Justification but his granting of this Promise or Act of Grace is the true natural efficient instrumental cause of our Justification even the immediate cause If Christ's Merit was but the remote Cause of Justification then justifying Faith doth respect it but remotely as the procuring cause of the New Covenant and if the grant of an Act of Grace be the only proper and immediate Cause of Justification then Faith only respects that immediately when it justifies and so Christ only as a King or as the Enacter of a New Law Ibid. p. 27. Again he saith It is most evident in Scripture that Merit Satisfaction are but the moral remote preparatory causes of our Justification though exceeding eminent c. and that the perfecting neerer efficient causes were by other Acts of Christ and that all concurred to accomplish the work By this it appears that Justification is an Act of Christ as a King only though his Merit made way for his Kingly Power and his Prophetical teaching promoteth mans obedience that his justifying us is his acquitting us from guilt and condemnation because we have obeyed his Law or New Covenant and that obedience to that Law as obedience to a Royal Law is the condition of our Justification or the thing for which we must be justified and that Faith with these men is nothing but obedience to the Gospel-Precepts grounded upon a belief that they came from Christ and shall be rewarded according to his Promise and therefore when they contend That Faith justifieth not by one act of affiance but by all its acts they do but confound themselves and the question For even according to themselves Faith justifieth properly and immediately by one act only or under one onely notion viz. of obedience to the Gospel and that directed to Christ only as King and that the other acts of it respecting his Merit and Teaching are but accidental to it and without its notion as justifying We are then to prove that obedience to the Gospel is not the condition of our Justification though joyned with or builded upon Faith in the truth of it and thus I argue The First Argument From Rom. 4.16 17. Therefore it is of faith that it might be of grace to the end the Promise might be sure to all the Seed not to that only which is of the Law but to that also which is of the Faith of Abraham who is the Father of us all c. The Faith here spoken of is that whereby Abraham was justified and by which the Promise should be made sure to all his Seed both Jews and Gentiles which is the Promise of being blessed with him in his Seed Christ Now the Apostle saith That Justification or Blessedness comes by Faith that it might be by Grace i.e. altogether free but Justification upon the condition of obedience is not altogether free therefore justifying Faith includeth not obedience as the condition of Justification I prove the Minor thus Grace and Works are utterly inconsistent in God's dealing with Man for his Salvation For Work bring some worthiness though not strict Merit but Grace supposeth nothing but deseâ—â— of Punishment Rom. 11.6 If by grace the not of works otherways grace is no more grace Election of grace v. 5. excludeth all works why doth not Justification also if it be bâ— Grace If obedience to the Gospel be the condition of our Justification as perfect obedience to the Law of Works was formerly how is it Grace more now than it was then Did God gratiously grant the New Covenant to lost Sinners True here was Grace but when he had granted it he justifieth them only for the performance of it or their obedience to it therefore the giving of the New Covenant is of Grace but Justification by obedience to it is not of Grace but of Works Doth a New Covenant accept of imperfect obedience and carry pardon with it It doâ—â— indeed not insist upon perfect obedience to the Law of Innocency as the only way of life but it doth not dispence with or allow the breach of any of those Commands that were perpetual What then It requireth perfect and exact obedience to the Gospel and fâ—â— want of that obedience men shall be condemned there is no pardon for want of sincere obedience under the Gospel no more that there was for want of perfect obedience to Adam therefore all the mercy grace and pardon of the New Covenant lieth in relaxing the Covenant of perfect works in giving a New and somewhat Milder Covenant to men when they might have been condemned for the breach of the former but still their Justification or right to Life dependeth wholly upon their obedience to this New Covenant and so â—â— no more of Grace properly than Adam should have been But they say our obedience is performed by the efficacy of Divine Grace and therefore we may be said to be justified by Grace though by our Obedience As if the Elect Angels that stand were not justified or accepted in and by their own integrity because preserved by the Grace of God or as if Adam could not have been justifyed by keeping the Law unless he had done it meerly by his own connate strength without additions or assistance of Divine Grace throughout his Life What the Grace is which these men allow to our obedience is yet uncertain but this altereth not the nature of Justification if it be by obedience it is not of grace but of works i. e. a man is pronounced Just or Righteous for his own obedience by what principle soever it be wrought therefore the saith here spoken of neither is nor doth include obedience Again It is a Faith that the Promise may be sure or firm to all the Seed but if obedience be the condition of life the Promise cannot be sure to all or any Believers Ergò this Faith doth not include Obedience Professed Arminians grant there can be no assurance ordinarily of any particular man's Salvation yea that there is no absolute certainty thet any Man should be saved though Christ died for them all Others speak more dubiously but if Justification be suspended upon our Obedience to the Gospel to our lives end it cannot be certain to any Man that he shall be justifyed and saved till he be out of the World there may be indeed an objective certainty of the Promise in general viz. He that obeyeth to the End shall be saved but thus the promise to Adam was as certain viz if he had obeyed perfectly to the End he should thereby be justifyed but here was a Promise to Abraham That he and his Seed should be blessed and this Promise was not made to the Works of the Law but to the Faith of Abraham and his Seed that the promise might be certain i. e. that they should certainly attain the promised blessedness and by no means fall short of it but this certainty comes not from persevering Obedience which is it self uncertain Ergò
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and v. 17. Death reigned had its full power upon Man kind by means of this one Man And v. 18. By the Offence of one Judgment came upon all to condemnation all are condemned for his Offence And v. 89. The reason is because by that one mans disobedience peccatores instituti sunt they are made constituted Sinners whence the Argument is strong All men be condemned dead sentenced adjudged to death for the Sin of Adam therefore that sin is accounted theirs imputed to them not as if they had personally been the Actors of that Sin or that it did inhere or adhere properly to them but Adams sinning as the Head of Man kind and as it were for all men they are accounted to have sinned in him so as to incur all the punishment of his Sin Now let it be observed that ex adverso in like manner cometh the Gift of Life of Justification and the Gift of Righteousness by Jesus Christ by his Obedience men are made righteous justi constitutisunt are constituted righteous But men were made Sinners by Adams Sin and so fell under the Sentence of death before they sinned in their own persons without their own personal disobedience through being destitute of grace they must needs sin and so add to their punishment Therefore they that believe are made righteous in Christ with his Righteousness before any personal righteousness in them without the condition of their own obedience though being made righteous in Christ they receive grace to be obedient and so to be fit to receive the Inheritance giv'n them in Christ Object It is objected by a learned and grave Person that in this place v. 19. we are not said to be justified with Christs Obedience Hotchkis ut supra p. 43 44. but by it and that by signifieth an efficient or meritorious cause but with a formal cause and that we may be said to be justified by the Obedience of Christ as it merited Justification upon the Terms of the Gospel but not with it as imputed to us Answ Forgetfulness of Grammar is no wonder scarce a fault in his Age but that tells us that the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when construed with a Genitive Case doth signifie cum with as well as per by and gives this example 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum gladiis The same also say the Lexicons So then by the favour of the Greek word we may translate it with the Obedience of one many are made Righteous Moreover by signifieth the formal Cause which is causa per quam and with an Instrumental Cause Part 1. p. 229 230. not a Formal as hath been shewed And thus this distinction is grounded upon a mistake both in Grammar and Logick But he farther saith that here is no word of Imputation or imputing Christs Obedience to us and that it is barely said By his Obedience we are made Righteous I answer It is necessarily implied we are made righteous by the Obedience of Christ as we were made Sinners by the Disobedience of Adam but his Disobedience made us Sinners by imputation or being imputed to us ergò the Comparison is expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If this Authors sence be admitted in the latter words it must be affixed also to the former i. e. If we are made righteous by Christs Obedience only because he merited that we should be justified if we obey the Gospel then it must follow we are made Sinners by Adam's Disobedience only because he merited by his Fall that if we sinned we also should perish If Christ only brought in a way of righteousness how we might be justified if we observed it then Adam only brought in a way of Sin how men might be condemned if they trod in his Steps but this is absurd To return that Adam's Sin is properly imputed to us I farther prove from Eph. 2.3 We were by Nature Children of wrath even as others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the rest of men Grotius his gloss upon these words viz. That the Apostle meaneth only the Gentiles who were born out of the Church and out of the Covenant and therefore were by nature Children of Wrath is against the words of the Text. For the Apostle having spoken of the Gentiles in the two former verses putteth himself and the Jews into the same condition in this verse saying Amongst whom we all had our Conversation in times past and we were by nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Children of wrath even as the rest All men therefore are by nature Children of wrath i. e. are born Heirs of wrath under the Sentence of Condemnation For as Children of Life Children of the Kingdom signifie those that are Heirs under the Promise of Life so Children of Wrath are those that are Heirs under the Sentence of Condemnation Now I demand how all men should come under the sentence of condemnation and inherit it as their natural though woful Birth-right unless Adams Fall be sharged upon them and so as soon as they have a Being derived from him in a natural way the Sentence pronounced against him is â—n force against them also Suppose God might justly have deprived all Mankind descending from Adam of his present Favour and of the Gifts and Graces Priviledges and Benefits which Adam enjoyed because Adam had forfeited them and could not therefore leave them to be enjoyed to his Posterity Aâ— a Father spending or forfeiting his own Inheritance and Honours doth deprive his Children of them though they are not therefore made guilty of his Offence yet how will it consist with Justice besides the loss of all Privileges to adjudge sentence men to death before any Trial is made of their Obedience whether they will not do better than Adam did or aâ— least do something that in their forlorn Estate may move some compassion to them and mitigate their misery This is our Case we are born Heirs of Death Judgment and Condemnation is past upon all men taketh hold of them as soon as they are men How can this be without any guilt chargeable upon them and if there be any it must be the guilt of Adams Fall Ezek. 18.20 God declared that the Son should not die for the Fathers Sin it would certainly be high injustice in men to deprive the Posterity of an Offendor for ever not only of their Fathers Inheritance but of all possibility of return and recovery of themselves so that they should ever be dealt with as Malefactors Much more is it consistent with Divine Justice to punish all Mankind not only with the loss of Adams Priviledges but with Eternal Death inevitably for any thing the Law provideth to the contrary meerly because they descended from him without trying or expecting how they would behave themselves There must therefore be a Guilt upon all men by nature viz. the Guilt of Adams Sin and that must be imputed to them and
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
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
if we should perform that new Law which he should give us But this shall be particularly considered in the Sixth Chapter CHAP. IV. An Answer to the Arguments against the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness WE are now to examin the Arguments which are brought against this Doctrine where as I shall pass by none that I meet with which seem to have any weight and whose solution may add any evidence to this weighty Truth so I shall not count my self concerned in a great number of Objections that are heaped up by some against it some being meer devised cavilations and many nothing to the purpose For our Opposites deal in this Argument as the Arminians did in the point of Reprobation load it with calumnies or with the unadvised expressions of some particular men but say but little that concludeth against the Truth it self Their usual Fallacy is Plus in conclusione quam in praemissis or ignoratio Elenchi when the plain Question is Whether we are accepted and justified for the Righteousness of Christ wrought for us and given to us by the Promise of the Gospel and accepted by Faith And their Arguments should conclude against this naked truth they usually conclude against Imputation of this Righteousness as exprest by the Antinomians or by Popular and not Logical Men or else against some terms of Art applyed to this Subject The like they do when they dispute against the Imputation of our sins to Christ yet some Instances of this kind I must take notice of that the Reader may be the more excited to observe it in their Books Object Christ's Righteousness is the Morally Efficient sc the meritorious Cause of our Justification Hotchkis ut supra p. 23. therefore it is not the proper matter or properly a material Cause of it Matter being an internal constitutive Cause and an efficient and external Cause which cannot agree to the same thing Answ The Question is not nor did ever any man say it that knew what he said whether Christs Righteousness be a proper material Cause as Matter is opposed to a Form When it is said to be the Matter or formal Cause of our Justification it is meant only Analogically Christs Righteousness consisted in Actions and Passions which were neither Matter nor Forms as taken for Internal Essential Parts of any thing But when these Actions and Passions are the thing for which a man is justified they are analogically called the Matter of his Righteousness because his Righteousness is made up of them and as a man is accepted for these very Actions and Passions wrought for him and imputed to him so they may be called the Formal Cause of our Justification as a man is denominated Just before God from that Righteousness And thus as Christs Righteousness is analogically called Matter or Form so it may analogically be said to constitute a man Just or Righteous before God or to be pars constituens hominis justificati quatenus juscificati as any other Accident moral or physical intrinsecal or extrinsecal being appli d to the subject maketh the concretum ex subjecto accidenti and so the subject in that composition is as the matter though otherways perhaps the Efficient and the Accident as the Form both are the Constitutive Parts of that concretum yet Analogically Thus much for the Logick of this Argument now for the Divinity It is true that Christ's Obedience offered as a Ransom for all the Elect in general is the Meritorious Cause of their Salvation but when it is applied to each particular person as all Causes must be applied to the Patient that they may produce their Effect it is that thing for which God doth accept and justifie them in particular and so is said to be the matter of their Righteousness the Material and by some the Formal Cause of Justification de Just. ch 22. vid. Dav. Atque revera in justificatione talis causa formalis ponenda est quae simul meritoria esse possit Nisi enim contineat illam dignitatem in se propter quam homo rite justificatus reputetur nunquam erit formalis causa c. 2. Object If Christ's Righteousness be imputed to us then we are freed from all obligation to Obedience If he hath obeyed for us Trueman ut supra p. 118.4 what need is there of our obedience we cannot mend his and if he hath done all there is nothing left for us to do Answ We are freed from any obligation to obedience of that kind and to that end for which Christ obeyed His Obedience was the Fulfilling of the Law of Works as a Covenant of Life and by fulfilling it he purchased life for us and so was the perfective end of that Law or Covenant for righteousness to them that believe Rom. 10.4 Perfect obedience to the Law of Works is not required of us that we should live by it or perish for lack of it as it would have been had not Christ obeyed for us But it doth not follow from hence that we are freed from all Obligations of Obedience upon other accounts viz. as Creatures to a Creator as Servants to an absolute and soveraign Lord as Children to a Father and as the Preparatives to an Eternal Life upon these accounts we must obey still though not to be justified by it Christ himself is not freed from the general obligation of obedience to God as he is a Man though he hath finished his satisfactory Obedience to the Law as the Means and Covenant of Life and is for ever acquitted from the Obligation thereto In like manner his Obedience hath acquitted us from all obligation to the Law as the way of life yet not from all Obedience But this Argument as all the rest of this Author in the same place is levelled against a Popular Expression of this Doctrine and are nothing to the main Question viz. That Christ's Righteousness is so imputed to us that we are accounted to have obeyed in him to have fulfilled the Law to have done and suffered all in him c. which Position is true only in this Sence That all which Christ did and suffered was intended for us is given to us and doth as really justifie us as if we had fulfilled it our selves But it is not true that God accounteth us to have personally obeyed in Christs obeying or us to have suffered in Christs suffering to have fulfilled the Law in his fulfilling it For then we must be accounted to have satisfied for our selves in him and to have purchased our own Justification The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness is God's accounting it to be wrought for us and so he accepteth us for it but not his accounting us to have wrought it or to have been actively righteous as if we had fulfilled his Law But did not Christ obey as a common and publick person for all the Elect Quest and so he and they are one in Law and so what he
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
Argument 4. We are justifyed by Christ as Priest p. 24. Prophet and King conjunctly and not by any of these alone much less by his Humiliation and Obedience alone then according to the Opponents own Principles who argue from the distinct interest of the several parts of the Objects to the distinct interest of the several acts of Faith we are justified by believing in Christ as Priest Prophet and King Answ Faith as a distinct habit hath no acts but practical assent to a revealed truth which in respect of the promise is called trust or affiance One habit hath but one sort of elicite acts though it may cause divers effects upon the will and affections according to the nature of divers objects therefore we do not argue from the distinct interest of several acts of Faith but from Faith as trusting in the Promise of Justification as the special object of the act that justifieth Again the Object of justifying Faith according to this Opinion must be the whole declared Will of Christ or the whole Gospel for that is it which we believe and obey and Obedience to it is the form or righteousness by and for which we are justifyed therefore those Terms of Christ's justifying in his whole Person and all his Offices or Faith justifying with respect to them are added in vain they being no more included in the nature of Justification or respected by Faith as justifying in this way than in ours The promise of life by Christ to believing only is as much founded upon his whole Person and all his Offices as if the promise were made to our Obedience to the whole Gospel But we deny the Antecedent let us hear the proof The Word Justification signifieth these 3 acts p. 24. 1st Condonation or constitutive Justification by the Law of grace or promise of the Gospel 2ly Absolution by sentence in judgment 3ly The execution of the former by actual liberation from penalty The two former are more properly called Justification As for the first I argue Christ doth as King and Benefactor on supposition of his antecedent Merits enact the Law of grace or promise by which we are justified Ergò As King and Benefactour he doth justifie us by condonation or constitution As the Father by a right of Creation was Rector of the new created World and so made the Covenant of Life that was then made so the Son and the Father by right of Redemption is Rector of the new redeemed World and so made the Law of grace that gives Christ and life to all that will believe c. Answ Christ as God the same in substance with the Father did together with him enact both the Covenants of Works and of Grace but as Mediator which only is to our purpose he did not enact the Covenant or Law of Grace and it is only said that he did and not proved It was God as God and in special the Father according to the order of the Three Persons that gave the Law of Works that was offended by sin that condemned sinners and therefore he only that could appoint a way whereby they should be saved and he only coul justifie him Christ as Mediator though God in Nature yet in Office was God's Servant Isa 53.11 Mat. 12 18. and his business was not to enact Laws or constitute a way for Man's Redemption but to work out and bring to pass that way which God purchased and to fulfil his Will in it Heb. 10.7 which he did first by satisfying the Law and purchasing Reconciliation as a Priest then by declaring as a Prophet that Pardon was to be had by believing in his Bloud and Lastly as a King yet ministerial under the Father by overpouring the hearts of Gods Elect to believe that God might justify them and then by sanctifying and ruling them by his Word and Spirit to bring them to life It belongeth to the Father to justifie constitutively i. e. to propose the way wherein Men should be justified and through believing to justifie them to the Mediator almost but ministerially to declare it to Men by authority from the Father but most properly to bring it to pass by the execution of all his Offices Rom. 8.33 34. It is God that justifies it is Christ that died rose and intercedeth p. 25. 2ly It is said Justification by sentence of judgment is undeniably by Christ as King for God hath appointed to judge the World by him Acts 17.31 c. Answ Christ in judging the World is but a ministerial King For God is the Supream Judg Heb. 12.23 however we deny what is here took for granted That the sentence of the General Judgment is a declaration of a sinners Justification from the guilt of sin It is only the adjudging of justified Believers to Glory in Heaven for their Obedience according to Gods Fatherly promise p. 25. 3ly It is said For the execution of the sentence by actual liberation there can be little doubt being after both the former Answ Christ is ministerial in this also for he calleth Believers to inherit the Kingdom as being the blessed of the Father and it being prepared for them from the beginning of the World Mat. 25.34 Besides Glory in Heaven is a fruit of Adoption not of Justification immediately and Adoption is the act of the Father not of the Mediator And let it be observed That here all Justification is referred to Christ as King properly and immediately as was before said and he as Priest and Prophet did but make way for his justifying of us as King and therefore these offices are mentioned in the Question only for a shew that they acknowledge we are justifyed by his Bloud This is in effect confessed in the following words As the Teacher of the Church Christ doth not immediately justify but yet mediately he doth Ibid. and it is but mediately that he justifyeth by his Merits It is also said That Christ's granting the Promise or Act of Grace is the true natural p. 25. efficient instrumental Cause of Justification even the immediate Cause So then the whole Gospel as to be obeyed by us is the proper and immediate Instrument of our Justification and our obedience to the Gospel together with God's acceptance of it is the only internal Cause of Justification or the Righteousness for which we are justifyed and Christ's Merit and Righteousness and his Promulgation of the Gospel are but extrinsecal remote and preparatory Causes of it and these not absolutely necessary seeing these Authors do not deny but that God might have saved man without satisfaction and then it will follow if a man obey the Precepts of the Gospel and acknowledge Christ as Lord and King he may be saved although he believe only in a Glorified Saviour as the Jesuites preached to the people of China yea I understand not but a Socinian may be saved by obeying the Gospel though he deny the Merit of Christ having
because we fulfil or obey the Command of believing in Christ Against this I thus argue 1. If Faith justify as a fulfilling the command of believing then the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere Faith it self is our Righteousness and Christ's Righteousness hath only procur'd a Covenant of Faith by fulfilling whereof we should be justifyed as we should have been by fulfilling the Law of Works For in this Opinion Faith justifyeth as Obedience to the Command of believing and Obedience cannot be the Medium of applying Christ's Obedience for our Righteousness but is it self a righteousness according to the Law that requires it So then Faith must be our Righteousness now as perfect Obedience was under the Law and must justify as the Work of the Gospel 2ly Faith is the unfittest of all Graces to be the condition of life because it is only a trust in Free-Mercy and carries with it an acknowledgement of our unworthiness and nothingness and so bringeth nothing to God but a bare object of Mercy and Compassion All other graces bring some positive Honour to God together with a denyal of our selves and our inordinate desires to the Creatures but Faith bringeth nothing but a confession of Misery with a desire and hope of Mercy therefore is unfit to be our Righteousness and to come into the room of Perfect Obedience 3ly If Faith justify as a condition then Man hath a natural power to believe in Christ how else can Faith be required of him as a new condition of life after he had failed of life by the first condition of Obedience The Gospel by this Doctrine is a Law of Faith but a proper Law doth suppose power to obey in the subjects of it Quest Obj. Quest 9. Vid. Pelt Art 13. Paragr 2. This Arminius confesseth Deum non posse ullo modo fidem in Jesum Christum postulare ab homine lapso quam ex se habere non potest nisi aut dederit aut dare paratus sit gratiam sufficientem quâ credere possit si velit i. e. God cannot by any means require Fallen Man to believe which of himself he cannot do unless he hath given him or will be ready to give grace sufficient to believe if he will 4ly If Faith be the gift of special grace as is acknowledged by these I now deal with how can it be required of all that hear the Gospel seeing they have neither power of their own to believe nor a promise that Faith shall be given them If it be said that Faith is promised I ask is it promised on some other condition or absolutely If upon condition then we shall have conditions in infinitum unless we stop in something that is in Man's Power to do Ibid. p. 55. as Amyraldus well observeth Fides impetrata fuit non ut offeretur sub acceptandi conditione sed ut ipsa illa conditio esset per quam salus recipitur alioqui res abiret in infinitum nec ullus unquam esset terminus conditionum impetrandarum If absolutely either to all that hear the Gospel and so all should believe or to some only but no such promise can be produc'd that when the Gospel is preach'd to a people such and such shall have Faith given them But if it be said the Promise of Life in Christ is declared to all and God persuadeth whom he pleaseth to trust in it Is it not then better to say that Faith is only an instrument whereby God inableth Men to lay hold of the Promise â—o Justification than to offer violence to the nature of all proper Laws and the conditions of them by making Faith the condition required by a proper Law which Man hath not â—ower to perform nor is sure to have it given when he needeth it and I suppose no instance can be given of any such Law either Human or Divine that requireth a condition out of the power or beyond the ability of the subject before the Law was made and doth not certainly provide that ability for him any other way The Second Opinion is of those that affirm Obedience to be included in Faith and so Faith and Obedience to be the condition of life i. e. that we are required sincerely to believe and obey the Gospel Commands Histories and Promises to our lives end and for so doing we shall be justified and saved Faith in this Opinion is not an immediate trust in the Promise of life through Christ but a general belief of the truth of the Histories and Promises of the Gospel encouraging to obey the Precepts of it yea though there be 〈◊〉 particular persuasion that this man in particular shall be saved if he obey the Gospel 〈◊〉 yet this is not proper trust or affiance but a more practical assent to the general Promises and Doctrine of the Gospel a trust upon an uncertain condition is no more a truâ— and proper trust than a proposition depending on a future contingency is a proper oâ— certain proposition or hath determinate truth or falshood This is the Doctrine 〈◊〉 the Remonstrants as hath been shewed Chapâ— 5. We may also observe That though thâ— Opinion be commonly exprest by believing in or receiving Christ as our King and Prophet as well as Priest yet in truth it maketh Faith or the condition of the Gospel tâ— respect Christ only as a King immediately and as a Prophet and Priest accidentally and remotely For to prescribe Laws and Conditions of Life whereby men must be judged saved or condemned and then to judge them by those Laws and either justifie or condemn them for their obedience or disobedience to them are all Kingly Acts or Exercises of Kingly Power and these only are immediately respected by this Faith which is nothing else but obeying what Christ hath commanded upon belief of the truth of what he hath declared and promised to that Obedience and so is that for which men shall be judicially justified It is true Christ as a Prophet doth explain and teach his own Law but this is accidental to a Legislator and men must obey the teaching of Christ but obedience as such is not because he teacheth but because he that teacheth is also the Law maker and hath authority to command obedience Therefore Faith as obedience and so justifying doth not properly respect Christ as a Prophet nor doth it eye him as a Priest being not a trust in his satisfaction and Righteousness to be saved by it which was the main Exercise of his Priestly Office but an obedience to the New Law which Christ had made as a King and only had purchased as a Priest leave of the Father to make such a Law and that those that obeyed it should be saved The Priesthood therefore of Christ is but remotely respected in believing as the foundation of his Law and Promises annexed to it This Mr. Baxter confesseth in effect 1 Disput of Just P. 25. when he saith Christ's Merit is the remote moral cause of our