if we should perform that new Law which he should give us But this shall be particularly considered in the Sixth Chapter CHAP. IV. An Answer to the Arguments against the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness WE are now to examin the Arguments which are brought against this Doctrine where as I shall pass by none that I meet with which seem to have any weight and whose solution may add any evidence to this weighty Truth so I shall not count my self concerned in a great number of Objections that are heaped up by some against it some being meer devised cavilations and many nothing to the purpose For our Opposites deal in this Argument as the Arminians did in the point of Reprobation load it with calumnies or with the unadvised expressions of some particular men but say but little that concludeth against the Truth it self Their usual Fallacy is Plus in conclusione quam in praemissis or ignoratio Elenchi when the plain Question is Whether we are accepted and justified for the Righteousness of Christ wrought for us and given to us by the Promise of the Gospel and accepted by Faith And their Arguments should conclude against this naked truth they usually conclude against Imputation of this Righteousness as exprest by the Antinomians or by Popular and not Logical Men or else against some terms of Art applyed to this Subject The like they do when they dispute against the Imputation of our sins to Christ yet some Instances of this kind I must take notice of that the Reader may be the more excited to observe it in their Books Object Christ's Righteousness is the Morally Efficient sc the meritorious Cause of our Justification Hotchkis ut supra p. 23. therefore it is not the proper matter or properly a material Cause of it Matter being an internal constitutive Cause and an efficient and external Cause which cannot agree to the same thing Answ The Question is not nor did ever any man say it that knew what he said whether Christs Righteousness be a proper material Cause as Matter is opposed to a Form When it is said to be the Matter or formal Cause of our Justification it is meant only Analogically Christs Righteousness consisted in Actions and Passions which were neither Matter nor Forms as taken for Internal Essential Parts of any thing But when these Actions and Passions are the thing for which a man is justified they are analogically called the Matter of his Righteousness because his Righteousness is made up of them and as a man is accepted for these very Actions and Passions wrought for him and imputed to him so they may be called the Formal Cause of our Justification as a man is denominated Just before God from that Righteousness And thus as Christs Righteousness is analogically called Matter or Form so it may analogically be said to constitute a man Just or Righteous before God or to be pars constituens hominis justificati quatenus juscificati as any other Accident moral or physical intrinsecal or extrinsecal being appli d to the subject maketh the concretum ex subjecto accidenti and so the subject in that composition is as the matter though otherways perhaps the Efficient and the Accident as the Form both are the Constitutive Parts of that concretum yet Analogically Thus much for the Logick of this Argument now for the Divinity It is true that Christ's Obedience offered as a Ransom for all the Elect in general is the Meritorious Cause of their Salvation but when it is applied to each particular person as all Causes must be applied to the Patient that they may produce their Effect it is that thing for which God doth accept and justifie them in particular and so is said to be the matter of their Righteousness the Material and by some the Formal Cause of Justification de Just. ch 22. vid. Dav. Atque revera in justificatione talis causa formalis ponenda est quae simul meritoria esse possit Nisi enim contineat illam dignitatem in se propter quam homo rite justificatus reputetur nunquam erit formalis causa c. 2. Object If Christ's Righteousness be imputed to us then we are freed from all obligation to Obedience If he hath obeyed for us Trueman ut supra p. 118.4 what need is there of our obedience we cannot mend his and if he hath done all there is nothing left for us to do Answ We are freed from any obligation to obedience of that kind and to that end for which Christ obeyed His Obedience was the Fulfilling of the Law of Works as a Covenant of Life and by fulfilling it he purchased life for us and so was the perfective end of that Law or Covenant for righteousness to them that believe Rom. 10.4 Perfect obedience to the Law of Works is not required of us that we should live by it or perish for lack of it as it would have been had not Christ obeyed for us But it doth not follow from hence that we are freed from all Obligations of Obedience upon other accounts viz. as Creatures to a Creator as Servants to an absolute and soveraign Lord as Children to a Father and as the Preparatives to an Eternal Life upon these accounts we must obey still though not to be justified by it Christ himself is not freed from the general obligation of obedience to God as he is a Man though he hath finished his satisfactory Obedience to the Law as the Means and Covenant of Life and is for ever acquitted from the Obligation thereto In like manner his Obedience hath acquitted us from all obligation to the Law as the way of life yet not from all Obedience But this Argument as all the rest of this Author in the same place is levelled against a Popular Expression of this Doctrine and are nothing to the main Question viz. That Christ's Righteousness is so imputed to us that we are accounted to have obeyed in him to have fulfilled the Law to have done and suffered all in him c. which Position is true only in this Sence That all which Christ did and suffered was intended for us is given to us and doth as really justifie us as if we had fulfilled it our selves But it is not true that God accounteth us to have personally obeyed in Christs obeying or us to have suffered in Christs suffering to have fulfilled the Law in his fulfilling it For then we must be accounted to have satisfied for our selves in him and to have purchased our own Justification The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness is God's accounting it to be wrought for us and so he accepteth us for it but not his accounting us to have wrought it or to have been actively righteous as if we had fulfilled his Law But did not Christ obey as a common and publick person for all the Elect Quest and so he and they are one in Law and so what he
that Book which is misrepresented Chap. 22. he proposeth the Question de Just habit actual Whether we are justified by the Obedience or Righteousness of Christ imputed to us and that be the formal cause of Justification Where he explaineth the Nature of Justification of Imputation the Righteousness of Christ and the Formal Cause of Justification in the same terms as we do and without any difference in sence He gives us the Sum in these words p. 313. Vno verbo utcunque Deus sanctificatos nos reputat at que inchoatè justos per impressam inhaerentem qualitatem justitiae tamen justificatos i.e. à peccatis absolutos ad vitam aeternam acceptatos per propter justitiam Mediatoris nobis ab ipso Deo donatam hac side spiritúque applicatam i.e. Though God reputeth us inchoatively righteous or holy by the habit of holiness wrought in us yet he accounts us justified acquitted from sin and accepted to life by and for the Righteousness of Christ given to us by God and applyed by his Spirit and our Faith Then he layers down two Propositions opposite to the Papists which he pursueth to the 30th Chapter The one excludeth Works as the Papists maintain them the other affirmeth that the most perfect Obedience of Jesus Christ dwelling in us and uniting himself to us is the formal cause of our Justification for as much as it is made ours by Faith and by the Gift of God Prop. 1. Christi Mediatoris in nobis habitantis atque per spiritum sese nobis unientis perfectissima obedientia Ibid. est formalis causa justificationis nostrae utpote quae ex donatione Pei applicatione fidei fit nostra Observe he doth not say Christ's righteousness doth in some sence justifie us or is ours for or in some effects but he saith we are justified for that very righteousness or obedience of Christ this is the form whereby we are made righteous or justified in opposition to our own Holiness and that because it is our righteousness from Gods Gift from our Union to Christ and Faith in him and then he lays down the contrary Position of the Papists to be refuted and answereth their Calumnies against our Doctrine of Imputation which are much the same that are scattered in our late Authors The Proposition is Thesis 2. Papistarum Mediatoris obedientia sive justitia non donatur aut applicatur credentibus vice aut per modum causae formalis Ibid. cujus virtute fiducia stant justificati aut Deo ad aeternam vitam acceptati The Bishop goes on and Chap. 24. answereth 11 Arguments of Bellarmin against Imputation mostly the same with those alledged Chap. 4th Chap. 25. ut supra he answereth Bellarmins Citations out of the Fathers against the same Doctrine Chap. 27. He further explaineth the Nature of Imputation and what we mean by a Formal Cause just as we do Chap. 28. He proveth that Christ's Righteousness is imputed as that very Righteousness which justifieth us which he doth by 11 Arguments and by all the same Scriptures out of the New Testament which have been cited above Chap. 3. and by some others all in the same sence which we take them Chap. 29. He alledgeth the Fathers for our Doctrine Chap. 30. He refuteth the Papists slanders in saying that this Doctrine taketh away the necessity of good works where he hath this memorable passage concerning the difference of the two Covenants Lex in conditione operum vitam habet ipsam vim formam icti faederis p. 396. at Evangelium in Mediatoris sanguine fide apprehenso collocat ipsam vim formam operum autem conditionem annectit ut subservientem huic faederi Evangelico non ut continentem aut constituentem ipsum faedus i. e. the Covenant of Works includeth Works in the very form of it as the conditions of that Govenant but the Gospel placeth the form and force of the Covenant in Faith in the Bloud of Christ but that it subjoyneth works as a subservient condition not as containing any part of the Covenant Can any thing be more contrary to the Doctrine we oppose that the Gospel is a Covenant of sincere Obedience and that Obedience is the condition of the new Covenant whereby we must be justified In all this here is not a word favouring this new Opinion Chap. 31. There is something which may bare a colour of some approbation of this Doctrine but it is but a colour He saith that Works are in some sort necessary to Justification and Salvation but that the term necessary ought not to be used in Disputes with Papists or in Discourses to the People lest they ascribe too much to them Concl. 2 3. And in the 4th he saith No works are necessary neither Legal nor Evangelical p. 402. as a Meritorious Cause but conditions of the Covenant are a meritorious cause Nulla opera bona sunt renatis ad salutem aut justificationem necessaria si per necessaria intelligamus sub ratione causae meritoriae necessaria dico nulla ut excludam non solummodò opera legalia sed etiam opera inchoatae justificationis And then Concl. 5th he saith Bona quaedam opera sunt necessaria ad justificationem p. 403. ut conditiones concurrentes vel praecursoriae ut dolere de peccato detestari peccatum consimilia i. e. Some good works are necessary to Justification though not as efficient and meritorious causes yet as previous or concomitant conditions such as sorrow for sin humiliation begging of mercy hoping in it and the like But by this he meaneth not that these dispositions have any direct influence on Justification it self but that they fit the Justified Person to use and improve his Justification This we all acknowledge that ordinarily in persons that can use their reason there are such ministerial preparations both for conversion and justification and yet they are the causes of neither Nor doth this hinder but that God may extraordinarily sometimes work Grace infuse Faith and justifie men without such previous dispositions The reason following shews this was the Bishop's sence For God saith he doth not justifie Stocks and Beasts but Men and those humble contrite and tractable to his Word and Spirit Ibid. Divina enim misericordia non justificat stipites h. e. nihil agentes neque equos mulos h. e. recalcitantes libidinibus suis obstinatè adhaerescentes sed homines eosdémque compunctos contritos ac verbi spiritúsque divini ductum sequentes vid. plura To make it more plain he adds When we say things are necessary it doth not presently follow that they are necessary as causes but for orders sake Not andum quandò dicimus aliquid necessarium ad hoc vel illud obtinendum p. 404. ex ipsa vi verborum non ninuitur necessitas causalitatis sed ordinis Ibid. Concl. 6th he saith further Good works are necessary to
Justification but his granting of this Promise or Act of Grace is the true natural efficient instrumental cause of our Justification even the immediate cause If Christ's Merit was but the remote Cause of Justification then justifying Faith doth respect it but remotely as the procuring cause of the New Covenant and if the grant of an Act of Grace be the only proper and immediate Cause of Justification then Faith only respects that immediately when it justifies and so Christ only as a King or as the Enacter of a New Law Ibid. p. 27. Again he saith It is most evident in Scripture that Merit Satisfaction are but the moral remote preparatory causes of our Justification though exceeding eminent c. and that the perfecting neerer efficient causes were by other Acts of Christ and that all concurred to accomplish the work By this it appears that Justification is an Act of Christ as a King only though his Merit made way for his Kingly Power and his Prophetical teaching promoteth mans obedience that his justifying us is his acquitting us from guilt and condemnation because we have obeyed his Law or New Covenant and that obedience to that Law as obedience to a Royal Law is the condition of our Justification or the thing for which we must be justified and that Faith with these men is nothing but obedience to the Gospel-Precepts grounded upon a belief that they came from Christ and shall be rewarded according to his Promise and therefore when they contend That Faith justifieth not by one act of affiance but by all its acts they do but confound themselves and the question For even according to themselves Faith justifieth properly and immediately by one act only or under one onely notion viz. of obedience to the Gospel and that directed to Christ only as King and that the other acts of it respecting his Merit and Teaching are but accidental to it and without its notion as justifying We are then to prove that obedience to the Gospel is not the condition of our Justification though joyned with or builded upon Faith in the truth of it and thus I argue The First Argument From Rom. 4.16 17. Therefore it is of faith that it might be of grace to the end the Promise might be sure to all the Seed not to that only which is of the Law but to that also which is of the Faith of Abraham who is the Father of us all c. The Faith here spoken of is that whereby Abraham was justified and by which the Promise should be made sure to all his Seed both Jews and Gentiles which is the Promise of being blessed with him in his Seed Christ Now the Apostle saith That Justification or Blessedness comes by Faith that it might be by Grace i.e. altogether free but Justification upon the condition of obedience is not altogether free therefore justifying Faith includeth not obedience as the condition of Justification I prove the Minor thus Grace and Works are utterly inconsistent in God's dealing with Man for his Salvation For Work bring some worthiness though not strict Merit but Grace supposeth nothing but deseâ—â— of Punishment Rom. 11.6 If by grace the not of works otherways grace is no more grace Election of grace v. 5. excludeth all works why doth not Justification also if it be bâ— Grace If obedience to the Gospel be the condition of our Justification as perfect obedience to the Law of Works was formerly how is it Grace more now than it was then Did God gratiously grant the New Covenant to lost Sinners True here was Grace but when he had granted it he justifieth them only for the performance of it or their obedience to it therefore the giving of the New Covenant is of Grace but Justification by obedience to it is not of Grace but of Works Doth a New Covenant accept of imperfect obedience and carry pardon with it It doâ—â— indeed not insist upon perfect obedience to the Law of Innocency as the only way of life but it doth not dispence with or allow the breach of any of those Commands that were perpetual What then It requireth perfect and exact obedience to the Gospel and fâ—â— want of that obedience men shall be condemned there is no pardon for want of sincere obedience under the Gospel no more that there was for want of perfect obedience to Adam therefore all the mercy grace and pardon of the New Covenant lieth in relaxing the Covenant of perfect works in giving a New and somewhat Milder Covenant to men when they might have been condemned for the breach of the former but still their Justification or right to Life dependeth wholly upon their obedience to this New Covenant and so â—â— no more of Grace properly than Adam should have been But they say our obedience is performed by the efficacy of Divine Grace and therefore we may be said to be justified by Grace though by our Obedience As if the Elect Angels that stand were not justified or accepted in and by their own integrity because preserved by the Grace of God or as if Adam could not have been justifyed by keeping the Law unless he had done it meerly by his own connate strength without additions or assistance of Divine Grace throughout his Life What the Grace is which these men allow to our obedience is yet uncertain but this altereth not the nature of Justification if it be by obedience it is not of grace but of works i. e. a man is pronounced Just or Righteous for his own obedience by what principle soever it be wrought therefore the saith here spoken of neither is nor doth include obedience Again It is a Faith that the Promise may be sure or firm to all the Seed but if obedience be the condition of life the Promise cannot be sure to all or any Believers Ergò this Faith doth not include Obedience Professed Arminians grant there can be no assurance ordinarily of any particular man's Salvation yea that there is no absolute certainty thet any Man should be saved though Christ died for them all Others speak more dubiously but if Justification be suspended upon our Obedience to the Gospel to our lives end it cannot be certain to any Man that he shall be justifyed and saved till he be out of the World there may be indeed an objective certainty of the Promise in general viz. He that obeyeth to the End shall be saved but thus the promise to Adam was as certain viz if he had obeyed perfectly to the End he should thereby be justifyed but here was a Promise to Abraham That he and his Seed should be blessed and this Promise was not made to the Works of the Law but to the Faith of Abraham and his Seed that the promise might be certain i. e. that they should certainly attain the promised blessedness and by no means fall short of it but this certainty comes not from persevering Obedience which is it self uncertain Ergò
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and v. 17. Death reigned had its full power upon Man kind by means of this one Man And v. 18. By the Offence of one Judgment came upon all to condemnation all are condemned for his Offence And v. 89. The reason is because by that one mans disobedience peccatores instituti sunt they are made constituted Sinners whence the Argument is strong All men be condemned dead sentenced adjudged to death for the Sin of Adam therefore that sin is accounted theirs imputed to them not as if they had personally been the Actors of that Sin or that it did inhere or adhere properly to them but Adams sinning as the Head of Man kind and as it were for all men they are accounted to have sinned in him so as to incur all the punishment of his Sin Now let it be observed that ex adverso in like manner cometh the Gift of Life of Justification and the Gift of Righteousness by Jesus Christ by his Obedience men are made righteous justi constitutisunt are constituted righteous But men were made Sinners by Adams Sin and so fell under the Sentence of death before they sinned in their own persons without their own personal disobedience through being destitute of grace they must needs sin and so add to their punishment Therefore they that believe are made righteous in Christ with his Righteousness before any personal righteousness in them without the condition of their own obedience though being made righteous in Christ they receive grace to be obedient and so to be fit to receive the Inheritance giv'n them in Christ Object It is objected by a learned and grave Person that in this place v. 19. we are not said to be justified with Christs Obedience Hotchkis ut supra p. 43 44. but by it and that by signifieth an efficient or meritorious cause but with a formal cause and that we may be said to be justified by the Obedience of Christ as it merited Justification upon the Terms of the Gospel but not with it as imputed to us Answ Forgetfulness of Grammar is no wonder scarce a fault in his Age but that tells us that the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when construed with a Genitive Case doth signifie cum with as well as per by and gives this example 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum gladiis The same also say the Lexicons So then by the favour of the Greek word we may translate it with the Obedience of one many are made Righteous Moreover by signifieth the formal Cause which is causa per quam and with an Instrumental Cause Part 1. p. 229 230. not a Formal as hath been shewed And thus this distinction is grounded upon a mistake both in Grammar and Logick But he farther saith that here is no word of Imputation or imputing Christs Obedience to us and that it is barely said By his Obedience we are made Righteous I answer It is necessarily implied we are made righteous by the Obedience of Christ as we were made Sinners by the Disobedience of Adam but his Disobedience made us Sinners by imputation or being imputed to us ergò the Comparison is expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If this Authors sence be admitted in the latter words it must be affixed also to the former i. e. If we are made righteous by Christs Obedience only because he merited that we should be justified if we obey the Gospel then it must follow we are made Sinners by Adam's Disobedience only because he merited by his Fall that if we sinned we also should perish If Christ only brought in a way of righteousness how we might be justified if we observed it then Adam only brought in a way of Sin how men might be condemned if they trod in his Steps but this is absurd To return that Adam's Sin is properly imputed to us I farther prove from Eph. 2.3 We were by Nature Children of wrath even as others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the rest of men Grotius his gloss upon these words viz. That the Apostle meaneth only the Gentiles who were born out of the Church and out of the Covenant and therefore were by nature Children of Wrath is against the words of the Text. For the Apostle having spoken of the Gentiles in the two former verses putteth himself and the Jews into the same condition in this verse saying Amongst whom we all had our Conversation in times past and we were by nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Children of wrath even as the rest All men therefore are by nature Children of wrath i. e. are born Heirs of wrath under the Sentence of Condemnation For as Children of Life Children of the Kingdom signifie those that are Heirs under the Promise of Life so Children of Wrath are those that are Heirs under the Sentence of Condemnation Now I demand how all men should come under the sentence of condemnation and inherit it as their natural though woful Birth-right unless Adams Fall be sharged upon them and so as soon as they have a Being derived from him in a natural way the Sentence pronounced against him is â—n force against them also Suppose God might justly have deprived all Mankind descending from Adam of his present Favour and of the Gifts and Graces Priviledges and Benefits which Adam enjoyed because Adam had forfeited them and could not therefore leave them to be enjoyed to his Posterity Aâ— a Father spending or forfeiting his own Inheritance and Honours doth deprive his Children of them though they are not therefore made guilty of his Offence yet how will it consist with Justice besides the loss of all Privileges to adjudge sentence men to death before any Trial is made of their Obedience whether they will not do better than Adam did or aâ— least do something that in their forlorn Estate may move some compassion to them and mitigate their misery This is our Case we are born Heirs of Death Judgment and Condemnation is past upon all men taketh hold of them as soon as they are men How can this be without any guilt chargeable upon them and if there be any it must be the guilt of Adams Fall Ezek. 18.20 God declared that the Son should not die for the Fathers Sin it would certainly be high injustice in men to deprive the Posterity of an Offendor for ever not only of their Fathers Inheritance but of all possibility of return and recovery of themselves so that they should ever be dealt with as Malefactors Much more is it consistent with Divine Justice to punish all Mankind not only with the loss of Adams Priviledges but with Eternal Death inevitably for any thing the Law provideth to the contrary meerly because they descended from him without trying or expecting how they would behave themselves There must therefore be a Guilt upon all men by nature viz. the Guilt of Adams Sin and that must be imputed to them and
hereupon account the Law to be satisfied and like to be purchased for them without any thing to be further done by them as a condition of life But their true Sence is That the Obedience of Christ is ours remotely only sc that it hath merited a New Covenant which if we perform we shall live 2ly According to this Sence Christs righteousness is no way our righteousness It may be the means of benefit to us but it doth in no sence make us righteous or is the cause of our righteousness or justification which the Scriptures alledged do intend This is thus proved It is none of the four kind of Causes nor reducible to them therefore it is no Cause The Antecedent I thus prove It is not the Material or Formal Cause this they grant For then we must be immediately justified by it it must compose our righteousness they sometimes call it the matter of our righteousness but without sence It is not the Final Cause Christs righteousness is not the end for which we are justified It is not the Efficient neither Physical nor Moral Not Physical for then Christs obedience must actively work obedience or righteousness in us which is absurd Not a Moral Cause or Meritorious which they most insist on For Christ did not merit Grace whereby we should obtain the Gospel and so be justified as they acknowledge seeing he died for all alike though thus he would be but a remote meritorious Cause of Justification meriting that for which we should be justified but he merited only the Covenant of Life upon sincere obedience to the Law he should prescribe All then that he is the Meritorious Cause of is the New Covenant for when this Covenant is promulgated it is left to men whether they will obey or no and so whether they will be justified or no He hath merited nothing further Now if any man come to be justified by performing the condition of this Covenant can Christ be said to merit this Justification for him which as to his Merits was contingent might or might not be and depended wholly upon his own Will and Obedience If a man procure a Charter for a Town and make them a Corporation thereby and by virtue of this Charter they that serve an Apprentiship shall have the Privileges and Freedom of this Town shall it be said of those that thus come into the Freedom some hundred years after that their Freedom was merited bought or procured by him that procured the Charter Surely they themselves merit their Freedom the other was but an Instrument of procuring the Charter In like manner if Christ only merited the Covenant by performing whereof men shall be justified surely men themselves are the proper meritorious immediate causes of their own Justification or Righteousness because they fulfill the condition whereto it is promised and which is the formal righteousness for which they are justified and Christ is but an Instrument of procuring the Covenant and an improper remote and contingent cause of their Justification by their fulfilling it And thus in their sence Christ is no true Cause of our Righteousness Argument 4. Fourthly Mat. 20.28 I argue from these Scriptures which say Christ laid down his Life as a Ransom for us redeemed us 1 Tim. 2.6 Col. 1.14 Tit. 2.14 Rev. 1.5 Isa 43.3 Exod. 30.10 11. Num. 18.15 that in him we have redemption and that he washed us from our Sins in his own Blood From whence I argue Redemption is of persons a ransom and price is paid for persons not for Laws and Covenants and this was typified by the redemption of Israel out of Aegypt whom God saith he redeemed and gave Nations for them By the Redemption of the First Born and of the whole People whenever they were numbred and by the year of Jubilee which is called the Year of Redemption I subsume Ransoms and Redemptions if not paid and purchased by the Persons themselves who were in Bondage are imputed to them i.e. they are immediately delivered set at liberty by the payment of them as much as if they had paid the Prize themselves Therefore if Christ properly redeemed bought purchased us paid a Ransom or Prize for us then it is imputed to us we must be delivered by that very prize and ransom as much as if we had paid it our selves Our Opposites are loath to speak down-right with the Socinians and to deny that Christ's Death was a Prize and Ransom for us but they must and do interpret this Ransom Prize Redemption c. to be all improper and metaphysical Thus Mr. Trueman saith That the immediate Effect of Christ's Satisfaction was only a Satisfaction to Justice Gr. Prop. p. 86. that God might be juâ—â— though he should pardon Sinners and that he might pardon them salvâ justitiâ upon what terms he pleases not that he must pardon them come what will of it or else be unjust not that Sinners should ipso facto be pardoner the Prize being undertaken paid and accepted And again p. 89. Christ's Sufferings were not proper payment but a valuable consideration or you may call it a refuseable payment though it be not properly payment at all And Mr. Hotchkis paraphraseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tix 2.6 not a Ransom but something instead of a Ransom they do therefore implicitely yield if Christs death was a Ransom and Prize for us that then we must be immediately delivered by it which is all one with his Righteousness being imputed to us and in denying the Imputation of Christs Righteousness they do deny That his death was a Ransom Prize or Payment for us against the current of the Scriptures They make all the Effect of the Obedience of Christ to be only the removing of that necessity which lay upon God to condemn all men for breaking the First Covenant so that he might if he pleased save Sinners by any other Covenant p. 86. So Trueman exprefly From whence it follows That notwithstanding the death of Christ God might have refused to have made a New Covenant or to have saved any Sinner if he pleased Which also the Synod of Dort charged upon the Dutch Arminians Proprium integrity finem mortis Christi fuisse Act. Syn. Dordr in Judic Theol. Mag. Bri. Art 2. ut Deo Patri acquireret jus potestatem servandi homines quibus vellet conditionibus How far then was Christ from redeeming men if God after the death of Christ would have been just though he should have saved no man Moreover how can we be said to be washt with Christs Blood if Pardon and Justification was not immediately procured by it Under the Law when the People were sprinkled with the Blood of t e Sacrifice in allusion to which Christs Blood is called the Blood of Sprinkling Heb. 12.24 they were immediately discharged from gâ—ilt and reconciled If then we are sprinkled or washt with Christs Blood we must in like manner be justified and reconciled by
Faith or Affiance in that thing for which we are acquitted in the Judgment of God and taken into favour even the Merit of Christ Instrumentalis of sides h. e. fiducia qua id amplectimur nobis â—pplicamus per propter quod in judicio Dei absolvimur à maledictione legis in gratiam reâ—ipimur nempe Christi meritum And Thes 7. That the satisfaction of Christ for our sin or his Passive Righteousness is that for which or by which we are justified Materia ejus est id â—â—er quod propter quod coram tribunali divino â—â—maledictione legis absolvimur innocentes â—â—usti reputamur est id perfecta Christi pro nobis satisfactio qua poenas propter peccata nobis deâ—â— it as nostro loco ipse fuit c. And that Mr. Gataker hereafter quoted was of the same mind â—s evident from his learned posthumons Treaâ—ise of Justification In all this here is no footstep of our Author's Notion of Imputation â—or the question is not What Righteousness of Christ is imputed but How it is imputed whether formally properly and immediately as all these Divines affirm or remotely only â—â—mediately and metaphorically as some of late â—â—contend In England most Divines used the Phrase Object Ibid. § 18. That we were justified by the Forgiveness of Sin and the Impputation of Christ's Righteousness and being accepted as righteous unto life thereon but the Sence of Imputation few pretended accurately to discusse c. Answ True they did not distinguish away the sence of Imputation leave only an equivocal term Our Homilies speak expresly that we may be said to have obeyed and suffered in what Christ hath done and suffered for us ut supra cap. 2. The Doctrine of the Church of England hath been constantly that we are justified by Faith as an Hand receiving as an Instrument applying the righteousness of Christ as is manifest by the Homilies King Edward's Catechism composed by Dr. Ponet B. of Winchester where the Phrase of Faith being an hand is extant by the 39 Articles with Articles of Lambeth the whole University of Cambridge in the Recantation which they enjoyned Barret by the Articles of Ireland composed by English men mostly and by the publick Question disputed in both Universities collected out of their publick Records by Mr. Prin in his Antiarminianism and sure this is nothing to Christ's procuring a Covenant of Obedience and justifying us by that Nor do Mr. Wotton's three Assertions as here alledged overthrow the substance of our Doctrine We grant there is an over rigid sence of these words We are justified by Christ's fulfilling the Law as if we had fulfilled it in him Yet this proveth not That we are not justified immediately by Christ's fulfilling the Law as intended and wrought for us Pag. 24 25. the Author gives us his own sence viz. That all the Righteousness of Christ habitual active passive and divine as advancing them in value is the meritorious cause of our Justification But are we accepted and justified immediately for this Righteousness No Yet that is the Imputation all former Divines maintained How then Why for this Righteousness God maketh a Covenant of Grace in which he freely giveth Christ Pardon and Life to all that accept the Gift as it is so that the Accepters are by his Covenant or Gift as surely justified and saved by Christ's Righteousness as if they obeyed and satisfied themselves c. viz. That the conditions of the Gift in the Covenant of Grace being performed by every penitent Believer that Covenant doth pardon all their sins as God's Instrument and giveth them a right to eternal life for Christ's Merit This is a confession of what we represented before sc That the fulfilling the Gospel-conditions of faith repentance c. is the righteousness which gives us the immediate right to pardon and life and that Christ's righteousness only merited this grant of life upon those conditions It might be expected by this History of the controversie that some Divine should have been quoted which taught this Doctrine but alas here is not one since the Reformation Therefore I shall quote the true Authors of this Opinion after I have vindicated B. Davenant and Mr. Bradshaw who are here and elsewhere ingeniously represented as laying the ground of this Opinion and as maintaining Imputation in another sence than all had done before them For the most Learned and Pious Bishop It is said p. 18 19. That though he most stifly defended Imputation in words yet when he telleth what Protestants mean by it he saith That our own Actions and Passions and Qualities may not only be imputed to us but also some extrinsecal thing neither inherent in us nor done by us de facto autem imputantur quando illorum intuitus respectus valent nobis ad aliquem effectum aequè ac si a nobis aut in nobis essent i.e. They are imputed when the sight or respect of them doth profit us for any effect as much as if they were in us or done by us Note that he saith but ad aliquem effectum non ad omnem i.e. to some not to every effect Answ By this we are to understand that the Bishop meant Christ's Righteousness was imputed for some certain Effect viz. To procure a New Covenant not immediately to justifie us I see I need not despair but my Books hereafter may be quoted for metaphorical imputation In truth the Bishop doth not say ad aliquem tantùm but to some effect but aliquem effectum simply meaning quemvis any effect sc That things without us he intends Christ's Righteousness may be imputed i.e. profit us to any effect as well as things in us or done by us and that the following Similitudes shew of a slothful person promoted for the Merits of his Ancestors or a Malefactor pardoned by anothers suffering in his stead which in both cases is done by the immediate impâ—tation of such merits and suffering without performing conditions by the Parties But that the Bishop maintained imputation in the same sence that we do and almost in the same words is so evident that I am ashamed to produce the Proofs in so clear a case His 37th Determination is That Justifying Faith is fiducia affiance in God for the remission of sins through the satisfaction of Christ that this is the very formal Act of Justifying Faith His 8th Determination is That the Sanctified may be sure of Salvation which will not consist with conditional Justification and one Proof is Arg. 4. As it is most certain that Christ paid a sufficient price for all men so it is no less certain hanc satisfactionem omnibus fidelibus paenitentibus imputari applicari quasi ab illis ipsis Deo oblata praestita fuisset i.e. That this satisfaction is imputed to all Believers as if they themselves had made it and offered it to God But I shall confine my self to
heart Acts 15.9 Therefore it is not love it self or the purity of the heart but something that inclineth and disposeth to love and purity and surely before we can love and obey God there must be an apprehension of his goodness faithfulness readiness to accept and reward which must incline the heart to it We cannot love and serve him 〈◊〉 we neither know him nor his Mind concerning us nor have any confidence in his good wilâ— towards us And this is Faith which we may thus describe Faith is a hearty and practical assent to all divine truth so as to believe the Histories fear the Threatnings trust in the I remises and expect the fulfilling of Prediction which proceed from God All this is easily gathered out of the 11. Heb. where the Apostle having spoken in the end of the 10th Chapter of believing to the saving of the Soul subjoynâ— this description of Faith v. 1. viz. That it is the substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the subsistence of things hoped for and the evidence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of things not seen which subsistence and evidence things yet suture have only in God's Word and Man's real belief of it things hoped for properly respect the Promises things not seen the History of things past as the belief of the Creation v. 2. and the Prediction of things to come as Noah by Faith feared the Deluge v. 7. and all the Patriarchs died in faith or expectation of the coming of Christ v. 13. Now that Faith hath several acts and causeth several affections as hope trust fear in the soul is because it hath several objects things to be desired things to be feared and things to be hoped for which is common to it with other graces which have their several acts and affections towards several objects or the same objects severally conâ—dered That special act of Faith which reâ—â—ects Promises or affection immediately â—owing from Faith without which it is not â—ompleat in Scripture is called by several â—ames rouling resting leaning relying upon God flying to him for resuge hiding our â—â—lves under him putting of our selves under â—he Shadow of his Wings which and the like â—re Metaphors from the Body and when we â—eak properly of the acts of the Soul are best â—prest by believing or trusting in the Promises which the Protestants express by fiduâ—a affiance or fiducial recumbence which is â—â—so the Scripture term of putting our hope and confidence in God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a pervasion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a full assurance of â—is Promise Now Faith justifieth a Sinner â—ot in its whole Latitude for so it believeth â—eer Histories as well as practical things and â—e Threatnings as well as the Promises and â—â—useth fear as well as hope But a Sinner cannot be reconciled unto God by fearing his Wrath and Judgment though fearing may â—cite him to look after mercy in the Promise â—or by believing the History of things past as â—â—e Creation and Floud or the Prediction of â—â—ings to come as the Resurrection and day 〈◊〉 Judgment though these things may set forth God's veracity and confirm the Truth of his promise and may excite fear and diligence 〈◊〉 seeking after mercy As trusting in the promises of particular mercies and deliverances is the means of obtaining those mercies as the promises are made to such faith or 〈◊〉 Isa 26.3.4 Thou shalt keep him in perse peace whose mind is stayed on thee because trusteth in thee The promises of deliverant go before and this is added as the means procure the accomplishment of them viz. That they should trust in God so in like mâ—ner the general promise of Pardon and Justfication is made to believing or trusting in and faith gives right to it and is the means having it performed to us Faith then justiâ—â— as it obtains mercy Heb. 11.33 Saintâ— Faith obtained Promises viz. a performan of them and in the Gospel frequently 〈◊〉 Faith hath saved thee and thy Faith hath mâ— thee whole c. As Faith obtains these mercies neither as an act of obedience not the cause or root of obedience but only trusting in the Power and Faithfulness of Gâ—engaged by the particular promises so aâ— Faith justifieth a Sinner by trusting in 〈◊〉 Grace and Mercy of God through Jeâ— Christ expressed in the general Promise of 〈◊〉 Gospel He that believeth shall be saved 〈◊〉 the like We do not contend about the aâ— ception of faith in this proposition We aâ—â— justified by saith whether it be taken objectively only as some think i. e. we are justified by Christ believed on or relatively 〈◊〉 are justified by faith as apprehending the mercy of God promised through Christ and 〈◊〉 by any works of our own it cometh all one at last The Mercy of God is the câ—â—sa proegomena the moving cause of our Justification the righteonsness of Christ wrought for us the meritorious cause procuring our acceptance with God and also the material or formal cause being the very thing for which God accepts us to life The Promise in the Gospel is the external moral or legal means whereby God conveys Justification and this Righteousness having promised 〈◊〉 to them that believe and faith is an internal means on mans part to apply Christ's Righteousness for his Justification by trusting him promising of it and that partly natural is faith is an act or habit or act properly conversant about a promise and partly moâ—al as God hath appointed our faith in the promise of Justification to be a means of obtaining it and this is all that Divines mean by saying Faith justifys as an instrument or intrumentally and when they call it the mouth and the hand of the soul viz. That Man is Justified by the Righteousness of Christ which Justification is proposed and promised in the Gospel to all that will accept it and trust in it which is believing so that Faith it self is â—ot the matter or righteousness which doth Justifie us under the Gospel instead of our Obedience under the Law but it is the means whereby through the Promise of the Gospel Christs Righteousness is imputed or applied to us by and for which we are justified Object It is no better than a cavil which is objected If Faith justifys as an instrument whose instrument is it Gods or Mans if Mans then he justifys himself if Gods then Man doth nothing in the business of Justification which is Antinomian For Answ The like may be asked of all instruments Natural or Moral Our Food whose instrument is it to nourish us If Gods then we need not eat if ours then we nourish our selves The Word and Sacraments are instruments of grace if they are our instruments then we work grace in our selves iâ— Gods then we need do nothing all these and the like are instruments of Gods appointing to be used by us to the right use of which he hath promised a blessing he hath commanded us to take food and
Argument 4. We are justifyed by Christ as Priest p. 24. Prophet and King conjunctly and not by any of these alone much less by his Humiliation and Obedience alone then according to the Opponents own Principles who argue from the distinct interest of the several parts of the Objects to the distinct interest of the several acts of Faith we are justified by believing in Christ as Priest Prophet and King Answ Faith as a distinct habit hath no acts but practical assent to a revealed truth which in respect of the promise is called trust or affiance One habit hath but one sort of elicite acts though it may cause divers effects upon the will and affections according to the nature of divers objects therefore we do not argue from the distinct interest of several acts of Faith but from Faith as trusting in the Promise of Justification as the special object of the act that justifieth Again the Object of justifying Faith according to this Opinion must be the whole declared Will of Christ or the whole Gospel for that is it which we believe and obey and Obedience to it is the form or righteousness by and for which we are justifyed therefore those Terms of Christ's justifying in his whole Person and all his Offices or Faith justifying with respect to them are added in vain they being no more included in the nature of Justification or respected by Faith as justifying in this way than in ours The promise of life by Christ to believing only is as much founded upon his whole Person and all his Offices as if the promise were made to our Obedience to the whole Gospel But we deny the Antecedent let us hear the proof The Word Justification signifieth these 3 acts p. 24. 1st Condonation or constitutive Justification by the Law of grace or promise of the Gospel 2ly Absolution by sentence in judgment 3ly The execution of the former by actual liberation from penalty The two former are more properly called Justification As for the first I argue Christ doth as King and Benefactor on supposition of his antecedent Merits enact the Law of grace or promise by which we are justified Ergò As King and Benefactour he doth justifie us by condonation or constitution As the Father by a right of Creation was Rector of the new created World and so made the Covenant of Life that was then made so the Son and the Father by right of Redemption is Rector of the new redeemed World and so made the Law of grace that gives Christ and life to all that will believe c. Answ Christ as God the same in substance with the Father did together with him enact both the Covenants of Works and of Grace but as Mediator which only is to our purpose he did not enact the Covenant or Law of Grace and it is only said that he did and not proved It was God as God and in special the Father according to the order of the Three Persons that gave the Law of Works that was offended by sin that condemned sinners and therefore he only that could appoint a way whereby they should be saved and he only coul justifie him Christ as Mediator though God in Nature yet in Office was God's Servant Isa 53.11 Mat. 12 18. and his business was not to enact Laws or constitute a way for Man's Redemption but to work out and bring to pass that way which God purchased and to fulfil his Will in it Heb. 10.7 which he did first by satisfying the Law and purchasing Reconciliation as a Priest then by declaring as a Prophet that Pardon was to be had by believing in his Bloud and Lastly as a King yet ministerial under the Father by overpouring the hearts of Gods Elect to believe that God might justify them and then by sanctifying and ruling them by his Word and Spirit to bring them to life It belongeth to the Father to justifie constitutively i. e. to propose the way wherein Men should be justified and through believing to justifie them to the Mediator almost but ministerially to declare it to Men by authority from the Father but most properly to bring it to pass by the execution of all his Offices Rom. 8.33 34. It is God that justifies it is Christ that died rose and intercedeth p. 25. 2ly It is said Justification by sentence of judgment is undeniably by Christ as King for God hath appointed to judge the World by him Acts 17.31 c. Answ Christ in judging the World is but a ministerial King For God is the Supream Judg Heb. 12.23 however we deny what is here took for granted That the sentence of the General Judgment is a declaration of a sinners Justification from the guilt of sin It is only the adjudging of justified Believers to Glory in Heaven for their Obedience according to Gods Fatherly promise p. 25. 3ly It is said For the execution of the sentence by actual liberation there can be little doubt being after both the former Answ Christ is ministerial in this also for he calleth Believers to inherit the Kingdom as being the blessed of the Father and it being prepared for them from the beginning of the World Mat. 25.34 Besides Glory in Heaven is a fruit of Adoption not of Justification immediately and Adoption is the act of the Father not of the Mediator And let it be observed That here all Justification is referred to Christ as King properly and immediately as was before said and he as Priest and Prophet did but make way for his justifying of us as King and therefore these offices are mentioned in the Question only for a shew that they acknowledge we are justifyed by his Bloud This is in effect confessed in the following words As the Teacher of the Church Christ doth not immediately justify but yet mediately he doth Ibid. and it is but mediately that he justifyeth by his Merits It is also said That Christ's granting the Promise or Act of Grace is the true natural p. 25. efficient instrumental Cause of Justification even the immediate Cause So then the whole Gospel as to be obeyed by us is the proper and immediate Instrument of our Justification and our obedience to the Gospel together with God's acceptance of it is the only internal Cause of Justification or the Righteousness for which we are justifyed and Christ's Merit and Righteousness and his Promulgation of the Gospel are but extrinsecal remote and preparatory Causes of it and these not absolutely necessary seeing these Authors do not deny but that God might have saved man without satisfaction and then it will follow if a man obey the Precepts of the Gospel and acknowledge Christ as Lord and King he may be saved although he believe only in a Glorified Saviour as the Jesuites preached to the people of China yea I understand not but a Socinian may be saved by obeying the Gospel though he deny the Merit of Christ having
so often repeating his Promises with all manner of confirmations protestations seals oaths examples of the greatest Sinner being forgiven 1 Tim. 1.16 17. Lastly There is no reason why God may not pardon a Sinner and promise him eternal life without interposing the conditions of his obedience so long as he immediately reveals to him That this eternal life consisteth in the love and enjoyment of himself and that holiness of heart and life shall and must be the way to it and doth immediately make the heart of the humbled sinner 〈◊〉 agree to it doth not God sufficiently provide for the Honour of his Holiness in this as in the very act of justifying he did chiefly respect the Honour of his Free Grace Argument 10. The condemning unbelief p. 38. which is the privation of the Faith by which we are justified is the non-believing in Christ as King Priest and Prophet Ergò The Faith by which we are justified is the believing in him as King Priest and Prophet Answ If the word only be put in as it ought viz. That the only condemning unbelief is the non-believing in Christ as King Priest and Prophet I deny the Antecedent But if only be not added the consequence is apparently false viz. This unbelief is one cause of condemnation therefore the contrary Faith is the sole cause of Salvation I suppose this will be admitted for the Scope of what follows is to shew that such a Faith is the only condition of Justification and then the opposite unbelief must be the only sin that damns without remedy that bars all Justification I say therefore directly to the Argument Non-believing in Christ as King Priest and Prophet as it is here taken for subjection to the whole Law of Christ or obedience to him is not the onely damning sin final despair of the Mercy of God in Christ will as certainly damn as final disobedience to Christ and contempt of him yea though there be a willingness to obey if they could have any hope of Mercy but despair is not the oppoâ—â—â—â— of obedience or of faith in Christ as King Priest and Prophet therefore that is not the only unbelief that damns Again If disobedience to Christ be the only damning sin then obedience is the only saving condition then a Socinian that obeys the Gospel Precepts and acknowledgeth Christ to be the Messiah King and Prophet of his Church may and must be saved though he deny his Priesthood and trust not at all in his Bloud For obedience respects not Christ's Priesthood at all though that be here mentioned for a shew Christ as a Priest reconciles us to God and intercedes for us the onely Grace that respects this is Faith or a trust in it for reconciliation and acceptance If therefore obedience be the only saving condition then that will save without a trust in the Bloud of Christ If it be said they make Faith and Obedience both to be the entire condition I answer Their Faith is nothing but Obedience as hath been abundantly proved and is largely insisted on under this Argument particularly from Joh. 3.36 where he that believeth not is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is sometimes rendred Disobedient hence it is in ferred That the only unbelief is disobedience and the only Faith is Obedience to the Gospel Nor is it possible to joyn Faith and Obedience in the justifying a Sinner in the usual acception of Faith for to trust in meer Mercy for reconciliation and life and to obey precepts that we may have life are things toto genere opposite utterly inconsistent nor can there be a trust in the Promise of Life in their Opinion till a man hath obeyed in some measure because the Promise is made to Obedience So trust in the Promise must follow the condition not be a part of it And thus much for these Arguments to all which I oppose this one Justification is the acquitting of a sinner from sin and guilt and the entitling him to life eternal But this is purchased fully and onely by the Obedience and Bloud of Christ the shedding and offering whereof is his Priestly Office only therefore Christ justifyeth onely as a Priest And Faith apprehending Justification must respect only the Priesthood of Christ I prove the Minor The Bloud of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin 1 Joh. 1.7 He loved and washed us from our sins in his own Bloud Rev. 1.5 When he had by himself purged our sins i. e. by the offering of himself he set down at the Right Hand of the Majesty in the Heaven Heb. 1.3 And the Apostle proves largely That Christ as a Highpriest offering his own Bloud in the Tabernacle of his own Body hath obtained eternal redemption for us that by this one offering he hath brought in remission of sins and for ever perfected them that are sanctified sprinkled with his Bloud as all things under the Law were cleansed by the sprinkling of bloud from Heb. 9.11 to ch 10. v. 18. And in this Christ was a more excellent Sacrifice than those under the Law that they did but typifye pardon and cleansing but his Sacrifice doth really cleanse the Conscience they cleansed from ceremonial pollutions as touching dead bodies c. and restored men to the Congregation but his Bloud cleanseth from dead works our own sins and maketh us really accepted that we may serve the living God Heb. 19.13 14. Now the Levitical Priests were Teachers and Rulers of the People some were Prophets as Jeremiah and Ezekiel some were Kings also as the Macchabees but they took away the sins of the People and reconciled them to God only as Priests by offering up Sacrifices for them so also Christ though he be a Prophet and King yet he maketh reconciliation for Sinners only as a Priest by offering himself in sacrifice to God for them Now the reason of the consequence is Faith that it obtain Justification must look to Christ under that notion or in that way only by which he hath purchased Justification therefore it must look to him only as a Priest or which is all one trust in the Promise of Reconciliation through the satisfaction and death of Christ and thus the Apostle concludes from the same Premises Heb. 10.19 20 21 22. Having therefore boldness to enter into the Holiest by the bloud of Jesus by a new and living way which he hath consecrated for us through the vail that is to say his flesh and having a High-priest over the House of God let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of Faith having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water It is Faith in this High-Priest by which we draw nigh to God with boldness confidence of acceptance and then that makes us devote our selves sincerely to his Service FINIS
〈◊〉 are reputed or accepted as righteous for that Righteousness alone trusted iâ— by us upon the ground of God's own Premise of accepting us in Christ anâ— Christ's Intention of doing and suffâ—â—ring all he did for us alone to the â—â—tent that our sins should be taken awâ—â— and we are made Heirs of Eternal Lâ—â— thereby Our Opposites on the other side affâ—â—â— That Christ did not obey or suffer 〈◊〉 Penalty of the Law of Works for 〈◊〉 properly that we should be justified 〈◊〉 that Obedience or Death of his Bâ—â— that God imposed on him a certain â—â—culiar Law made up partly of the Mâ—ral Law and partly of some Speâ—â— Commands to him which he fulfillâ—â—â— as a Mediatour betwixt God and Mâ—â— God thereupon might justly and perhaps would give men as moderate 〈◊〉 easie a Law by fulfilling whereof theâ— should be saved the obedience wheâ—â— to should be their Righteousness thâ—â— which should give them right to Life Against this Opinion divers Learnâ— and Pious Men wrote in the form Generation As Mr. Caple in an Aâ—pendix to his Treatise of Temptations Mr. Anth. Burgess in his Second Part of Justification Mr. Lyford his Book against Errors Mr. Blake and reverend Mr. Norton of New-England Anno 1653 in Answer to one Mr. Pinchin who denyed the Imputation of Christ's Active and Passive Obedience â—o us or that it was performed for us â—s Obedience to the Moral Law But â—hat Christ was a Mediatorial Sacrifice for us much after the same notion that 〈◊〉 now vented of his fulfilling the Law â—f a Mediatour Which Book of Mr. Norton because it is not very common I will transcribe the Sum of it â—s it is reduced by himself into three Particulars in the Conclusion and the â—ather because it declareth the thoughts â—f the danger of this Opinion which maâ—y would persuade us differs but in words from the Orthodox and the Difference 〈◊〉 of no great consequence and that â—â—e do not rightly understand the meaning of their Authors for whom they â—ave so great reverence Like the Phyâ—â—cian who seeing in a dissected Body â—hat all the Nerves have their Original from the Brain said he should have believed it was so indeed if Aristotle 〈◊〉 not writ that they proceed from the Heaâ—â— Mr. Norton's words are Taking Heresie for a Fundamentâ—â— Error p. 267. i. e. such as whosoever â—â—â—veth and dieth in cannot be savedâ— The Dialogue containeth three Hâ—resies The first denying the Imputation of the Sin of the Elect unâ—â— Christ and his suffering the Punishment due thereto The second denying that Christ as God-man Mediator obeyed the Law and there with that he obeyed for us as ouâ— Surety The third denying the Imputation of Christ's Obedience unto Justification destroying the very Being of a Sinner's Righteousnessâ— by taking away the Obedience oâ— Christ unto the Law and Imputation which are the Matter and Form i. e. the essential Causes of Justification and placing a Sinner's Righteousness in a fictitious Atonement or Pardon of sin such as in effect manifestly doth not only deny it self to be the Effect of but denieth yea and defieth the very Being of the Mediatorial Obedience of Christ to the Law for us With him in this his apprehension concurred divers Ministers in New-England as appears by their Letter annexed to his Book which is subscribed John Cotton Rich. Mather Zech. Simmes John Willson William Thompson And having prefaced so much concerning the nature and weight of the Controversie I commend the Book to the serious consideration of the Reader and am Thine in the VVork of the Gospel J. TROUGHTON Lutherus Redivivus OR The Protestant Doctrine of Justification by Christ's Righteousness imputed to Believers Explained and Vindicated CHAP. I. The Nature of Justification explained and that it is not a meer forgiving of Sin THE Doctrine of Justification by Free Grace and the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us hath been so abundantly defended by our Protestant Writers of every Nation and every University professing the Reformed Religion that I need say little to confirm it and especially seeing I have met with nothing in our late Authors objected against it but what hath been frequently objected against it by the Papists before and as frequently answered by our Writers The chief Work is to discover the Artifice wherewith the New Doctrine of Conditional Justification is covered and made plausible whereas it is indeed the Old Popish and Arminian Doctrine of Justification by Works as I hope I have in some measure proved in the former Part. Yet that this Treatise may be compleat and that we may not seem only distruere aliena and not at all adstruere propria I shall endeavour briefly to explain the received Doctrine of Justification and imputed Righteousness And first of the Nature of Justification Our fore cited Authors and their Friends generally affirm That the Justification of a Sinner before God is nothing else but a full Pardon of all Sins both of Omission and Commission whereby all guilt and obligation to punishment being removed Man is restored ipso facto to his former State and to all those Priviledges which by Sin he forfeited This they maintain that they may the more effectually overthrow the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness supposing that if the bare Remission of Sin doth both acquit from Punishment and restore a Right to Life or Blessedness then there needeth no positive Righteousness to be imputed to intitle to life and to make us acceptable with God This is the main drift of Mr. Hotchkis his Book about Imputation of Righteousness Great Propi p. 110. c. and is largely prosecuted by Mr. Trueman not without many confident mistakes But this Opinion overthroweth their own Doctrine of Justification upon condition of our Obedience as well as ours of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness and more which I thus prove Meer Pardon of Sin is nothing else but a Discharge from the Process of the Law that a Man should not suffer the Penalties of it but enjoy quietly his former freedom and priviledges notwithstanding his Offences Now this Discharge requireth no Righteousness at all our own no more than Christs This Pardon makes a Man righteous in the Law they say i. e. The Law hath no more to do with him or to say against him he is as free from all condemnation as if he were innocent and had fulfilled the Law Hence it follows that a Man is justified without the intervening condition of his own Obedience If any positive righteousness be necessary to pardon it is not meer pardon And why may not Christ's Righteousness imputed be joyned with and be the Cause of Pardon as well as our own sincere Obedience To say a Man is justified upon the condition of Gospel Obedience which is our Inherent Righteousness and that he is justified by the bare Remission of Sins is a Contradiction Moreover these Authors do acknowledge that Christ merited the Pardon of Sin so that a Sinner is
justified or pardoned and so restored to favour for the sake of Christs Satisfaction Doth it not then follow that the Death of Christ is the Cause of Pardon then it is not meer pardon but pardon procured or merited and if Christs Death be the meritorious cause of pardon to every Believer then it is imputed or applyed to every pardoned sinner For no cause can produce its effects without Application to the Subject in whom the effect is wrought and the Application of a meritorious cause to the Subject for whom it meriteth is Imputation or accounting that what was done by that Cause was done for that Person And thus we see this Doctrine maketh more against themselves than against us But that Justification includeth more than Pardon of Sin even a positive Righteousness whereby Man is accepted to Life Eternal I shall thus evince 1. From the Notation of the Words To Pardon is only to release from the Penalty of the Law but to Justifie is to Acquit in Judgment to discharge from guilt and accusation Rom. 8.33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect it is God that Justifieth It is confessed that to justifie an innocent person is to acquit but to justifie a Sinner they say is only to forgive him But in what Language doth the word so signifie When the King pardoneth an Offender doth any man say doth the Law ever say the King justifies him A Brother is commanded to forgive his Brother from the Heart and so Job did no doubt forgive his Friends and yet he saith God forbid I should Justifie you Job 27. v. 4. Is any Man said to justfie him whom he pardoneth Why should the Scripture besides the familiar words of Pardoning and Forgiving use another term viz. to Justifie which in its Etymology and common use signifieth to declare Righteous and yet mean no more by Justification than bare Forgiveness 'T is said A full Pardon makes a Man righteous forasmuch as he that is discharged from all Sin is accounted not to have broke the Law and not to have broke it is all one as to have fulfill'd it But this is a mistake He that forgives an Offender does not therefore account or make him Righteous though he will not exact the Penalty of him Pardon doth suppose a Man to have been a Sinner and so it leaves him as one that hath deserv'd punishment though by favour he is exempted from it the Law still chargeth him with sin and sentenceth him to punishment though the Judge supersedeth his Sentence and will not execute the Law But it is said Great Prop. p. 121. Pardon is dissolutio obligationis ad poenam dissolveth the Obligation to punishment and when there is no obligation to punishment a man is innocent and hath right to impunity I Answer The Antecedent is untrue The Obligation to punishment ariseth from the intrinsecal Nature of the Law which being broken exacteth punishment as a due Debt The Wages of Sin is death Rom. 6.23 So that if pardon take away the obligation to punishment it maketh sin to be no sin But sin is sin though forgiven and the Sinner deserves to die although he shall not die Pardon taketh away the Ordination or Destination of a Man to Punishment that he is not appointed to die but not the Obligation that he doth not deserve to die I conclude Pardon doth not render a Man as innocent as no Transgressor and therefore 't is not all one with justifying or declaring righteous 2. From those Phrases whereby Justification is expressed Eph. 1.4 It is paraphrased thus As he hath chosen us in him that we should be holy and without blame before him in love He who is only forgiven his Sins is not accounted as holy and blameless Pardon supposeth guilt and that which some call reatum culpae the guilt of the fault remaineth after pardon viz. That such a Man hath broken the Law and by such habits or actions he hath been disobedient to the Commands Pardon only takes away reatum penoe the appointment of a Man to punishment therefore there must be something more to render men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy and blameless before God and Objects of his Love Rom 4.3 4 5. Justification is called Imputing of Righteousness And Rom. 10.5 6. Justification by Works and by Faith are opposed by the Names of the Righteousness of the Law and the Righteousness of Faith To justifie therefore is to reckon or to declare in judgment that a Man is righteous and as if Man had been justified by the Law of Works he had then been pronounced righteous So now he is to be justified by Faith he is to be declared righteous by the Righteousness of Faith though not of Works Therefore Justification is more than Forgiveness Object 'T is said Pardon maketh a Man Righteous as if he had not brok'n the Law Answ Ans w. This hath been answer'd before I am sure we should take it very ill if one that hath greatly offended us and received his life and all from our Mercy should plead that he is as good as an innocent or righteous person because he is exempted from the Punishment he deserved Object A person of quality argues thus If pardon be not a Sinners Righteousness and maketh him not righteous then a man may be pardoned and be unrighteous still in the eye of the Law which he thinketh absurd Justific Evangelical p. 18. or else there must be a medium betwixt being righteous and unrighteous which he thinketh impossible Answ Both parts of the disjunction are untrue the first that he that is pardoned is not unrighteous still for if by favour punishment be remitted and no satisfaction be made to the Law then the Law remains broken still and he is a Sinner still though forgiven For it is not the Law that pardoneth if that might take effect it would condemn but the Law-Giver by his own Prerogative which pardon is not therefore looked upon as the fulfilling or the Righteousness of the Law But if as in our case the Law was satisfied and by reason of that satisfaction man is pardoned as this worthy Author acknowledgeth a little before then that satisfaction of the Law repaireth the Breach of it and so there is the real righteousness of the Law first imputed to a Man and then by reason thereof he is pardoned i.e. acquitted from punishment to which he was obnoxious before And thus here is a fair Contradiction that a Man is justified by a righteousness satisfactory to the Law yet barely pardoned The second part of the Disjunction That there is no medium betwixt being righteous and unrighteous is also untrue we speak of a declarative Righteousness Now it is apparent that there is a Middle betwixt being justified and being condemned viz. Medium negationis or rather privationis Adam before he fell was not condemned having not yet sinned nor was he justified having not finished
Spirit to abide with us for ever Joh. 14.16 And the powring out of the Spirit was reserved till his Work of Redemption was finished and he should be possessed of Glory John 16.7 And then he promised the Spirit â—o lead us into all truth to reveal himself to us and to glorifie him in us v. 12 13 14. Lastly He prayed for sanctifying Grace and perseverance for them that did and all that should hereafter believe till they all come to be one in him John 17.15 16 21. And wherefore is the Power of giving Grace committed to the Mediatour if not purchased by him and why doth he interceede for that he never bought and paid for If then Christ purchased Grace as well as a Right to Life then Justification giveth a Right to Grace as well as to Life it self and so is more than Pardon 5. I argue from the Impulsive Causes Pardon is an Act of meer Mercy but Justification is an Act of Justice therefore it is not meer Pardon God justifieth Believers not as a meer Act of Favour though free Mercy be the Foundation and the prime impulsive cause of Justification and all the Fruits of it but immediately it is an Act of Justice Justice being the immediate Impulsive Cause It is not only a Just thing with God to justifie a Sinner through Christ that he may do it without wrong to his Justice as some gloss it but it is an Act of proper Justice having received satisfaction to his Law to justifie and acquit him it would not be just to deny it This is intimated Rom. 8.33 35. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect It is God that Justifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who shall indite or implead them in course of Law or Judgment or else there is enough to be charged against them The Reason is because it is God that justifieth God who is to be Judge to give the Sentence and therefore will justifie judicially or as an Act of Judgment And the ground of this is in the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who shall condemn in Judgment seeing Christ has died and so satisfaction is made to Justice When we pardon an Offence which we might justly punish we do cedere de jure forbear our Right and Justice gives place to Mercy but Justice cannot pardon or acquit unless it be satisfied unless it have what is right and due according to Law Object But it is said That God pardoneth legally and judicially by virtue of the Evangelical Law so it is an Act of Justice as well as of Mercy Vid. Justiif Evang. p. 23. So Truman They say a Sinner is not pardoned by Free Grace and Absolute Pardon but upon conditions and terms required in the Gospel to be performed by him which when he hath performed the Evangelical Law doth justifie him pronounce him pardoned and so his Pardon is an Act of Justice according to the Gospel Law though not according to the Law of Works which is content with nothing but Satisfaction Answ Let any fair Disputant judge whether this 〈◊〉 not to shift the Question They have said â—â—at Justification is meer Pardon bare Pardon nothing but Pardon and yet it is not abâ—â—ute Pardon but Pardon upon condition to 〈◊〉 performed by him that will receive Pardon â—â—re not these Conditions when persormed our â—â—angelical Righteousness This they conâ—â—d for And are they not a positive Righteousness Yes they are Gospel Obedience â—â—hat sence is it then to say we are pardoned â—â—thout any positive Righteousness that Pardon alone is all our Righteousness It may be â—â—ese conditions are so small and so necessary to â—â—e receiving of pardon ex natura rei that â—â—y are not to be accounted as any righteousness Nay but in the Gospel Law all the â—â—oral Duties that were required in the Coveâ—â—nt of Works are required still though not â—â—th the same necessity of perfection And â—â—w they are much more difficult than before â—â—me Moral Duties are required also and necessary which were not directly nnd properly â—â—uties under the First Covenant as Self-deâ—â—l Mortification and bearing the Cross â—â—sides these the Gospel prescribeth new posiâ—â—e Duties which neither were nor could be â—â—uties under the Law of Works viz. Faith â—â—ve and Obedience to the Mediator with 〈◊〉 holy and reverend use of all the positive Inâ—â—tutions of the Gospel Are these small things â—â—s it necessary to meer Pardon that the pardoned should not only return to their forme Duty but also receive new Terms and Conditions which were never their Duty before If a Prince subdue Rebels and then promiâ—â— them Impunity if besides returning to theâ—â— ancient Duty and Allegiance they will receive some new Terms which he shall please to impose on them doth he freely pardon them doth he not deal with them as in a way 〈◊〉 Mercy so in a way of Soveraignty givâ—â— them new Laws and making advantage to himself and accession to his Power by occasion 〈◊〉 their misdemeanour Besides this is veâ—â— improper to talk of legal and judicial Pardon Pardon by a Law For a Law is properly preceptive and judicial Proceedings are acquiting or condemning for keeping or breakiâ—â— the Law Pardon is granted by supersedâ—â— the Sentence of the Law at least the Execution of it or by a Promise or Declaration 〈◊〉 Grace which when establisht for securitiâ—â— sake and promulgated is sometimes called aâ— Act of Grace yet it hath not the full Naturâ— of a Law It is the Soveraign Legislator whâ—â— pardoneth who hath power to relax the Execution of the Law a Law cannot pardon But the plain meaning of those men is Thâ—â— God seeing through the Fall it was become impossible for man to keep and so to be saâ—â— by the Law of Works was pleased to maâ—â— a new milder and easier Law and to declaâ—â— that if they would keep it they should 〈◊〉 pardoned and saved Pardon then with theâ—â— is nothing else but a waving of the Covenaâ—â— of Works i. e. God will not proceed with men according to that Covenant if they will submit to his new Covenant so then for all their specious words of meer Pardon to exclude Christ's Righteousness they only mean that God will not execute his First Covenant which men have broken but will save them if they fulfil his Second Covenant i. e. will be righteous and obedient according to the Gospel and thus they acknowledg a righteousness of a man 's own besides pardon whereby he must he justified 6. The Law requireth a positive righteousness by the fulfilling of it The end of every Law being obedience to it Just Evang p. 38 39. Therefore Justification cannot be Pardon of Sin without Imputation of Righteousness 'T is said That the Law of Works required a sinless perfect righteousness which Christ hath satisfied for but the Law of Grace is a better Covenant accepting an imperfect Righteousness But this is nothing to the purpose let the righteousness be
meer pardon if it must rest upon him to satisfie or to provide satisfaction for the Law But doth this hinder God's providing and bestowing on him the righteousness of his Son As a Bankrupt is capable of nothing but to have his debt freely forgiven him for ought that he can do towards satisfaction yet this hindreth not but his Friend may pay the Debt for him and so render him solvent in Law 'T is once more said Object Iustâ—â— Evang p. 35 36. If a Sinner be not made Righteous by pardon but may be counted a Sinner still then by the same reason when Christ his Righteousness is imputed that being not his own Obedience he may be counted a Sinner still and so be Righteous and a Sinner at the same time which implieth a loud Contradiction Answ It is no Contradiction being not eodem respectu not in the same respect or in the same sence A man is a Sinner in himself and righteous in Christ the Law pronounceth him a Sinner and sentenceth him to death but the Law-giver who is above the Law accepteth Christs fulfilling the Law for him and thus being admitted upon Christs account the Law it self must acknowledg him Righteous CHAP. II. The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to Believers explained and proved HAving proved that to Justifie is to accept as Just or Righteous and likewise that our own Obedience is not cannot be the Righteousness wherein we must appear before God it remaineth that it must be the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us for and by which we must be justified and this is now to be proved But before we come to the Proof we shall briefly inquire What we mean by Christs Righteousness and what by the Imputation of it The Righteousness of Christ which we say is imputed to a Sinner for his Justification is that Righteousness which he fulfilled or wrought in conformity to the Law of God whereby the Law violated by us was fulfilled and satisfied for us and in our stead Rom. 10.4 Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth Therefore it is not the Righteousness of his Divine Person which is imputed to us for that is Infinite such as men are uncapable of and 't was never required from them Yet the Perfections of his God-head do add the meritorious Dignity to his Satisfaction Nor is it the connate habitual Righteousness of his Man-hood For this is presuppos'd to enable to the performance of the Law but not properly required by the Law yet the Law requireth the preservation and exercise of perfect inherent righteousness Adam was created perfect to make him capable of receiving a Law of perfect obedience therefore that Law supposed a Holy Nature and only required continuance in that perfection of Nature which he had received In like manner it was necessary that Christ should be born with a perfect holy Nature that he might undertake the fulfilling of the Law for us and the preserving and exercise of that Holiness once received was a part of his obedience to the Law but that Holiness as natural and habitual was antecedent to the obedience of the Law and therefore no prober part of it Christ's Righteousness then which is imputed to us is his Holy Life in obedience to the Law of God and his voluntary obediential suffering the Penalties of the Law unto death it self for us and in our stead By the latter he made satisfaction for our sins and breach of the Law and by the former he fulfill'd the Law in the proper and principal design of it and thereby purchased eternal life which was promised by the Law to them that fulfill it By obeying the substance of the Moral Law as given to Man-kind and suffering death the Penalty thereof he satisfied the Law and wrought Righteousness for men in general and by obeving the Jewish Law and suffering the penalties and that kind of death threatned and accursed particularly by â—t he wrought righteousness for the Jews Gal. 4.4 5. Now when we say This Righteousness of Christ is imputed to Believes reckoned or accounted theirs Rom. 4.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we do not mean that they are accounted to have done and suffered those Actions and Penalties which Christ was Author of and endured Christ and Believers are still distinct natural persons and so the actions and passions of one person cannot be reckoned properly the actions and passions of the other Nor do we teach by imputing Christs Righteousness to Believers that God looketh upon them as if they had done and suffered in their own persons what Christ did in his in any proper sence For Christ only is accounted the Author of his own Righteousness and though Believers be justified by it yet the honour of working that righteousness and of being the proper subject of its Inherence belongeth to Christ alone But by Imputation we mean that God accounteth the Righteousness of Christ to have been wrought by him for every one that believeth and doth justifie or accept them to life eternal for that very righteousness believed or trusted in according to the promise of the Gospel and so Christs Righteousness is reckoned theirs or reckoned to them put to their account as if it were theirs not efficienter but effectivè not as if they had wrought it but that they may have the full benefit of it and be justified by it as effectually as if they had obeyed the Law perfectly in their own persons This is that which our Divines mean by saying Christ righteousness is ours in law that Christ and Believer are one in Law viz. that the Law â—f God is as truly and sully satisfied for us by â—he righteousness of Christ as if we had fulfilled it our selves and that God being pleased â—o admit of the fulfilling of the Law by Christ â—or us the Law doth pronounce us righteous â—nd Heirs of life for that righteousness which Christ wrought in obedience to it In this â—ence also they say That the very formal righteousness of Christ is a Believers righteousness or imputed to him viz. not that a Believer is reckoned to have wrought that righteousness as an efficient cause of it nor that Christs righteousness is transfused into him implanted in him as the subject of inherence â—ut that the very righteousness which Christ wrought was intended and wrought for him by the Son and is accepted for him by the Father that he is justified for it and intituled to life eternal Christ is the efficient the subject of Inherence of his own active passive obedience but the immediate benefit of it as satisfactory to the Law is a Believers and he is the subject of it a subject of external denomination he is denominated righteous from that righteousness wrought for him and accepted in his behalf Thus it is not forma inhaerens but denominans not an internal but an external Form When a Debtor is discharged his Surety paying the Debt
the Debtor cannot properly be said to be the Author of the payment he paid not the Money 't was not his but the Sureties yet the Money being paid for him in his stead for his benefit by the Surety and accepted for him instead of his payment by the Creditor he is a subject of denomination and may be truly accounted a clear and solvent person and the payment imputed to him placed to his account as really and as fully as if he had paid it with his own hand and with his own money Hence some call the Righteousness of Christ the Formal Cause of our Justification Vid. Whitaker de Ecclesia p. 460 461. Synop. Leidens disput 33. Th. 21 23. and others the Matter or Material Cause both mean the same thing viz. That Christs righteousness is the very thing for which we are accepted and justified before God I will not contend about terms of Art in so great a point whereon Salvation depends yet it seemeth more logical to say In Justification man in the Matter or Subject viz. the Person justified Christs righteousness is the Form that by which he is constituted righteous or just before God Imputation Gods accepting this righteousness for him is as the Union betwixt the Matter and the Form even the Application of Christs righteousness to the person justified God the Father is the Efficient accepting or acquitting him for the sake of Christs righteousness The Promise of the Gospel is the medium whereby this righteousness is conveyed and Faith the instrument or disposition in the subject whereby it is rendred capable of receiving Christs righteousness or having it imputed to him And Justification is the Condition or State of a Man accepted with God to life eternal through the righteousness of Christ imputed to him From â—â—ence I inser that Imputation of Christs righteousness and Justification is all one and but â—â—e real Act and so Arctius defines it Justiâ—atio est imputatio justitiae alienae gratuita Lib. Probl. loc 25. faâ—â—a a Deo respectu meriti Filii Dei ad salutem â—â—ni credenti Some learned men make Justication to consist of 2 Acts. The First whereby Christs righteousness is imputed to a Sinâ—er The Second whereby his sins are forgiven and he accepted for the sake of that righteousness But this makes it more perplext that it is to impute righteousness We are righteous with the righteousness of Christ â—â—t in a Physical sence as if it were inherent or adherent to us but judicially We are accepted as righteous i. e. discharged from punishment and intituled to life for it and this 〈◊〉 to be justified We may indeed make it Formal Acts or formally distinct the one thereby Christs righteousness is placed to our account or reckoned to be done for us the â—ther whereby we are accepted or intituled 〈◊〉 life for that righteousness But it 's really â—â—e same thing to account Christs righteousâ—â— be wrought for us to satisfie and fulfill the â—aw of God and to accept us and give us â—ight to life for that righteousness God in â—s Promise proposeth life to Sinners on the account of Christs satisfaction in which when â—â—ey believe and trust there is by virtue of that Promise a Grant and Title to life made other to them and hereby righteousness is imputed to them or they are justified Thus Rom. 4 2. When the Apostle would prove Abraham was not justified by Works he saith v. 3. Faith was imputed to him for Righteousness Then to justifie or impute Christs righteousness is all one and God accounteth us righteous for this righteousness i. e. God justifieth or giveth us eternal life for Christs righteousness and frees us from condemnation Nor is Christ first given to us and then his right ousness as some speak as if we were actually interessed in Christs Person before we are his righteousness God worketh Faith in the Heart which apprehendeth the promise of liâ—â— through the righteousness of Christ and hereby we are accepted and justified and this righteousness is thus made ours or given to us and no other way Afterwards we are adopted and receive the Spirit of Sons by which Spirit we are united to Christ as to our Hear and the Fountain of Spiritual Life and the Christ is most properly given to us or wâ—â— are actually interessed in his person in whom all the Elect have some interest before on the account of Election but this was not actual and proper These things thus explained the Question betwixt us and our Opposites is plainly thâ—â— Whether God justifieth men and intituled them Life for the Righteousness which Christ wrought in fulfilling and suffering the Penalties of the Law The Affirmative is the Protestant Doctrine and now to be proved Argument 1. 1. I argue from the Parallel of Christ and Adam Christ is called the Second Adam the Second Man 1 Cor. 15.45 47. Adam was the Figure of him who was to come viz. Christ Rom. 5.14 Whence is this but in respect of the general Influence of what they did upon the rest of Markind Hence I argue As Adam's Disobedience condemned men so Christ's Obedience acquitteth and justifieth them But the very Acts of Adam's Disobedience are imputed to men to their Condemnation they are condemned for them therefore they that believe have the very righteousness of Christ imputed to them and by that are justified The Major is largely proved by the Apostle Rom. 5.12 ad finem where he sheweth That Justification and Life come into the World in like manner as Death and Condemnation did each by a common Person and by them derived upon the rest of Mankind As many were made Sinners 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one Mans Obedience so by the Obedience of one many shall be made righteous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 19. They are constituted righteous and unrighteous in the same manner unrighteous by Adams disobedience righteous by the obedience of Christ But this I suppose will not be denied and he that denieth the Minor viz. That Adams disobedience is imputed to us as the immediate Cause of our Condemnation is a down right Pelagian But because iâ— this Age all the Foundations are destroyed we shall prove it from the fore-cited Text Rom. 5.12 where the Apostle affirms That by one man Sin and death entred into the World and Death passed upon all men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether we translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iâ— whom all have sinned as the the Fathers did against the Palagians meaning Adam 〈◊〉 whom all his Posterity sinned or in quantum for as much as all men have sinned the Sence is all one Sin and Death came upon all men from one man i. e. Adam and therefore they were all made Sinners in him and by him But this is clearer v. 15. where it is said Many are dead by the Offence of this one man viz. Adam And v. 26. The Judgment or Sentence unto Condemnation came by one man 〈◊〉
excellency of the Knowledge of Christ Jesus c. that I may win Christ and be found in him c. From hence it appeareth that the Apostle speaks of Justification by Christ in opposition to being justified by any thing else and of rejoycing in him contrary to any rejoycing in our selves In the 9th v. therefore he opposeth being found in Christ to having his own Righteousness which is of the Law sc of any works whatsoever and explaineth it by having the Righteousness of Faith the Righteousness which is of God by Faith What can the Righteousness of God mean when opposed to his own Righteousness of the Law but either the Righteousness of him which is God or a Righteousness which God provideth for him and which he did not work himself which is Christ's Also the Righteousness of Faith is opposed to the Righteousness of the Law and the Righteousness of God by Faith opposed to the same Righteousness of the Law must be a Righteousness which God gives us by believing and this is the Righteousness of Christ imputed Object It is excepted By the Law he means the Jewish Law and by his own Righteousness he means that which was his own when a Jew Hotchkis p. 190. not that which was his own when a Convert to the Christian Faith and that the things there opposed are Judaism and Christianity or Judaical Observances and the practical knowledge of Christ so that our own Evangelical Righteousness is not there opposed to the Obedience of Christ 1. Answ If the Apostle here only compare the Jewish and Christian Religion then all he meaneth is that the Christian Religion is far more excellent than the Jewish but he cannot oppose them properly in the matter of Justification For the sincere Practice of the Jewish Religion did justifie the Jews according to this opinion as well as the Practice of Christian Religion justified Christians Yea methinks these Authors who some of them can allow the Idolatrous Heathens to be justified by their obedience to the Law of Nature and hope in God's Mercy though they have no express knowledge of Christ should not deny that Jews may be saved by their Religion and their Hope in the Messias if they be only ignorant who he is and not malicious against him If so there must be more meant by opposing Faith to the Works of the Law then the Law meerly as Jewish 2ly The Apostle doth not only renounce the Works of the Jewish Law but all other things which may be thought matter of confidence in our selves v. 8. 3ly There is the same reason for the renouncing Christian as Jewish Works in Justification and those are Works of the Flesh when trusted and rejoyced in as well as these For the Moral Law is the same to Christians as it was to the Jews and all the Evangelical Precepts were the same to the Jews as to us if then they could not justifie them they cannot justifie us But if this Author intend only the Ceremonial Law it is contrary to the Text for after mention of the External Rights and Privileges the Apostle saith He was blameless as touching the Righteousness of the Law which must mean the Moral Law and the Ceremonial Law when in force had its part in justifying as well as the Moral and now it is abrogated it cannot be damning if practised out of ignorance only Acts 21.20 c. But that the Righteousness of the Law here doth by parity of reason exclude Christian Obedience from Justifying is thus proved This is not the Righteousness of God sc of God's providing but our own Righteousness as well as Jewish Obedience was It is also the righteousness of a Law the Gospel Law though not the Jewish Law Melanct. in Rom. p. 8. Vocari lex debet ubicunque praecepta leguntur sive in libris Mosis sive in libris Apostolorum c. And further It is not the righteousness of Faith or by Faith any more than the Works of Jews For No Law is of Faith but be that doth it shall live by it Gal. 3.12 It is spoken immediately of the Jewish Law but the Reason extendeth it to every Law he that is justified by obedience to any Law liveth by it is justified by doing it not by believing And it may be said of the Gospel in our Authors Sence He that doth it shall live by it as truly as of the Law of Moses or Adam It hath also been shewed that the Law hath some Faith joyned with it viz. the trust to be justified by performing that Law and therefore when doing and believing are opposed as irreconcileable extreams in Justification believing must mean a trust in anothers Righteousness not in our own for that is doing and thus the righteousness of Faith here excludeth all our own Works therefore must be the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us Add to all this That the Apostle in this place doth not speak of Christian Religion as this Author saith or of the Doctrine of Christ but of his Person and what he wrought for us For having exprest his desire of being found in him not having his own righteousness c. he subjoyneth immediately v. 10 11. That I may know him and the Power of his Resurrection and the Fellowship of his Sufferings c. If by any means I might attain unto the Resurrection of the Dead And v. 12. That I might apprehend that for which I am apprehended of Christ These things concern Christ himself not the Precepts of his Religion Object The general Evasion whereby those men wave the force of these and the like Scriptures is this Hotchkis p. 44 c. That Christ's Righteousness or Obedience is ours in the Fruits and Effects of it but not our Righteousness properly viz. That Christ's Righteousness is not that for which we are accepted of God immediately Trueman Gr. Prop. p. 116. but that it is the morally efficient or meritorious Cause of our Righteousness i. e. that we shall be accepted with God if we fulfill the Commands of the Gospel because Christ hath removed the Old Covenant of Works and purchased this New Covenant for us 1. Answ Here it may not be amiss to advertise the Reader of the equivocation that lies in these Words especially as used by some Authors whereby they hide their sence and deceive many sc when they oppose the Imputation of Christs righteousness to the Fruits and Effects of it which with us are not opposite For by imputation of his righteousness we do not mean that Christs righteousness is transferred to us and made inherently ours or that we can be denominated righteous by it as if we had wrought that righteousness but we mean that for the obedience of Christ God doth immediately pardon and justifie them that trust in it and give them a right to all the Fruits of it as truly and validly as if it were their own personal righteousness so that God doth
oâ— that he was accounted to have sinned to have been the Author or any way the Cause of our sins or that God lookt upon him as such These things we account blasphemous but we mean that Jesus Christ in all he did and suffered did intend to satisfie the Law of God which Man should have kept and particularly in his Sufferings did intend and actually bare the punishment due to our sins to satisfie the Law thereby and that the Father in imposing this Obedience and in inflicting these Sufferings upon Christ did intend that his Law which man had broken should be satisfied thereby and that Christ should bear the Punishment of our Sins and further that God did accept of these Sufferings of Christ as a satisfaction for our Sins and did look upon his Justice as executed and satisfied in him Thus our sins are said to be imputed to Christ because he was truly and in the Fathers and in his own intentions punished for them He was not reckoned an Offendor but he was reckoned and dealt with as he who had undertaken to bear the Punishment due to Offenders Many labour to make this Position odious by misrepresenting it and putting it into harsh and unscriptural terms But the Question is plainly this Whether the Sufferings of Christ were truly and intentionally the Punishment of the Sins of Man laid upon him whether Christ was properly punished for their Sins And this the Scripture abundantly and expresly affirmeth Isaiah 53.4 He hath born our griefs and carried our sorrows Yet more plainly v. 5. He was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed v. 6. We have gone astray c. and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all v. 8. For the transgression of my people was he stricken v. 10. His Soul was made an offering for sin v. 11. By his knowledge shall my righteous Servant justifie many And the means whereby he cometh to justifie them is because he shall bear their iniquities v. 12. He bore the sin of many Can any thing be more express If Christ was wounded bruised stricken offered as a Sacrifice for sin then he was properly punisht for sin and though the other terms bearing of sin carrying our griefs c. may have a larger interpretation yet being joyned with those other more express and significant words they are to be taken in the same sence Galat. 3.13 He was made a Curse for us c. The Curse is the Punishment of Sin laid upon a person in pursuance of the Sentence of the Law Christ then was punisht the Sentence of the Law executed upon him with intention to satisfie the Law 2 Corinth 5.21 He was made Sin for us Our Authors paraphrase this He was made a Sacrifice for Sin the Sin-offering being sometimes in Hebrew called Sin And the Interpretation is not much amiss but the Sacrifice for sin died for the Sinner and did typically bear the punishment of his Sin Therefore Christ the Antitype did really undergo the punishment of Sin It is to be observed that our Lord was put to death without the City on purpose to answer the Type of the Sin offering in special above the rest of the Sacrifices which was to be carried out and burnt without the Camp Lev. 6.3 Heb. 13.11 12. 1 Peter 2.24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own Body on the Tree by whose stripes ye were healed Here it is exprest that Christ in his own person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bore our sins upon the Cross in his own Body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore his Sufferings upon the Cross were the punishment for our sins Our Opposites interpret this to be spoken figuratively Trueman â— â—rop p. 89. The Sufferings of Christ were not properly an Execution of the Law though they may figuratively be so called but a satisfaction to Justice that the Law-threat might no be executed They mean That Christ's Sufferings were for sin i. e. to take away Sin by bringing in a Covenant of Grace and possibility of Pardon but not that he satisfied offended Justice by bearing the Punishment of Sin in his own person Now this is not to die for sin at all nor to bare sin be wounded for it or stricken for it but only to suffer by occasion of sin as sin was the occasion that Christ suffered to bring in a way of Pardon and so as Christ's Righteousness is not the cause of our Justification but the occasion of it that which made some way for it as we have proved above so also by this Doctrine our sins were not the cause had no proper influence upon the death of Christ but were an accidental occasion of it because if we had not sinned he had not died to bring in a Covenant of Grace and pardon What can be spoken full and clear enough if these plain Scriptures may be so easily waved The same Author saith p. 86. That Christ's death was a Satisfaction to Justice that God might be Just if he should pardon not an Execution of the Law but a satisfaction to Justice that the Law might not be executed I answer The Justice of God is twofold Absolute and Essential which is the infinite Holiness of his Nature whereby he can do nothing but what is becoming himself or limited and ordinate which is a voluntary Obligation which God hath laid upon himself to proceed in his dealing with Creatures according to the Law which he hath prescribed them I demand which of these Christ satisfied not the first any further than as it is included in the second viz. as it is becoming God's infinite and essential Holiness to proceed with his Creatures according to his own Laws when he hath given them Laws to act by For this Author and his Friends do not deny that Essential Justice might have been content to have pardoned and restored Adam and us in him without the death of Christ it must therefore be limited and ordinate Justice which Christ satisfied Now by this Justice God is obliged to proceed according to his own Law to see his Law fulfilled and executed and that it attain the end for which it was made therefore there is no satisfying of this Justice but by having the Law executed To talk of satisfying Justice of which the Law is the Rule without executing the Law yea that the Law might not be executed but taken out of the way is by fair consequence a Contradiction Argument 7. 7ly I argue Either Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us we are justified immediately by believing in it or Christ only purchased a Law of Grace by fulfilling whereof we should be justified There is no medium betwixt these two in the Question about Imputation but the latter is false therefore the former is true This is that our Opposites contend for That Christ only purchased that we should be saved
Law of Works in our stead so that his Righteousness is accepted for our fulfilling it then must we be justified by his righteousness without any further righteousness or conditions For the Law being fulfilled for us must acquit us and give us life this we defend but he means not so Christ is our legal righteousness with him not by proper fulfilling the Law of Works for us but by taking it out of the way so that no such perfect innocent righteousness should be required of us to Salvation and this he mean by pro-legal instead of our legal righteousness This is still hiding his sence with ambiguous words It remains then that by imputing Christ's Righteousness they intend nothing else but that Christ procured a Covenant of Grace by fulfilling whereof we shall be justified and saved though sinful and imperfect which Justification and Salvation we must originally yet remotely ascribe to Jesus Christ because he procured this mild Covenant for us but the righteousness which constituteth us Just in Law and for which we shall be pronounc'd righteous and Heirs of the Kingdom at Judgment is our own sincere Obedience not Christ's Obedience as appears at large from this Author It is pretended that Luther in the heat of his Spirit and Zeal against Popish Superstitions Object let fall some words which sounded as if he thought Christ's Personal Righteousness was every Believers righteousness Answer to Dr. Tully p. 15. § 11. and their Sins were made his which afterwards he qualified shewing that Christ's Righteousness is â—urs and our Sins his only in the Effects Answ But that Luther maintained the same Imputation as we do in opposition to all works his Sermons and Comments on the Gal sufficiently shew and all both Papists and Protestants do acknowledge And if by imputing Christ's Righteousness in the Effects be meant its Immediate Effects viz. that we should be justified immediately by that righteousness trusted in immedietate formae without the interposition of any other righteousness to be wrought by us it is the Doctrine we contend for but â—f this be meant as the drift seems to be that â—t is imputed so as to merit a New Covenant by performing of which we shall be justified and so it be imputed only in its remote Effects it is manifestly untrue Object It is said again That most of our Reformers rightly asserted that Christ's Righteousness was ours by the way of meriting our righteousness Ibid. p. 16. § 13. though some of them followed Luther's Expressions of the Imputation of Christ's Personal Righteousness Answ Calvin and Melancthon who do not much follow Luther's Expressions affirm That our Justification consisteth in remission of sins for the Merit of Christ received by Faith only and it is most untrue that any of our Reformers talked That Christ only merited that we should be justified by our own Righteousness according to the Gospel Covenant as is here meant Problem loc de Just 6.25 Aretius Melancthon's Scholar defineth Justification by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness and doth charge Thammerus once his fellow Pupil under the same Master with deserting his Masters and the Doctrine of all Reformers for teaching That Faith in the business of Justification includeth Obedience to the Gospel and that we are justified by it as the Fulfilling of the Gospel and that the Works which St. Paul excludeth from justifying are the Works of the Law not the Works of the Gospel also that gratis per gratiam being justified freely by his Grace was meant only that for Christ's Sake our imperfect obedience is accepted to Justification and sinless obedience not insisted on where the Reader may find Thammerus his Arguments and interpretation of Scripture there cited at large for substance the same produced by our Authors and sharply taxed as a deserting from the Reformation Object It is farther said The Papists fastning upon those Divines who held Imputation of Christ's Personal Righteousness in its self Ibid. § 16. in the rigid sence did hereupon greatly insult against the â—rotestants as if it had been their common â—octrine and it greatly stopt the Reformation Answ Thus Bellarmin pretended that amongst the â—rotestants there were several Opinions about â—â—e Imputation of Christ's Righteousness one 〈◊〉 Luther another of Calvin a third of some â—â—hers besides that of Osiander de Just. cap. 22. p. 312. to which B. â—avenant answers Secundam sententiam illoâ—â—m commemorat qui Christi obedientiam juâ—tiam nobis imputatam statuunt esse formalem â—â—usam justificationis at haec communis est nostroâ—â—m omnium sententia neque quod ad ipsam rem â—â—tinet quicquam é nostris aliter aut censit aut â—â—ipsit He reckoneth this a second Opinion our Writers That they say Christ's Righteousness is the formal cause of our Justification i. e. its self is our Righteousness but â—â—is is the common opinion of all of us nor did â—â—er any of us write or speak otherways as to â—â—e substance of the thing He also affirms â—â—at all the difference betwixt our Reformers â—â—as only in the manner of expressing themslves and that Calvin who placeth Justification in Remission of sin did yet mean that Reâ—â—ssion to be granted for the Imputed Righteousness of Christ and that to be the Immediate Cause of it and therefore adds as the â—â—mmon Protestant Doctrine p. 313. Absque imputaâ—â—ne obedientiae Christi nulla remissio peccatorum â—â—inetur haec causa est remissionis haec cauâ—â— acceptationis haec causa translationis à statis â—â—rtis ad statum vitae i. e. without the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness there is no forgiveness this is the cause of Pardon this is the cause of our acceptance with God and of our translation from the state of death to the state of life It is suggested that this offence of the Papists occasioned the German Divines to deseâ—â— the Question of Imputation Object So Dr. Tully § 17. q. 17 18 and to dispute what Righteousness of Christ it is by which we are justified and many Learned Men maintained that it was the Passive only Answ This Question arose and was agitated among themselves as Paraeus informs us in his Miscellanies nor did it at all concern the Papisâ—â— who are Enemies to the proper Imputation of Christ's Righteousness passive as well as active against his bearing our sins as well as performing the Law for us And these Divines who maintain the Imputation of Passive Obedience only yet maintain that to be our Formal Righteousness by and for which we are justified and not that it procured a Covenant of Grace only Th. Theol. de Justif Thus Vrsin Justitia Evangelica est poena peccatorum nostrorum quam Constus pro nobis sustinuit credentibus à Deo grâ—tis imputata So Paraeus in the Treatise alledged and Windeline also in his Theologia capde Justif Thes 6. he saith That the instrumental cause of Justification is
preserve the state of Justification Bona opera sunt necessaria ad Justificationis statum retinendum conservandum But how Not as causes that work or deserve the continuance of Justification but as means without which God will not continue it Non ut causae quae per se efficiunt aut mereantur hanc conservationem sed ut media seu conditiones sine quibus Deus non vult justificationis gratiam in hominibus conservare He explaineth himself That a life of obedience is necessary that a justified man may improve and enjoy the Fruits of Justification and also obtain the remission of following particular sins and to prevent a course of sin which is contrary to the nature of a justified man In a word That they are no otherways necessary to the continuance then they were to the beginning of Justification sc by way of concomitance and order not of influence Nam ut nemo recipit Justificationem generalem quae liberat à reatu omnium praecedentium peccatorum nisi concurrente paenitentia c. ita nemo retinet statum à reatu liberum respectu peccatorum consequentium nisi mediantibus iisdem actionibus credendi c. Ratio est quod haec abesse non possint perpetuo ut non ad esse incipiant illorum opposita quae pugnant cum natura justificati Ibid. Again Quia Deus non vult carnales c. frui beneficio justificationis requirit assidua opera fidei c. quorum praesen tiâ arcentur incredulitas c. aliáque gratiae justificationis venena at que particularium peccatorum particularis condonatio obtinetur p. 405. And Hae autem actiones non conservant vitam gratiae propriè per se attingendo ipsum effectum conversationis sed impropriè per accidens excludendo removendo causam destructionis He acknowledgeth also that the falls of the Godly do not lose their Justification Ibid. Concl. 7. Vtcunque justificati in via bonorum operum claudicare atque aliquandiu extra hanc viam per abrnpta libidinum suarum aberrare possint statu filiorum haud amisso Lastly He saith good works are necessary to â—alvation and our coming to Heaven Non necessitate causalitatis sed ordinis not as causes â—f it but as the order that God hath appointed that we should first glorifie him on earth and then be glorified with him in Heaven Now what they have gained by the Bishop's Testimony let the Reader judge We willingly â—ubscribe to all this in substance Mr. Bradshaw's Testimony will serve them to better Praefat. de Just they cite his Preface for their purpose his words are Quid enim prohibet quo minus â—traque Christi obedientia ad peccati cujusque reâ—tum tollendum ad peccatorum nostrorum omnium veniam consequendam necessaria statuaâ—ur quid obstat quo minus etiam ad imputationem utriusque hoc sufficere dixerimus quod Deus utramque cum bono nòstro admiserit obediâ—ntiam propter cam utramque nos acceptos â—abeat ac si nos ipsi eo quo par erat modo legem â—livinam implevissemus qut paenas aeternas ex eaâ—em nobis debitas apud inferos sustinuissemus Here he endeavoureth to reconcile those that contend for the Imputation of either the Active or Passive Obedience alone and saith That we may say they are both imputed both performed for us i. e. for our benefit in that way that God thought fit and that we are justified by both as much as if we had fulfilled the Law or suffered Eternal Death But doth Mr. Bradshaw here express the manner how we are accepted by the Obedience of Christ doth he at all derogate from our being justified immediately by Christ's Righteousness or doth he lay any foundation for Justification by fulfilling the Gospel-Covenant There is not a word of that here or in all his Book He doth indeed speak more accurately and cautiously of the notion of Imputation and what Obedience of Christ may be said to be imputed and what not than others do yet in substance he agreeth with them and asserteth the old Protestant Doctrine particularly Chap. 22 23 24. per totum He affirmeth Christ's satisfaction to be the onely matter of our Justification Chap. 22. Th. 1. In satisfactione Christi supradicta vera sola justificationis posita est materia And that by this Satisfaction we are not onely freed from eternal wrath but made truely righteous before God Th. 2. Redemptio sive satisfactio illa qua pretium ejusmodi persolvitur cujus vi peccator non à debita tantùm poena liberetur sed etiam in foro divino vere justissiméque justus factus dicitur non est fucata metaphorica c. And that the form of our Justification is the alledging of Christ's Righteousness Chap. 23. Th. 2. Hujus Justificationis forma est satisfactionis sive justitiae illius in gratiam ejus pro quo praestita est coram Deo factae vel alligatio vel declaratio quaevis And lastly he saith That the immediate effect of Justification is Reconciliation whereby all sins are forgiven and God receives a Sinner into favour for the Satisfaction of Christ accepted in his behalf Chap. 24. Th. 2. Hominis cum Deo reconciliatio ex vera justificatione orta est qua Deus propter Christi satisfactionem gratiosissimè admissam cum peccatore in gratiam rediens remittit eidem peccata universa ipsámque pro verè justo habet In the Conclusion of his Book he gives us the Sum of what he had delivered immediately touching the point of Justification 1. Deus Pater justificat admittendo imputando 2. Deus Filius satisfaciendo advocatum agendo 3. Sacro-Sanctus Spiritus revelando obsignando 4. Fides apprehendendo applicando 5. Bona opera manifestando declarando This is the whole and usual Protestant-Doctrine We must now seek some other Authors of this Opinion Art 24. Arminius in answer to the 31st Article objected to him saith Christi justitia imputatur in justitiam mihi non probari dixi Having in general terms as our Authors profess to acknowledge that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us and that we are justified by it yet he here denyeth That Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us for Righteousness and gives this reason Quicquid imputatur in justitiam vel ad justitiam vel pro justitia ad ipsum non est ipsa justitia strictè rigidè sumpta At Christi justitia quam ille praestitit Patri obediendo est ipsissima justitia strictè rigidè sumpta Ergò non imputatur in justitiam i. e. That which is imputed to us for righteousness must not be righteousness strictly and properly so called But Christ's Righteousness was a strict and proper Righteousness or obedience to his Father Ergò Arminius we see taketh imputing Christ's Righteousness for nothing else but that it procureth Justification for us not that
Opinions were the Pelagians and Arminians and that herein the Socinians differ little from them Let us now inquire seeing we must not be justified by the very Righteousness of Christ's Obedience and Death to what End Christ died according to those men CHAP. VI. This Doctrine overthroweth Christ's Merit and Satisfaction THE Apostle Rom. 4.25 saith That Christ was delivered i. e. to death for our Offences and raised again for our Justification Whence our Protestants have taught that the proper and immediate Effect of the Death of Christ was the procuring or grant of Pardon Justification Life Eternal to all the Elect in the Purposes of God and that accordingly God in due time publisheth to them the Promises of the Gospel by which through the effectual operation of the Holy Ghost they are perswaded and drawn to Christ to believe and trust in him for Life and so they are made actual partakers of his Death and justified But these Authors denying us to be justified immediately and properly by the Righteousness of Christ must and do deny Justification to be the immediate and proper Effect of it and assign some other immediate End of Christ's Death What this is we shall shew and how it doth make void the Merit and Satisfaction of Christ I meet with two Opinions in this matter The First saith That the immediate and proper End of the Death of Christ was not to procure Reconciliation Justification c. for all or any man but to render God placable or reconcileable to man i. e. not that God upon the Death of Christ doth grant purpose or covenant the Justification and salvation of any man but that he may now justifie forgive and save men in what way and upon what terms he pleaseth Thus Mr. Trueman as before Gr. Prop. p. 86. The immediate Effect of Christ's Satisfaction is that God might be Just though he should pardon Sinners that he might pardon salvâ justitiâ not that he must pardon them come what will of it or be unjust And again The Justice of God as a flaming Sword obstructeth all treating with us upon any terms of Reconciliation whatsoever and this would have been an eternal Bar to all Influences and Effluxes of Favour and now this Justice being satisfied and this Bar and Obstacle removed Divine Grace and Benignity is left at liberty freely to act how it pleases and in what way and upon what terms and conditions it thinketh meet This he had from Arminius who having said That Justification Pardon or Reconciliation of any man is not immediately purchased by the Death of Christ He tells us The proper Effect of it is Reconciliatio Dei remissionis justificationis redemptionis apud Peum impetratio contra Perkins fol. 76. apud Twiss qua factum est ut Deus jam possit utpote justitiâ cui satisfactum est non obstante hominibus peccatoribus peccata remittere spiritum gratiae largiri i. e. the Reconciliation of God the obtaining of remission and redemption viz. That God may forgive and sanctifie men if he please without breach of Justice which is now satisfied Hereupon they go so far as to tell us That when Christ had done and suffered all which was appointed him God was free to save or not to save men or to save upon what terms or whom he pleased Thus Grevinch contra Ames fol. 8. Peltius p. 126. Postquam impetratio praestita ac peracta esset Deo jus suum integrum mansit pro arbitratu suo eam applicare vel non applicare nec applicatio finis impetrationis propria fuit sed jus potestas applicandi pro liberrimo suo placito quibus qualibus vellet i. e. After Christ's Purchase was made and finished God was perfectly free to apply â—t or not to apply it as he should please nor was the Application of it the proper End of Christ's Purchase but that God might have power to apply it to whom and how he should think fit Episcopius goes a step further and saith There could not be a deliberate purpose in God of saving men and opening a way of â—ise to them till Christ was sacrificed Disp 5. Ibid. Deliâ—eratum mortale salvandi salutisque ostium apetiendi propositum in Deo esse requirit priusquam sacrificium oblatum esset Now if this be the only proper Effect of the Obedience and Death of Christ that God who was before bound to condemn Sinners by the Law of Works violated by them might now think of a way to save them if he pleased and withal might chuse whether he would save them or propound terms of Life to them or not It followeth â—ence 1. That the Obedience of Christ was not meritorious nor did merit any thing of the father It is true there was an intrinsecal infinite value in Christ's Obedience by reason of the Divine Excellency of his Person and so there was an equality or proportion betwixt his Obedience and the Happiness which was to be procured for men But this is the Foundation of Merit not Actual Merit To merit is to deserve a Reward to do something whereupon a Reward is due so that Merit in its proper notion doth imply an actual Right or Obligation to a reward which Obligation ariseth from some Law Promise or Compact betwixt the Parties and he which doth not give that Reward according to Merit offendeth against some Law either of strict Justice or at least of Gratitude Generosity Kindness c. If then God was not bound by Covenant Promise or so much as deliberate Purpose to save men or to give them any terms of Life for all that Christ did or suffered then his Obedience merited nothing there was nothing due no reward proposed to him which he would challenge for God was still free to do what he pleased with men God they say would not have been unjust if he had not saved men though Christ died he was not then bound by the Law of Justice and he could not be bound by any other Law to remunerate the Death and Sufferings of his Son with such an happy Effect as man's Salvation Christ's Death say they was a refuseable payment for sin even when it was presented to the Father God might then have refused it and yet have been Just But it would not have been just to have denyed Jesus Christ that which he merited that would be due debt to him They say indeed Christ was the meritorious cause of our Justification But what did he merit Justification Then God was not free to deny it he must justifie those for whom Christ merited Justification or be unjust unless there can be a cause without an effect or causality The effect of merit is some reward deserved given for the sake of the merit the causality of merit is some compact Law or Promise whereby one is bound to reward that merit If then God was bound to nothing upon the Obedience of Christ but still had jus
all the immediate proper causes of Justification both internal and external and wanting only the remote preparatory causes If obedience to the Gospel as the Law of Christ be that alone to which Justification is promised then unbelief of his Merit when a man is not convinced of the truth of it can no more damn him than the unbelief of any other History concerning Christ suppose his being born at Bethlem or living at Nazareth c. when a man is not sufficiently perswaded of them For these were necessary ex Hypothesi because God would have it so and Christ's Merit was no more by their confession nor was it impossible according to their Principles but Christ might have been a King and enacted this Law of Grace though he had not been a Priest and satisfied for Sin And thus we have the bottom of this Mystery Next it is proved that Christ justifyeth as a Prophet p. 25. because the Gospel is a Law that must be promulgated and expounded and a Doctrine that must be taught and pressed on Sinners till they receive it and believe that they may be justified and this Christ doth as a Teacher and Faith must accordingly respect him Answ Faith must believe and trust in the Promise of Life made in Christ and preached by Christ and revealed to the heart by his Spirit But what is this to prove that a professed subjection to the teaching of Christ must justify us as well as Faith and yet methinks he that teacheth That the Covenant of Grace is written in all men's hearts and is a Secondary Law of Nature teaching men that God will forgive them that serve him sincerely though they know not that it was to be brought about by the Mediatour should not make it necessary to Justification to believe That Christ in Person preached the Gospel We have here Scriptures multiplied to prove that Christ hath power to forgive sins which is an Act of a King Mat. 9.6 ch 11. v. 27 28. ch 28. v. 19 20 c. which we grant he hath Ministerially viz. To declare the Promise of Forgiveness and to pronounce Pardon For he received this Power of the Father It followeth therefore that we must trust in him to declare and pronounce us forgiven but it is for his own Righteousness not for our Obedience Argument 5. It is a necessary condition of our being baptized for the Remission of Sins p. 27. that we profess a Belief in more than Christ's Humiliation and Merits Ergò More is a necessary condition of our actual Remission Mat. 28.19 20. 1 Pet. 3.21 Act. 8.37 1st Answ Here is continually ignoratio Elenchi We do not say that Christ's Humiliation and Merits are the only object of justifying Faith excluding his Person or any of his Offices but that Faith as justifying doth trust only in the promise of Reconciliation through the Merit of Christ but that it doth also in subsequent distinct Acts trust in the Promises of Illumination and Sanctification and in Christ himself to work these in us as a Prophet and King and to obtain them for us by his Priestly Intercession but all by virtue of his Merit and satisfaction which as it is the foundation of the other Offices of Christ so Faith always respects it as the foundation of all other Blessings to be hoped for 2ly 2ly I deny that any thing is necessary to Baptism for remission of sins more than a trust in Christ or the promise of Reconciliaon through his Bloud Baptism is as Circumcision was a Seal of the righteousness of Faith Rom. 4.11 i. e. that we shall be forgiven through believing It is God's Seal to his Covenant or Promise which men are supposed to have a right to before they are baptized and so before they can promise obedience Believing in the whole Trinity and then believing Christ to be the Son of God proveth nothing but that the remission which Baptism sealeth is to be expected from the true God in opposition to the Heathen and Jewish false Gods or false Notions of God viz. That we are to trust in the Father to justify us through the Bloud of his Son who will bring us to eternal life by the Operation of his Spirit and that Jesus of Nazareth is this Son of God so to be trusted in Mat. 28.20 Men are first to be baptised being instructed in the Doctrine of Christ afterwards taught all his Commandments and thus the Apostles practised preaching through Christ the remission of sins and then baptising them that believe Acts 10. Acts 13. If a Promise of Obedience be the condition of Baptism then Infants are not to be baptised 1 Pet. 3.21 only sheweth that Baptism as an outward Sign will not profit without reallity in the heart in believing or trusting in Christ which will produce obedience The Covenants of Obedience which the Church annexed to Baptism are not annexed to it as conditions of obtaining Remission of Sins but as conditions of men's Admission into the Fellowship of the Church and those as evidences of the reality of their Faith in Christ Argument 6. The Apostles of Christ themselves before his death p. 28. were justifyed by believing in him as the Son of God and the Teacher and King of the Church yea perhaps without believing at all in his Death and Ransom thereby Ergò Answ If believing here mean as it ought the Apostles acknowledging Christ to be the Son of God King and Teacher of his Church and their giving themselves to obey him then I deny the Antecedent they were not hereby justifyed but by their trust in the Promises of Pardon and Reconciliation through the Messias whom they now knew to be Jesus Christ though they knew not the particular way how he was to reconcile them to God They were justifyed as Abraham and David and all the former Saints were and their Love and Obedience to Christ so far as they understood him was an effect of their Faith All the Proof is The Apostles were justified and they acknowledged loved obeyed Christ as King and Prophet and understood not that he was to die for them therefore this justifyed them Which is no Consequent Argument 7. The Satisfaction and Merits of Christ are not the only objects of the Sanctifying and Saving Acts of Faith p. 30. therefore not of Justifying 1st Answ Faith looketh only to the Satisfaction of Christ or rather to the Promise founded on that merit as the procuring cause for Sanctification and Perseverance viz. That as perfect Justification so perfect Sanctification is purchased for us by Christ But the Sanctifying Act must respect Christ's following applicatory Acts p. 31. and not the purchase of Sanctification only so the justifying act must respect Christ's following collation or application and not only his purchase of Justification Answ 1 This still changeth the Question which is Whether Faith in Christ as Prophet Priest and King i. e. Obedience as well as trust
because we fulfil or obey the Command of believing in Christ Against this I thus argue 1. If Faith justify as a fulfilling the command of believing then the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere Faith it self is our Righteousness and Christ's Righteousness hath only procur'd a Covenant of Faith by fulfilling whereof we should be justifyed as we should have been by fulfilling the Law of Works For in this Opinion Faith justifyeth as Obedience to the Command of believing and Obedience cannot be the Medium of applying Christ's Obedience for our Righteousness but is it self a righteousness according to the Law that requires it So then Faith must be our Righteousness now as perfect Obedience was under the Law and must justify as the Work of the Gospel 2ly Faith is the unfittest of all Graces to be the condition of life because it is only a trust in Free-Mercy and carries with it an acknowledgement of our unworthiness and nothingness and so bringeth nothing to God but a bare object of Mercy and Compassion All other graces bring some positive Honour to God together with a denyal of our selves and our inordinate desires to the Creatures but Faith bringeth nothing but a confession of Misery with a desire and hope of Mercy therefore is unfit to be our Righteousness and to come into the room of Perfect Obedience 3ly If Faith justify as a condition then Man hath a natural power to believe in Christ how else can Faith be required of him as a new condition of life after he had failed of life by the first condition of Obedience The Gospel by this Doctrine is a Law of Faith but a proper Law doth suppose power to obey in the subjects of it Quest Obj. Quest 9. Vid. Pelt Art 13. Paragr 2. This Arminius confesseth Deum non posse ullo modo fidem in Jesum Christum postulare ab homine lapso quam ex se habere non potest nisi aut dederit aut dare paratus sit gratiam sufficientem quâ credere possit si velit i. e. God cannot by any means require Fallen Man to believe which of himself he cannot do unless he hath given him or will be ready to give grace sufficient to believe if he will 4ly If Faith be the gift of special grace as is acknowledged by these I now deal with how can it be required of all that hear the Gospel seeing they have neither power of their own to believe nor a promise that Faith shall be given them If it be said that Faith is promised I ask is it promised on some other condition or absolutely If upon condition then we shall have conditions in infinitum unless we stop in something that is in Man's Power to do Ibid. p. 55. as Amyraldus well observeth Fides impetrata fuit non ut offeretur sub acceptandi conditione sed ut ipsa illa conditio esset per quam salus recipitur alioqui res abiret in infinitum nec ullus unquam esset terminus conditionum impetrandarum If absolutely either to all that hear the Gospel and so all should believe or to some only but no such promise can be produc'd that when the Gospel is preach'd to a people such and such shall have Faith given them But if it be said the Promise of Life in Christ is declared to all and God persuadeth whom he pleaseth to trust in it Is it not then better to say that Faith is only an instrument whereby God inableth Men to lay hold of the Promise â—o Justification than to offer violence to the nature of all proper Laws and the conditions of them by making Faith the condition required by a proper Law which Man hath not â—ower to perform nor is sure to have it given when he needeth it and I suppose no instance can be given of any such Law either Human or Divine that requireth a condition out of the power or beyond the ability of the subject before the Law was made and doth not certainly provide that ability for him any other way The Second Opinion is of those that affirm Obedience to be included in Faith and so Faith and Obedience to be the condition of life i. e. that we are required sincerely to believe and obey the Gospel Commands Histories and Promises to our lives end and for so doing we shall be justified and saved Faith in this Opinion is not an immediate trust in the Promise of life through Christ but a general belief of the truth of the Histories and Promises of the Gospel encouraging to obey the Precepts of it yea though there be 〈◊〉 particular persuasion that this man in particular shall be saved if he obey the Gospel 〈◊〉 yet this is not proper trust or affiance but a more practical assent to the general Promises and Doctrine of the Gospel a trust upon an uncertain condition is no more a truâ— and proper trust than a proposition depending on a future contingency is a proper oâ— certain proposition or hath determinate truth or falshood This is the Doctrine 〈◊〉 the Remonstrants as hath been shewed Chapâ— 5. We may also observe That though thâ— Opinion be commonly exprest by believing in or receiving Christ as our King and Prophet as well as Priest yet in truth it maketh Faith or the condition of the Gospel tâ— respect Christ only as a King immediately and as a Prophet and Priest accidentally and remotely For to prescribe Laws and Conditions of Life whereby men must be judged saved or condemned and then to judge them by those Laws and either justifie or condemn them for their obedience or disobedience to them are all Kingly Acts or Exercises of Kingly Power and these only are immediately respected by this Faith which is nothing else but obeying what Christ hath commanded upon belief of the truth of what he hath declared and promised to that Obedience and so is that for which men shall be judicially justified It is true Christ as a Prophet doth explain and teach his own Law but this is accidental to a Legislator and men must obey the teaching of Christ but obedience as such is not because he teacheth but because he that teacheth is also the Law maker and hath authority to command obedience Therefore Faith as obedience and so justifying doth not properly respect Christ as a Prophet nor doth it eye him as a Priest being not a trust in his satisfaction and Righteousness to be saved by it which was the main Exercise of his Priestly Office but an obedience to the New Law which Christ had made as a King and only had purchased as a Priest leave of the Father to make such a Law and that those that obeyed it should be saved The Priesthood therefore of Christ is but remotely respected in believing as the foundation of his Law and Promises annexed to it This Mr. Baxter confesseth in effect 1 Disput of Just P. 25. when he saith Christ's Merit is the remote moral cause of our