the infinitely meritorious Righteousness of the Mediator yet it agreeth to them in divers manners and so hath different effects it is Christs Righteousness as the efficient who wrought it as the Mediator performing it in pursuance of his Mediatorial Office and thus it is one perfect and compleat publick Righteousness satisfying the Law purchasing eternal life for all the Elect whereof Christ is the only immediate and proper subject but it is a Believers righteousness secondarily as being intended and wrought for him that he should be justified by it and so his only so far forth as he stands in need of it not as Mediatorial or meritorious or universal extending to others also it is infinite and meritorious as it is in Christ not as it is in a Believer for there it is an infinite meritorious Righteousness accepted for him so far as he needeth it not as infinite or universal for all the Elect. Thus also we may answer what is commonly said if we are righteous with Christs Righteousness then we satisfied for our selves we are our own Mediators seing by that righteousness Christ satisfied and was our Mediator For the matter of the righteousness may be imputed to us and not the circumstances and qualifications of it we may be accepted for that righteousness and yet not be accounted to have wrought it for our selves or others it is a common rule Quie quid recipitur recipitur ad modum recipientis a thing is received according to the capacity of the receiver not always according to the extent of the thing or the virtue of the efficient The Sun which is seen by half the World at once the sound which is heard by many thousands are seen and heard by each one in particular for themselves but not accordieg to that universal extent whereby they are seen and heard by all the rest But to come nearer the case Gods act of Creation and conservation is infinite and yet every creature created and preserved thereby is finite Gods course to the actions of the creatures is infinite as proceeding from him yet it maketh not the actions of the Creatures infinite yea all the acts of creation preservation concourse are of the same species of the same sort as they proceed from God it is not one kind whereby Men and Angels are created preserved and assisted and another whereby the same things are done for lower creatures but the same infinite power of God applied to each one according to their necessities yet this Identity of the Divine Acts doth not make the Creatures to be of the same species or nature or to exist in the same manner or all to operate with one kind of Action In like manner the Righteousness of Christ as wrought by him and proceeding from him and intended for all the Elect is infinite and meritorious but as applied to every single person it procureth so much pardon as they have need of and satisfyeth so much of the Law as they are obliged to and so purchaseth Eternal Life for every one according to their necessity and station Of the same nature is that common Objection viz. If we be justified by Christ's Righteousness then are we as righteous as Christ which followeth not unless his Righteousness was applied to every particular Believer in the same manner as it agreeth to Christ which is untrue Christ is righteous inherently as the immediate proper Subject of his own Obedience and actively as the Author of that Obedience as he that in his own person fulfilled the Law A Believer is not at all accounted the Author of that Righteousness is not lookt upon as the person that obeyed nor is he the subject of inhesion in whom that Righteousness doth inhere properly and physically but he is a legal secondary subject who receiveth the immediate benefit of that Righteousness as being intended for his Justification Again Christ wrought his Righteousness for all the Elect in the Office and Person of a Mediator and so was not only righteous as a single person but also as a publick person but each believer is righteous as a single person by that publick and universal Righteousness of Christ applied to his particular case and necessity If a Debtor be discharged by his Sureties paying the Debt may he be said to be as good as solvent a man as his Surety because the Sureties Payment is imputed to him If an Innocent person be accepted to die for one that deserves it may the Guilty person be said to be as innocent or to have satisfied for his Crime as much as the Innocent that died for it The Payment and the Punishment are accepted for the Debtor and the Guilty so that they are freed by them but the honour of being solvent and innocent of paying and suffering p. 61. for a Friend belongeth not to them but to the Sponsor This Authors second Argument is Object 2. If we be justified by the Acts of Christ's Personal Righteousness then are we justified by the Works of the Law but it 's the Apostles whole design to the Romans to prove that we are not justified by the Works of the Law nor unsinning Obedience Ergò Answ Never any Orthodox Divine denyed that we were justified by the Works of the Law wrought for us by Christ but on the contrary it is the soundation of the opinion of Imputation that the Law of Works cannot be waved but must be fulfilled both by obedience to it and suffering the punishment when it had been once broken and this being impossible in our own persons God sent forth his Son in the likeness of Sinful Flesh and for sin condemned sin in the Flesh that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us Rom. 8.3 4. That which justifieth us is the Obedience of Christ to the Law of Works but we are justified not in a Legal but in an Evangelical way because it is the Gospel that granteth us forgiveness upon the obedience of another and not the Law Etsi haec Christi obedientia legalis nobis imputata Bradshaw de Just c. 18. th 7. pars sit aliqua justitiae illius quâ coram Deo justificemur Non tamen inde concluditur nos ex legis operibus vel ex parte aliqua justificarieo sensu quo ab Apostolo ea opera excluduntur Rom. 3.20 Galat. 2.16 3.11 Cum lex illa postulet ut quaecunque preceperit in propriae nimirum cujusque persona non autem per sponsorem aut vicarium quemquam praestentur The Apostle to the Romans proveth that we are not justified by our own Works wrought in our own persons but not absolutely That we are not justified by the Works of the Law in any sence but on the contrary when he saith we are justified by Faith this implyeth that we are justified by the Obedience of Christ trusted in or applyed by Faith What is here further said toucheth not us viz. If Christ's Righteousness be so imputed that
Lutherus Redivivus OR The Protestant Doctrine of JUSTIFICATION By Christ's Righteousness Imputed to BELIEVERS Explained and Vindicated PART II. By John Troughton Minister of the Gospel sometimes Fellow of S. John's Coll. in Oxon. Augustin Epist 105. Ad Sixtum Presbyterum Romanum Nullane ergò sunt merita Justorum Sunt planè quia justi sunt sed ut justi fierent merita non fecerunt Justi enim facti sunt cum justificati sunt sed sicut dicit Apostolus Justificati gratis per gratiam ipsius LONDON Printed for Sam. Lee near Popes-Head-Alley in Lumbard-Street 1678. THE PREFACE TO THE READER Courteous Reader IN the former Part of this Work I endeavoured to open and refute the Novel Opinion of Justification upon condition of Obedience to the Gospel Which however plausibly worded and vented is in substance no other than the Old Popish Doctrine of Merits and Justification by Works And wherein it is refin'd from the old School-Notions it cometh but so much the nearer to Socinianism from whence the whole Platform of this Doctrine was taken and differs from it very little In this present Treatise my work is to explain and confirm the Protestant Doctrine of Justification by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us by God and received by us by Faith which is denied by the Assertors of Conditional Justification They are indeed almost as loath the People should know that they deny us to be justified by the Merits or Righteousness of Christ as once Steph. Gardner was That the Doctrine of Justification by Free Grace should be preached to them And for the same Reason viz. The saving of their own Credit And hence they tell us That the Term of Imputation of Righteousness is still to be retained That Christ meriteth our Justification That he is our Legal or Pro-legal Righteousness c. They speak as like our Orthodox Divines as they can that it may not commonly appear wherein they differ Yet in all this they mean no more but that Christ by his Obedience or Death or both obtained a New Covenant for us i. e. the Evangelical Law which if we fulfill and continue in it to the end of our Lives we shall have our Sins pardoned shall be accepted and saved So that the Righteousness for which we shall be accepted and made Heirs of Eternal Life is our Obedience to the Gospel not the Obedience or Righteousness of Jesus Christ and with them the Imputing of Christ's Righteousness to us for Justification is our being justified by our own Obedience to the Gospel-Covenant which Christ procured by his Righteousness not our being justified or accepted to life for the Righteousness of Christ intended and performed immediately and only for us as all Protestants have hitherto taught except the Dutch Arminians and their Followers They do endeavour to obscure and perplex the Question what they can partly by the Rhetorical and sometimes Imprudent Expressions of Popular Preachers and Writers which ought rather to be interpreted and qualified than exagitated to the prejudice of Truth and partly by the Philosophical Notions and School-Terms accommodated to this Doctrine as well as others and too much transferred from the Schools of the Learned to the Pulpit and popular Congregations From both these they pick matters of quarrel against this received and fundamental Truth And always propose the Question in such terms that it may seem they dispute only against the Antinomians or some that have spoke too like them or else some Logical Notions and Formalities of School-Divines Amongst all that I have read with some care to know the true state of the Question and what the New Doctrine of those men is I have not met with one that doth fairly and ingenuously state the Question according to the Sence which they intend and dispute for But they always thrust in some terms lyable to exception which belong not to the substance of the Question it self e. g. They usually propound the Question thus Whether Christ's Righteousness be imputed to us so that we are accounted by God to have done and suffered all that Christ did and suffered for us whether we fulfill the Law in him and suffered the Penalty of it in him And then they infer from the Doctrine of Imputation in general what followeth only from their misrepresenting it That we satisfied for our selves obeyed and suffered for our selves were our own Mediatours and Saviours c. Which Consequences seem not only uncooth but absurd I and are readily received by the unlearned and precipitant Wits who had rather seem ingenious in finding fault with old received Doctrines than take pains to understand them throughly I have endeavoured to divest the Doctrine of Justification by Christ's Righteousness Imputed of the Additions both of School-Notions and popular Rhetorick and to present it in the plain Scriptural dress to prove it by plain Scripture and Arguments deduced thence in the three first Chapters and then to examine their Obâ—ections against it which when they are levelled against the Question as it is plainly stated are so inconsiderable that I cannot but wonder that Learned and Pious men should lay so great a stress upon them as to innovate and alter the Doctrine which all the Protestants have profest writ and died for this is done in the fourth Chapter In the fifth and sixth I examine the original and true meaning of the opposite Opinion and refute it In the rest of the Book I explain and defend the Instrumental Office of Faith in justifying us and answer the Objections against it The Question betwixt us is plainly this Whether God doth justifie Believing Sinners i. e. acquit them from Guilt and Punishment and give them a Right to Eternal Life for their own Obedience to the Gospel Or immediately for the Righteousness of Christ wrought for them and trusted in by them as it is declared in the Promises of the Gospel The former they affirm and we have disproved in the other Part The latter they deny and we affirm and â—â—ove viz. That God doth accept believing Sinners and gives them a certain grant of Eternal Life directly and immediately for the Obedience of Christ â—â—ought for them and proposed to them 〈◊〉 the Promises We say further As to impute Sin 〈◊〉 to account a man a Sinner and juâ—â—ciously to charge his Sin upon him to â—â—s Condemnation when a person hath â—â—thority to do it So to impute Righteousness is to account a man Righteous and judicially to discharge him â—â—om accusation and to grant him the â—â—ivileges and Benefits belonging to 〈◊〉 Righteous Man And therefore when righteousness is said to be imputed 〈◊〉 us without Works the meaning is â—â—at God accepteth us as Righteous â—schargeth us from all the Accusations 〈◊〉 the Law and grants us Right to all â—â—iritual Blessings without any respect 〈◊〉 our Obedience But immediately â—â—d properly for the Righteousness of â—â—rist wrought for us which is thereâ—â—re said to be imputed to us because
in it for his Glory and their good CHAP. V. The adverse Opinion propounded and examined Pelagius and Arminius the Authors of it OF all that ever troubled the Church with their Errours the Pelagians and their â—ate Off-spring the Arminians have most perplext it with their Opinions partly by their importunity reviving them and urging them â—afresh from time to time so that the Church hath had little quiet from them for the last twelve hundred years though their Opinions have been most frequently and most fairly examined and unanimously refuted above any Errours whatsoever and that both by particular Writers of all Ages and also many Syâ—ods greater and smaller But principally by their dishonest Art of misrepresenting the Orthodox Doctrine to perswade the Simple that they oppose particular mens Sentiments not the Doctrine of the Church and by covering their own Opinions propounding them plausibly and ambiguously that the Falshood may â—ot be easily discern'd that at once they may â—nsinuate with the Simple and have retreats â—o avoid the Arguments of the Learned wherein they do like those that sculk in Woods and Thickets whom it is as hard to find out as it â—s to conquer It was a sit Epithite that Hieâ—om gave Pelagius Coluber ille Britannus that British Snake For he had his many windings and foldings and for his advantage could cast his Skin to When he was taxed to deny Grace ascribing all to mans free Will he protested to ascribe all to Grace and yet meant thereby nothing but Nature or Free Will which he called Grace because it was the Gift of God Vossius Hist Pelag lib. 1. pars 1. Joh. Latius Hist Pelag lib. 1. par 1. and when all his Opinions were summed up and objected to him in the Synod of Diospolis or Lydda he openly and severally renounct them all with Anathemas and all by equivocal words keeping the same meaning The like did his Scholar Caelestius when called to an account before the Bishops of Rome and Africa Fostus and Cassianus the Semipelagian Leaders trod in their steps as the same Authors out of Augustin and Prosper have shewed Arminius and his Followers have not come behind them in this Art The Preface to the Synod of Dort and Lubertus sufficiently insorm us how Arminius strove to cover his Opinions contra Bersium till he might by secret insinuations gain a party to stand on his defence When he was suspected of novelty by the Presbytery of Amsterdam Sancté protestatusest c. he solemnly profest that he knew no man in the Low-Countries that had a mind to bring in Innovations in Religion His Disciples were of the same temper which they shewed both in the Synod and in their own Writing By the same Art their Followers amongst us at this day create us much trouble especially in this point of Justification by Christ's Righteousness imputed about which they had their Doctrine from Arminius Popular Insinuations is the best of their Rhetorick Generals Equivocation and Tergiversation is the greatest part of their Logick which we shall make now to appear by enquiring what is their Opinion concerning the Effect of Christs death and obedience who deny us to be properly justified by it or it to be imputed to us They do agree to retain the Term of Imputing Christ's Righteousness Just Evang p. 51. The notion of Imputation in general saith one of them is no way to be opposed it being impossible that we should receive benefit by and the effects of what another doth without some kind of Imputation But thus Socinus will say What Christ did was imputed to us i. e. it was nostro bono for our good and benefit Mr. Baxter chargeth Dr. Tully with the breach of all that is Sacred Answ to Dr. Tully p. 18 172. for saying that he denyeth all Imputation of Christs Righteousness and telleth us that he doth not only hold it in some sence but in a larger sence than many do viz. That not only his Passive Obedience is imputed to us but his Active also yea his Habitual and Divine Righteousness so far as influential to give merit to his Obedience and yet all this is but words For whosoever asserteth the infinite value of the death of Christ must and doth acknowledge the concurrence of his Active Habitual Papaeus and Divine Righteousness to make his death an infinite Prize which it could not be unless the person dying were God of a perfect holy Nature and of perfect holy Life till the time of his death But he that useth a common word as this of Imputation is and in that Question and Matter to which it belongeth properly and useth it in a sence quite different from the common acception and state of the Question doth but equivocate in retaining that Term. Though Protestants have differed about the Righteousness of Christ imputed whether it be the Passive only or the Active also yet till of late there hath been no question among them about the meaning of the term Imputation all understanding thereby that we were justified and accepted to Life Eternal for the Righteousness of Christ intended and wrought for us But it is more strange that he who is so earnest to be accounted a maintainer of Imputation should no better defend himself from the accusation of denying it For when a few lines would have expressed any mans meaning in this point who was willing to be understood he gives us many distinctions divisions chap. 2. p. 48 c. and sub-divisions and fifty Propositions to explain in what sence he holdeth Christ's Righteousness imputed and in what not and yet confesseth after all these that he doubteth he hath not made his meaning plain enough to those who are not exercised in the Controversie who had most need of his Explication and therefore addeth more distinctions and propositions to make his meaning plainer chap. 3. p. 79. which is as well performed as if a man endeavouring to wash an Aethiopian white should first plunge him into a River of Water and afterwards into a Vessel of Ink He goes â—n with the same Art and Chap. 4. p. â—9 instead of opposing the Drs. sence of Imputation and deâ—ending his own he thrusts together all the â—ences of Imputation which he denieth both â—he sound and the unsound and then disputes against Imputation with 43 Reasons but against what or in what sence he would not have â—he People but only his Friends to understand 〈◊〉 this be reconciling to devize new terms and â—ew questions if confounding things be clearing of them if hiding ones meaning with mulâ—itudes of words be to explain onesself then â—his Author hath acquitted himself well I will â—dd another instance of his Explications I did assert that Christ's Righteousness even habiâ—ual Appeal to the Light p. 1. active and passive exalted by his Divine â—ighteousness being the fulfilling of his Law and Covenant of Mediation hath perfectly meâ—ited Reconciliation Pardon Adoption
Law of Works in our stead so that his Righteousness is accepted for our fulfilling it then must we be justified by his righteousness without any further righteousness or conditions For the Law being fulfilled for us must acquit us and give us life this we defend but he means not so Christ is our legal righteousness with him not by proper fulfilling the Law of Works for us but by taking it out of the way so that no such perfect innocent righteousness should be required of us to Salvation and this he mean by pro-legal instead of our legal righteousness This is still hiding his sence with ambiguous words It remains then that by imputing Christ's Righteousness they intend nothing else but that Christ procured a Covenant of Grace by fulfilling whereof we shall be justified and saved though sinful and imperfect which Justification and Salvation we must originally yet remotely ascribe to Jesus Christ because he procured this mild Covenant for us but the righteousness which constituteth us Just in Law and for which we shall be pronounc'd righteous and Heirs of the Kingdom at Judgment is our own sincere Obedience not Christ's Obedience as appears at large from this Author It is pretended that Luther in the heat of his Spirit and Zeal against Popish Superstitions Object let fall some words which sounded as if he thought Christ's Personal Righteousness was every Believers righteousness Answer to Dr. Tully p. 15. § 11. and their Sins were made his which afterwards he qualified shewing that Christ's Righteousness is â—urs and our Sins his only in the Effects Answ But that Luther maintained the same Imputation as we do in opposition to all works his Sermons and Comments on the Gal sufficiently shew and all both Papists and Protestants do acknowledge And if by imputing Christ's Righteousness in the Effects be meant its Immediate Effects viz. that we should be justified immediately by that righteousness trusted in immedietate formae without the interposition of any other righteousness to be wrought by us it is the Doctrine we contend for but â—f this be meant as the drift seems to be that â—t is imputed so as to merit a New Covenant by performing of which we shall be justified and so it be imputed only in its remote Effects it is manifestly untrue Object It is said again That most of our Reformers rightly asserted that Christ's Righteousness was ours by the way of meriting our righteousness Ibid. p. 16. § 13. though some of them followed Luther's Expressions of the Imputation of Christ's Personal Righteousness Answ Calvin and Melancthon who do not much follow Luther's Expressions affirm That our Justification consisteth in remission of sins for the Merit of Christ received by Faith only and it is most untrue that any of our Reformers talked That Christ only merited that we should be justified by our own Righteousness according to the Gospel Covenant as is here meant Problem loc de Just 6.25 Aretius Melancthon's Scholar defineth Justification by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness and doth charge Thammerus once his fellow Pupil under the same Master with deserting his Masters and the Doctrine of all Reformers for teaching That Faith in the business of Justification includeth Obedience to the Gospel and that we are justified by it as the Fulfilling of the Gospel and that the Works which St. Paul excludeth from justifying are the Works of the Law not the Works of the Gospel also that gratis per gratiam being justified freely by his Grace was meant only that for Christ's Sake our imperfect obedience is accepted to Justification and sinless obedience not insisted on where the Reader may find Thammerus his Arguments and interpretation of Scripture there cited at large for substance the same produced by our Authors and sharply taxed as a deserting from the Reformation Object It is farther said The Papists fastning upon those Divines who held Imputation of Christ's Personal Righteousness in its self Ibid. § 16. in the rigid sence did hereupon greatly insult against the â—rotestants as if it had been their common â—octrine and it greatly stopt the Reformation Answ Thus Bellarmin pretended that amongst the â—rotestants there were several Opinions about â—â—e Imputation of Christ's Righteousness one 〈◊〉 Luther another of Calvin a third of some â—â—hers besides that of Osiander de Just. cap. 22. p. 312. to which B. â—avenant answers Secundam sententiam illoâ—â—m commemorat qui Christi obedientiam juâ—tiam nobis imputatam statuunt esse formalem â—â—usam justificationis at haec communis est nostroâ—â—m omnium sententia neque quod ad ipsam rem â—â—tinet quicquam é nostris aliter aut censit aut â—â—ipsit He reckoneth this a second Opinion our Writers That they say Christ's Righteousness is the formal cause of our Justification i. e. its self is our Righteousness but â—â—is is the common opinion of all of us nor did â—â—er any of us write or speak otherways as to â—â—e substance of the thing He also affirms â—â—at all the difference betwixt our Reformers â—â—as only in the manner of expressing themslves and that Calvin who placeth Justification in Remission of sin did yet mean that Reâ—â—ssion to be granted for the Imputed Righteousness of Christ and that to be the Immediate Cause of it and therefore adds as the â—â—mmon Protestant Doctrine p. 313. Absque imputaâ—â—ne obedientiae Christi nulla remissio peccatorum â—â—inetur haec causa est remissionis haec cauâ—â— acceptationis haec causa translationis à statis â—â—rtis ad statum vitae i. e. without the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness there is no forgiveness this is the cause of Pardon this is the cause of our acceptance with God and of our translation from the state of death to the state of life It is suggested that this offence of the Papists occasioned the German Divines to deseâ—â— the Question of Imputation Object So Dr. Tully § 17. q. 17 18 and to dispute what Righteousness of Christ it is by which we are justified and many Learned Men maintained that it was the Passive only Answ This Question arose and was agitated among themselves as Paraeus informs us in his Miscellanies nor did it at all concern the Papisâ—â— who are Enemies to the proper Imputation of Christ's Righteousness passive as well as active against his bearing our sins as well as performing the Law for us And these Divines who maintain the Imputation of Passive Obedience only yet maintain that to be our Formal Righteousness by and for which we are justified and not that it procured a Covenant of Grace only Th. Theol. de Justif Thus Vrsin Justitia Evangelica est poena peccatorum nostrorum quam Constus pro nobis sustinuit credentibus à Deo grâ—tis imputata So Paraeus in the Treatise alledged and Windeline also in his Theologia capde Justif Thes 6. he saith That the instrumental cause of Justification is
that Book which is misrepresented Chap. 22. he proposeth the Question de Just habit actual Whether we are justified by the Obedience or Righteousness of Christ imputed to us and that be the formal cause of Justification Where he explaineth the Nature of Justification of Imputation the Righteousness of Christ and the Formal Cause of Justification in the same terms as we do and without any difference in sence He gives us the Sum in these words p. 313. Vno verbo utcunque Deus sanctificatos nos reputat at que inchoatè justos per impressam inhaerentem qualitatem justitiae tamen justificatos i.e. à peccatis absolutos ad vitam aeternam acceptatos per propter justitiam Mediatoris nobis ab ipso Deo donatam hac side spiritúque applicatam i.e. Though God reputeth us inchoatively righteous or holy by the habit of holiness wrought in us yet he accounts us justified acquitted from sin and accepted to life by and for the Righteousness of Christ given to us by God and applyed by his Spirit and our Faith Then he layers down two Propositions opposite to the Papists which he pursueth to the 30th Chapter The one excludeth Works as the Papists maintain them the other affirmeth that the most perfect Obedience of Jesus Christ dwelling in us and uniting himself to us is the formal cause of our Justification for as much as it is made ours by Faith and by the Gift of God Prop. 1. Christi Mediatoris in nobis habitantis atque per spiritum sese nobis unientis perfectissima obedientia Ibid. est formalis causa justificationis nostrae utpote quae ex donatione Pei applicatione fidei fit nostra Observe he doth not say Christ's righteousness doth in some sence justifie us or is ours for or in some effects but he saith we are justified for that very righteousness or obedience of Christ this is the form whereby we are made righteous or justified in opposition to our own Holiness and that because it is our righteousness from Gods Gift from our Union to Christ and Faith in him and then he lays down the contrary Position of the Papists to be refuted and answereth their Calumnies against our Doctrine of Imputation which are much the same that are scattered in our late Authors The Proposition is Thesis 2. Papistarum Mediatoris obedientia sive justitia non donatur aut applicatur credentibus vice aut per modum causae formalis Ibid. cujus virtute fiducia stant justificati aut Deo ad aeternam vitam acceptati The Bishop goes on and Chap. 24. answereth 11 Arguments of Bellarmin against Imputation mostly the same with those alledged Chap. 4th Chap. 25. ut supra he answereth Bellarmins Citations out of the Fathers against the same Doctrine Chap. 27. He further explaineth the Nature of Imputation and what we mean by a Formal Cause just as we do Chap. 28. He proveth that Christ's Righteousness is imputed as that very Righteousness which justifieth us which he doth by 11 Arguments and by all the same Scriptures out of the New Testament which have been cited above Chap. 3. and by some others all in the same sence which we take them Chap. 29. He alledgeth the Fathers for our Doctrine Chap. 30. He refuteth the Papists slanders in saying that this Doctrine taketh away the necessity of good works where he hath this memorable passage concerning the difference of the two Covenants Lex in conditione operum vitam habet ipsam vim formam icti faederis p. 396. at Evangelium in Mediatoris sanguine fide apprehenso collocat ipsam vim formam operum autem conditionem annectit ut subservientem huic faederi Evangelico non ut continentem aut constituentem ipsum faedus i. e. the Covenant of Works includeth Works in the very form of it as the conditions of that Govenant but the Gospel placeth the form and force of the Covenant in Faith in the Bloud of Christ but that it subjoyneth works as a subservient condition not as containing any part of the Covenant Can any thing be more contrary to the Doctrine we oppose that the Gospel is a Covenant of sincere Obedience and that Obedience is the condition of the new Covenant whereby we must be justified In all this here is not a word favouring this new Opinion Chap. 31. There is something which may bare a colour of some approbation of this Doctrine but it is but a colour He saith that Works are in some sort necessary to Justification and Salvation but that the term necessary ought not to be used in Disputes with Papists or in Discourses to the People lest they ascribe too much to them Concl. 2 3. And in the 4th he saith No works are necessary neither Legal nor Evangelical p. 402. as a Meritorious Cause but conditions of the Covenant are a meritorious cause Nulla opera bona sunt renatis ad salutem aut justificationem necessaria si per necessaria intelligamus sub ratione causae meritoriae necessaria dico nulla ut excludam non solummodò opera legalia sed etiam opera inchoatae justificationis And then Concl. 5th he saith Bona quaedam opera sunt necessaria ad justificationem p. 403. ut conditiones concurrentes vel praecursoriae ut dolere de peccato detestari peccatum consimilia i. e. Some good works are necessary to Justification though not as efficient and meritorious causes yet as previous or concomitant conditions such as sorrow for sin humiliation begging of mercy hoping in it and the like But by this he meaneth not that these dispositions have any direct influence on Justification it self but that they fit the Justified Person to use and improve his Justification This we all acknowledge that ordinarily in persons that can use their reason there are such ministerial preparations both for conversion and justification and yet they are the causes of neither Nor doth this hinder but that God may extraordinarily sometimes work Grace infuse Faith and justifie men without such previous dispositions The reason following shews this was the Bishop's sence For God saith he doth not justifie Stocks and Beasts but Men and those humble contrite and tractable to his Word and Spirit Ibid. Divina enim misericordia non justificat stipites h. e. nihil agentes neque equos mulos h. e. recalcitantes libidinibus suis obstinatè adhaerescentes sed homines eosdémque compunctos contritos ac verbi spiritúsque divini ductum sequentes vid. plura To make it more plain he adds When we say things are necessary it doth not presently follow that they are necessary as causes but for orders sake Not andum quandò dicimus aliquid necessarium ad hoc vel illud obtinendum p. 404. ex ipsa vi verborum non ninuitur necessitas causalitatis sed ordinis Ibid. Concl. 6th he saith further Good works are necessary to
Spirit to abide with us for ever Joh. 14.16 And the powring out of the Spirit was reserved till his Work of Redemption was finished and he should be possessed of Glory John 16.7 And then he promised the Spirit â—o lead us into all truth to reveal himself to us and to glorifie him in us v. 12 13 14. Lastly He prayed for sanctifying Grace and perseverance for them that did and all that should hereafter believe till they all come to be one in him John 17.15 16 21. And wherefore is the Power of giving Grace committed to the Mediatour if not purchased by him and why doth he interceede for that he never bought and paid for If then Christ purchased Grace as well as a Right to Life then Justification giveth a Right to Grace as well as to Life it self and so is more than Pardon 5. I argue from the Impulsive Causes Pardon is an Act of meer Mercy but Justification is an Act of Justice therefore it is not meer Pardon God justifieth Believers not as a meer Act of Favour though free Mercy be the Foundation and the prime impulsive cause of Justification and all the Fruits of it but immediately it is an Act of Justice Justice being the immediate Impulsive Cause It is not only a Just thing with God to justifie a Sinner through Christ that he may do it without wrong to his Justice as some gloss it but it is an Act of proper Justice having received satisfaction to his Law to justifie and acquit him it would not be just to deny it This is intimated Rom. 8.33 35. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect It is God that Justifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who shall indite or implead them in course of Law or Judgment or else there is enough to be charged against them The Reason is because it is God that justifieth God who is to be Judge to give the Sentence and therefore will justifie judicially or as an Act of Judgment And the ground of this is in the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who shall condemn in Judgment seeing Christ has died and so satisfaction is made to Justice When we pardon an Offence which we might justly punish we do cedere de jure forbear our Right and Justice gives place to Mercy but Justice cannot pardon or acquit unless it be satisfied unless it have what is right and due according to Law Object But it is said That God pardoneth legally and judicially by virtue of the Evangelical Law so it is an Act of Justice as well as of Mercy Vid. Justiif Evang. p. 23. So Truman They say a Sinner is not pardoned by Free Grace and Absolute Pardon but upon conditions and terms required in the Gospel to be performed by him which when he hath performed the Evangelical Law doth justifie him pronounce him pardoned and so his Pardon is an Act of Justice according to the Gospel Law though not according to the Law of Works which is content with nothing but Satisfaction Answ Let any fair Disputant judge whether this 〈◊〉 not to shift the Question They have said â—â—at Justification is meer Pardon bare Pardon nothing but Pardon and yet it is not abâ—â—ute Pardon but Pardon upon condition to 〈◊〉 performed by him that will receive Pardon â—â—re not these Conditions when persormed our â—â—angelical Righteousness This they conâ—â—d for And are they not a positive Righteousness Yes they are Gospel Obedience â—â—hat sence is it then to say we are pardoned â—â—thout any positive Righteousness that Pardon alone is all our Righteousness It may be â—â—ese conditions are so small and so necessary to â—â—e receiving of pardon ex natura rei that â—â—y are not to be accounted as any righteousness Nay but in the Gospel Law all the â—â—oral Duties that were required in the Coveâ—â—nt of Works are required still though not â—â—th the same necessity of perfection And â—â—w they are much more difficult than before â—â—me Moral Duties are required also and necessary which were not directly nnd properly â—â—uties under the First Covenant as Self-deâ—â—l Mortification and bearing the Cross â—â—sides these the Gospel prescribeth new posiâ—â—e Duties which neither were nor could be â—â—uties under the Law of Works viz. Faith â—â—ve and Obedience to the Mediator with 〈◊〉 holy and reverend use of all the positive Inâ—â—tutions of the Gospel Are these small things â—â—s it necessary to meer Pardon that the pardoned should not only return to their forme Duty but also receive new Terms and Conditions which were never their Duty before If a Prince subdue Rebels and then promiâ—â— them Impunity if besides returning to theâ—â— ancient Duty and Allegiance they will receive some new Terms which he shall please to impose on them doth he freely pardon them doth he not deal with them as in a way 〈◊〉 Mercy so in a way of Soveraignty givâ—â— them new Laws and making advantage to himself and accession to his Power by occasion 〈◊〉 their misdemeanour Besides this is veâ—â— improper to talk of legal and judicial Pardon Pardon by a Law For a Law is properly preceptive and judicial Proceedings are acquiting or condemning for keeping or breakiâ—â— the Law Pardon is granted by supersedâ—â— the Sentence of the Law at least the Execution of it or by a Promise or Declaration 〈◊〉 Grace which when establisht for securitiâ—â— sake and promulgated is sometimes called aâ— Act of Grace yet it hath not the full Naturâ— of a Law It is the Soveraign Legislator whâ—â— pardoneth who hath power to relax the Execution of the Law a Law cannot pardon But the plain meaning of those men is Thâ—â— God seeing through the Fall it was become impossible for man to keep and so to be saâ—â— by the Law of Works was pleased to maâ—â— a new milder and easier Law and to declaâ—â— that if they would keep it they should 〈◊〉 pardoned and saved Pardon then with theâ—â— is nothing else but a waving of the Covenaâ—â— of Works i. e. God will not proceed with men according to that Covenant if they will submit to his new Covenant so then for all their specious words of meer Pardon to exclude Christ's Righteousness they only mean that God will not execute his First Covenant which men have broken but will save them if they fulfil his Second Covenant i. e. will be righteous and obedient according to the Gospel and thus they acknowledg a righteousness of a man 's own besides pardon whereby he must he justified 6. The Law requireth a positive righteousness by the fulfilling of it The end of every Law being obedience to it Just Evang p. 38 39. Therefore Justification cannot be Pardon of Sin without Imputation of Righteousness 'T is said That the Law of Works required a sinless perfect righteousness which Christ hath satisfied for but the Law of Grace is a better Covenant accepting an imperfect Righteousness But this is nothing to the purpose let the righteousness be
meer pardon if it must rest upon him to satisfie or to provide satisfaction for the Law But doth this hinder God's providing and bestowing on him the righteousness of his Son As a Bankrupt is capable of nothing but to have his debt freely forgiven him for ought that he can do towards satisfaction yet this hindreth not but his Friend may pay the Debt for him and so render him solvent in Law 'T is once more said Object Iustâ—â— Evang p. 35 36. If a Sinner be not made Righteous by pardon but may be counted a Sinner still then by the same reason when Christ his Righteousness is imputed that being not his own Obedience he may be counted a Sinner still and so be Righteous and a Sinner at the same time which implieth a loud Contradiction Answ It is no Contradiction being not eodem respectu not in the same respect or in the same sence A man is a Sinner in himself and righteous in Christ the Law pronounceth him a Sinner and sentenceth him to death but the Law-giver who is above the Law accepteth Christs fulfilling the Law for him and thus being admitted upon Christs account the Law it self must acknowledg him Righteous CHAP. II. The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to Believers explained and proved HAving proved that to Justifie is to accept as Just or Righteous and likewise that our own Obedience is not cannot be the Righteousness wherein we must appear before God it remaineth that it must be the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us for and by which we must be justified and this is now to be proved But before we come to the Proof we shall briefly inquire What we mean by Christs Righteousness and what by the Imputation of it The Righteousness of Christ which we say is imputed to a Sinner for his Justification is that Righteousness which he fulfilled or wrought in conformity to the Law of God whereby the Law violated by us was fulfilled and satisfied for us and in our stead Rom. 10.4 Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth Therefore it is not the Righteousness of his Divine Person which is imputed to us for that is Infinite such as men are uncapable of and 't was never required from them Yet the Perfections of his God-head do add the meritorious Dignity to his Satisfaction Nor is it the connate habitual Righteousness of his Man-hood For this is presuppos'd to enable to the performance of the Law but not properly required by the Law yet the Law requireth the preservation and exercise of perfect inherent righteousness Adam was created perfect to make him capable of receiving a Law of perfect obedience therefore that Law supposed a Holy Nature and only required continuance in that perfection of Nature which he had received In like manner it was necessary that Christ should be born with a perfect holy Nature that he might undertake the fulfilling of the Law for us and the preserving and exercise of that Holiness once received was a part of his obedience to the Law but that Holiness as natural and habitual was antecedent to the obedience of the Law and therefore no prober part of it Christ's Righteousness then which is imputed to us is his Holy Life in obedience to the Law of God and his voluntary obediential suffering the Penalties of the Law unto death it self for us and in our stead By the latter he made satisfaction for our sins and breach of the Law and by the former he fulfill'd the Law in the proper and principal design of it and thereby purchased eternal life which was promised by the Law to them that fulfill it By obeying the substance of the Moral Law as given to Man-kind and suffering death the Penalty thereof he satisfied the Law and wrought Righteousness for men in general and by obeving the Jewish Law and suffering the penalties and that kind of death threatned and accursed particularly by â—t he wrought righteousness for the Jews Gal. 4.4 5. Now when we say This Righteousness of Christ is imputed to Believes reckoned or accounted theirs Rom. 4.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we do not mean that they are accounted to have done and suffered those Actions and Penalties which Christ was Author of and endured Christ and Believers are still distinct natural persons and so the actions and passions of one person cannot be reckoned properly the actions and passions of the other Nor do we teach by imputing Christs Righteousness to Believers that God looketh upon them as if they had done and suffered in their own persons what Christ did in his in any proper sence For Christ only is accounted the Author of his own Righteousness and though Believers be justified by it yet the honour of working that righteousness and of being the proper subject of its Inherence belongeth to Christ alone But by Imputation we mean that God accounteth the Righteousness of Christ to have been wrought by him for every one that believeth and doth justifie or accept them to life eternal for that very righteousness believed or trusted in according to the promise of the Gospel and so Christs Righteousness is reckoned theirs or reckoned to them put to their account as if it were theirs not efficienter but effectivè not as if they had wrought it but that they may have the full benefit of it and be justified by it as effectually as if they had obeyed the Law perfectly in their own persons This is that which our Divines mean by saying Christ righteousness is ours in law that Christ and Believer are one in Law viz. that the Law â—f God is as truly and sully satisfied for us by â—he righteousness of Christ as if we had fulfilled it our selves and that God being pleased â—o admit of the fulfilling of the Law by Christ â—or us the Law doth pronounce us righteous â—nd Heirs of life for that righteousness which Christ wrought in obedience to it In this â—ence also they say That the very formal righteousness of Christ is a Believers righteousness or imputed to him viz. not that a Believer is reckoned to have wrought that righteousness as an efficient cause of it nor that Christs righteousness is transfused into him implanted in him as the subject of inherence â—ut that the very righteousness which Christ wrought was intended and wrought for him by the Son and is accepted for him by the Father that he is justified for it and intituled to life eternal Christ is the efficient the subject of Inherence of his own active passive obedience but the immediate benefit of it as satisfactory to the Law is a Believers and he is the subject of it a subject of external denomination he is denominated righteous from that righteousness wrought for him and accepted in his behalf Thus it is not forma inhaerens but denominans not an internal but an external Form When a Debtor is discharged his Surety paying the Debt
the Debtor cannot properly be said to be the Author of the payment he paid not the Money 't was not his but the Sureties yet the Money being paid for him in his stead for his benefit by the Surety and accepted for him instead of his payment by the Creditor he is a subject of denomination and may be truly accounted a clear and solvent person and the payment imputed to him placed to his account as really and as fully as if he had paid it with his own hand and with his own money Hence some call the Righteousness of Christ the Formal Cause of our Justification Vid. Whitaker de Ecclesia p. 460 461. Synop. Leidens disput 33. Th. 21 23. and others the Matter or Material Cause both mean the same thing viz. That Christs righteousness is the very thing for which we are accepted and justified before God I will not contend about terms of Art in so great a point whereon Salvation depends yet it seemeth more logical to say In Justification man in the Matter or Subject viz. the Person justified Christs righteousness is the Form that by which he is constituted righteous or just before God Imputation Gods accepting this righteousness for him is as the Union betwixt the Matter and the Form even the Application of Christs righteousness to the person justified God the Father is the Efficient accepting or acquitting him for the sake of Christs righteousness The Promise of the Gospel is the medium whereby this righteousness is conveyed and Faith the instrument or disposition in the subject whereby it is rendred capable of receiving Christs righteousness or having it imputed to him And Justification is the Condition or State of a Man accepted with God to life eternal through the righteousness of Christ imputed to him From â—â—ence I inser that Imputation of Christs righteousness and Justification is all one and but â—â—e real Act and so Arctius defines it Justiâ—atio est imputatio justitiae alienae gratuita Lib. Probl. loc 25. faâ—â—a a Deo respectu meriti Filii Dei ad salutem â—â—ni credenti Some learned men make Justication to consist of 2 Acts. The First whereby Christs righteousness is imputed to a Sinâ—er The Second whereby his sins are forgiven and he accepted for the sake of that righteousness But this makes it more perplext that it is to impute righteousness We are righteous with the righteousness of Christ â—â—t in a Physical sence as if it were inherent or adherent to us but judicially We are accepted as righteous i. e. discharged from punishment and intituled to life for it and this 〈◊〉 to be justified We may indeed make it Formal Acts or formally distinct the one thereby Christs righteousness is placed to our account or reckoned to be done for us the â—ther whereby we are accepted or intituled 〈◊〉 life for that righteousness But it 's really â—â—e same thing to account Christs righteousâ—â— be wrought for us to satisfie and fulfill the â—aw of God and to accept us and give us â—ight to life for that righteousness God in â—s Promise proposeth life to Sinners on the account of Christs satisfaction in which when â—â—ey believe and trust there is by virtue of that Promise a Grant and Title to life made other to them and hereby righteousness is imputed to them or they are justified Thus Rom. 4 2. When the Apostle would prove Abraham was not justified by Works he saith v. 3. Faith was imputed to him for Righteousness Then to justifie or impute Christs righteousness is all one and God accounteth us righteous for this righteousness i. e. God justifieth or giveth us eternal life for Christs righteousness and frees us from condemnation Nor is Christ first given to us and then his right ousness as some speak as if we were actually interessed in Christs Person before we are his righteousness God worketh Faith in the Heart which apprehendeth the promise of liâ—â— through the righteousness of Christ and hereby we are accepted and justified and this righteousness is thus made ours or given to us and no other way Afterwards we are adopted and receive the Spirit of Sons by which Spirit we are united to Christ as to our Hear and the Fountain of Spiritual Life and the Christ is most properly given to us or wâ—â— are actually interessed in his person in whom all the Elect have some interest before on the account of Election but this was not actual and proper These things thus explained the Question betwixt us and our Opposites is plainly thâ—â— Whether God justifieth men and intituled them Life for the Righteousness which Christ wrought in fulfilling and suffering the Penalties of the Law The Affirmative is the Protestant Doctrine and now to be proved Argument 1. 1. I argue from the Parallel of Christ and Adam Christ is called the Second Adam the Second Man 1 Cor. 15.45 47. Adam was the Figure of him who was to come viz. Christ Rom. 5.14 Whence is this but in respect of the general Influence of what they did upon the rest of Markind Hence I argue As Adam's Disobedience condemned men so Christ's Obedience acquitteth and justifieth them But the very Acts of Adam's Disobedience are imputed to men to their Condemnation they are condemned for them therefore they that believe have the very righteousness of Christ imputed to them and by that are justified The Major is largely proved by the Apostle Rom. 5.12 ad finem where he sheweth That Justification and Life come into the World in like manner as Death and Condemnation did each by a common Person and by them derived upon the rest of Mankind As many were made Sinners 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one Mans Obedience so by the Obedience of one many shall be made righteous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 19. They are constituted righteous and unrighteous in the same manner unrighteous by Adams disobedience righteous by the obedience of Christ But this I suppose will not be denied and he that denieth the Minor viz. That Adams disobedience is imputed to us as the immediate Cause of our Condemnation is a down right Pelagian But because iâ— this Age all the Foundations are destroyed we shall prove it from the fore-cited Text Rom. 5.12 where the Apostle affirms That by one man Sin and death entred into the World and Death passed upon all men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether we translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iâ— whom all have sinned as the the Fathers did against the Palagians meaning Adam 〈◊〉 whom all his Posterity sinned or in quantum for as much as all men have sinned the Sence is all one Sin and Death came upon all men from one man i. e. Adam and therefore they were all made Sinners in him and by him But this is clearer v. 15. where it is said Many are dead by the Offence of this one man viz. Adam And v. 26. The Judgment or Sentence unto Condemnation came by one man 〈◊〉
it must be by Christ To say that some of it was fulfilled and some Honour done to it by the Mediatorial Law is of small moment for this did not fulfill it or satisfie the End of it The Law as a Law and as a Covenant betwixt God and Man was clearly laid aside if Christ fulfill'd it not and all Mankind after the Fall were by him brought under a Covenant of Grace and so the Law is made void by Faith contrary to the Apostle Rom. 3.31 Our Saviour also testified of himself Mat. 5.17 That he came not to destroy but to fulfill the Law This was the End of his coming into the World and his fulfilling was his obeying performing the Law as he had said before Mat. 3.15 It becometh us to fulfill all Righteousness Therefore he was Baptized and therefore much more ought he to observe the Law which was of ancienter Institution This is confirmed by the Reason he giveth for his fulfilling the Law Mat. 5.18 viz. That not one Jota or Tittle of the Law should pass away till all was fulfilled though Heaven and Earth might pass away The Sanction of the Law is more stable than the Ordinances of Heaven and Earth and must attain its End Therefore every Child of Adam must be subject to it Our Saviour adds v. 19 20. That he was so far from relaxing of the Law that on the contrary he affirmed whosoever should break the least Commands and teach others so should be shut out of Heaven Nay that he required a stricter Observation of it than the Scribes and Pharisees for all their pretended severities in some things Now that all this was meant of the Law as given by Moses chiefly of the Moral Law is manifest by his proceeding to expound and vindicate the Commandments in his following Discourse v. 21. to the end from the slight Comments of their present Teachers In like manner when it is said Christ is the End of the Law for Righteousness to all them that believe Rom. 10.4 It is meant of the Law of Moses for it is immediately added v. 5. Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law that the Man that doth them shall live in them Now Christ is the End of the Law not simply by waving it and disannulling its Obligation for then the Law should not have its End nor be unchangeable as he had told us it was but He is the End of it for righteousness to them that believe by fulfilling it in his own person for them so that their Righteousness or Justification may not depend upon their own Obedience to it Again Christ redeemed us from the Curse of the Law Gal. 3.13 being made a Curse for us How was Christ made a Curse but by bearing the Penalty of the Law for Sin For the Curse is not only the Matter of Punishment the evil inflicted but formal punishment viz. Evil inflicted for Sin for the satisfaction of Justice and the violated Law Now how came this Curse to fall upon Christ Even by the Law it self adjudging him to it For thus the Apostle argueth v. 10. They that are of the Works of the Law under the power of it are under the Curse And v. 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law by being made a Curse for us This is the Argument Men cannot be justified by the Law for that curseth all that are under it but we shall be justified by Faith in Christ v. 12. because he bore the Curse of the Law for us He must therefore be under the Law as we were And it is further proved because it is written i. e. the Law saith Cursed is every one that hangeth on a Tree Deut. 21.23 What is this to the Death of Christ if he were not under the Law And if he were under the Jewish Law which pronounced the Death of the Cross accursed in special manner then by the same reason he was under the Law of Adam which pronounced Death in general as a Curse for Sin Lastly If the Sufferings of Christ were not inflicted by virtue of the Law of Works then they were not Penal nor had they any thing of God's wrath in them for it was that Law only that threatned a Curse They were only Prudential viz. that something should be suffered which that Law threatned that so it might decently be laid aside Now if Christ were subject to the Law as to the Curse he was also subject to the Precept and so his Obedience was in our stead and therefore to be imputed to us for our Justification We were not obliged to the Law of a Mediator Christ fulfilled not that in our stead if then he did and suffered any thing in our stead it was in obedience to our Law and so to be placed to our Account CHAP. III. More Arguments to prove the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us Argument 3. THirdly I argue from those Scriptures which call Christ our Righteousness and say we have Righteousness in him He is not our Righteousness inherently his Righteousness is not implanted in us therefore it is ours by imputation or not at all Isai 45.24 25. Surely shall one say in the Lord have I Righteousness and Strength This is a Prophesie of Christ and Salvation by him which is to be brought about by this means viz. having Righteousness and Strength in him If we translate it as some do In the Lord there is Righteousness and Strength the sence is the same but our Translation agrees best with the following Verse Now how have we strength in Christ Surely he communicates grace and life to us and doth not only procure and grant a Covenant of Grace he must likewise communicate Righteousness to us and that his own not a Righteousness wrought in us or else it is not distinct from grace or strength mentioned in the Text which the next words also confirm In the Lord shall all the Seed of Israel be justified and shall glory It is a justifying Righteousness distinct from Grace or Strength infused into us which we have in Christ and this cannot be ours but by Imputation Jeremiah 23.5 6. This is the Name whereby Israel shall call him The Lord our Righteousness Who this is the former words shew sc the Righteous Branch to be raised up to David i. e. Christ as also the Reason of this Name because in his days his People shall be saved and chiefly with a Spiritual Salvation this is because he is Jehovah our Righteousness Our Salvation springs primarily from hence That we are made righteous or justified before God and this righteousness comes from Christ As God is our Wisdom our Strength c. because he is the Author of it in us and to us as also our Guide and Protector so Christ is our righteousness i e. the Author of righteousness to us and that he will justifie us by it Object Some object against this That in chap. 33. v. 15 16. Jerusalem the Church seems
excellency of the Knowledge of Christ Jesus c. that I may win Christ and be found in him c. From hence it appeareth that the Apostle speaks of Justification by Christ in opposition to being justified by any thing else and of rejoycing in him contrary to any rejoycing in our selves In the 9th v. therefore he opposeth being found in Christ to having his own Righteousness which is of the Law sc of any works whatsoever and explaineth it by having the Righteousness of Faith the Righteousness which is of God by Faith What can the Righteousness of God mean when opposed to his own Righteousness of the Law but either the Righteousness of him which is God or a Righteousness which God provideth for him and which he did not work himself which is Christ's Also the Righteousness of Faith is opposed to the Righteousness of the Law and the Righteousness of God by Faith opposed to the same Righteousness of the Law must be a Righteousness which God gives us by believing and this is the Righteousness of Christ imputed Object It is excepted By the Law he means the Jewish Law and by his own Righteousness he means that which was his own when a Jew Hotchkis p. 190. not that which was his own when a Convert to the Christian Faith and that the things there opposed are Judaism and Christianity or Judaical Observances and the practical knowledge of Christ so that our own Evangelical Righteousness is not there opposed to the Obedience of Christ 1. Answ If the Apostle here only compare the Jewish and Christian Religion then all he meaneth is that the Christian Religion is far more excellent than the Jewish but he cannot oppose them properly in the matter of Justification For the sincere Practice of the Jewish Religion did justifie the Jews according to this opinion as well as the Practice of Christian Religion justified Christians Yea methinks these Authors who some of them can allow the Idolatrous Heathens to be justified by their obedience to the Law of Nature and hope in God's Mercy though they have no express knowledge of Christ should not deny that Jews may be saved by their Religion and their Hope in the Messias if they be only ignorant who he is and not malicious against him If so there must be more meant by opposing Faith to the Works of the Law then the Law meerly as Jewish 2ly The Apostle doth not only renounce the Works of the Jewish Law but all other things which may be thought matter of confidence in our selves v. 8. 3ly There is the same reason for the renouncing Christian as Jewish Works in Justification and those are Works of the Flesh when trusted and rejoyced in as well as these For the Moral Law is the same to Christians as it was to the Jews and all the Evangelical Precepts were the same to the Jews as to us if then they could not justifie them they cannot justifie us But if this Author intend only the Ceremonial Law it is contrary to the Text for after mention of the External Rights and Privileges the Apostle saith He was blameless as touching the Righteousness of the Law which must mean the Moral Law and the Ceremonial Law when in force had its part in justifying as well as the Moral and now it is abrogated it cannot be damning if practised out of ignorance only Acts 21.20 c. But that the Righteousness of the Law here doth by parity of reason exclude Christian Obedience from Justifying is thus proved This is not the Righteousness of God sc of God's providing but our own Righteousness as well as Jewish Obedience was It is also the righteousness of a Law the Gospel Law though not the Jewish Law Melanct. in Rom. p. 8. Vocari lex debet ubicunque praecepta leguntur sive in libris Mosis sive in libris Apostolorum c. And further It is not the righteousness of Faith or by Faith any more than the Works of Jews For No Law is of Faith but be that doth it shall live by it Gal. 3.12 It is spoken immediately of the Jewish Law but the Reason extendeth it to every Law he that is justified by obedience to any Law liveth by it is justified by doing it not by believing And it may be said of the Gospel in our Authors Sence He that doth it shall live by it as truly as of the Law of Moses or Adam It hath also been shewed that the Law hath some Faith joyned with it viz. the trust to be justified by performing that Law and therefore when doing and believing are opposed as irreconcileable extreams in Justification believing must mean a trust in anothers Righteousness not in our own for that is doing and thus the righteousness of Faith here excludeth all our own Works therefore must be the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us Add to all this That the Apostle in this place doth not speak of Christian Religion as this Author saith or of the Doctrine of Christ but of his Person and what he wrought for us For having exprest his desire of being found in him not having his own righteousness c. he subjoyneth immediately v. 10 11. That I may know him and the Power of his Resurrection and the Fellowship of his Sufferings c. If by any means I might attain unto the Resurrection of the Dead And v. 12. That I might apprehend that for which I am apprehended of Christ These things concern Christ himself not the Precepts of his Religion Object The general Evasion whereby those men wave the force of these and the like Scriptures is this Hotchkis p. 44 c. That Christ's Righteousness or Obedience is ours in the Fruits and Effects of it but not our Righteousness properly viz. That Christ's Righteousness is not that for which we are accepted of God immediately Trueman Gr. Prop. p. 116. but that it is the morally efficient or meritorious Cause of our Righteousness i. e. that we shall be accepted with God if we fulfill the Commands of the Gospel because Christ hath removed the Old Covenant of Works and purchased this New Covenant for us 1. Answ Here it may not be amiss to advertise the Reader of the equivocation that lies in these Words especially as used by some Authors whereby they hide their sence and deceive many sc when they oppose the Imputation of Christs righteousness to the Fruits and Effects of it which with us are not opposite For by imputation of his righteousness we do not mean that Christs righteousness is transferred to us and made inherently ours or that we can be denominated righteous by it as if we had wrought that righteousness but we mean that for the obedience of Christ God doth immediately pardon and justifie them that trust in it and give them a right to all the Fruits of it as truly and validly as if it were their own personal righteousness so that God doth
hereupon account the Law to be satisfied and like to be purchased for them without any thing to be further done by them as a condition of life But their true Sence is That the Obedience of Christ is ours remotely only sc that it hath merited a New Covenant which if we perform we shall live 2ly According to this Sence Christs righteousness is no way our righteousness It may be the means of benefit to us but it doth in no sence make us righteous or is the cause of our righteousness or justification which the Scriptures alledged do intend This is thus proved It is none of the four kind of Causes nor reducible to them therefore it is no Cause The Antecedent I thus prove It is not the Material or Formal Cause this they grant For then we must be immediately justified by it it must compose our righteousness they sometimes call it the matter of our righteousness but without sence It is not the Final Cause Christs righteousness is not the end for which we are justified It is not the Efficient neither Physical nor Moral Not Physical for then Christs obedience must actively work obedience or righteousness in us which is absurd Not a Moral Cause or Meritorious which they most insist on For Christ did not merit Grace whereby we should obtain the Gospel and so be justified as they acknowledge seeing he died for all alike though thus he would be but a remote meritorious Cause of Justification meriting that for which we should be justified but he merited only the Covenant of Life upon sincere obedience to the Law he should prescribe All then that he is the Meritorious Cause of is the New Covenant for when this Covenant is promulgated it is left to men whether they will obey or no and so whether they will be justified or no He hath merited nothing further Now if any man come to be justified by performing the condition of this Covenant can Christ be said to merit this Justification for him which as to his Merits was contingent might or might not be and depended wholly upon his own Will and Obedience If a man procure a Charter for a Town and make them a Corporation thereby and by virtue of this Charter they that serve an Apprentiship shall have the Privileges and Freedom of this Town shall it be said of those that thus come into the Freedom some hundred years after that their Freedom was merited bought or procured by him that procured the Charter Surely they themselves merit their Freedom the other was but an Instrument of procuring the Charter In like manner if Christ only merited the Covenant by performing whereof men shall be justified surely men themselves are the proper meritorious immediate causes of their own Justification or Righteousness because they fulfill the condition whereto it is promised and which is the formal righteousness for which they are justified and Christ is but an Instrument of procuring the Covenant and an improper remote and contingent cause of their Justification by their fulfilling it And thus in their sence Christ is no true Cause of our Righteousness Argument 4. Fourthly Mat. 20.28 I argue from these Scriptures which say Christ laid down his Life as a Ransom for us redeemed us 1 Tim. 2.6 Col. 1.14 Tit. 2.14 Rev. 1.5 Isa 43.3 Exod. 30.10 11. Num. 18.15 that in him we have redemption and that he washed us from our Sins in his own Blood From whence I argue Redemption is of persons a ransom and price is paid for persons not for Laws and Covenants and this was typified by the redemption of Israel out of Aegypt whom God saith he redeemed and gave Nations for them By the Redemption of the First Born and of the whole People whenever they were numbred and by the year of Jubilee which is called the Year of Redemption I subsume Ransoms and Redemptions if not paid and purchased by the Persons themselves who were in Bondage are imputed to them i.e. they are immediately delivered set at liberty by the payment of them as much as if they had paid the Prize themselves Therefore if Christ properly redeemed bought purchased us paid a Ransom or Prize for us then it is imputed to us we must be delivered by that very prize and ransom as much as if we had paid it our selves Our Opposites are loath to speak down-right with the Socinians and to deny that Christ's Death was a Prize and Ransom for us but they must and do interpret this Ransom Prize Redemption c. to be all improper and metaphysical Thus Mr. Trueman saith That the immediate Effect of Christ's Satisfaction was only a Satisfaction to Justice Gr. Prop. p. 86. that God might be juâ—â— though he should pardon Sinners and that he might pardon them salvâ justitiâ upon what terms he pleases not that he must pardon them come what will of it or else be unjust not that Sinners should ipso facto be pardoner the Prize being undertaken paid and accepted And again p. 89. Christ's Sufferings were not proper payment but a valuable consideration or you may call it a refuseable payment though it be not properly payment at all And Mr. Hotchkis paraphraseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tix 2.6 not a Ransom but something instead of a Ransom they do therefore implicitely yield if Christs death was a Ransom and Prize for us that then we must be immediately delivered by it which is all one with his Righteousness being imputed to us and in denying the Imputation of Christs Righteousness they do deny That his death was a Ransom Prize or Payment for us against the current of the Scriptures They make all the Effect of the Obedience of Christ to be only the removing of that necessity which lay upon God to condemn all men for breaking the First Covenant so that he might if he pleased save Sinners by any other Covenant p. 86. So Trueman exprefly From whence it follows That notwithstanding the death of Christ God might have refused to have made a New Covenant or to have saved any Sinner if he pleased Which also the Synod of Dort charged upon the Dutch Arminians Proprium integrity finem mortis Christi fuisse Act. Syn. Dordr in Judic Theol. Mag. Bri. Art 2. ut Deo Patri acquireret jus potestatem servandi homines quibus vellet conditionibus How far then was Christ from redeeming men if God after the death of Christ would have been just though he should have saved no man Moreover how can we be said to be washt with Christs Blood if Pardon and Justification was not immediately procured by it Under the Law when the People were sprinkled with the Blood of t e Sacrifice in allusion to which Christs Blood is called the Blood of Sprinkling Heb. 12.24 they were immediately discharged from gâ—ilt and reconciled If then we are sprinkled or washt with Christs Blood we must in like manner be justified and reconciled by
did they are accounted to have done Christ was a common and publick person in that he intended his Obedience not for himself nor for any one person but for the whole Company of the Elect Christ and they are one in Law in that the benefit of his satisfying the Law was intended for them and in time conferred on them But he was not a common person or one in Law with them so as they might be properly reckoned to have done what he did for this holdeth only where the common person is a Delegate or Commissioner of others when they appoint him their Representative give him his Instructions and Authority to act in their Name then they are lookt upon as doing what he doth and not else But it was God the Father and not Men that sent Christ and appointed him to die for the Elect gave him all his Instructions what to do and suffer and then accepted it for them being done by his own Appointment not by theirs But are we not made Righteous with Christ's Righteousness Quest and so may be accounted to have obeyed or fulfilled the Law in him Answ We are made righteous with his righteousness not morally as if we were made personally Holy and obedient by it or were so accounted by God but legally we are made righteous that is justified by his righteousness acquitted from condemnation and accepted to life eternal Therefore we are justified as sinners as ungodly Rom. 4.5 7. in the way of repentance and acknowledgment of our sins by faith in the promise of life through Christ But we are not justified as innocent or blameless in our selves Justification doth not find us righteous but makes us righteous viz. it acquitteth and reconcileth us guilty condemned sinners for the righteonsness of Christ and thus we are made righteous in Law such as shall not be condemned but have eternal life Are we then justified according to the Premiant and Retributive part of the Law Quest and not according to the Preceptive part also Answ We are justified according to the Precept as well as according to the Promise Christ having fulfilled or obeyed the Precepts for us and thereby procured all the reward that was promised with some addition of happiness because of the eminency of his Person and Obedience He also purchased deliverance from the Curse threatned by undergoing the Curse for us yet we cannot be said to have obeyed the Precepts or to have born the Curse in him in any proper sence He did it in our behalf that we might thereby be justified and brought to life as certainly as if we were innocent but not that we should be accounted really innocent in our own persons M. Baxt. 4. disput of Just p. 263. As for the distinction of Righteousness according to the Precept and according to the Sanction or retributive part of the Law and that again divided into the promise and the threatning Idem Answer to Dr. Tully p. 50. Righteousness according to the Promise being jus ad donum a right to the thing promised and righteousness according to the threatning being jus ad impunitatem a right to impunity or to escape punishment this distinction I say as to the matter of Justification is very needless and impertinent For it is the fulfilling of the Precept which gives right to the reward promised and the violation of the Precept which intituleth to punishment What though the righteousness of obedience to the Precept and the right to the blessing of the Promise differ as the cause effect yet the latter doth oppose the former when we are to be justified before God so that if we have right to life on the account of Gods Promise to the righteousness of Christ and this righteousness be his obeying the precept of the Law then his obedience to the precept is imputed to us also and is the foundation of our right to the Promise The like is to be said of our right to impunity which is founded upon Christs suffering the punishment for us and therefore his suffering the penalty is imputed to us also and thus that which is built upon this distinction falls to the ground viz. That Righteousness as to the Promise and Threatning of the Law being in some sort distinct from the Righteousness of Obedience to the Precept that therefore we may have the former without the latter i.e. we may have a right to life by the promise of the Gospel and a right to be delivered from wrath and yet Christ's Righteousness of Obedience and Suffering not to imputed to us For this is the immediate Cause and Foundation of our right both to avoid the penalty and inherit the promise The rest of Mr. Trueman's Arguments I pass by as being directed against the Antinomians only and not touching us as also what he writes against the Imputation of Christ's active and passive Obedience in the sence before explained which is repeated by a later Author Just Evang p. 54. as being partly impertinent and partly answered in the first Chapter This later Author giveth us three Arguments against the Imputation of Christs Righteousness p. 56. though he doth as the others before him miss the state of the Question reporting our Opinion thus That Christ's Righteousness is so imputed to us as if we are accounted to have personally done and suffered what he did p. 57. His third Argument runneth wholly upon this mistake therefore I shall pass it by the two first deserve some consideration The First Argument is If every Believer be personally righteous before God in the very individual Acts of Christs Righteousness p. 58. one of these two things will thence ensue Either that Christ in his own person did perform all the particular Acts of Righteousness required as due from each saved person or else That every saved persons righteousness before God is identically and numerically the same with Christ in his publick capacity as Mediator and so every saved person is personally righteous with a Righteousness that hath a stock of merit in it sufficient to save the World Answ This Argument is untrue both in the dilemma and in the consequence In the dilemma because there is no opposition betwixt the Members of it viz. Christs performing the obedience due from every Believer and their being righteous with a Righteousness that hath an infinite merit in it These are not destructive the one of the other The consequence is untrue because neither of these things follow from the Doctrine of Imputation The Error of this worthy person proceeded from his thrusting two Arguments into one when the Form of it would not bear it I shall therefore take leave to separate them and answer them apart The one is If we be justified by the very personal Righteousness of Christ then he must have performed all the Duties that belong to every particular Believer the Ceremonial and the Moral to the married and to the
Sanâ—tification Glory and all the good which ever â—â—e receive to be given us freely in his own time and on his own terms by his New Covenant by â—is Spirit and by his Providence and that we are as justly and certainly justified pardoned and saved by and for this meritorious Righteousness and Sacrifice of Christ as if we had done and suffered all our selves and that he suffered for us and in our stead that we might not suffer and fulfill'd all Righteousness for us that were Sinners to those proper uses we have and need no other Righteousness and though it be not Scripture Phrase we may truly say that thus Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us c. This was writ to avoid the charge of denying Imputation of Christ's Righteousness and therefore worded in Protestant Phrases as much as could be and yet a different sence couche in them viz. in those words to be given us on his own terms and by his New Covenant whereby is intended that Christ merited â—â— Reconciliation Justification c. to be given to us as the immediate Effects of his Purchase but to be given us upon the fulfilling the Commands of the Gospel so that it is â—â— Christ's Righteousness that justifies us or â— imputed to us to Justification but it did only merit a New Covenant or Law by fulfilling whereof we should be justified We shall not endeavour to make plain what these men would obscure and hide viz. the difference betwinâ— them and us in the point of Imputation It is the usual Protestant Doctrine that Jesus Christ undertook to fulfill that Law which men broken and to bare that Punishment which their Since deserved in the behalf of his Elect and that God accepting this undertaking of his from Eternity and the performance of it in time did therefore promise and grant pardon of sin right to eternal life and his Spirit and all spiritual blessings to be conferred upon each of these Elect Persons when by the Grace of Christ they should claim them and put their trust in him Hereupon we say when a man is actually pardoned and intituted to life by virtue of this undertaking and grant that Christ's Righeousness is imputed to him i. e. that these benefits are bestowed upon him for that Righteousness which Christ wrought and â—â—d accepted and he flyeth to for Salvation â—â—d for no other reason And hereupon ariâ—â—h in justified persons an immutable right to â—â—e and the Grace of God to bring them to it â—ereupon they may be certain of their Perseâ—â—rance and Salvation But on the contrary â—â—ese men teach first That though Christ â—â—d materially fulfill the Law broken by men â—â—d bore the Punishment due to their sins 〈◊〉 did many things which the Law commanâ—â—d and suffered many things which it threatâ—d against Sin yet that he did not intend directly and properly to satisfie that Law by oâ—â—ying the Precepts and undergoing the Penalâ—â—s of it but did only fulfill the Law of a Meâ—â—ator imposed upon him and peculiar to him which was to do and suffer such things as God â—â—eased to enjoyn him 2ly That this which â—hrist did and suffered did respect and was intended not for any particular persons but â—â—r all mankind equally as Adam's Sin did â—â—y That therefore this Obedience or Righâ—â—ousness of Christ did not purchase Pardon â—â—stification or any of the Fruits of it for all 〈◊〉 for any man immediately 4ly But that 〈◊〉 procured this only That God being content â—â—ot to insist upon the Law of Innocency and 〈◊〉 hold man to that which was now become â—â—possible through the weakness of sinfull â—â—esh he should grant a Covenant of sincere â—bedience to them that would repent of their â—â—rmer sins and receive Christ for their Lord â—â—nd Saviour that they should be saved as â—ertainly as if they had not broke the Law of Innocency or had satisfied it when broken 5ly And therefore their Justification must be mutable as their sincere obedience is 6ly This is then that which they mean by Impuâ—â—tion of Christ's Righteousness and its pâ—â—chasing Justification for us viz. That it waâ— a means of taking the Covenant of Works on of the way and of procuring a New Covenant of sincere Obedience which if men do perform they shall be justified or live by it notwithstanding their sins and imperfections aâ—â— much as they should have been justified bâ— doing the Law of Works so that this Coâ—â—nant being the Effect of Christ's Death 〈◊〉 the Benefits of it Justification Adoption c. are to be reckoned the Fruits of it alâ—â— and when we enjoy these Benefits his Righteousness is imputed to us i.e. we receive the Benefit of that Covenant which his righteouâ—â—ness purchased Now I demand what it is thâ—â— justifyeth or giveth us a right to life immediately and properly By this Doctrine it is our fulfilling of the New Govenant the Christ's Righteousness doth not properly â—â—stifie us or immediately procure our Pardâ—â— or Life then this Righteousness is not impâ—â—ted to us for Justification To call this Impâ—â—ting of Christ's Righteousness to us is a sence so remote from the state of the question which is By what Righteousness we are justified immediately before God and from the very Notion of the word Imputation and impâ—â—ting or reckoning to one that I cannot callâ—â— less than equivocation or trifling Object But they say that Faith and Repentance or â—ur fulfilling of the Gospel-Covenant is a means â—f applying Christ's imputed Righteousness 4 disp of Just p. 264. â—nd so is a Righteousness subordinate and subservient to his not at all derogating from 〈◊〉 Answ By applying Christ's Righteousness they â—â—ean that then we have the Benefits and Effects of Christ's satisfaction when we have fulfilled the Terms of the Gospel As when a Man hath served his Apprentiship in a Corporation then he enjoyeth the Privileges of the Charter which was boutht or given many â—ears before but will any man say that then â—he buying or procuring of the Charter is â—mputed to him They teach that God hath â—romised to pardon and save them that obey â—is Gospel what is it then that gives the immediate right to Pardon and Salvation that â—s constitutive of a man justified in Law is it â—ot this Obedience to the Gospel Then this â—s it which is imputed to a man for righteousness but Christ's righteousness is not applied is that which doth constitute us righteous for which we are justified but when we are justified by our obedience to the Gospel this is a favour which we should never have had if Christ had not purchased it To call this applying or imputing of Christ's Righteousness â—s to hide a Heterodoxie with usual and Orthodox terms Object But the same Author acknowledgeth that Christ's Righteousness is our only legal righteousness or rather pro-legally p. 274. Ibid. a righteousness instead of our righteousness or obedience to the Law passim Answ If Christ fulfilled the
Faith or Affiance in that thing for which we are acquitted in the Judgment of God and taken into favour even the Merit of Christ Instrumentalis of sides h. e. fiducia qua id amplectimur nobis â—pplicamus per propter quod in judicio Dei absolvimur à maledictione legis in gratiam reâ—ipimur nempe Christi meritum And Thes 7. That the satisfaction of Christ for our sin or his Passive Righteousness is that for which or by which we are justified Materia ejus est id â—â—er quod propter quod coram tribunali divino â—â—maledictione legis absolvimur innocentes â—â—usti reputamur est id perfecta Christi pro nobis satisfactio qua poenas propter peccata nobis deâ—â— it as nostro loco ipse fuit c. And that Mr. Gataker hereafter quoted was of the same mind â—s evident from his learned posthumons Treaâ—ise of Justification In all this here is no footstep of our Author's Notion of Imputation â—or the question is not What Righteousness of Christ is imputed but How it is imputed whether formally properly and immediately as all these Divines affirm or remotely only â—â—mediately and metaphorically as some of late â—â—contend In England most Divines used the Phrase Object Ibid. § 18. That we were justified by the Forgiveness of Sin and the Impputation of Christ's Righteousness and being accepted as righteous unto life thereon but the Sence of Imputation few pretended accurately to discusse c. Answ True they did not distinguish away the sence of Imputation leave only an equivocal term Our Homilies speak expresly that we may be said to have obeyed and suffered in what Christ hath done and suffered for us ut supra cap. 2. The Doctrine of the Church of England hath been constantly that we are justified by Faith as an Hand receiving as an Instrument applying the righteousness of Christ as is manifest by the Homilies King Edward's Catechism composed by Dr. Ponet B. of Winchester where the Phrase of Faith being an hand is extant by the 39 Articles with Articles of Lambeth the whole University of Cambridge in the Recantation which they enjoyned Barret by the Articles of Ireland composed by English men mostly and by the publick Question disputed in both Universities collected out of their publick Records by Mr. Prin in his Antiarminianism and sure this is nothing to Christ's procuring a Covenant of Obedience and justifying us by that Nor do Mr. Wotton's three Assertions as here alledged overthrow the substance of our Doctrine We grant there is an over rigid sence of these words We are justified by Christ's fulfilling the Law as if we had fulfilled it in him Yet this proveth not That we are not justified immediately by Christ's fulfilling the Law as intended and wrought for us Pag. 24 25. the Author gives us his own sence viz. That all the Righteousness of Christ habitual active passive and divine as advancing them in value is the meritorious cause of our Justification But are we accepted and justified immediately for this Righteousness No Yet that is the Imputation all former Divines maintained How then Why for this Righteousness God maketh a Covenant of Grace in which he freely giveth Christ Pardon and Life to all that accept the Gift as it is so that the Accepters are by his Covenant or Gift as surely justified and saved by Christ's Righteousness as if they obeyed and satisfied themselves c. viz. That the conditions of the Gift in the Covenant of Grace being performed by every penitent Believer that Covenant doth pardon all their sins as God's Instrument and giveth them a right to eternal life for Christ's Merit This is a confession of what we represented before sc That the fulfilling the Gospel-conditions of faith repentance c. is the righteousness which gives us the immediate right to pardon and life and that Christ's righteousness only merited this grant of life upon those conditions It might be expected by this History of the controversie that some Divine should have been quoted which taught this Doctrine but alas here is not one since the Reformation Therefore I shall quote the true Authors of this Opinion after I have vindicated B. Davenant and Mr. Bradshaw who are here and elsewhere ingeniously represented as laying the ground of this Opinion and as maintaining Imputation in another sence than all had done before them For the most Learned and Pious Bishop It is said p. 18 19. That though he most stifly defended Imputation in words yet when he telleth what Protestants mean by it he saith That our own Actions and Passions and Qualities may not only be imputed to us but also some extrinsecal thing neither inherent in us nor done by us de facto autem imputantur quando illorum intuitus respectus valent nobis ad aliquem effectum aequè ac si a nobis aut in nobis essent i.e. They are imputed when the sight or respect of them doth profit us for any effect as much as if they were in us or done by us Note that he saith but ad aliquem effectum non ad omnem i.e. to some not to every effect Answ By this we are to understand that the Bishop meant Christ's Righteousness was imputed for some certain Effect viz. To procure a New Covenant not immediately to justifie us I see I need not despair but my Books hereafter may be quoted for metaphorical imputation In truth the Bishop doth not say ad aliquem tantùm but to some effect but aliquem effectum simply meaning quemvis any effect sc That things without us he intends Christ's Righteousness may be imputed i.e. profit us to any effect as well as things in us or done by us and that the following Similitudes shew of a slothful person promoted for the Merits of his Ancestors or a Malefactor pardoned by anothers suffering in his stead which in both cases is done by the immediate impâ—tation of such merits and suffering without performing conditions by the Parties But that the Bishop maintained imputation in the same sence that we do and almost in the same words is so evident that I am ashamed to produce the Proofs in so clear a case His 37th Determination is That Justifying Faith is fiducia affiance in God for the remission of sins through the satisfaction of Christ that this is the very formal Act of Justifying Faith His 8th Determination is That the Sanctified may be sure of Salvation which will not consist with conditional Justification and one Proof is Arg. 4. As it is most certain that Christ paid a sufficient price for all men so it is no less certain hanc satisfactionem omnibus fidelibus paenitentibus imputari applicari quasi ab illis ipsis Deo oblata praestita fuisset i.e. That this satisfaction is imputed to all Believers as if they themselves had made it and offered it to God But I shall confine my self to
Christ say they did in no proper sence satisfie 〈◊〉 and therefore his Obedience could have â—o proper respect to Divine Justice much less â—o sin that had offended Justice 5ly Nor was Christ's Death a Propitiation â—r Atonement for our sins The Apostle 1 Joh. 2.1 saith That Christ was a Propitiation for our Sins that he loved us and washed us from our sins with his own Bloud Apâ—â— 1.5 But this is true only accidentally and eventually if the immediate effect of Christ's death was only that God might pardon not that he must and it was not the prime and principal intention of his death Since God hath pleased to grant terms of Salvation upon the death of Christ his death may improperly be said to have made atonement or reconciliation for them because it occasioned it 〈◊〉 made some way for it but that which left God still intirely free to pardon or not that did not appease his Anger remove his displeasure reconcile him or obtain his good Will as is the nature of a Propitiation or propitiatory Sacrifice nor was it immediately 〈◊〉 directly intended for that end 6ly Nor can it properly be ascribed to God's Love to the World that he gave his Son to die or to the Son's Love to Mankind that he gave himself For if love to men were the Motive of Christ s Obedience and Death both to the Father and the Son men's Salvation would have been immediately designed and intended in it it would have been medium ordinatum a proper means design'd to bring about their Salvation But they tell us it was designed only to save God's Honour in case he should forgive Sinners but not that he had obliged himself any way to do it no nor that he had resolved with himself or deliberately purposed to grant terms of Salvation when he sent his Son into the World or when he laid his wrath a curse upon him it seems God did not yet know what use he would make of the Death of his Son neither could the Son know when the Father was not resolved Thus we see this Opinion overthroweth the whole Nature and Intendment of Redemption and Christ's Merit Satisfaction Ransom Sacrifice and all that belong to it are but improper Metaphors and the greatest Mystery of Godliness must fly for refuge to a poor Trope to save it from being an untruth and Christ himself must be at most but an honorary Mediator and Redeemer The Second Opinion concerning the End of Christ's death is That he died to purchase the Covenant of Grace or Conditions and Terms of Salvation by the fulfilling whereof men might be saved Thus the Arminians used to speak That Christ died viam salutis pandere to open a way for Mens Salvation to purchase conditions whereupon they might be saved whereas before their Salvation was impossible by reason of the Curse or Sentence of the Law of Works Act. Syn. Dort Art 2. Remon Christus merito mortis suae Deum Patrem universo generi humano hactenus reconciliavit ut Pater propter ipsius meritum salva justitia veritate sua novum gratiae foedus cum peccatoribus damnationi obnoxiis hominibus inire sancire potuerit voluerit Thus Mr. Baxter faith That Christ purchased Justification and life to be given by his New Covenant not that he purchased these absolutely to be certainly given to any persons but that he purchased a Covenant or Law of Grace whereby these are promised upon condition of Faith and Obedience And this must be the sence if any of those that assert Christ dying for all men to make them salvabiles salvable and to render their Salvation possible being impossible before while the Law of Works stood in such sorce For before Christ's death Mens Salvation was possible to God no new power was acquired to him and possible in its self Men being subjects naturally capable of Salvation this possibility then must be a possibility in Law as we say id possumus quod jure possumus that Christ purchased a Law and grant of Salvation upon certain Terms whereby it now became possible for all Men to be saved if they should have sufficient notice of it This Opinion is a little more plausible but no more true than the former which I thus prove 1. It cannot be conceived how Christ did purchase this Covenant according to the rest of their Notions The occasion or ground of this Purchase was That God was bound by his own Law of Works violated by Men to condemn them without Mercy Now then could this Obligation be dissolved without satisfaction to and fulfilling that Law which yet they will not allow Christ to have done unless per accidens as part of it is comprised in that special Law of Mediator which was given to him If it was the Law which hindered God from shewing mercy and made mans Salvation impossible then that Law doth oblige God to see it fulfilled or else to grant no life to Sinners and if Christ did not fulfil it nor was made properly subject to it as they teach then he could not properly purchase a Covenant of life if he did fulfil it for sinners then they must be discharged by his satisfaction without further conditions imposed on them as hath been often said They say the Law of Works was neither abolished nor fulfille by Christ but relaxed I suppose they mean That God did not insist upon the absolute performance of the Law but was pleased to admit of an aequivalent reparation of his Honour by the Obedience of Christ to that Law which he should impose on him wherein should be comprehended a great part of the Moral Law I reply If God did relax the Law so as not to require the proper fulfilling of it then he did lose the obligation which was laid upon him to see it fulfilled The ordinate or relative Justice of God obliged him to proceed according to that Law and if he admitted of another way of reparation to his Honour he did not proceed in a way of Justice in all that he laid upon Jesus Christ and he might as well have saved Man without the Obedience of Christ as with it his Justice or Law allowing that relaxation no more than a total superseding or laying aside the Law by this purchase therefore they can mean no more but that Jesus Christ did so honour the Father by his Obedience and Sufferings that he might with Decorum to his Majesty give to Sinners terms of Salvation and would do it but this is no purchase which transferreth a legal right to the Purchaser if the Purchase be accepted but dependeth meerly upon Promise or Terms of Honour It is also great presumption for Men to judge what is becomming Divine Majesty and what will salve his Honour other then what is according to his Law or Promise wherers here they make him to wave his own declared Law founded in the highest reason and equity 2ly Nor in this sence is the death
promised life by it 〈◊〉 to use the Ordinances and promised grace by them and that in believing him we shall have life everlasting So Faith as the rest is Gods instrument as to appointment anâ— success ours as to the use and practice of it 〈◊〉 only it is not proper to call it a passive instrument as some do or to say it justifies passively whose mistake is rather in the term thaâ— in the sence For Faith is a Moral not 〈◊〉 proper Physical instrument which only can be passive Again a passive instrument is thaâ— which hath no activity at all but is meerly used by the Agent in his action as a Knife Saw or the like but Faith justifieth actively or as a grace whereby the whole Soul understanding the promise of pardon in Christ accepts it trusteth in it expecteth Salvatioâ— only that way now this is a moral reception or acceptation of and dependance upon Christ in the Promise not a Physical passiveness as the term seems to imply We are now to prove That we are thus justified by Faith as hath been laid down because though the Scripture is full and express for it in many places yet other sences are now put upon them Argument 1. Faith is the means of obtaining all particular merits both spiritual and temporal only by trusting in the promise of them hence blessedness is ascribed to trusting in God Ps â—4 13 and many times God delivered men because they trusted in him 2 Chr. 20.20 Obedience qualifies and fits the subject to receive â—ercies but still Faith is supposed as that â—hich giveth right to mercies The Vertues 〈◊〉 Unbelievers have no promise the promise to Faith therefore Justification also comâ—â— by Faith in the Promise of pardon for â—ere is the same reason for all the Promises â—aith as faith obtain other Promises why â—t this also besides the Promise of Justification is the foundation of all the rest and â—â—udes them virtually therefore if Faith enâ—â—le to all other Promises and Mercies much â—â—re to this nay Faith in particular Promiâ—â— obtains mercy chiefly upon this account â—â—cause it hath first obtained reconciliation â—â—h God and the promise of his love in Christ for upon this all promises are founded and true trusting in them doth suppole our trusting in God first for Justification yea is a secondary act of the same Faith 2 Cor. 1.24 Argument 2. As Abraham was so are all men justified Gal. 3.7 8 9. all Believers are his Seed anâ— blessed with him and in the same way buâ— Abraham was justified by Faith as it is a trusting in the promise of God viz. a promisâ—â— that he and all the World should be blesseâ— in Christ Ergò That Abraham was thus justified the Apostle affirms Gal. 3.6 He believed and it was imputed to him for righteousness and this believing is opposed to seeking righteousness by the works of the Law v. 10. Thsy that are of the Law are not blessed with Abraham but under the Curse because thâ—â— keep not the whole Law which comprehenâ—â— the Moral as well as Ceremonial thereforâ— faith as trusting in the promise justified himâ— Moreover Christ redeemed us from the Cuâ—â— of the Law that we might receive the promiâ—â— of the Spirit by Faith v. 13 14. Vnto Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made v. 1â— and the Inheritance is not of the Law but 〈◊〉 Promise v. 18. The Faith then that justifiâ—â— Abraham was a trust in Gods Promises contradistinct to obedience to the Law or Commands If you ask what Promise I answer v. 17. directe us to it The Law was 400 〈◊〉 30 years after the Covenant or Promise whiâ—â— points at the time when Abraham was first â—alled and of the Promise made to him then â—nd to all Nations in him Gen. 12.1 2 3. by believing that promise Abraham was justified â—nd his faith in the promise of a Son mentioned above Chap. 15.6 and Rom. 4. was but a subsequent act of his justifying faith and its â—eing imputed for righteousness Vid. Prest On the Cov. Serm. 11. but an instance or evidence that his faith in the promise of being blessed in Christ did justifie him before God Argument 3. The Just shall live by Faith Habak 2.4 The Prophet spoke it immediately concerning temporal deliverance in publick calamities but these deliverances to the Children of God are tokens and fore-runners of deliverance from the Wrath to come and effects of their reconciliation with God therefore â—s it is usual in the New Testament to apply such promises to spiritual things so the Apostle applieth this of the Prophet to Justification wherefore as to live in the Prophet principally signified preservation from the temporal effects of the wrath of God so with the Apostle it signifieth to be delivered from eternal wrath and eternal death by the special favour of God i. e. to be justifyed now this he ascribes to Faith only Rom. 1.17 where he proveth that the Gospel is the power of God to Salvatian in them that believe because therein is the righteousness of God revealed from Faith to Faith which is further confirmed because the Just shall live bâ— Faith it is believing then that saves meâ— and faith that makes them partakers of thâ— Righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel therefore by that they live i. e. are justified and yet more express Gal. 3.11 The Apostle proves by this Text That a Man cannot be justified by his Works and thinketh it aâ— Argument above exception but that no maâ— is justified by the Law in the sight of God it 〈◊〉 evident for the Just shall live by Faith Argument 4. To be justified by Faith is directly opposed to Justification by Works and by ouâ— own Righteousness therefore Faith justified only by trusting in Gods Mercy through Chrisâ— The Antecedent is the Apostles Rom. 10.5 6. The Righteousness of the Law saith That hâ— that doth them shall live in them but the righteousness of Faith saith If thou believe in thy heart that God raised Christ from the dead thou shalt be saved v. 9. likewise Gal. 3.10 having said the Just shall live by Faith he adds the Law is not of Faith but the Man that doth them shall live by them therefore Man cannot be justified by the Works of the Law iâ— must be by Faith only will they again sayâ— that these places only exclude the works oâ— the Ceremonial Law Surely Moses in the place cited Lev. 18.5 speaketh of the whole Law given to the Jews as the context sheweth and as it is interpreted by the Prophet Ezekiel 20.13 Or will they say that only perfect Works and the Law of innocency are excluded not imperfect sincere Obedience Ans If any works justifie they must be perfect else there must be a conjunction of Gods mercy and Mans own works to justifie him and so a Medium betwixt Justification by Faith and by Works even to be justified by both together and so the Apostle argues imperfectly yea
end of justifying Sinners is to glorifie the Mercy of God without providing for the Honour of his Justice or Holiness both which seem better secur'd if Justification depend upon man's works as well as faith that he cannot be reconciled to God without a holy life as well as believing in Christ For thus God would appear not only merciful but just and holy also in that he will not pardon Sinners but in a way of holiness Answ 1. The Justice and Holiness of God were abundantly declared in exacting satisfaction to the Law of Jesus Christ his obedience and death did more declare and vindicate the Justice and Holiness of God infinitely more than the worthless imperfect obedience of men can do Hereby it was declared That God would not justifie Sinners but in a way of Holiness and perfect obedience to his Law There was perfect holiness and justice towards Christ though infinite Mercy towards Sinners Though man be justified by Faith not by Holiness yet he is not saved without Holiness it is that which qualifies him to receive the Kingdom and Faith also procureth and obtaineth his Holiness For we believe not in Christ for pardon only but for grace to bring us to glory Nor doth Christ purchase oâ— God promise pardon only but grace and power to obey him He gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purchase to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works Tit. 2.14 So then Faith trusting in God's mercy and free grace supposeth for its foundation the Obedience of Christ whereby God's Justice and Holiness hath been highly glorified and also obtaineth for men by and from Jesus Christ the Spirit of Adoption by whom they shall in due time be make conformable to the Image of his own Son and so more excellently holy than they would have been if they had not sinned Therefore in justifying a Sinner in the whole design Holiness and Justice are as much magnified as Mercy though Mercy only appear in the Act of justifying him without his own Righteousness This Doctrine seems to lead to Enthusiasm Object 2. If there be nothing for man to do that he may be justified but only to believe in God's Mercy and Christ's Righteousness then may they fancy themselves justified when they please and if this Faith must be wrought by God then must men onely expect till God will infuse Faith and so justifie them What use then of the preaching of the Gospel Answ For Fancy May not men as well fancy their obedience to be sincere and their works â—o be such as argue them good Christians and give them hopes to be saved yea do not most men thus think and profess If works must be tried by the Scriture so must faith also and â—hen this is no more liable to fancy than the â—ther Answ 2. For Enthusiasm which is nothing else but infusion or inspiration of something into the Mind we grant all the godly do injoy it in the working and increase of supernatural grace and so must our Opposites also unless they will turn down right â—elagians and say That all Grace is the meer work of Nature and Reason Thus Enthusiasm follows from the Doctrine of Supernatural Grace whether we be justified â—y Faith or Obedience But Enthusiasm is were taken in the worst sence and so the meaning must be The Doctrine of Justification by Faith doth necessarily lead to ungrounded unwarranted Enthusiasm Now this may be reduced to two sorts for matter and for manner for matter when men pretend Inpiration of God for things contrary to â—cripture which God hath given as a standing rule to the Worlds end for manner â—hen Inspirations are expected to exclude and â—upersede the use of reason Scripture and â—ll Divine Ordinances these are properly called Enthusiasts who pretend to these Now our Doctrine of Faith naturally leads to neither of these Not to the first in the matter for faith apprehends resteth only upon the Promises revealed in the Scripture out of that it seeâ—eth nothing for its foundation and that somâ— Antinomians have leaned to unwarranted Revelations and Fancies is no more a natural consequence of Justification by Faith thaâ— the Papists pretending Revelation for Image worship and many of their Will-worship do naturally flow from from the Doctrine 〈◊〉 Justification by Works Not the second 〈◊〉 the manner We are so far from teachingâ— That men must expect Faith to be wrought oâ— increased without the use of means appointed that on the contrary we say with thâ— Scripture That faith cometh by hearing anâ— hearing by the Word of God Rom. 10.15 Thaâ— God requires men to know understand anâ— meditate on his Word to use their Reason Conscience and Affections and while they thuâ— do he inspires faith into his Elect which enables them to do it effectually and savingly much like as our Saviour John 9. made Clay anointed the Eyes of the blind man with iâ— sent him to wash in the Pool of Siloam anâ— while he thus did by his divine Power he restored his Sight The same also may be said if we must be saved by our Obedience wâ— may sit still and expect God to work all 〈◊〉 us unless they will say we need no supernatural Grace or at least that it depended on and followeth the Will of man Enthusiasms therefore are the abuses not the just consequences of this Doctrine It is objected If we be justified by Faith only Object 3. then there need be no care of good works Answ This follows as much as that objected to the Apostle Rom. 3.8 We are slanderously reported to say let us do evil that good may come of it and Rom. 6.1 Let us continue in sin that grace may abound Surely there is more shew of reason to say if we are justified by free grace only then no matter though we sin grace will be but the more magnified in our forgiveness than to say Because God justifies freely through Faith therefore we need need not care to please him The Apostle was not moved to mitigate this Doctrine for the said slanders Ungodly men will speak and act according to their own lusts whatever their Opinions be and Calvin observes among the Papists as we may the same among Protestants that none are more zealous maintainers of Justification by good Works than they who have fewest good works to shew it seems therefore that the Doctrine of Justification by Works is not such a real incentive to holiness as some men think but rather that the Doctrine of Justification by Faith crosseth corrupt nature more and stirs up to more deep and inward holiness else why should profane Wits and unsanctified hearts so generally oppose it But that this Doctrine doth not naturally lead to unholiness but to most strict and spiritual holiness may thus appear 1. As Faith trusteth in the promise of eternal life it doth naturally stir up men to use all means to attain that and
encourage men in the use of these means against all difficulties If we fly to God for Salvation and depend upon his Promise for it doth not this in its own nature oblige us to follow him in the way he hath appointed for the performance of that promise and doth it not undo and revoke what faith hath done in accepting and trusting in Christ for life to be negligent of the means whereby it should be brought about yea it shews Man regards not life and so doth not really trust in Christ for it trust and confidence in any friend to bring any business to pass for us makes no man more regardless of his friend or negligent of doing his part 2ly Faith trusts in God for his Grace and Spirit as well as for Pardon though faith as justifying directly and formally respects only the ptomise of pardon and life yet secondarily it considers and trusts in the promises of a new heart assistance and perseverance to the end and here we are said to be kept by the power of God through faith to Salvation 1 Pet. 1.8 and to be saved by hope Rom. 8. because the power and grace of God to bring us to Heaven is given to us believing and trusting in it If then Faith taketh in the promises of grace also how should it open a way to sin and sloth 3ly Faith doth virtually include an acceptance of grace or of Christ to sanctifie as well as to pardon it implies some repentance and aversion from sin and therefore must naturally engage to mortification and holiness â—ot hinder it I say not that accepting of Christ is a proper act of Faith as is usually â—â—firmed in popular discourses Acceptance â—â—mally is rather an act of love liking of and â—â—senting to such a person and his motions 〈◊〉 as before faith is wrought the heart is ordinarily prepared to believe by knowledge repentance love acceptance and deâ—â—e of pardon and grace by the common â—ork of the Spirit so Faith really trusting in 〈◊〉 promise of eternal life resting upon it â—â—h the whole heart doth include and imply â—â—ind of acceptance of it and afterwards it 〈◊〉 up more express acts of desire and acceptance from love which follows faith likeâ—â—e the heart being prepared by Convictions 〈◊〉 Sorrow to welcome Pardon then it doth 〈◊〉 all sincerity trust in the Promise of Parâ—â—â— this doth include an aversion from sin willingness to be holy why else should we 〈◊〉 strongly in the Promise of Forgiveness 〈◊〉 Life coming from a holy God through 〈◊〉 holy Mediatour and this necessarily exâ—â—â— express acts of Repentance and Mortiâ—â—tion he that truly understands what it is 〈◊〉 pardoned and justified and trust in the promise of it with all his heart doth in so doing shew an implicite resolution against sin and must manisest an explicite one afterwards 4ly Trusting in the grace of God when true brings the favour of the love of God and Christ Rom. 5.1 5. and this naturally inclineth to love thankfulness and obedience The groundless boast of Gods love are made an occasion of sloth by unsanctified hearts buâ— a true apprehension of it is a great motive tâ— love and obedience a greater and more effectual than an expectation of being justified bâ— Obedience For such Men will take a libertâ— to sin sometimes but the sence of the love 〈◊〉 God while strong in the heart will suffer nâ— such thing it is not only a rational but 〈◊〉 natural principle too and therefore it worâ—â— more forcibly 2 Cor. 5.14 The Love 〈◊〉 Christ constraineth us because we thus judgâ—â— If one died for all then were all dead aâ—â— that he died for all that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves but unto hâ—â— which died for them and rose again If tâ—â— true sense of Gods love without danger 〈◊〉 Hell were not enough to engage men to 〈◊〉 bedience what engageth Saints and Angâ—â— in Heaven now this sense of the love of Gâ—â— cometh by Faith in his Mercy therefore Faâ—â— engageth to Obedience If we are justified by trusting in Gods Mâ—â—cy Object 4. and through the Righteousness of Chrâ—â— without fulfilling any Terms or Conditions Vide True-man Gr. Prop. p. 89. then is there no proper Pardon of Sin For Christ's Righteousness being the perfect fulfilling of the Law and we being justified only by applying that Righteousness to us it seems we shall be accounted to have fulfilled the Law by our Surety and so not to be chargeable with Sin nor to need forgiveness Answ 1. They do wisely to begin to complain first for their own Opinion is not only liable to the same exception but seemeth inexcusable from it There are but two kinds of sins as they distribute them some against the Law of Works others against the Law of Grace and the Gospel and neither of these are properly pardoned Not the sins against the Law for saith our Author and his friends must say the same Christ did not properly fulfil the Law nor was the Curse of it properly executed upon him but he endeavoured that the legal threat might not be executed and gave to God a valuable consideration for which he might with Justice not execute that Law and be free to prescribe new conâ—itions of life to Sinners Hence I argue The Law was waved not fulfilled by the sinner or any for him neither was the sinner thereupon reconciled therefore the sins against the Law when men come under the Gospel are waved superseded but not pardoned Proper pardon is not only a forbearing to punish but a remission of the punishment with a reconciliation to thâ—â— offendor but in this case God is not reconciled but only gives them new terms of Savation nor doth he remit the punishment though he forbear it for the present for if after trial they fulfil not the Terms of the Gospel their sins against the Law also shall bâ— charged upon them and if at last they dâ—â— fulfil the conditions of the Gospel they aâ—â— saved thereby fulfilling the new terms thaâ—â— are given them then their old sins against the Law are forgotten and past over but theâ— is no proper pardon of them or reconcilinâ— the breakers of the Law as such Nor 〈◊〉 there pardon of their sins against the Gospel for if men fulfil not the conditions of it theâ— are condemned and so not pardoned If theâ— do fulfil them this is their righteousness bâ— this they are justified and saved because theâ— have performed those terms whereupon liâ—â— is promised where then is there place fâ—â— pardon when the Law is fulfilled If they say their Obedience is imperfect and sinful I answer it is so compared with the Law 〈◊〉 Works but not compared with the Law 〈◊〉 Grace Sincere Obedience to the Gospel 〈◊〉 as much as is required to bring a man to Heaven therefore by the Gospel it is reckoneâ—â— a fulfilling of what was required and so 〈◊〉 need no pardon Nor can it be conceiveâ—â— how the