as fulfilled or from the Reatus Gulpae in se but by Christ's whole Righteousness from the Reatus ut ad paenam 2. But if this be his sense he meaneth then that it is only the Terminus à quo that Justification is properly denominated from And why so 1. As Justitia and Justificatio passive sumpta vel ut effectus is Relatio it hath necessarily no Terminus à quo And certainly is in specie to be rather denominated from its own proper Terminus ad quem And as Justification is taken for the Justifiers Action why is it not as well to be denominated from the Terminus ad quem as à quo Justificatio efficiens sic dicitur quia Justum facit Justificatio apologetica quia Justum vindicat vel probat Justificatio per sententiam quia Justum aliquem esse Judicat Justificatio executiva quia ut Justum eum tractat But if we must needs denominate from the Terminus à quo how strange is it that he should know but of one sense of Justification 3. But yet perhaps he meaneth In satisfactione Legi praestitâ though he say praestandâ and so denominateth from the Terminus à quo But if so 1. Then it cannot be true For satisfacere Justificare are not the same thing nor is Justifying giving Satisfaction nor were we justified when Christ had satisfied but long after Nor are we justified eo nomine because Christ satisfied that is immediately but because he gave us that Jus ad impunitatem vitam spiritum sanctum which is the Fruit of his Satisfaction 2. And as is said if it be only in satisfactione then it is not in that Obedience which fulfileth the preceptive part as it bound us for to satisfie for not fulfilling is not to fulfil it 3. And then no Man is justified for no Man hath satisfied either the Preceptive or Penal Obligation of the Law by himself or another But Christ hath satisfied the Law-giver by Merit and Sacrifice for sin His Liberavit nos à Lege Mortis I before shewed impertinent to his use Is Liberare Justificare or Satisfacere all one And is à Lege Mortis either from all the Obligation to Obedience or from the sole malâ—diction There be other Acts of Liberation besides Satisfaction For it is The Law of the Spirit of Life that doth it And we are freed both from the power of indwelling-sin called a Law and from the Mosaical Yoak and from the Impossible Conditions of the Law of Innocency though not from its bare Obligation to future Duty § 7. He addeth a Third Ex parte Medii quod est Justitia Christi Legalis nobis per fidem Imputata Omnem itaque Justificationem proprie Legalem esse constat Answ 1. When I read that he will have but one sense or sort of Justification will yet have the Denomination to be ex termino and so justifieth my distinction of it according to the various Termini And here how he maketh the Righteousness of Christ to be but the MEDIVM of our Justification though he should have told us which sort of Medium he meaneth he seemeth to me a very favourable consenting Adversary And I doubt those Divines who maintain that Christ's Rigâ—teousness is the Causa Formalis of our Justification who are no small ones nor a few though other in answer to the Papists disclaim it yea and those that make it but Causa Materialis which may have a sound sense will think this Learned Man betrayeth their Cause by prevarication and seemeth to set fiercly against me that he may yeeld up the Cause with less suspicion But the truth is we all know but in part and therefore err in part and Error is inconsistent with it self And as we have conflicting Flesh and Spirit in the Will so have we conflicting Light and Darkness Spirit and Flesh in the Understanding And it is very perceptible throughout this Author's Book that in one line the Flesh and Darkness saith one thing and in the next oft the Spirit and Light saith the contrary and seeth not the inconsistency And so though the dark and fleshy part rise up in wrathful striving Zeal against the Concord and Peace of Christians on pretence that other Mens Errors wrong the Truth yet I doubt not but Love and Unity have some interest in his lucid and Spiritual part We do not only grant him that Christ's Righteousness is a Medium of our Justification for so also is Faith a Condition and Dispositio Receptiva being a Medium nor only some Cause for so also is the Covenant-Donation but that it is an efficient meritorious Cause and because if Righteousness had been that of our own Innocency would have been founded in Merit we may call Christ's Righteousness the material Cause of our Justification remotely as it is Materia Meriti the Matter of the Merit which procureth it 2. But for all this it followeth not that all Justification is only Legal as Legal noteth its respect to the Law of Innocency For 1. we are justified from or against che Accusation of being non-performers of the Condition of the Law of Grace 2. And of being therefore unpardoned and lyable to its sorer Penalty 3. Our particular subordinate Personal Righteousness consisting in the said performance of those Evangelical Conditions of Life is so denominated from its conformity to the Law of Grace as it instituteth its own Condition as the measure of it as Rectitudo ad Regulam 4. Our Jus ad impunitatem vitam resulteth from the Donative Act of the Law or Covenant of Grace as the Titulus qui est Fundamentum Juris or supposition of our Faith as the Condition 5. This Law of Grace is the Norma Judicis by which we shall be judged at the Last Day 6. The same Judg doth now per sententiam conceptam judg of us as he will then judg per sententiam prolatam 7. Therefore the Sentence being virtually in the Law this same Law of Grace which in primo instanti doth make us Righteous by Condonation and Donation of Right doth in secundo instanti virtually justifie us as containing that regulating use by which we are to be sententially justified And now judg Reader whether no Justification be Evangelical or by the Law of Grace and so to be denominated for it is lis de nomine that is by him managed 8. Besides that the whole frame of Causes in the Work of Redemption the Redeemer his Righteousness Merits Sacrifice Pardoning Act Intercession c. are sure rather to be called Matters of the Gospel than of the Law And yet we grant him easily 1. That Christ perfectly fulfilled the Law of Innocency and was justified thereby and that we are justified by that Righteousness of his as the meritorious Cause 2. That we being guilty of Sin and Death according to the tenor of that Law and that Guilt being remitted by Christ as aforesaid we are therefore justified
a congruous way of disputing for Truth and Righteousness nor indeed is it tolerably ingenuous or modest If not then why doth he all along carry his professed agreement with me in a militant strain perswading his Reader that I savour of Socinianism or Popery or some dangerous Error by saying the very same that he saith O what thanks doth God's Church owe such contentious Disputers for supposed Orthodoxness that like noctambuli will rise in their sleep and cry Fire Fire or beat an Allarm on their Drums and cry out The Enemy The Enemy and will not let their Neighbours rest I have wearied my Readers with so oft repeating in my Writings upon such repeated importunities of others these following Assertions about Works 1. That we are never justified first or last by Works of Innocency 2. Nor by the Works of the Jewish Law which Paul pleadeth against 3. Nor by any Works of Merit in point of Commutative Justice or of distributive Governing Justice according to either of those Laws of Innocency or Jewish 4. Nor by any Works or Acts of Man which are set against or instead of the least part of God's Acts Christ's Merits or any of his part or honour 5. Nor are we at first justified by any Evangelical Works of Love Gratitude or Obedience to Christ as Works are distinguished from our first Faith and Repentance 6. Nor are we justified by Repentance as by an instrumental efficient Cause or as of the same receiving Nature with Faith except as Repentance signifieth our change from Vnbelief to Faith and so is Faith it self 7. Nor are we justified by Faith as by a mere Act or moral good Work 8. Nor yet as by a proper efficient Instrument of our Justification 9. Much less by such Works of Charity to Men as are without true love to God 10. And least of all by Popish bad Works called Good as Pilgrimages hurtful Austerities c. But if any Church-troubling Men will first call all Acts of Man's Soul by the name of WORKS and next will call no Act by the name of Justifying Faith but the belief of the Promise as some or the accepting of Christ's Righteousness given or imputed to us as in se our own as others or the Recumbency on this Righteousness as others or all these three Acts as others and if next they will say that this Faith justifieth us only as the proper Instrumental Cause And next that to look for Justification by any other Act of Man's Soul or by this Faith in any other respect is to trust to that Justification by Works which Paul confuteth and to fall from Grace I do detest such corrupting and abusing of the Scriptures and the Church of Christ And I assert as followeth 1. That the Faith which we are justified by doth as essentially contain our belief of the Truth of Christ's Person Office Death Resurrection Intercession c. as of the Promise of Imputation 2. And also our consent to Christ's Teaching Government Intercession as to Imputation 3. And our Acceptance of Pardon Spirit and promised Glory as well as Imputed Righteousness of Christ 4. Yea that it is essentially a Faith in God the Father and the Holy Ghost 5. That it hath in it essentially somewhat of Initial Love to God to Christ to Recovery to Glory that is of Volition and so of Desire 6. That it containeth all that Faith which is necessarily requisite at Baptism to that Covenant even a consenting-practical-belief in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and is our Christianity it self 7. That we are justified by this Faith as it is A moral Act of Man adapted to its proper Office made by our Redeemer the Condition of his Gift of Justification and so is the moral receptive aptitude of the Subject or the Dispositio materiae vel subjecti Recipientis Where the Matter of it is An adapted moral Act of Man by Grace The Ratio formalis of its Interest in our Justification is Conditio praestita speaking politically and Aptitudo vel Dispositio moralis Receptiva speaking logically which Dr. Twiss still calleth Causa dispositiva 8. That Repentance as it is a change of the Mind from Unbelief to Faith in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost is this Faith denominated from its Terminus à quo principally 9. That we are continually justified by this Faith as continued as well as initially justified by its first Act. 10. That as this Faith includeth a consent to future Obedience that is Subjection so the performance of that consent in sincere Obedience is the Condition of our Justification as continued Secondarily as well as Faith or consent it self primarily And that thus James meaneth that we are Justified by Works 11. That God judging of all things truly as they are now judgeth Men just or unjust on these Terms 12. And his Law being Norma judicii now vertually judgeth us just on these terms 13. And that the Law of Grace being that which we are to be judged by we shall at the last Judgment also be judged and so justified thus far by or according to our sincere Love Obedience or Evangelical Works as the Condition of the Law or Covenant of free Grace which justifieth and glorifieth freely all that are thus Evangelically qualified by and for the Merits perfect Righteousness and Sacrifice of Christ which procured the Covenant or free Gift of Universal Conditional Justification and Adoption before and without any Works or Conditions done by Man whatsoever Reader Forgive me this troublesom oft repeating the state of the Controversie I meddle with no other If this be Justification by Works I am for it If this Doctor be against it he is against much of the Gospel If he be not he had better have kept his Bed than to have call'd us to Arms in his Dream when we have sadly warred so many Ages already about mere words For my part I think that such a short explication of our sense and rejection of ambiguities is fitter to end these quarrels than the long disputations of Confounders 4. But when be saith Works make not a Man just and yet we are at last justified according to them it is a contradiction or unsound For if he mean Works in the sence excluded by Paul we are not justified according to them viz. such as make or are thought to make the Reward to be not of Grace but of Debt But if he take Works in the sense intended by James sincere Obedience is a secondary constitutive part of that inherent or adherent personal Righteousness required by the Law of Grace in subordination to Christ's Meritorious Righteousness And what Christian can deny this So far it maketh us Righteous as Faith doth initially And what is it to be justified according to our Works but to be judged so far as they are sincerely done to be such as have performed the secondary part of the Conditions of free-given Life 5. His According but not ex operibus at the
of Justification to be the Remission of Sin Original and Actual or the Imputation of Christs Righteousness which he maketh to be all one or the Imputation of Faith for Righteousness Saith Bishop Downame of Justif p. 305. To be Formally Righteous by Christs Righteousness imputed never any of us for ought I know affirmed The like saith Dr. Prideâ—aux when yet very many Protestants affirm it Should I here set together forty or sixty Definitions of Protestants verbatim and shew you how much they differ it would be unpleasant and tedious and unnecessary And as to those same Divines that Dr. Tully nameth as agreed Dr. Davenants and Dr. Fields words I have cited at large in my Confes saying the same in substance as I do as also Mr. Scudders and an hundred more as is before said And let any sober Reader decide this Controversie between us upon these two further Considerations 1. Peruse all the Corpus Confessionum and see whether all the Reformed Churches give us a Definition of Justification and agree in that Definition Yea whether the Church of England in its Catechism or its Articles have any proper Definition Or if you will call their words a Definition I am sure it 's none but what I do consent to And if a Logical Definition were by the Church of England and other Churches held necessary to Salvation it would be in their Catechisms if not in the Creed Or if it were held necessary to Church-Concord and Peace and Love it would be in their Articles of Religion which they subscribe 2. How can all Protestants agree of the Logical Definition of Justification when 1. They agree not of the sense of the word Justifie and of the species of that Justification which Paul and James speak of Some make Justification to include Pardon and Sanctification see their words in G. Forbes and Le Blank many say otherwise Most say that Paul speaketh most usually of Justification in sensu forensi but whether it include Making just as some say or only Judging just as others or Nolle punire be the act as Dr. Twisse they agree not And some hold that in James Justification is that which is eoram hominibus when said to be by Works but others truly say it is thay coram Deo 2. They are not agreed in their very Logical Rules and Notions to which their Definitions are reduced no not so much as of the number and nature of Causes nor of Definitions as is aforesaid And as I will not undertake to prove that all the Apostles Evangelists and Primitive Pastours knew how to define Efficient Material Formal and Final Causes in general so I am sure that all good Christians do not 3. And when Justification is defined by Divines is either the Actus Justificantis and this being in the predicament of Action what wonder if they disagree about the Material and Formal Causes of it Nay it being an Act of God there are few Divines that tell us what that Act is Deus operatur per essentiam And Ex parte agentis his Acts are his Essence and all but one And who will thus dispute of the Definition and Causes of them Efficient Material Formal Final when I presumed to declare that this Act of Justifying is not an immanent Act in God nor without a Medium but Gods Act by the Instrumentality of his Gospel-Covenant or Promise many read it as a new thing and if that hold true that the First Justification by Faith is that which Gods Gospel-Donation is the Instrument of as the Titulus seu Fundamentum Juris being but a Virtual and not an Actual Sentence then the Definition of it as to the Causes must differ much from the most common Definitions But most Protestants say that Justification is Sententia Judicis And no doubt but there are three several sorts or Acts called Justification 1. Constitutive by the Donative Covenant 2. Sentential 3. Executive And here they are greatly at a loss for the decision of the Case what Act of God this Sententia Jucis is What it will be after death we do not much disagree But what it is immediately upon our believing It must be an Act as in patiente or the Divine essence denominated from such an effect And what Judgment and Sentence God hath upon our believing few open and fewer agreee Mr. Tombes saith it is a Sentence in Heaven notifying it to the Angels But that is not all or the chief some run back to an Immanent Act most leave it undetermined And sure the Name of Sentence in general signifieth no true Conception of it at all in him that knoweth not what that Sentence is seeing Universals are Nothing out of us but as they exist in individuals Mr. Lawson hath said that wihch would reconcile Protestants and some Papists as to the Name viz. that Gods Execution is his Sentence He Judgeth by Executing And so as the chief punishment is the Privation of the Spirit so the Justifying Act is the executive donation of the Spirit Thus are we disagreed about Active Justification which I have oft endeavoured Conciliatorily fullier to open And as to Passive Justification or as it is Status Justificati which is indeed that which it concerneth us in this Controversie to open I have told you how grosly some describe it here before And all agree not what Predicament it is in some take it to be in that of Action ut recipitur in passo and some in that of Quality and Relation Conjunct But most place it in Relation And will you wonder if all Christian Women yea or Divines cannot define that Relation aright And if they agree not in the notions of the Efficient Material Formal and Final Causes of that which must be defined as it is capable by its subjectum fundamentum and terminus I would not wish that the Salvation of any Friend of mine or any one should be laid on the true Logical Definition of Justification Active or Passive Constitutive Sentential or Executive And now the Judicious will see whether the Church and Souls of Men be well used by this pretence that all Protestants are agreed in the Nature Causes and Definition of Justification and that to depart from that one Definition where is it is so dangerous as the Doctor pretendeth because the Definition and the Definitum are the same § XX. P. 34. You say You tremble not in the audience of God and Man to suggest again that hard-fronted Calumny viz. that I prefer a Majority of Ignorants before a Learned man in his own profession Answ I laid it down as a Rule that They are not to be preferred You assault that Rule with bitter accusations as if it were unsound or else to this day I understand you not Is it then a hard-fronted Calumny to defend it and to tell you what is contained in the denying of it The audience of God must be so dreadful to you and me that without calling you to
against and condemn one another away with them all 2. Because divers great Volumes and other sad Evidence tells me that by their invented sence of Imputation they have tempted many Learned men to deny Imputation of Christ's Righteousness absolutely and bitterly revile it as a most Libertine Irreligious Doctrine 3. But above all that they do so exceedingly confirm the Papists I must profess that besides carnal Interest and the snare of ill Education I do not think that there is any thing in the World that maketh or hardneth and confirmeth Papists more and hindreth their reception of the Truth than these same well-meaning people that are most zealous against them by two means 1. One by Divisions and unruliness in Church-respects by which they perswade men especially Rulers that without such a Center as the Papacy there will be no Union and without such Violence as theirs there will be no Rule and Order Thus one extreme doth breed and feed another 2. The other is by this unsound sence of the Doctrine of Imputation of Christs Righteousness with an unsound Description of Faith saying that every man is to believe it as Gods word or fide divinâ that his own sins are pardoned which when the Papists read that these men make it one of the chief Points of our difference from Rome doth occasion them to triumph and reproach us and confidently dissent from us in all the rest I find in my self that my full certainty that they err in Transubstantiation and some other points doth greatly resolve me to neglect them at least or suspect them in the rest which seem more dubious And when the Papists find men most grosly erring in the very point where they lay the main stress of the difference who can expect otherwise but that this should make them despise and cast away our Books and take us as men self-condemned and already vanquished and dispute with us with the prejudice as we do with an Arrian or Socinian They themselves that cast away our Books because they dissent from us may feel in themselves what the Papists are like to do on this temptation 4. And it is not to be disregarded that many private persons not studied in these points are led away by the Authority of these men for more than Papists believe as the Church believeth to speak evil of the Truth and sinfully to Backbite and Slander those Teachers whom they hear others slander and to speak evil of the things which they know not And to see Gods own Servants seduced into Disaffection and abuse and false Speeches against those Ministers that do most clearly tell them the truth is a thing not silently to be cherished by any that are valuers of Love and Concord among Christians and of the Truth and their Brethrens Souls and that are displeased with that which the Devil is most pleased and God displeased with These are my Reasons submitted to every Readers Censure which may be as various as their Capacities Interests or Prejudices My Arguments in the third Chapter I have but briefly and hastily mentioned as dealing with the lovers of naked Truth who will not refuse it when they see it in its self-evidence But they that desire larger proof may find enough in Mr. Gataker and Mr. Wotton de Reconcil and in John Goodwin of Justification If they can read him without prejudice From whom yet I differ in the Meritorious Cause of our Justification and take in the habitual and actual Holiness of Christ as well as his Sufferings and equal in Merits and think that pardon it self is merited by his Obedience as well as by his Satisfaction To say nothing of some of his too harsh expressions about the Imputation of Faith and non-imputation of Christs Obedience which yet in some explications he mollifyeth and sheweth that his sence is the same with theirs that place all our Righteousness in remission of Sin such as besides those after-mentioned are Musculus Chamier and abundance more And when one saith that Faith is taken properly and another that it is taken Relatively in Imputation they seem to mean the same thing For Faith properly taken is essentiated by its Object And what Christ's Office is and what Faith's Office is I find almost all Protestants are agreed in sence while they differ in the manner of expression except there be a real difference in this point of simple Personating us in his perfect Holiness and making the Person of a Mediator to contain essentially in sensu Civili the very Person of every elect sinner and every such one to have verily been and done in sensu civili what Christ was and did I much marvel to find that with most the Imputation of Satisfaction is said to be for Remission of the penalty and Imputation of perfect Holiness for the obtaining of the Reward Eternal Life and yet that the far greater part of them that go that way say that Imputation of all Christs Righteousness goeth first as the Cause and Remission of Sin followeth as the Effect So even Mr. Roborough pag. 55. and others Which seemeth to me to have this Sence as if God said to a Believer I do repute thee to have perfectly fulfilled the Law in Christ and so to be no sinner and therefore forgive thee all thy sin In our sence it is true and runs but thus I do repute Christ to have been perfectly just habitually and actually in the Person of a Mediator in the Nature of Man and to have suffered as if he had been a sinner in the Person of a Sponsor by his own Consent and that in the very place and stead of sinners and by this to have satisfyed my Justice and by both to have merited free Justification and Life to be given by the new Covenant to all Believers And thou being a Believer I do repute thee justified and adopted by this satisfactory and meritorious Righteousness of Christ and by this free Covenant-Gift as verily and surely as if thou hadst done it and suffered thy self For my own part I find by experience that almost all Christians that I talk with of it have just this very notion of our Justification which I have expressed till some particular Disputer by way of Controversie hath thrust the other notion into their mind And for peace-sake I will say again what I have elsewhere said that I cannot think but that almost all Protestants agree in the substance of this point of Justification though some having not Acuteness enough to form their Notions of it rightly nor Humility enough to suspect their Understandings wrangle about Words supposing it to be about the Matter Because I find that all are agreed 1. That no Elect Person is Justified or Righteous by Imputation while he is an Infidel or Ungodly except three or four that speak confusedly and support the Antinomians 2. That God doth not repute us to have done what Christ did in our individual natural Person 's Physically The
46. Quest 7. Are we reputed our selves to have fulfilled all that Law of Innocency in and by Christ as representing our persons as obeying by him Ans No. § 47. Quest 8. Is it Christs Divine Habitual Active or Passive Righteousness which Justifieth us Ans All viz the Habitual Active and Passive exalted in Meritoriousness by Union with the Divine § 48. Quest 9. Is it Christs Righteousness or our Faith which is said to be imputed to us for Righteousness Rom. 4. Ans 1. The text speaketh of imputing Faith and by Faith is meant Faith and not Christs Righteousness in the word But that Faith is Faith in Christ and his Righteousness and the Object is quasi materia actus and covenanted 2. De re both are Imputed that is 1. Christs Righteousness is reputed the meritorious Cause 2. The free-gift by the Covenant is reputed the fundamentum juris both opposed to our Legal Merit 3. And our Faith is reputed the Conditio tituli and all that is required in us to our Justification as making us Qualified Recipients of the free-Gift merited by Christ § 49. Quest 10. Are we any way Justified by our own performed Righteousness Ans Yes Against the charge of non-performance as Infidels Impenitent Unholy and so as being uncapable of the free-gift of Pardon and Life in Christ CHAP. IV. The Reasons of our denying the fore-described rigid sence of Imputation Though it were most accurate to reduce what we deny to several Propositions and to confute each one argumentatively by it self yet I shall now choose to avoid such prolixity and for brevity and the satisfaction of such as look more at the force of a Reason than the form of the Argument I shall thrust together our denyed Sence with the manifold Reasons of our denyal WE deny that God doth so Impute Christs Righteousness to us as to repute or account us to have been Holy with all that Habitual Holiness which was in Christ or to have done all that he did in obedience to his Father or in fulfilling the Law or to have suffered all that he suffered and to have made God satisfaction for our own sins and merited our own Salvation and Justification in and by Christ or that he was did and suffered and merited all this strictly in the person of every sinner that is saved Or that Christs very individual Righteousness Material or Formal is so made ours in a strict sense as that we are Proprietors Subjects or Agents of the very thing it self simply and absolutely as it is distinct from the effects or that Christs Individual Formal Righteousness is made our Formal Personal Righteousness or that as to the effects we have any such Righteousness Imputed to us as formally ours which consisteth in a perfect Habitual and Actual Conformity to the Law of Innocency that is that we are reputed perfectly Holy and sinless and such as shall be Justified by the Law of Innocency which saith Perfectly Obey and Live or sin and die All this we deny Let him that will answer me keep to my words and not alter the sense by leaving any out And that he may the better understand me I add 1. I take it for granted that the Law requireth Habitual Holiness as well as Actual Obedience and is not fulfilled without both 2. That Christ loved God and man with a perfect constant Love and never sinned by Omission or Commission 3. That Christ died not only for our Original sin or sin before Conversion but for all our sin to our lives end 4. That he who is supposed to have no sin of Omission is supposed to have done all his duty 5. That he that hath done all his duty is not condemnable by that Law yea hath right to all the Reward promised on Condition of that duty 6. By Christs Material Righteousness I mean those Habits Acts and Sufferings in which his Righteousness did consist or was founded 7. By his and our Formal Righteousness I mean the Relation it self of being Righteous 8. And I hold that Christs Righteousness did not only Numerically as aforesaid but also thus totâ specie in kind differ from ours that his was a perfect Habitual and Actual Conformity to the Law of Innocency together with the peculiar Laws of Mediator-ship by which he merited Redemption for us and Glory for himself and us But ours is the Pardon of sin and Right of Life Purchased Merited and freely given us by Christ in and by a new Covenant whose condition is Faith with Repentance as to the gift of our Justification now and sincere Holiness Obedience Victory and Perseverance as to our possession of Glory Now our Reasons against the denyed sence of Imputation are these 1. In general this opinion setteth up and introduceth all Antinomianism or Libertinism and Ungodliness and subverteth the Gospel and all true Religion and Morality I do not mean that all that hold it have such effects in themselves but only that this is the tendency and consequence of the opinion For I know that many see not the nature and consequences of their own opinions and the abundance that hold damnable errors hold them but notionally in a peevish faction and therefore not dammingly but hold practically and effectually the contrary saving truth And if the Papists shall perswade Men that our doctrine yea their 's that here mistake cannot consist with a godly life let but the lives of Papists and Protestants be compared Yea in one of the Instances before given Though some of the Congregational-party hold what was recited yet so far are they from ungodly lives that the greatest thing in which I differ from them is the overmuch unscriptural strictness of some of them in their Church-admissions and Communion while they fly further from such as they think not godly than I think God would have them do being generally persons fearing God themselves Excepting the sinful alienation from others and easiness to receive and carry false reports of Dissenters which is common to all that fall into sidings But the errors of any men are never the better if they be found in the hands of godly men For if they be practised they will make them ungodly 2. It confoundeth the Person of the Mediator and of the Sinner As if the Mediator who was proclaimed the Beloved of the Father and therefore capable of reconciling us to him because he was still well-pleased in him had not only suffered in the room of the sinner by voluntary Sponsion but also in suffering and doing been Civilly the very person of the sinner himself that sinner I say who was an enemy to God and so esteemed 3. It maketh Christ to have been Civilly as many persons as there be elect sinners in the World which is both beside and contrary to Scripture 4. It introduceth a false sence and supposition of our sin imputed to Christ as if Imputatively it were his as it is ours even the sinful Habits the sinful Acts and
as long as you will you shall never tempt me by it to renounce my Baptism and List my self under the grand Enemy of Love and Concord nor to Preach up Hatred and Division for nothing as in the Name of Christ If you will handle such Controversies without Distinguishing of Faiths Works and Justifications I will never perswade any Friend of mine to be your Pupil or Disciple Then Simon Magus's faith and the Devils faith and Peters faith must all pass for the same and justifie accordingly Then indeed Believing in God the Father and the Holy Ghost yea and Christ as our Teacher King and Judg c. must pass for the Works by which no Man is Justified If Distinction be unsound detect the Error of it If not it is no Honour to a disputing Doctor to reproach it § X. But pag. 17. you set upon your great undeâ—eiving Work to shew the evil of ill using Words Words you say as they are enfranchised into Language are but the Agents and Factors of things for which they continually negotiate with our Minds conveying Errands on all occasions c. Let them mark that charge the vanity and bombast of Metaphors on others one word Signa should have served our turn instead of all this Whence it follows that their use and signification is Vnalterable but by the stamp of the like publick usage and imposition from whence at first they received their being c. Answ O Juniors Will not such deceiving Words save you from my Deceits But 1. Is there a Law and unalterable Law for the sense of Words Indeed the Words of the sacred Text must have no new Sense put upon them 2. Are you sure that it was Publick usage and Imposition from whence they first received their being How shall we know that they grew not into publick use from one Mans first Invention except those that not Publick use but God Himself made 3. Are you sure that all or most Words now Latine or English have the same and only the same use or sense as was put upon them at the first Is the change of the sense of Words a strange thing to us 4. But that which concerneth our Case most is Whether there be many Words either of Hebrew and Greek in the Scripture or of Latine English or any common Language which have not many Significations Your Reputation forbids you to deny it And should not those many Significations be distinguished as there is Cause Are not Faith Works Just Justice Justification words of divers senses in the Scripture and do not common Writers and Speakers use them yet more variously And shall a Disputer take on him that the use or signification of each is but one or two or is so fixed that there needeth no distinction 5. Is the change that is made in all Languages in the World made by the same publick usage and imposition from which at first they received their being 6. If as you say the same thing can be represented by different words only when they are Synonymous should we not avoid seeming to represent the same by Equivocals which unexplained are unfit for it Pag. 20. You tell me what sad work you are doing and no wonder Sin and Passions are self-troubling things And it 's well if it be sad to your self alone and not to such as you tempt into Mistakes Hatred and Division It should be sad to every Christian to see and hear those whom they are bound to Love represented as odious And you are still pag. 19. feigning that Every eye may see Men dealing Blows and Deaths about and therefore we are not wise if we think them agreed But doubtless many that seem killed by such Blows as some of yours are still alive And many a one is in Heaven that by Divines pretending to be Orthodox were damned on Earth And many Men are more agreed than they were aware of I have known a Knavish Fellow set two Persons of quality on Fighting before they spake a word to one another by telling them secretly and falsly what one said against the other Many differ even to persecuting and bloodshed by Will and Passion and Practice upon a falsly supposed great difference in Judgment I will not so suddenly repeat what Proof I have given of some of this in the place you noted Cath. Theol. Confer 11 12 13. There is more skill required to narrow differences than to widen them and to reconcile than to divide as there is to quench a Fire than to kindle it to build than to pull down to heal than to wound I presume therefore to repeat aloud my contrary Cautions to your Juniors Young-Men after long sad Experience of the sinful and miserable Contentions of the Clergie and consequently of the Christian World that you may escape the Guilt I beseech you whoever contradicteth it consider and believe these following Notices 1. That all Words are but arbitrary Signs and are changed as Men please and through the Penury of them and Mans imperfection in the Art of Speaking there are very few at all that have not various Significations 2. That this Speaking-Art requireth so much time and study and all Men are so defective in it and the variety of Mens skill in it is so very great that no Men in the World do perfectly agree in their interpretation and use of Words The doleful plague of the Confusion of Tongues doth still hinder our full Communication and maketh it hard for us to understand Words our selves or to be understood by others for Words must have a three-fold aptitude of Signification 1. To signifie the Matter 2. And the Speakers conceptions of it 3. And this as adapted to the hearers Mind to make a true Impression there 3. That God in Mercy hath not made Words so necessary as Things nor necessary but for the sake of the Things If God Christ Grace and Heaven be known believed and duly accepted you shall be saved by what Words soever it be brought to pass 4. Therefore Real Fundamentals or Necessaries to Salvation are more easily defined than Verbal ones For more or fewer Words these or other Words are needful to help some Persons to Faith and Love and Holiness as their Capacities are different 5. But as he that truly believeth in and giveth up himself to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost according to the sense of the Baptismal Covenant is a true Christian to be loved and shall be saved so he that understandeth such Words as help him to that true Faith and Consent doth know so much of the Verbal part as is of necessity to his Christianity and Salvation 6. And he that is such holdeth no Heresie or Error inconsistent with it If he truly love God it 's a contradiction to say that he holdeth an Error inconsistent with the Love of God 7. Therefore see that you Love all such as Christians till some proved or notorious inconsistents nullifying his Profession disoblige you 8.
faedere Hoc fac et vives debeatur Mr. Bradshaw I say attempted a Conciliatory middle way which indeed is the same in the main with Mr. Wotton's He honoureth the Learned Godly persons on each side but maintaineth that the Active and Passive Righteousness are both Imputed but not in the rigid sence of Imputation denying both these Propositions 1. That Christ by the Merits of his Passive Obedience only hath freed us from the guilt of all sin both Actual and Original of Omission and Commission 2. That in the Imputation of Christs Obedience both Active and Passive God doth so behold and consider a sinner in Christ as if the sinner himself had done and suffered those very particulars which Christ did and suffered for him And he wrote a small book with great accurateness in English first and Latin after opening the nature of Justification which hath been deservedly applauded ever since His bosom-Friend Mr. Tho. Gataker a man of rare Learning and Humility next set in to defend Mr. Bradshaw's way and wrote in Latin Animadversions on Lucius who opposed Piscator and erred on one side for rigid Imputation and on Piscator who on the other side was for Justification by the Passive Righteousness only and other things he wrote with great Learning and Judgment in that cause About that time the Doctrine of personal Imputation in the rigid sence began to be fully improved in England by the Sect of the Antinomians trulyer called Libertines of whom Dr. Crispe was the most eminent Ring-leader whose books took wonderfully with ignorant Professors under the pretence of extolling Christ and free-Grace After him rose Mr. Randal and Mr. John Simpson and then Mr. Town and at last in the Armies of the Parliament Saltmarsh and so many more as that it seemed to be likely to have carried most of the Professors in the Army and abundance in the City and Country that way But that suddenly one Novelty being set up against another the opinions called Arminianism rose up against it and gave it a check and carryed many in the Army and City the clean contrary way And these two Parties divided a great part of the raw injudicious sort of the professors between them which usually are the greatest part but especially in the Army which was like to become a Law and example to others Before this John Goodwin not yet turned Arminian preached and wrote with great diligence about Justification against the rigid sence of Imputation who being answered by Mr. Walker and Mr. Robourough with far inferiour strength his book had the greater success for such answerers The Antinomians then swarming in London Mr. Anthony Burges a very worthy Divine was employed to Preach and Print against them which he did in several books but had he been acquainted with the men as I was he would have found more need to have vindicated the Gospel against them than the Law Being daily conversant my self with the Antinomian and Arminian Souldiers and hearing their daily contests I thought it pitty that nothing but one extreme should be used to beat down that other and I found the Antinomian party far the stronger higher and more fierce and working towards greater changes and subversions And I found that they were just falling in with Saltmarsh that Christ hath repented and believed for us and that we must no more question our Faith and Repentance than Christ This awakened me better to study these points And being young and not furnished with sufficient reading of the Controversie and also being where were no libraries I was put to study only the naked matter in it self Whereupon I shortly wrote a small book called Aphorisms of Justification c. Which contained that Doctrine in substance which I judg sound but being the first that I wrote it had several expressions in it which needed correction which made me suspend or retract it till I had time to reform them Mens judgments of it were various some for it and some against it I had before been a great esteemer of two books of one name Vindiciae Gratiae Mr. Pembles and Dr. Twisses above most other books And from them I had taken in the opinion of a double Justification one in foro Dei as an Immanent eternal Act of God and another in foro Conscientiae the Knowledg of that and I knew no other But now I saw that neither of those was the Justification which the Scripture spake of But some half Antinomians which were for the Justification before Faith which I wrote against were most angry with my book And Mr. Crandon wrote against it which I answered in an Apologie and fullyer wrote my judgment in my Confession and yet more fully in some Disputations of Justification against Mr. Burges who had in a book of Justification made some exceptions and pag. 346. had defended that As in Christ's suffering we were looked upon by God as suffering in him so by Christs obeying of the Law we were beheld as fulfilling the Law in him To those Disputations I never had any answer And sinâ—â— then in my Life of Faith I have opened the Libertine errours about Justification and stated the sence of Imputation Divers writers were then employed on these subjects Mr. Eyers for Justification before Faith that is of elect Infidels and Mr. Benjamin Woodbridg Mr. Tho. Warren against it Mr. Hotchkis wrote a considerable Book of Forgiveness of sin defending the sounder way Mr. George Hopkins wrote to prove that Justification and Sanctification are equally carryed on together Mr. Warton Mr. Graile Mr. Jessop clearing the sence of Dr. Twisse and many others wrote against Antinomianism But no man more clearly opened the whole doctrine of Justification than Learned and Pious Mr. Gibbons Minister at Black-Fryers in a Sermon Printed in the Lectures at St. Giles in the Fields By such endeavours the before-prevailing Antinomianism was suddenly and somewhat marvelously suppressed so that there was no great noise made by it About Imputation that which I asserted was against the two fore-described extremes in short That we are Justified by Christ's whole Righteousness Passive Active and Habitual yea the Divine so far included as by Vnion advancing the rest to a valuable sufficiency That the Passive that is Christ's whole Humiliation is satisfactory first and so meritorious and the Active and Habitual meritorious primarily That as God the Father did appoint to Christ as Mediator his Duty for our Redemption by a Law or Covenant so Christ's whole fulfilling that Law or performance of his Covenant-Conditions as such by Habitual and Actual perfection and by Suffering made up one Meritorious Cause of our Justification not distinguishing with Mr. Gataker of the pure moral and the servile part of Christ's Obedience save only as one is more a part of Humiliation than the other but in point of Merit taking in all That as Christ suffered in our stead that we might not suffer and obeyed in our nature that perfection of Obedience
might not be necessary to our Justification and this in the person of a Mediator and Sponsor for us sinners but not so in our Persons as that we truely in a moral or civil sence did all this in and by him Even so God reputeth the thing to be as it is and so far Imputeth Christ's Righteousness and Merits and Satisfaction to us as that it is Reputed by him the true Meritorious Cause of our Justification and that for it 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 this Covenant or Gift as surely justified and saved by Christ's Righteousness as if they had Obeyed and Satisfied themselves Not that Christ meriteth that we shall have Grace to fulfil the Law our selves and stand before God in a Righteousness of our own which will answer the Law of works and justifie us But 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 Gods Instrument and giveth them a Right to Life eternal for Christs Merits This is the sence of Imputation which I and others asserted as the true healing middle way And as bad as they are among the most Learned Papists Cornelius a Lapide is cited by Mr. Wotton Vasquez by Davenant Suarez by Mr. Burges as speaking for some such Imputation and Merit Grotius de Satisf is clear for it But the Brethren called Congregational or Independant in their Meeting at the Savoy Oct. 12. 1658. publishing a Declaration of their Faith Cap. 11. have these words Those whom God effectually calleth he also freely justifieth not by infusing Righteousness into them but by pardoning their Sins and by accounting and accepting their persons as Righteous not for any thing wrought in them or done by them but for Christs sake alone not by imputing Faith it self the act of believing or any other evangelical Obedience to them as their Righteousness but by Imputing Christs Active Obedience to the whole Law and Passive Obedience in his death for their whole and sole Righteousness they receiving and resting on him and his Righteousness by Faith Upon the publication of this it was variously spoken of some thought that it gave the Papists so great a scandal and advantage to reproach the Protestants as denying all inherent Righteousness that it was necessary that we should disclaim it Others said that it was not their meaning to deny Inherent Righteousness though their words so spake but only that we are not justified by it Many said that it was not the work of all of that party but of some few that had an inclination to some of the Antinomian principles out of a mistaken zeal of free Grace and that it is well known that they differ from us and therefore it cannot be imputed to us and that it is best make no stir about it lest it irritate them to make the matter worse by a Defence give the Papists too soon notice of it And I spake with one Godly Minister that was of their Assembly who told me that they did not subscribe it and that they meant but to deny Justification by inherent Righteousness And though such men in the Articles of their declared Faith no doubt can speak intelligibly and aptly and are to be understood as they speak according to the common use of the words yet even able-men sometimes may be in this excepted when eager engagement in an opinion and parties carryeth them too precipitantly and maketh them forget something that should be remembred The Sentences here which we excepted against are these two But the first was not much offensive because their meaning was right And the same words are in the Assemblies Confession though they might better have been left out Scriptures Declaration Rom. 4.3 What saith the Scripture Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for Righteousness Ver. 5. To him that worketh not but believeth on him that Justifyeth the Vngodly his Faith is counted for Righteousness Ver. 9. For we say that Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness How was it then reckoned Ver. 11. And he received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being uncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that believe that Righteousness might be imputed to them also Ver. 13. Through the Righteousness of Faith Ver. 16. Therefore it is of Faith that it might be by Grace vid. Ver. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. He was strong in Faith fully perswaded that what he had promised he was able also to perform and therefore it was Imputed to him for Righteousness Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him but for us also to whom it shall be imputed if we or who believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead Gen. 15.5 6. Tell the Stars so shall thy seed be And he believed in the Lord and he counted it to him for Righteousness Jam. 2.21 22 23 24. Was not Abraham our Father justified by Works And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for Righteousness Luk. 19.17 Well done thou good Servant Because thou hast been Faithful in a very little have thou authority over ten Cities Mat. 25.34 35 40 Come ye blessed For I was hungry and ye gave me Meat Gen. 22.16 17 By my self I have sworn Because thou hast done this thing Joh. 16.27 For the Father himself loveth you because you have loved me and have believed that I came out from God Many such passages are in Scripture Our opinion is 1. That it is better to justifie and expound the Scripture than flatly to deny it If Scripture so oft say that Faith is reckoned or Imputed for Righteousness it becometh not Christians to say It is not But to shew in what sence it is and in what it is not For if it be so Imputed in no sence the Scripture is made false If in any sence it should not be universally denied but with distinction 2. We hold that in Justification there is considerable 1. The Purchasing and Meritorious Cause of Justification freely given in the new Covenant This is only Christ's Sufferings and Righteousness and so it is Reputed of God and Imputed to us 2. The Order of Donation which is On Condion of Acceptance And so 3. The Condition of our Title to the free Gift by this Covenant And that is Our Faith or Acceptance of the Gift according to its nature and use And thus God Reputeth Faith and Imputeth it to us requiring but this Condition of us which also he worketh in us by the Covenant of Grace whereas perfect Obedience was required of us by the Law of Innocency If we err in this explication it had been better to confute us than deny
God's Word Scriptures besides the former Declaration 1 Joh. 2.29 Every one which doth Righteousness is born of God 3.7 10. He that doth Righteousness is Righteous even as he is Righteous Whosoever doth not righteousness is not of God 2 Tim. 4.8 He hath laid up for us a Crown of Righteousness Heb. 11.23 Through Faith they wrought Righteousness Heb. 12. The peaceable fruit of Righteousness Jam. 3.18 The fruit of Righteousness is sown in Peace 1 Pet. 2.24 That we being dead to sin should live unto righteousness Mat 5.20 Except your Righteousness exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees c. Luk. 1.71 In Holiness and Righteousness before him all the days of our Life Act. 10.35 He that feareth God and worketh Righteousness is accepted of him Rom. 6.13 16 18 19 20. Whether of sin unto death or of Obedience unto Righteousness 1 Cor. 15.34 Awake to Righteousness and sin not Eph. 5.9 The fruit of the Spirit is in all Goodness and Righteousness Dan. 12.3 They shall turn many to Righteousness Dan. 4.27 Break off thy sins by Righteousness Eph. 4.24 The new-man which after God is created in Righteousness Gen. 7.1 Thee have I seen Righteous before me Gen. 18.23 24 25 26. Far be it from thee to destroy the Righteous with the Wicked Prov. 24.24 He that saith to the Wicked thou art Righteous him shall the people Curse Nations shall abhor him Isa 3.10 Say to the Righteous it shall be well with him Isa 5.23 That take away the Righteousness from the Righteous Mat. 25.37 46. Then shall the Righteous answer The Righteous into life eternal Luk. 1.6 They were both Righteous before God Heb. 11.4 7. By Faith Abel offered to God a more excellent Sacrifice than Cain by which he obtained witness that he was righteous God testifying of his Gifts By Faith Noah being warned of God of things not seen as yet moved with fear prepared an Ark by which he became heir of the Righteousness by Faith 1 Pet. 4.18 If the Righteous be scarcely saved Math. 10.41 He that receiveth a Righteous man in the name of a Righteous man shall have a Righteous mans reward 1 Tim. 1.9 The Law is not made for a Righteous man but for Many score of texts more mention a Righteousness distinct from that of Christ imputed to us Judg now Whether he that believeth God should believe that he Imputeth Christs Obedience and Suffering to us for our Sole Righteousness That which is not our sole Righteousness is not so Reputed by God nor Imputed But Christs Obedience and Suffering is not our sole Righteousness See Davenant's many arguments to prove that we have an Inherent Righteousness Obj. But they mean our Sole Righteousness by which we are Justified Answ 1. We can tell no mans meaning but by his words especially not contrary to them especially in an accurate Declaration of Faith 2. Suppose it had been so said we maintain on the contrary 1. That we are Justified by more sorts of Righteousness than one in several respects We are justified only by Christs Righteousness as the Purchasing and Meritorious Cause of our Justification freely given by that new Covenant We are Justified by the Righteousness of God the Father as performing his Covenant with Christ and us efficiently We are justified efficiently by the Righteousness of Christ as our Judg passing a just sentence according to his Covenant These last are neither Ours nor Imputed to us But we are justified also against the Accusation of being finally Impenitent Unbelievers or unholy by the personal particular Righteousness of our own Repentance Faith and Holiness For 2. We say that there is an universal Justification or Righteousness and there is a particular one And this particular one may be the Condition and Evidence of our Title to all the rest And this is our case The Day of Judgment is not to try and Judg Christ or his Merits but us He will judg us himself by his new Law or Covenant the sum of which is Except ye Repent ye shall all perish and He that believeth shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be condemned If we be not accused of Impenitence or Vnbelief but only of not-fulfilling the Law of Innocency that will suppose that we are to be tryed only by that Law which is not true And then we refer the Accuser only to Christ's Righteousness and to the Pardoning Law of Grace and to nothing in our selves to answer that charge And so it would be Christ's part only that would be judged But Matth. 25. and all the Scripture assureth us of the contrary that it 's Our part that it is to be tryed and judged and that we shall be all judged according to what we have done And no man is in danger there of any other accusation but that he did not truly Repent and Believe and live a holy life to Christ And shall the Penitent Believer say I did never Repent and Believe but Christ did it for me and so use two Lyes one of Christ and another of himself that he may be justified Or shall the Vnholy Impenitent Infidel say It 's true I was never a Penitent Believer or holy but Christ was for me or Christs Righteousness is my sole Righteousness that is a fashood For Christs Righteousness is none of his So that there is a particular personal Righteousness consisting in Faith and Repentance which by way of Condition and Evidence of our title to Christ and his Gift of Pardon and Life is of absolute necessity in our Justification Therefore Imputed Righteousness is not the sole Righteousness which must justifie us I cited abundance of plain Texts to this purpose in my Confession pag. 57. c. Of which book I add that when it was in the press I procured those three persons whom I most highly valued for judgment Mr. Gataker whose last work it was in this World Mr. Vines and lastly Arch-Bishop Vsher to read it over except the Epistles Mr. Gataker read only to pag. 163. and no one of them advised me to alter one word nor signified their dissent to any word of it But I have been long on this to proceed in the History The same year that I wrote that book that most Judicious excellent man Joshua Placaeus of Saumours in France was exercised in a Controversie conjunct with this How far Adams sin is imputed to us And to speak truth at first in the Theses Salmuriens Vol. 1. he seemed plainly to dispute against the Imputation of Adam's actual sin and his arguments I elsewhere answer And Andr. Rivet wrote a Collection of the Judgment of all sorts of Divines for the contrary But after he vindicated himself shewed that his Doctrine was that Adam's fact is not immediately imputed to each of us as if our persons as persons had been all fully represented in Adam's person by an arbitrary Law or Will of God or reputed so to be But that our Persons being
any Work and Merit of man And his death and blood alone is sufficient to abolish expiate all the sins of all men All must come to Christ for pardon and Remission of Sin Salvation and every thing All our trust and hope is to be fastened on him alone Through him only and his merits God is appeas'd and propitious Loveth us and giveth us Life eternal XI The Palatinate Confession ib. pag. 149. I believe that God the Father for the most full Satisfaction of Christ doth never remember any of my sins and that pravity which I must strive against while I live but contrarily will rather of grace give me the righteousness of Christ so that I have no need to fear the judgment of God And pag. 155. If he merited and obtained Remission of all our sins by the only and bitter passion and death of the Cross so be it we embracing it by true Faith as the satisfaction for our sins apply it to our selves I find no more of this XII The Polonian Churches of Lutherans and Bohemians agreed in the Augustane and Bohemian Confession before recited XIII The Helvetian Confession To Justifie signifieth to the Apostle in the dispute of Justification To Remit sins to Absolve from the fault and punishment to Receive into favour and to Pronounce just For Christ took on himself and took away the sins of the World and satisfied Gods Justice God therefore for the sake of Christ alone suffering and raised again is propitious to our sins and imputeth them not to us but imputeth the righteousness of Christ for ours so that now we are not only cleansed and purged from sins or Holy but also endowed with the Righteousness of Christ and so absolved from sins Death and Condemnation and are righteous and heirs of life eternal Speaking properly God only justifieth us and justifieth only for Christ not imputing to us sins but imputing to us his Righteousness This Confession speaketh in terms neerest the opposed opinion But indeed saith no more than we all say Christs Righteousness being given and imputed to us as the Meritorious Cause of our pardon and right to life XIV The Basil Confession Art 9. We confess Remission of sins by Faith in Jesus Christ crucified And though this Faith work continually by Love yet Righteousness and Satisfaction for our Sins we do not attribute to works which are fruits of Faith but only to true affiance faith in the blood shed of the Lamb of God We ingenuously profess that in Christ who is our Righteousness Holiness Redemption Way Truth Wisdom Life all things are freely given us The works therefore of the faithful are done not that they may satisfie for their sins but only that by them they may declare that they are thankful to God for so great benefits given us in Christ XV. The Argentine Confession of the four Cities Cap. 3. ib. pag. 179. hath but this hereof When heretofore they delivered that a mans own proper Works are required to his Justification we teach that this is to be acknowledged wholly received of God's benevolence and Christ's Merit and perceived only by Faith C. 4. We are sure that no man can be made Righteous or saved unless he love God above all and most studiously imitate him We can no otherwise be Justified that is become both Righteous and Saved for our Righteousness is our very Salvation than if we being first indued with Faith by which believing the Gospel and perswaded that God hath adopted us as Sons and will for ever give us his fatherly benevolence we wholly depend on his beck or will XVI The Synod of Dort mentioneth only Christs death for the pardon of sin and Justification The Belgick Confession § 22. having mentioned Christ and his merits made ours § 23. addeth We believe that our blessedness consisteth in Remission of our sins for Jesus Christ and that our Righteousness before God is therein contained as David and Paul teach We are justified freely or by Grace through the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus We hold this Foundation firm and give all the Glory to God presuming nothing of our selves and our merits but we rest on the sole Obedience of a Crucified Christ which is ours when we believe in him Here you see in what sence they hold that Christs merits are ours Not to justifie us by the Law that saith Obey perfectly and Live but as the merit of our pardon which they here take for their whole Righteousness XVII The Scottish Confession Corp. Conf. pag. 125. hath but that true Believers receive in this life Remission of Sins and that by Faith alone in Christs blood So that though sin remain yet it is not Imputed to us but is remitted and covered by Christs Righteousness This is plain and past all question XVIII The French Confession is more plain § 18. ib. pag. 81. We believe that our whole Righteousness lyeth in the pardon of our sins which is also as David witnesseth our only blessedness Therefore all other reasons by which men think to be justified before God we plainly reject and all opinion of Merit being cast away we rest only in the Obedience of Christ which is Imputed to us both that all our sins may be covered and that we may get Grace before God So that Imputation of Obedience they think is but for pardon of sin and acceptance Concerning Protestants Judgment of Imputation it is further to be noted 1. That they are not agreed whether Imputation of Christ's perfect Holiness and Obedience be before or after the Imputation of his Passion in order of nature Some think that our sins are first in order of nature done away by the Imputation of his sufferings that we may be free from punishment and next that his perfection is Imputed to us to merit the Reward of life eternal But the most learned Confuters of the Papists hold that Imputation of Christs Obedience and Suffering together are in order of nature before our Remission of sin and Acceptance as the meritorious cause And these can mean it in no other sence than that which I maintain So doth Davenant de Just hab et act Pet. Molinaeus Thes Sedan Vol. 1. pag. 625. Imputatio justitiae Christi propter quam peccata remittuntur censemur justi coram Deo Maresius Thes Sedan Vol. 2. pag. 770 771. § 6 10. maketh the material cause of our Justification to be the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ yea the Merit of his Satisfaction and so maketh the formal Cause of Justification to be the Imputation of Christs Righteousness or which is the same the solemn Remission of all sins and our free Acceptance with God Note that he maketh Imputation to be the same thing with Remission and Acceptance which is more than the former said 2. Note that when they say that Imputation is the Form of Justification they mean not of Justification Passively as it is ours but Actively as it is Gods Justifying
the debt of a Community deeply indebted to the King and thence bound to perpetual slavery This payment gets liberty for this and that and the other member of the Community For it is imputed to them by the King as if they had paid it But this Imputation transferreth not the honour to them but brings them to partake of the Benefit So when the price paid by Christ for all is imputed to this or that man he is taken into the society of the Benefit Pag. 503. Distinguish between the Benefit and the Office of Christ The former is made ours but not the latter Pag. 542. The Remission of sin is nothing but the Imputation of Christs Righteousness Rom. 4. Where Imputation of Righteousness Remission of Iniquities and non-imputation of sin are all one Pag. 547. God imputeth it as far as he pleaseth Pag. 548. Princes oft impute the merits of Parents to unworthy Children Pag. 551. He denyeth that we have Infinite Righteousness in Christ because it is imputed to us in a finite manner even so far as was requisite to our absolution But I will a little more distinctly open and resolve the Case 1. We must distinguish of Righteousness as it relateth to the Preceptive part of the Law and as it relateth to the Retributive part The first Righteousness is Innocency contrary to Reatus Culpae The second is Jus ad impunitatem ad praemium seu dâ—num Right to Impunity and to the Reward 2. We must distinguish of Christs Righteousness which is either so called formally and properly which is the Relation of Christs person to his Law of Mediation imposed on him 1. As Innocent and a perfect obeyer 2. As one that deserved not punishment but deserved Reward Or it is so called materially and improperly which is Those same Habits Acts and Sufferings of Christ from which his Relation of Righteous did result 3. We must distinguish of Imputation which signifyeth here 1. To repute us personally to have been the Agents of Christs Acts the subjects of his Habits and Passion in a Physical sence 2. Or to repute the same formal Relation of Righteousness which was in Christs person to be in ours as the subject 3. Or to repute us to have been the very subjects of Christ's Habits and Passion and the Agents of his Acts in a Political or Moral sense and not a physical as a man payeth a debt by his Servant or Attorney or Delegate 4. And consequently to repute a double formal Righteousness to result from the said Habits Acts and Passions one to Christ as the natural Subject and Agent and another to us as the Moral Political or reputed Subject and Agent And so his Formal Righteousness not to be imputed to us in it self as ours but another to result from the same Matter 5. Or else that we are reputed both the Agents and Subjects of the Matter of his Righteousness morally and also of the Formal Righteousness of Christ himself 6. Or else by Imputation is meant here that Christ being truly reputed to have taken the Nature of sinful man and become a Head for all true Believers in that undertaken Nature and Office in the Person of a Mediator to have fulfilled all the Law imposed on him by perfect Holiness and Obedience and Offering himself on the Cross a Sacrifice for our sins voluntarily suffering in our stead as if he had been a sinner guilty of all our sins As soon as we believe we are pardoned justified adopted for the sake and merit of this Holiness Obedience and penal Satisfaction of Christ with as full demonstration of divine Justice at least and more full demonstration of his Wisdom and Mercy than if we had suffered our selves what our sins deserved that is been damned or had never sinned And so Righteousness is imputed to us that is we are accounted or reputed righteous not in relation to the Precept that is innocent or sinless but in relation to the Retribution that is such as have Right to Impunity and Life because Christ's foresaid perfect Holiness Obedience and Satisfaction merited our Pardon and Adoption and the Spirit or merited the New-Covenant by which as an Instrument Pardon Justification and Adoption are given to Believers and the Spirit to be given to sanctifie them And when we believe we are justly reputed such as have Right to all these purchased Gifts 4. And that it may be understood how far Christ did Obey or Suffer in our stead or person we must distinguish 1. Between his taking the Nature of sinful man and taking the Person of sinners 2. Between his taking the Person of a sinner and taking the Person of you and me and each particular sinner 3. Between his taking our sinful persons simply ad omnia and taking them only secundum quid in tantum ad hoc 4. Between his suffering in the Person of sinners and his obeying and sanctity in the Person of sinners or of us in particular 5. Between his Obeying and Suffering in our Person and our Obeying and Suffering in his Person Natural or Political And now I shall make use of these distinctions by the Propositions following Prop. 1. The phrase of Christ's Righteousness imputed to us is not in the Scripture 2. Therefore when it cometh to Disputation to them that deny it some Scripture-phrase should be put in stead of it because 1. The Scripture hath as good if not much better phrases to signifie all in this that is necessary 2. And it is supposed that the Disputants are agreed of all that is express in the Scripture 3. Yet so much is said in Scripture as may make this phrase of Imputing Christ's Righteousness to us justifiable in the sound sence here explained For the thing meant by it is true and the phrase intelligible 4. Christ's Righteousness is imputed to Believers in the sixth sence here before explained As the Meritorious cause of our Pardon Justification Righteousness Adoption Sanctification and Salvation c. as is opened 5. Christ did not suffer all in kind much less in duration which sinful man deserved to suffer As e. g. 1. He was not hated of God 2. Nor deprived or deserted of the sanctifying Spirit and so of its Graces and Gods Image Nor had 3. any of that permitted penalty by which sin it self is a misery and punishment to the sinner 4. He fell not under the Power of the Devil as a deceiver and ruler as the ungodly do 5. His Conscience did not accuse him of sin and torment him for it 6. He did not totally despair of ever being saved 7. The fire of Hell did not torment his body More such instances may be given for proof 6. Christ did not perform all the same obedience in kind which many men yea all men are or were bound to perform As 1. He did not dress and keep that Garden which Adam was commanded to dress and keep 2. He did not the conjugal offices which Adam and millions
save us from suffering but he obeyed not to save us from obeying but to bring us to Obedience Yet his Perfection of Obedience had this end that perfect Obedience might not be necessary in us to our Justification and Salvation 27. It was not we our selves who did perfectly obey or were perfectly holy or suffered for sin in the Person of Christ or by Him Nor did we Naturally or Morally merit our own Salvation by obeying in Christ nor did we satisfie Gods Justice for our sins nor purchase pardon of Salvation to our selves by our Suffering in and by Christ All such phrase and sence is contrary to Scripture But Christ did this for us 28. Therefore God doth not repute us to have done it seeing it is not true 29. It is impossible for the individual formal Righteousness of Christ to be our Formal personal Righteousness Because it is a Relation and Accident which cannot be translated from subject to subject and cannot be in divers subjects the same 30. Where the question is Whether Christs Material Righteousness that is his Habits Acts and Sufferings themselves be Ours we must consider how a man can have Propriety in Habits Acts and Passions who is the subject of them and in Actions who is the Agent of them To Give the same Individual Habit or Passion to another is an Impossibility that is to make him by Gift the subject of it For it is not the same if it be in another subject To make one man really or physically to have been the Agent of anothers Act even that Individual Act if he was not so is a contradiction and impossibility that is to make it true that I did that which I did not To be ours by Divine Imputation cannot be to be ours by a false Reputation or supposition that we did what we did not For God cannot err or lie There is therefore but one of these two ways left Either that we our selves in person truly had the habits which Christ had and did all that Christ did and suffered all that he suffered and so satisfied and merited Life in and by him as by an Instrument or Legal Representer of our persons in all this Which I am anon to Confute or else That Christs Satisfaction Righteousness and the Habits Acts and Sufferings in which it lay are imputed to us and made ours not rigidly in the very thing it self but in the Effects and Benefits In as much as we are as really Pardoned Justified Adopted by them as the Meritorious cause by the instrumentality of the Covenants Donation as if we our selves had done and suffered all that Christ did as a Mediator and Sponsor do and suffer for us I say As really and certainly and with a fuller demonstration of Gods Mercy and Wisdom and with a sufficient demonstration of his Justice But not that our propriety in the benefits is in all respects the same as it should have been if we had been done and suffered our selves what Christ did Thus Christs Righteousness is ours 31. Christ is truly The Lord our Righteousness in more respects than one or two 1. In that he is the meritorious Cause of the Pardon of all our sins and our full Justification Adoption and right to Glory and by his Satisfaction and Merits only our Justification by the Covenant of Grace against the Curse of the Law of Works is purchased 2. In that he is the Legislator Testator and Donor of our Pardon and Justification by this new-Testament or Covenant 3. In that he is the Head of Influx and King and Intercessor by and from whom the Spirit is given to sanctifie us to God and cause us sincerely to perform the Conditions of the Justifying and saving Covenant in Accepting and Improving the mercy then given 4. In that he is the Righteous Judge and Justifyer of Believers by sentence of Judgment In all these Respects he is The Lord our Righteousness 32. We are said to be made the Righteousness of God in him 1. In that as he was used like a sinner for us but not esteemed one by God so we are used like Innocent persons so far as to be saved by him 2. In that through his Merits and upon our union with him when we believe and consent to his Covenant we are pardoned and justified and so made Righteous really that is such as are not to be condemned but to be glorified 3. In that the Divine Nature and Inherent Righteousness to them that are in him by Faith are for his Merits given by the Holy Ghost 4. In that God's Justice and Holiness Truth Wisdom and Mercy are all wonderfully demonstrated in this way of pardoning and justifying sinners by Christ Thus are we made the Righteousness of God in him 31. For Righteousness to be imputed to us is all one as to be accounted Righteous Rom. 4.6 11. notwithstanding that we be not Righteous as fulfillers of the Law of Innocency 34. For Faith to be imputed to us for Righteousness Rom. 4.22 23 24. is plainly meant that God who under the Law of Innocency required perfect Obedience of us to our Justification and Glorification upon the satisfaction and merits of Christ hath freely given a full Pardon and Right to Life to all true Believers so that now by the Covenant of Grace nothing is required of us to our Justification but Faith all the rest being done by Christ And so Faith in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost is reputed truly to be the condition on our part on which Christ and Life by that Baptismal Covenant are made ours 35. Justification Adoption and Life eternal are considered 1. Quoad ipsam rem as to the thing it self in value 2. Quoad Ordinem Conferendi Recipiendi as to the order and manner of Conveyance and Participation In the first respect It is a meer free-gift to us purchased by Christ In the second respect It is a Reward to Believers who thankfully accept the free-Gift according to its nature and uses 36. It is an error contrary to the scope of the Gospel to say that the Law of Works or of Innocency doth justifie us as performed either by our selves or by Christ For that Law condemneth and curseth us And we are not efficiently justified by it but from or against it 37. Therefore we have no Righteousness in Reality or Reputation formally ours which consisteth in the first species that is in a Conformity to the Preceptive part of the Law of Innocency we are not reputed Innocent But only a Righteousness which consisteth in Pardon of all sin and right to life with sincere performance of the Condition of the Covenant of Grace that is True Faith 38. Our pardon puts not away our Guilt of Fact or Fault but our Guilt of or obligation to Punishment God doth not repute us such as never sinned or such as by our Innocency merited Heaven but such as are not to be damned but to be glorified because pardoned and adopted
through the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ 39. Yet the Reatus Culpae is remitted to us Relatively as to the punishment though not in it self that is It shall not procure our Damnation Even as Christ's Righteousness is though not in it self yet respectively as to the Benefits said to be made ours in as much as we shall have those benefits by it 40. Thus both the Material and the Formal Righteousness of Christ are made ours that is Both the Holy Habits and Acts and his Sufferings with the Relative formal Righteousness of his own Person because these are altogether one Meritorious cause of our Justification commonly called the Material Cause Obj. But though Forma Denominat yet if Christs Righteousness in Matter and Form be the Meritorious Cause of ours and that be the same with the Material Cause it is a very tolerable speech to say that His Righteousness is Ours in it self while it is the very matter of ours Ans 1. When any man is Righteous Immediately by any action that action is called the Matter of his Righteousness in such an Analogical sense as Action an Accident may be called Matter because the Relation of Righteous is founded or subjected first or partly in that Action And so when Christ perfectly obeyed it was the Matter of his Righteousness But to be Righteous and to Merit are not all one notion Merit is adventitious to meer Righteousness Now it is not Christs Actions in themselves that our Righteousness resulteth from immediately as his own did But there is first his Action then his formal Righteousness thereby and thirdly his Merit by that Righteousness which goes to procure the Covenant-Donation of Righteousnass to us by which Covenant we are efficiently made Righteous So that the name of a Material Cause is much more properly given to Christs Actions as to his own formal Righteousness than as to ours But yet this is but de nomine 2. Above all consider what that Righteousness is which Christ merited for us which is the heart of the Controversie It is not of the same species or sort with his own His Righteousness was a perfect sinless Innocency and Conformity to the preceptive part of the Law of Innocency in Holiness Ours is not such The dissenters think it is such by Imputation and here is the difference Ours is but in respect to the second or retributive part of the Law a Right to Impunity and Life and a Justification not at all by that Law but from its curse or condemnation The Law that saith Obey perfectly and live sin and die doth not justifie us as persons that have perfectly obeyed it really or imputatively But its obligation to punishment is dissolved not by it self but by the Law of Grace It is then by the Law of Grace that we are judged and justified According to it 1. We are not really or reputatively such as have perfectly fulfilled all its Precepts 2. But we are such as by Grace do sincerely perform the Condition of its promise 3. By which promise of Gift we are such as have right to Christs own person in the Relation and Union of a Head and Saviour and with him the pardon of all our sins and the right of Adoption to the Spirit and the Heavenly Inheritance as purchased by Christ So that besides our Inherent or Adherent Righteousness of sincere Faith Repentance and Obedience as the performed condition of the Law of Grace we have no other Righteousness our selves but Right to Impunity and to Life and not any imputed sinless Innocency at all God pardoneth our sins and adopteth us for the sake of Christ's sufferings and perfect Holiness But he doth not account us perfectly Holy for it nor perfectly Obedient So that how-ever you will call it whether a Material Cause or a Meritorious the thing is plain Obj. He is made of God Righteousness to us Ans True But that 's none of the question But how is he so made 1. As he is made Wisdom Sanctification and Redemption as aforesaid 2. By Merit Satisfaction Direction Prescription and Donation He is the Meritorious Cause of our Pardon of our Adoption of our Right to Heaven of that new Covenant which is the Instrumental Deed of Gift confirming all these And he is also our Righteousness in the sense that Austin so much standeth on as all our Holiness and Righteousness of Heart and Life is not of our natural endeavour but his gift and operation by his Spirit causing us to obey his Holy precepts and Example All these ways he is made of God our Righteousness Besides the Objective way of sense as he is Objectively made our Wisdom because it is the truest wisdom to know him So he is objectively made our Righteousness in that it is that Gospel-Righteousness which is required of our selves by his grace to believe in him and obey him 41. Though Christ fulfilled not the Law by Habitual Holiness and Actual Obedience strictly in the Individual person of each particular sinner yet he did it in the nature of Man And so humane nature considered in specie and in Christ personally though not considered as a totum or as personally in each man did satisfie and fullfil the Law and Merit As Humane Nature sinned in Adam actually in specie and in his individual person and all our Persons were seminally and virtually in him and accordingly sinned or are reputed sinners as having no nature but what he conveyed who could convey no better than he had either as to Relation or Real quality But not that God reputed us to have been actually existent as really distinct persons in Adam which is not true Even so Christ obeyed and suffered in our Nature and in our nature as it was in him and humane sinful nature in specie was Universally pardoned by him and Eternal life freely given to all men for his merits thus far imputed to them their sins being not imputed to hinder this Gift which is made in and by the Covenant of Grace Only the Gift hath the Condition of mans Acceptance of it according to its nature 2 Cor. 5.19 20. And all the individuals that shall in time by Faith accept the Gift are there and thereby made such as the Covenant for his merits doth justifie by that General Gift 42. As Adam was a Head by Nature and therefore conveyed Guilt by natural Generation so Christ is a Head not by nature but by Sacred Contract and therefore conveyeth Right to Pardon Adoption and Salvation not by Generation but by Contract or Donation So that what it was to be naturally in Adam seminally and virtually though not personlly in existence even that it is in order to our benefit by him to be in Christ by Contract or the new Covenant virtually though not in personal existence when the Covenant was made 43. They therefore that look upon Justification or Righteousness as coming to us immediately by Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us without the
Instrumental Intervention and Conveyance or Collation by this Deed of Gift or Covenant do confound themselves by confounding and overlooking the Causes of our Justification That which Christ did by his merits was to procure the new Covenant The new Covenant is a free Gift of pardon and life with Christ himself for his merits and satisfaction sake 44. Though the Person of the Mediator be not really or reputatively the very person of each sinner nor so many persons as there are sinners or believers yet it doth belong to the Person of the Mediator so far limitedly to bear the person of a sinner and to stand in the place of the Persons of all Sinners as to bear the punishment they deserved and to suffer for their sins 45. Scripture speaking of moral matters usually speaketh rather in Moral than meer Physical phrase And in strict Physical sence Christs very personal Righteousness Material or Formal is not so given to us as that we are proprietors of the very thing it self but only of the effects Pardon Righteousness and Life yet in a larger Moral phrase that very thing is oft said to be given to us which is given to another or done or suffered for our benefit He that ransometh a Captive from a Conquerer Physically giveth the Money to the Conquerer not to the Captive giveth the Captive only the Liberty purchased But morally and reputatively he is said to give the Money to the Captive because he gave it for him And it redeemeth him as well as if he had given it himself He that giveth ten thousand pounds to purchase Lands freely giveth that land to another physically giveth the Money to the Seller only and the Land only to the other But morally and reputatively we content our selves with the metonymical phrase and say he gave the other ten thousand pound So morally it may be said that Christs Righteousness Merits and Satisfaction was given to us in that the thing purchased by it was given to us when the Satisfaction was given or made to God Yea when we said it was made to God we mean only that he was passively the Terminus of active Satisfaction being the party satisfyed but not that he himself was made the Subject and Agent of Habits and Acts and Righteousness of Christ as in his humane nature except as the Divine Nature acted it or by Communication of Attributes 46. Because the words Person and Personating and Representing are ambiguous as all humane language is while some use them in a stricter sense than others do we must try by other explicatory terms whether we agree in the matter and not lay the stress of our Controversy upon the bare words So some Divines say that Christ suffered in the Person of a sinner when they mean not that he represented the Natural person of any one particular sinner but that his own Person was reputed the Sponsor of sinners by God and that he was judged a real sinner by his persecuters and so suffered as if he had been a sinner 47. As Christ is less improperly said to have Represented our Persons in his satisfactory Sufferings than in his personal perfect Holiness and Obedience so he is less improperly said to have Represented all mankind as newly fallen in Adam in a General sense for the purchasing of the universal Gift of Pardon and Life called The new Covenant than to have Represented in his perfect Holiness and his Sufferings every Believer considered as from his first being to his Death Though it is certain that he dyed for all their sins from first to last For it is most true 1. That Christ is as a second Adam the Root of the Redeemed And as we derive sin from Adam so we derive life from Christ allowing the difference between a Natural and a Voluntary way of derivation And though no mans Person as a Person was actually existent and offended in Adam nor was by God reputed to have been and done yet all mens Persons were Virtually and Seminally in Adam as is aforesaid and when they are existent persons they are no better either by Relative Innocency or by Physical Disposition than he could propagate and are truly and justly reputed by God to be Persons Guilty of Adams fact so far as they were by nature seminally and virtually in him And Christ the second Adam is in a sort the root of Man as Man though not by propagation of us yet as he is the Redeemer of Nature it self from destruction but more notably the Root of Saints as Saints who are to have no real sanctity but what shall be derived from him by Regeneration as Nature and Sin is from Adam by Generation But Adam did not represent all his posterity as to all the Actions which they should do themselves from their Birth to their Death so that they should all have been taken for perfectly obedient to the death if Adam had not sinned at that time yea or during his Life For if any of them under that Covenant had ever sinned afterward in their own person they should have died for it But for the time past they were Guiltless or Guilty in Adam as he was Guiltless or Guilty himself so far as they were in Adam And though that was but in Causâ non extra causam Yet a Generating Cause which propagateth essence from essence by self-multiplication of form much differeth from an Arbitrary facient Cause in this If Adam had obeyed yet all his posterity had been nevertheless bound to perfect personal persevering Obedience on pain of Death And Christ the second Adam so far bore the person of fallen Adam and suffered in the nature and room of Mankind in General as without any condition on their part at all to give man by an act of Oblivion or new Covenant a pardon of Adams sin yea and of all sin past at the time of their consent though not disobliging them from all future Obedience And by his perfect Holiness and Obedience and Sufferings he hath merited that new Covenant which Accepteth of sincere though imperfect Obedience and maketh no more in us necessary to Salvation When I say he did this without any Condition on mans part I mean He absolutely without Condition merited and gave us the Justifying Testament or Covenant Though that Covenant give us not Justification absolutely but on Condition of believing fiducial Consent 2. And so as this Vniversal Gift of Justification upon Acceptance is actually given to all fallen mankind as such so Christ might be said to suffer instead of all yea and merit too so far as to procure them this Covenant-gift 48. The sum of all lyeth in applying the distinction of giving Christs Righteousness as such in it self and as a cause of our Righteousness or in the Causality of it As our sin is not reputed Christs sin in it self and in the culpability of it for then it must needs make Christ odious to God but in its
Causality of punishment so Christ's Material or Formal Righteousness is not by God reputed to be properly and absolutely our own in it self as such but the Causality of it as it produceth such and such effects 49. The Objections which are made against Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sound sense may all be answered as they are by our Divines among whom the chiefest on this subject are Davenant de Justit Habit Actual Johan Crocius de Justif Nigrinus de Impletione Legis Bp. G. Dowman of Justif Chamier Paraeus Amesius and Junius against Bellarm. But the same reasons against the unsound sence of Imputation are unanswerable Therefore if any shall say concerning my following Arguments that most of them are used by Gregor de Valent. by Bellarm. Becanus or other Papists or by Socinians and are answered by Nigrinâ—s Crocius Davenant c. Such words may serve to deceive the simple that are led by Names and Prejudice but to the Intelligent they are contemptible unless they prove that these objections are made by the Papists against the same sence of Imputation against which I use them and that it is that sense which all those Protestants defend in answering them For who-ever so answereth them will appear to answer them in vain 50. How far those Divines who do use the phrase of Christs suffering in our person do yet limit the sense in their exposition and deny that we are reputed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ because it is tedious to cite many I shall take up now with one even Mr. Lawson in his Theopolitica which though about the office of Faith he some-what differ from me I must needs call an excellent Treatise as I take the Author to be one of the most Knowing men yet living that I know Pardon me if I be large in transcribing his words Pag. 100 101. If we enquire of the manner how Righteousness and Life is derived from Christ being one unto so many it cannot be except Christ be a general Head of mankind and one Person with them as Adam was We do not read of any but two who were general Heads and in some respect virtually All mankind the first and second Adam The principal cause of this Representation whereby he is one person with us is the will of God who as Lord made him such and as Lawgiver and Judge did so account him But 2. How far is he One person with us Ans 1. In general so far as it pleased God to make him so and no further 2. In particular He and we are one so far 1. As to make him liable to the penalty of the Law for us 2. So far as to free us from that obligation and derive the benefit of his death to us Though Christ be so far one with us as to be lyable unto the penalty of the Law and to suffer it and upon this suffering we are freed yet Christ is not the sinner nor the sinner Christ Christ is the Word made flesh innocent without sin an universal Priest and King but we are none of these Though we be accounted as one person in Law with him by a Trope yet in proper sence it cannot be said that in Christ's Satisfying we satisfied for our own sins For then we should have been the Word made flesh able to plead Innocency c. All which are false impossible blasphemous if affirmed by any It 's true we are so one with him that he satisfied for us and the benefit of this Satisfaction redounds to us and is communicable to all upon certain termes though not actually communicated to all From this Unity and Identity of person in Law if I may so speak it followeth clearly that Christ's sufferings were not only Afflictions but Punishments in proper sense Pag. 102 103. That Christ died for all in some sence must needs be granted because the Scripture expresly affirms it vid. reliqua There is another question unprofitably handled Whether the Propitiation which includeth both Satisfaction and Merit be to be ascribed to the Active or Passive Obedience of Christ Ans 1. Both his Active Personal Perfect and Perpetual Obedience which by reason of his humane nature assumed and subjection unto God was due and also that Obedience to the great and transcendent Command of suffering the death of the Cross both concur as Causes of Remission and Justification 2. The Scriptures usually ascribe it to the Blood Death Sacrifice of Christ and never to the Personal Active Obedience of Christ's to the Moral Law 3. Yet this Active Obedience is necessary because without it he could not have offered that great Sacrifice of himself without spot to God And if it had not been without spot it could not have been propitiatory and effectual for Expiation 4. If Christ as our Surety had performed for us perfect and perpetual Obedience so that we might have been judged to have perfectly and fully kept the Law by him then no sin could have been chargeable upon us and the Death of Christ had been needless and superfluous 5. Christs Propitiation freeth the Believer not only from the obligation unto punishment of sense but of loss and procured for him not only deliverance from evil deserved but the enjoyment of all good necessary to our full happiness Therefore there is no ground of Scripture for that opinion that the Death of Christ and his Sufferings free us from punishments and by his Active Obedience imputed to us we are made righteous and the heirs of life 6. If Christ was bound to perform perfect and perpetual Obedience for us and he also performed it for us then we are freed not only from sin but Obedience too And this Obedience as distinct and separate from Obedience unto death may be pleaded for Justification of Life and will be sufficient to carry the Cause For the tenor of the Law was this Do this and live And if man do this by himself or Surety so as that the Lawgiver and supreme Judg accept it the Law can require no more It could not bind to perfect Obedience and to punishment too There was never any such Law made by God or just men Before I conclude this particular of the extent of Christs Merit and Propitiation I thought good to inform the Reader that as the Propitiation of Christ maketh no man absolutely but upon certain terms pardonable and savable so it was never made either to prevent all sin or all punishments For it presupposeth man both sinful and miserable And we know that the Guilt and Punishment of Adams sin lyeth heavy on all his posterity to this day And not only that but the guilt of actual and personal sins lyeth wholly upon us whilest impenitent and unbelieving and so out of Christ And the Regenerate themselves are not fully freed from all punishments till the final Resurrection and Judgment So that his Propitiation doth not altogether prevent but remove sin and punishment
by degrees Many sins may be said to be Remissible by vertue of this Sacrifice which never shall be remitted So far Mr. Lawson Here I would add only these Animadversions 1. That whereas he explaineth Christs personating us in suffering by the similitude of a Debtor and his Surety who are the same person in Law I note 1. That the case of Debt much differeth from the case of Punishment 2. That a Surety of Debt is either antecedently such or consequently Antecedently either first one that is bound equally with the Debtor 2. or one that promiseth to pay if he do not I think the Law accounteth neither of these to be the Person of the principal Debtor as it doth a Servant by whom he sends the Debt But Christ was neither of these For the Law did not beforehand oblige him with us nor did he in Law-sence undertake to pay the Debt if we failed Though God decreed that he should do so yet that was no part of the sence of the Law But consequently if a friend of the Debtor when he is in Jayl will without his request or knowledg say to the Creditor I will pay you all the Debt but so that he shall be in my power and not have present liberty lest he abuse it but on the terms that I shall please yea not at all if he ungratefully reject it This Consequent Satisfyer or Sponsor or Paymaster is not in Law-sence the same Person with the Debtor But if any will call him so I will not contend about a word while we agree of the thing the terms of deliverance And this is as near the Case between Christ and us as the similitude of a Debtor will allow 2. I do differ from Mr. Lawson and Paraeus and Vrsine and Olevian and Scultetus and all that sort of worthy Divines in this that whereas they make Christs Holiness and perfect Obedience to be but Justitia personae necessary to make his Sacrifice spotless and so effectual I think that of it self it is as directly the cause of our Pardon Justification and Life as Christs Passion is The Passion being satisfactory and so meritorious and the personal Holiness Meritorious and so Satisfactory For the truth is The Law that condemned us was not fulfilled by Christs suffering for us but the Lawgiver satisfied instead of the fulfilling of it And that Satisfaction lyeth in the substitution of that which as fully or more attaineth the ends of the Law as our own suffering would have done Now the ends of the Law may be attained by immediate Merit of Perfection as well as by Suffering but best by both For 1. By the perfect Holiness and Obedience of Christ the Holy and perfect will of God is pleased whence This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased 2. In order to the ends of Government Holiness and perfect Obedience is honoured and freed from the contempt which sin would cast upon it and the holiness of the Law in its Precepts is publickly honoured in this grand Exemplar In whom only the will of God was done on Earth as it is done in Heaven And such a Specimen to the World is greatly conducible to the ends of Government So that Christ voluntarily taking humane nature which as such is obliged to this Perfection He first highly merited of God the Father hereby and this with his Suffering went to attain the ends that our suffering should have attained much better So that at least as Meritorious if not secondarily as satisfactory I see not but Christs Holiness procureth the Justifying Covenant for us equally with his Death A Prince may pardon a Traitor for some noble service of his Friend as well as for his suffering much more for both This way go Grotius de satisf Mr. Bradshaw and others 3. When Mr Lawson saith that the Law binds not to Obedience and Punishment both he meaneth as to the same Act which contradicts not what Nigrinus and others say that it binds a sinner to punishment for sin past and yet to Obedience for the time to come which cannot be entire and perfect So pag. 311. Cap. 22. Qu. 2. Whether there be two parts of Justification Remission and Imputation of Christs Righteousness 1. He referreth us to what is aforecited against Imputation of Christs Active Righteousness separated or abstracted for Reward from the Passive 2. He sheweth that Paul taketh Remission of sin and Imputation of Righteousness for the same thing So say many of ours In conclusion I will mind the Reader that by reading some Authors for Imputation I am brought to doubt whether some deny not all true Remission of sin that is Remission of the deserved punishment Because I find that by Remission they mean A non-Imputation of sin under the formal notion of sin that God taketh it not to be our sin but Christs and Christs Righteousness and perfection to be so ours as that God accounteth us not as truly sinners And so they think that the Reatus Culpae as well as Poenae simply in it self is done away Which if it be so then the Reatus Poenae the obligation to punishment or the dueness of punishment cannot be said to be dissolved or remitted because it was never contracted Where I hold that it is the Reatus ad Poenam the Dueness of punishment only that is remitted and the guilt of sin not as in it self but in its Causality of punishment And so in all common language we say we forgive a man his fault when we forgive him all the penalty positive and privative Not esteeming him 1. Never to have done the fact 2. Or that fact not to have been a fault and his fault 3. but that punishment for that fault is forgiven him and the fault so far as it is a cause of punishment We must not feign God to judg falsly This maketh me think of a saying of Bp. Vshers to me when I mentioned the Papists placing Justification and Remission of sin conjunct he told me that the Papists ordinarily acknowledg no Remission And on search I find that Aquinas and the most of them place no true Remission of sin in Justification For by Remission which they make part of Justification they mean Mortification or destroying sin it self in the act or habit But that the pardon of the punishment is a thing that we all need is not denyable nor do they deny it though they deny it to be part of our Justification For it 's strange if they deny Christ the pardoning power which they give the Pope And as Joh. Crocius de Justif oft tells them They should for shame grant that Christs Righteousness may be as far imputed to us as they say a Saints or Martyrs redundant merits and supererogations are But if the Guilt of Fact and Guilt of Fault in it self considered be not both imputed first to us that is If we be not judged sinners I cannot see how we can be judged Pardoned sinners For he
it for us For it said not in words or sense Thou or one for thee shall Perfectly Obey or Suffer It mentioned no Substitute But it is the Law-giver and not that Law that justifieth us by other means § 28. But we have another Righteousness imputed to us instead of that Perfect Legal Innocency and Rewardableness by which we shall be accepted of God and glorified at last as surely and fully at least as if we had never sinned or had perfectly kept that Law which therefore may be called our Pro-legal Righteousness § 29. But this Righteousness is not yet either OURS by such a propriety as a Personal performance would have bin nor OURS to all the same ends and purposes It saveth us not from all pain death or penal desertion nor constituteth our Relation just the same § 30. It is the Law of Grace that Justifieth us both as giving us Righteousness and as Virtually judging us Righteous when it hath made us so and it is Christ as Judg according to that Law and God by Christ that will sentence us just and executively so use us § 31. The Grace of Christ first giveth us Faith and Repentance by effectual Vocation And then the Law of Grace by its Donative part or Act doth give us a Right to Vnion with Christ as the Churches Head and so to his Body and with him a right to Pardon of past sin and to the Spirit to dwell and act in us for the future and to the Love of God and Life eternal to be ours in possession if we sincerely obey and persevere § 32. The total Righteousness then which we have as an Accident of which we are the Subjects is 1. A right to Impunity by the free Pardon of all our sins and a right to Gods Favour and Glory as a free gift quoad valorem but as a Reward of our Obedience quoad Ordinem conferendi rationem Comparativam why one rather than another is judged meet for that free gift 2. And the Relation of one that hath by grace performed the Condition of that free Gift without which we had been no capable recipients which is initially Faith and Repentance the Condition of our Right begun and consequently sincere Obedience and Perseverance the Condition of continued right § 33. Christs personal Righteousness is no one of these and so is not our Constitutive Righteousness formally and strictly so called For Formally our Righteousness is a Relation of right and it is the Relation of our own Persons And a Relation is an accident And the numerical Relation or Right of one person cannot be the same numerical Accident of another person as the subject § 34. There are but three sorts of Causes Efficient Constitutive and Final 1. Christ is the efficient cause of all our Righteousness 1. Of our Right to Pardon and Life 2. And of our Gospel-Obedience And that many waies 1. He is the Meritorious Cause 2. He is the Donor by his Covenant 3. And the Donor or Operator of our Inherent Righteousness by his Spirit 4. And the moral efficient by his Word Promise Example c. 2. And Christ is partly the final cause 3. But all the doubt is whether his personal Righteousness be the Constitutive Cause § 35. The Constitutive Cause of natural bodily substances consisteth of Matter disposed and Form Relations have no Matter but instead of Matter a Subject and that is Our own persons here and not Christ and a terminus and fundamentum § 36. The Fundamentum may be called both the Efficient Cause of the Relation as commonly it is and the Matter from which it resulteth And so Christs Righteousness is undoubtedly the Meritorious efficient Cause and undoubtedly not the Formal Cause of our personal Relation of Righteousness Therefore all the doubt is of the Material Cause § 37. So that all the Controversie is come up to a bare name and Logical term of which Logicians agree not as to the aptitude All confess that Relations have no proper Matter besides the subject all confess that the Fundamentum is loco efficientis but whether it be a fit name to call it the Constitutive Matter of a Relation there is no agreement § 38. And if there were it would not decide this Verbal Controversie For 1. Titulus est fundamentum Juris The fundamentum of our Right to Impunity and Life in and with Christ is the Donative act of our Saviour in and by his Law or Covenant of Grace that is our Title And from that our Relation resulteth the Conditio tituli vel juris being found in our selves 2. And our Relation of Performers of that Condition of the Law of Grace resulteth from our own performance as the fundamentum compared to the Rule So that both these parts of our Righteousness have a nearer fundamentum than Christs personal Righteousness § 39. But the Right given us by the Covenant and the Spirit and Grace being a Right merited first by Christs personal Righteousness this is a Causa Causae id est fundamenti seu Donationis And while this much is certain whether it shall be called a Remote fundamentum viz. Causa fundamenti and so a Remote Constitutive Material Cause or only properly a Meritorious Cause may well be left to the arbitrary Logician that useeth such notions as he pleases but verily is a Controversie unfit to tear the Church for or destroy Love and Concord by § 40. Quest 1. Is Christs Righteousness OVRS Ans Yes In some sense and in another not § 41. Quest 2. Is Christs Righteousness OVRS Ans Yes In the sense before opened For all things are ours and his righteousness more than lower Causes § 42. Quest 3. Is Christs Righteousness OVRS as it was or is His own with the same sort of propriety Ans No. § 43. Quest 4. Is the formal Relation of Righteous as an accident of our persons numerically the same Righteousness Ans No It is impossible Unless we are the same person § 44. Quest 5. Is Christ and each Believer one political person Ans A political person is an equivocal word If you take it for an Office as the King or Judg is a political person I say No If for a Society Yea But noxia noxa caput sequuntur True Guilt is an accident of natural persons and of Societies only as constituted of such and so is Righteousness Though Physically Good or Evil may for society-sake befal us without personal desert or consent But if by Person you mean a certain State or Condition as to be a subject of God or one that is to suffer for sin so Christ may be said to be the same person with us in specie but not numerically because that Accident whence his Personality is named is not in the same subject § 45. Quest 6. Is Christs Righteousness imputed to us Ans Yes If by imputing you mean reckoning or reputing it ours so far as is aforesaid that is such a Cause of ours §
person And if any will improperly call that the Personating and Representing of the sinner let them limit it and confess that it is not simply but in tantum so far and to such uses and no other and that yet sinners did it not in and by Christ but only Christ for them to convey the benefits as he pleased And then we delight not to quarrel about mere words though we like the phrase of Scripture better than theirs 21. If Christ was perfectly Holy and Obedient in our persons and we in him then it was either in the Person of Innocent man before we sinned or of sinful man The first cannot be pretended For man as Innocent had not a Redeemer If of sinful man then his perfect Obedience could not be meritorious of our Salvation For it supposeth him to do it in the person of a sinner and he that hath once sinned according to that Law is the Child of death and uncapable of ever fulfilling a Law which is fulfilled with nothing but sinless perfect perpetual Obedience Obj. He first suffered in our stead and persons as sinners and then our sin being pardoned he after in our persons fulfilled the Law instead of our after-Obedience to it Ans 1. Christs Obedience to the Law was before his Death 2. The sins which he suffered for were not only before Conversion but endure as long as our lives Therefore if he fulfilled the Law in our persons after we have done sinning it is in the persons only of the dead 3. We are still obliged to Obedience our selves Obj. But yet though there be no such difference in Time God doth first Impute his sufferings to us for pardon of all our sins to the death and in order of nature his Obedience after it as the Merit of our Salvation Ans 1. God doth Impute or Repute his sufferings the satisfying cause of our Pardon and his Merits of Suffering and the rest of his Holiness and Obedience as the meritorious cause of our Pardon and our Justification and Glory without dividing them But 2. that implyeth that we did not our selves reputatively do all this in Christ As shall be further proved 22. Their way of Imputation of the Satisfaction of Christ overthroweth their own doctrine of the Imputation of his Holiness and Righteousness For if all sin be fully pardoned by the Imputed Satisfaction then sins of Omission and of habitual Privation and Corruption are pardoned and then the whole punishment both of Sense and Loss is remitted And he that hath no sin of Omission or Privation is a perfect doer of his duty and holy and he that hath no punishment of Loss hath title to Life according to that Covenant which he is reputed to have perfectly obeyed And so he is an heir of life without any Imputed Obedience upon the pardon of all his Disobedience Obj. But Adam must have obeyed to the Death if he would have Life eternal Therefore the bare pardon of his sins did not procure his right to life Ans True if you suppose that only his first sin was pardoned But 1. Adam had right to heaven as long as he was sinless 2. Christ dyed for all Adams sins to the last breath and not for the first only And so he did for all ours And if all the sins of omission to the death be pardoned Life is due to us as righteous Obj. A Stone may be sinless and yet not righteous nor have Right to life Ans True because it is not a capable subject But a man cannot be sinless but he is Righteous and hath right to life by Covenant Obj. But not to punish is one thing and to Reward is another Ans They are distinct formal Relations and Notions But where felicity is a Gift and called a Reward only for the terms and order of Collation and where Innocency is the same with perfect Duty and is the title-Condition there to be punished is to be denyed the Gift and to be Rewarded is to have that Gift as qualified persons and not to Reward is materially to punish and to be reputed innocent is to be reputed a Meriter And it is impossible that the most Innocent man can have any thing from God but by way of free-Gift as to the Thing in Value however it may be merited in point of Governing Paternal Justice as to the Order of donation Obj. But there is a greater Glory merited by Christ than the Covenant of works promised to man Ans 1. That 's another matter and belongeth not to Justification but to Adoption 2. Christs Sufferings as well as his Obedience considered as meritorious did purchase that greater Glory 3. We did not purchase or merit it in Christ but Christ for us 23. Their way of Imputation seemeth to me to leave no place or possibility for Pardon of sin or at least of no sin after Conversion I mean that according to their opinion who think that we fulfilled the Law in Christ as we are elect from eternity it leaveth no place for any pardon And according to their opinion who say that we fulfilled it in him as Believers it leaveth no place for pardon of any sin after Faith For where the Law is reputed perfectly fulfilled in Habit Act there it is reputed that the person hath no sin We had no sin before we had a Being and if we are reputed to have perfectly obeyed in Christ from our first Being we are reputed sinless But if we are reputed to have obeyed in him only since our believing then we are reputed to have no sin since our Believing Nothing excludeth sin if perfect Habitual and Actual Holiness and Obedience do not 24. And consequently Christs blood shed and Satisfaction is made vain either as to all our lives or to all after our 〈◊〉 believing 25. And then no believer must confess his sin nor his desert of punishment nor repent of it or be humbled for it 26. And then all prayer for the pardon of such sin is vain and goeth upon a false supposition that we have sin to pardon 27. And then no man is to be a partaker of the Sacrament as a Conveyance or Seal of such pardon nor to believe the promise for it 28. Nor is it a duty to give thanks to God or Christ for any such pardon 29. Nor can we expect Justification from such guilt here or at Judgment 30. And then those in Heaven praise Christ in errour when they magnifie him that washed them from such sins in his blood 31. And it would be no lie to say that we have no sin at least since believing 32. Then no believer should fear sinning because it is Impossible and a Contradiction for the same person to be perfectly innocent to the death and yet a sinner 33. Then the Consciences of believers have no work to do or at least no examining convincing self-accusing and self-judging work 34. This chargeth God by Consequence of wronging all believers whom he layeth
to Christ in Union to the Spirit to Impunity and to Glory And 2. The Grace of the Spirit by which we are made Holy and fulfil the Conditions of the Law of Grace We are the Subjects of these and he is the Minister and the meritorious Cause of our Life is well called Our Righteousness and by many the material Cause as our own perfect Obedience would have been because it is the Matter of that Merit 4. And also Christ's Intercession with the Father still procureth all this as the Fruit of his Merits 5. And we are Related as his Members though not parts of his Person as such to him that thus merited for us 6. And we have the Spirit from him as our Head 7. And he is our Advocate and will justifie us as our Judg. 8. And all this is God's Righteousness designed for us and thus far given us by him 9. And the perfect Justice and Holiness of God is thus glorified in us through Christ And are not all these set together enough to prove that we justly own all asserted by these Texts But if you think that you have a better sense of them you must better prove it than by a bare naming of the words Object 3. If Christ's Righteousness be Ours then we are Righteous by it as Ours and so God reputeth it but as it is But it is Ours 1. By our Vnion with him 2. And by his Gift and so consequently by God's Imputation Answ 1. I have told you before that it is confessed to be Ours but that this syllable OVRS hath many senses and I have told you in what sense and how far it is OVRS and in that sense we are justified by it and it is truly imputed to us or reputed or reckoned as OVRS But not in their sense that claim a strict Propriety in the same numerical Habits Acts Sufferings Merits Satisfaction which was in Christ or done by him as if they did become Subjects of the same Accidents or as if they did it by an instrumental second Cause But it is OVRS as being done by a Mediator instead of what we should have done and as the Meritorious Cause of all our Righteousness and Benefits which are freely given us for the sake hereof 2. He that is made Righteousness to us is also made Wisdom Sanctification and Redemption to us but that sub genere Causae Efficientis non autem Causae Constitutivae We are the Subjects of the same numerical Wisdom and Holiness which is in Christ Plainly the Question is Whether Christ or his Righteousness Holiness Merits and Satisfaction be Our Righteousness Constitutively or only Efficiently The Matter and Form of Christ's Personal Righteousness is OVRS as an Efficient Cause but it is neither the nearest Matter or the Form of that Righteousness which is OVRS as the Subjects of it that is It is not a Constitutive Cause nextly material or formal of it 3. If our Union with Christ were Personal making us the same Person then doubtless the Accidents of his Person would be the Accidents of ours and so not only Christ's Righteousness but every Christians would be each of Ours But that is not so Nor is it so given us by him Object 4. You do seem to suppose that we have none of that kind of Righteousness at all which consisteth in perfect Obedience and Holiness but only a Right to Impunity and Life with an imperfect Inherent Righteousness in our selves The Papists are forced to confess that a Righteousness we must have which consisteth in a conformity to the preceptive part of the Law and not only the Retributive part But they say It is in our selves and we say it is Christ's imputed to us Answ 1. The Papists e. g. Learned Vasqueâ— in Rom. 5. talk so ignorantly of the differences of the Two Covenants or the Law of Innocency and of Grace as if they never understood it And hence they 1. seem to take no notice of the Law of Innocency or of Nature now commanding our perfect Obedience but only of the Law of Grace 2. Therefore they use to call those Duties but Perfections and the Commands that require them but Counsels where they are not made Conditions of Life and sins not bringing Damnation some call Venial a name not unfit and some expound that as properly no sin but analogically 3. And hence they take little notice when they treat of Justification of the Remitting of Punishment but by remitting Sin they usually mean the destroying the Habits As if they forgot all actual sin past or thought that it deserved no Punishment or needed no Pardon For a past Act in it self is now nothing and is capable of no Remission but Forgiveness 4. Or when they do talk of Guilâ— of Punishment they lay so much of the Remedy on Man's Satisfaction as if Christ's Satisfaction and Merits had procured no pardon or at least of no temporal part of Punishment 5. And hence they ignorantly revile the Protestants as if we denied all Personal Inherent Righteousness and trusted only to the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness as justifying wicked unconverted Men The Papists therefore say not that we are innocent or sinless really or imputatively no not when they dream of Perfection and Supererrogation unless when they denominate Sin and Perfection only from the Condition of the Law of Grace and not that of Innocency 2. But if any of them do as you say no wonder if they and you contend If one say We are Innocent or Sinless in reality and the other we are so by Imputation when we are so no way at all but sinners really and so reputed what Reconciliation is there to be expected till both lay by their Errour Object 5. How can God accept him as just who is really and reputedly a Sinner This dishonoureth his Holiness and Justice Answ Not so Cannot God pardon sin upon a valuable Merit and Satisfaction of a Mediator And though he judg us not perfect now and accept us not as such yet 1. now he judgeth us Holy 2. and the Members of a perfect Saviour 3. and will make us perfect and spotless and then so judg us having washed us from our sins in the Blood of the Lamb. Object 6. Thus you make the Reatus Culpae not pardoned at all but only the Reatus Poenae Answ 1. If by Reatus Culpae be meant the Relation of a Sinner as he is Revera Peccator and so to be Reus is to be Revera ipse qui peccavit then we must consider what you mean by Pardon For if you mean the nullifying of such a Guilt or Reality it is impossible because necessiate existentiae he that hath once sinned will be still the Person that sinned while he is a Person and the Relation of one that sinned will cleave to him It will eternally be a true Proposition Peter and Paul did sin But if by Pardon you mean the pardoning of all the penalty which for that sin is due damni
vel sensus so it is pardoned and this is indeed the Reatus poenae Not only the Penalty but the Dueness of that Penalty or the Obligation to it is remitted and nullified 2. Therefore if by Reatus Culpae you mean an Obligation to Punishment for that Fault this being indeed the Reatus poenae as is said is done away So that we are I think all agreed de re And de nomine you may say that the Reatus Culpae is done away or remitted or not in several senses In se it is not nullified nor can be But as Dueness of Punishment followeth that is pardoned Object 7. You have said That though we were not personally but seminally in Adam when he sinned yet when we are Persons we are Persons guilty of his actual sin And so we must be Persons that are Partakers of Christ's Actual Righteousness and not only of its Effects as soon as we are Believers For Christ being the Second Adam and publick Person we have our part in his Righteousness as truly and as much as in Adam's sin Answ 1. We must first understand how far Adam's sin is ours And first I have elsewhere proved that our Covenant-Vnion and Interest supposeth our Natural Vnion and Interest and that it is an adding to God's Word and Covenant to say That he covenanted that Adam should personate each one of his Posterity in God's imputation or account any further than they were naturally in him and so that his innocency or sin should be reputed theirs as far as if they had been personally the Subjects and Agents The Person of Peter never was in Reality or God's Reputation the Person of Adam Nor Adam's Person the Person of Peter But Peter being virtually and seminally in Adam when he sinned his Person is derived from Adam's Person And so Peter's Guilt is not numerically the same with Adams but the Accident of another Subject and therefore another Accident derived with the Person from Adam and from nearer Parents The Fundamentum of that Relation of Guilt is the Natural Relation of the Person to Adam and so it is Relatio in Relatione fundata The Fundamentum of that natural Relation is Generation yea a series of Generations from Adam to that Person And Adam's Generation being the Communication of a Guilty Nature with personality to his Sons and Daughters is the fundamentum next following his personal Fault and Guilt charged on him by the Law So that here is a long series of efficient Causes bringing down from Adam's Person and Guilt a distinct numerical Person and Guilt of every one of his later Posterity 2. And it is not the same sort of Guilt or so plenary which is on us for Adam's Act as was on him but a Guilt Analogical or of another sort that is He was guilty of being the wilful sinning Person and so are not we but only of being Persons whose Being is derived by Generation from the wilful sinning Persons besides the guilt of our own inherent pravity That is The Relation is such which our Persons have to Adam ' s Person as make it just with God to desert us and to punish us for that and our pravity together This is our Guilt of Original sin 3. And this Guilt cometh to us by Natural Propagation and resultancy from our very Nature so propagated And now let us consider of our contrary Interest in Christ And 1. Our Persons are not the same as Christ's Person nor Christ's as ours nor ever so judged or accounted of God 2. Our Persons were not naturally seminally and virtually in Christ's Person any further than he is Creator and Cause of all things as they were in Adams 3. Therefore we derive not Righteousness from him by Generation but by his voluntary Donation or Contract 4. As he became not our Natural Parent so our Persons not being in Christ when he obeyed are not reputed to have been in him naturally or to have obeyed in and by him 5. If Christ and we are reputed one Person either he obeyed in our Person or we in his or both If he obeyed as a Reputed Sinner in the Person of each Sinner his Obedience could not be meritorious according to the Law of Innocency which required sinless Perfection And he being supposed to have broken the Law in our Persons could not so be supposed to keept it If we obeyed in his Person we obeyed as Mediators or Christ's of which before 6. But as is oft said Christ our Mediator undertook in a middle Person to reconcile God and Man not by bringing God erroneously to judg that he or we were what we are not or did what we did not but by being doing and suffering for us that in his own Person which should better answer God's Ends and Honour than if we had done and suffered in our Persons that hereby he might merit a free Gift of Pardon and Life with himself to be given by a Law of Grace to believing penitent Accepters And so our Righteousness as is oft opened is a Relation resulting at once from all these Causes as fundamental to it viz. Christ's Meritorious Righteousness his free Gift thereupon and our Relation to him as Covenanters or United Believers And this is agreed on Object 8. As Christ is a Sinner by imputation of our sin so we are Righteous by the imputation of his Righteousness But it is our sin it self that is imputed to Christ Therefore it is his Righteousness it self that is imputed to us Answ 1. Christ's Person was not the Subject of our personal Relative Guilt much less of our Habits or Acts. 2. God did not judg him to have been so 3. Nay Christ had no Guilt of the same kind reckoned to be on him else those unmeet Speeches used rashly by some would be true viz. That Christ was the greatest Murderer Adulterer Idolater Blasphemer Thief c. in all the World and consequently more hated of God for God must needs hate a sinner as such To be guilty of sin as we are is to be reputed truly to be the Person that committed it But so was not Christ and therefore not so to be reputed Christ was but the Mediator that undertook to suffer for our sins that we might be forgiven and not for his own sin real or justly reputed Expositors commonly say that to be made sin for us is but to be made a Sacrifice for sin So that Christ took upon him neither our numerical guilt of sin it self nor any of the same species but only our Reatum Poenae or Debt of Punishment or lest the Wrangler make a verbal quarrel of it our Reatum Culpae non qua talem in se sed quatenus est fundamentum Reatus poenae And so his Righteousness is ours not numerically the same Relation that he was the Subject of made that Relation to us nor yet a Righteousness of the same Species as Christ's is given us at all for his was a Mediators
Righteousness consisting in 1. perfect Innocency 2. And that in the Works of the Jewish Law which bind us not 3. And in doing his peculiar Works as Miracles Resurrection c. which were all His Righteousness as a conformity to that Law and performance of that Covenant which was made with and to him as Mediator But his Righteousness is the Meritorious Cause and Reason of another Righteousness or Justification distinct from his freely given us by the Father and himself by his Covenant So that here indeed the Similitude much cleareth the Matter And they that will not blaspheme Christ by making guilt of sin it self in its formal Relation to be his own and so Christ to be formally as great a sinner as all the Redeemed set together and they that will not overthrow the Gospel by making us formally as Righteous as Christ in kind and measure must needs be agreed with us in this part of the Controversie Object 9. When you infer That if we are reckoned to have perfectly obeyed in and by Christ we cannot be again bound to obey our selves afterward nor be guilty of any sin you must know that it 's true That we cannot be bound to obey to the same ends as Christ did which is to redeem us or to fulfil the Law of Works But yet we must obey to other ends viz. Ingratitude and to live to God and to do good and other such like Answ 1. This is very true That we are not bound to obey to all the same ends that Christ did as to redeem the World nor to fulfil the Law of Innocency But hence it clearly followeth that Christ obeyed not in each of our Persons legally but in the Person of a Mediator seeing his due Obedience and ours have so different Ends and a different formal Relation his being a conformity proximately to the Law given him as Mediator that they are not so much as of the same species much less numerically the same 2. And this fully proveth that we are not reckoned to have perfectly obeyed in and by him For else we could not be yet obliged to obey though to other ends than he was For either this Obedience of Gratitude is a Duty or not If not it is not truly Obedience nor the omission sin If yea then that Duty was made a Duty by some Law And if by a Law we are now bound to obey in gratitude or for what ends soever either we do all that we are so bound to do or not If we do it or any of it then to say that we did it twice once by Christ and once by our selves is to say that we were bound to do it twice and then Christ did not all that we were bound to but half But what Man is he that sinneth not Therefore seeing it is certain that no Man doth all that he is bound to do by the Gospel in the time and measure of his Faith Hope Love Fruitfulness c. it followeth that he is a sinner and that he is not supposed to have done all that by Christ which he failed in both because he was bound to do it himself and because he is a sinner for not doing it 3. Yea the Gospel binds us to that which Christ could not do for us it being a Contradiction Our great Duties are 1. To believe in a Saviour 2. To improve all the parts of his Mediation by a Life of Faith 3. To repent of our sins 4. To mortifie sinful Lusts in our selves 5. To fight by the Spirit against our flesh 6. To confess our selves sinners 7. To pray for pardon 8. To pray for that Grace which we culpably want 9. To love God for redeeming us 10. Sacramentally to covenant with Christ and to receive him and his Gifts with many such like which Christ was not capable of doing in and on his own Person for us though as Mediator he give us Grace to do them and pray for the pardon of our sins as in our selves 4. But the Truth which this Objection intimateth we all agree in viz. That the Mediator perfectly kept the Law of Innocency that the keeping of that Law might not be necessary to our Salvation and so such Righteousness necessary in our selves but that we might be pardoned for want of perfect Innocency and be saved upon our sincere keeping of the Law of Grace because the Law of Innocency was kept by our Mediator and thereby the Grace of the New-Covenant merited and by it Christ Pardon Spirit and Life by him freely given to Believers Object 10. The same Person may be really a sinner in himself and yet perfectly innocent in Christ and by imputation Answ Remember that you suppose here the Person and Subject to be the same Man And then that the two contrary Relations of perfect Innocency or guiltlesness and guilt of any yea much sin can be consistent in him is a gross contradiction Indeed he may be guilty and not guilty in several partial respects but a perfection of guiltlesness excludeth all guilt But we are guilty of many a sin after Conversion and need a Pardon All that you should say is this We are sinners our selves but we have a Mediator that sinned not who merited Pardon and Heaven for sinners 2. But if you mean that God reputeth us to be perfectly innocent when we are not because that Christ was so it is to impute Error to God He reputeth no Man to be otherwise than he is But he doth indeed first give and then impute a Righteousness Evangelical to us instead of perfect Innocency which shall as certainly bring us to Glory and that is He giveth us both the Renovation of his Spirit to Evangelical Obedience and a Right by free gift to Pardon and Glory for the Righteousness of Christ that merited it And this thus given us he reputeth to be an acceptable Righteousness in us CHAP. VI. Animadversions on some of Dr. T. Tullies Strictures § 1. I Suppose the Reader desireth not to be wearied with an examination of all Dr. Tullies words which are defective in point of Truth Justice Charity Ingenuity or Pertinency to the Matter but to see an answer to those that by appearance of pertinent truth do require it to disabuse the incautelous Readers Though somewhat by the way may be briefly said for my own Vindication And this Tractate being conciliatory I think meet here to leave out most of the words and personal part of his contendings and also to leave that which concerneth the interest of Works as they are pleased to call Man's performance of the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace in our Justification to a fitter place viz. To annex what I think needful to my friendly Conference with Mr. Christopher Cartwright on the Subject which Dr. Tullies Assault perswadeth me to publish § 2. pag. 71. Justif Paulin. This Learned Doctor saith The Scripture mentioneth no Justification in foro Dei at all but that One which is Absolution from
from that Law that is from its Obligation of us to Innocency as the necessary terms of Life and from its Obligation of us to Death for want of Innocency But we are not justified by that Law either as fulfilled or as satisfied by us our selves either personally or by an Instrument substitute or proper Representative that was Vicarius Obedientiae aut poenae 3. And we grant that the Jews were delivered from the positive Jewish Law which is it that Paul calleth The Law of Works And if he please in all these respects to call Justification Legal we intend not to quarrel with the name though what I called Legal in those Aphorisms I chose ever after to call rather Justitia pro-legalis But we cannot believe him 1. That it is only Legal 2. Or that that is the only or most proper denomination § 8. He proceedeth thus And it will be vain if any argue That yet none can be saved without Evangelical Works according to which it is confessed that all men shall be judged for the distinction is easie which the Author of the Aphorisms somewhere useth between the first or Private and the last or Publick Justification In the first sense it is never said That Works justifie but contrary That God justifieth him that worketh not Rom. 4.5 In the latter we confess that Believers are to be justified according to Works but yet not Of or By Works nor that that Justification maketh men just before God but only so pronounceth them Answ 1. This is such another Consenting Adversary as once before I was put to answer who with open mouth calls himself consequentially what he calleth me if the same Cause and not the Person make the Guilt Nay let him consider whether his grand and most formidable Weapon So also saith Bellarmine with other Papists do not wound himself For they commonly say That the first Justification is not of Works or Works do not first justifie us Have I not now proved that he erreth and complyeth with the Papists If not let him use better Arguments himself 2. But why is the first Justification called Private Either he meaneth God's making us just constitutively or his judging us so and that per sententiam conceptam only or prolatam also 1. The common distinction in Politicks inter judicium Privatum Publicum is fetcht from the Judg who is either Persona privata vel publica a private Man or an authorized Judg judging as such And so the Judgment of Conscience Friends Enemies Neighbours mere Arbitrators c. is Judicium privatum and that of a Judg in foro is Judicium publicum yea or in secret before the concerned Parties only in his Closet so it be decisive If this Learned Doctor so understand it then 1. Constitutive Justification which is truly first is publick Justification being done by God the Father and by our Redeemer who sure are not herein private authorized Persons 2. And the first sentential Justification as merely Virtual and not yet Actual viz. as it 's virtually in the Justifying Law of Grace as norma Judicis is publick in suo genere being the virtus of a Publick Law of God or of his Donative Promise 3. And the first Actual Justification per Deum Judicem per sententiam conceptam which is God's secret judging the Thing and Person to be as they are is secret indeed in se yet revealed by God's publick Word but publick as to the Judg. 4. And the first sententia prolata the fourth in order is someway publick as opposite to secresie for 1. it is before the Angels of Heaven 2. And in part by Executive demonstrations on Earth But it is certainly by a publick Judg that is God 5. And the first Apologetical Justification by Christ our Interceding Advocate is publick both quoad personam and as openly done in Heaven And if this worthy Person deny any Justification per sententiam Judicis upon our first Believing or before the final Judgment he would wofully fall out with the far greatest number of Protestants and especially his closest Friends who use to make a Sentence of God as Judg to be the Genus to Justification But if by Private and Publick Justification he means secret and open 1. How can he hope to be understood when he will use Political Terms unexplained out of the usual sense of Politicians But no men use to abuse words more than they that would keep the Church in flames by wordy Controversies as if they were of the terms of Life and Death 2. And even in that sense our first Justification is publick or open quoad Actum Justificancantis as being by the Donation of a publick Word of God Though quoad effectum in recipiente it must needs be secret till the Day of Judgment no Man knowing anothers Heart whether he be indeed a sound Believer And so of the rest as is intimâ—ted Concerning what I have said before some may Object 1. That there is no such thing as our Justification notified before the Angels in Heaven 2. That the Sententia Concepta is God's Immanent Acts and therefore Eternal Answ To the first I say 1. It is certain by Luk. 15.10 that the Angels know of the Conversion of a Sinner and therefore of his Justification and publickly Rejoyce therein Therefore it is notified to them 2. But I refer the Reader for this to what I have said to Mr. Tombes in my Disputation of Justification where I do give my thoughts That this is not the Justification by Faith meant by Paul as Mr. Tombes asserteth it to be To the Second I say Too many have abused Theology by the misconceiving of the distinction of Immanent and Transient Acts of God taking all for Immanent which effect nothing ad extra But none are properly Immanent quoad Objectum but such as God himself is the Object of as se intelligere se amare An Act may be called indeed immanent in any of these three respects 1. Ex parte Agentis 2. Ex parte Objecti 3. Ex parte effectus 1. Ex parte agentis all God's Acts are Immanent for they are his Essence 2. Ex parte Objecti vel Termini God's Judging a Man Just or Unjust Good or Bad is transient because it is denominated from the state of the Terminus or Object And so it may be various and mutable denominatively notwithstanding God's Simplicity and Immutability And so the Sententia Concepta is not ab Aeterno 3. As to the Effect all confess God's Acts to be Transient and Temporary But there are some that effect not as to judg a thing to be what it is 3. Either this Militant Disputer would have his Reader believe that I say That a Man is justified by Works in that which he called making just and the first Justification or not If he would such untruth and unrighteousness contrary to the full drift of many of my Books and even that which he selected to oppose is not
Last Judgment is but a Logomachie According signifieth as much as I assert But ex is no unapt Preposition when it is but the subordinate part of Righteousness and Justification of which we speak and signifieth with me the same as According 6. His Tropical Phrase that Works pronouce us just is another ambiguity That the Judg will pronounce us just according to them as the foresaid second part of the Constitutive Cause or Matter of our Subordinate Righteousness is certain from Matth. 25. and the scope of Scripture But that they are only notifying Signs and no part of the Cause of the day to be tryed is not true which too many assert § 9. He proceedeth If there be an Evangelical Justification at God's Bar distinct from the legal one there will then also be in each an absolution of divers sins For if the Gospel forgive the same sins as the Law the same thing will be done and a double Justification will be unprofitable and idle If from divers sins then the Law forbids not the same things as the Gospel c. Answ It 's pitty such things should need any Answer 1. It 's a false Supposition That all Justification is Absolution from sin To justifie the sincerity of our Faith and Holiness is one act or part of our Justification against all possible or actual false Accusation 2. The Law of Innocency commanded not the Believing Acceptance of Christ's Righteousness and Pardon and so the Remnants of that Law in the hand of Christ which is the Precept of perfect Obedience de futuro commandeth it only consequently supposing the Gospel-Promise and Institution to have gone before and selected this as the terms of Life so that as a Law in genere existent only in speciebus commandeth Obedience and the Law of Innocency in specie commanded personal perfect perpetual Obedience as the Condition of Life so the Gospel commandeth Faith in our Redeemer as the new Condition of Life on which supposition even the Law of lapsed Nature further obligeth us thereto And as the Commands differ so do the Prohibitions There is a certain sort of sin excepted from pardon by the pardoning Law viz. Final non-performance of its Conditions And to judg a Man not guilty of this sin is part of our Justification as is aforesaid § 10. He addeth If Legal and Evangelical Justification are specie distinct then so are the Courts in which we are justified If distinct and subordinate and so he that is justified by the law is justified by the Gospel c. Answ 1. No Man is justified by the Law of Innocency or Works but Christ Did I ever say that That Law justifieth us who have voluminously wrote against it If he would have his Reader think so his unrighteousness is such as civility forbids me to give its proper Epithets to If not against what or whom is all this arguing 2. I call it Legal as it is that perfect Righteousness of Christ our Surety conform to the Law of Innocency by which he was justified though not absolved and pardoned I call it pro Legalis justitia because that Law doth not justifie us for it but Christ only but by it given us ad effecta by the New-Covenant we are saved and justified from the Curse of that Law or from Damnation is certainly as if we had done it our selves I call Faith our Evangelical Righteousness on the Reasons too oft mentioned Now these may be called Two Justifications or rather two parts of one in several respects as pleaseth the Speaker And all such Word-Souldiers shall have their liberty without my Contradiction 3. And when will he prove that these two Sorts or Parts or Acts may not be at once transacted at the same Bar Must there needs be one Court to try whether I am a true Believer or an Infidel or Hypocrite and another to judg that being such I am to be justified against all Guilt and Curse by vertue of Christ's Merits and Intercession Why may not these two parts of one Man's Cause be judged at the same Bar And why must your Pupils be taught so to conceive of so great a business in it self so plain § 11. He proceedeth The Vse of this Evangelical Justification is made to be that we may be made partakers of the Legal Justification out of us in Christ And so our Justification applyeth another Justification and our Remission of sins another Answ No Sir but our particular subordinate sort of Righteousness consisting in the performance of the Conditions of the free Gift viz. a believing suitable Acceptance is really our Dispositio receptiva being the Condition of our Title to that Pardon and Glory which for Christ's Righteousness if freely given us And our personal Faith and Sincerity must be justified and we in tantum before our Right to Christ Pardon and Life can be justified in foro 2. And to justifie us as sincere Believers when others are condemned as Hypocrites and Unbelievers and Impenitent is not Pardon of Sin These Matters should have been put into your excellent Catechism and not made strange much less obscured and opposed when laying by the quarrels about mere words I am confident you deny none of this § 12. He addeth Then Legal Justification is nothing but a bare word seeing unapplyed as to the Matter it is nothing as it is not called Healing by a Medicine not applyed nor was it ever heard that one Healing did apply another Answ Alas alas for the poor Church if this be the Academies best sorrow must excuse my Complaint If it be an Argument it must run thus If Legal or pro-legal Righteousness that is our part in Christ's Righteousness be none to us or none of our Justification when not-applyed than it is none also when it is applyed But c. Answ It is none till applyed Christ's Merits or Legal Righteousness justifie himself but not us till applyed Do you think otherwise or do you wrangle against your self But I deny your Consequence How prove you that it is none when applyed therefore Or the Cure is none when the Medicine is applyed Perhaps you 'l say That then our Personal Righteousness and subordinate Justification is ours before Christ's Righteousness and so the greater dependeth on and followeth the less Answ 1. Christ's own Righteousness is before ours 2. His Condition Pardon to fallen Mankind is before ours 3. This Gift being Conditional excepteth the non-performance of the Condition And the nature of a Condition is to suspend the effect of the Donation till performed 4. Therefore the performance goeth before the said Effect and our Title 5. But it is not therefore any cause of it but a removal of the suspension nor hath the Donation any other dependance on it And is not all this beyond denial with Persons not studiously and learnedly misled But you say It was never heard that one Healing applyed another Answ And see you not that this is a lis de nomine and
this Faith the Condition of our Title and if we do this we shall be judged evangelically Righteous that is such as have done all that was necessary to their right in Christ and the said Benefits and therefore have such a Right This is plain English and plain Truth wrangle no more against it and against the very Letter of the Text and against your Brethren and the Churches Concord by making Men believe that there are grievous Differences where there are none Reader I was going on to Answer the rest but my time is short Death is at the door Thou seest what kind of Work I have of it even to detect a Learned Man's Oversights and temerarious Accusations The weariness will be more to thee and me than the profit I find little before but what I have before answered here and oft elsewhere And therefore I will here take up only adding one Chapter of Defence of that Conciliation which I attempted in an Epistle to Mr. W. Allens Book of the Two Covenants and this Doctor like an Enemy of Peace assaulteth CHAP. VIII The Concord of Protestants in the Matter of Justification defended against Dr. Tullies Oppositions who would make Discord under pretence of proving it § 1. WHile Truth is pretended by most that by envious striving introduce Confusion and every evil Work it usually falleth out by God's just Judgment that such are almost as opposite to Truth as to Charity and Peace What more palpable instances can there be than such as on such accounts have lately assaulted me Mr. Danvers Mr. Bagshaw c. and now this Learned Doctor The very stream of all his Opposition against me about Imputation is enforced by this oft repeated Forgery that I deny all Imputation of Christ's Righteousness Yea he neither by fear modesty or ingenuity was restrained from writing pag. 117. Omnem ludibrio habet Imputationem He derideth all Imputation Judg by this what credit contentious Men deserve § 2. The conciliatory Propositions which I laid down in an Epistle to Mr. W. Allens Book I will here transcribe that the Reader may see what it is that these Militant Doctors war against Lest any who know not how to stop in mediocrity should be tempted by Socinians or Papists to think that we countenance any of their Errors or that our Differences in the point of Justification by Faith or Works are greater than indeed they are and lest any weak Opinionative Persons should clamour unpeaceably against their Brethren and think to raise a name to themselves for their differing Notions I shall here give the Reader such evidences of our real Concord as shall silence that Calumny Though some few Lutherans did upon peevish suspiciousness against George Major long ago assert That Good Works are not necessary to Salvation And though some few good Men whose Zeal without Judgment doth better serve their own turn than the Churches are jealous lest all the good that is ascribed to Man be a dishonour to God and therefore speak as if God were honoured most by saying the worst words of our selves and many have uncomely and irregular Notions about these Matters And though some that are addicted to sidings do take it to be their Godly Zeal to censure and reproach the more understanding sort when they most grosly err themselves And though too many of the People are carried about through injudiciousness and temptations to false Doctrines and evil Lives yet is the Argument of Protestants thus manifested 1. They all affirm that Christ's Sacrifice with his Holiness and perfect Obedience are the meritorious Cause of the forgiving Covenants and of our Pardon and Justification thereby and of our Right to Life Eternal which it giveth us And that this Price was not paid or given in it self immediately to us but to God for us and so that our foresaid Benefits are its Effects 2. They agree that Christ's Person and ours were not really the same and therefore that the same Righteousness which is an Accident of one cannot possibly be an Accident of the other 3. They all detest the Conceit that God should aver and repute a Man to have done that which he never did 4. They all agree that Christ's Sacrifice and Merits are really so effectual to procure our Pardon Justification Adoption and right to the sealing Gift of the Holy Ghost and to Glory upon our Faith and Repentance that God giveth us all these benefits of the New-Covenant as certainly for the sake of Christ and his Righteousness as if we had satisfied him and merited them our selves and that thus far Christ's Righteousness is ours in its Effects and imputed to us in that we are thus used for it and shall be judged accordingly 5. They all agree that we are justified by none but a practical or working Faith 6. And that this Faith is the Condition of the Promise or Gift of Justification and Adoption 7. And that Repentance is a Condition also though as it is not the same with Faith as Repentance of Unbelief is on another aptitudinal account even as a willingness to be cured and a willingness to take one for my Physician and to trust him in the use of his Remedies are on several accounts the Conditions on which that Physician will undertake the Cure or as willingness to return to subjection and thankful acceptance of a purchased Pardon and of the Purchasers Love and future Authority are the Conditions of a Rebel's Pardon 8. And they all agree that in the first instant of a Man's Conversion or Believing he is entred into a state of Justification before he hath done any outward Works and that so it is true that good Works follow the Justified and go not before his initial Justification as also in the sense that Austin spake it who took Justification for that which we call Sanctification or Conversion 9. And they all agree that Justifying Faith is such a receiving affiance as is both 〈…〉 Intellect and the Will and therefore as in 〈…〉 participateth of some kind of Love to the justifying Object as well as to Justification 10. And that no Man can chuse or use Christ as a Means so called in respect to his own intention to bring him to God the Father who hath not so much love to God as to take him for his end in the use of that means 11. And they agree that we shall be all judged according to our Works by the Rule of the Covenant of Grace though not for our Works by way of commutative or legal proper merit And Judging is the Genus whose Species is Justifying and Condemning and to be judged according to our Works is nothing but to be justified or condemned according to them 12. They all agree that no Man can possibly merit of God in point of Commutative Justice nor yet in point of Distributive or Governing Justice according to the Law of Nature or Innocency as Adam might have done nor by the Works of the Mosaical
each one of which being Collectives contain many And here I tell you of more And have you brought more Witnesses Or any to the contrary Did you Confute or once take Notice of any of these 4. Do you not here before you are aware let your Reader know that it was and still is in the Dark that you Alarm the World about our dangerous Differences and run to your Arms undrest before your Eyes are open Qui conveniunt in aliquo tertio c. They that agree with the Church of England in the Doctrine of Justification by Faith do so far agree between themselves But Dr. Tullie and R.B. do agree with the Church of England in the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Ergo. The Article referreth to the Homilies where it is more fully Explained 5. May not I then retort your Argument and bid you For shame let it be no longer Bellarnine and R.B. but the Church of England and all the Reformed and R.B. Disprove the Witnesses twenty years ago produced by me in this very Cause or else speak out and say The Church of England and the rest of the Reformed hold Justification by Works just as Bellarmine and the Papists do which is it which you would fasten on me who agree with them as if you had never there read my Answer to Mr. Crandon objecting the same thing § IV. Your Censure pag. 10 11. of my Windings Clouds of Novel Distinctions Preambles Limitations c. is just such as your Treatise did bid me expect Till you become guilty of the same Crime and fall out with Confusion and take not equivocal ambiguous Words unexplained instead of Univocals in the stating of your Questions I shall never the more believe that Hannibal is at the Gates or the City on Fire for your Allarms § V. Pag. 11. Where you tell me that You have no Profit by my Preface I shall not deny it nor wonder at it you are the fittest Judge Where you say that I have no Credit You do but tell the World at what Rates you write Honor est in honorante And have all my Readers already told you their Judgment Alas How few In all London not a Man hath yet given me Notice of his Dislike or Dissent And sure your own Pen is a good Confuter of you It is some Credit that such a Man as you is forced to profess a full Consent to the Doctrine though with passionate Indignation You tell me of Nothing to the Question But will you not be angry if I should but tell you how little you did to state any Question and in Reason must be supposed when you assaulted my Doctrine to take it as I stated it which I have fully shewed you You tell me that You Charged me only with new Original Sin underived from Adam unknown unheard of before in the Christian World Answ De re is not our Guilt of nearer Parent 's Sins such which you and all that you know now at last confess De nomine 1. Tell the World if you can when I called it New Original Sin or underived from Adam or unknown or unheard of There are more ways than one of Derivation from Adam It is not derived from him by such Imputation as his first Sin but it is derived from him as a partial Causa Causae by many Gradations All Sin is some-way from him Either you mean that I said that it was not Derived from Adam or you gather it by some Consequence from what I said If the First shew the Words and the Shame shall be mine If not you know the old Law that to false Accusers it must be done as they would have done to the Accused But if it be your Consequence prove it and tell the World what are the Premises that infer it § VI. Pag. 12. You friendly help me to profit by my self however you profess that you profit not by me What I have said to you against Hasty Judging I have first said to my self and the more you warn me of it the more friendly you are If it be not against such as you but my self it is against my self that I have a Treatise on that Subject but I begin to think my self in this more Seeing than you for I see it both in my self and you and you seem to see it in me and not in your self But with all Men I find that to see the Spots in our own Face immediately is hard and to love the Glass which sheweth them is not easie especially to some Men that neither are low nor can endure to be so till there is no Remedy But Sir how easie a Way of Disputing have you happily light on Who instead of Examining the hundred Witnesses which I brought and my else-where oft proving the Doctrine opposed by me to be Novel and Singular do in few words talk of your holding the Doctrine delivered to the Saints and of the many Worthies that concur with you and of my pelting at their Heads and draging them by the Hoary-heads as a Spectacle and By-word to all by proving their consent by express Citations what Armies and of what Strength appear against me whose Names I defie and wound through yours Answ And is not he a weak Man that cannot talk thus upon almost any Subject But who be these Men and what be their Names Or rather first rub your Eyes and tell us what is the Controversie Tully sometimes talkt at this rate in his Orations but verily much better in his Philosophy And you see no cause to repent but you bless God that you can again and again call to all Youth that as they love the Knowledg of Truth they take me not for an Oracle in my bold dividing Singularities Answ That the Name of Truth is thus abused is no News I would the Name of God were not And I am sorry that you see no Cause to repent I am obliged to love you the better for being against dividing Singularities in the general Notion I hope if you knew it you would not be for them as in singular Existents But sure none at Oxford are in danger of taking me for an Oracle This is another needless Work So Spanhemius took that for a Singularity which Dallaeus in a large Catalogue hath proved the Common Judgment of the Church till Contention of late caused some Dissenters Will you cease these empty general Ostentations and choose out any one Point of real Difference between you and me about Justification and come to a fair Trial on whose side the Churches of Christ have been for 1500 years after Christ yea bring me but any two or one considerable Person that was for a thousand years for your Cause against mine and I will say that you have done more to confute me by far than yet you have done and if two only be against me I will pardon you for calling me Singular § VII Pag. 13 14 15. You again do keep up the Dividing Fear
Take your selves to be neither of Roman or any other Church as Vniversal which is less than the Vniversality of all Christians headed by Christ alone 9. Make this Love of all Christians the second part of your Religion and the Love of God of Christ of Holiness and Heaven the first and live thus in the serious practice of your Covenant even of Simple Christianity For it 's this that will be your Peace in Life and at Death 10. And if Men of various degrees of Learning or Speaking-skill and of various degrees of Holiness Humility and Love shall quarrel about Words and forms of Speech and shall hereticate and revile and damn each other while the Essentials are held fast and practised discern Right from Wrong as well as you can but take heed that none of them make Words a snare to draw you injuriously to think hatefully of your Brother or to divide the Churches or Servants of Christ And suspect such a Snare because of the great ambiguity of Words and imperfection of Mans Skill and Honesty in all Matters of debate And never dispute seriously without first agreeing of the Sense of every doubtful term with him that you Dispute with Dr. Tully's Allarm and other Mens militant Course perswaded me as a Preservative to commend this Counsel to you § XI Pag. 19. You next very justly commend Method ordering and expressing our Conceptions of which you say I seem to make little account in Comparison Answ 1. Had you said that I had been unhappy in my Endeavours your Authority might have gone for Proof with many But you could scarce have spoken a more incredible word of me than that I seem to make little account of Method I look for no sharper Censure from the Theological Tribe than that I Over-do in my Endeavours after Method You shall not tempt me here unseasonably to anticipate what Evidence I have to produce for my acquittance from this Accusation 2. But yet I will still say that it is not so necessary either to Salvation or to the Churches Peace that we all agree in Methods and Expressions as that we agree in the hearty reception of Christ and obedience to His Commands So much Method all must know as to know the Beginning and the End from the Effects and Means God from the Creature and as our true consent to the Baptismal Covenant doth require and I will thankfully use all the help which you give me to go further But I never yet saw that Scheme of Theologie or of any of its Heads which was any whit large and I have seen many which was so exact in Order as that it was dangerous in any thing to forsake it But I cannot think meet to talk much of Method with a Man that talketh as you do of Distinguishing and handleth the Doctrine of Justification no more Methodically than you do § XII But pag. 19. you instance in the difference between Protestants and Papists about the Necessity of Good works which is wide in respect of the placing or ranking of them viz. The one stretching it to the first Justification the other not but confining it to its proper rank and province of Inherent Holiness where it ought to keep Answ Wonderful Have you that have so loudly called to me to tell how I differ about Justification brought your own and as you say the Protestants difference to this Will none of your Readers see now who cometh nearer them you or I 1. Is this distinction our proof of your accurateness in Method and Order and Expression What meaneth a distinction between First-Justification and Inherent Holiness Do you difference them Quoad ordinem as First and Second But here is no Second mentioned Is it in the nature of the things Justification and Inherent Holiness What signifieth the First then But Sir how many Readers do you expect who know not 1. That it is not to the First Justification at all but to that which they call the Second or Increase that the Church of Rome asserteth the necessity or use of Mans meritorious Works See what I have fully cited out of them for this Cath. Theol. Lib. 2. Confer 13. pag. 267. c. saving that some of them are for such Preparatives as some call Merit of Congruity and as our English Divines do constantly preach for and the Synod of Dort at large assert though they disown the name of Merit as many of the Papists do They ordinarily say with Austine Bona opera sequuntur Justificatum non praecedunt Justificandum 2. But I hope the word First here overslipt your your Pen instead of Second But suppose it did so What 's the difference between the Papists first or second Justification and the Protestants Inherent Holiness None that ever I heard or read of Who knoweth not that the Papists take Justification for Inherent Holiness And is this the great difference between Papists and Protestants which I am so loudly accused for not acknowledging viz. The Papists place Good-Works before Justification that is Inherent Holiness and the Protestants more rightly place them before Inherent Holiness Are you serious or do you prevaricate The Papists and Protestants hold that there are some Duties and common Grace usually preparatory to Conversion or Sanctification which some Papists de nomine call Merit of Congruity and some will not The Papists and Protestants say that Faith is in order of nature at least before that Habitual Love which is called Holiness and before the Works thereof The Papists and Protestants say that Works of Love and Obedience follow our First Sanctification and make up but the Second part of it which consisteth in the Works of Holiness If you speak not of Works in the same sense in each part of your Assignation the Equivocation would be too gross viz. If you should mean Papists rank the necessity of preparatory Common Works or the Internal act of Faith or Love stretching it to the First Justification and Protestants rank other Works viz. The fruits of Faith and Love with Inherent Holiness All agree 1. That Common Works go before Sanctification 2. That Internal Love and other Grace do constitute Sanctification in the First part of it 3. That Special Works proceeding from Inward Grace are the effects of the First Part and the constitutive Causes of the Second Part of Sanctification as the word extendeth also to Holiness of Life And whilst Papists take Justâ—fication for Sanctification in all this there is De re no difference But your accurate Explications by such terms as Stretching Confirming Province c. are fitter for Tully than for Aristotle And is this it in the Application that your Zeal will warn Men of that we must in this take heed of joyning with the Papists Do you mean Rank Good-Works with Inherent Holiness and not with the First Sanctification and you then do widely differ from the Papists Will not your Reader say 1. What doth Inherent Holiness differ from the First
liberal Dictates The Reformed Divines are all I think before you agreed about the nature of Justification its Causes c. and consequently cannot differ about the Definition Answ 1. But what if all Divines were so agreed So are not all honest Men and Women that must have Communion with us Therefore make not Definitions more necessary than they are nor as necessary as the Thing 2. You must be constrained for the defending of these words to come off by saying that you meant That though they agree not in the Words or Logical terms of the Definition but one saith This is the Genus and this is the Differentia and another that it is not this but that one saith this and another that is the Formal or Material Cause c. yet de re they mean the same thing were they so happy as to agree in their Logical defining terms and notions And if you will do in this as you have done in your other Quarrels come off by saying as I say and shewing Men the power of Truth though you do it with never so much anger that you must agree I shall be satisfied that the Reader is delivered from your snare and that Truth prevaileth what ever you think or say of me 3. But because I must now answer what you say and not what I foresee you will or must say I must add that this passage seemeth to suppose that your Reader liveth in the dark and hath read very little of Justification 1. Do all those great Divines who deny the Imputation of Christs active Righteousness and take it to be but Justitia Personae non Meriti and that we are Justified by the Passive only agree with their Adversaries who have written against them about the Definition and Causes of Justification Will any Man believe you who hath read Olevian Vrsine Paraeus Scultetus Piscator Carolus Molinaeus Wendeline Beckman Alstedius Camero with his followers in France Forbes with abundance more who are for the Imputation of the Passive Righteousness only Were Mr. Anth. Wotton and Mr. Balmford and his other Adversaries of the same Opinion in this Was Mr. Bradshaw so sottish as to write his Reconciling Treatise of Justification in Latine and English to reduce Men of differing minds to Concord while he knew that there was no difference so much as in the Definition Was he mistaken in reciting the great differences about their Senses of Imputation of Christs Righteousness if there were none at all Did Mr. Gataker agree with Lucius and Piscator when he wrote against both as the extreams Did Mr. Wotton and John Goodwin agree with Mr. G. Walker and Mr. Roborough Doth Mr. Lawson in his Theopolitica agree with you and such others Doth not Mr. Cartwright here differ from those that hold the Imputation of the Active Righteousness What abundance of Protestants do place Justification only in Fogiveness of Sins And yet as many I know not which is the greater side do make that Forgiveness but one part and Imputation of Righteousness another And how many make Forgiveness no part of Justification but a Concomitant And many instead of Imputation of Righteousness put Accepting us as Righteous for the sake or merit of Christs Righteousness imputed viz. as the Meritorious Cause And Paraeus tells us that they are of four Opinions who are for Christs Righteousness imputed some for the Passive only some for the Passive and Active some for the Passive Active and Habitual some for these three and the Divine And who knoweth not that some here so distinguish Causes and Effects as that our Original Sin or Habitual say some is pardoned for Christs Original and Habitual Holiness Our Omissions for Christs Active Obedience and our Commissions for His Passive Or as more say that Christs Passive Righteousness as Satisfaction saveth us from Hell or Punishment and His Active as meritorious procureth Life as the reward When many others rejecting that Division say That both freedom from Punishment and right to Glory are the conjunct effects of His Habitual Active and Passive Righteousness as an entire Cause in its kind as Guil. Forbes Grotius Bradshaw and others truly say Besides that many conclude with Gataker that these are indeed but one thing and effect to be Glorified and not to be Damned or Punished seeing not to be Glorified is the Paena damni and that the remitting of the whole Penalty damni sensus and so of all Sin of Omission and Commission is our whole Justification And I need not tell any Man that hath read such Writers that they ordinarily distinguish of Justification and give not the same Definition of one sort as of another nor of the Name in one Sense as in another Many confess whom you may read in Guil. Forbes and Vinc. le Blanck that the word Justifie is divers times taken in Scripture as the Papists do as including Sanctification And so saith Beza against Illyricus pag. 218. as cited by G. Forbes Si Justificationem generaliter accipias ut interdum usurpatur ab Apostolo Sanctificatio non erit ejus effectus sed pars aut species And as I find him mihi pag. 179. Quamvis Justificationis nomen interdum generaliter accipiatur pro omni illius Justitiae dono quam a patre in Christo accipimus c. And how little are we agreed whether Reconciliation be a part of Justification or not Yea or Adoption either Saith Illyricus Hoc affirmo recte posse dici Justificationem esse Causam omnium beneficiorum sequentium Nam justificatio est plena Reconciliatio cum Deo quae nos facit ex hostibus filios Dei To which Beza ibid. saith distinguishing of Reconciliation Neutro modo idem est Reconciliatio ac Justificatio Si Remissio peccatorum est Justificationis Definitio quod negare non ausis c. Of the three sorts or parts of Christs Righteousness imputed to make up three parts of our Justification see him de Predest pag. 405. Col. 2. which Perkins and some others also follow Olevian as all others that grosly mistake not herein did hold that God did not judg us to have fulfilled all the Law in Christ and that our righteousness consisteth only in the Remission of Sin and right to Life as freely given us for anothers Merits But Beza insisteth still on the contrary and in his Epistle to Olevian pag. 248. Epist 35. saith Quid vanius est quam Justum arbitrari qui Legem non impleverit Atqui lex non tantum prohibet fieri quod vetat verum praecipit quod jubet Ergo qui pro non peccatore censetur in Christo mortem quidem effugerit sed quo jure vitam praeterea petet nisi omnem justitiam Legis in eodem Christo impleverit This is the Doctrine which Wotton and Gataker in divers Books largely and Bradshaw after many others do Confute Yet saith he Nâ—que vero id obstat quominus nostra Justificatio Remissione peccatorum apte recte
definiatur Which is a contradiction Yet was he for Love and Gentleness in these differences ibid. Yet Qu. Resp Christ pag. 670. He leaveth out Christs Original Habitual Righteousness Non illa essentialis quae Deitatis est nec illa Habitualis ut ita loquar Puritas Carnis Christi Quae quum non distingueret Osiander faedissime est hallucinatus And ibid. 670. he giveth us this description of Justification Qu. Quid Justificationem vocat Paulus hoc loco R. Illud quo Justi fimus id est eousque perfecti integri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut plenissime non tantum aboleatur quicquid in nobis totis in est turpitudinis qua Deus summe purus offendi ullo modo possit verum etiam in nos comperiatur quicquid in haâ— humana naturae usque adeo potest eum delectare ut illud vita aeterna pro bona sua voluntate coronet Yet as in his Annot. in Rom. 8.30 alibi he confesseth that Justification in Scripture sometime is taken for Sanctification or as including it so he taketh our Sanctification to contain the Imputation of Christs Sanctity to us Qu. Resp pag. 671. 1. Dico nostras Personas imputata ipsius perfecta sanctitate integritate plene sanctas integras ac proinde Patri acceptas non in nobis sed in Christo censemur 2. And next the Spirits Sanctification and thus Christ is made Sanctification to us Dr. Twisse and Mr. Pemble Vind. Grat. distinguish of Justification as an Immanent Act in God from Eternity and as it is the notice of the former in our Consciences But doubtless the commonest Definitions of Justification agree with neither of these And Pemble of Justification otherwise defineth it as Mr. Jessop saith Dr. Twisse did Lud. Crocius Syntag. pag. 1219. thus defineth it Justificatio Evangelica est actus Divinae gratiae qua Deus adoptat peccatorem per approbationem obedientiae Legis in sponsore atque intercessore Christo per Remissionem peccatorum ac Justitiae imputationem in eo qui per fidem Christo est insitus And saith pag. 1223. Fides sola justificat quatenus notat Obedientiam quandam expectantem promissionem ut donum gratuitum apponitur illi Obedientiae quae non expectat promissionem ut donum omnino gratuitum sed ut mercedem propositam sub Conditione operis alicuâ—us praeter acceptationem gratitudinem debitam quae sua Natura in omni donatione quamvis gratuita requiri solet Et ejusmodi Obedientia peculiariter opus ab Apostolo Latinis proprie Meritum dicitur qui sub hac conditione obediunt Operantes vocantur Rom. 4.4 11.6 This is the truth which I assert Conrad Bergius Prax. Cathol dis 7. pag. 983. tells us that the Breme Catâ—chism thus openeth the Matter Qu. Quomodo Justificatur Homo coram Deo R. Accipit Homo Remissionem peccatorum Justificatur hoc est Gratus fit coram Deo in vera Conversione persolam fidem per Christum sine proprio Merito dignitate Cocceius disp de via salut de Just pag. 189. Originalis Christi Justitia correspondet nostro Originali peccato c. vid. coet plura vid. de foeder Macovius Colleg. de Justif distinguisheth Justification into Active and Passive and saith Justificatio Activa significat absoluâ—ionem Dei que Hominem reum a reatu absolvit And he would prove this to be before Faith and citeth for it abusively Paraeus and Tessanus and thinketh that we were absolved from Guilt from Christs undertaking our Debt Thes 12. thus arguing Cujus debita apud Creditorem aliquis recepit exsolvenda Creditor istius sponsionem ita acceptat ut in ea acquiescat ille jam ex parte Creditoris liber est a debitis Atque Electorum omnium in singulari debita apud Deum Patrem Christus ex quo factus est Mediator recepit exolvenda Deus Pater illam sponsionem acceptavit c. Passive Justification which he supposeth to be our application of Christs Righteousness to our daily as oft as we offend Th. 5. And part 4. disp 22. he maintaineth that There are no Dispositions to Regeneration Others of his mind I pass by Spanhemius Disput de Justif saith that The Form of Passive Justification consisteth in the apprehension and sense of Remission of Sin and Imputation of Christs Righteousness in capable Subjects grosly Whereas Active Justification Justificantis ever immediately causeth Passive Justificationem justificati which is nothing but the effect of the Active or as most call it Actio ut in patiente And if this were the Apprehension and Sense as aforesaid of Pardon and imputed Righteousness then a Man in his sleep were unjustified and so of Infants c. For he that is not Passively justified is not at all justified I told you else-where that the Synops Leidens de Justif pag. 413. Th. 23. saith That Christs Righteousness is both the Meritorious Material and Formal Cause of our Justification What Fayus and Davenant and others say of the Formal Cause viz. Christs Righteousness imputed I there shewed And how Paraeus Joh. Crocius and many others deny Christs Righteousness to be the Formal Cause Wendeline defineth Justification thus Theol. Lib. 1. c. 25. p. 603. Justificatio est actio Dei gratuita qua peccatores Electi maledictioni legis obnoxii propter justitiam seu satisfactionem Christi fide applicatam a Deo imputatam coram tribunali Divino remssis peccatis a maledictione Legis absolvuntur justi censentur And pag. 615 616. He maintaineth that Obedientia activa si proprie accurate loquamur non est materia nostrae Justificationis nec imputatur nobis ita ut nostra censeatur nobis propter eam peccata remittantur debitum legis pro nobis solvatur quemadmodum Passiva per imputationem censetur nostra c. Et post Si dicus Christum factum esse hominem pro nobis hoc est nostro bono conceditur Si pro nobis hoc est nostro loco negatur Quod enim Christus nostro loco fecit factus est id nos non tenemur facere fieri c. Rob. Abbot approveth of Thompsons Definition of Evangelical Justification pag. 153. that it is Qua poenitenti Credenti remittuntur peccata jus vitae aeternae conceditur per propter Christi obedientiam illi imputatam Which is sound taking Imputatam soundly as he doth Joh. Crâ—cius Disp 1. p. 5. thus defineth it Actio Dei qua ex gratia propter satisfactionem Christi peccatoribus in Christum totius Mundi redemptorem unicum vere credentibus gratis sine operibus aut meritis propriis omnia peccata remittit justitiam Christi imputat ad sui nominis gloriam illorum salutem aeternam And he maketh only Christs full satisfaction for Sin to be the Impulsive-External Meritorious and Material Cause as being that which is imputed to us and the Form
judicious Divines these were my words are to be preferred before Authority or Majority of Votes And Reader what Reason bound me to confine this Case to one only sort of Justification And why I say why must I confine it to a sort which Dr. Tully meaneth when my Rule and Book was written before his and when to this day I know not what he meaneth Though he at once chide at my Distinguishing and tell me that All Protestants agree in the Nature Causes and Definition and if all agreed I might know by other Mens words what he meaneth yet to all before-said I will add but one contrary Instance of many Cluto in his very Methodical but unsound Idea Theol. signalized in Voetii Biblioth defineth Justification so as I suppose best pleaseth the Doctor viz. Est Actio Dei Judicialis qua redemptos propter passiones justitiae Divinae satifactorias a Christo sustentatas redemptisque imputatas a peccatis puros consequenter a poenis liberos itemque propter Obedientiam a Christo Legi Divinae praestitam redemptisque imputatam justitia praeditos consequenter vita aeterna dignos ex miserecordia pronunciat In the opening of which he telleth us pag. 243. against multitudes of the greatest Protestants Definitions Male alteram Justificationis partem ipsam Justitiae Imputationem statui cum Justificatio non sit ipsa Imputatio sed Pronunciatio quae Imputatione tanquam fundamento jacto nititur And he knew no sense of Justification but Vel ipsam sententiae Justificatoriae in mente Divina prolationem sive Constitutionem vel ejus in Cordibus redemptorum manifestantem Revelationem And saith Priori modo factum est autem omnem fidem cum Deus omnes quibus passiones justitiam Christi imputabat innocentes justos reputaret cum ejus inimici adeoque sine fide essent so that here is a Justification of Infidels as innocent for Christs Righteousness imputed to them Quare etiam ut jam facta fide apprehendenda est The second which follows Faith is Faith ingenerating a firm perswasion of it Is not here sad defining when neither of these are the Scripture Justification by Christ and Faith And so § 32. the time of Justification by Faith he maketh to be the time when we receive the feeling of the former And the time of the former is presently after the Fall of all at once And hence gathereth that Ex eo quod Justificatio dicitur fieri propter passiones obedientiam Christi quibus ad perfectionem nihil deest nobis imputatas before Faith or Birth consequitur innocentiam justitiam in Redemptis quam primum perfectas ab omni macula puras esse and so that neither the pronunciation in mente Divina or imputation ullis gradibus ad perfectionem exsurgat But what is this pronunciation in mente Divina He well and truly noteth § 29. that Omnes actiones Divinae fi ex eo aestimentur quod re ipsa in Deo sunt idem sunt cum ipso Deo ideoque dependentiam a Causa externa non admittant Si tamen considerentur quoad rationem formalem hujus vel illius denominationis ipsis impositae in relatione ad Creaturas consistentem ipsis causae impulsivae assignare possunt c. This distinction well openeth how God may be said to justifie in His own Mind But what is that effect Vnde essentia vel mens Divina ita denominatur justificans Here he is at a loss neither truly telling us what is Justication Constitutive Sentential nor Executive but in the little part of Feeling God 's secret Act yet this dark Definer truly saith Ex sensu Scripturae verissime affirmetur hominem per fidem solam justificari quia ex nostra parte nihil ad Justificationem conferendum Deus requirit quam ut Justificationem in Christo fundatam credamus fide non producamus sed recipiamus If yet you would see whether all Protestants agree in the Definition of Justification read the multitude of Definitions of it in several senses in Learnrd Alstedius his Definit Theol. c. 24. § 2. pag. 97. c. Justificatio hominis coram Deo est qua homo in foro Divino absolvitur seu justus esse evincitur contra quemvis actorem Deo ipso judice pro eo sententiam ferente But what is this Forum Forum Divinum est ubi Deus ipse judicis partes agit fert sententiam secundum leges a se latas But where is that Est internum vel externum Forum divinum internum est in ipsa hominis Conscientia in qua Deus Thronum justitiae erigit in hac vita ibi agendo partes actoris judicis Forum Conscientiae But it is not this that is meant by the Justification by Faith Forum divinum externum est in qua Deus post hanc vitam extra hominem exercet judicium 1. Particulare 2. Vniversale This is true and well But are we no where Justified by Faith but in Conscience till after Death This is by not considering 1. The Jus ad impunitatem vitam donatum per foedus Evangelicum upon our Believing which supposing Faith and Repentance is our Constitutive Justification virtually only sentential 2. And the Judgment of God begun in this Life pronounced specially by Execution Abundance of useful Definitions subordinate you may further there see in Alstedius and some wrong and the chief omitted The vehement passages of the Doctors Conclusion I pass over his deep sense of unsufferable Provocations I must leave to himself his warning of the dreadful Tribunal which I am near it greatly concerns me to regard And Reader I shall think yet that his Contest though troublesome to me that was falsly assaulted and more to him whose detected Miscarriages are so painful to him hath yet been Profitable beyond the Charges of it to him or me if I have but convinced thee that 1. Sound mental Conceptions of so much as is necessary to our own Justification much differ from proper Logical Definitions And that 2. Many millions are Justified that cannot define it 3. And that Logical Definitions are Works of Art more than of Grace which require so much Acuteness and Skill that even worthy and excellent Teachers may be and are disagreed about them especially through the great ambiguity of Words which all understand not in the same sence and few are sufficiently suspicious of and diligent to explain 4. And therefore that our Christian Love Peace and Concord should not be laid upon such Artificial things 5. And that really the Generality of Protestants are agreed mostly in the Matter when they quarrel sharply about many Artificial Notions and Terms in the point of Justification And yet after all this I shall as earnestly as this Doctor desire and labour for accurateness in Distinguishing Defining and Method though I will not have such things to be Engins of Church-Division And lastly Because he so oft and