against sin, & sinners. And Christ was also related as Criminal, not inherently, but by imputation, when he was made sin for •s. 2. Cor. 5: 21. The sinner that is such inherently only, loseth right to God's Favour, & Christ missed the sense thereof, when he cried out, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? And 4. (saith he) none of the further punish∣ment, Page  450 which supposed real faultiness, could fall on Christ, as the torment of an accusing conscience, for rejecting & offending God, for casting away our own fe∣licity & running into hell &c. the sense of God's hatred of us, as real sinners. Ans. All this is granted, but these belonged only to the punishment as inflicted on the sinner & transgressour himself, but did not belong to its essence & sub∣stance abstractly confidered, & so could not accompany the same, as infli∣cted upon one, who was in himself wholly free of all sin. And this is yet more manifest in that which he mentioneth. 5. Saying much less the Deser∣tions of the Spirit of holiness, to be left without goodness, in a state of sin, & to hate God for his justice & holiness, which will be the damneds case; for these did not belong to the essence & substance of the punishment, threatned in the Law; but were only consequents thereof, as inflicted on sinners inhe∣rently. We do not say, that Christ suffered, what the damned do suffer, or that he was in the damneds case. Thus, though we make them not of the same kind, with all that the damned do suffer; Yet without any blind zeal (as he is pleased to censure) we may say, that Christ suffered the same cur∣se & death, that was threatned in the Law properly, as a punishments, as to substance; and yet no way be guilty of intollerable blaspheming of our Saviour.

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

It is to be observed, that Papists & some others use all these same argu∣ments to prove, that Christ did not suffer any thing of the penalty of sin in his soul, as may be particularly seen in Parker de descensu lib. 3. But Mr. Bax∣ter granteth (n. 51.) that Christ did suffer more in soul, than in body: And yet what answers are made by Parker & other reformed divines, in this mat∣ter, Page  451 against Papist's, may also serve our turn against Mr. Baxter & others: Socinians also, (as may be seen in Smalci• Refut. lib. de Satisf. Christ Chap. 6. & 7.) upon these same grounds, deny, that Christ's sufferings were a pro∣per satisfaction, he thereby not paying the Idem, the same, that man should have suffered. And Socinus Prael. Theol. Cap. 18. fol. 205. saith in plaine ter∣mes, That Christ did no way satishe the justice of God by his sufferings, unless it be said, that he suffered the same things, which we should have suffered because of our sins. Therefore there is a necessity, to hold that Christ suffered the same for substance, that the Elect were liable to suffer, that it may the more clearly appear, that his sufferings were indeed a Satis∣faction.

But Mr. Baxter tels us, in the same book (n. 149.) that Solution of the debt & satisfaction, strickly taken, thus differ, that Satisfaction is solutio tan∣tidem, vel aequivalentis, alias indebiti. And if Christ be said to have paid the very same duty & punishment, which the Law required, he is denied to ha∣ve satisfied, for our non-payment; for a Law that is fully performed can requi∣re no more, nor the Law-giver neither: And therefore both Satisfaction & Pardon are shut out. Ans. Thus we seem to be hardly straitned, for if we say, that Christ paid the Idem, the Same, Mr. Baxter thinketh we destroy thereby all Satisfiction & all Pardon, and so yeeld the cause to the Socinians: If upon the other hand, we say, that Christ did not suffer the Idem, we yeeld the cause unto the Socinians, and deny all Satisfaction, in t•er judgment; and their consequence seemeth to be as rational, as Mr. Baxter's. But truth may be affirmed, without all hazard: And to make such a difference be∣twixt Solution & Satisfaction, is to play needlesly upon words, & at length will but recurre unto this, Sialius solvit, aliud solvitur; and so by saying that Christ's Satisfaction was also a solutio ejusdem, we shall deny both Satisfa∣ction & Pardon; or by calling it so: But, as was said above, it is not fit to lay so much weight upon the simple use of a terme or word; and sure it is most unfit for Mr. Baxter to do so, who on all occasions, venteth his displeasure so much against others, who lay so much weight on meet termes of art, or words. But, as to the thing, sure, the creditor will think himself satis∣fied, when the same summe, which was oweing by one, is payed by an∣other for the debitor, & that in the same species of Silver, or of Gold. And if that hold, that sialius solvit, aliud solvitur, Mr. Baxter may see, that if another pay, his payment may become a Satisfaction, because it is so far aliud another thing, though really & upon the matter, it be the same. And here lieth the truth, that we assert, Christ paid the very same suffering, that we were obliged to pay; but he being another, and not the persons guilty themselves, his sufferings were not only a solutio debiti, a payment of our debt, but also, as being performed by him, they were a Satisfaction to justice, and so much the rather a compleet Satisfaction, that they were the same sufferings, we were liable to, & not strickly equivalent. And this ap∣peareth to me the more clear from what Mr. Baxter said before (n. 5•. & 53.) where he hath these words. [The true reason of the Satisfactorieness of Christ's suffering was, that they were a most apt meanes for the demonstration Page  452 of the Governing justice, holiness, Wisdom & Mercy of God, by which God could attaine to the ends of the Law & Government, better than by exe∣cuting the Law on the world in its destruction.] Where we hear no word of its being solutio equivalentis alias indebiti. and next, all this is more clear by Christ's suffering the very same, that we were to suffer, than by saying that he suffered some other thing; The most clear demonstration of the Gover∣ning justice of God was in exacting of Christ the full penalty, & the very same punishment both in Soul & Body, that the Law of God made due unto transgressours; No other thing could give such a demonstration hereof, ju∣stice could not have required more; and justice had not fully been demon∣strated by exacting less: and the exacting of the very same, both as to Kin∣de, and as to degrees keeped a just correspondence with the requisite de∣monstration of the Governing justice of God. Hereby also was his Holiness Wisdom & Mercy, whereby he attained the ends of the Law & Govern∣ment, most clearly manifested, when he did not execute the Law upon the sinful world, but upon the substituted Cautioner, that the Elect world might be saved: This, I am sure, was evidently a full salvo to Gods justice, when the same punishment was paid down, that Law & justice called for. Not that God might give pardon & life to sinners, upon the new termes of the Co∣venant of Grace (as he speaketh n. 53.) for that looketh too like the Armi∣nian Satisfaction : as if nothing but a possibility & freedom were here obtai∣ned for God to bestow pardon & life, upon such conditions; whereby not∣withstanding of this Satisfaction, it might come to passe, that not one should be saved. See Colloq. Hag. p. 172. Impetratio salutis pro•omnibus, est acquisiti• possibilitatis, ut nimirum Deus, illaesâ suâ justitiâ, hominem pecca∣torem possit recipere in gratiam. See also Grevinch. ad Ames. fol. 9. Posita & prae∣stita Christi morte & Satisfactione, fieri potest, ut, nemine novi foederis conditio∣nem praestante, nemo salvaretur. Therefore I judge it saifest to say. That justice was so satisfied, as that all such, for whom the Satisfaction was given, shall in due time, and according to God's own method, certain∣ly receive both pardon & life, both grace & glory, both grace to be∣leeve in Christ, and all the other graces that follow thereupon, with life everlasting.

CHAP. III.

We must not lean to any Righteousness within us, whe∣reby to be justified.

Mr. Baxter in his Cathol. Theol. part. 2. n. 176. speaketh thus. It is ordinary (saith he) with some writers & preachers, to tell men, that no part of their Righteousness is in themselves, & with others, that at least, none which they are justified, by in any part is in them; And that it is all in Christ only: And that nature is loth to yeeld to this, but thinketh it a fi∣ne Page  453 thing, to have some little part of the honour to itself: And as to the honour of a good Action, if it be but 999. parts, that it ascribeth to God, & taketh one part of a thousand to ourselves, it is a dangerous arrogation: We must have none. And it might be thought, that such as ever understood the Gospel, considered the particular expressions, used in Scripture, to abase man, yea & the whole Contrivance of the Gospel Salvation, through a Crucified Cautioner, and that such as ever understood & were acquanted with the Natural Pride, de∣ceit, & Treacherie of their own heart; and had any experience in the de∣vices of Satan, in & about wakened consciences, to keep them from an hear∣ty closing with & willing accepting of, and cleanly resting upon the way of Salvation, revealed in the Gospel, should be far from condemning this saying, & from making exceptions against it. But indeed, the grounds, that Papists, Socinians & Arminians lay down, as the Basis of their anti∣evangelick Fabrick, & Contrivance of the way of Salvation, are more fa∣vourable to Self, and are therefore the more cordially embraced by many, & more stiffly maintained. Mr. Baxter seemeth to say here, that these are different things, to say, That no part of our Righteousness is in ourselves, and that no part of our Righteousness, by which we are justified, is in ourselves, whe∣re with the Orthodox, these are but different expressions of the same thing; for when they deny a Righteousness within ourselves, it is not a denying of begun Holiness & Sanctification; but a denying of a Righteousness as the ground of justification, for all this they acknowledge to be wholly & only in Christ, the Lord our Righteousness. And to adjoine to this, the Question about the honour of a good Action, as whether that should be wholly ascri∣bed to God, or one part of a Thousand may not be ascribed to ourselves; is neither very savourie in itself, nor pertinent to the clearing of the other.

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

Yet let us hear the ground of this so sharp & so unseemly censure. The De∣vil (saith he) is as willing as any one, that you should have nothing honourable or praiseworthie in you; & be as vile, as he can make you. Ans. If it would not be displeasing, I would say, that this answere is a plaine cheat: for the que∣stion is not, whether we should have any thing in us, truely honourable & praise worthie, or whether we should be as vile, as the devil would make us; No protestant ever spoke so; But the question is. Whether for any thing in us truely honourable & praise worthie, we should Sacrifice to our own net, & burne incense to our own drag; or give the glory unto God, Page  454 who worketh all our works in us; and worketh in us both to will, & to do Esai. 26: 12. Phil. 2: 13. The question is not, whether we should have good in us, or not? but whether we should not say, with Paul 1. Cor. 4: 4. Even when we know nothing by ourselves, yet are we not hereby justified? and whether we should not say with him Phil, 3: 8, 9. that we count all things but loss, for the excellency of the knowledg of Christ Jesus, our Lord, & count them dung, that we may win Christ, & be found in him, not having our own Righteousness, which is of the Law, but that which is through the Faith of Christ, the Righteousness which is of God by Faith. The question is not, whether Christ be made Sanctification to us; but whether that San∣ctification, be any part of that Righteousness, which Christ is made of God to be unto us? What more?

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

And I have oft lamented it (saith he furder) that these very men, that hold this kind of doctrine of self-abosement, as having no part of Righteousness, nor sha∣re at all in any good work, are yet too oft so proudly conceited of their own good∣ness (even for holding, that they have none for which they are praise worthie) as that their pride is no small trouble to the Churches & all about them. Ans. I shall not plead for pride, or proud conceits in any: but whether such as lay down doctrinal grounds of pride, and teach men to be proud, or such as lay down contrary grounds, but do not practise accordingly, be most blame worthie; I leave Mr. Baxter to judge. One thing I would ask: How Mr. Baxter came to know, that such, as he opposeth here, were proudly conceited of their own goodness? Pride & a proud conceit lyeth most within, & is not ob∣vious to the view of every one, especially being upon such a ground. I hope Mr. Baxter will not take upon him to judge of hearts: And if it be by their contendings for that, which they conceive to be truth: If this be an infallible mark, no man can be judged more proud, than is Mr. Baxter, none having in this matter contended by so many & so great volumnes, as he hath, since his Aphorismes come abroad, & that indeed to the no small trouble of the Page  455 Churches. And further, some might think, that if Mr. Baxter did aright lament, that any were proudly conceited of their own goodness, he should not have laid doctrinal grounds for fomenting of this pride; nor moved such an objection against himself, as he doth here; for no man can rightly la∣ment at the practice of that doctrine, which himself embraceth & tea∣cheth.

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

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

Next (n. 181. for 180.) he saith. All the Righteousness, which formally justifieth us, is our own, or on ourselves, where it justifieth us: for to be made just or justified, in the first sense constitutivly, is nothing else, but to be made such, as are personally themselves just. Pardon of sin is made our own, Right to Christ & glory is made our own; though Christ's Righteousness was the only meritorious cause of all this; which therefore is & may be called our Material Righteousness, as that, which meriteth it, is the matter. Ans. There seemeth to be nothing here, but confusion: for (1) he speaketh ambiguously, when he saith, that all that Righteousness, which formally justifieth us, is our own, or on ourselves; for this may be true, whether by that Righteousness, he mean the Surety-Righteousness of Christ (which he doth not meane, for he is too much against the imputation of that, as we have seen) beeause we Page  456 say, that is made ours by imputation, in order to our justification upon the account thereof: or whether he mean our own inherent Righteousness; but then if this be his meaning, it is false, that we are hereby formally justified, unless he mean, as before, only a particular justification, which is nothing to the point, as was said. (2) To be made just & to be justified, are not for∣mally the same, but to such only, who Love confusion. (3) He who is ma∣de just, is but constituted justifiable, & is not eo ipso constitutive justified: But Mr. Baxter loveth his own Expressions & Explications of them. (4) When he saith that to be justified constitutively is nothing else but to be made such, as are personally themselves just, he speaketh very indistinctly; not only as con∣founding, being made just & being justified, as if they were formally the sa∣me; but also as not giving us to understand, what he meaneth by these words personally th•mselves just: Hereby he would seem to say, that only by something inherent in our persons, we are constituted Righteous, & are justified; and not by any thing imputed to us: And if so, the ground of all Anti-evangelick boasting & glorying in ourselves is laid. (5) Pardon of sin, as such, is neither a making a just, nor a justifying: and the same we say of Right to Christ & to Glory. (6) Christ's Righteousness, according to Mr. Baxter, can not be called the meritorious cause of our pardon, justification, & Right to Glory &c. because it is only made by him the meritorious cause of the New Covenant, wherein pardon, Right to Christ & to Glory are promi∣sed upon New Conditions, & so is made the meritorious Cause of the con∣nection betwixt the performance of these New Conditions, & the obtaining of Pardon & that Right; so that by vertue of Christ's Merites, these New Conditions are made the proper & immediat meritorious cause ex pacto of these favours: And by this way, Man can not but boast & glory in himself immediatly, and give Christ only some remote far-off thanks, for procu∣ring the New termes. (7) Christ's Righteousness cannot be called our Mate∣rial Righteousness, any other way, than as it hath purchased the New Co∣venant, according to Mr. Baxter; & this being equally for all, Christ's Righteousness shall be the Material Righteousness of the Reprobat, as well as of Beleevers: And how can that be called ours, which is not ours, nor our own, nor are we by it made personally just ourselves? as he spoke befo∣re (8) According to this doctrine, Christ Righteousness meriteth to us an∣other Righteousness, which is our own & on ourselves & by this we are for∣mally justified: that is, according to what went before, & to what follo∣weth, we are formally justified by our own personal inherent holiness (for of this, he is speaking only) and yet that which he here mentioneth, as the Righteousness, which formally justifieth us, is said to be pardon of sin, & a Right to Christ & to Glory, which formally is no Righteousness at all, nor no where so called in Scripture, & is but a consequent of that, which elsewhere he calleth our Gospel Righteousness, and the Condition of Ju∣stification.

He goeth on (n. 182.) He that is no cause of any good work, is no Chri∣stian, but a damnable wretch, & worfe than any wicked man I know in the world: And he that is a cause of it, must not be denyed falsly to be a cause of it. Nor a Page  457 Saint denied to be a Saint, upon a false pretence of self-denyal. Ans. Of such a cause of any good work, he knoweth the objection speaketh, that should have the glory & praise thereof; and & of good works, as the ground & formal Cause of justification; which these against whom Mr. Baxter here disputeth, do deny. But we may see here, what Mr. Baxter accounteth good works; even such as the most damnable wretch, and possiblie the devil him∣self may do; that is a work materially good, though far different from the good works described to us in Scripture. And thus the Justification upon good works, which Mr. Baxter here meaneth, must be a Justification, that all Heathens, damnable wretches, yea & devils themselves are capable of: But this is not the justification we speak of, of which who ever are partakers shall be glorified Rom. 8: 30. We say nothing, that giveth him ground to think, that our thoughts are, that a Saint should be denyed to be a Saint, upon pretence of Self-denyal. Only we say that such as are Saints indeed will be loth to rob God of his glory, or take any of that to themselves, which is due to him alone, in so far as they act as Saints; And they should not, because Saints, glory & boast, as if their justification before God, were by their Sanctity & good works; & not of meer grace, through the imputation of the Surety-Righteousness of Christ. One thing I would ask. Doth Mr. Baxter think, that Christ's Righteousness hath merited that justi∣fication, which those damnable wretches & devils may partake of, by any good work, which they do? himself told us in the foregoing (n. 81.) that all Righteousnuss which formally iustifieth, is our own, & that to be made just & to be justified are the same, or equipollent; and to be Justified con∣stitutively is nothing else, then to be made such as are personally them∣selves just. Now, when devils & damnable wretches may be the causes of some good work, that good work cannot but formally justifie them, and they thereby become constitutively justified, I would enquire, whether this Justification be purchased by Christ or not? And againe I would enquire, whether this Justification be accompanied with pardon of sin, & with Right to Christ & to glory, or not? If not, how can it be called a justification? & if it be not a justification, how can they be hereby formally justified, & con∣stitutively justified?

He tels us next (n. 183) As God is seen here in the glass of his works, so he is to be loved & praised, as so appearing. This is, say I, good & reasonable. What then? Therefore (saith he, he that dishonoureth his work, dishonoureth God, & hindereth his due love and praise. This consequence, I grant, is good; but what is it to the point in hand? And his most lovely & honourable work (saith he) on earth is his holy image on his Saints; & as Christ will come to be admired & glorified in them at last, so God must be seen & glorified in them here in some de∣gree▪ Neither, say I, is any thing of this to the purpose in hand. He addeth. And to deny the glory of his image is the malignants way of injuring him, & that in which the worst will serve you. And what then? He that will praise God (saith he further) as Creator & Redeemer must praise his works, of Creation & Redemption: And is it the way of praising him, as our Sanctifier, to dispraise his work of Sanctification? Ans. What maketh all this to the purpose? Must Page  458 all such be guilty of this malignant wickedness, who tell men, that no part of their Righteousness is in themselves, by which they are to be justified, but that it is all in Christ only: or that say, that God must have all the glo∣ry of what good action they do? This is hard, that either we must be wicked Malignants, or Sacrilegious robbers of God of the Glory, due unto him, But I see no connexion, and Mr. Baxter hath not yet de∣monstrated the same. He must then prove the Consequence of this ar∣gueing.

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

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

But next he saith (n. 186.) If all had been taken from God's honour, which had been given to the creature, God would have made nothing, or made nothing good; heaven & earth & all the world would derogate from his honour; and none of his works should be praised. And the better any man is, the more he would dis∣honour God, & the wickeder the less. But he made all good, and is glorious in the glory, & honourable in the honour of all: & to justifie the holiness of his ser∣vants, Page  459 is to justifie him. Ans. All this is little or nothing to the purpose: for such as are carefull that man rob not God of his glory, do not deny the ho∣nour due to the creature, knowing that when honour is given to the creatu∣re, upon a right ground, and in the right manner, it redounded unto the honour of the Creator: But who knoweth not, how ready the Creature is to steal into the throne of God; and how ready men are to transcend•, and transgress all due limites? And is it not saifest to keep far from such a dange∣rous precipice? Is it to edification thus to gratifie with our pleadings proud Nature, and to blow at this fire of corruption, that the Saints have daily∣hard work about to suppress & exstinguish? Must we thus, on so small occa∣sions, plead so stoutly for man, & pretend to plead for God too?

He addeth next (n. 187.) If these Teachers mean, that no man hath any power freely to specifie the acts of his own will by any other help of God, besides necessitating predetermining premotion; & so that every man doth all that he can do, & no man can do more than he doth; They di honoure God by denying him to be the Creator of that f•ee power, which is essential to man, & which God himself accounteth it his honour to creat. And they feigne God to damne & blame all, that are damned & blamed, for as great impossibilities, as if they were damned & blamed for not making a world, or for not being Angels. Ans. This is not a fit pla∣ce to treate of that Question of Predetermination, though Mr. Baxter pull it in here by the eares; It is enough for us, that we see now, whither all that Mr. Baxter hath here been saying, tendeth, even to give unto Man, the glory of all the good he doth, of his Faith, Repentance, Love of God, obedience & perseverance, in the first, chiefe & immediat ••ace; for by his own Natural Power he did freely specifie the acts of his own will, and so beleeved, when he might have rejected the Gospel, Loved God & Christ, when he might have hated both, Repented, when he might have remained impenitent, Converted himself, when he might have remained in his for∣mer state (& Mr. Baxter maketh no difference of acts here, and so his words must be looked on as meaned of supernatural acts, as well as of Natural) & that without any predetermining grace or motion of God. This glory shall we never yeeld to be due unto man, Let Mr. Baxter load the Doctrine of Predetermining grace, with all the reproaches, and absurdities, he can invent. He needs not think now to restrick his opinion of denying Prede∣termination unto natural acts, for as the good spoken of by those he here opposeth, is supernatural good, as such; so his discourse here is expressive enough of this: And thus the cause is yeelded unto Pelagians, Iesuits & Arminians, and the crown is put upon the head of man, and he is to honour & praise himself for what good he doth, for all began at his own self-deter∣mining power & will; and the Almighty himself could not have bowed & predetermined his will, except he had overturned the course of Nature, & destroyed that free power, which is essential to man. And thus it is made to be to the honour of God, to creat a Creature, that is absolute Lord & Master of all his own actions, & so must be the first Cause of his own actions, as to their specifick moral nature, & what is this, but to make man an inde∣pendent Creature, as to his actions, & consequently a God to himself: Page  460 Mr. Baxter hinteth some other help of God besides Predetermination; but what that is, he telleth us not; is it his Concourse? From this the same in∣conveniences will flow, that flow from Predetermination. And beside Mr. Baxter seemeth to incline more to Durandus's his opinion, & A dola's, which even the Jesuites are ashamed to owne, and his friend D. Strang doth directly confute; as loving to set man yet higher up, than they dar do. Doth Mr. Baxter think that it is essential to man to have such a free power, as that of himself he can specifie the acts of his own will, without any predetermining Motion of God? Can he then beleeve in Christ. Hope savingly in God, yeeld Christian Obedience to all the commands of God, without God's Predeter∣mining motion upon his heart? And is that Common General influx, whe∣reby he is preserved in his being, & his faculties & power not taken away, enough to make a man turn from Nature unto Grace, if he will be so good natured as to bow his own will, & determine himself, as he may? Why do we then condemne the Pelagians? What did or could Pelagius say more? But enough of this here.

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

He addeth. To cast away a false conceit of Righteousness, is not to cast a∣way Righteousness, but Sin only; indeed beside sin, we are said justly to cast a∣way that, which would be the object & matter of sin: And the phrase is fitlier applied to a thing Indifferent; than to a thing necessary, lest it seduce. Ans. To account our Righteousness, consisting in our obedience to the Law, to be dung, Page  461 as Paul did, in the business of justification, is all we plaid for, let Mr. Bax∣ter call it a casting away of a false conceite of Righteousness, if that will satisfie him, but even in this we cast away our Righteousness, when we will not trust to it, as our Righteousness, in order to justification; or as that Righ∣teousness, upon the account of which we expect to be justified in the sight of God. And if Mr. Baxter be afraid of Seducing here, he may know where we ground our expressions: I suppose Paul was far from seducing, when he spoke, as he did Phil. 3: 8, 9.

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

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

Further he tels us. And so when men accounted the jewish observations to be a justifying Righteousness, in competition with, & in opposition to Christ, Paul counteth it as loss & dung, & nothing in that respect: when yet elsewhere he saith, I have lived in all good conscience to this day: And Christ himself fulfilled that Law & Righteousness. Ans. What meaneth Mr. Baxter by these jewish ob∣servations? Meaneth he nothing but their observance of the Ceremonial Law? But did Paul meane nothing but his consciencious observance of this Law, when he said, I have lived in all good conscience to this day? And did he mean nothing else, by that Righteousness, which he counted loss & dung. Phil. 3? The Apostle himself distinguisheth betwixt the Law, touching which he was a Pharisee; and that Law touching the Righteousness whereof, he had been blameless: And sure before the writting of this Epistle, he had preached down the observation of the Ceremonial Law, and was far from Page  462 the observation thereof, & yet now, he accounted that same Righteous∣ness, which formerly was gaine to him, now to be loss & dung, so that this could not be, his Ceremonial Observances; for it had been a small de∣monstration of his excessive desire to win Christ, to count tha•loss now, which he had before comdemned as unnecessary. Yea as unlawfull, & had laid aside, as such. So that he meaneth all that, which could be called his own Righteousness, & which is of the Law, and was not that Righteous∣ness, which is through the Faith of Christ, and of God by Faith. And it is also observable, that the Apostle useth a very comprehensive terme beside, saying, And I count all things but losse &c. Moreover, th• jewish observan∣ces, while that Law stood in force, were useful & good, & a Righteous∣ness, as well as the observation of the moral Law, to which they were also reducible, being enjoined by vertue of the Second Command. And if these observances could be brought (through mens corruption,) in competition, with & set in opposition to Christ, and therefore were justly accounted as loss & dung & nothing, in that respect: why ought not also moral obser∣vances be •o accounted, seing they through mans corruption, can be & are too oft brought in competition with, & set in opposition against Christ, & his Righteousness? If Mr. Baxter will yeeld to this, he needs disput no mo∣re at this rate.

He addeth. So if a man will conceit, that his common grace will justifie without holiness; or his holiness without pardon, & the Righteousness of Christ, he must deny this Righteousness; that is, he must deny it to be what it is not, & must cast away (not it, but) the false conc•its of it. Ans. We think them in an errour, who conceit, that either common grace will justi∣fie without holiness, or holiness with or without pardon & the Righteous∣ness of Christ: and it is not proper for him, who will not hear others saying, that Faith justifieth, to say, that holiness justifieth. And it is as impro∣per to say, that pardon justifieth: Let him tell me, how holiness with par∣don can justifie? And as for the Righteousness of Christ, all men (with Mr. Baxter) are justified by it alike, for it only purchased the New Cove∣nant, and that it did to all alike, and is no other way imputed unto any whatsomever. And so, according to his judgment it must be denied, that Christ's Righteousness becometh the beleevers through God's imputation, & that beleevers are there with clothed, and thereupon made juridically Righ∣teous, and then justified, or pronunced Righteous, through that imputed Surety Righteousness of Christ: this is the self-denyal that Mr. Baxter will teach us; and stead of this Surety-Righteousness of Christ, we must be clo∣thed (according to him) with our own Gospel Righteousness, Faith & New Obedience, and upon that ground, as the only neerest formal reason; or meritorious cause, expect to be justified; because Christ's Righteousness hath purchased this Covenant, and connexion. Mr. Baxter must not be of∣fended, that I mention the word Merite here, remembering what he saith himself (n. 194.) where his friendliness to Papists, & his displeasure at Protestants is so remarkable, in these words. [And those that reject the saying of some Papists, who in this sence say, that Christ merited that we might Page  463 merite, placing our Evangelical merite in a meer subordination to Christ's, do but shew, what prejudice & partiality can do, and harden those, who perceive their errors.]

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

He tels us in the margine, that none deny. That all that are saved have inherent Righteousness; and that in tantum we are Righteous by it; That a man accused, as being an Insidel, Atheist, Impenitent, Ungodly, a Hy∣pocrite &c. must be justified by pleading all the contraries in himself; or else perish; And that this inherent Righteousness is imperfect, and in us found with sin, & that therefore no man can be justified by it without pardon of sin, nor at all against the charge of being a sinner, & condemnable by the Law of innocency. But what is all this to the point? Must we not therefore say with Paul, that in the business of justification, we must account our own Righteousness to be but dung, and only lean to the Righteousness of Christ? What would he hence conclude? And what remaineth then (saith he) but to trouble the world with contending de nomine, whether this Imperfect Righteous∣ness, shall be called Righteousness, & the giving of it, called justifying, or making us Righteous so far. Ans. And who, I pray, more guilty of troubling the world with these contendings, than he? But to the matter, it is no meer contending de nomine, that he hath caused, when in stead of the Surety-Righteousness of Christ, with which the Orthodox Asserted beleevers to be clothed, as the immediat ground of their justification before God, and which they by Faith were to lean to, and rest upon in order to justification, he substituteth, in its place, our imperfect holiness, & maketh that to me∣rite justification & Salvation, as a subordinat Righteousness (so called, though indeed in this case the principal.) advanced to that dignity by the merites of Christ's Righteousness; and as all that Righteousness, which can properly be said to be ours, and to be imputed to us, as the only Pote∣stative Condition of our Justification & Salvation, according to the New Covenant, purchased by Christ. This is something more, and a great so∣mething more, than a meer contest about a word, or a name. This tou∣cheth the foundation of the Gospel, let Mr. Baxter think as little of it, as he will. I need not take notice of his making these two one thing, justi∣fying & making us Righteous, and of his calling the giving of RighteousnessPage  464 or holiness a justifying of us, for this is but sutable to him, who would con∣found all.

This is all he speaketh to this matter in this place: But thereafter Sect. 5. of merite (n. 196.) he tels us, It is a great question, whether a man may trust to his own Faith, Repentance or Holiness. And I should think, that no ortho∣dox man should once make a question about it; but should reject the very in∣sinuation of such a thing with detestation: seing Trusting to these things is the native consequent of the Popish, Socinian & Arminian errour about ju∣stification; or of all, who speak of the Imputation of Faith &c. as our Righteousness, in stead of the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ. What answere giveth he? But some men (saith he) will trouble the world with unexplained words, where no sober men differ. Ans. The words are plaine enough, and need no explication, & every ordinary Christian understand their mea∣ning; but against such, as will seek knots in rushes, and raise dust in the most clear aire, for their own ends, there is no remedie. I am afraied the point of difference shall be found such here, as that our agreement shall not be ex∣pected in •haste, unless our sobriety be such, as well make us embrace in∣consistences.

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

What more? But that really they may be trusted, for their own part, and must be so, no sober person will deny: for so to beleeve, obey, pray to God &c. & Page  465 not to trust to them in their place, that is not to think, that we shall be ever the bet∣ter for them, is unbeleefe & indeed distrusting God, & saying, it is in vain to see∣ke him, and what profite is it that we call upon him & such diffidence & des∣pair will end all endeavours. Let every man prove his own work &c. This is our Rejoicing &c. If we are justified by Faith, we may trust to be justified by it. But the rare use of such a phrase in Scripture, & the danger of it, must make us never use it without need. Ans. As I said, all the question is concerning what is their own part: And by saying that they are not to be trusted unto, we deny them to have that part, or place in the matter of our Justification & Salvation, that others give unto them: And if there were no more, this is a shreud ground of presumption to us, that Mr. Baxter, owneth not the Orthodox doctrine in this matter, viz. That he cannot with patience heare it said, That we must not trust to our own Faith, Repentance or Holiness, but ac∣counteth such expressions dangerous, aud deceiving. (2) It is but a wrong gloss put upon this expression, We must not trust to our own Faith &c. to make the meaning of it to be, we must not think, that we shall be ever the better for our Faith. &c. And therefore his following words are vaine, and to no pur∣pose. (3) It is one thing to trust to be justified by Faith, which is but beleeve God, and trust in his word; and a far other, to trust in our Faith; For this is to lay our stress, & lean our weight, & found our hopes of Justification & Salvation on our weak & feckless Faith, in stead of trusting to, & relying upon Jesus Christ & his Surety Righteousness, as the only immediat ground, & as that Righteousness by & upon consideration of which, we are justified, & have a Right to Glory: And if Mr. Baxter do not see a difference betwixt these two, it is not because he cannot, but because he will not, as some may suppose. (4) He talks of the rare use of such a phrase in Scripture; but I would know, where he findeth it used at all iu Scripture? And it is well, that he confesseth there is danger in it: which two, me thinks, should be enough to make him, as great an enemie to this expression, as we are: But the truth is, according to his principles, we are as much now to Trust to our Faith Repentance & Holiness, in order to Justification & Salvation, as Adam was to trust to his perfect obedience, according to the Covenant of works; & as much, as, according to our doctrine, we are to trust to Christ & his Surety-Righteousness.

CHAP. IV.

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

WE finde the Apostle Paul directly & pro•essedly proving & conclu∣ding, that we are not justified by the Law, nor by the works of the Law: Yet such as differ from us, about the interest of works, in justification, not being willing to yeeld & submit unto the truth, do seek Page  466 what Evasions they can, to evite the force of the Apostles a gueings & peremptour Conclusions; and therefore say, that Paul is to be understood, as speaking only of such, or such a Law; & excludeth only such & such works, in which they think they may yeeld unto, what the Apostle saith, the same being limited & restricted, according to their own minde, and yet do no prejudice to their own Hypothesis: But yet what this Law in particular is, and what are the works thereof, our Adversaries are not at all agreed a∣mong themselves; but some imagine one thing, and some another, as we shall heare.

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

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

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

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

3. It is strange, that Paul in writting to the Gentils, should deny Justifica∣tion to be by the works of the Law, meaning the Ceremonial Law only; and Iames writting to the Jewes, should cry up the observation of that Law, and plead for justification thereby: This would say, that Jewes & Gentiles Page  467 were not both to be justified one way: or that Iames & Paul do clearly con∣tradict other; neither of which must be said. That Iames speaketh of an∣other Law, than Paul speaketh of, cannot be made good. And therefore when our Adversaries will prove from Iames, that we are justified by works, their meaning is, that we are justified by the Observation of the Ceremonial Law.

4. The several things mentioned of this Law, whereof the Apostle spea∣keth, sheweth, that he is not speaking of the Ceremonial Law only: as (1) Rom. 3: 19. It is a Law that stoppeth all mouthes, & whereby all the world becometh guilty before God: But this is not the Ceremonial Law, or the jewish, or Moses Law, under which the Gentiles were not, nor yet are. (2) Rom. 3: 20. It is that Law, by which is the knowledge of sin: but this is not by the meer Ceremonial Law, as we see Paul himself professing Rom. 7: 7 (3) Rom. 2: 13. It is that Law, the döers whereof shall be justi∣fied: But this can not be asserted of the meer Ceremonial Law, or of Mo∣ses's Law. (4) Rom. 3: 27. It is that Law, which doth not exclude boasting: but it cannot be said, that the Law of Moses is only that Law. (5) Rom. 3: 31. It is that Law, that is not made void, through Faith. But this is not the Ceremonial Law; The Ceremonial Law is not established by Faith. (6) Rom. 3: 28. It is that Law, justification by which is inconsistent with & opposit to justification by Faith: but this is not the Ceremonial Law only. (7) Rom. 4: 1, 2. It is that Law, by the works whereof Abraham, was not ju∣stified. But the Apostles argument from the Instance of Abraham had not been pertinent, if no Law had here been understood, but Moses's Law; which was not in being in Abraham's dayes. (8) Rom. 4: 2. It is that Law, & works of obedience to it, that would give ground to man of glorying: But this is not true only of the Ceremonial Law. (9) Rom. 4: 4. It is that Law, obedience to which is a working, and maketh the reward of debt: But this cannot be said only of the Ceremonial Law. (10) Rom. 4: 15. It is that Law that worketh wrath: But other Lawes do this, than the Ceremo∣nial Law, (11) Rom. 8: 3, 4. It is that Law, that was weak through the flesh, and the Righteousness of which was to be fulfilled in us: but this can∣not be applied to the Ceremonial Law only. (12) Gal. 3: 10. It is that Law•, of the works of which as many as are, are under the Curse, and of which it is said, cursed is every one, that continueth not in all things, which are written in the Law to do them. But this agreeth not to the Ceremonial Law only. (13) Gal. 3: 12. It is that Law, by the doing of which, man should live: But by perfect obedience to the Law of Moses alone life was not to be had. (14) It is that Law, that cursed all transgressours, & under the Curse whereof all thoselay, for whom Christ died. Gal. 3: 13. But that is not the Ceremonial Law, which laid no Curse upon the Gentiles. (15) Ephes. 2: 9▪ 10. It is that Law, that enjoineth those good works, which God hath be∣fore ordained, that we (even Gentiles) should walk in them: But that is not the Ceremonial Law. (16. It is that Law, the works whereof are in∣consistent with grace, as the ground of Election: Rom. 11: 6. But this is not Ceremonial Law only, else we must say, that Election is for works of the Page  468 Moral Law, and yet is for grace. (17) Phil. 3: 9. It is that Law, obedien∣ce to which can be called our Righteousness: But this is not the Ceremonial Law only.

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

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

7. The Arguments, which the Apostle adduceth to disprove justification by the Law, cannot conclude against the Ceremonial Law only: for (1) all the world are not guilty of transgressing only the Ceremonial Law: and yet because all the world are become guilty before God, the Apostle inferreth Rom. 3: 20. Therefore by the deeds of the Law, there shall no flesh be justified. (2) So that other Argument ibid. for by the Law is the knowledge of sin, cannot conclude against the Ceremonial Law only. (3) Justifieation by the deeds of the Ceremonial Law only, repugneth not to the justification through the Righteousness of God without the Law, and which is by Faith of Jesus Christ; and through the Redemption, that is in Christ. (4) The Law of Ceremonies alone doth not exclude boasting. (5) Abraham's works were not works of the Ceremonial Law only (6) works of the Ceremonial Law only do not exclude glorying, nor make the reward of debt & not of grace. (7) Beleeving on him, that justifieth the ungodly, is opposed as well to him that worketh according to other Lawes, as to him, that worketh according to the Ceremonial Law Rom. 4: 5. (8) Imputed Righteousness, mentioneth Rom. 4: 7, 11. is as much opposite, in the matter of justification, to other ob∣servances, as to Mosaical Observances. (9) Forgiveness of sins, mentioned Rom. 4: 7, 8. is as inconsistent with the observation of other Lawes, as of the Ceremonial Law. (10) Justification by the Faith of Christ is as opposite to the Moral Law, as to the Ceremonial Law: And thus reasoneth the Apo∣stle Gal. 2: 16. (11) That Curse denounced Deut. 27: 26. by which the Apo∣stle proveth Gal. 3: 10. that justification can not be by the works of the Law, is not against transgressours only of the Ceremonial Law. (12) Obedience, to the moral commands, is as little a living by faith, as was obedience to the Ceremonial Law: And by this Argument Paul proveth Gal. 3: 11. that no Page  469 man is justified by the Law, in the sight of God, because the just shall live by faith. (13) This is clear also from vers. 12. & 13. to mentione no more. And the Law is not of faith (which holdeth not true only of the Ceremonial Law) but the man that doth them shall live in them (which was the Tenor of the Old Covenant Rom. 10: 5. Levit. 18: 5.) Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law (And sure this is from the Curse of other Lawes, than of the Ceremonial Law.)

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

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

Mr. Baxter, in his Cathol. Theol. part. 2. Sect. 26. where he would tell us, how Paul & Iames agree, about justification by works (n. 362.) saith that, The key of understanding Paul's discourses of justification is, to know 1. That the grand question, which he first manageth, is, whether the Gentiles may not be saved, without keeping the Iewish Law, as well as the Iewes with it? Ans. (1) But our Principal difficulty here is to understand, what Mr. Baxter meaneth by the Iewish Law? for if he meane all that, which was prescri∣scribed unto the Jewes, as a Rule of their obedience, we assent; but then the Moral Law is as much concerned here, as the Ceremonial, or judicial: And these, as such being abrogated, the disput concerneth us, as well as them, in respect of the Moral Law: But if he mean hereby, only the Law of Ceremonies, we have shown, that howbeit this might have given the first rise unto the disput, yet the disput was not wholly & purely restricted thereunto; Nor doth the Apostle only speak to that abstracted or restricted consideration of the Law, in his pleading against a justification by the works Page  470 of the Law; as we have seen; This he doth, when he pleadeth for the Abrogation of that Law, & against the observation of it. (2) Mr. Baxter, as it would seem, supposeth, that Paul made no question concerning the Je∣wes themselves, but yeelded that they were justified & saved by their Law: for the question was, saith he, whether the Gentiles might not as well be sa∣ved thereby, as the Iewes? But where findeth he this, either asserted, or granted by the Apostle, or the Question thus stated by the Apostle?

2. Saith he. To prove the Affirmative, he proveth, that the Jewes themselves cannot be saved or justified meerly or primarily by the Law, notwithstanding the divinity & great excellency of it; But must be justified by a Saviour, & free given Pardon & Right to life, & to which the sincere keeping of Moses Law was inten∣ded to be but subservient. Ans. (1) Then the Question concerned the Jewes, as well as the Gentiles, & Paul did no more grant justification by the Law to the one, than to the other. (2) Where findeth Mr. Baxter these restrictions, Merely or Primarily, in all the Apostles disput? This is not faire, to pervert the Apostles plaine peremptour, & absolute Conclusions, & restrick them to a certain limited sense, that they may the better be subservient to our de∣signes, & our Hypotheses. Do the Apostles Mediums only serve to prove, that justification is not by the Law Meerly or Primarily? Which of them all, I pray, hath only this force? (3) Though the keeping of Moses's Law be he∣re said to be but subservient; Yet, according to Mr. Baxter, it was all their Righteousness, no other was properly imputed to them, & upon it imme∣diatly they received Pardon & Right to life, as merited thereby ex pacto, the Saviour only procuring the New Covenant: that is, that all, who work well & keep the Law of Moses, shall have free Pardon & Right to life. And thus they were as well justified by the works of the Law, as by faith: for faith was also required of them: And then the meaning of the Apostles Con∣clusion Rom. 3: 28. is, therefore we conclude, that a man is justified by faith, and by the deeds of the Law: for both faith & works with Mr. Baxter, belong to this Subservient Righteousness, as he calleth it. If this be conso∣nant to the Apostles doctrine, which doth so contradict it, let the Rea∣der judge.

3. Saith he. That therefore it appeareth, that the Jewes did so fondly admire the Law, & their National Privileges under it, that they thought the exact kee∣ping of it was necessary & sufficient to Iustification & Salvation. And they thought the Messiah was not to be their Righteousness, as a Sacrifice for sin, & meriter of free Pardon, & the Gift of life, but only a great King & Deliver, to redeem them by Power from all their Enemies & Bondage. Ans. This mistake of the Jewes, concerning the Messiah, speaketh nothing to the point, whereupon we are; that is, that Paul denieth justification to be by the Law: And their errour & mistake about the Law, is not to be limited & restricted to the Ceremo∣nial Law; & so the thing, that we say, is confirmed hereby. (2) They thought the Messiah was not to be their Righteousness: And Mr. Baxter will not ha∣ve him to be our Righteousness, save only, in that he hath purchased the New Covenant, wherein our faith & obedience to the Law, is to be looked Page  471 upon as all our proper & immediat Righteousness, upon the account of which we are to receive Pardon & Right to life.

4. He saith. That is was not Adam's Covenant of Innocencie, or persection, which the Jewes thus trusted to, or Paul doth speak against, as to justification (though a minore ad majus, that is also excluded) for the Jewes knew, that they were sinners, & that God pardoned sin, as a Merciful God, & that their Law had Sacrifices for Pardon & Expiation with Confessions &c. But they thought that so far as God had made that Law sufficient to Political ends, & to Temporal Re∣wards & Punishments, it had been sufficient to Eternal Rewards & Punishments, & that of it self, & not in meer subordination to the typified Messiah. Ans. Though the jewes knew, that they were sinners, yet they did also suppose, that by their works of obedience to the Law Moral, as well as Ceremonial, they might make amends, & so think to be justified & pardoned thereby, and that God would accept of them, & grant them life for their own Righte∣ousness sake, & therefore did they laboure so much to establish their own Righteousness, & followed after the Law of Righteousness, & sought Righ∣teousness, as it were by the works of the Law. What Mr. Baxter talks he∣re of the jewes not using of that Law, in subordination to the Typified Mes∣siah, hath need of Explication: for as to his sense of it, we see no ground thereof in all the Apostles discourse.

5. He saith, That the thing, which Paul disproveth them by, is. 1. That the Law was never made for such an End. Ans. Yet he said, that the man, which doth those things shall live by them. Rom. 10: 5. Levit. 18: 5. Gal. 3: 12. & that the doers of the Law are justified Rom. 2: 13. And therefore spea∣keth of that Law, which according to its primitive institution, was made for such an end 2. saith he. That even then it stood in subordination to Redemp∣tion & free given life. Ans. This we cannot yeeld to, in Mr. Baxters sense, often mentioned, for Paul no where giveth us to understand, that their obedience to this was their immediat Righteousness, & Condition of Justification, & the meritorious cause (ex pacto) of their Right to Christ, & to life &c. 3. saith he. That the free Gift or Covenant of Grace, containing the promise of the Messiah, and Pardon & life by him, was before the Law, and justified Abraham & others without it. Ans. It is true, this Argument did par∣ticularly militate against the Ceremonial Law; Yet, this not being the A∣postles onely Argument, & other Arguments reaching the Moral Law, as well as the Ceremonial, we must not limite the Apostles disput only to the Ceremonial Law. 4. saith he. That their Law was so strick, that no man could perfectly keep it all. Ans. Adde also, that they could not perfectly keep any one command thereof. 5. saith he. That every sin deserveth death indeed, though their Law punished not every sin with death by the Magistrate. Ans. And this holdeth true of the Moral, as of the Ceremonial Law. 6. saith he. That their Law was never obligatory to the Gentile world, who had a Law written in their hearts; & therefore not the common way of justification. Ans. The Apostle maketh no such conclusion, that therefore it was not the common way of ju∣stification, for this would suppose, that it were the way of justification unto them, which is directly against the Apostles disput. 7. saith he. That their Page  472 Law, as such, discovered sin, but gave not the Spirit of Grace to overcome it: in so much, as though he himself desired perfectly to fulfill it without sin, yet he could not, but was under a Captivity, that is, a moral necessity of Imperfection, or sins of infirmity, from which only the grace of Christ could, as to guilt & power, deliver him. Ans. Therefore the Moral Law is as well here to be understood, as the Ceremonial; as is manifest. 8. saith he. That no man ever come to hea∣ven by that way of merite, which they dreamed of, but all by the way of Redemption, Grace, free Gift, & Pardoning Mercy. Ans. But that way of merite attendeth all works, in the matter of justification; as the Apostle assureth us Rom. 4: 4. Ephes. 2: 8, 9. & is opposed to the way of Redemption, Grace, free Gift, & Pardoning Mercy. Rom. 11: 6. & 3; 21, 24. Tit. 3: 5, 7.

From these things Mr. Baxter draweth this Conclusion. Therefore their con∣ceite, that they were just in the maine & forgiven their sins; & so justifiable by the meer dignity of Moses Law, which they keept, & by the works of the Law, & not by the free Gift, Pardon & Grace of a Redeemer, & by the Faith & Practical Beleife of that Gift, and acceptance of it, with thankful penitent obedient hearts, was a Pernicioue Errour. Ans. 1. Nothing is here said to ground a restriction of this erroneous conceite of theirs unto the Ceremonial Law: for this concei∣te of being justifiable by the Law, and the works thereof, in opposition to the free Gift, Pardon & Grace of a Redeemer, is as applicable to the Mo∣ral, as to the Ceremonial Law. (2) The Apostle doth not ground his disput upon the Iewes their express rejecting of a free Gift, & of Pardon &c. But from justification by Faith, laying hold on the free Grace & Merites of a Mediator, he argueth against justification by the Law & the works thereof: And according to the Apostle's Methode do we argue. (3) To cover Justi∣fication by our own inherent Righteousness, having the same place in the New Covenant, which inherent Righteousness & Obedience had in the old, by these fine words, Faith, & a Practical beleef of the Gift, & acceptan∣ce of it, with thankful penitent & obedient hearts, is not such ingenuous dea∣ling, as the Importance of the matter requireth: But this will be clearer by what followeth.

But (saith he) the true way of Righteousness was to become true Christians, that is, with such a penitent, thankful accepting, practical beleefe, or affiance to beleeve in God, as the giver of Salvation, in Christ as the Redeemer, & his Spi∣rit, as our life & Sanctifier; and to accept Christ, and all his procured Benefites, Iustification & Life, as purchased by his Sacrifice & Meritorious Righteousness, & given in the New Covenant on this Condition, and so to give up ourselves to his who∣le saving work, as to the Physician of our souls, & only Mediator with God. This is the summe of Paul's doctrine on this point. Ans. Not to speak of this matter he∣re, which is elsewhere done, I shall only say, that we are not enquiring after the true way of Righteousness, but after the true way of Justification before God; And enquire where the Apostle teacheth, that all the Righte∣ousness, required unto justification, must be within us, & none at all impu∣ted; as this Summe holdeth forth? Where he teacheth that this faith, in∣cluding works & all obedience, is the only meane of justification? Where he teacheth, that this inherent imperfect Righteousness of ours, is the im∣mediat Page  473 ground, and meritorious Cause (ex pacto) of our justification & Salvation? Where he teacheth, that Christ's Righteousness is no other∣wise ours, than as purchasing the New Covenant, wherein our own per∣sonal Righteousness is made the Potestative Condition of our Justifica∣tion & Salvation? And yet these and several other Particulars of this alloy doth Mr. Baxter hold forth, as taught, in Scripture; as hath been seen elsewhere.

CHAP. V.

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

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

But against this we have these Reasons to propose.

1. When the Scripture saith, we are justified by faith, the meaning is that so soon as a soul beleeveth in Christ, by a true Faith, he is justified befo∣re God: But this opinion saith, That a man is not justified when he belee∣veth in Christ; No not untill he performe Works of Righteousness after he hath beleeved: And thus, we may conceive a man to be a beleever, & yet not to be justified; which is contrary to the Gospel.

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

3. Regenerat persons have renunced their own Righteousness, in the matter of justification before God; therefore they judged, that they were not justified thereby: And this is registrate in the word for our Instruction & example; that we may learne also to renunce our own works in this busi∣ness. The Antecedent is clear from these Instances (1) David saying Psal. 130: 3. If thou Lord shouldest mark iniquity, o Lord, who shall stand: And in op∣position to this, he betakes himself to free Remission, saying vers. 4. But the∣re is forgiveness with thoe. So Psal. 143: 2. And enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified. So that if God should enter in judgment with the best, even with his servants; they could not Page  474 expect to be justified by their works, even by their best works. So when he saith Psal. 32: 1, 2. Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is cove∣red &c. he renunceth all justification by the best of his works; for Paul Rom. 4: 6, 7. giveth the meaning hereof to be, that David describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth Righteousness without works. (2) Paul also renunceth his Righteousness in this matter, & that several times? for he saith 1. Cor. 4: 4. for I know nothing by my self, yet am I not hereby justified. And he speaketh of himself, while in the State of Regeneration. So Gal. 2: 16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the Faith of Iesus Christ, even we have beleeved in Iesus Christ, that we might be justified by the Faith of Christ, & not by the works of the Law. And Phil. 3: 9. he desired to be found in Christ, not having his own Righteousness, which is of the Law. No man can think, that by his own Righteousness here he meaneth only works, do∣ne before he was regenerate.

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

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

6. By what reason can it be evinced, that the Law, or the Works of the Law signifie works before Regeneration, or works done before faith, more than other works? Do these words carry this sense, where ever they are used? Or can it be demonstrated, that they carry this express sense any where?

7. Are only regenerat persons said to be under the Law? Now the Apostle speaketh of all the works of those, who are under the Law, that every mouth may be stopped, & all the world become guilty before God. Rom. 3: 19.

8. The Righteousness of God, which is by Faith of Jesus Christ, is as much without the Law, or the works of the Law, done by Regenerat per∣sons, as without the Works of the Law, done before Regeneration: And justification by these works after Regeneration, is as much inconsistent with justification by faith without the works of the Law, as justification by the works of the Law, done before regeneration; as is manifest, from the true sense of justification by faith.

9. Paul excludeth all works of the Law from justification, that giveth any ground of boasting: and of glorying, as we see Rom. 3: 27. & 4: 2. Page  475 But if justification were by works of the Law, done after Faith & Rege∣neration, all boasting & glorying should not be excluded Ephes. 2: 9. Not of works lest any many should boast: And what these works were, the next Argument will shew.

10. Even works are excluded, unto which we are created & which God hath before ordained, that we should walk in them Ephes. 2: 8, 9, 10. for by grace are ye saved, through Faith, & that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Not of works lest any man should boast: for we are his workmanship, created in Christ Iesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained, that we should walk in them. Now these works are works done after regeneration, as is manifest.

11. All works are excluded in this matter, which make justification not be of mercy or of grace. Rom. 3: 24. Ephes. 2: 8. Tit. 3: 5, 7. But this do works after Regeneration, as well, as before, as Paul cleareth Ephes. 2: 8, 9, 10. & works & grace cannot consist, in being the ground of justifica∣tion, no more, than in being the ground of Election. Rom. 11: 6.

12. Works done after regeneration belong to that Righteousness, which is of the Law, which Paul describeth Rom. 10: 5. from Levit. 18: 5. to be, that the man, which doth those things shall live in them. But the Righteousness of the Law, & the Righteousness of Faith are opposite & inconsistent, as the Apostle cleareth there Rom. 10.

13. Works done after regeneration, if made the ground of justification, will made the reward of debt & not of grace Rom. 4: 4. as well as works do∣ne before regeneration; for the Scripture holdeth forth no ground of diffe∣rence, in this matter.

14. If works done by Faith, and after Regeneration, be admitted, as the ground of justification, God should not be said to justifie the ungod∣ly; for a Regenerat beleever, working works of Righteousness, is no whe∣re in Scripture called an ungodly man. But the Scripture speaketh this ex∣presly Rom. 4: 5.

15. Paul tels us Rom. 4: 16. that the promise was of Faith, that it might be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed, not to that only which is of the Law, but to that also, which is of the Faith of Abraham, who is the Father of ut all. Now this seed which is of the Faith of Abraham are be∣leevers or Regenerat persons; And yet as to these the Law is excluded, & the works thereof; because if they which are of the Law be heirs, Faith is made void, & the promise made of none effect vers. 14.

16. If Justification were by the works of the Law, done after Regene∣ration, we could not, upon first beleeving, be justified, & have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ; nor could we rejoice in hope of the glory of God, & glory in tribulation &c. And yet this the Apostle expresly affirmeth Rom. 5: 1, 2, 3. &c. If justification did depend upon our after works, we could not as yet have peace & reconciliation, or assurance, or joy &c. because of the uncertainty of our obedience.

17. If Paul had not excluded works done after Faith & Regeneration, from being the Cause & ground of our justification, what seeming ground Page  476 or occasion had there been for that objection Rom. 6: 1. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? What ground could any have to say. We are justified by our works done after Regeneration; the∣refore we may continue in sin, that grace may abound? Any might see at first, how ridiculous this was.

18. And if we are justified by works done after Regeneration, is it not strange, that in all Paul's answers unto this objection, he never once sayeth, nor hinteth, that by these works we shall be justified, & no other way, and yet this had been the shortest & clearest solution of the objection, if it been according to the doctrine of justification, delivered by Paul.

19. The false Apostles, who were corrupting the doctrine of the Gospel & of Justification, did not urge works done before Faith in the Gospel, as the ground of justification, for they were corrupting such, as had already embraced the Gospel & beleeved in Christ? as is clear out of the Epistle to the Galatians. Therefore when Paul is confuting their errour, & oppo∣sing himself unto them, he must deny that we are justified by works done after Faith in Christ.

20. Justification by works done after regeneration, is as opposite to faith, & to living the life of justification by faith, as justification by works done before Regeneration for the Law is never of faith, so reasoneth Paul Gal. 3. 11, 12. But that no man is justified by the Law, in the sight of God, it is evident: For the just shall live by Faith: And the Law is not of Faith.

21. All the works of the Law are excluded: But works wrought after be∣leeving & after Regeneration, are works of the Law, being required thereby Psal. 119: 35. Rom. 7: 22. Therefore even these works are excluded.

22. When the Apostle excludeth works from being causes of justification he must meane good works, for no man was ever so mad, as to imagine, that he could be justified by bad works. But no works can be called good works but such as flow from faith, & from the Spirit of grace, granted in Regenera∣tion. Therefore while good works are excluded, these done after Regene∣ration are excluded.

What is said by Bellarmine, in confirmation of his sense of these works of the Law, which are excluded from justification, is abundantly ans∣wered by all, that write against him; & therefore we need not take any notice thereof.

There is another Evasion, found out by our Adversaries in this matter, & another glosse put upon these works. By the works of the Law there shall no flesh be justified. For some say, that hereby the Apostle only excludeth those works, that are perfect, which were required by the Law in Innocency. This Evasion granteth, that the Law here spoken of is not the Ceremonial Law, for that was not required in Innocency; but the Moral Law. The end why they invent this Evasion is not, to exclude works in the matter of justification; but to establish their own fancie of asserting justification by other works, than perfect works, required by the Covenant of works, to wit by imperfect works, which they say, are required in the Gospel: And therefore their meaning is, we are not justified by perfect sinless obedience; but by imper∣fect Page  477 obedience to the Law. This is the Evasion of the Socinians, who say, the Apostle speaketh of the works of the Law, to shew, that he speaketh of those works, which are enjoined by the Law, to wit of perpetual & perfect obedience required by the Law: And they say, that by Faith he meaneth that confidence & obedience, which every one is able to performe, and which is endeavoured after & studied.

That this cannot be the meaning of the Apostles conclusion, we suppose will be clear from these Considerations.

1. This supposeth, that they against whom the Apostle is here dispu∣ting, were of opinion, that men could yet be justified, & must be justi∣fied by perfect obedience to the Moral Law: But it is hardly imaginable, that men in their wits did ever so dreame, or think, that they were inno∣cent, & could expect to be justified before God by their own perfection, or perfect obedience to the Law in all points: for this were to say, they never had sinned:

2. When the Apostle, in the beginning of his disput, in his Epistle to the Romans proveth, that all have sinned, & are guilty before God, both jew & Gentile, he thence inferreth, that by the works of the Law, no flesh shall be justified in God's sight Rom. 3: 20. Whereby he giveth us to understand, that there is no justification by the Law, unless it be perfectly keeped: And because no meer man did ever keep it perfectly, or can so keep it; therefore he concludeth, that no man can be justified thereby. There is no justifica∣tion by works, unless the works be perfect; & consequently that such as ex∣pect justification thereby, be wholly sinless.

3. If the Apostle had so disputed against justification by perfect works, as to have granted, or established justification by imperfect works; he needed not have used any moe arguments to that end, than what was mentioned & cleared Rom. 1. & 2. & in the beginning of the 3. Chapter: for his evincing that all had sinned & come short of the Glory of God, had been sufficient to this end, without the addition of any one argument more, seing it is impos∣sible, that sinners can be perfect obeyers. And we must not think, that all the Apostles further argueings are meerly superfluous, for this would reflect upon the Spirit of God, who acted Paul in this.

4. How strange is it to imagine, that the Apostle should disput against perfect works, that he might establish imperfect works in the matter of ju∣stification: & to think that the Apostle is proving, that we are not justified by the perfect works of the Law, but by the imperfect works thereof; that is, we are not justified by such works, as keep a conformity with the Law, but by such works, as are violations of the Law; as all works are, which are not conforme thereunto, in all points?

5. Imperfect works, as to the ground of justification, are not that Righ∣teousness of God without the Law, & which is by Faith of Jesus Christ, but opposite the•eunto, and inconsistent therewith, as well as perfect works: for as he, that perfectly keepeth the Law, needeth not another Righteousness, in order to his justification; so neither needeth he, who hath an imperfect obedience if that be made the formal objective & meri∣te Page  478 cause of justification. But Gospel-justification is by the Righte∣ousness of God, which is without the Law, & which Faith laith hold on Rom. 3: 21, 22.

6. Gospel justification is by Faith, as the whole Gospel cleareth; but faith & imperfect works are not one & the same: Yea they are as repugnant in this affaire, as faith & perfect works are. We are justified by faith, with∣out the deeds of the Law. Rom. 3: 28. Gal. 2: 16. Living by faith & living by works, are opposite. Gal. 3: 11, 12.

7. Justification by imperfect works, is not free justification by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood: as is manifest: But this is the Gospel-justification Rom. 3: 24, 25.

8. Imperfect works, exclude grace, & are as inconsistent therewith, as perfect works are. But Gospel-justification is by grace without works Rom. 3: 24. Ephes. 2: 8, 9. Tit. 3: 5, 6, 7. The Major is clear from the places cited, as also from Rom. 11: 6. If by grace, then it is no more of works otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more gra∣ce, otherwise work is no more work. Now if it be said, that perfect works are here understood, and not imperfect works: it must be said also, that Election (of which the Apostle here speaketh) is upon foresight of imper∣fect works.

9. Imperfect works if made the Cause of Justification, can give ground of boasting & of glorying, as we see in the Pharisee Luk. 18. But Gospel justi∣fication removeth all ground of boasting. Rom. 3: 27 & 4: 2.

10. Imperfect works can not be accounted a perfect Righteousness, by the Lord, whose judgment is according to truth Rom. 2: 2. But there is no ju∣stification without a perfect Righteousness, either inherent, or imputed. God will pronounce no man Righteous, who is not so, nor justifie any as Righteous, who is not so indeed: But upon the account of an imperfect Righteousness, can no man be justified as Righteous.

11. Even this imperfect Righteousness, when made the ground of ju∣stification, will make the reward of debt, and not of grace: As Abra∣ham's works, if he had been justified by them, would have done: for A∣braham's works were not perfect works, but imperfect works, as is ma∣nifest.

12. If justification were not by perfect works, but by imperfect works, then through faith, or through Gospel justification, the Law should be made void, contrary to Rom. 3: 31. The reason of the consequence is, becau∣se hereby the Law, that requireth perfect obedience, is laid aside & another Law that requireth imperfect obedience admitted in its place: or rather the same Law is pretended, but it is made void, as to its requireing perfect obe∣dience; & must now be satisfied with an imperfect obedience. But this is not to establish the Law, but to destroy it, when many Jotes & titles are taken away from it Mat. 5: 17, 18.

13. The Iewes did not imagine, that they were perfect & without sin, but followed after the Law of Righteousness, & that, as it were (•s) by the Page  479 works of the Law Rom. 9: 31, 32: And this of necessity must have been mixed with much imperfection: And yet the Apostle plainly saith in the pla∣ce cited, that they did not attaine to a Righteousness, nor to the Law of Righteousness, because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the Law, so that seeking after Righteousness as it were by the works of the Law, is opposite to a seeking of it by Faith. And againe Rom. 10: 3. they went about to establish their own Righteousness, and did not submit themselves unto the Righteousness of God; which two are opposite & in∣consistent; And this their own Righteousness, was but an imperfect Righ∣teousness, which they were labouring to cause stand, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

14. We cannot imagine, that when the Apostle did exclude his own Righteousness, and desired not to be found therein, he only excluded, that which was not; & desired not to be found in that, which he had not, and which he knew he had not, to wit, a perfect sinless obedience. Rom. 7: 24. 1. Tim. 1: 13, 15. He confessed he had been a blasphemer, and the chiefe of sinners, and so was far from imagineing, that his obedience was per∣fect & sinless. This then could not be the Righteousness, whereof he spea∣keth Phil. 3: 9. but his imperfect Righteousness, being that only which he could call his owne, is that only, which he desired not to be found in, in the day of his appearing before his judge, in order to his justi∣fication.

15. If Paul had disputed only against perfect obedience & had yeelded ju∣stification by imperfect obedience. What ground was there for that obje∣ction. Rom. 6: 1. Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound: seing justifi∣cation by imperfect obedience doth of it self engadge to all endeavoure after obedience, & against the allowance of sin?

16. And the Apostles answere to this objection may fournish us with an∣other Argument against this; for if Paul had allowed of, or pleaded for justification by our imperfect works, he had used this, a• least, as one argu∣ment to perswade unto an absteaning from sin, by saying, there is no justifi∣cation but by endeavouring after obedience; But we hear of no such think in all the Apostles Arguments, whereby he presseth unto holiness & obe∣dience, whether there, or elsewhere.

17. We are not justified by works done after Faith & Regeneration, as was proved before. Therefore we are not justified by imperfect works; for works after faith are imperfect, & againe, they cannot but be so, as pre∣supposing sin & guilt going before.

There is yet another Evasion, wherewith some satisfie themselves, for they say, that when Paul saith, we are not justified by the works of the Law, by these works, he meaneth only outward works of the Law, performed without an inward Principle of Grace, of faith, or fear or Love of God. But we need not insist in the discovery of the vanity of this Evasion, having before at large proved, that the works, whereof Paul speaketh, are not works done before Faith & Regeneration; For all these works, that are done be∣fore Faith & Regeneration, are done without any inward Principle of Grace, & are only outward works, such as Heathens may performe: a few reasons will serve he•e: as

Page  480 1. When Paul denieth justification to be by the Law, or by the works thereof; he must mean such works, as are enjoined & commanded by the Law: But the Law commandeth other works, than those outward works, for it condemneth all works, that flow not from a principle of grace: be∣cause the Law is holy & spiritual, & the first & chiefe command thereof is, that we, Love the Lord our God, with all our heart; with all our soul with all our strength &c. Rom. 7: 12, 14. Mat. 22: 37. Mark. 12: 30. Luk. 10: 27. Deut▪ 13: 3. & 30: 6. If then Paul exclude only such works, as flow not from a principle of grace, he shall not exclude the works of the Law, but works prohibited by the Law; & his meaning should be, we are not justified by works, which the Law commandeth not, but we are justified by works, which the Law commandeth: which is contradictory to the who∣le scope & designe of the Apostle.

2. The Apostle doth manifestly exclude the works of Abraham Rom. 4: 1, 2. But the works of Abraham were other than such servile works or such out∣ward works, performed from no principle of grace or Love to God; The∣refore such cannot be here understood.

3. Outward works, done without any principle of grace, could with no face or shew of a pretence, lay a ground, or be any occasion of boasting or of glorying, because they were no other, but manifest sins, being prohibi∣ted & condemned by the Law, & not commanded or approven: But the Apostle excludeth such works, as could do this. Therefore he excludeth good works, which were done in conformitie to the Law, & not such out∣ward lifeless works only, as were meer servile works, & no better.

4. Such lifeless, servile, & outward works could give no shew of a ground of making the reward of debt: But Paul excludeth such works as would ma∣ke the reward of debt. Rom. 4: 4.

5. If Paul had meaned here only such outward, servile works, which are not conforme to the Law; what occasion had there been, for Paul's pro∣poseing of that objection. Rom. 3: 31. Do we then make void the Law through Faith? for to lay aside these works, which are not conforme to the Law, giveth no probable ground of supposal, that thereby the Law is ma∣de void.

6. Israel could not have been said to have followed after the Law of Righ∣teousness, by doing of works meerly ourward & lifeless: And yet this is said of them, & it is also said, that by all their following of the Law of Righte∣ousness they could not be justified. Rom. 9: 31, 32.

7. Meer performance of outward servile works, cannot be called a Righ∣teousness: But the jewes went about to establish their own Righteousness, & therefore missed justification. Rom. 10: 4.

8. There was never any life had by these outward & servile works alone; But by the works, which Paul excludeth, there was life to be had, if they had been perfect. The man, which doth those things, shall live by them. Rom. 2: 13. & 10: 5. Levit. 18: 5. Gal. 3: 12.

9. These outward servile works are not good works; but even good works are here excluded. Ephes. 2: 9, 10.

Page  481 10. Paul did not meane such works only, when he excluded his own Righ∣teousness. Phil. 3: 9. Nor can such works be called works of Righteousness; which yet are expresly excluded in this matter. Tit. 3: 5.

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 maintaine the Interest of Works, as the Cause & ground of justification before God, to wit. That Paul only disputs against a groundless conceite of merite in works; not against the works them∣selves, but against a Pharisaical sense of merite & worth in their works, whe∣reby they conceived & conceited, that thereby they could satisfie for their sins, & buy & purchase to themselves Justification & Salvation. But against this Evasion, we have these things to say.

1. By merite here must either be understood, that which is called meritum ex condigno, that is, that merite, which ariseth from the due proportion of worth, that one thing hath unto another, in the ballance of equity & ju∣stice. And who ever imagine this merite in their works, must dreame of an intrinsick 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 con∣gruo, 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 absolutly 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 merite, because them∣selves owne 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 merite it self, as we saw lately from Mr. Baxter. But now, that Paul is not disputing against the merite 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 intrinsick worth & merite 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 beleeve? (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 owne, or stand to, in their more sedate & composed thoughts. (4) Even the most proud & vaine person, that is, will joyn the free mercy of God, with all the conceite of merite they have; but this merite ex condigno leaveth no imagina∣ble room for the free mercy of God, in lesse, or more. (5) Paul disputeth Page  482 not against the merite ex congruo, as separated from the works themselves, whereupon it is founded. As the following Arguments will evince. There∣fore far less doth he dispute only against the fond & foolish conceite of the merite 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 merite 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 Apo∣stle sheweth that works are excluded, & all works (for there is no distinction made) are excluded; because, then the reward should be of debt: shewing, 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 in∣consistent & incompatible) therefore all works are excluded. And to think, that the meaning of the Apostle is, now to him, that worketh, with a con∣ceite of merite, attending his work, the reward is reckoned of debt; is to adde to the word of God, to pervert the Apostles Argument, & to contra∣dict the scope & cohesion of the words; as hath been shown elsewhere, far less can any hence inferre a restriction of works to such only as make the re∣ward of debt: for then the reward might be reckoned to him, that wor∣keth, & yet be reckoned of grace & not of debt, & thus the Apostles Argu∣ment, should be manifestly false, & a plaine Paralogisme: which were wic∣kedness & blasphemie to assert.

4. The Apostle excludeth, in as plaine termes, as can be, all the works of the Law: but even such works, as are performed without this fond & groundless conceite of mer•te, are works of the Law, being required & com∣manded by the Law. Yea the Law never commanded any works with this conceite of merite: 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 merite or works with a conceite of merite be now excluded, but the merite ex condigno, then is the Covenant of works established by the Gospel. Nay thus, our imperfect works, are made to merite 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 conceite of merite, can not be called an ungodly man, no more than Adam could have been called so, while he stood in his integritie: But the justification under the Gospel is of the ungodly, God justifieth the ungodly. Rom. 4: 5. Nor can the worker with∣out this conceite of meriting, be said to be one that worketh not, but belee∣veth on him, that justifieth the ungodly: as is manifest.

7. Either the Apostle establisheth works of justification by them, & only condemneth the apprehension of merite in our works: or he excludeth all Page  483 works, in which men may conceite some merite to lye. If the first be said, then I conceive, the Apostle would have once mentioned this in argueings & conclusions, and not alwayes have mentioned the Law & the works of the Law; for with our adversaries these are separable, and from the one the other can not 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 & conceite a merite in what they do, though not that merite, which is ex condigno, Yet that which is ex congruo.

8. If the Apostle disput not against works, but against a conceite of meri∣te in works, why doth he not oppose works without this conceite unto this conceite, or to works with this conceite? Why doth he alwayes oppose Faith unto works, & say, we are justified by faith without the deeds of the Law? Is works the same with conceite of merite, or with works having this conceite adjointed? and is faith the same with works, or with works without this conceite of merite? Then Adam should have been justified by faith, if he had stood in his state of innocency; for he should have been ju∣stified by works without this conceite. But what palpable & manifest per∣verting of the Scripture & of the works thereof, is this? To take this liber∣ty 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 merite 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 Apo∣stle 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 unpro∣fitable servants; we have done that, which was our duty to do, had sufficiently confuted that mistake: But the long series of Arguments, with their varie∣ty, 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 merite with them, & make the reward of debt & give ground to the worker to boast & to glory before men: thought not befo∣re God: for upon these grounds doth the Apostle reject all works, in this af∣faire; as we see Rom. 3: 27. & 4: 2. Now to say, that the Apostle rejecteth only such works, as men conceite to be meritorious for their intrinsick worth, & not other works, that merite 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 op∣position to the way of grace; for grace & debt are not compatible.

Page  484 11. If any were puffed up with this conceite of the meritoriousness of their works, ex condigno, it could be none beside the proud fantastick Phari∣sees; nor is there any ground to suspect any other. And if so, why, may we suppose, would the Apostle state a needless controversie, a controver∣sie concerning all both Iewes & Gentiles, when none of the Gentiles, and few, if any of the Iewes, were concerned therein? And why, may we enquire, would the Apostle so laboriously prove both Iewes & Gentiles to be guilty of sin? and why doth he speak of them all, without excep∣tion, seing the question did only concerne a few, & a very few, & such, as are never once named in all the dispute? These things look not very proba∣ble like.

12. Can we think, that the Galatians, who were seduced by false Tea∣chers, to adjoine to their Christianity, the practice of some jewish Cere∣monies, 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 disput a∣gainst them, that he did, in writting to the Romans, of which no reason could be assigned if this merite was all, he disputed down.

13. We finde it said of the Jewes Rom. 9: 31. that they followed after the Law of Righteousness; and yet by so doing did not attaine unto the Law of Righteousness; because (vers. 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 meer irra∣tional conceite & groundless fancie of a merite in what they did, or of an intrinsick 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 conceite of merite, must be God's Righteousness, as works together with this conceite of merite must be our owne: for these two are opposite. Rom. 10: 3. But there is no ground to imagine; that our works performed without this fonde conceit of merite in them, are the Righteousness, for these are not Christ, or his Righteousness: And it is there added vers. 4. for explication of the Righteousdess of God, for Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness, to every one that beleeveth.

15. The Righteousness of the Law is, that the man, which doth these things shall live by them. Rom. 10: 5. Gal. 3: 12. Levit. 18: 5. So that this Righteousness consisteth in mans own doing: and not in a meer irratio∣nal apprehension of a merite in what he doth: So that it is not this ground∣less phancie, that the Apostle is disputing against, but this Righteousness, which is of the Law, because he is labouring to establish by his doctrine, the Righteousness of Faith, which is opposite to & inconsistent with the Righ∣teousness of the Law. And this Righteousness of Faith is not our own perso∣nal Righteousness, or obedience performed to the Law without this appre∣hension & conceite of merite, as is clear from vers. 8, 9, 10, 11. following, & from the whole Gospel.

Page  485 16. If this be all that the Apostle is disputing down, to wit, justification by works, which we conceite 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 conceite of intrinsick 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 & conceite of me∣rites; therefore we cannot be justified by works, which we conceite to have merite in them: but by such works we can & must be justified, when we conceite no merite in them, but a simple merite ex congruo, or ex pacto? The like may be said of David, who had no conceite of merite 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 fonde conceite of merite 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 shew or apparent ground for this. Neither can any such purpose be in the least seen & observed, in all the answere at large prosecuted Chapters 6. & 7. which is given hereunto. There is not the least hint given of his rectifying of the mis∣apprehensions, 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 eter∣nal ex congruo, or ex pacto: but all things sound the contrary way: & life eternal is expresly said to be the free gift of God.

18. Then all that Paul meaned, when he desired to be found of his jud∣ge, not having his own Righteousness, which is of the Law, was that he desired not to be found puft up with a pharisaical conceite of the perfection & meritoriousness of his works, as meriteing his justification & life ex condig∣no, by their intrinsick 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, seing 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 vers. 10. Now these works are certainly works done without any vaine conceite of meri∣te: and yet we see, that by these works we are not brought into a state of Salvation.

Page  486 20. The Apostle excludeth works of Righteousness, which we have do∣ne, as opposed to Mercy & grace. Tit. 3: 5, 7. Now grace standeth in opposition to all works, even to works performed without this conceite of merite, as we see Rom. 11: 6. else we must say, that the Apostle there granteth Election to be for foreseen works, performed without a con∣ceite of merite, and nothing must be called works, but what is done with a Pharisaical conceite of merite & intrinsick 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 owne from the Scriptures, have thought to shelter themselves, under the wings of of some expressions of the Apostle Iames; & have therefore laboured so to explaine & streatch forth the same expressions, as they with their corrupt Notions about justification may seem at least to have some countenance the∣refrom, yea and warrandise to hold fast the same: And for this cause they have laboured so much, and do still laboure, so to expound the words of Paul, as that they may carry no seeming difference unto the words of Ia∣mes: 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 ap∣parent 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 har∣monious agreement in the truth: so that Iames saying Ch. 2: 24, Ye see then, how that by works a man is justified, & not by faith only, dot not contra∣dict 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 Iames's words by Paul's, or Paul's by Iames's. Our Adversaries are much for this later, to wit, that we must interpret Paul's words by the words of Iames, becau∣se, as they alledge, Paul is obscure in his doctrine, & many were beginning to misinterpret & pervert the same & that therefore Iames was necessitate to clear up that doctrine of justification, so as Paul's words might be better un∣derstood. 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, expresly & largely, is to regulate our interpretation of the other place, whe∣re the matter is only touched obiter, on the bye, and upon some other occa∣sion, and in order to some other ends. And that therefore accordingly, we Page  487 must interpret Iames by Paul, and not Paul by Iames; seing it is undeni∣ble, that Paul wrote of this Subject of Justification, directly & on purpose to cleare up the same, and that with all expresness & fulness, on severall oc∣casions, 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 certaine, that Iames hath not this for his scope to open up the Nature of Justification; but only toucheth there-upon, in or∣der to the other end, which he was prosecuting. (2) There is no ground to suppose, that it was the designe of Iames to explaine the meaning of Paul, no footstep of any such purpose appeareth. For then his maine business should be to explaine & clear up the doctrine of justification, which neither is ap∣parent from this part of the Epistle, nor from any part of it at all; his desig∣ne being quite another thing, as is obvious. (3) Nor was there any necessi∣tie for Iames, to Vindicate the doctrine of Paul, from such corrupt inferen∣ces, 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 we∣re willing to lay aside good works; he himself did fully & sufficiently Vin∣dicate his owne 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 largly & pro∣fessedly treateth of that matter, but even when he is but mentioning the sa∣me 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 Iames asserteth another interest of works in our justification, than Paul doth, and that to explaine Paul's meaning, is not to reconcile these Apostles, but to set them at further va∣rience & enmity. And it cannot comport with sobriety, to think or say, that Iames, to cleare 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 Iames 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 plai∣ne scope & drift of the Apostle Iames; for as for the designe & 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 cleare up fully & plainely the Nature & Causes of this great privilege of justifica∣tion, which is the hinge & ground work (as it were) of his doctrine of the Gospel, and to shew how poor sinners, standing under the Curse for sin, come to be justified before God; as in his Epistle to the Romans: And to Vindicate the same doctrine of the Gospel from the corrupt pervesions of false teachers, as in his Epistle to the Galatians; as also to commend the free grace of God, in that noble contrivance, both in the places men∣tioned, and Ephes. 2. Phil. 3. Tit. 3. and elsewhere, when he mentioneth the same.

Now as to the scope of the Apostle Iames, there is nothing to declare un∣to Page  488 us, that it was his Intent, or designe to explaine & make known the way▪ how poor convinced sinners, standing under the sentence of the Law, come to be justified before God, and to receive pardon of their sins. No such question proposeth he to be discussed; No such point of truth doth he lay down to be cleared, or Vindicated. But his whole scope & drift is to press the reall study of holiness, in several points particularly spoken to through the Epistle. And in that second Chapt. from vers. 14. & forward (as will ap∣pear more fully in the explication & vindication of the several verses in parti∣cular) he is particularly obviating that grosse mistake of some, who thought that a bare outward profession of the Gospel Faith, or of Christian Reli∣gion, was sufficient to save them, and evidence them to be in a justified state, and that therefore they needed not trouble themselves with any study of holiness: And therefore sheweth, that all such hopes of Salvation were built on the sand, for they had no ground to suppose, that they were truely justified, & so were in any faire way unto salvation, so long as all their faith was no other, than a general assent unto the doctrine of the Gospel, & to truthes revealed, & not that true lively faith, hold forth in the Gospel, whereby sinners become justified before God.

Mr. Baxter tels Cath. Theol. part. 2. n. 364. that St. James having to do with some, who thought that the bare profession of Christianity, was Christianity; & that faith was a meer assent to the Truth; & that to beleeve that the Gospel is true, & trust to be justified by Christ was enough to justification, without Holi∣ness & fruitful Lives; & that their sin & barrenness hindered not their justifica∣tion: so that they thus beleeved (perhaps misunderstanding Paul's Epistles) doth convince them, that they were mistaken; & that when God spake of justification by faith, without the works of the Law, he never meaned a faith that contai∣neth not a resolution to obey him in whom we beleeve, nor that is separate from actual obedience in the prosecution: But that as we must be justified by our Faith against the charge of being Insidels; so must we be justified by our Gospel personal ho∣liness, and sincere obedience, against the charge, that we are unholy & wic∣ked, or impenitent, or hypocrites, or else we shall never be adjudged to Salva∣tion, that is justified by God.

Ans. (1) It is true, for it is manifest, and undeniable, that Iames had to do with some, who thought that the bare profession of Christianity was enough, & that an assent unto the truth, was that faith that would prove justifying & saving. But (2) it is not so manifest that Iames had to do with such, as thought that to trust to be justified by Christ, was enough to justifi∣cation without holiness & fruitful lives, & that their sin & barrenness hin∣dered not their justification: for whatever Mr. Baxter imagine, we finde not in Scripture, that justification followeth lives, that is, that there is no justification, before this fruitfulness of life appear: And himself useth to say, that in order to the first justification, this holiness of life is not requisite: And beside this, which he calleth the first, we know no other; unless he mean glorification. But then (3) as to glorification & final Salvation, we grant, that Iames hath to do with such, as thought a meer assent to the truth, without holiness, was sufficient hereunto; but that their beleeving Page  489 thus could flow from their misunderstanding of Paul's Epistles, is not any way probable, seing Paul in all his Epistles, even where he speaks most of ju∣stification by Faith without the deeds of the Law, presseth the necessity of holiness in order to Salvation, so as no imaginable ground hereof can with the least of shewes be pretended. (4) That when Paul said, justification was by Faith, without the works of the Law, he meant a true & lively faith, which only is to be found in that soul, in which the seed of grace is sown, and which is made partaker of the holy Ghost, and of the divine Nature, is true; but yet justifying faith, doth not formally containe in it a resolution to obey him, in whom we beleeve, as was shown elsewhere. (5) Then we see, that the faith, whereof Iames speaketh, is not the same with that Faith, whereby Paul said, we are just•fied: And seing both do not speak of the same Faith, there can be no appearance of discrepance. (6) When he saith, we must be justified by our Faith, against the charge of being infidels. I would know, what he meaneth, by this charge of infidelity; If he meane, the charge of not beleeving the Gospel, he knoweth that a meer assent to the truth, will •ustifie from that Charge. If he meane the charge of not receiving & resting upon Christ, according to the Gospel, even that will be but a particular justification from that particular charge; and is not that justification from the sentence of the Law, whereof Paul speaketh. (7) That we must be justified (as he saith) by our Gospel personal holiness & sincere obedience, against the charge, that we are unholy & wicked, or impenitent & hypocrites, is true; but what can all this say, for a justifica∣tion from the sentence of the Law, under which we are all lying by Nature; and of which the Apostle Paul speaketh? And if Iames speak of justifica∣tion by works, in reference to this accusation, he speaketh of no other kind of justification, than that which the most wicked wreatch, yea & the devils are capable of, when, to wit, they are falsely accused of having done some evil, which they have not done. And how can Mr. Baxter inferre from what Iames saith, (if he speak of no other kind of justification) that works are required unto our justification, as to state, or unto our general justification from the sentence of the Law, adjudging us to death because of transgression? (8) But he addeth, or else we shall never be adjudged to Sal∣vation, that is, justified by God. Then the Justification, that Iames spea∣keth 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, seing all who are justified, shall be thus saved. Thus we see, that according to Mr. Baxter, the meaning of Ia∣mes 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, Iames 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 Page  490 see, whether Paul & Iames mean & speak of one & the same Faith: for if it be found, that they speak of diverse Faiths, all appearance of Contra∣diction is removed. Now that the Apostle Paul meaneth of a true, lively, saving Faith, which is a saving fruite of the Spirit of God & the special Gift of God, is easily granted on all hands: All the question is of that faith, which Iames speaketh of, Papist's say, that it is true justifying, that Ia∣mes speaketh of: for justifying. Faith, with them, is nothing but a real as∣sent unto the Catholick Doctrine, or to divine Revelation: And indeed if Justifying. Faith be nothing else, it can not be well denyed, that Iames mea∣neth 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 sa∣me. That which Iames 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) vers. 14. it is a profitless Faith, which cannot be said of ju∣stifying Faith, as the whole Scripture cleareth. (2) Ibid. it is a Faith, that hath no ground or reality, but a mans saying, nor no other evidenee, or proof, What doth it profite, 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 connexion with, nor tendency to Salvation; which cannot be supposed of the true, lively justifying Faith, as is known. (4) vers. 15, 16. It is no mo∣re true Faith, than that is true charity, which saith to the naked & destitu∣te brother, depart in peace, be thou warmed & filled & notwithstanding giveth not those things, which are needful to the body. (5) vers. 17. It is expresly 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 connexion there∣with, 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 vers. 18. It is a Faith uncapable of any true evidence, or de∣monstration, as to its being, from works of holiness▪ and so is not accom∣panied with any real change of soul: But it is not thus with true & saving Faith. (8) vers. 19. It is such a Faith; as devils may have: But devils are not capable of justifying Faith. (9) vers. 20. It is the Faith, that a Vaine 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) vers. 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) vers. 25. Nor is it like the Faith of Rahab, which prompted her to receive the Messengers, and send them out another way. (12) vers. 26. It is such a Faith, that is no better than a carcase with∣out breath, which is no essential part of a living man. But the Faith that Page  491 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 enquire, whether they speak of One & the same Justification: And if it be found, that therein they differ, all ground of imaginable diffe∣rence will be further removed. What that justification is, whereof Paul speaketh, is manifest, & needeth not here be declared, for it is plaine, 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 Favour & reconciliation, having a right unto Salvation, through Faith in Jesus Christ. Upon the other hand, it is as obvious & cleare, 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 na∣ture, even such a justification, whereby the Mans Faith, the reality of his Christianity, & his justification before God, is evidenced, or may be evi∣denced to himself, or to others. So that, whether we take justification here, as mentioned by James, for the evidence & demonstration of justifi∣cation, 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 de∣monstrat the other; and a justification, or manifestation of the one will be a justification of the other. Nor is this sense of the word justifie, or justi∣fication alien from the Scriptures, as we see Psal. 51: 4. Rom. 3: 4. for God can not other wayes be justified, but by being declared, avowed, & pro∣clamed 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 Iames speaketh, may be fur∣der cleared by these particulars. (1) The scope, that Iames 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 vaine pretenses of such, as supposed they were justi∣fied, & 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 truely evidence a per∣son to be justified indeed before God? And he sheweth that an empty fruit∣less profession will not do it, but works of Faith, or Faith proving it self lively by works. (2) The very Instance of Abraham, which he adduceth, cleareth this; for he saith vers. 21. Was not Abraham our Father justified by works, when he had offered his Son upon the altar? Now twentie five yeers, or as some compute, Thirtie yeers, or thereby before this time the Scriptures say, that Abraham beleeved God, & it was reckoned to him unto Righteousness. Gen. 15. & hence Paul proveth Rom. 4. that he was justified by Faith. The∣refore if now he was justified, when he offered, his Son, he must have Page  492 been twice justified & that in the same sense, with the same kind of justifi∣cation, which can not 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 Iames speaketh: for this distinction of justifi∣cation into First & Second, is but a meer device of the Papist's, having no ground in, nor countenance from the Scriptures: and beside, it would fol∣low, that a meer historical, dead Faith is sufficient unto the first justifica∣tion, and that Paul understandeth such a faith only, when he said Rom. 4. that Abraham beleeved God, & it was counted to him unto Righteousness, the con∣trary whereof is manifest. Nor will it serve here to say, that Paul speaketh of justification as begun: but Iames 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, & consequent∣ly, that of such a faith, as this, Paul speaketh; because of such a faith Ia∣mes speaketh, as we have seen: But this cannot be said, for it was a true & lively faith, that Abraham had, when he beleeved the promise of the Mes∣siah & a dead faith is not the faith, that justifieth, first, or last. Yea because Iames maketh an opposition betwixt faith & works, in reference to justifi∣cation, in the sense, wherein he speaketh of it, it will follow, that faith should not be requisite unto the Continuance of justification. (3) Iames said vers. 20. that Faith without works was dead: and to confirme this, he addeth vers. 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 truely justified by faith, Ergo a faith, that is lifeless, and wholly without works of obedien∣ce, 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 & vaine fruitless profes∣sion. (4) When Abraham was justified by his works, the Scripture was ful∣filled, which saith, Abraham beleeved God, & it was imputed unto him for Righ∣teousness, as is manifest from vers. 22, 23. Now by this mentioned of Abra∣ham in the Scripture Gen. 15: 6. Paul proveth Rom. 4. that he was justified by faith. But if Iames were here speaking of the way of our becoming justified, before God, as Paul doth, there could be no connexion here, yea the proof should contradict the thing to be proved; for to say, that Abraham was ju∣stified 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 Iames also teacheth us. But taking justification here for its declaration & manifestation, it can be by works, and a declaration of ju∣stification by works can be & is a very signal confirmation & clearing of that Testimony, which saith, that Abraham was justified by faith. (5) By that Page  493 work of offering up his son, at a the command of God, Abraham declared, that he was no hypocrite, but a true beleever, 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 & sin∣ceritie of faith, & so a confirmation & evidence of justification; or justifi∣cation as evidenced & declared; and not justification as produced by its cau∣ses. (6) When Iames saith vers. 23. That the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, Abraham beleeved God & it was imputed to him unto Righteousness, when he was justified by offering up his son vers. 21. this fulfilling of the Scri∣pture-testimony was, either because at that time, when he offered up his Son, Righteousness was imputed unto him, & he was justified, or becau∣se it was then manifest, to be a truth, that he was justified indeed: But the former can not 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, seing thou hast not wit∣held thy Son, thine only Son from me. No word here of imputing Righteous∣ness unto him, or of his being brought into a justified state; but only God's solemne 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 vers. 21? Justification by works (if justifi∣cation be taken absolutely here & not for its declaration & manifestation,) will not prove faith's working with works. But if justification be here ta∣ken for justification declared & manifested, the sense is plaine: 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 alwayes a true & lively faith, that will work with works of obedience. (9) Far less could it follow from justification (taken absolutly) 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 every one, that that work is a clear evi∣dence 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 In∣ference vers. 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 promi∣se, and to did not call for faith, but for ready obedience, though upon an∣other account he beleeved 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 beleeved, & 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. Iames could not inferre, that Justification is by faith & works toge∣ther, for then he could not inferre therefrom that the Scripture was fulfilled, Page  494 which said, Abraham beleeved God, & it was imputed unto him for Righ∣teousness, because Paul doth hence inferre Rom. 4. that justification is by faith without works: And what is a ground for justification by faith with∣out works, cannot also be a ground for justification by works & not by faith only; And thus the Apostles are made in plaine termes 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 Iames speaketh of justification, as continued, which is by works, and not by faith only. This cannot satisfie: for beside what is said, it must first be granted hereby, that this faith, which Iames 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 Iames 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 & declara∣tion, the words of Iames are most clear, & carry no appearance of contra∣diction, 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 vers. 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 beleever & consequently justified, before she received the Spies, or they came to her. Yet by this deed, accompanied with so much hazard, unto her self & all her families, she proved & evidenced her faith & justification. (12) The Conclusion of his discourse vers. 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 shew, that works can only demonstrate trew faith & consequently prove justifica∣tion; 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 justifie & justification, which we have now confirmed, by the Socinian Author of the book, intituled Consensus Paul• & Iacobi &c. pag. 2. &c. and by the Remonstrants in their A∣pologie Cap. 10. is of no great weight. When they say. That the proposition set down vers. 14. is subordinat to what is said vers. 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 di∣stinct from Final Salvation. We grant, that Iames speaketh here of saving justification; Yet he handleth not that question, how & by what Causes Page  495 this justification is brought about; but how it is evidenced & proven to be true, and not a meer presumptuous conjecture. They say next. It is said vers. 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 Abra∣ham first beleeved; 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 excellencie of faith, by the ex∣cellencie 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 it self, 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, seing men may justifie other, upon vaine grounds. Ans. No• do we understand any such justification pronunced 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 fur∣ther. Thas, as the Apostle from that Faith, which the vaine man boasted of de∣nieth the man to be justified, so from works he proveth justification, & that as an∣tecedent. Ans. The Apostle sheweth, that the vaine man, who had no mo∣re, but a vaine dead empty faith, had no ground to conclude himself a justi∣fied 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 againe by the foresaid Socinian Au∣thor. That if the meaning of these words, the Scripture was fulfilled, be, that the Scripture was showne to be fulfilled: then the meaning should be, that it was demonstrated to Abraham's two servants, who went with him to the mountaine, & 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, seing by this meanes they might think to delay for a long time their good works, & yet suppose themselves presently justified. Ans. All this is but vaine language; for it is all one to the scope of Iames, whether this come to the actual knowledge of few, or of many, & who they were to whose knowledge it came; He is only shewing, that such, as had but a dead faith, that brought forth no works of obedience, when called for, had no eviden∣ce, or clear ground to assert their own justification, seing Abraham's justi∣fication 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 Page  496 the world: Yea, had it been unknown to any, yet hereby he had a sure proof, to ascertaine his own heart & conscience of his justification. But say the Ar∣minians, 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 Iames require any such thing, who is only shewing, that such as wrought not works of obedience, when called for, could not conclude them∣selves justified, & in a saife estate, notwithstanding of all their faire profes∣sion. 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; & whe∣reof Iames 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 Evan∣gelical. And consequently, that Iames must speak of Evangelical works on∣ly: But sure we are, Iames cannot be supposed to speak of Evangelical works, in their sense; seing, 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 men∣tioneth both in general, & in its particular commands Iam. 2: 9, 10, 11. And all the duties, which he presseth them unto, & the sins, which he disswadeth them from, relate unto the Moral Law. And what these works are, whereof Paul speaketh, we have seen before. Others think, that Ia∣mes 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 Iames here saith; Yet I judge, that both Paul & Iames understand the same thing by works, even duties of obedience, performed to the Law of God, & that by Works here in Iames, is not meant a working faith, this not being the scope & designe of Iames to clear up justification in its Causes, or to shew by what meanes it is brought about; but only to shew, 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 shew the vanity of that pretence, whereby many deceived them∣selves, Page  497 thinking that their profession of the truth of the Gospel was enough to secure their Salvation, & to prove them to be in a justified saife state, though they indulged themselves a liberty to walk loosly, according to the flesh; this acception of the word works, in a proper sense, is most contributive unto that designe, & no other acception, how consonant so ever unto the Analogy of Faith, doth so directly & clearly contribute assi∣stence thereunto. Therefore he opposeth faith & works, & denieth that to faith, which he ascribed unto works: though by consequence he put he∣reby a difference betwixt a dead faith, & a working faith; Yet his principa∣le Thesis vers. 14. is, that by works, & not by a bare profession of the truth, we come to Salvation. And the enquirie 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 vers. 18. shew me thy faith without thy works, & I will shew my faith by my works. And vers. 20. when he saith, faith without works is dead & vers. 26. that it is as dead, as a body is without breath or Spirit. And this he fully confir∣meth 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 & Iames of a second; or with others, that Paul speaketh of justification, as begun, & Iames of justification as continued, or with Socinians, that Paul denieth justification by the works of the Law, Ja∣mes 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 countenan∣ce 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 showen, 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 ordinarie 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 Justifi∣cation: But their opinion of a first & second justification is vaine, having no ground in the word, and the whole of their fabrick is sufficiently demolished by the Reformed, writting against them; so that we need not insist there∣upon. Page  498 Others there are, who suppose that James is here shewing, how ju∣stification is continued, & therefore say, though faith alone be the Condi∣tion of Justification, as begun; Yet unto the continuance thereof works are required, as the Condition. But all that speak thus, & think that Iames 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 meer 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 & desti∣tute 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 & kinde, with the faith of devils & a faith, which a vaine man, puft up with a vaine conceite & a fleshly mind may have, & a faith, that cannot & will not worke with works, is a justifying faith: which if true, it would follow, that all men, who beleeve that God is, & Devils also, who beleeve this, should be justified. But no∣ne, who understand the Gospel can think or speak thus. And therefore this place carrieth no shew of proof, that works are the Condition of Justifica∣tion▪ 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 be∣twixt justification, as begun, & as continued. For (1) James'• scope (as we manifested above) is not to cleare up & explaine the way, how justifica∣tion is brought about, or to shew, what are the Causes, or Conditions thereof: but to discover the vanity of that ground, whereupon some pro∣fessours, who indulged their Lusts, deceived themselves & supposed that they were in a state of justification, & salvation, notwithstanding they ne∣glected all duties of holiness. (2) James opposeth a faith here unto works, a faith, which he called unprofitable, dead &c. & doth not ascribe justifica∣tion hereunto, as to a Condition, in whole, or in part: But such, as speak thus, include faith & works, as making up one full & compleat Condition. (3) The Instances, which James here adduceth, should not then serve his designe, 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 & eares of others: And hence it may as well be proved, that only ex∣ternal works, are required unto justification, and no other. And in∣deed, if it had been Iames's designe to prove justification by works, he had Page  499 named other works, then meerly 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 vers. 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 befo∣re 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 Ia∣mes here speaketh, availeth not to Salvation, because it is not of the right kinde, & we say also, that this faith availeth not to justification, because it is but meer empty profession, deceiving & puffing up & it is but a faith, that a man saith he hath.

From vers. 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 indi∣gent 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 a∣vailable 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 saife & in a justified state.

But the maine ground of this apprehension is vers. 21, 22, 23, &c. for it is objected that it is expresly 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 belee∣ved God, & it was accounted to him for Righteousness. And this is it, which others have called justification before men, in opposition to justifica∣tion before God, that is, a justification declared & manifested to the mans own conscience & to others, & not the justification before God in its cau∣ses. And this Mr. Baxter seemeth to have mistaken in his Aphorismes, when he argued against this justification before men, as if it had been meerly a ju∣stification from Mens 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 & Ju∣stification by Faith is evidenced. And where as he saith. That works are no certaine medium, or evidence, whereby the world can know us to be Righ∣teous: for there is no outward work, which an hypocrite may not perfor∣me, & inward works they cannot discerne: nor yet the principles from Page  500 which, nor the ends to which our works proceed & are intended. There is as much need of a divine heart-searching knowledge, to discerne the since∣rity of works, as of faith it self. 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, & glorifie your Father, which is in heaven. And that Ioh. 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 Gen∣tiles— they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorifie 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 obedien∣ce 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 ju∣stified by his works, that he was declared to be justified indeed before God, by his works.

Some were pleased to express their sense of Iames's words thus, That Ia∣mes 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 mans 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 plaine, 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 be∣leever, & 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 justifie, 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, Iames 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 vaine, 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 withall 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 seing 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 ju∣stification; which is expresly contrary to the scope & all the reasonings of Page  501 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 compari∣son in the former vers. 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, seing this were but a dead Cypher without it. But the truth is, the Apostle, as is said, hath a far other designe, & sheweth, 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 behoved 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 shewing (as the whole context cleareth) that Abraham's faith was another sort of faith, than that, whereupon they relyed; 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 yeers 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 habite is perfected in its acts, be∣cause they are the end to which it tendeth: & as marriage is perfected per congres∣sum & procreationem; or any Covenant, when its Conditions are performed. Ans. The whole of the context sheweth, 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 inte∣rest of faith in justification, but in Salvation; let is be granted, that justi∣fication is perfected by faith without works, as marriage is by consent, with∣out 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 justifica∣tion. Ans. That the continuation of justification hath other media or Condi∣tions, 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 Page  502 justified, as to the beginning of justification, seing 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 beleeving, but necessary afterward, when he is called to it) whereby he is to be justified against the charge of non-performance of the New Cove∣nants Condition, even against the Accusation of being an unbeleever or hypocrite. Ans. If obedience perfect faith thus, it is only as evidenceing & proving the man a true beleever, & no hypocrite, or one that hath only a meer profes∣sion; 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 non∣performance 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 murther, and from stealing is called for; the abstea∣ning 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 per∣fect faith.

Mr. Baxter giveth this ground of Agreement betwixt Paul & Iames; 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 Righ∣teousness 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 spea∣keth to this question, how sinners come to be justified before God, & there∣fore cleareth up the matter of justification, in all its causes; and not only sheweth what that Righteousness is, which must be pleaded against the ac∣cusation 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 hand∣leth Iames? 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 justi∣fication by this Righteousness? If Iames 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, & Iames 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 Iames speaketh, we have shown above; & the •eby manifested a cleare harmonie betwixt the Apostles, & left no ground of suspicion of any contradiction.

Page  503 He saith, next that Paul doth either in express words, or in the sense, & scope of his speach, 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 alledged to prove that Paul meaneth works as taken for the fulfilling of the Conditions of the Law ourselves & Iames meaneth the same works as taken for the fulfilling of the Conditions of the Gospel ourselves. And further, the faith that Iames 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 shew that by the works of the Law he meaneth some thing in oppo∣sition to the commands of the Gospel, wherein he joineth with Socinians. But we owne no commands of the Gospel, but such as are enjoined by the Law of God, even the Moral Law, of which Iames speaketh expres∣ly vers. 10, 11.

He tels us 3. for clearing of this agreement, That Paul doth by the word Faith especially direct our thoughts to Christ beleeved 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 ju∣stified by works, is not all one, for all obedience or works is not receiving of Christ. But now, what doth Iames direct us to by the word Faith, which he mentioneth? doth he not direct our thoughts to Christ beleeved in? If not, it cannot be justifying Faith, he speaketh of, as Mr. Baxter supposeth. If yea, why doth he adde works more than Paul doth? Shall Paul's directing our thoughts to Christ beleeved in, exclude works, and Ia∣mes'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 alwayes implieth obedience to Christ. Ans. It is denied, that he implieth obe∣dience, as the Condition of Justification: And Mr. Baxter himself will grant this, I suppose, as to justification begun, or as to our fi•st justifica∣tion 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 truely, as he that sub∣jecteth himself to a Prince, doth imply future obedience, in his engagement to obey: for this maketh justifying faith a plaine 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 Catholick Theol. part. 2. n. 365. giveth us five particu∣lars of justification by works, that Iames standeth for, & that he accoun∣teth Page  504 undeniable by any thing but prejudice, Ignorance, & siding peevish∣ness. So that it must be unquestionable, that Iames speaketh of all those par∣ticulars, & that he speaketh of justification by works, in no other sense, the contrary whereof we have seen already: Yet let us see what these parti∣cular 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 beleefe in God the Father Son & Holy Ghost, for the benefites of the Covenant, is the Condition of our first Cevenant-Right to these bene∣fites. Ans. To speak of Saving Faith in its full latitude, or of that faith, whe∣reby 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 beleeved in: so that faith in this matter is not considered as our work, or as an act of obedience in us, & as our personal Righteous∣ness; but as the Mean, Hand, or Instrument laying hold on Christ & his Righteousness. And if this be the meaning of Iames, 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 Iames 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 furder answere, as to our present question, concerning the meaning of Iames, when he saith we are justified by works; for if this faith be not actual obedience, Iames 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 beleevers is obedience to God, as God, though their first Faith be said to be a fiducial accepting beleefe in God the Father, Son & Holy Ghost, and this be said virtually to containe after obedien∣ce, 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, & beleeve in him.

3. He saith. That there is somewhat of Love Consent or willingness, of De∣sire, 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 so∣mewhat 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 shew the true nature & genius of that Faith, where∣by we are justified, for it is no where said, that we are justified by Love, Page  505 Hop, or Repentance (as for Consent or willingness & desire, they are in∣cluded in Faith.) But all this yet saith nothing for the Interest of Works (as it is pleaded) in our justification: And if Iames 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 obedien∣ce & 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 justifie us is to justifie 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 & ap∣plied to this purpose by Mr. Baxter, is elsewhere showne. (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. Baxters 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-Righ∣teousness, through Faith; and thus are justified by Faith: And how ju∣stification is a justification of that Right, Mr. Baxter would do well to ex∣plaine.

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 Righteous∣ness 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 Infi∣dels, unsanctified, Impenitent, hypocrites, Apostats; & so of having no part in Christ & the free gift, even by our personal, Evangelical Faith, Holiness, Re∣pentance, Sincerity & Perseverance, Ans. Then, it seemeth, Iames spea∣keth 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 inferre 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. Bax∣ter will not say. And if this be all that Iames saith, why did not Mr. Bax∣ter give this as a ground of reconciling Iames with Paul, that Iames speaks of works, in order to Final Salvation, but Paul, excludeth them, in re∣ference to justification? This would have had greater agreement with what the Orthodox say, than to tell us of works being the se∣condary parts of the Condition of our Justification, and that Iames in∣cludeth Page  506 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 tels us, that this in one word, in the Scripture, is said to be his obe∣dience Rom. 5: 19. But this obedience he restricteth pag. 94. unto the passi∣ve 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 any thing that ap∣peareth.

He mentioneth a distinction betwixt those things, wherein the Righte∣ousness 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 comprehen∣ding 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 Ordi∣nance 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 any thing, but in that only whe∣re in the Scriptures hold him forth to be so: And in that, wherein the Scri∣pture 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 Righ∣teousness 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 Page  507 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 mentio∣ned in three or foure places of Scripture. Ergo nothing else is mentioned, or to be understood, any where else: the particle Only is not here to be found, neither expresly, nor tacitely. (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 Righteous∣ness, upon the account thereof: Nay, neither here, nor no-where finde 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 Justifi∣cation, which only are there spoken of, are a Righteousness, or our Righ∣teousness, but the consequences, fruites or effects thereof.

His argueing, That without shedding of bloud, there is no remission, & from Heb. 6. & 10. That Christ dieth no more. Therefore Christ is appointed our Righte∣ousness & peace, in nothing, but in his death & bloud of his crosse, 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 bloud there is no remission; But this saith not, that shedding of bloud 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 compleat Su∣rety-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. & sayeth, that this Type teacheth us foure things. 1. That our Righteousness should proceed from one man Iesus 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 obe∣dience to the Law: And further Christ's obedience is called his Righteous∣ness 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 war∣rand. And againe, one act of disobedience, once committed, is a viola∣tion of the Law, & enough to constitute one unrighteous; but one act of obedience, howbeit frequently performed, far less once only performed, Page  508 cannot be a compleet Righteousness, which requireth conformity to the whole Law, in all points, & that all the dayes of our life. Wherefore Christ's obedience, being a Righteousness (which consisteth in full confor∣mity 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 signes & seals of the Righteousness, which is by faith, that is Baptisme & the Lord's supper, & tels us, that they signifie & represent to us, what is the Righteousness it self, whereby we are ju∣stified, & seale & confirme unto us, that that Righteousness is ours. Ans. I should rather think, that they represent & exhibite whole Christ, & seal to belee∣vers, or the worthy receivers their interest in Him, & Right to Him, and to all his Spiritual benefites. 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 inferre, 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 ultimatly 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 & ex∣pressly represented & pointed forth by these seales; What shall then beco∣me of his soul sufferings in the Garden, & on the Crosse? these were not his bloud, 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 baptised, 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 Ad∣versarie 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 tels us, that our Iu∣stification, Reconciliation, &c. are ever attributed unto the bloud, death & Crosse 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 Righteous∣ness vers. 18. And all this will as well conclude for the exclusion of his fore∣going 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'sPage  509 respecting in his preaching only the crosse of Christ: for the Apostle is not there speaking meerly of the matter of our Righteousness, but of the Gos∣pel way of Salvation, through a crucified Mediator, which the wisdom of this world despised; And to this, sure, our Author will willingly acknow∣ledge 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 it self, did remission of sins consist, or to speak mo∣re properly, was satisfaction made, in order to remission; Yet hence it will not follow, that all his preceeding obedience was no part of his Righteous∣ness, 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 ini∣quities both original & actual were pardoned in his preceeding actual obe∣dience, (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 dye without a cause. If any say, (as he insinuateth also pag. 104.) that Christ was offe∣red only to remove the punishment of our sin, and not the sin, or guilt the∣reof, 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 what∣soever, from all vertue or efficacy of removing iniquity; for then it should seclude his soul sufferings, which, sure, were no small part of the Satisfa∣ction made by him for sin. Neither will it hence follow, that all his fore∣going acts of obedience made no integral part of that Surety-Righteousness, which he undertook to performe. He citeth for his first ground 1. Ioh. 1: 7. To which we say, That it is true, the bloud of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin, because it was the bloud of him, who had fulfilled all Righteousness, & in his death had compleeted that Satisfaction he undertook to do: He tels us againe 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 re∣mission 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, free∣dome 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 sixt & last ground pag. 108. is builded 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, in∣graven in the stones on his shoulder & brest plate. And this is so far from ma∣king 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 Page  510 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 typifie & hold forth Christ's holy obedience & Righteousnest, & could not typifie his death & sacrifice. And without a Righteousness, there is no coming or approaching unto God, & this Righ∣teousness is some other thing, than meer 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 inferre, that no action performed by Christ be∣fore that time, can be accounted the action of expiation of sin, or of recon∣ciliation of us to God, is most vaine; for (1) we make no limitation or re∣striction of his expiatory work to what he did before he was 30 yeers 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 Ioh. 17? (2) There was more than expiation of sins requisite to bring us unto God; There∣fore the High Priest was to carry that memorial on the front of his Mitre.

The learned Wendeline, in his Great Systeme 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, & merite any thing to us, by his death: So that in his judgment, Christ's active obedien∣ce, 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 doe: 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 Ju∣stification.

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 con∣firme it; for the humane Nature of Christ, now in the state of glory, is & will be a creature for ever; Yea the consirmed angels, & Saints made per∣fect are Creatures, yet not subject to any Law as Viatores, but as Comprehen∣sores; such was not the obedience of Christ, while in the flesh. He was obe∣dient, as a Viator, but in respect of himself, he cannot be looked upon as a meer Viator, his Humane Nature being personally united unto the divine, Page  511 & 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 more∣over all his acts of obedience were not the acts of obedience of a meer crea∣ture, out of one who was God-man; for his humane Nature did not subsist of it self, and so did not of it self as a nature not subsisting, performe acts of obedience, but in the Godhead, & performed acts of obedience, as so sub∣sisting. We have said enough to this at several occasions before.

It was Answered Christ was made man, not for himself, but for us; The∣refore he obeyed not for himself, but for us, that is, in our place. He Re∣plyeth. 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 Incar∣nation did not obtaine, that we should no more be men, or be bound to do things congruous to humane 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, ma∣de 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 mai∣ne emphasis lyeth 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 forme 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, seing this did necessarily follow his being man, & that for himself? And may it not hence be inferred, that the exaltation af∣terward mentioned vers. 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 forme of a servant, but only upon sup∣position. Yet as man, being created, is necessarily subject to the Law of his Crea∣tor; 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 Page  512 subject to the Law for himself. (2) Though he was true man, having mans Nature, yet he was not made man, as other men are; for his humane Na∣ture had no subsistence of its own, as other men have; & therefore could not for it self be subject to the Law, as other men are. (3) How or what way Christ's body was subject to corruption, of it self, we need not here deba∣te; 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, beco∣ming man, did become, upon that account, necessarily subject to the Law for himself.

His 2. Arg. is. If Christ did performe active obedience, in our room, so as it might be imputed to us unto Righteousness, then we should be no longer obliged to performe 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 Sa∣tisfaction 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 perfe∣cte obedience, & thereby obtaine the prize, as our reward of debt; and faile in the least, & lose all, which were the Conditions of the Old Cove∣nant; 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 merite nothing to ut thereby. Ans. This is but, what was said above; & hence it is cleare, that, in his judgment, Christ wrought for the crown of glory to himself, & did merite it to himself: & so had no Right thereto before, by vertue of his hypostatical union, let be possession, albeit all the Angels were to worshipe him, & his throne was for ever & ever Heb. 1: 6, 8.

He addeth. If notwithstanding of Christ's active satisfaction, we be obliged to satisfie actively; so, notwithstanding of his passive satisfaction we should be bound to satisfie 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 answere, that some gave, that by Christ's active obedience we have this advantage, that we are more obliged unto rigide & exact obedien∣ce. He replieth. That then we should not sin by short-coming, or negligence. Ans. But by that rigide & exact obedience, is not meaned full conformitie unto the Law; but such a conformitie, 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 Page  513 now in another channel, though the commands & the Law, as a Law & rule of walk, remaine the same.

His 3. Arg. is. The Scripture every where, speaking of our justification & par∣don, mentioneth Christ's passive, & not his active obedience. As Esai. 53: 5, 6. Rom. 3: 24, 25. & 5: 9. Gal. 3: 13. 1. Ioh. 1: 7. Ans. It is denied, that the Scripture doth every where mentione only Christ's passive obedience, and the contrary hath been frequently showne. And as to the places mentioned, none of them containe any exclusive particle, or hinte the exclusion of his active obedience: And our Adversaries themselves must understand these & the like passages, Synecdochically, otherwayes they shall exclude Christ's soul sufferings, as well, as his active obedience, & restrick all to his death & bloud shed on the crosse; which yet they will not do.

Now followeth his answere 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 dona∣tion 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 compleet Righteousness, for us, & one meritorious cau∣se of all the benefites procured thereby.

Arg. 3. (for the Arg. 2. I passe, 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 obe∣dience be understood (for his passive may also be called actual, in that actually & not potentially only he suffered) & that imputed to us, the consequens 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. be∣twixt Adam's disobedience & Christ's obedience is taken away: He oppo∣seth the Righteousness of Christ to the offence of Adam: now Christ's death & suffering is no where 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 merite the recovery of what we lost in Adam, being the death of one, that fulfilled all Righteousness; Yet considered abstractly, by it self without his active obedience, it cannot be our formal Righteous∣ness, with which we must be covered & as having which we must be consi∣dered, 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 Page  514 parts of one compleat Surety-Righteousness & Satisfaction for our debt; & therefore belong to his Estate of humiliation; during which in all his obe∣dience there was suffering, for a part of his subjection was, that he was made under the Law, even under the commanding power thereof; becau∣se otherwayes, 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 seing our case & necessity calleth for the imputation of both.

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

He Ans. denying the Conseq. because it is one thing to be given to us, & an∣other 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 & pu∣blick person & which our case called for, was to be made over to us, in or∣der to our receiving the grand benefites of pardon & life: Now it was ne∣cessary 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 eter∣nal. 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 we∣re 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 Righteous∣ness required in the Law. (2) The paying of a penalty, though it may de∣liver from punishment; yet cannot procure a right to the reward, promised to keeping of the Law; as is manifest; & therefore Christ's passive obe∣dience, 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 compleat Satisfaction & Righteousness, whereby we come to obtaine both a freedome 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 pro∣mised reward; unless it be said, that no more was promised, than the conti∣nuance of what he possessed.

Page  515 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 com∣mandement, it only satisfieth the threatning. Therefore the suffering of the punishment can not 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 pu∣nishment 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 eter∣nal. Ans. This answere 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, pro∣mised in that Covenant.

He answereth againe, that when the threatning 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 pe∣nalty, 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 Lawes 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 obe∣dience 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 im∣puted, so as by it we are accounted observers of the Law. Ans. These passages suf∣ficiently prove, that his active obedience belongeth to that Righteousness & Satisfaction, which is imputed unto us; & the fruites of the Righteous∣ness 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 else∣where: our disput here is not about imputation, but about that which is im∣puted, 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 Righ∣teousness nor no where 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 yeelded unto the Socinians: But the matter is clear. That Christ is our compleat Righteousness, not effectivly: for he worketh no compleat legal Righteous∣ness in us, that is a Righteousness according, as was required in the Old Co∣venant: And beside the expiation of sin, he brought in a Righteousness, which is called everlasting Dan. 9: 24. which can not be understood of our Page  516 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 & Righteous∣ness.

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 crosse. Ans. It was a suf∣fering 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, & beca∣me 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 Me∣diator. 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 ma∣ke him a fit Redeemer for us. Nor was he a fit Mediator, untill he had finis∣hed his whole course of obedience. And yet he was borne a Saviour Luk. 2: 11. And was the Lord's Christ vers. 26. & Salvation vers. 50.

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

He Ans. We are acceptable to God by inherent obedience, which Christ hath pur∣chased by his sufferings. Ans. But the Text is to be understood of a being made acceptable, in order to our obtaining the redemption, mentioned vers. 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 him∣self a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle Ephes. 5: 27.

He Ans. That Christ did purchase by his death the churches inherent Righteous∣ness. 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 staine & power of sin, in Sanctification; but also from the guilt of sin in ju∣stification, the Church must be presented without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, & cleansed with the washing of water, & holy & without ble∣mish: Now in order to justification, the sinner must be clothed with a compleat Righteousness.

Arg. 10. Beleevers 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 restric∣ked Page  517 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 maine ground of all.

Arg. 11. We are perfect & compleat 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 imputa∣tion of a compleat 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 compleat, & have all, we need.

Arg. 12. Christ hath delivered us from all our debt, both of yeelding per∣fect obedience, & of suffering for disobedience Col. 2: 14.

He Ans. He denyeth this, & sayeth; Christ hath not delivered us from giving perfect obedience, for we remaine obliged thereunto, & wherein we come short it is pardoned for his satisfaction imputed to us, & it is piece & piece made up by be∣gun 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 vertue 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 vertue 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 impu∣ted 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 withall satisfie 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 Iustification, whereby the Passive Righteousness of Christ is imputed to us: Pu∣rity is begun in us in Sanctification. Ans. By justification we have no Righte∣ousness imputed to us, for we must be Righteous, before we be justified; & therefore must have a Righteousness imputed before. (2) Our begun Sancti∣fication, 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 compleat obedience to the Law, & that unto the end, in which respect Adam was ne∣ver 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 Impu∣tation; 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▪

Iustin. Martyr. Epist. ad Diognet. p. 386. Quid enim aliud peccata nostra po∣tuit 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 & un∣godly, be accounted for Righteous persons? than only in the Son of God? O sweet permutation! O unsearchable Contrivance! O benefites excee∣ding 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 ac∣counted Righteous.

Againe in lib. de Expositione fidei. Filius Dei, quatenus homo, vitam ab crimine remotam traduxit; mortemque voluntariam pertulit; per exactam & ac∣curatam Conversationem, peccatum obliterans, & per mortem indebitam debi∣tum 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 Conversa∣tion, & 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 Pa∣trem, in quem peccaveramus, & nostram inobedientiam Consolatus: nobis au∣tem donans eam, quae est ad Factorem nostrum, Conversationem & Subjectionem. i. e. The Lord brought us into friend shipe by his Incarnation, being ma∣de 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 Scripturis 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 maledi∣ctione 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 ne∣cessary, to beleeve the holy Scriptures, to confesse the first fruits (i. e. Christ) of our kind, to celebrat that singular love of him that assumed (viz. Mans Nature) unto mankind; to be astonished at that miracle of the great Page  519 Oeconomie & disposition; not to feare the Curse of the Law (for Christ hath delivered us from the Curse of the Law) ascribe or impute the fulfilling of the Law, done by the first fruits, unto the whole masse.

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

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

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

By these we may see, that even before Augustins dayes, this Truth was asserted, though Mr. Baxter, in his book against D. Tully Ch. 1. § 3. inti∣mate the contrary.

Cyrillus Alexandr. in Ioan. 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• quam∣vis legis Author esset, benedictio atque vivificatio, quae per Spiritum est, ad to∣tam 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 subje∣cted 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 innocen∣tiam, omnes fierent innocentes, inde in homines manante justitia, ubi est hu∣mana suscepta Natura. i. e. But that he might repaire the life of all, he undertook the cause of all, & paying for all made void the force of the Old obligation, to the end that as by one mans guilt all were made sinners, so by one mans innocency, all might become innocent; Righteousness coming unto men thence, where the humane Nature is taken on.

Page  520August. 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 no∣strum, nec in se, sed in nobis constitutum, similitudine peccati, in qua crucifi∣xus est, demonstravit. i. e. He was sin as we were Righteousness, not our own, but of God, not in ourselves but in him: as he did demonstrat him∣self to be sin, not his own, but ours; not in himself, but in us, by the simi∣litude of sinfull flesh, in which he was crucified.

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

Id. in Psal. 70. Erue me in justitia tua, non in mea, sed in tua; si enim in mea, er• exillis, de quibus ille ait, ignorantes Dei justitiam, & suam volen∣tes constituere, justitiae Dei non sunt subjecti. i. e. Deliver me in thy Righte∣ousness. 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 esta∣blish their own, they did not subject themselves unto the Righteousness of God.

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

Bernard. Serm. 61. in Cantic. Nunquid justitias meas? Domine, memorabor justitiae tuae solius: Ipsa est enim & mea; nempe factus es mihi tu justitia a Deo. Nunquid verendum, ne non una duobus sufficiat? non est pallium breve, quod secundum Prophetam, non possit operireduos, justitia tua justitia in aeternum, & te pariter & me opertet larga & aeterna justiti•, & in me quidem operit multitudi∣nem 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 ser∣ve two? It is not a short cloak, that according to the Prophet, cannot co∣ver 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 cau∣seris, 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 redee∣med for nothing.

Idem Epist. 190. ad Innocent. Pont. Rom. Quid namque ex se agere poterat, ut Page  521 semel amissam justitiam recuperaret homo, servus peccati, vinctus diaboli? assi∣gnata est ei proinde aliena, qui carui• sua, & ipsa sic est. Venit Princeps mundi & in Salvatore non invenit quicquam, & cum nihilominus innocenti manus inje∣cit, justissime quos tenebat amisit; quando is qui morti nihil debebat, accepta mortis injuria, jure illum qui obnoxius erat & mortis debito & Diaboli solvit Do∣minio 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 ille portavit, nec alter jam inveniatur, qui forte fecit, alter qui satisfecit, quia Caput & Corpus unus est Christus. Satisfecit ergo Caput pro membris; Christus pro Visceribus suis &c. quod si dixerit, Pater tuus addixit te, 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 exor∣tem justitiae. i. e. For what could man, a servant of sin & a bound slave of the devil, do of himself, to recover the Righteousness, which he had once lost? Therefore another is assigned unto him, because he wanted his own, & the same is so. The Prince of the world came, & found nothing in the Saviour, & when notwithstanding he put hands on the Innocent, he lost those most justly, when he held; when he, who owed nothing to death, having received the injurie of death, he did by right loose him, who was liable to the debt of death, & deliver him from the Dominion of Satan, for by what Right could he exact that the second time? seing as it was man, who owed, so it was man, who payed: for if one, he saith, died for all, then are all dead, that, to wit, the Satisfaction of one, might be imputed to all, as that one did bear the sins of all; Neither now is it found, that one did the wrong & another satisfied, for the Head & the body are one Christ: the Head therefore did satisfie for the members; Christ for his own bowels. But if he shall say. Thy Father bound thee over; I shall answer, but my Brother hath redeemed me, why should not Righteousness be from another; as guilt was from another▪ one who made man a sinner, & another who ju∣stifieth from sin; the one in the seed, the other in blood. Was sin in the seed of a sinner; & shall not Righteousness be in the bloud of Christ. It is not right, that the Son should bear the iniquity of the Father, & be defrauded of the Righteousness of his Brother.

Idem Serm. ad Milites Templi c. 1. Qui peccati meritum tulit, suam nobis donando justitiam; ipse meritis debitum solvit, & reddit vitam; sic namque mortua morte, revertitur vita, quemadmodum ablato peccato redit justitia; por∣ro mors in Christi morte fugatur, & Christi nobis justitia imputatur &c. Qui no∣stram & induit carnem & subiit mortens, putas suam nobis negabit justitiam? Voluntarie incarnatus, voluntarit passus, voluntarie crucifixus, solam à nobi• retinebit justitiam; afterward ibid. Unus peccavit & omnes tenentur rei, & u∣nius innocentia soli reputabitur uni? Unius peccatum omnibus operatum est mor∣tem, & unius justitia uni vi•am restituet? Haud Dei justitia magis ad condem∣n•ndum, quam ad restaurandum valuit? aut plus potutt Adam in malo, quàm Page  522 Christus in bono? Adae peccatum imputabitur mihi, & Christi justitia non perti∣nebit ad me? i. e. He who took away the desert of sin, giving to us his Righ∣teousness, the same by his merites, paid the debt, & restored life; for if death be dead, life returneth; even as sin being taken away, Righteousness returneth: Moreover death is banished away in Christ's death, and Christ Righteousness is imputed to us &c. He who took on our flesh, & underwent death, thinks thou, that he shall deny to us his Righteoysness? He who willin∣gly was incarnate, willingly suffered, willingly was crucified, shall he withold his Righteousness from us?-one man sinned & all are guilty, & shall the inno∣cency of one be accounted only to one? One mans sin hath wrought death unto all, & shall the Righteousness of one restore life only to one? Shall God's Righteousness be more powerfull to condemne, than to restore? Could Adam do more in sin, than Christ in good? Shall Adam's sin be im∣puted unto me, & shall not Christ's Righteousness belong unto me?

Ambros. lib. 3. de Virginit. p. 100. Om•ia Iesus est nobis si volumus. Si vul∣nus curari defideras, Medicus est: Si febribus aestuas, sons est: Si gravaris ini∣quitate, 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, alimen∣tum est. i. e. Christ is all things to us, if we be willing, if thou desirest to ha∣ve thy wound cured, he is the chyrurgen: if thou burn with feavers, he is a fountain: If thou be burdened with sin, he is Righteousn•ss: If thou want help, he is vertue: If thou fear death, he is the life: if thou desirest hea∣ven, 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 no∣strorum peccatorumque medicina praestantior! Consideremus, quia nobis prodest bene credere. Mihi enim prodest scire, quia propter me Christus suscepit infirmita∣tes meas, mei corporis subiit passiones, 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 beleeve 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 cur∣se, 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 con∣cepta, tanquam pannus menstruat• mulieris, in novissimo die manifestabitur, sicut inquit Esaias Propheta-Petamus itaque & obtestemur Deum, ut induat no∣bis 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 laboureth in vaine: for all conceived opi∣nion of our own Righteousness shall be manifest to be a menstruous cloth, in the last day, as the Prophet Esai 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 ne∣ver be denuded thereof.

Page  523 Even some Papists of old, (though few or none now since the Councel 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 ani∣ma, in hac sola morte fiduciam tuam constitue, in nulla re fiduciam habe, huic mortite totum committe, hac sola tetotum contege, totum immisce te in hac morte, in hac morte totum te involve; & si Dominus Deus te voluerit judicare, dic Domi∣ne, mortem D.N.I.C. objicio inter me & tuum judicium, aliter •ecum non con∣tendo. 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, Domi∣ne, 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 confiden∣ce in no other thing, commit thy self wholly unto this death, cover thy self wholly with this death alone, mixe thy self wholly in this death, roll thy self 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 merites; & I offer his me∣rites, for the merite, 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. be∣twixt me & thine anger.

Isidorus Clarius Orat. 40. in Luc. Nos dicimus neque fide primò, neque chari∣tate, 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 Righte∣ousness 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 ni∣ti 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 condemne this opinion of ours, whereby we take away from all the Sons of Adam, their own Righteousness, which is of their own works, be∣fore God, & did teach, that we must leane 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 dili∣gently.

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 affir∣mat-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 re∣missae Page  524 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 testimonie 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 mer∣cifully pardoned, whose sins he covereth, and hideth with his own Righ∣teousness.

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 im∣putatur. 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, con∣glutinatis & unitis, & sua nostra facit, suas divitias nobis communicat, suam justitiam inter Patris judicium & nostram injustitiam interponito, & sub ea, ve∣luti sub umbone & clypeo, a divina, quam commeruimus, ira nos abscondit, tuetur ac protegit, imo tandem nobis impertit, & nostram facit, qua tecti, or∣natique audacter & secure jam divino nos sistamus tribunali & judicio; justique non solum appareamus, sed etiam simus. i. e. In him (that is, Christ) there∣fore are we justified before God, not in ourselves; not by our own but by his Righteousness, which is imputed to us, when now we communicat with him. Being void of a Righteousness of our own he teacheth us to seek a Righteousness, without ourselves; in him, when he saith he made him sin for us, who knew no sin, that is, he made him a sacrifice for sin, that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him. By what Law? By that of friendship, which maketh a community of all things among friends, according to the old & well known proverb. Being insert into Christ glued & united unto him, he maketh what is his to be ours, he communicateth unto us his riches, he interposeth his Righteousness betwixt the Fathers judgment & our unrighteousness, and under it, as under a shield, he hideth, defendeth, & protecteth us from God's wrath, which we had de∣served; 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, impu∣tantur: ita ejus justitia, quasi capitis, nobis ejus membris, ad justitiam & vi∣a•m aeternam imputatur. i. e. As our iniquities were imputed by God unto Christ, because of his voluntary assuming of them, & of the neer union of the mystical body: so his Righteousness, as head to us his members, is im∣puted unto us unto Righteousness, & life eternal.

Page  525 Yea Bellarm. granteth lib. 2. de justif. C. 10. That Christ may be called our Righteousness, because he satisfied the Father for us, & did so give & communicat that Satisfaction to us, when he justifieth us, that it may be called our Satisfaction & Righteousness. And againe; this way it were not absurd to say, that Christ's Righteousness & merites were imputed to us, when they are given & applied to us, as if we ourselves had satisfied God. So in Resp. ad 3. Arg. We are said to be the Righteousness of God, not in ourselves, but in Christ, because he is our head, & what agreeth to 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, becau∣se Christ took upon him the burden of satisfying for us, & of reconciling us to God the Father. Thus he

After Cardinal Bellarmin. we may mention Cardinal Contarenus, who is more orthodox here, than any of them; & speaketh as plaine truth, as any of the orthodox themselves can do: for so doth he, in Tract. de Iustif. state the question. Quoniam ad duplicem justitiam pervenimus, per fidem, justitiam inharentem nobis & charitatem ac gratiam, qua efficimur consortes divina natu∣rae; & 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. Be∣cause by faith we obtaine a twofold Righteousness, one inherent in us, love & grace, whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature; the other the Righteousness of Christ, given & imputed to us, because in•ert into Christ, & because we have put on Christ: It is fittest to Enquire, unto which of these we ought to leane ourselves, & account ourselves justified before God, that is looked upon as Righteous & holy.

The question thus proposed he thus determineth. Ego prorsus existimo, pi• & Christian•egrave, di•i, quod debeamus niti (niti inquimus, tanquam rei stabili, quae cert•nos sustentet) justitia Christinobis donota, non autem justitia & san∣ctitate nobis inhaerente: h•c enim nostra justitia est inch•ata & imperfecta, quae impedirenon potest, quin assidue pe•cemus; idcirco in conspectu Dei possumus eb hanc justitiam haberi justi & boni, quemadmedum deceret filios Dei esse bonos & Sanctos; Sed justitia Christi est vera & perfecta justitia, quae omnino placet ocu∣lis 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 ju∣stificari coram Deo, id est haberi justos & dioi justos. Hic est pretiosus Thesau∣rus, quem qui invenit, vendit omnia quae habet, & emit illum. i. e. I verily think, that it is piously & christianly said, that we ought to lean (I say lean, as to a stable thing, that shall certainly hold us up) unto Christ's Righteousness, given unto us; but not unto the Righteousness & holiness, that is inherent in us: for this Righteousness of ours is inchoate & imperfect, that cannot hinder us from ssinning dayly; therefore we cannot for this Righ∣teousness, Page  526 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 no∣thing that can displease God, & doth not highly please him: Therefore we must only leane to this certaine & stable thing, and beleeve, that for it alone we are justified before God; that is, accounted Righteous, and so called. This is the Precious Treasure, which who findeth, he selleth all he hath, & buyeth it.

Yea this he confirmeth afterward by Experience, saying. Inde est, quod pro experimento videmus viros Sanctos, qui quanto magis in veritato proficiunt, tanto minus sibi placent; ac propterea tanto magis intelligunt se indigere Christo & justitia Christi sibi donata; ideoque se relinquunt, & soli Christo incumbunt: ••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: where∣fore they relinquish themselves; and leane upon Christ alone: This co∣meth not to passe, because they become of a more base & Law spirit: Yea the further they advance in holiness, they are of greater spirits, & see mo∣re clearly.

Arguments against Universal Redemption.

AS concerning the point of Universal Redemption, we finde various sentiments, or various explications of the matter, given to us by Adversaries; for they do not all agree in their apprehensions of the thing. Some explaine the matter thus, God sent his only begotten Son to be a Redeemer and Propitiator for Adam and all his Posterity; who by his death did pacific an angry God, and restore Mankinde to their lost inheri∣tance; so as all, who are now condemned, are not condemned for their former sins and guilt; for Christ hath abundantly satisfied for these; but for their Unbeleef, for not beleeving in the Redeemer of the world, and for rejecting the Reconciliation made, & the grace of God declared in the word. And thus, they must say, that Christ hath died for all sinnes, but Unbeleefe; and that salvation doth not certainly follow upon this Reconci∣liation; and so that it is rather a Reconciliableness, than a Reconciliation; and they must necessarily maintaine, that this matter is revealed unto all and every son of Adam, who otherwise cannot be guilty of Rejecting this recon∣ciliation, Page  527 other wayes it shall be of no advantage to them; unless they say, that the want of the Revelation putteth them out of a capacity of being guil∣ty of Unbeleefe; and so they must necessarily be saved; and thus their con∣dition shall be undoubtedly better, than is the condition of such, as hear the Gospel; and then the revelation of the Gospel shall be no Favour, but a Pre∣judice rather. And in reference to this, they devise an Universal Antece∣danious 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 Inclina∣tions; and as if all his Love to Mankinde, and every appointment of his concerning us, were not the free act of his good pleasure; and as if there were any such Antecedent & Conditional will in God, that could or might have no issue or accomplishment, but as Lord Freewil would; and as if the Love that sent Christ, were only such a Poor Conditional Inclination towards all Mankinde, which the Scripture holdeth forth, as the greatest of Loves, & as the ground or all the Effects & Grants, which mans full Salvation cal∣leth 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 no∣thing, as to the recovery of any: & upon this ground they imagine, Christ was sent to make an Universal Atonement; & so, Justice, being satisfied, might not obstruct the salvation of any, whose Freewill would consent unto termes of new to be proposed.

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

Others express the matter thus [Christ, out of the gracious Decree & Purpose of God, did undergoe death, that he might procure & obtaine Reconciliation with God for all sinners whatsomever, without any differen∣ce, before that God would open againe the door of salvation, & enter in∣to a new Covenant of Grace with sinners.] But this Reconciliation hath no more force, or import, but that God might enter againe into a Covenant Page  528 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 sa∣tisfied for the breach of the First Covenant, so that that sin is fully pardoned unto all; or not, untill the condition of the second Covenant be performed: nor are we told, upon what account the sins against the second Covenant are pardoned; Or if they be unpardonable.

Others explaine the matter thus [Christ died for all and every man, not only that God might, without any violation of Justice, enter into a new Covenant with sinners, upon what condition he pleased; but that it should be upon this Condition, that man should be united with Christ the Cautio∣ner: and not only, that Redemption & Salvation should be possible to all, but that really & most certainly Salvation should be bestowed on such, as Christ thought good.] But seing Christ knew, that his death would profite none, but these few, whom he had designed, to what purpose should he have laid downe his life for the rest? And how can his death be a price of Redemption for the rest? How can Christ be said to satisfie for the rest? Did he purchase Faith to these few; and would he not purchase Faith to the rest, & yet lay downe the great price for them? What was the end obtained for the rest? was it only a Possible Call of all, Justice bein satisfied? But of what import could that Possible Call be, if Salvation was not also possible unto them? And whereunto is that Call? They will not say, it is unto Sal∣vation, but to Faith: But did not Christ know, that this call would not be obeyed by them? Did he procure Grace unto them, to obey it? then he procured Faith, and if he procured Faith, than he procured Salvation. Againe, if Justice be satisfied for these others, why are they not liberat? If they say, the new Condition is not fulfilled. Then it cannot be simply said, that Christ satisfied Justice on their behalfe, for he knew before hand, that these would not performe 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 Redem∣ption, about the Proper & Immediat End & Aime, of the purpose of God, in sending Christ to die; and of Christ in comeing 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 Iustice, 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 vertue whe∣reof, none shall be damned that do not sin actually against the Condition, & fall thereby from that new state, whereunto they are borne. And this opi∣nion Page  529 differeth not much from that of Iacobus Andreae at the conference at Mompelgard, which afterward Huberus maintained (as Kimedoncius she∣weth, 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 unbeleef, 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 sinnes alike, but conditionally.] Some say, [that after the price was payed, it was absolutely undetermined, what condition should be pre∣scribed; so as God might have re-established the Covenant of works:] O∣thers, [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 performe it with the help of such meanes, as God affordeth to all] and thus establish the Dia∣na of Freewill. But others [assert the necessity of grace flowing from ele∣ction hereunto,] and so destroy Universal Redemption, which yet they as∣sert. So that some say [Christ died for all Conditionally, if they beleeve] making the Act the cause of its own object; for Faith with them is a belee∣ving that Christ died for them. Some say [that he died for all Absolutely; Yet so as they partake not of the benefire, until they performe the Condi∣tion, which was to be prescribed;] and thus they affirme, that Christ did no more sustaine the persons of the Elect, than of the Reprobat, but of all alike. If we enquire 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 & Camero 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 Cove∣nant, if a satisfaction had not interveened; and by this Exemption, they say, it cometh to passe, 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 meer Possibility? What efficacy hath it, seing notwithstanding thereof, all may perish againe? They say, it is really Ef∣ficacious as to this Possibility, which was not, before Justice was satisfied: But yet notwithstanding of this Efficacious Possibility, it might come to passe, that not one should have been saved: for how can salvation be possible with∣out faith? So that if faith be not hereby purchased, it would seem, that Sal∣vation 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 mans advan∣tage? 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 Beleeve or Repent, without grace? Or is it in corrupt mans power to Beleeve or Repent?

Page  530What that truth is, which we stand for, is plainly & fully enough set downe 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 meanes 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▪ Iustified, Adopted, Sanctified & Saved; but the Elect only. So Chap. 8. §. 1. It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to chose & ordaine the Lord Iesus, his only begotten Son, so be the mediator between God & man. •Un∣to whom he did from all eternity give a people to be his seed, and to be by him in time Redeemed, Called, Iustified, Sanctified & Glorified. And ibid. §. 5. The Lord Iesus by his perfect obedience, & sacrifice of himself; which he through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the Iustice 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 certanely and effectually apply & communicate the same, making intercession for them, & revea∣ling unto them, in & by the word, the mysteries of salvation, effectually perswa∣ding them by his Spirit to beleeve & obey; and governing their hearts by his word & Spirit, overcoming all their enemies by his Almighty power & wisdom, in such manner & wayes, as are most cansonant to his wonderful & unsearchable dispensa∣tions. Our judgment is this, in short, That Christ, according to the good pleasure of his Father, laid downe his life a Ransome for the Elect only, who were given to him to save from Wrath, and Destruction; and by that price purchased Salvation, & all the Meanes 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 margine of the Confession, confirming all, are clearly hinted & laid downe, in these passages cited; yet I shall, with what brevity is possible, point forth our grounds in plaine termes. And (1.) The Scripture is full & plaine, in holding forth 2 Covenant betwixt •ehova, and the Mediator, a transaction concerning man; or the purposes of God concerning the Salva∣tion of Man, in way of a mutual Compact; both for our better understa•∣ding of that solide 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 digresse thereunto here; and shall only referre such, as would see the same confirmed, unto Mr. Dick∣sons Therapeutica sacra, & Mr. Rutherfords book upon the Covenant. Taking it therefore for granted, till what is by these Worthies said anent it, be con∣futed; and finding, that Arminius himself in his Orat. de Sacerdotio Christi, saith, there was a Covenant betwixt the Lord & Christ, I shall but shortly inferre therefrom, That it is repugnant to reason, to say, that the result of Page  531 that Eternal Transaction: and the whole intended by it, was only to pro∣cure a meer 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, con∣sidering what they are doing, can have no place? If Christ was to see his seed, by vertue 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 meer 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 meanes, whereby this actual Closeing with the Conditions was to be effectually wrought, must have been secured: for a transaction betwixt per∣sons, infinite in Wisdom, must of necessity be, in all things, contrived in deep Wisdom. So then, if by vertue 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 Radem∣ption was neither Universal; nor yet meerly Possible, & no more.

Againe (2.) The Scripture every where pointeth out the end of Christs coming & dying, to have been, to Procure & Obtaine some good to man; it were endless to cite the Scriptures speaking this out plainely: But if it had been only to have procured a Possibility, then the proper & immediat end of his dying, had been only to have procured something to God, viz. a Po∣wer to Him, that he might, without hurt to his Justice, prescribe a possi∣ble way of salvation. Now, not to discusse 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 Ju∣stice 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 essen∣tial 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, seing 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, seing the Socinians may reply, that the sole ground of that Opposition to them is not only questioned, but plainly denyed, by such as we account Orthodox & learned; and may hence ga∣ther, that we have no other solide ground, whereupon to debate with them, but such as the learned of our owne 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 Page  532 this to have been in itself utterly impossible, & inconsistent with God. B• whatever may be said of this. what Scripture tels us, that Christ was sen to die, that he might obtain this Power unto God? And further, what was this power? Was it a meer Power & Liberty, that should never have any Effect? If it was to have an Effect, what was that? Was it only to ma∣ke 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 certanely to save some? Then, the Redemption cannot be called Universal, nor yet meerly 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 notwithstan∣ding 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 termes whatever; or only upon the old termes of the Covenant of works; and what then should the advantage of this have been? The whole Scriptu∣re, speaking of the death of Christ, mentioneth far other Ends, respe∣cting 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 meer Possible Redemption: for this gift is utterly repugnant to, & destructive of both: for if, conforme to the Co∣venant 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 ran∣some-money: for it is not rational to suppose, that, the designe 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 designe of Father & Son in this? The matter goeth not so in humane transactions, where the price is considerable. Now, that the Scripture mentioneth some given to Christ, & that in distinction from others, is clear Ioh. 17: 2.—that he should give eternal life to as many, as thou hast given him. So vers. 12. Those that thou gavest we, I have keept, and none of them are lost, &c. So Ioh. 6: 37. All that the Fa∣ther hath given me, shall come unto me, & vers. 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 tye 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 downe 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 the∣reupon given to Christ. They were the Father's, & given of the Father Page  533 to the Son; and so fully discriminated from all the rest; and both Father & Son stand engadged to carry these thorow unto salvation: all which conside∣red, it is most plaine, that the Redemption was Particular & Actual, con∣forme to the Undertaking, & Transaction.

Nay (4.) If we will consider the fountaine love, from whence the sending of Christ came, we will see how unreasonable it is to imagine an Universal meer Possible Redemption, as the proper end & effect, of Christ's death & merites. It is said Ioh. 3: 16. A place, which our Universalists look upon, as most favourable for them) that God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that all beleevers 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 ransome, & to die for sinners; and it must be contrary to all reason, to imagine, that all this was to procure a Re∣demption, 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 fruite 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 nei∣ther 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, seing 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, & profite by it, was not designed for all? Sayeth not Paul Rom. 8: 32. He that spared not his owne 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 effectua∣te 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. Ioh. 4: 9, 10, 11. where this speciall love, by which Christ was sent, is made peculiar unto beleevers; for Iohn is spea∣king 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, & Unchanga∣ble Love, Ier. 31: 3. Ephes. 1: 3, 4. Rom. 9: 11. Ioh. 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, Page  534 mentioned in Scripture, we shall see that it was some other thing, than a meer Possible Delivery & Redemption, common to all mankinde. Mat. 8: 11. He came to save that which was lost; and not to make their salvation meer∣ly possible; for if that were all, Christs argument should have had no strength: So 1. Tim. 1: 15. - Iesus Christ came into the world to save sinner: if it were a meer possibility, that might never take effect, how should this faithful saying be worthy of all acception; So Luk. 19: 10 where the mat∣ter is exemplified in Zaccheus Mat. 1: 21. the reason of the name Iesus, given to the Redeemer is, because he shall save his people from their sinnes, 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 unbeleef, 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 sinnes. 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 meer Possible Deliverance, but Actual & Ef∣fectual; and it was not common to all; for it is restricted to his Brethren vers. 11, 12, 17. and to sones 13. & to the children which God gave him vers. 13, 14. & to the Seed of Abraham vers 16. and againe vers 17. wherefore in all things it behoved him to be make like unto his brithren, that he might be a Merciful & Faithfull High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the people. Behoved Christ to be a Merciful & Faithful High Priest in things per∣taining to God, only to make a Possible Reconciliation, whereby it might be, that not one person should be reconciled? & are the Reprobate his bre∣then? Ephes. 5: 25, 26. To what end did Christ give himself for his Church? (And all the world of mankinde belong not to his Church.) It was, that he might sanctifie & 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 meer Possibility? Then might Christ have died, & have no Church to present to himself faire & 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 purifie unto him∣self a peculiar people zealous of good works. Do all the world belong to his pecu∣liar people? doth Christ redeem all the world from all iniquity? Is all the world purified & made zealous of good works? Or is all this meer may be, which may not be? 2. Corinth. 5. vers. 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 per∣son might be made the Righteousness of God in him? who can dream thus, that God's intentions & designes 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 sinnes? It was, that he might deliver 〈◊〉 from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father. This is no meer Possible Page  535 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 Benefite is manifestly here re∣stricked. Ioh. 17: 19. for their sakes I sanctify my self, that they also may be san∣ctified through the truth, Christ sanctified himself, to be an ob•ation, not to obtaine a meer may be; but 〈◊〉 they, for whose sakes he did sanctifie him∣self, that is, they that were given to him vers. 6: 9. and were his owne vers. 10. & were in due time to beleeve in him vers. 20.) might Really & Actually be Sanctified through him. Heb: 13: 12. wherefore did Jesus suffer without the gate? it was, that ho might sanctifie the people with his own bloud; 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 sin∣nes that are past, that he might be just, and the justifier of him that beleeveth in Iesus: a Certaine Real thing. Many moe passages might be added to this purpose, but these may suffice, to discover the absurd falshood of this do∣ctrine.

Adde (6.) such passages, as mention the Actua• Accomplishment & Ef∣fect of Christ's death, where it will yet more appear, that this was no meere may be, or Possible thing, but that which was to have a certaine Being & Reality as to the persons, for whom it was designed; Such as Heb. 1: 3•—when he had by himself purged our sinnes. Can their sinnes be said to be purged, who pine a way in hell for ever, because of their sinnes? 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 passe, that not one person should have been actually saved. So Heb. 9: 12. - by his owne blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. Is a meer 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 buls & goats, and the ashes of an hiefer sprinkling the unclean, did not obtaine a possible and may-be∣sanctification, and purifying of the flesh; but did actually & really sanctify to the purifying of the flesh vers. 13. Againe vers. 14. (which also confirmeth what is now said) how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eter∣nal 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 meer may be, which the Apostle both restricteth & asserteth, as a most certaine real thing; Againe vers. 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 vers. 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 Page  536 for us. 14. That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Iesus 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 Ie∣sus, 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 com∣mandements 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 crosse, ha∣ving slaine the enmity thereby. To which adde the paralled place Col. 1: 21, 22. & 2: 14, 15. was all this delivery from Wrath, Enmity, Law of comman∣dements & whatever was against us, but a meer Potential thing, and a may be, common to all, in whose power it was to cause it take effect, or not, as they pleased? Esai. 53: 5. He was wounded for our transgressions, •e was brui∣sed 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 sinnes & 1. Pet. 2: 24. who his owne self bear our sinnes in his own body, on the tree - by whose stripes we are healed: How can we then imagine, that all this was a meer may be, seing he was so bruised for our iniquities, so died for our sins, so bear our sinnes, in his own body; as that thereby all, in whose room he stood, are healed by his stripes? The Apostle doth moreover fully clear this matter, Rom. 5: 6.-Christ died for the ungodly: was this for all? Or was it to have an uncertaine End & effect? No, vers. 9. much more then being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. The ungodly and the sinners, for whom he died, are such as become justified by his blood, & shall at length be fully saved from wrath. And againe vers. 10. for if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God, by the death of his son; much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life: Upon his death followeth Reconciliation with God, & then Salvation; and his death is for no more than his life is for. By him also they receive an atonement vers. 11. As the consequences & effects of Adam's sin did Certainly, and not by a may be, redownd to all, that he represented & engadged for; so the fruites & effects of Christ's death do as certainly co∣me unto such, as are his, as the Apostle cleareth, in the following verses, laying the advantage on the side of Christ & his; vers. 15.—much more the Grace of God, and the gift by grace, by one man Iesus Christ, hath abounded unto many, vers. 16.—but the free gift is of many offences, unto justification, vers. 17. -much more they, which receive abundance of grace and of the Gift of Righteousness, shall reigne in life, by one Iesus Christ, vers. 18.—even so by the Righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men to justification of life, vers. 19.—so by the obedience of one shall many be made Righteous, vers. 21.—so might grace reigne, through Righteousness unto eternal life, by Iesus Christ, our Lord. Is all this a Common thing, and a meer may be, or Possibility? Ioh. 10: 11. he giveth Page  537 his life for his sheep & vers. 15. But may they for all that perish? No, in no wise vers. 28. and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish. He came that they might have life, and might have it more abundantly, vers. 10. To the same purpose he saith Ioh. 6: 33. that he giveth life unto the world, not such a life, sure, as may never quicken any. Upon Christ's death doth the Apostle inferre Rom. 8: 32. that the Elect shall have all things, & vers. 33, 34, 35. that they are free from all Accusations, or any Hazard therefrom, being justified, and having Christs Death, Resurrection, and Intercession to secure them at all hands; & thereupon they have assurance, that nothing shall separate them from the love of God. Act. 20: 28. Christ hath purchased a Church with his own blood. The whole world is not this Church; nor is this purchase an uncertane may be; And all this Real & Certaine Effect of Christ's death, was foretold by Daniel Chap. 9: 24,—to finish the transgre∣sion, 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 Uni∣versal, or Uncertane?

If we will (7.) Consider some other Ends of the death of Christ, which the Scripture pointeth forth, which are not to be found among Heathens, or any except the few Chosen ones, Ordained to life, we shall see, how unreasonable the Adversaries are. Gal. 4: 5. Christ died to redeem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of sones. Was this end, & fruit left at an Uncertanty? Shall we thinks, that Christ might have died, & yet one man receive this Adoption? Was this Adoption purchased upon an uncertain Condition? Or was this purchased equally for all? Then such as received it, might have thanked their owne well natured Freewill, upon that account. But let us consider some other fruits. Gal. 1: 4. who gave him∣self for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world. So 1. Pet. 2: 24. He bear our sins, in his own body, on the tree: but for what end: That we being dead to sin, should live unto Righteousness: & Chap. 3: 18. Christ suffered for sins, the just for the unjust: To what end and purpose? To bring us to God. Heb. 10: 10. by the which will we are sanctified. How came this to passe? Through the offering of the body of Iesus Christ, once for all, So he suffe∣red without the gate, that he might sanctify the people Chap. 13: 12. Revel. 1: 5, 6.—he loved us, and washed us from our sins in his owne blood. But was this all? No, it is added, And hath made us Kings & Priests unto God, and his Fa∣ther. 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 againe. See Col. 1: 22. These & the like passages do clear∣ly pointe forth a special end of Christ's Death, which was designed both by the Father, that sent him, & by himself: and shall we suppose, that this great & chiefe designe was made to hang upon the lubrick & uncertain will of man? Shall Christ be beholden to mans good will for the purchase he made, at so dear a rate? If not, why are not all these ends attained, in all, for whom he died? Did Christ fail in laying down the Ransome? Or doth not the Fa∣ther Page  538 keep condition? Who can say either of these? Then surely, there can be no reason to say, that Christ made an uncertain bargain, & purchased on∣ly a Possibility of these fruites, which he knew not if ever he should attaine, in any one; Nor to say, that he died for all.

Let us further (8.) take notice: That for whom Christ died, he died to take away their sins; And that so, as they may be fully Pardoned, & never brought on reckoning againe: that is, that they be Remitted & Pardoned; and that the poor sinner may not suffer therefore. This sure must be the im∣port 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 therefo∣re, how can we think, that justice can punish the sinner in hell fire, for these same sinnes? But let us see, what the Scripture saith, 1. Ioh. 3: 5.— he was manifested to take away our sins. Ephes. 1: 7. we have redemption in his blood: what Redemption? forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his gra∣ce. So likewise Col. 1: 14. Now when sinnes are thus taken away, they are blotted out, & not remembered Esai. 43: 25. Fer. 31: 34. Heb. 8: 12. Yea they are blotted out as a cloud, and as a thick cloud Esai 44: 22. So they are said to be subdued, & casten into the depths of the sea. Mica. 7: 19. Shall we now say, that Christ hath died, to purchase this Redemption, the Forgiveness & blotting-out, as a thick cloud, and casting into the depths of the sea, of sin; and yet multitudes of those; for whom this was purchased, and that by the blood of God, should never obtaine this benefire, but have all their owne score? This so pincheth the Adversaries, that the best evasion they can fall upon, is to say, that none shall have Original sin charged upon them: But the Scripture no where restricteth this Remission to that sin only. Others therefore say, That no sin now shall be be charged upon any, but the sin of Unbeleef. Then Iudas doth not suffer to day, for betraying his master: was it for this sin only, that the Old World was drowned; or that the Cities of Sodom are suffering the vengeance of eternal fite? Iude seemeth to say some other thing vers. 7. so are there other sins there reckoned up vers. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. to which is reserved the blakness of darkness for ever, vers. 13. But some say, that these are all but pardoned upon condition. Then the Redemption is neither Actual & Real, nor Compleat, but a poor may be, and a may not be: and how can such sins be said to be forgiven or blotted out, and casten behinde God's back, and into the depths of the sea? Did Christ know, whether or not this condition would be performed? If not, then He is not the omniscient God. If he knew, that it would not be per∣formed by the greatest part, how can we imagine, that he would notwith∣standing lay downe his life to purchase a Remission for them? And how 〈◊〉 we think, that He should purchase a Pardon to all, and let the event hang upon the pendulous tottering will of a sinfull creature? But as to that Condi∣tion, we shall.

Propose (9.) this consideration. The not performance of that Condition was no doubt a sin, and if Christ died for all the sinnes of the world, he died for that too: And if he died for that too, that is taken out of the way, or there must be another Condition imagined, upon performance of which, Page  539 that is to be taken our or the way; and the non-performance of this Condi∣tion being also a sin, our proposition will recurre upon this, and so in infinitum: but if this sin be taken out of the way, it cannot prejudge them of the pardon of therest: and thus all their sins being pardoned, they must needs be saved: and yet it is not so. But it is said, that Christ died not for the sin of Final Unbeleef; yet it seemeth, that it will be granted, that he died even for the sin of Unbeleefe of all the world, and for unbeleefe continued in, until the last houre of a mans life; but not for that last act; which yet is but the same Unbeleefe continued in an hour longer; and shall we think, that Christ ba∣re the Unbeleefe of 20, 40, 60. or moe yeers, in his body, on the crosse, & not the same Unbeleefe for one houre or halfe houre, yea or quarter of an houre? Who seeth not, how little ground there is for such an imagination? But the thing I would have mainly here considered, is this. That for whose sinnes Christ hath died, he hath died for all their sins; and therefore, if he died for the sinnes of all the world, he died for the Final Unbeleefe of all the world: But this will not be granted; therefore neither can it be said, that he died for the sinnes of all men. Whose sinnes he took upon him to make satisfaction for, he left none for them to answere for; for he is a com∣pleat Mediator, and is sole Mediator. If he died for all the rest of the sin∣nes of the Reprobat, and of the whole world, why not for that also? Sure, when the Scripture speaketh of Christs taking away of sin, and of the Re∣demption, that is, forgiveness of sins, which people enjoy through him, there is no sin excepted, He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquitie; Esa. 53: 5. the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all vers. 6. or made the iniquitie of us all to meet on him; there is no ground for any ex∣ception here: when he was stricken for transgression vers. 9. and his soul was made an offering for sin, vers. 10. is there any appearance of the exception of any one sin? when he bear their sin and their iniquities vers. 11, 12. what inti∣mation is given of an exception of any? Yea, if this exception was to be ma∣de, which would null & destroy all, what consolation could the declaration of this Redemption, remission of sins, yeeld unto poor sinners? Col. 1: 14. Ephes. 1: 7. When the Lord made him to be sin for us, was it only in part? how then could we be made the Righteousness of God in Him 2. Cor. 5: 21? was the Lord in Christ reconcileing the world unto himself, not imputing only part of their trespasses to them? but the imputing of one sin would mar the reconciliation for ever. Is not final unbeleef a dead work? Doutbles; yet the blood of Christ purgeth Consciences from dead works Heb. 9: 14. Did the blood of buls & goats so sanctify, as to the purifying of the flesh, as to leave the most defileing spot of all untaken away? How could healing come by his stripes, if he bear but part of our sins, in his body on the tree, seing final unbeleef alone would mar all? for where that is, there is no coming to God imaginable. But moreover, the Scripture tels us, that the blood of Ie∣sus Christ his Son oleanseth us from all sin 1. Ioh. 1: 7. and that if any man sin, there is an Advocat with the Father, who is a propitiation for sins, 1. Ioh. 2: vers. 1, 2. and so must be for all sins, otherwayes there were little ground of com∣fort here: And it was foretold by Daniel Chap. 9: 24. that he should make an end of sin, & finish the transgression, & so bring-in everlasting Righteousness.Page  540 Doth this admit of exceptions, and of such an exception, as would unavoi∣dably make all null? No certanely. But you will ask of me, if I think, that Christ did die for final unbeleefe? I Answ. Not: for I judge, it is the sin on∣ly of Reprobates, who hear the Gospel: and I judge that Christ did not die for any sin of Reprobats: But this I hold, and have cleared, That for who∣se sinnes soever Christ hath died, he hath died for all their sins: And becau∣se he hath not died for Final Unbeleef, therefore he hath not died for any sin of such, as shall be guilty of this: and as for his owne, he died to prevent their falling into, and to keep them from this sin; for he died to bring them unto God, that they might have the Adoption of sons, that they might be san∣ctified, and live unto Righteousness, be made Righteous, yea the Righteousness of God; as is clear 1. Pet. 2: 24. Heb. 10: 10. 2. Cor. 5: 21. 1. Pet. 3: 18. Rom. 5: 19. what then will they say to this? Final unbeleef is certainly a sin; and Christ either died for it, or not; if he died for it, than it can be laid to no mans charge; or Christ's death is of no value. If he died not for it, he died not for all the sinnes of all men; but at most, for some sinnes of all men; and if that was all, no man could thereby be saved, for one sin is enough to procure damnation.

Moreover (10.) we finde the Persons, for whom this price of blood was laid down, designed more particularly, and the Object of this Redemption restricted; and so it could not be for all & every one. It is said to be for Many Esai 53: 11. Matth. 20: 28. & 26: 28. Mark 10: 45. Heb. 9: 28. and what these many are, is abundantly declared in other Scriptures, where they are called Christ's Sheep Ioh. 10: 15. Christ's People Mat. 1: 21. His Peo∣ple, whom according to the predictions of the Prophets, which have been, since the world began, he should save from their enemies, and from the hand of all, that hate them, to performe the mercy promised to the Fathers, and to remember his holy Covenant, the oath, which he swore to Father Abraham; that he would grant unto them, that being delivered out of the hand of their enemies, they might serve him without fear, in holiness & Righteousness, before him, all the dayes of their lifo Luk. 1: 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75. His Church Ephes. 5: 25. Act. 20: 28. His Body Ephes. 5: 22. The Children of God, that were scattered abroad Ioh. 11: 52. Sones, Sanctified, Brethren, the Children that God gave him, that Seed of Abraham Heb. 2: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. They are the Sheep, that shall infallibly beleeve, because sheep Ioh. 10: 26. and Whom Christ knoweth, and of whom he is known vers. 14. and such as shall heare his voice vers. 16. & follow him vers. 27. to whom he will give eternal life, so that they shall never perish, & who are given to him of his Father vers. 28, 29. & the Elect 2. Tim. 2: 10. He is bread giving life unto the World, of them, that the Father hath given him, and shall come to him Ioh. 6: 33, 39. They are these, concerning whom the Fa∣thers will was, as being given of him, that he should lose nothing, but raise it up againe, at the last day ver. 38, 39, 47. The Redeemed ones that are numbered by God 144000. & are the first fruites unto God, and the Lamb. Revel. 14: 3, 4, 5. They are such as are the Lords, & whom the Lord knoweth for his 2. Tim. 2: 19. & are enrolled in the Lambs book, Revel. 13: 8. & 20: 15. So are they designed to be these, for whom God is, and who shall have unquestionably Page  541all things; the Elect who shall be justified, who shall not be separated from the Love of Christ; are in all things more then Conquerours Rom. 8: 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39. These with whom the Covenant shall be confirmed Dan. 9: 27. The redeemed out of every Kinred, & Tongue, & People, & Nation; and made Kings & Priests Revel. 5: 9, 10.

Further (11.) if Christ died for the sinnes of all persons, how cometh it that they are not all actually pardoned? It cannot be said, that Christ's death was not a satisfactory price, nor that the Father did not accept of it: If then he shed his blood for the remission of sins, Mat. 26: 28. are not all these sins pardoned virtually & fundamently? or shall they not all actually be pardo∣ned in due time? If it be said, they shall be pardoned upon Condition of their faith. But if the sinnes of all be equally payed for, and equally in a vir∣tual manner discharged, in Christ's being actually discharged from that debt, in the day of his Resurrection; and the actually discharge depending upon the uncertain Condition of mans Will; man, who willingly perfor∣meth the Condition, shall praise himself for the actually pardon, and none else; for Christ did no more for him, as to the Actual Pardon, than for o∣thers, who never shall be blessed with actual forgiveness: and yet forgive∣ness is held forth, as a special act of free grace; forgivenesse of sinnes is ac∣cording to the riches of his grace Ephes. 1: 7. Moreover as to that Condi∣tion, whether did Christ purchase it, or not? If he did not purchase it, than man is not beholden to Christ, for the Condition; be it faith, or what ye will, it is no purchased mercy, but man is beholden to his good Lord-Free Will, for it, and so he may sacrifice to his own net, and sing glory to him∣self, for making himself to differ, and for obtaining to himself Actual Re∣mission of all his sinnes, and consequently blessedness Rom. 4: 6, 7, 8. for had not his owne well disposed Lord-Free Will performed that Condition, all that Christ did, had never more advantaged him, than it did others that perish.

If it be said, that grace to performe the condition, though it be not pur∣chased by the blood, of Christ, yet it is freely given by God, to whom he will. I Answer Not to insist here, on the proof of faith's being purchased by Christ; because we shall cleare it afterward, & there is nothing else assigned for the condition, I would enquire, whether Christ knew to whom this gra∣ce would be given; or not? if not, then we must deny him to be God: if he knew, why shall we suppose, that he would lay down his life equally for all, when he knew before hand, that many should never get grace to perfor∣me the condition, upon which his death should redound to their actual par∣don & justification? what Ends, or what Advantages can we imagine of such an Universal Redemption?

(12.) If the Condition, upon which actual pardon & justification is gran∣ted, in the blood of Christ, be purchased by Christ; then either all shall certainly be Pardoned & Justified, or Christ hath not purchased an Equal, Common, & Possible Redemption, to all and every man: But the former is true, & it is not true that all shall certainly be pardoned & actually justi∣fied; for then all should be glorified. That the condition, to wit, Faith, & Repentance is purchased by Christ, who can deny, seing, he is expresly Page  542 called the Author of Faith, Heb. 12: 2. and a Prince exalted to give Repentance & forgiveness of sins Act. 5: 31? So that as forgiveness of sins is founded upon his death, as the Meritorious cause; so must Repentance be; and Christ, as an exalted Prince & Saviour, hath this power to dispose of his owne purcha∣sed legacy, which he hath left, and ensured by his death, unto the heires of salvation. Upon his Death, & Satisfaction made in his death, hath he gote all power in heaven & earth, a power to quicken whom he will Matth. 28: 18. Ioh. 5: 21, 22, 27. Phil. 2: 9, 10. Hence we are said to be compleat in him Col. 2: 10. & to be blessed with all spiritual blessings, in celestials (to which, no doubt, Faith & Repentance do belong) in him Ephes. 1: 3. Is it not from hence, that the divine power hath given unto us all things, that pertaine unto life and godliness 2. Pet, 1: 3? Nay Paul tels us expresly Phil, 1: 29. that it is gi∣ven to us, in the behalfe of Christ, to beleeve on him. And certainly there is a promise of Faith & Repentance; and all the promises are yea & amen in Him 2. Cor. 1: 20. all the Blessings contained in the Covenant, are made su∣re by his death, who was the surety of this better Testament Heb. 7: 22. & this Testament was to have force by his death Heb. 9: 15, 16, 17, 18, & the New heart & heart of flesh, is promised in the Covenant, & comprehendeth Faith & Repentance, they being some of his Lawes, which he hath also promised to write in the heart Ier. 31: 33, Heb. 8: 10. Ezech. 11: 19, 20, & 36: 26, 27. We have moreover seen that Sanctification & Holiness, from which, Faith & Repentance cannot be separated, were purchased by Christ, & intended in his death: whence he is made of God unto us Sanctification 1. Cor. 1: 30. If it be not purchased by Christ, how come we by it? is it a thing in our Power, and an act of our owne Free Will? Then, as I said before, we are beholden to ourselves, for Faith and all that follow upon it, & then fa∣rewell all Prayer for Faith & Repentance, & all Thanksgiving to God for it. This is pure Pelagtanisme. If it be said, that it is the free gift of God Ephes. 2: 8. and a Consequent of electing love. I Answere all the fruites of election, which are to be wrought in us, are procured by the blood of Christ, for all are conveyed to us in a Covenant, whereof Christ is the Mediator & Sure∣ty, and with Christ he giveth us all things Rom. 8: 32. & we are blessed in Him with all spiritual blessings, according as he hath chosen us in him before the founda∣tion of the world Ephes. 1: 3, 4. So we are predestinate unto the adoption of chil∣dren by Iesus Christ, Ephes. 1: 5. and adoption is not had without Faith Ioh. 1: 12. can we have Actual Redemption in Christ's blood Ephes. 1: 7. Col. 1: 14. even forgiveness of sinnes, and not have also in his blood Faith, without which there in no actual redemption, or forgiveness of sinnes to be had? when Christ gave himself for us, that he might purifie unto himself a peculiar peo∣ple zealous of good works Tit. 2: 14. did he not purchase Faith, without which we cannot be such? when the Renewing of the holy Ghost is shed on us a∣bundantly, through I. C. Tit. 3: 5, 6. have we not Faith also through him? May we not pray for Faith; and can we pray for any thing, & not in Christ's name? See 2. Tim. 1: 9. 1. Pet. 1: 3. Rom. 8: 32, 39. Luk. 22: 32.

Againe (13.) All that Christ died for, must certanely be Saved, But all Men shall not be saved. That all, for whom Christ died, must certanely Page  543 be saved, is hence apparent. (1.) That all, who have Saving Faith & Re∣pentance, shall be saved, will not be denyed; & that Christ hath purcha∣sed Faith & Repentance to all, for whom he died, we have showne abo∣ve. (2.) These who shall freely get all things f•om God, must get Salvation; for all things else signifie nothing without that; but all they, for whom Christ was delivered, shall get all things, Rom. 8: 32. (3.) They whom nothing shall separate from the Love of Christ, and from the Love of God, which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord, must certainly be saved: But all they, for whom Christ hath died, will in due time have ground to say this. Rom. 8: 34, 35, 39. (4.) All they, to whose charge nothing can be laid, shall be sa∣ved: But this will be true of all that Christ died for; for Christ's death is held forth as the ground of this, Rom. 8: 33, 34. (5.) They, for whom Christ interceedeth, shall undoubtedly by saved: But Christ interceedeth for all, for whom he died, Rom. 8: 33, 34. (6.) All who are sanctified shall be saved: But all that Christ died for, shall in due time be sanctified; Sanctification being, as we shewed above, one principal intended end of Christ's death. (7.) All Christ's Elected sheep shall be saved: But such are they, for whom Christ died, as was showne. (8.) All that God & Christ love with the grea∣test love imaginable, shall certainly be saved: But such are they, for whom Christ died, Ioh. 3: 16. & 15: 13. Act. 20: 28. Eph. 5: 25. (9.) All that be∣come the Righteousness of God in Christ shall be saved. But that shall be true of all, for whom he died, or was made sin, or a sacrifice for sin 2. Cor. 5: 21. (10.) All, that shall be blessed in having their sins pardoned, shall be saved, Rom. 4: 6, 7, 8. But all for whom Christ died shall have this Redem∣ption, Ephes. 1: 7. Col. 1: 14. (11.) All they, whom Christ knoweth & ac∣nowledgeth, shall be saved, Mat. 7: 23. But he knoweth all them for his sheep, Ioh. 10: 14, 17. for whom he died. (12.) All, for whom Christ ro∣se againe, shall be saved, seing he rose for our justification, Rom. 4: 25. But he rose againe for all those, for whom he died, Rom. 4: 25. who was delivered for our offences, and was raised againe for our justification, Rom. 8: 34. (13.) All who shall be planted together with Christ, in the likeness of his resurrection, shall be saved: But that is true of such as he died for, Rom. 6: 5. (14.) All they in whom the old man shall be crucified, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that hence-forth they should not serve sin, shall be saved: But that is true of such as he died for, Rom. 6: 6, 7, 8. knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin: for he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we beleeve, that we shall also live with him, &c. (15.) All they, who shall be made Kings & Priests unto God, shall be saved. But all the redee∣med shall be such, Rev. 1: 5, 6. & 5: 10. See worthy Mr. Durham on the Revel. p. 303. (16.) If Christ must see of the travail of his soul, then these he died for must be saved: But the former is true, Esai. 53: 11. (17.) All whom Christ shall Justifie shall be saved, But he shall justify all, whose iniquities he beareth, Esai. 53: 11. Thus is this sufficiently proved.

It is also considerable (14.) That no where in Scripture, we finde it ex∣presly said & affirmed, That Christ died for all men; Far less finde we it said, Page  544 that Christ died for all and every man. Why then is all this trouble made? But they say, as much as all that is said by consequence. And this we deny: if they will rationally presse this matter, they should evince, that such ex∣pressions, as they make so much work about, can be no otherwise under∣stood, than they suppose, in the places, where they stand: and this they shall never be able to do. Though it be said, that Christ gave his life a Ran∣some for all; yet no reason can evince, that that is necessarily to be under∣stood of all & every man: so nor can they conclude any thing rationally from the word world. They may as well inferre from these words all, and the world, that Christ died for devils, beasts & sensless creatures, as that he died for all & every man; for they are comprehended under these terms, as well as Men: And if they will restrict these termes to men, because of o∣ther Scriptures; why may not we restrick them also to the Elect, because of the correspondence of other passages of Scripture? They cannot deny us the liberty, they take to themselves. If they say, that there is a vast differen∣ce betwixt Devils an Men, in reference to such favours. We deny it not: but shall adde, that in reference to spiritual favours, amongst which we cannot but reckon, with the good leave of our Adversaries, the death of Christ, being the fruit & expression of the greatest Love of God to Man, we finde also a great difference in Scripture. Some are Loved, some Hated Rom. 9: 11, 12. Some whom he Knoweth some whom he Knoweth not Ioh. 10: 14. & 13: 18. Mat. 7: 23. 2. Tim. 2: 19. Some Chosen & Ordained to life, others not, but to Wrath Act. 13: 48. Rom. 8: 30. & 9: 18. &c. Ephes. 1: 4. 1. Thes. 5: 9. Some Sheep, others Goats Mat. 25: 32. Some on whom God hath Mer∣cy, others whom he Hardeneth Rom. 9. Some his Church, others not Act. 20: 28. Ephes. 5: 25. Some. of the World, others not Ioh. 17: 9, 10. Some his Bre∣thren, others not Heb. 2: 10, 12, 13. And as plainly read we, that Christ died for his People Mas. 1: 21. his Sheep Ioh. 10: 11, 12, 14. his Church Act. 20: 28. Ephes. 5: 25. his Elect Rom. 8: 32, 34. and his Children. Heb. 2: 12, 13.

If we would consider aright. (15.) What Christ did undergoe & suffer, while he was made sin, or was making satisfaction for sin; we should hardly think it probable, that Christ Jesus, God-man, who was the brightness of tho Fathers glory, and the express image of his person, Heb. 1: 3. and thought it no robbery to be counted equal with God, Phil. 2: 6. Should have undergone what he did undergoe, and that the Father should have laid all that upon him, which he did lay upon him, and that to purchase only a meer Possible Redemption from sin & wrath, whereby not one person should be saved or pardoned, if so it had seemed good to captaine Free will. Not to mention his condescen∣ding to be Born of a woman, & to be made under the Law, Gal. 4: 4. nor his being in the forme of a servant, Phil. 2: 7. nor his Poverty & mean Condition in the world, 2. Cor. 8: 9. nor his Conflicting with the indignities of the world, Psal. 22: 6. Heb. 12: 2, 3. with the temptations of Satan Math. 4: 1-12. Luk. 4: 15. and his being under the infirmities, common to the natu∣re of man, being in all things like us, except sin Heb. 2: 17. & 4: 15. Esai. 52: 13, 14. Nay, nor his sufferings in his Body, Name, Honour at death, Page  545 when he was betrayed by Iudas Mat. 27: 4. forsaken by his disciples Math. 26: 56. Scorned & Reviled by the world Esai. 53: 2• 3. Condemned as a malefactor by Pilat, & Tormented by his persecutors Mat. 27: 26-50. Ioh. 19: 34. & Endured the Painful, Shameful & Cursed death of the crosse Phil. 2: 8. Heb. 12: 2. all which & the like being endured by Him, who was the Son of God, could be no mean suffering, nor undergone for an uncertain end, or for the procureing of a meer Possible & Uncertain good: But that which we would most take notice of here, is, his Soul sufferings, being per∣sued by divine justice, when that Zach. 13: 7. was accomplished, awake, O sword, against my shepheard, against the Man, that is my follow, saith the Lord of hostes, smite the shepheard and the sheep shall be scattered, Mat. 26: 31. and the Lord did bruise him, and put him to griese Esai. 53: 5, 10. and he began to be sorrowful even unto death Mat. 26: 37, 38. and was sore amazed and very hea∣vy Mark. 14: 34. and was put to offer up prayers and supplications, with strong cryes and teares to him, that was able to save him Heb. 5: 7. when; notwith∣standing that an angel appeared unto him from heaven, strengthening him, yet being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood falling down to the ground Luk. 22: 43, 44. and at length was made to cry out, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me Psal. 22: 1. Mat. 27: 46. Mark. 15: 34. This was no mean business, when the Rayes & Irradia∣tions of Divine Love were drawn-in & withheld from him, who had such a sharp sense of the happiness in the enjoying of God's favour, because of the Personal union with the Godhead. But that which is most of all to be consi∣dered, is his being made a Curse Gal. 3: 13. and so made to wrestle with the Ju∣stice and Wrath of a sin revenging God. This was the gall and the worm wood, that made him cry Ioh. 12: 27. Now is my soul troubled, and what shall I say? Father save me from this hour. Shall we suppose, that all this was about an Uncertane Bargane? Shall we think, that he died the cursed death of the crosse, and bore the weight of God's wrath Luk. 22: 41. Mat. 27: 46. and so became a sacrifice to satisfie divine justice Heb. 9: 14, 18, & all to purchase a meer Possibility; or a meer Possible Redemption? Shall we think, that the Second person of the Trinity should do & suffer all these things, for to redeem man, when possibly, if Freewill should be so ill natured, not one man should reap any advantage thereby? Me thinks, the asserting of this should be a great temptation to cause people turne Socinians, and deny all these soul sufferings of Christ, & his bearing the wrath of God, & making any satisfaction to justice.

Adde to this (16.) That the Scriptures speak of Christ's Death & Suffe∣rings, as being not for himself, but for others; and that not only for the good & advantage of others (and doubtless the advantage of all this should be but little, if it were nothing else, but a meer Possible Redemption, which Free will might make actual, or not Actual, as it pleased) but in their Roo∣me & Place: hence it is called the chastisement of our peace Esai. 53: 5. and he is said to have borne our griefs, and carryed our sorrowes vers. 4. He was woun∣ded for our transgressions; and bruised for our iniquities vers. 5. The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all vers. 6,—for the transgression of my people was he stricken Page  546 vers. 8.—for he shall bear their iniquities vers. 11.—he bare the sin of many vers. 12. He bear our sins, in his body, on the tree 1. Pet. 2: 24. the just suffered for the unjust 1. Pet. 3: 18. Hence beleevers are said to be crucified with him Gal. 2: 20. - to be baptized into his death Rom. 6: 3. buried with him by baptisme into death vers. 4. - planted together in the likeness of his death vers. 5. dead with Christ vers. 8. He was cut off, but not for himself Dan. 9: 26. See also Heb. 2: 9. 1. Pet. 2: 21. Shall we say, that this was meerly for our good, seing it was, in some respect for the good of the whole creation Rom. 8: 20, 21, 22, 23. Act. 3: 21. and not in our Place & Stead? Paul saith 2 Cor. 5: 14. If one be dead then were all dead. And it is manifest, that he payed the Law-debt, having taken on him the seed of Abraham for this end Heb. 2: 16, & being made a curse for us, he redeemed us from the curse of the Law Gal. 3: 10. So that it was in our stead Rom 5: 6, 7, 8 Ioh. 11: 50. & 10: 11, 15. And the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath clearly this import Mat. 5: 38, & 17: 27, Esa. 41: 4. Exod. 21: 23, 24. 1. Chron, 14: 1. 1. King. 3: 7, 2. King. 1: 17, & 11: 43. Prov. 11: 3. Ioh. 16: 4, & 34: 17. 1. Pet. 3: 9. Rom 12: 17. See many other places cited by worihy Mr. Rutherfoord in his book of the Covenant pag. 254, 255. where both in the N. T. and in the LXX. version of the old 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath this import. And this truth is abundantly ma∣de out by our Orthodox Divines, writting against the Socinians; so that I need say no more of it; only I think, such as assert the Redemption purcha∣sed by Christ to have been a meer General Possible Redemption, do streng∣then the hands of the Socinians; and joyn with them against the Orthodox: But to our purpose, Such as Christ did thus die for, & in their room & place, are accounted to have died in Him, & so freed: as in Ter. Pro illo te ducam, Ego pro te molam.

Moreover (17.) If we consider the furniture, which Christ as mediator had given to him of the Father, we shall see more of the unreasonableness of this opinion, which the Arminians embrace: Not to speak of what he had as God, the Fathers Fellow & Equal, let us but take notice of that com∣municated furniture, which he had as Mediator between God and man, 1. Tim, 2: 5. and our Emmanuel, Esai. 7: 14. We see he is called Wonderful, Counsellour, &c. Esai. 9: 6, 7. He is that Candlestick, whence the golden pi∣pes do empty the golden oile, Zeoh 4: 12. He was full of grace & truth Ioh. 1: 14. Was this fulness for a meer Possible effect? Or had he it so, and for such an end, as none might possibly be the better thereof? No; and of his fulness have all we received grace for grace Ioh, 1: 16. He had not the Spirit by measure Ioh, 3: 34. It pleased the Father, that in him should all fulness dwell. Col. 1: 9. In him are hid all the treasures of wisdome & knowledge Col. 2: 3. and in him dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead bodily vers. 9. And wherefore is all this? Even that all his might be compleet in him vers. 10. Grace was poured into his lips Psal. 45: 2. and he was anoynted with the oyle of gladness above his fellowes vers. 7. And Esai. 61: 1. Luk. 4: 18, &c. The Spirit of the Lord God was upon him, because the Lord had anoynted him. And for what end? To preach glade tideings unto the meek, to binde up the broken hearted, to proclame liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound. See further vers. 2, 3. Sure, this was no uncertain end, nor left to the discretion of Free will.Page  547 So Esai. 11: 2. And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, &c. Shall all this be, and further shall Righteousness be the girdle of his loines, and faithfulness the girdle of his reines vers. 5. And may it notwithstanding so come to passe, that the Wolf shall not dwell with the Lamb, nor the Leopard lye down with the Kid, &c. nor the earth be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea? Vers. 6, 7, 8, 9. How absurd is it to imagine this? All this furniture saith, that it was no Uncertain General End, which he had before his eyes, in undertaking this work; and the Father in sending him, and granting to him this ful∣ness.

Adde to this (18.) The Titles & Relations, which Christ took upon him: for they cannot be meer insignificant and empty Names. He is called a Redee∣mer Esa. 41: 14 & 54: 5. & 49: 26, & 60: 16. & 43: 14 & 44: 6, 24. & 48: 17. & 49: 7. & 47: 4. & 59: 20. Rom. 11: 26. And shall we imagine, that He shall be a Redeemer & Deliverer, and yet no man Redeemed or delivered? No: He hath a redeemed company, whom he owneth as such Esa. 35: 9. & 43: 1, 23. & 44: 22. & 48: 20. Ier. 31: 11. Esai. 51: 11. & 52: 3. & 63: 4. Zach. 10: 8. Luk. 1: 68. & 24: 21. 1. Pet. 1: 18, Revel. 5: 9. & 14: 3. He is called a Saviour Esai. 43. 3. 11. & 45: 15, 21. & 63: 8. Luk. 1: 47. & 2: 11. Ioh. 4: 42. Act. 5: 31. & 13: 23. 2. Tim. 1: 10. Tit. 1: 4. Ephes 5: 23. Tit 2: 13. & 3: 6. 2. Pet. 1: 1, 11. & 2: 20. & 3: 2, 18, 1. Ioh. 4: 14. Shall we think, that he was given & sent for a Saviour, and took upon him that title & relation, and notwithstan∣ding no man might be saved? No, there are also some designed, the Saved 2. Cor. 2: 15. Act 2: 4. 1. Cor. 1: 18. He is called a King Revel. 15: 3. & 17: 14. & 19: 16. 1. Tim. 6: 15. Ioh. 12: 15. Luk. 19: 38. & 23: 2. Zach. 9: 9. Mat. 21: 5. Now is he an actual King, and shall have none but potential Subjects? Shall he be a King without a Kingdom? See Ioh. 18: 36. Col. 1: 13. 1. Cor. 15: 24. He is called an Husband 2. Cor. 11: 2. Ier. 31: 32. And therefore he must have a Wife & a Bride Ioh. 3: 29. Revel. 18: 23. & 21: 9. & 22: 17. He is called an Head Ephes 5: 23. 1. Cor. 11: 3. Ephes. 4: 15. & 1: 22. Col. 1: 18. And so must have a body Ephes. 1: 23. Rom. 12: 5. Ephes. 4: 4. Col. 3: 15. & 1: 24. & 2: 19. Ephes. 4: 16. & 5: 23. & 3: 6. He is called the Vine stock, & shall he have no Brancnes? Ioh. 15: 1, 2. &c. These things might be further enlairged & pressed; but we shall haste forward.

(19.) Our Adversaries say, That Christ by his Death & passion did Ab∣solutely, even according to the Intention of God, purchase Remission of sins & Reconciliation with God, and that for all & every man: Others say con∣ditionally: But withal as to the application of this purchase: it is made to depend upon faith: and so they distinguish betwixt Impetration & Application. And though it is true, the purchase made is one thing, and the actual en∣joyment of the thing purchased is another thing: Yet we may not say, with our Adversaries, that the Impetration is for moe, than shall have the Ap∣plication; But we assert, that both Impetration & Application, in respect of the designe of the Father, which is absolute & certain, and the Inten∣tion of Christ the Mediator, which is fixed & peremptory, are for the sa∣me individual persons; so that for whomsoever God sent Christ, & Christ Page  548 came to purchase any good, unto these same shall it actually, in due time, & in the Method & manner Condescended upon & prescribed, be given; & upon them, & none else, shall it actually be bestowed: for (1.) No other thing, beside this Application, can be supposed to have been the end of the Impettation; And sure, Christ was herein a Rational Agent: Nay, it was the Intention & designe of the Father, that the Application of these good things should be by the meanes of this Impetration, as is abundantly cleared above. (2.) We cannot suppose that either Christ, or his Father, should faile, or come short of their end designed; but by our Adversaries, the Im∣petration might have been obtained, and yet no Application made of the good things impetrated & obtained. (3.) If no Application was intended by the Father or by Christ, then it must be said, that both were uncertain, as to what the Event should have been, or at least Regardless & Unconcerned; either of which to affirme were blasphemy. (4.) The very word Impetrate, having the same force & import with, Purchase, Procure, Obtaine, Merite, and the like, doth say, that such, for whom this Impetration was made, have a right, upon the Impetration, to the thing Acquired & Purchased: And if they have a right thereto, that Possession should follow. (5.) Yea the word importeth, the actual conferring of the good, to be the very end of the Purchaseing & Impetrating; and so, in this case, the very Impetration is ground of Assurance of the Application, considering, who did impetrate, and at whose hands, and withall, what was the ground of the Fathers sen∣ding of Christ, and of Christs coming to impetrate, even inconceiveably wonderful & great Love. Nor doth the intervening of a condition, requi∣red before the actual collation of some of the good things purchased, hinder at all; for all these Blessings, some whereof are as a condition to others, are the one good thing Impetrated, and the very conditions are also Impetrated, as we declared above: and so this pointeth forth only the methode of the actual bestowing of these good things purchased. (6.) How absurd is it to say, a thing is Impetrated or Obtained, and yet may, or may not be Bestowed; may be Possessed, or not Possessed? Or to say, that such a good thing is Obtained by price or petitioning, and yet the same good thing, may never be Bestowed, or the Bestowing of it hangeth & dependeth upon an Uncertain Condition, which may never beperformed? (7.) How unreasonable is it, that such should have right to the Merites, that have no right to the thing Merited? Doth not an interest in the Merites, procureing any thing, include an interest in the thing Merited? When a ransome is payed for captives, to the end they may be delivered, have not these Captives a right to the deliverance, upon the payment of that ransome? (8.) The Scriptures do so connect these two, that it argueth contempt thereof, to imagine such a separation: as Rom. 4: 25. Yea the one is assigned as a certain Effect & Consequent flowing from the Other, as its Moral cause Esai. 53: 11. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, this Justification is the Application; & whence cometh it? For he shall bear their iniquities, there is the Impetration given as the ground hereof: So further vers. 5. he was wounded for our transgressions, &c. and what followeth upon this Impetration? And by his stripes are we healed. So Rom. 5: Page  549vers. 18. By the Righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justification. So that the Application reacheth an all, that is, all who have interest in the Righteousness, which is the thing Impetrated see also Heb. 10: 10. (9.) If Christs Intercession be for the same persons, for whom he died, then the Application is to the same; for this Intercession of Christ is in order to the Application: But that Christs Intercession is for the same persons, for whom he died, we shall see hereafter. (10.) If all things be ensured to such, for whom Christ died, then certanely this Application cannot fail but the for∣mer is true Rom. 8: 32. He that spared not his owne Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not (mark this manner of expression which importeth the greated of absurdities to think otherwise) with him also freely give us all things? (11.) And in that same place vers. 33, 34. Christs death is given as the certain ground of Justification, & Salvation, so that such, as he died for, shall certa∣nely, in due time, & after the methode prescribed, be Justified & Saved; o∣therwayes, there were no sure ground in the Apostles argueing; for if all the ground of this certanty, as to Application, were from their Faith, or fulfil∣ling of the Condition, the Apostle would have mentioned this, as the mai∣ne ground, & not have led them to a ground common to others, who never should partake of the Application. (12.) This matter is abundantly confir∣med from what we said above, concerning Christs purchasing of Faith, and dying for our sanctification, & to bring us to God, &c. so that more needeth not be added here.

(20.) For further confirmation of this, and because our Adversaries think to salve the fore mentioned separation of Impetration & Application, by tel∣ling us, that where good things are Absolutely purchased, then Application must follow; But not where good things are purchased only Conditionally, as in our case: we shall therefore shew, how this will not hold, nor advan∣tage their cause: for (1.) If all be Redeemed Conditsonally, that condition, whatever it be, must in equity be revealed to all. (2.) Either God & Christ knew, who would performe this condition, or not: If not, then they were not omniscient: If they did know; then sure, this death was more parti∣cularly & designedly intended for them, than for the rest: and upon what account, & to what end, should Christ lay down his life a Ransome for such, as he knew certainly should never be the better thereof? And why would the Father send him to die for such? (3.) This Condition is either in mans sole power, without the help of the Grace of God, to performe, or not: If it be in mans power, from what Scripture shall this Pelagianisme be con∣firmed? How shall then the new Covenant of Grace be distinguished in spe∣cie from the Covenant of Works, made with Adam? If this Condition be not in mans power, but the Grace of God must work it. Then either God will work it in all, or not: If not, why would God purchase good things to people upon a Condition, which they could not performe, & which he al∣one could work in them, & resolved not to worke in them? If he will worke it in all, then all shall certainly be saved. Againe, if this Condition be the free gift of God, then either God will give it Absolutely to all; and so all shall certainly be saved: or Absolutely to some, & then none but they shall be Page  550 saved, and why should Christ die for the rest? Or Conditionally to all: And if so, the doubt will recurre concerning that Condition, which either must be Absolutely given, & so we are where we were, or Conditionally, and so still the doubt recurreth. (4.) This condition is either purchased by Christ, or it is not. If not, then we owe no thanks to Christ for it, nor for what is obtained upon that Condition, more then others who performe not the Condition, & so obtaine nothing: but to ourselves only, who make our∣selves to differ; and so may we sing praises to ourselve, & put the crown upon our owne heads, and give no song of praise to the Redeemer, but what such as go to hell are bound to give, contrary to all Christian Religion: If Christ hath purchased this Condition, then it is done either Absolutly, of Conditionally: If Absolutely, than all shall Absolutely have it: if Condi∣tionally, we enquire, what is the Condition? And whatever it be, we may move the same questions concerning it. (5.) By this meanes the act should creatits owne object; for Faith in the death of Christ is ordinarily given as the Condition, and this faith maketh the death of Christ valide, which o∣therwayes would not be. (6.) This maketh all the vertue of Christs death to depend upon mans act; so that if man will, all shall be saved; if not, no man shall be saved, notwithstanding that Christ died for them. (7.) This makes Christ but, at most, a half Mediator, doing one part of the work; and man, coming in to compleete it must be the other half mediator; and so, at least, must have the halfe of the Praise. (8.) where saith the Scripture, that if we beleeve, Christ died for us? or that Christ died for all, or for any, Conditionally? It is true, some of the effects of Christ's death are be∣stowed Conditionally, (taking the word conditionally not properly, as if the performance of that Condition, did in proper Law sense procure a right to these mercies; for through the merites of Christ's blood have we a right pro∣perly to all; but improperly as denoteing nothing but the Methode & way of God's bestowing the blessings purchased, first this, and then, upon the souls acting of that, another; as for example, first faith, then upon the souls acting of Faith, Justification, then Sanctification &c. and upon the souls acting of Sanctification, Glorification) but the death of Christ cannot the∣refore be called Conditional, more than the will or purpose of God can be called conditional, because some of the things willed, may depend upon other, as upon a condition. (9.) Then by performing the Condition, man should procure to himself a Legal Right, and Title not only to the death of Christ, but to Justification, Adoption, Sanctification, yea & to Glorifi∣cation; yea and that a more near & effectual Title & Right, than what was had by Christ's death; for the Title had by Christ's death (if it can be cal∣led a Title) was far Remore & Common to such, as shall never have any profite by it; but the other is Certain, Particular, Proxime, & giveth possession, •us in re. (10.) Then Christ's blood, as shed upon the crosse, was but a Po••ntial thing, having no power or vertue in it self to redeem any, it was but a poor Potential price: and all its vertue of actual purchasing & procureing is from mans performing the Condition; this, and this only, gi∣veth it Power & Efficacy: and so Christ is beholden to man for giving ver∣tue Page  551 unto his Blood, and making it effectual, which before was a deadin∣effectual thing. Then let any judge, who should have the greatest share of the Glory of Redemption, Man or Christ. (11.) was Christ's death Absolu∣te in no respect; or was it, as to some things, I mean, belonging to Gra∣ce & Glory, Absolute? if in nothing, then Man must certanely have a great share of the glory: if it was Absolute as to any thing, what was that? and why was it more Absolute as to that, than as to other things? And why should it then be simply, & without limitation, said that Christ died for all Conditionally?

For Further confirmation of our 19. Argument, & confutation of our Adversaries position, we adde (21.) That Christ Jesus is heard of the Fa∣ther in all that he asketh Psal. 2: 8. Ioh. 11: 41, 42. and as an High Priest he entred into heaven Heb. 9: 11, 12. now to appear in the presence of God for us vers. 24. to prepare a place Ioh. 14: 2. & to act the part of an Advocat, interceding with the Father, in the behalfe of all such, for whom he died 1. Ioh. 2: 1, 2. If then Christ, whom his Father heareth alwayes, intercedeth in the behal∣fe all these, for whom he died, either he did not die for all, or all must certainly be saved. That Christ's Intercession, & Death are for the same persons, will be, and must be denyed by our Adversaries: But to us it is most manifest from these grounds. (1.) To Intercede & pray are as Essential & Necessary Acts of the Priestly office, as to offer sacrifice: and the Apo∣stle Heb. 9. cleareth up, how Christ did in truth, what the High Priest a∣mong the Jewes did in the type; for as the High Priest alone went, once every yeer, into the second tabernacle, or holy of holies, not without blood, which he of∣fered for himself, and the errours of the people vers. 7. So Christ, being come an High Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, by his owne blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal Redem∣ption vers. 12. Hence he is said to Live for ever to make Intercession for us. Heb. 7: 25. and he is an Advocat with the Father 1. Ioh. 2: 1. Hence then it is ma∣nifest, that Christ must Intercede for such, as he did Offer up himself for, or he shall not be a Perfect & Compleet High Priest; or not faithfull to per∣forme all the Offices of the High Priest: neither of which can be said. (2.) The ground of his Intercession, is held forth to be his Oblation: as the High Priest went into the holy of holies with the blood of the sacrifices, which he had offered; so Christ entered into the holy place, having first obtained by the sacrifice of himself an Eternal Redemption. Heb. 9: 12. So he is an Advocate with the Father, being first a Propitiation for sinnes 1. Ioh. 2: 1, 2. (3.) Both his Death & Intercession make up one Compleet Medium, & are in∣tended & designed, as one Medium, for the end designed, viz. the bringing of many sones unto glory, saving to the uttermost all that come to God through him &c. (4.) How unreasonable is it to think, that Christ would refuise to Pray for such, whom he loved so dearly, as to lay down his life for? yet he saith expresly, that he prayeth not for the world, but for others, distinguished from the world, Ioh. 17: 9. (5.) As His Death was for such as the Father had given him (is we saw above) so his Intercession & Prayer is re∣stricted to such Ioh. 17: 9. - I pray not for the world; but for them which thou hast Page  552 given me, for they are thine. (6.) Christ's end in coming into the world, was to save his people; Hence he gote that name Iesus; but he should not be able to save them, Perfectly, Compleetly, & to the Utermost, if he did not joyne his Intercession, with his Oblation; Yea upon this account he conti∣nueth ever a Priest, having an unchangable Priesthood, Heb. 2: 24, 25. But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangable Priesthood, wherefore he is able to save them to the uttermost, that come unto God by him, seing he ever li∣veth to make intercession for them. (7.) The Apostle so joyneth them together Rom. 8: 34. that they must do manifest violence to the Apostles reasoning, who would pull them asunder, & separate the one from the other. It is (sais he) Christ that died, yea rather that is risen againe, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. (8.) Yea, they are so joyned together here, that his death alone considered could not yeeld that ground of triumph & boasting, nor security from Accusations: Yea rather, that is risen againe, &c. (9.) So that the separating & taking of these asunder, is greatly prejudi∣cial to the consolation of his people; for though they should attaine to some apprehensions of Christ's dying for them, as an Advocate with the Father, upon new sinnes 1. Ioh. 2: 1, 2. Though Christ died, yet they might be con∣demned, for he must also Interceed; and if he do not Intercede for them, their Hopes, & Comforts are gone: And so there should be no force in that, who is he that condemneth, it is Christ that die••Rom. 8: 34. And a poor soul might be hal saved, but not to the uttermust, contrare to Heb. 2: 25. (10.) And that place Rom. 8: 33. restricteth both equally unto the Elect: who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? (11.) When Christ laid down his life a Ransome for sinners, he could not but know, that by that Ransome none should be actually saved, without his Intercession, it being accorded betwixt Father & Son, that the mediator should mediate both by Price & by Prayer: And he could not but know, for whom he purposed & intended to Interceed; how shall we then suppose, that he would lay down his life for those, for whom he was purposed not to Pray? Or that he would do the most for them, For whom he would not do the least? (12.) Christ's inter∣cession is really a presenting unto God the Oblation made: Therefore sayes the Apostle Heb. 9: 24. that Christ is entered into heaven it self, to appear in the presence of God for us: And so by appearing he Interceedeth: & his appearing is in his owne blood, whereby he obtained Eternal Redemption Heb. 9: 12. & so his Intercession must be for all, for whom the Oblation was, & the eter∣nal Redemption was obtained. (13.) Yea both these are so joyned together by Esaias Chap. 53: 12. as that they are made one ground, & procureing cau∣se of God's divideing him a portion with the great, & of Christs own divi∣deing the spoile with the strong; Because he hath poured out his soul unto death, and he bare the sin of many, and made •ntercession for the transgressours. (14.) This is further clear from the reasons, we gave to confirme that fast connexion be∣twixt Christ's Impetration & Application, in the foregoing paragraph, for the Actual Application of the benefite & fruit of his oblation is attributed to his Intercession. (15.) Nay, that whole Chapter Ioh. 17. confirmeth this; for there Christ is both Offering himself, or sanctifying himself thereunto vers.Page  553 19. and Interceding▪ and these are so lincked together, both in themselves, & as to the persons for whom, that it must argue, at least, much incogitan∣cy, to imagine a divulsion, & separation of these two acts of his Priesthood. (16.) If Christ Intercede not for the same persons, for whom he died, we ask for whom he Intercedeth? Is it for actuall beleevers? Then we ask a Scripture ground for this restriction? And then it is manifest hence, that Christ Intercedeth not for the working of faith in any: And yet Esaias tels us, that he maketh Intercession for transgressours. And we see Ioh. 17: 20. that he prayeth not only for those, who were already beleevers, but for such also, as were not yet beleevers. He told us Himself also, that he would pray the Father for the Spirit, Ioh. 14: vers. 16. And among other things, this is one work of the Spirit, to cause a sinner beleeve, 2. Cor. 4: 13. Ephes. 1: 17, 18, 19.

The point we are upon will be further cleare, if we consider. (22.) That Christ's death was a Redemption, & we are said to be Redeemed thereby Gal. 4: 5. & 3: 13. Rom. 3: 24. Ephes. 1: 7. Col. 1: 14. •Pet. 1: 8. Revel. 5: 9. Tit. 2: 14. And therefore, all such, as he laid down this Redemption, or Re∣demptionmoney for, must of necessity be redeemed & saved, & consequent∣ly he died not for all, seing all are not redeemed & saved. His Ransome, or Price of Redemption, which he laid down, viz. his blood, which he shed, is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a ransome Mat. 20: 28. & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1. Tim. 2: 6. That all such, for whom this Redemption-money was payed, & this Ransome was given, must be saved, is cleare; for (1.) Other wayes it were no Redemption, a Ransome given for Captives doth say, that these Captives, in Law & Justi∣ce, ought to be set at liberty. (2.) This Redemption is the same with, (as to the effect,) or hath attending it, forgiveness of sins. Col. 1: 14. Ephes. 1: 7. & forgiveness of sins, is with justification, & hath blessedness attending it Rom. 4: 6, 7, 8. (3.) Salvation necessarily followeth upon this Ransome & Re∣demption, as is clear 1. Tim. 2: 4. compared with vers. 6. (4.) This Redem∣ption is from a vaine Conversation 1, Pet. 1: 18. & consequently is attended with Salvation. (5.) It is attended with justification, Rom. 3: 24. being justi∣fied freely by his grace, through the redemption, that is in Iesus Christ. (6.) Hen∣ce it is called the Redemption of the transgressions Heb. 9: 15. that is, either of Transgressours, by a metonimy, or of us from the evil of transgressions, & that upon a valuable compensation & satisfaction; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Redem∣ption from evil by the Intervening of a Price, a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Ransom, (7.) This was a Redemption from the Law, for God sent forth his son—made under the Law, to redeem them, who were under the Law Gal 4: 4, 5. & so by this redem∣ption, there is a liberation had from the Law, & its Curse & Penality. (8.) And it is a Redemption of such as were under the Law, for this end, that they might receive the adoption of sones Gal. 4: 5. But this Adoption of sones is not com∣mon to all. (9.) All which receiveth confirmation from this, that the Fa∣ther, who received this ransome, did himself send his Son to lay it down, & so it was his own Ransome; and therefore must have been payed, upon a certaine designe of actually Redeeming & delivering from Sin, Satan, Death & Hell, those, for whom it was laid downe. (10.) So is there an other end Page  554 of this Redemption mentioned Gal. 3: 13, 14. Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law—that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ. (11.) Seing the Lord Iehovah might have refused to free the sin∣ner, upon any Redemption or Satisfaction offered, & exacted all of the sinners themselves, that they lay under by the Law, it was a great condes∣cendence in love of this great Lord, & a gracious act of Soveraignity, to ac∣cept of a mediation; & of Love & free grace to provide a Redeemer; we cannot but in reason think, that His good pleasure did regulare this matter, as to the Persons, who should be Redeemed, & as to the manner & me∣thod after which they should actually partake of the Redemption. And that therefore, the persons to be redeemed were condescended upon, and the persons condescended upon were certanely to be Redeemed; the Lord ha∣ving intended, in the contrivance of this Redemption, the certaine Salva∣tion & Redemption of those, who were condescended upon, & of none else, and the Intentions, Designes & Purposes of God are not vaine nor frustrable.

Further (23.) Christ's death ha• a real Merito in it, that is, a worth and value, to procure the good things, it was given for; so that thereby there was a Purchase made. Act. 20: 28. And therefore, we cannot suppose, that all that was Procured & Purchased hereby, was a General, Uncertaine, & meerly Possible thing. If it had a value & worth in it, (as no question it had) to purchase & procure grace & glory, unto all, for whom it was given, and was accepted as a valuable price of the Father, why should not the thing, hereby purchased, be given & granted, in due time? To say, that all was suspended upon a condition, is to made all Uncertaine: or we must say, that Christ's death did procure that Condition also: and then all is right, for that is it, we say.

(24.) Christ's death is to be considered as the death of a Testator Heb. 9: 15, 16, 17. And for this cause, he is the Mediatour of the New Testament, that by meanes of death, for the redemption of transgressions, that were under the first Testa∣ment, they which are called, might receive the promise of eternal inheritance: for where a Testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the Testatour: for a Testament is of force after men are dead, otherwise it is of no strength, at all, while the Testatour liveth. So he said himself of the cup, in the Sacrament, that it was the blood of the New Testament Mat. 26: 28. Mark. 14: 24. & that it was the cup of the New Testament in his blood Luk. 22: 20. and Paul calleth it, the New Testament in his blood 1. Cor. 11: 25. So that his Death & Bloodshed was the death of a Testatour, for the confirmation of the New Testament, and for ascertaneing of the Legatees, of the good things bequathed to them in lega∣cy, by the Testament. Now a Testament commonly is a declaration of the Testatours free, Absolute & Voluntary Purpose of bestowing such & such benefites, to such & such friends; and so it is the Testatours letter will, whe∣reby he willeth that this legacy be given to this person, & that to another. It is true, men may insert some Conditions, as to some legacies, because they are but men, & know not contingent future things, nor have they the wils & dispositions of such, they appoint legatees, in their own hand and Page  555 power; But it is otherwayes with our Testatour: and therefore we cannot think, that He left the legacies in his Testament, at the uncertainty of con∣ditions, to be performed by men; especially considering, how as he died to ratify the Testament, so he rose againe to administrate the same, as the sole executor thereof by his Spirit, & that what legacies he left to be bestowed, upon such & such conditions he left not the matter at an uncertainty; for the condition it self was bequeathed, as the necessary good of the Testament, without which all would have been to no purpose. It is unreasonable then to think, that Christ died to give force to his Testament; and yet it might come to passe, that he should have no heire, to enjoy the goods left in legacy. Nor is it reasonable to think, that all the world were equally his heires, seing the Inheritance, and Kingdom is for the little flock Luk. 12: 32. and a peculiar select number 1. Pet. 1: 4. Ioh. 17: 24. Col. 1: 12. who are heires of the pro∣mises, of God, of salvation, of the Grace of God, of the Kingdom &c. Rom. 8: 17. Gal. 3: 29. & 4: 7, 30. Ephes. 3: 6. Heb. 1: 14. & 6: 1. & 11: 7. Iam. 2: 5. 1. Pet. 3: 7. Therefore, all whom Christ hath appointed heires in his Testament, shall certainly enjoy the good things tested, in due time, for his Death gave force to his Testament, as being his Last & Unchangea∣ble will, so that they cannot misse of the inheritance, and be disappoin∣ted; especially considering, that Christ by his death laid down a valuable & rich price to purchase all these good things, which he left in legacy to his friends & heires.

Christ's death moreover (25.) is to be considered, as the death of a Spon∣sor & Cautioner, and this will further confirme our point: Hence he is cal∣led a Surety Heb. 7: 22. and is said to die for the ungodly Rom. 5: 6. to be made a curse for us Gal. 3: 13. and to be made sin. 2. Cor. 5: 21. and other expressions of the like Kind have the same import: From whence it is evident, that Christ took the debt upon him, that was justly to be charged upon the account of sinners, that he became one person in Law, with sinners the principal deb∣tor; that he payed & satisfied for all the debt, and that in their room and place: and that therefore all these, for whom he died, must certainly be delivered from the Debt, and from the Charge & Consequences thereof. These things are manifest of themselves, and need no further confirmation. Now seing all are not delivered from the debt of sin, nor from the punish∣ment due because of sin, we cannot say, that Christ died, as a Cautioner, for all; for sure his death was a compleat payment of all the debt he under∣took to pay, and to satisfie for. Nor can we say, that he died as a Cautio∣ner for he knew not whom; far lesse, that he died as a Cautioner, and yet none might possibly receive advantage thereby. Not yet can we say, that he died, as a Cautioner, and payed for some sinnes of all, and not for all their sinnes, for whom he died; seing he was a Compleet Cautioner. So then, as Christ died in their roome & stead, as their Cautioner, & Sponsor, for whom he died, wrong should be done to Him, if all these, for whom he was a Cautioner, should not at length actually be delivered out of prison, & freed from the accusation of the Law: They, for whom he died, being in him legally, when he died, and morally & virtually dying in him, and Page  556 with him, must not, in justice, be made to pay their own debt, & satisfie the Law over againe: Christ's stricking hands (as the phrase is Prov. 22: 26.) and so putting his name in the obligation, and accordingly making satisfa∣ction, the Principal's name is blotted out, and he free in the time appoin∣ted: for he bare our griefs, and carryed our sorrowes &c. Esai. 53: 4, 5. and by meanes of death, he delivered them, who through fear of death were all their life time subject to bondage Heb. 2: 14, 15.

This matter will be further clear, if we consider (26.) How the death of Christ was a Satisfaction: and none can deny this, but Antichristian Socinian: Others willingly grant, that Christ did substitute himself, in the room of sinners, and was willing to undergo the punishment, threatned in the Law against sin, that the sinners, for whom he undertook satisfaction, might be freed: So he bare their sins Esai. 53: 11. 1. Pet. 2: 24. And he was made sin 2. Cor. 5: 21. Hence he is called a Propitiation 1. Ioh. 2: 3 & 4: 10. Rom. 3: 25. Whereby we see, that Christ took upon him the whole Punishment, that was due to sin; and that God, whom sinners had offended, was well pleased with what he did and suffered, according to that undertaking, yea more pleased, than he was displeased with all the sinnes of those, for whom he suffered: for hereby His Authority & Justice was made to appear more glorious & excellent. How then can we think, that many of those, & it may be all, for whom he gave that satisfaction, may, notwithstanding, possibly be made to make satisfaction for themselves, as they may by our Adversaries way? Was not his satisfaction full & compleat? Why should any then, for whom he gave that satisfaction, be liable to Punishment? Is this consonant to justice? Did not the Lord Jehovah send Christ & sit him with a body for this end Psal. 40: 6. Heb. 10: 5. & laid upon Him the iniqui∣ties of us all Esai. 53: 6. that He might make full satisfaction for them to justi∣ce, & suffer for them all that the Law could demand of them, or they were liable unto by the broken Law? Did not Christ do & suffer all, which he un∣dertook to do, & suffer for this end? And did not the Father accept of what he did & suffered, as a full Compensation, & Satisfaction? And seing this cannot be denied, & it is manifest that this was done by Christ as a Cautio∣ner Heb. 7: 22. how can it be imagined, that the Principal debtor shall not thereupon have a fundamental right to freedom & pardon, & in due time, after the Gospel method, be actually Discharged, & delivered from the pe∣nalty of the Law, & Redeemed by the Satisfactory Price payed by the Cautioner, & accepted of the Creditour? Doth not the denying of this cer∣tain & infallible Effect, call in question the value & worth of Christ's satisfa∣ction, and give ground to say, that Jehovah was not Satisfied with the price; or that Christ made no Satisfaction? Did not Christ make Reconciliation for the sinnes of his people? Heb. 2: 17? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Adde for a further confirmation of this. (27.) That Christ's death was a propitiating sacrifice. He gave himself for us, an Offering and a Sacrifice to God, for a sweet smelling savour Ephes. 5: 2. He offered up himself once Heb. 7: 27. He is a sacrifice for us, 1. Cor. 5: 7. & the lamb of God, which beareth, Page  557 or taketh away she sin of the world Ioh. 1: 29. He offered up himself without spot to God Heb. 9: 14. & he was once offered to bear the sinnes of many Heb. 9: 28.— we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Iesus Christ once for all,—he offe∣red one sacrifice for sin for ever Heb. 10: 10, 12. Now as the sacrifices under the Law, which were a type of this, did not procure a General, Possible bene∣fite, but did procure a Real favour, only to the People of God; for they san∣ctified to the purifying of the flesh Heb. 9: 13. So certainly this Real & Perfect sacrifice must have a Peculiar & Real Effect & sprinkle consciences from dead works, to serve the living God: Heb. 9: 14. And this is not a thing common to all, nor is it a meer Possible thing: They must then do a great indignity un∣to the Sacrifice of Christ, who speak of an Universal meerly Possible Re∣demption.

Adde to this. (28.) How upon this Sacrifice, which Christ offered up, in his death, we read of a Reconciliation made Ephes. 2: 16. and that he might Reconcile both unto God, in one body, by the crosse, having s•aine the enmity, by it, or in himself 2. Cor. 5. 10. when we were enemies we were Recenciled to God, by the death of his Son. Col. 1: 20. and having made peace, through the blood of his crosse, by him to Reconcile all things unto himself. Therefore is he called our Peace E∣phes. 2: 14. & he maketh Peace vers. 15. we have Peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ. Rom. 5: 1. Now this Reconciliation being of parties, that are at variance, must be a Reconciliation of both to other, and so a mutual Re∣conciliation: and Christ effectuateth both: and both are purchased by his death: we cannot then imagine with Socinians, that all the Reconciliation, mentioned in Scripture, is of us to God; as if God's Anger & Wrath were not appeased & taken out of the way; nor with Arminians, that Christ ob∣tained an Universal Reconciliation of God to all, but no Reconciliation of man to God; friendship betwixt enemies must be mutual, if a Reconciliation be; and our state before this was enmity Rom. 5: 10. Col. 1: 20, 21. and God's wrath was against us & upon us, Ephes. 2: 3. Ioh. 3: 36. But now, how will this agree with Universal Redemption? Is God Reconciled to all, when many perish under his wrath, for ever? Can God be said to be, upon the death of Christ, Reconciled to all, when it may so fall out, that not one soul shall ha∣ve peace with God? How cometh it to passe, that many, whose Reconcilia∣tion Christ hath purchased, live & die enemies to God? Sure the Apostle tels us 2. Cor. 5: 19. that to whom God is reconciled, to them he doth not im∣pute sin: & he assureth us, that all such, as are reconciled to God, by the death of his Son, shall be saved. Rom. 5: 10.

Adde (29.) That it seemeth hard to say, That Christ laid down his life a Price, a Ransome, a Sacrifice, an Atonement & Propitiation, &c. to Purchase, Procure, Merite Grace, & Glory, & to make Reconciliation & Peace betwixt God, & such, as were already suffering the vengeance of eter∣nal fire, & to satisfie for their sinnes, who were already condemned to the torments of hell fire: and yet this must be said by such, as assert Universal Re∣demption. Was Christ so prodigal of his blood, as to cast it away, for such as were irrecoverably gone? If it be said, that this is no more hard, than to say, that Christ suffered for such, as were already glorified. Any may see, Page  558 how vast the difference is, for such as were glorified, were glorified upon the account of Christs Death, which was to be, in the time appointed & designed by Father & Son. When one promiseth a summe for redeeming of so many slaves, & the summe, according to mutual agreement, is to be payed at such a day, the slaves may be presently relieved, in contemplation of the price, which is accepted, & is to be payed hereafter at the time appointed: But when one cometh to lay down Ransome-money, he cannot be said to lay it downe for such are are dead, & that he knoweth to be dead many years ago, & so uncapable of Redemption.

Further (30.) If Christ died for all, then he intended to die for all; then the Father also intended, that he should die for all; then he intended that it should be a Redemption for all, & that thereby all should be Redeemed: for to what end else should Christ die & redeem, if not that such, as he died for & Redeemed, be Redeemed & Delivered? Or to what other end should God intended that Christ should die for all, than to the ends mentioned in Scripture, of which we have spoken? And how can we say, that God did intend the Redemption of all, when all are not actually Redeemed? Are his intentions so fallible, and frustrable? If it be said, that he Intended on∣ly a Possible Salvation, and not Actual. I Ans. The Scripture speaketh no such thing as we have seen: And how unsuteable is it to the wisdom of God, to send his Son, actually to die, and bear the curse, and only intend there∣by a Possible Redemption, which might never prove Actual to any one soul? If it be said, That he Intended an Actual Redemption, but Conditionally. I Answer. Redemption upon a Condition is but a Conditional Redemption, & that is but a Potential, Possible Redemption, unlesse you say, that the con∣dition is also purchased: and then, as to God, it is an Absolute Redemption, & intended as such: doth it suite the wisdom: of God, to intend Redem∣ption to all, and not intend also the Condition, by which alone it must be∣come Actual, & which he alone can work, but will not? Must we thus ascri∣be such intentions to God, as must hang upon mans will, & be subordinate thereunto? Or if he see, that the Condition will never be performed, how can we think, that he intendeth any thing upon a Condition, that shall ne∣ver be? But enough of this, at present.

Moreover (31.) This doctrine of Universal Redemption is derogatory to the solide consolation of the Redeemed, & Weakeneth the grounds of their song; and therefore it is not to be admitted. This Argument is fully & soli∣dely prosecuted, and vindicated from what can be allaiged against it, by the learned & solide divine Mr. Durbam, in his Comment on the Revelation pag. 304. & 305. And to him shall I referre the Reader: only I shall crave lea∣ve to adde this: That by our Adversaries grounds, the song of the Saved shall not run, as it doth Revel. 5: 9, 10. But rather thus, We have saved our selves, out of every kinred, & tongue; & people, & nation, & have made our selves unto God, Kings & Priests: For whereas Christ by his blood Re∣deemed all of every kinred, and tongue, and people, & nation, and not some only out of them; we our selves have, by our own free good will, ma∣de a difference betwixt our selves, and the rest; and we are no more behol∣den Page  559 to Christ for all that we have attained to, then the damned in hell are, for whom Christ shed his blood, as well as for us, & to whom he purchased by his blood & death, as much, as for us; as Adversaries say. So that I see not how Arminians, can think to joine in this Song, & have any share of this Consolation, which is solely founded upon the Redemption of Christ, as a peculiar & no common blessing. Let them consider it, for it concerneth them not a little, seing all that come to glory will sing to the honour of their Redeemer, upon other grounds, as we see, then these are, which our Ad∣versaries lay down, and plead so earnestly for. If any say, that Christ more∣over hath purchased faith to some, even to all that are actually saved. I Ans∣wer. As neither the Arminians, nor semi-Arminians, I mean the followers of Camero will say this, or grant so much; so the granting of it, will ever the other Universal Conditional Redemption; for the Scripture speaketh but of one kind of Redemption, of one Price laid down, of one Covenant betwixt Jehovah & the Mediator; & of one Giving unto Christ of Persons to be re∣deemed. Shall we think, that Christ would lay down as great a ransome for such, as he was not to purchase faith unto, as for the rest? Shall we think that he would lay down his life in vaine, & make no purchase thereby? And of the Reprobat, for whom he was not to purchase thereby? And of the Reprobat, for whom he was not to purchase faith, he knew he could make no purchase; for without faith his death would be of no advantage un∣to them. And where do we read, that all were given unto him to redeem? Yea, are not the given ones clearly distinguished from the rest? Ioh. 17: 6, 9, as we cleared above.

Againe (32.) If the Redemption of Christ be Universal, and Conditio∣onal: it must necessarily follow, that Christ laid down his life, and the price of his blood, as much for Iudas, and all the Reprobate, as he did for Iohn, and all the Elect: for the Redemption being Conditionally for all, it can∣not be more for one, then for another. And yet this cannot be said, as ap∣peareth from the reasons formerly adduced. This would lay, that the Fa∣thers and Christs love was equal towards all; and that no more was purcha∣sed for the one, than for the other; and that the Elect have no more bene∣fite by Christs death, than the Reprobat have; and that Christ had no more an eye to Redeem the Elect by his death, than to Redeem the Reprobat; & was no more a Cautioner for the one, than for the other: all which and the like cannot but be looked upon, as most absurd. Shall we think, that Christ became sin, as well, or as much, for Iudas, as for Peter? Shall we think, that He redeemed all alike from the Curse of the Law? These sound ill to Christian ears.

So (33.) we may thus reason: Either Christ's Redemption is Conditional & Universal, as to the Price laid down & Satisfaction made; or as to the Application & Actual bestowing of the benefites purchased: But neither can be said to the advantage of the Adversaries cause; for if the last be said, we willingly grant that some of the benefites, as Justification, Adoption, and actuall Glorification, are conferred in a manner conditionally: but some, as faith and the New heart, are given absolutely: and this cannot Help the Adversaries cause, for they will not say, that either all have faith bestowed Page  560 upon them, or that all are by believing Justified & Adopted &c. and so this is not Universall: and if the first be said, to wit, That Christ laid down his life Conditionally, it must be said, that Christ did not lay down his life Ab∣solutely, but upon some condition; and what can that Condition be, upon which the death of Christ was suspended? If it be said, that the faith of tho∣se, to whom it was to be preached, was the Condition: then it must be said, that christ did not die untill these believed, or that his death was no satisfaction or price, untill they actually believed: and then the Father could not be well pleased with the price as a satisfaction, until mens Faith came to make it an Actual price: which is both absurd, and contrary to Scripture. If it be said, That Christ did absolutely lay down his life a satis∣factory Ransom, and that for all, yet so as none, that would not fulfil the Condition, should be redeemed. I Answer. If it was an Absolute satisfactory Ransome, & accepted as such, something must have been purchased there∣by, & all behoved actually & really to be delivered from the Law & from the curse, or from something, by vertue of that Absolute Price; and they could not be made to pay over againe what was payed by the price of his blood; for Justice could not call for two satisfactions. And if all were, upon this Absolute Price payed, Redeemed from the Law, the Curse, & the Sentence of the first Covenant, no man shall now die for that broken Cove∣nant. If it be said, No man was Absolutely delivered even from that, but on∣ly Conditionally. I Ans. How then was it an Absolute Price? Or what was purchased thereby? If it be said, That a possibility of Freedom was absolutely purchased. Ans. This was rejected above: and the Scripture inferreth Actual Redemption from Christs purchase, He shall justifie many, for he shall bear their iniquities Esai. 53: 11. which saith, That all whose iniquities he did bear, shall be Actually & Really Justified by him, & not have a meer Possibility of Justification.

Further (34.) We may thus argue, If Christ died for all & every one, He either died for all Absolutely or Conditionally, The first cannot be said, for the reasons already adduced militate against that. Nor can it be said, that He died for all Conditionally: for then either he died to purchase Life & Salva∣tion to all upon Condition of their performance of something proposed as a Condition; or to purchase salvation, and all the meanes thereunto or Con∣ditions thereof, Conditionally, But neither of these can be said. Therefore &c. The major is clear from this; that the enumeration is full, & noother way can this Conditional Redemption be conceived or explained. The minor may be thus confirmed, The first way cannot be said, to wit, that life and salvation was purchased to all, upon a Condition to be by them performed, that is, upon Condition of their believing: for either this Condition is in the power of every son of Adam, or not: if it be not in their power (as all but Pelagians will confess) then this Redemption is no Redemption; for a Redemption of Captives upon a Condition impossible to them, is as good as no Redemption. Nor can the last way be said, to wit, that Redem∣ption, and all the Conditions & Means thereof were Conditionally pur∣chased; for what can be assigned as the Condition of these Conditions? Page  561 And though there were a Condition of the Lords working of Faith assigned, (which yet we finde not in Scripture) yet that would not help the mat∣ter; for that Condition of Faith would it self be a mean to salvation, and so purchased Conditionally, upon another Condition, and that other Condition must be purchased upon another Condition, & so in infinitum: which is absurd.

As also (35.) this is considerable, That the asserting of Universal Redem∣ption goeth not alone; but there are several other Universalities also affir∣med, and maintained, either as Consequences, or Concomitants, or Grounds thereof, which the Scripture knoweth not: such as these. (1.) An Universal Love & Philanthropie, towards all & every one, without any difference: which they lay down, as the ground of the Sending of Christ to die for all indiscriminatly. (2.) An Universal Will in God to save all, which they call an Antecedent Will; and hold forth as a Velleity, or a wish & desi∣re, that all might be saved; as if God could not effectuat whatever he desi∣red, or could have a velleity towards any thing, which either he could not, or would not effectuat. (3.) An Universal Predestination conditional; which expression Amerald used untill the Synods in France did disswade him there∣from. (4.) An Universal gift of all to Christ, or an Universal gift of Christ to all; that is, a Will & purpose that Christ should lay down his life for all, and Redeem all; at least Conditionally. (5.) An Universal Justification con∣ditional. And why not also an Universal Salvation conditional? (6.) An Universal Covenant of Grace made with all mankinde in Adam, wherein is a free universal deed of gift of Christ first, and of Pardon, Spirit & Glory, in & by him, to all Mankinde without exception, upon condition of acce∣ptance; as also an offer of Faith, Repentance, Conversion, with all the consequences thereof. (7.) An Universal will in God to call into this Cove∣nant, and unto the Participation of the benefites thereof, all & every man. (8.) An Universal execution of this will, or promulgation of this Gospel or New Covenant, unto all & every one, by common favours & benefites be∣stowed on all, whereby all are called to believe in a merciful pardoning God; and all have abundance of Mercies & Meanes of Recovery & of life; for the Lord now governeth the world, only on termes of grace. (9.) Upon this followeth an Universal Command to all men to use certaine duties & meanes for their Recovery by Faith & Repentance. (10.) An Universal pardon of the first Sin, so far, at least, that no man shall perish for the meer Original sin of Nature alone, unless he adde the rejection of grace. (11.) Hence fol∣loweth an Universal Judgment & Sentence on all, in the great day, only according as they have performed the new Gospel Conditions. (12.) So∣me also adde an Universal Subjective Grace, whereby all are enabled to performe the conditions of the new Covenant. (13.) Universal proper Fruits & Effects of this death, whereby all the outward favours, that Hea∣thens enjoy are said to be purchased for them by Christ: & why not also what Devils enjoy?

Finally (36.) This assertion of Universal Redemption layeth the ground of, & maketh way to a new frame of the Covenant of Grace, quite overturning Page  562 its Nature, and transforming it into a new Covenant of Works, making it one & the same with that, as to kinde, & only to differ, as to the change of Conditions to be performed by man: for as, in the first Covenant, Adam was to obtain right to, & possession of life promised, in, by, for, through and upon the account of his fulfilling the Condition of perfect obedience, im∣posed by the Lord; so, in the New Covenant, man is to obtaine & acqui∣re to himself a right to & possession of the Life promised, in, by, for, through & upon the account of his performance of the Condition of Faith & new obedience, now imposed in the Gospel; and all the difference is, that in stead of perfect obedience to the Law, which was the Condition of the first Covenant, now Faith & sincere Gospel Obedience is made the Condition: And thus we can no less he said to be justified by works of the Law, or which we do, then Adam should have been said to have been so justified, had he stood; and this justification giveth as great ground of boasting unto man, & of making the reward of debt, & not of grace, as justification by the first Covenant would have done; for though it be said, that Christ hath made satisfaction to justice, for the breach of the first Law, & thereby pur∣chased to all, upon Condition, Justification & Salvation; yet this remo∣veth not the difficulty; for what is purchased by Christ's death is made Uni∣versal & Common to all; and so can be nothing (according to our Adver∣saries) but a putting of all men, in statu quo prius, in case to run & obtai∣ne the prize for themselves; as God's absolute free love put Adam in that Condition at first: Christ's death (though thereby, as they say, he pur∣chased the New Covenant, which with them is the chiefe, if not the only, effect & fruit of his Death & Merites) can be no more, than a very remo∣te ground of Right to Life & Salvation, unto any person; for it is made Universal & Common to all, so that all have equal share therein, & ad∣vantage thereby; man himself, by performing the new Conditions, only making the difference; so that the immediat ground of the Right to life, which any have, is their own Faith & Obedience, or performance of the New Covenant-conditions. Whereby it is manifest, that as to our Parti∣cular, and Immediat Right to Happiness, we are to plead our own works, & lean to them, as our ground whereupon we may stand & appear before God's Tribunal; and upon the account thereof plead for the crown, as our due debt, having now run for it, & performed the Condition, agreed u∣pon, and so sing praises to our selves, in stead of singing praises to our Re∣deemer. Hence the Righteousness, wherein we must appear before God, is not the Righteousness of Christ, but our own; for the Righteousness of Christ, say they, is only imputed in regard of its effects, whereof the new Covenant is the All, or the Chiefe; and so that doth not become the Righ∣teousness of any man, nor can be said to be imputed to any man properly, (which also they assert) but his own Faith is only imputed properly (which also they plead for) as his Righteousness; not, as a Way, Medium, or Methode, of Gospel-Righteousness (especially when Gospel-Obedience is adjoyned) The Righteousness of Christ being thereby only accounted to be imputed, in that it hath procured, that our own Gospel Righteousness, Page  563 Faith & new Obedience, shall be imputed to us, as our Immediat Righ∣teousness; & the ground of our Right to Glory. What accord is betwixt this frame of the Covenant of Grace, & that way of justification held forth by Socinians, Arminians & Papists, the learned will easily see; and how con∣trary it is to the Covenant of Grace held forth in the Gospel, & hitherto pro∣fessed & maintained by the orthodox, every one acquainted therewith can∣not be ignorant; & it is obvious, how opposite this is unto what the Apo∣stle saith Phil. 3: 8, 9. yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss, for the excel∣lency of the knowledge of Christ Iesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung; that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own Righteousness, which is of the Law; but that which is through the Faith of Christ, the Righteousness which is of God by Faith. And Tit. 3: 5, 6, 7. Not by works of Righteousness, which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost which he shed on us abundantly, through Iesus Christ our Saviour: that being justified by his grace, we should be made he•rs, according to the hope of eternal life. And Rom. 3: 20, 21, 22, 24. Therefore by the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified—but now the Righteousness of God without the Law is manifest—even the Righteousness of God, which is by Faith of Iesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe—being justified freely by his grace, through the Redemption, that is in Iesus Christ. And many other places. It is no less clear, how hereby the true nature of justifying faith, and Gospel Obedience is perverted: & with∣all how dangerous this is, if put into practice; or if men act & live according∣ly, every serious exercised Christian knoweth.