THE Righteousness of God Revealed in the GOSPEL OR An IMPARTIAL ENQUIRY into the Genuine Doctrine of St. PAVL In the Great but much Controverted ARTICLE of JUSTIFICATION By Mr. JOHN HUMFREY Of making Books there is no End and much Study is a Weariness to the Flesh Let us hear the Conclusion of the Matter Fear God and keep his Commandments for this is the whole of Man Ec. 12.13 14. LONDON Printed for T. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside 1697. TO THE READER HAVING seriously read this Treatise concerning the Justification of a Sinner I sound so clear and distinct an Account given of it that as it gave me no small Satisfaction so I could not but think it worthy to be perused by others For though the Learned Author departs in some things from the common Opinion yet he doth it so modestly that candid Persons though contrary minded will not blame him for it And his Reasons are such that it is possible they may be convinced by them and perswaded to embrace his Explication of this weighty Doctrine However his Drift and Intention is so evidently Holy viz. to prevent Mens falling into the most dangerous Errors that he may hope for their Pardon who think him not to be altogether in the Right himself For as to the main Business no Man more strenuously asserts the Doctrine of our Church of Justification by Faith only accorto the Explication which is made of it in our Homilies in the Second Part of the Sermon of Salvation in these Words This Saying That we be justified by Faith only freely and without Works is spoken for to take away clearly all Merit of our Works as being unable to deserve our Justification at God's Hands And thereby most plainly to express the Weakness of Man and the Goodness of God the great Infirmity of our selves and the Might and Power of God the Imperfectness of our own Works and the most abundant Grace of our Saviour Christ and therefore wholy to ascribe the Merit and deserving of our Justification unto Christ only and his most pretious Blood-shedding But although this Doctrine be never so true as it there follows that we be justified freely without all Merit of our own Good Works as St. Paul doth express it and freely by this lively and perfect Faith in Christ only as the ancient Authors use to speak it yet this true Doctrine must be also truly understood and most plainly declared lest carnal Men should take unjustly occasion thereby to live carnally after the appetite and will of the World the Flesh and the Devil Now this being the very Scope of this Author to declare the right Vnderstanding of this Doctrine so plainly that no Man may thereby take any Occasion of Carnal Liberty he hopes his Endeavour will be acceptable to all those that love the Lord Jesus in Sincerity Amen Nov. 24. 1696. SY ELIENS Worcester Apr. 7. 1697. SIR THE Papers you were pleased to send me I have carefully perused and I am not without Hopes that through the Blessing of God they may allay those unreasonable Heats which have made so great a Noise about the Point of Justification and yet we are told that they all agree in the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction and the Covenant of Grace as founded upon it But we find by too common Experience that it is possible for Men upon their own Mistakes to grow as warm in this Matter as if they were disputing with the Jews as St. Paul did in his Epistle to the Romans But if such Persons would lay aside Prejudices and Impartially consider the State of the Case at that Time they would far better understand this Controversy and not think so hardly of their Brethren For nothing can be plainer to me than that St. Paul opposes that which he calls The Righteousness of God by Faith Rom. 1.17.3.21.10.3 to their own Righteousness which was by the Law And which made the Reward not of Grace but of Debt And Faith is taken by him as a Term opposite to the Law and importing the Grace of the Gospel Therefore it is of Faith that it might be of Grace Phil. 3.5 So that Justification by Faith is in other Words being justified by the Grace of the Gospel Rom. 3.27 28.4.15 manifested by the Doctrine of Christ and procured by his Sufferings which are granted both by them and us to be the only meritorious Cause of our Justification The remaining Dispute then can only be concerning those Terms on which we may be made Partakers of this Grace of the Gospel which is communicated to Mankind as the Effect of Christ's Satisfaction Which is very different from that which St. Paul managed against all such as set up their own Works whether according to the Law of Nature or of Moses against the Gospel of Christ and thought there was no necessity of any such Propitiation by Christ as St. Paul asserted in order to the Remission of Sins and the Favour of God For the Jews believed that the Righteousness of the Law as it was performed by them was sufficient in order to their Acceptance with God and that there was such a Proportion between their Works and the Favour of God as made it a Debt of Justice Which Opinion remains among them to this Day as appears by this Saying of Manasseh Ben-Israel Hinc meritis Gratiam Dei acquiri non est Dubitandam By which it seems that the Jews have not alter'd their Opinions since the Apostles Days but all that understand Christianity aright do agree that there is no other meritorious Cause of our Acceptance with God but the Propitiation which Christ hath made Colos 1.14 In whom we have Redemption through his Blood even the Forgiveness of Sins Titus 3.5 6. And not by Works of Righteousness which we have done but according to his Mercy he saved us that being justified by his Grace we should be made Heirs according to the Hope of Eternal Life But here comes the material Question to be resolved How we come to receive the Benefits of Christs Sufferings To answer this Distinctly we must consider them Two Ways 1. As they respect Mankind or those in General for whom Christ died 2. As they belong to Particular Persons The former are those Benefits which result from God's Acceptance of Christ's Sacrifice on behalf of Mankind which the Apostle calls God's being in Christ 2 〈◊〉 5.19 reconciling the World to himself not imputing their Trespasses unto them If this be meant of actual Pardon then all the Sins of the World are not imputed upon Christ's Death without any Act on their Parts and so the Ministry of Reconciliation would be to no purpose which the Apostle immediately adds was committed to them To what End if the Sins of the World were already forgiven But the Apostle saith v. 20. That it was to perswade Men to be reconciled to God i. e. to believe and repent and
the Form of that Imputation but of Justification passively taken I add at last upon the Account of Christ's Merits or through Christ or for Christ's sake because this Faith of ours or Evangelick Righteousness hath so many Defects in the best of Christians that if through the Sacrifice of Christ they were not pardoned and through his Merits that imperfect Duty which is done accepted it could not be imputed to us for Righteousness And I do more especially signifie thereby that Christ's Righteousness which cannot be imputed to us as the Formal Cause of our Justification is and must be very carefully brought to our Account and granted to be imputed as the Meritorious Cause of that Acceptation And in making it the Meritorious I have learn'd of Mr. Baxter to allow it to be the Material also which he says is nothing else but to be the Matter of that Merit because I make our Faith the Formal in our Justification After this I distinguish between this pardoning and bearing with the Defects of our Faith Repentance New Obedience which are the Conditions of the Gospel Covenant and so our Gospel Righteousness or that which is imputed for Righteousness and that General or Total Pardon which the Covenant promises and becomes Absolute upon performing the Condition The one of these is that very Grace or Act of Grace itself as goes into that Act of Imputation or Act that imputes our Faith for Righteousness when the other I say still is the Effect or Benefit following Justification Justification being thus defined by God's imputing a Man's Faith to him for Righteousness it may be understood what Mr. Baxter still tell us that Justification is the making us righteous as well as the accounting us righteous and dealing with us as righteous I have been shy hitherto of admitting the first of these because of the Papists but I will now distinguish There is a making a Man just or righteous by Infusion or by Imputation Gods making a Man just by Infusion is Regeneration which the Papists hold and we distinguish from Justification I suppose Mr. Baxter once intended no other Those that will have Justification nothing but Forgiveness do readily grant this that Justification makes one just for when Sin is forgiven so that there is not the Guilt of any Omission or Commission imputed to a Person he is made Righteous by Non-imputation But I am for neither of these Justification is not making a Man righteous by Infusion nor by Non imputation but by Imputation God imputing our Faith to us for Righteousness Per formalem Justificationis causam justi constituimur Our Faith and Evangelick Obedience is imperfect and sinful and we are unrighteous in the Eye of the Law for all that but God in his judging us according to the Law of Grace does allow of that for Christ's sake instead of all which the Law requires to our Justification By this may that Expression of the Apostle that God justifies the Ungodly be rightly understood Not in the Sence or either of the former that take it only in Sensu diviso so that he who before his Justification was ungodly is no longer so after but In sensu composito Our Faith I say or Evangelical Obedience in regard to the Law or in regard to those Works that are required by the Law to our Justification are no Righteousness no Righteousness which in its own Nature would justifie us but God constitutes it such by the Law of the Gospel and according to that Law imputes it to us for Righteousness A Man believes Let us suppose that Sound Faith The Spirit must have been given to work it in him Where the Spirit is given to work inherent Grace in a Person he is Regenerate But this Regeneration is not Justification For suppose a Regenerate Man should live all his Life as righteously as he is able yet if God should deal with him according to the Law of Works he is still ungodly in that regard and he could not be justified and God's dealing with him otherwise according to his Law of Grace and accounting or adjudging him righteous by that Law notwithstanding all his Failings for Christ's sake is this imputing Faith to him for Righteousness which is the Formal Reason of Justification I must take leave to rake this again a little over for I see some need and I must confess Mr. Baxter hath perplexed me often as to this particular In some of his Books he speaks of Justification making us just by Pardon which freeing us from the Guilt of all Sin Omission and Commission does make us he accounts righteous as we can be made In others he seems to understand with Augustine that Justification makes us just by Grace inherent A Man must believe and repent before he is justified He cannot do that without God's Grace God does therefore first make him righteous by this inherent Grace before he accounts him just or deals with him as such Mr. Baxter was induced to this I think by the Judicious Le Blanc who apprehends that there are three or four places for which he quotes some of our chief Protestants that make Justification the same with Sanctification Unto which Texts I should choose rather to give Answer according to others than to consent to this because it comes so near the Papists as to leave us almost no difference from them I will therefore advance here a Distinction to the same purpose as but now which among the many Mr. Baxter hath he yet has not and it is this There is a threefold making a Man just By Conversion or Regeneration and this is Austine's and the Papists Justification By Pardon and this is Mr. Wotton's Justification Or by the Righteousness of God which I made the Subject of these Sheets as something between Protestant and Papist and this is God's imputing our Faith for Righteousness which is my Justification and I will call it mine because I take it to be the Scriptures where it is expresly delivered as cannot be gainsaid The Papists Opinion to make things clear is that the Grace of God infused is the Formal Righteousness that justifies us or makes us just in God's sight according to the Law of Works Justitia Habitualis à Deo infusa satis est ut homo illa indutus possit in Divino judicio sisti vere justus haberi In this Sence the Protestants lay down this contrary Position that a Sinner is justified not by any Formal Righteousness in himself but by the Mercy of God through the Satisfaction of Christ. The Protestants I own here against the Papist according to the Papists Sence Our Faith or Evangelick Righteousness or inherent Grace I must say this over is imperfect and cannot be our Formal Righteousness according to the Law it is no Conformity to the Law of Works and they of Trent thought of no other but our imperfect Faith Repentance New Obedience is a Conformity to that which God hath made the Condition
Son that an Evangelical only may be accepted from Man A perfect one offered for us to God that our inchoate and imperfect one may be imputed to us for Righteousness through him and that is to make it serve the turn as that a perfect one would have done if we could have performed it Faith is really says Mr. Baxter the Condition of the Covenant of Grace which who so performeth he is righteous against the Charge of Non-performance of that Condition And supposing Christ's Merits and our Redemption by him this Gospel Righteousness is all that is required of us on our parts instead of all that perfect Obedience which the Law of Innocency required Let Mr. Williams therefore be here perswaded that there is no making Christ's Righteousness Ours any otherwise than in the Effects Yet let him believe too that Christ's Righteousness is made Ours in the Effects for the Effects are Ours And this is one Effect wherein it is made Ours that our Faith is imputed to us for Righteousness and also that consequently there needs no perfect one In se to be imputed because this imperfect one is instead of one or as good to us as one by that Imputation But if Christ's Righteousness was Legally Ours or imputed to us otherwise than in the Effects then could not our Faith be imputed to us for Righteousness that is instead of a perfect one because a perfect one were imputed to us already in Christ That there are two Righteousnesses concur in our Justification I am satisfied with Mr. Baxter but when he speaks of one to be subordinate to the other or subservient I cannot but hear Dr. Owen objecting That upon this Supposition Christ's Righteousness is made to serve Ours which else could not be imputed for Righteousness and therefore Ours is not subservient to That It is necessary therefore for us to keep in our Minds that our Righteousness and Christ's concur in our Justification but not on the same Account not under the reason of the same but diverse Causes and therefore if they be held Co-ordinate I see no hurt so long as they are not Co-equal the one being of infinite Value and giving Virtue to the other If as there are two Righteousnesses we conceive with Mr. Gibbons two Bars two Justifications that is that Christ's Righteousness is our Legal Righteousness and the Formal Cause of our Legal Justification and our Faith or Evangelick Righteousness the Formal Cause of our Evangelical Justification there were no question in making one Righteousness and Justification subordinate or subservient to the other Righteousness and Justification But if Mr. Williams when he says The very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to a Believer besides the Effects and Mr. Gibbons apprehended the Matter so we are to know Mr. Baxter must not apprehend with them who teaches that the Righteousness of Christ is not imputed In se and consequently is never to be allowed our Formal Righteousness in regard to the Law or Gospel It is something hard therefore for me to set this right only thus much we know and say with Mr. Baxter that Christ by his Obedience and Sufferings hath obtained a Grant of Impunity and Life for Sinners which he gives upon Terms we performing those Terms have a Right to those Benefits And so a Righteousness by that Right Hereof Christ's Righteousness being the meritorious procuring Cause his Righteousness is said to be Ours in regard to that Effect But there being other Effects of Christ's Righteousness besides these and this one more especially that Our Faith or the Evangelick Condition is upon that Account imputed for Righteousness which else were none how is it that our Evangelical Personal Righteousness can be said subordinate subservient to or required in order for the obtaining of the Righteousness of Christ when we have it already as to that Effect or in that Imputation It appears to me therefore not unfit to say here that the Righteousness of Christ and the Performance of the Evangelick Condition do concur to our Justification as to the Form of is which is the imputing to us that Evangelick Condition performed for Righteousness in a Co-ordination of diverse Causes as to that Effect but in a Subordination as to the Effects or Benefits both of Christ's Righteousness and Justification that follow The Fourth PART I Know in this Discourse of the Righteousness of God I do assert that which our Protestants hitherto have denied but scarce taken into their Thoughts to examine with the Bereans whether it be so or no to wit that Faith which is a living working Faith is our Formal Righteousness the reason of their denial having been much because they have confounded the Causa per quam and Propter quam and spoken of them as one as appears by Davenant before quoted and others their meaning in the Main being only that it is not our Righteousness but Christ's which is Id propter quod or Cujus merito we are justified unto which we all agree But it is time if they have understood otherwise to set the Matter right now By Faith says the Scripture again and again we are justified By is Id per quod the Causa formalis and I avert accordingly that it is Formaliter or Per modum Causae formalis that by Faith we are justified And why should I not stick to that the Scripture does so expresly warrant Davenant that here is quite opposite and holds that it is Christ's Righteousness which does Formaliter justifie us does yet acknowledge that we are in Scripture still denominated or accounted righteous by God in regard to our Evangelical Righteousness and never in regard to Christ's Now Justificari is Justum esse censeri Justi autem censemur according to him à justitia inchoata and yet Ab inchoata justitia non justificamur but à justitia Christi imputata Justi censemur says he à justitia inchoata Justificati dicimur à justitia perfectissima Christi imputata What is this but Apparent Conviction and Authoritative Tergiversasation There are two Reasons I find move our Protestants One is they are startled by a Word the Word Cause they will not have our Works nor Faith as a Work to justifie because that makes it a Cause of our Justification which to Avoid they will call it a Condition only Now a Condition being Cause sine qua non does make our Evangelick Righteousness as necessary so as we cannot be justified without it as the making it a Cause does And I find it no regret in my Mind to call it a Cause as well as a Condition for it is both only we must consider what Cause we make it If we made our Works or Faith as a Work to justifie us Sub genere Causae Efficientis it must be that which is Procatarctick and so the Meritorious Cause thereof which were to bring our Works or Faith into the Office of Christ's Righteousness and to derogate from Grace a thing we
in God's sight whatsoever they were in their own but that all have sinned and need that Messias they expected to make Reconciliation for their Sins that our Lord Jesus Christ being that true Messias by his Death answering their Legal Sacrifices hath born the Curse of the Law and so redeemed us from it That God's undeserved Goodness here in accepting of Sinners through this meritorious Sacrifice of his to Pardon and Life upon Condition which he gives the Grace also to perform presupposed and by me acknowledg'd it is another Righteousness and not that of the Jews Not that Paul calls his own as a Jew or not a Righteousness of Works Perfect Works but a Righteousness of Faith which makes the Reward only of Grace Of Faith that it may be of Grace a Righteousness of Faith but a true Faith working by Love which is an Internal Righteousness though imperfect and not as the External Works of the Jews was is that Righteousness of God in opposition to the Terms of the Law whereby we are justified and saved The Apostle I observe in one place speaking of Faith calls it the Obedience of Faith the same Word if you compare that Text Rom. 11.30 31. with the Margin signifying both to Believe and Obey And the People believed God and his Servant Moses I will conclude hereupon that Christ's Redemption in the immediate fruit thereof which is the Grant of a General Pardon through his Satisfaction to all the World on Condition being laid as a foundation To be justified by Faith is to be justified by performing that Condition To be justified by Faith Believe me at parting is in St. Paul's Mind to be justified by the Obedience of Faith in opposition to the task of the Law that is in St. Paul's Mind I say opposing the Jew by embracing the Christian Religion and living according to it Reader In p. 14. l. 34. correct the Word its and make it it with a Full Point after Other Errataes you may find at the end of the Book or mend your self OF THE Righteousness of GOD In the Matter of JUSTIFICATION The First PART BEcause upon the right Understanding of what the Apostle means by the Righteousness of God without the Law revealed now in the Gospel which indeed is dark and hardly understood I think by Papist or Protestant in their Disputes and much less by our Brethren in their present Differences does depend the Elucidation of the Great Article of Justification whereof I wrote some Sheets formerly called The Middle Way and more lately six Sheets called Pacification I have thought good yet to write a few more upon some further increase of my own Knowledge about this Subject And under this Title I beseech God for his Light and Truth and for Integrity of Heart and Pardon of my Weakness and Failings for my self and for the removal of Prejudice from and the establishing the Judgment of others who shall read what is written The Search after Truth is indeed hard Work it is digging in a Mine It was so to me in writing on this Point at first and it is still What I dig up is but rude it is the Ore as it comes naturally and that is best to edifie those that would improve it I am one whose Genius is averse from any Notion imposed and receives none without distrust that does not arise first out of my own Mind or that I see something new to cultivate it I do not only bear with others but do like them often better that they differ from me because I know I differ from the most Where the Mine though is Gold as the Scripture is there is no Dust of it but must be saved The least Dust of Gold is Gold and if any other who hath better Words and Parts will be at the pains to sift and order what I have digged I doubt not but they may make Gold of that which I have brought to be but the Dust of Gold When a Book is so Methodized as it does exhaust its Subject there is no coming after it But when there is only some Ore turn'd up something of Notion for others to refine a riper Wit will be encouraged to an Endeavour of bringing that Something to more perfection It is so with my Middle-Way Books I am content to be but the Digger I expect some others should be the Refiners of what I have digged The Trent Doctrine which is the perfect papists I must confess is lead them bâ— St. Austine They say Justification is the making a Man just Ex impio Christianum by Infusion of Grace inherent or Charity Being justified freely by his Grace Augustine being immersed in his Dispute with Pelagius could think of Grace in no Sence but this and by Freely Gratis justified he understood only that Works preparatory did not merit this infusion which the Trent-Doctors also say after him The Efficient Cause quae efficit is the Spirit the Instrumental Cause qua efficitur Baptism the Meritorious Cause propter quam Christ's Death the Formal Cause per quam of Justification is this Grace infused Gratia Habitualis Habitual Righteousness making the Man before ungodly now righteous in God's sight This habitual Righteousness then being infused by Baptism they say does abolish Sin so that there remains in the Baptized after the Opus Operatum nothing that is Peccatum but Fomes Peccati only and upon that Account is perfect so by the Law justifies and the Works proceeding from it meritorious of Salvation This is their Opinion and they fall foul on us for holding Justification by Pardon only or by Christ without inherent Grace as if Good Works were laid aside by us altogether Our Protestants therefore renouncing this Charge do grant an habitual Righteousness or Grace infused as necessary in the justified Person but deny this Righteousness to be that which justifies him they deny Justification to be Regeneration and distinguish these as two things It is not this inherent Righteousness say they that can be opposed between the Wrath of God and our Conscience of Sin to be the Cause Propter quam we are not condemned No there is a Righteousness they add without us that is the Righteousness of Christ performed for us and by our Faith made ours that we rely upon to do this for us Our inherent Grace is inchoate imperfect and cannot standing in Judgment before God This being now partly well on both sides there is a Middle Way appears which we must take between them It is true against the Papists that there is no such Righteousness inherent though infused by the Holy Spirit as does abolish Sin and make us so just that we can oppose it to Gods Wrath so as to render him appeased with the Sinner or that the Conscience can rest on it as that Proper quod he is forgiven or saved It is true likewise against the common Protestant that there is not any Righteousness without us that can be made ours so as we
to be Pardon because the Formal Righteousness of our Justification which is the Righteousness of Faith only imputed to us for Righteousness is not a Righteousness that hath offended in nothing and obeyed in every thing as Mr. Truman describes Pardon but is an inchoate imperfect Righteousness that hath Failings covered with Christ's Satisfaction and its Work done I may say still accepted only through his Merit so that the more acute this Man is and the further he does go the more he is out and must be so long as he hath not once the Sence upon his Mind through his whole Book called The Great Propitiation nor in his other two of the Righteousness of God which the Apostle himself gives us as the Handle and the only Handle to understand his Doctrine of Justification by This one thing yet is to be noted that these worthy Men that define Justification by Pardon only and say it is impossible that a Sinner can be justified or made and accounted righteous any otherwise do yet plead for a Personal Evangelical Righteousness as necessary to Justification as much or more than others Witness Sir Charles Wolesley This now to me is a Contradiction unless it be understood à parte post only For if Pardon only can make a Sinner righteous how can there be any Personal Righteousness preceding it The Matter is thus Before a Man believes and repents he is not pardoned or made righteous by Pardon that is certain When a Man performs the Evangelick Condition it is the Evangelick Law or God by it as his Instrument makes him or constitutes him righteous and being thereby so made God must account him so which is all one with imputing that Condition performed for Righteousness or justifying him This Constitutive Justification then proceeding in Order of Nature though not in Time Pardon and Life do follow as the Fruit or Benefits of it Note here that when the Evangelick Law does constitute the Performer of the Condition righteous it is righteous quoad hoc only for he is ungodly that is Not righteous still as I say before in regard to the Law but righteous as not guilty of the Accusation of his Non-performance of the Condition of the Gospel So that after this Righteousness Quoad hoc a Universal Righteousness of Not Guilty of any Omission or Commission that brings a Man into a State as if he had offended in nothing and fulfilled the Law in every thing as Mr. Truman describes Pardon does manifestly appear to be a farther Benefit or Blessing than Justification strictly taken What may be understood by it largely taken may be considered hereafter before I have done The Third PART BEfore I come to any Close of my Discourse there is a matter of Four Things to be proposed whether by way of Question or Objection it is indifferent as necessary for the Satisfaction of such as have the Reason Candour and Christian Humility to seek it The First is this The Scripture and those therefore that duly preach it does call upon all Men to believe and repent in order to their Justification and Salvation and when Faith and Repentance are required as Conditions of being justified how can that which is pre-requisite as a Condition be made or become the Form Formal Cause or Formal Reason of Justification This I put first because I believe here that nothing almost that a Scholar who hath got Aristotelian Terms in his Head putting his Physical Constructions on Divinity Points is like to be more gravell'd at than at this But it is nothing let Terms or Words be once look'd through for it is this is the very thing I affirm and stand upon that what God hath made the Condition of his Covenant and the Blessings thereof and so of our Justification before it is performed when perform'd does become the Formal Righteousness that justifies us God does by that Act of Imputation Instrumentally done by his Word make our Faith which is not in itself a Righteousness to become our Righteousness and as it becomes a Righteousness it is made the Formal Reason of our Justification There is the Carpenter's Work the Bricklayer's Work the Smith's Work goes to the Building a House There must be therefore Timber Bricks and Iron prepared and the preparing these are Conditions of the Building or Materials before but when the House is built they all put together are the House it self and as a House the Formal Cause Formal Reason or Form of it A Second Thing to be proposed is this Our Divines we know do ordinarily bring together Remission of Sin and the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness into the Matter of our justification and when the Assembly have given us a Definition comprizing the same Things I do in mine why should I offer another Unto this I will make that Answer as ought to content any honest Man that would have but such a one as he would be allowed himself to give and I say that I do readily give my Suffrage to the Assembly's Catechism to be learned and used above any I know and am not concern'd though a Learner of it be not so accurate in his Understanding as to see any Difference between my Definition and theirs when what is in mine is in theirs and what in theirs is in mine I am perswaded that a believed grosser Knowledge of the Principles of Religion is better for ordinary People than that which is more exact and I receive all that is in their Definition only with liberty of Explication In Justification I acknowledge a Forgiveness and an Imputation of Christ's Obedience but I do not acknowledge either as our Formal Righteousness I say Forgiveness is a Benefit we receive by it but it is not the Formal Reason of it and I acknowledge Christ's Righteousness imputed Sub genere causae efficientis per modum meriti and so received by Faith not in itself but in the Merit of it only And I give Notice that he who thinking more does say that Christ's Righteousness In fe is made ours Legally tho' Physically and Morally he disowns it that Man must make it to justifie us Sub ratione causae formalis when perhaps he does not know it which is an unadvised Position I look upon as that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of our former great Divines which gave the Rise to Antimonianism A Third Thing to be proposed is Our Protestants have their Mouths full of Christ's Righteousness imputed when the Scripture hath no such Expression and what hath not Authority from Scripture may be again refused Eadem facilitate says Hierom as it hath been received It is sit therefore this be a little examin'd into and there may be two Questions ask'd The one What is there in the thing at bottom as to the reality and truth of it The other And what then shall we say to it For the First That which is in reality in this Matter The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness is that Christ by the
of it which I have been careful to keep to in my last Sheets Nay tho' I say farther that when the Satisfaction of another is imputed to the Justification of a Man the Trespasses of that other after a sort must be said imputed to him and yet neither is that Satisfaction Formaliter made his that is justified nor that Trespass Formaliter made his that makes the Satisfaction but Effective or Meritorie only in the one's bearing the Punishment and the other obtaining the Benefit of it This being understood when our Divines do account that we are justified by Christ's Satisfaction so as to be made just by it and accordingly to be made righteous by the Righteousness of another which is being made just by Imputation Such Words I count ought to be a little changed and the Sence verified It should not be said by but through Christ's Satisfaction through his Righteousness through the Imputation of it and then that Truth which is in it is this that through Christ's Satisfaction or Righteousness or Imputation of it as the Meritorious Cause which we know is an external Cause moving the Efficient to act we are indeed justified but by no means must we understand them so as that it is the Formal Cause of our Justification But the truth is here that our former Polemical Divines even the chief in opposition to a Man's being justified by any Works Merits or Righteousness of his own maintain'd against the Papists that it is by Christ's Righteousness Sub genere causae formalis that we are justified or that Christ's Righteousness is so made ours by Faith as to be the Formal Reason of our Justification Our excellent Dr. Davenant undertook this Task whosoever in those times did not but where the Scripture is for us we are to trust no Mortal against it The Question as he proposes it is Quae qualis illa justitia sit quae coram Deo hominem justificat hoc est cujus intuitu ipse Deus hominem à peccato poena peccati liberum pronunciet atque favore suo vita aeterna dignum reputet Let us define the Thing by its Form and speak this Hoc est in short Cujus intuitu hominem credentem justum reputat Now Cujus intuitu all know is all one with Id propter quod that is the Meritorious Cause only when he would maintain that Christ's Righteousness is the Causa formalis that is Causa per quam we are justified He therefore being put to it is forced to affirm thus In Justificatione talis formalis causa ponenda est quae simul meritoria esse possit His Reason for it is out of the same Quiver that is more Words for the bearing out an absurd Affirmation by putting some Face upon it I am sufficiently assured he hath shot beyond the Mark and I will not go after his Arrow By the way there are two places I remember where we are said to be justified by Christ's Blood but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and should be translated through his Blood and must be interpreted no otherwise than Cujus intuitu that is as the Meritorious Cause I say not as by Faith in his Blood which is the Formal Cause of our Justification When we speak therefore and allow our Divines to speak of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness as they ordinarily do we must understand them so as never to make our selves the Proprietors of that righteousness Legally or any way else impossible or that Faith so makes it ours as to be our Formal Righteousness which when we see such great Divines have held no wonder if the lesser Fry do swallow but that it is the Cause for which as I have said before not the Cause by which we are justified And here I will give Mr. Williams Notice that this is the Reason why the very Righteousness of Christ cannot be imputed to us but in the Effects because I say that if it were imputed to us In se it must according to our opposite Brethren be then our Formal Righteousness which he and I are to deny I must confess I think Mr. Williams might not have so fully digested this before as likewise myself as he may now and that the Expression of his which I have exagitated in my Book with that which follows in his that Christ's Righteousness is pleadable by the Believer as if himself had done and suffered what Christ did as also To impute to one what is suffered by another is to esteem the one undertaken for in the Sufferings of the other and to deal with him as if himself had suffered are shot too high For if a Man had made Satisfaction himself or God did impute Christ's Satisfaction to him so as if himself had made it then were this his Formal Righteousness and there were no need of that of Faith this alone being that which must immediately justifie him If therefore there be such a thing to be expected ever from Mr. Williams as any Vestigia retrorsum I will be ready to look for the Prints thereof made in the Words I have quoted as well as his Brethren may in any others But the Difficulty concerning the Point of the Concurrence of Christ's Righteousness and Ours in the matter of Justification is not yet off our hands For there is a Sermon of Mr. Gibbons that Mr. Baxter often commended which I think fit to mention This Gentleman hath treated the Doctrine of Justification as I. Righteousness says he is a Conformity to the Law A Man is actually justified when he is constituted righteous The New Law runs thus He that believes shall not perish The Believer keeps or fulfils this Law Faith therefore is imputed to him for Righteousness The Law-Giver by his very making the Law constitutes him righteous and the Judge must pronounce him so The Gospel then justifies Qua lex Lata Faith justifies Vi Legis latae As the King's Stamp gives the Value to the Money I set this together and quote it for the clearness of it and my approbation to it Nevertheless he tells us also That it is Christ's Satisfaction in respect to the Law of Works that is our proper Legal Righteousness and I call it says he Our Righteousness because it becomes imputed to us upon believing These are Words that in appearance are Ambidextrous holding with the Hound and running with the Hare as the Proverb is unless we put an Understanding upon them which I am not sure that very ingenuous but young Man did As likewise such Words or Sence as Mr. Williams hath somewhere concerning this double Righteousness Christ's and Ours accounting the one the Principal and the other Subordinate to it Now if Mr. Gibbons or Mr. Williams hitherto should have conceived our Righteousness we call Evangelical to be Subordinate to Christ's which was His but not Our Legal Righteousness Sub ratione ejusdem causae they are Mired But when thus much is forelaid that Christ's Righteousness
does concur to our Justification only Sub genere sub ratione or Per modum causae efficientis Meritoriae and not Per modam causae formalis it is but understanding that the Meritorious Cause in our Justification it preferred before or valued above the Formal which without the Virtue of that were none by such Expressions and if any be in the Mire they may come out Mr. Gibbons for explaining himself supposes us as if we stood at a double Bar the Bar of the Law and the Bar of the Gospel At the one it is Ratione Objecti that Faith justifies At the other it justifies Formaliter As to the one Faith says he lays hold on Christ's Satisfaction which is our Legal Righteousness As to the other Faith itself is keeping Covenant understand Quoad faederis Conditionem or fulfilling the Gospel Very fine I must profess all if Faith indeed made Christ's Legal Righteousness to be Formaliter Ours as it is Formaliter our Evangelical itself which formerly our great Divines apprehended but were exceedingly out and wounded our Cause It cannot be that this Righteousness should any otherwise be ours than Per modum Meriti that is only in the Effects And in this Sence Non formaliter but Effective must that Expression be understood The Lord our Righteousness if by the Lord Christ personally be intended If not Hominis Justitia est Dei indulgentia does give the true and full Sence of it I must confess I am at a stand about this Gentleman 's two Bars That all Men who hear the Gospel shall be judged by it I hold for certain upon the Account if we had no more for it that Christ sent out his Apostles to declare to the World in his Name That He that believes shall be saved and He that believes not shall be damned The Believer is one freed from the Law and cannot be brought therefore to its Bar. He that believes shall not come into Judgment If we walk after the Spirit we are not under the Law There is no Condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus We are not under the Law but under Grace These are plain Texts as to the Believer and as for the Unbeliever we know he is condemned already and there needs no bringing him afresh to the same Bar. One Bar will serve both where the Grand Inquest will be this only whether or no we have performed the Condition of the Gospel They that have are acquitted they that have not are left under that Condemnation To wave this therefore any farther than it is of Concern let me recur to the Legal Righteonsness Mr. Gibbons speaks of and Mr. Williams accordingly which he counts we must have together with our Evangelical to justifie us and therefore I will shew that if he mean it in the common Sence and Sence of others that he is out and that he is in a mistake I will shew that those that speak thus according to the common Apprehensions of the Protestants that they are first out and then I will shew their Mistake and set them right That they are out I shew first By this Legal Righteousness what they understand we sufficiently know that is the Righteousness of Christ made theirs in a Legal Sence to wit though the Righteousness of one cannot become another's Naturally or Morally yet Legally the common Opinion is that Christ's Righteousness is every true Believers Here then let us distinguish of this Legal Righteousness in respect to the Preceptive or Retributive part of the Law As to the Preceptive part of it I do avouch with Mr. Baxter that no Man or Woman is or ever hath except Christ himself been justified by the Performance thereof either by himself or by another in his Civil Person as fully representing him For if we are reputed such says Mr. Baxter as have fulfilled the Law there is no room for Christ's Sufferings for Repentance for Faith in his Blood for Pardon or Prayer for it or for any Duty which supposeth Sin as Sacraments and other Ordinances and so the Gospel is subverted as he still tells us And as for the Retributive part of the Law I must say no less that if we are reputed in Christ to have born the Penalty or his bearing it be indeed our Legal Righteousness then must our Evangelical be made needless for when we are free from all Guilt both of Omission and Commission so that we are as righteous as we can be made already there is no more to be imposed or can be in order to our being justified or saved and so the Gospel is subverted also Not that Mr. Baxter or I deny the Righteousness of Christ as to the Retributive part of the Law to be imputed no nor that of his as to the Perceptive part seeing his Satisfaction consists in both but that neither are otherways imputed than as I say before Per modum meriti as to the Effects and to give it in Mr. Baxter's own Words Imputed so as that we have it in the relation of a Meritorious Cause to the End or Use which God accepts it for and hath assigned in the Gospel That they mistake and how they mistake to make it out and make it up I must shew next That Christ obeyed the Law and suffered the Penalty for us so as what he did and suffered was in our behalf in our stead room or place is by us all acknowledged What is done or suffered in another's stead we are then to understand is done or suffered to free the other from doing or suffering the same which else he should as I have stood upon it in my other Sheets Thus the Beast died instead of the Sacrificer of it Whereas then this Legal Righteousness which the common Opinion supposes must be Ours to justifie us was performed by Christ in our room or stead that we might not our selves perform it how manifestly are they of that Opinion mistaken in that Supposition Christ did perfectly fulfil the Precept of the Law that such a perfect fulfilling of it might not be required of us as the Condition of Life as by the Law it was Christ did undergo the Penalty that we might not our selves suffer it and be damned The Satisfaction then of Christ which contains both cannot In se be imputed to us or reputed as Our Satisfaction because then it must not be in our room or place that he satisfied nor God accounted that he did God does impute to us his Sufferings that we might not suffer and therefore does not look on us as having suffered He does impute to us his fulfilling the Law that we might not be put to it to fulfil it our selves and yet have the Reward as much as if we had where is Imputation still we see only Quoad fructus effectus and therefore looks not on us as if we had performed it Here is the Mercy of God and happy Mistake of these Men. A Legal Righteousness is imposed on his
utterly disclaim But when we make it the Formal Cause only of our Passive Justification we do nothing thereby but advance God's Grace and Christ's Merits as having obtained for us not only than God should require of us no other Condition but our Faith or this inchoate Righteousness unto Life but also that he should constitute by his Now Law this Condition performed to be our Righteousness in the room of that perfect one required by the Old So that as Adam if he had perfectly obeyed his Obedience had been his Formal Righteousness in regard to the Law so is this Ours in regard to the Gospel The other Reason then of their denial is the Supposition that both Protestants and Papists have gone upon to wit that the Law is the Rule of that Righteousness which they on both sides contend for as the Formal Reason of their Justification And upon this Account they both of them are out for the Papist on one side speaks up for inherent Grace and his Works done by it so as he would have them Meritorious and Perfect for the Papist pleads for Merit and Perfection but he can never bring them up to answer the Law seeing he must still pray Enter not into Judgment and forgive us our Trespasses and therefore the Protestant denies that our Faith or Works are any Formal Righteousness that can justifie us and I say the same in the Sence they understand one another for our inchoate Obedience cannot be so when the Law is made the Rule of it On the other side the Protestant pleads therefore for Christ's Righteousness which is a Righteousness indeed that answers the Rule they both make so but this Righteousness being without us though it be upon the Account thereof Id propter quod or Cujus merito we are justified the Papist says stiffly it can never be made Formally Ours so as to be Id per quod we are justified and I must say the same for Truth is Truth and Absurdity is Absurd whether on one side or the other The Supposition then the Ground on which they go being a Mistake it must be rectified Let us understand therefore here that there is a double Rule a Rule of Life and a Rule of Judgment there is Norma Officii and Norma Judicii as I have it in my Pacification and although the Law of Works be the Rule of Life or Duty and being the Law of Nature it must abide so for ever yet Jesus Christ having perfectly obeyed it in our stead for the fleeing us from it in regard to its Condition it is relaxed as I shew there through Grace and the Gospel made the Rule of Judgment and consequently of that Righteousness which is the Formal Cause of our Justification Christ's Obedience was perfect according to Law but it is not by the Law that God pronounces the Believer righteous The Law is not of Faith and Righteousness cometh not by the Law If it be by the Gospel then not by the Law God pronounces a Man righteous it is not by the Righteousness of Christ imputed which is a Righteousness according to the Law but by the Evangelick Condition performed which is a Righteousness accordingly accepted through the Merit and Satisfaction of Christ that the Believer is justified Inter Protestantes certum est fidem etiam vivam non esse justitiam illam per quam coram severo Dei Judicio stamus says Le Blanc This is true I have just now acknowledged but I wonder that this very considerate Man should never come to understand that that severe Judgmen of God he speaks of is the Judgment of God according to the Law and that we stand not at that Judgment I acknowledge again that at that Judgment our inchoate inherent Grace is not any Formal Righteousness or the Justitia per quam we can stand there But there is a Paternal Judgment of God according to the Gospel and at this Judgment our Faith is the Righteousness Per quam or Formal Righteousness by which we are justified If here you will conceive of two Bars you must not conceive of them as before so as if after you are justified upon a Personal Righteousness you must come to another to be justified by Christ but you must conceive of the Bar of the Law as erected first There was but two Persons ever brought to that Bar and they were Adam and Christ where the one was condemned and the other justified They were both Publick Persons and as we all were condemned in Adam so are we all freed from that Condemnation by Christ but upon the Terms of the Gospel We are then as it were already passed the Bar of the Law in Christs answering there in our Persons for us and God will never call him to any move Account so that what Charge or Accusation soever may be raised thence they are all Terrors only as those or Children going in the dark when the Charge alone we are concerned in is the Charge of Non-performance of the Gospel Condition I know our Divines are still ready to state the Question between us and the Papists thus What is that when the Conscience is â—said under the Sence of Sin that we can oppose against the Wrath of God and rest upon for our Peace It is our own Righteousness Works or Merits or is it the Satisfaction of Christ But this is partial and wide there is no Man but will answer streight to the Question and say Christ's Satisfaction It is that we all know that did or could appease God's Justice And this we all know too that we are so far from doing this our selves by our Works or Merits that Christ hath done it without our doing any thing at all towards it It was wholly of Free Grace and there can be no doubt or fear upon the Conscience in regard to that This is therefore not the Question but the Satisfaction of Christ and our Redemption by it presupposed and so a General Pardon proceding Justification already obtained which being Conditional the Question only is whether it be not by performing the Condition that we are justified to make that Pardon absolutely Ours or to have Christ's Righteousness or Satisfaction made so as to that Effect which can be ours no otherwise but Quoad fructus out effectus only This indeed is the Question between some of Ours and the Papists the more is the pity but the Question as to the terrified Christian himself can be only whether the Condition be performed If that be so the Danger is all over If you will ask further What we must rest upon and trust to here in this Case I say to the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ upon the Performance Tho' we trust not our Duty we must trust on God in Duty and I have no apprehensive fear about resting in Duty but this least we sit down short of Sincerity It is by the Performance through Christ's Satisfaction the Believer is justified There is yet