this Comfort here tho' none else in the World for this alone is worth a World that we may must ought to trust lean cast our selves upon the Satisfaction and Merit of Christ for pardoning all our Failings and accepting our poor Mite and if the Soul remains in doubt it must quiet itself upon him If with the Pharisee I justifie myself God may condemn me If I condemn myself with the Publican he may acquit me And what must I do in this Case Behold O Lord I am at thy Bar and I commit my Cause unto my Judge Thy Bar is a Bar or Throne of Grace I cast myself on thy Grace And the Lord send me a good Deliverance at the Great Day As for Actual Pardon and Life that follows Justification the Merit is to be attributed to that which procured Justification on that Condition There is nothing of Merit but Christ's throughout It is Christ's Satisfaction runs through all I must still say as the Meritorious Cause when Performance of the Condition becomes thereby the Formal Cause of our Justification I know how hardly this is like to be received by many when Dr. Owen will allow nothing of any Personal Righteousness or any Works Legal or Evangelical but excludes them all from our Justification supposing that if it be of Works any way it is not of Grace at all when it is therefore of Faith or upon the Evangelick Condition that it may be of Grace Dr. Owen is a Person whose Name I honour for his Worth Learning Comprehensive Parts and one in whom was more of a Gentleman as to his Deportment than in any Divine I knew ever among us Yet is he more Authorative sometimes in his Book than he needs which being liable to hurt the humbly Inquisitive I will speak the more positively in this matter that the Doctor is out as I believe and never came to the plain true knowledge of what Paul means by the Works he opposes to Faith in this Point of Justification Which Works are such as would justifie a Man in the Apostles Account if he had them but that no Man is justified by Works because he has them not This I am past doubt is Paul's meaning and in this particular the Learned and Honoured Sir Charles Wolesley before quoted is rather to be attended A Man says Sir Charles that has not a Legal Sinless Perfection is that Paul means by the Ungodly Rom. 4.5 In my first Papers I wrote I had this Sence of the place and I have it before and in my Pacification I say the like of that Text * For solving this Matter Austin and from him the Schools distinguish of Opera Naturae and Opera Gratiae We are not saved by Works or according to Works done in our own Strength but by Works done by Grace But is this the Apostle's meaning No I have shewn in my Book of Just that One Thing of Three wherein Austin was out and hath misled the Schools is this Notion of Grace By Grace he understands still this inherent Grace or Operation of God's Spirit in us when Paul understands it of that without his Favour or Condescension to us Not of Works but of Grace is all one as not of Desert but of Favour only Grace is Mercy without or contrary to Merit Now when the Papist receives the Solution mentioned the Protestants generally will have all Works tho of the Regenerate to be but Rags and Christ's Righteousness alone to save us But they are both out for Paul's meaning it plainer than they think Not by Works of Righteousness we have done The Righteousness which the Jew hath done is living according to the Law of Moses The Righteousness which the Gentile hath done is his living according to the Law of Nature There is neither one or the other that fulfil that Righteousness which answers God's Law so as it should be able to save him and therefore it is of Grace or Mercy that Any are saved Pacif. p. 29. Not by the Works of Righteousness we have done but according to his Mercy he saved us Which Words have put so many to the inventing Distinctions when the right understanding is to make none the meaning being only Not by the Works of Righteousness we have done because we have not done them and it must be of Mercy therefore and in another way we are saved or not at all See the Quotation above The Works then I have said there and here and must still say which Paul means are such as would justifie us such as would make the Reward of Debt if we had them that is perfect Works Such says the Judicious Le Blanc as the Law requires to Justification And as for that the Doctor hath in answer to this that it is a wild Imagination that the perfect Works of the Law will not justifie us but imperfect Works which answer not the Law will do so it does confirm what I judge of the Doctor 's Conceptions that certainly he never understood the Apostle as to this Matter who I say excludes not Works of the Law from Justification as if they would not justifie us if we had them but because none have them to be justified by them It is therefore the Righteousness of God the Righteousness of the Evangelick Condition that he in his Mercy through Christ's Merits hath instituted in the room of Works to justifie the Christian And as for the Doctor 's quoting Socinus saying this to prejudice the Reader against it I must needs say I like this excellent Doctor 's Judgment the meaner and seeing I took the Notion from Scripture and am sure I am no Socinian myself Socinus was a Man of Reason and it is to be lik'd the better for that It is a thing whether so proposed or not more worth the Thoughts of a serious Man how the Doctrine of Justification as formerly it hath been taught and is maintained by the Doctor can be made to lodge with the Doctrine of Sanctification or Regeneration in the same Scripture or be preached together in the same Gospel The Papists are so careful to have these agree that they make them one The Protestants are so careful to keep them asunder that they will not have any Works of ours not Faith itself as a Work or the Fruits of it Repentance and a Good Life to be brought into our Justification least by going to establish our own Righteousness we submit not to the Righteousness of God and perish Let the Works be wrought in us says the Doctor Of Just p. 524. if they be also wrought by us I fear their Introduction into our Justification doth include beasting This he adds is a dangerous Point even like to make us lose all the Benefit we might otherwise expect by the Grace of God I cannot but remember since I was young holy Mr. Shepherd's Book The Sincere Convert and do reflect sometimes on that Terror the Reading that and the like Books hath wrought in
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
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
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
of Life by his Law of Grace or the Gospel and is our Formal Righteousness according to that Law being made so by that Act of Imputation which may be attributed to God or his Law when he imputes it to us for Righteousness as I have had it already By the Evangelical Law this is our Righteousness we are made righteous that is not guilty of the Non-performance of the Condition according to Mr. Baxter To this purpose aforesaid I will note that when in that remarkable Text Rom. 3.30 Predestination Calling Justification and Glorification are linked without mentioning Sanctification we must suppose that intended either in Calling or Justification and I have always received it under Calling that is Effectual Calling or Conversion Now a Man is converted and he believes and repents but this being no Righteousness according to the Law there comes after Calling Justification and it is that makes this imperfect Believing Repenting New Obedience to become our Righteousness by Imputation God's imputing it to us for Righteousness making it by that Act Et Juris Judicis to serve us in the room of such a Righteousness as is perfect rewarding it for Christ's sake as he would the other The having Faith Repentance New Obedience is one thing the having it accepted for Righteousness is another The one is Regeneration or Sanctification the other Justification and without the one there cannot be the other Fides inquiunt justitia nostra formalis esse non potest Concedo upon his Opinion he must say so not I tho' in the Popish Sence I say Concedo too At potest à Deo justitiae loco haberi ut preater ipsam nihil amplius à nobis flagitet ad justitiam consequendum says Mr. Wotton As for this Righteousness of God now in his imputing to the Believer his Faith or the Performance of the Evangelick Condition for Righteousness we must not conceive as Dr. Owen objects that here is an Imputation only of that which is ours so that accounting it an imperfect Righteousness God cannot deal with us but only according to an imperfect one When he does certainly deal with us according to a perfect one and we understand so by this Imputation Dr. Owen who never gave the Matter its due Consideration not perhaps Mr. Baxter neither Philosophizes thus There is an Imputation to us of a thing that is Ours and that is judging it Ours and dealing with us accordingly Or of a thing which is not Ours and that is by a Donation of it on some just Ground and dealing with us according to it made Ours Of this he makes the Application that our Righteousness cannot but Christ's must be that which is imputed to our Justification But I will Philosophize otherwise and so may any that * When ever we read of Imputing or Accounting to a Man a thing that is good it is an Act of Grace and Law-acceptilation and signifies something which is not Truman's Endeavour p. 222. please As there is therefore an imputing to a Person that which is His or that which is not His So is there an imputing also to a Person that which is partly His and partly not His but that which in the Effect may become His too by the Imputation Such is the Case here but never sunk in the Doctor 's Mind There are two things in the matter I have said before from Luther Our Faith and God's Imputation Our Faith or the Evangelick Condition performed which is Ours and God's Imputation which brings with it in the Effect I say that which was not Ours that is the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ his Satisfaction for Pardoning the Failings and his Merit for accepting that which is done though imperfect to the accounting us righteous and dealing with us no otherwise than if we were perfect A Man that has not a legal sinless Perfection for that is meant by the Ungodly Rom. 4.5 his Faith is accounted for Righteousness that is his Faith shall avail him as much to all intents and stand him in as much stead as a perfect sinless Righteousness would do says Sir Charles Wolesley in his Book of Evangelical Justification This is most certain that there is no Grace vouchsafed to a Sinner from God in order to Life but upon the Account of Christ's Satisfaction and Merit against the Socinian When this exceeding Grace and Favour therefore that an imperfect Righteousness is accepted in the room of a perfect one as is intended in this express Scripture that says Our Faith is imputed for Righteousness the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ must be supposed as its Foundation And consequently they are imputed to our Faith for its Acceptation as we say they are imputed to us for Ours That Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us we assume without Scripture but this is express that Righteousness is imputed and that our Faith is imputed for Righteousness and it will be strange if any shall question an Imputation of Christ's Merit to our Duty when it is accepted and accepted only through him Our Dissenting Brethren in their Printed Agreement Dec. 1692. have these Words God looking on the Good Works of Believers in his Son is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere though accompanied with many Weaknesses and Imperfections I quote these Words not as rare but as the common Judgment to shew that an Imputation of Christ's Merit to our Duty is undeniable Here are the Believers Works and that is our imperfect inchoate Obedience and this accepted and it is accepted in Christ that must be through his Satisfaction and Merit and is rewarded too upon his Account What is there more in the accepting our Persons in Justification Our maimed Righteousness is accepted to Salvation as if it were perfect says one Dr. Owen cites for that it should be so Christ hath merited by his most perfect Righteousness When this unnamed Author says As if it were perfect he accounts it it is not so Legally or In se but Evangelically or quoad Effectum that is it stands us in the stead of a perfect one through the Merits of Christ And unto this saying of his whosoever he be does that Elder in the Revelations well accord who tells St. John that the Robes of the Saints which are their inherent Grace their Good Works or Holy Life are made white that is rewardable with Glory by their washing them in the Blood of the Lamb. We are accepted in the Beloved that is in Christ We are accepted in Christ no otherwise than our Duty is accepted that is as the Meritorious Cause of that Acceptance The Satisfaction and Merit of Christ is that upon the Account whereof God does justifie us But if Christ's Righteousness it self be imputed to us it is not Meritoriè upon the Account thereof but Formaliter that we are justified by it Before I yet quite leave Mr. Wotton there are two Texts most commonly urged by those that define Justification only by Remission
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