〈◊〉 are reputed or accepted as righteous for that Righteousness alone trusted iâ— by us upon the ground of God's own Premise of accepting us in Christ anâ— Christ's Intention of doing and suffâ—â—ring all he did for us alone to the â—â—tent that our sins should be taken awâ—â— and we are made Heirs of Eternal Lâ—â— thereby Our Opposites on the other side affâ—â—â— That Christ did not obey or suffer 〈◊〉 Penalty of the Law of Works for 〈◊〉 properly that we should be justified 〈◊〉 that Obedience or Death of his Bâ—â— that God imposed on him a certain â—â—culiar Law made up partly of the Mâ—ral Law and partly of some Speâ—â— Commands to him which he fulfillâ—â—â— as a Mediatour betwixt God and Mâ—â— God thereupon might justly and perhaps would give men as moderate 〈◊〉 easie a Law by fulfilling whereof theâ— should be saved the obedience wheâ—â— to should be their Righteousness thâ—â— which should give them right to Life Against this Opinion divers Learnâ— and Pious Men wrote in the form Generation As Mr. Caple in an Aâ—pendix to his Treatise of Temptations Mr. Anth. Burgess in his Second Part of Justification Mr. Lyford his Book against Errors Mr. Blake and reverend Mr. Norton of New-England Anno 1653 in Answer to one Mr. Pinchin who denyed the Imputation of Christ's Active and Passive Obedience â—o us or that it was performed for us â—s Obedience to the Moral Law But â—hat Christ was a Mediatorial Sacrifice for us much after the same notion that 〈◊〉 now vented of his fulfilling the Law â—f a Mediatour Which Book of Mr. Norton because it is not very common I will transcribe the Sum of it â—s it is reduced by himself into three Particulars in the Conclusion and the â—ather because it declareth the thoughts â—f the danger of this Opinion which maâ—y would persuade us differs but in words from the Orthodox and the Difference 〈◊〉 of no great consequence and that â—â—e do not rightly understand the meaning of their Authors for whom they â—ave so great reverence Like the Phyâ—â—cian who seeing in a dissected Body â—hat all the Nerves have their Original from the Brain said he should have believed it was so indeed if Aristotle 〈◊〉 not writ that they proceed from the Heaâ—â— Mr. Norton's words are Taking Heresie for a Fundamentâ—â— Error p. 267. i. e. such as whosoever â—â—â—veth and dieth in cannot be savedâ— The Dialogue containeth three Hâ—resies The first denying the Imputation of the Sin of the Elect unâ—â— Christ and his suffering the Punishment due thereto The second denying that Christ as God-man Mediator obeyed the Law and there with that he obeyed for us as ouâ— Surety The third denying the Imputation of Christ's Obedience unto Justification destroying the very Being of a Sinner's Righteousnessâ— by taking away the Obedience oâ— Christ unto the Law and Imputation which are the Matter and Form i. e. the essential Causes of Justification and placing a Sinner's Righteousness in a fictitious Atonement or Pardon of sin such as in effect manifestly doth not only deny it self to be the Effect of but denieth yea and defieth the very Being of the Mediatorial Obedience of Christ to the Law for us With him in this his apprehension concurred divers Ministers in New-England as appears by their Letter annexed to his Book which is subscribed John Cotton Rich. Mather Zech. Simmes John Willson William Thompson And having prefaced so much concerning the nature and weight of the Controversie I commend the Book to the serious consideration of the Reader and am Thine in the VVork of the Gospel J. TROUGHTON Lutherus Redivivus OR The Protestant Doctrine of Justification by Christ's Righteousness imputed to Believers Explained and Vindicated CHAP. I. The Nature of Justification explained and that it is not a meer forgiving of Sin THE Doctrine of Justification by Free Grace and the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us hath been so abundantly defended by our Protestant Writers of every Nation and every University professing the Reformed Religion that I need say little to confirm it and especially seeing I have met with nothing in our late Authors objected against it but what hath been frequently objected against it by the Papists before and as frequently answered by our Writers The chief Work is to discover the Artifice wherewith the New Doctrine of Conditional Justification is covered and made plausible whereas it is indeed the Old Popish and Arminian Doctrine of Justification by Works as I hope I have in some measure proved in the former Part. Yet that this Treatise may be compleat and that we may not seem only distruere aliena and not at all adstruere propria I shall endeavour briefly to explain the received Doctrine of Justification and imputed Righteousness And first of the Nature of Justification Our fore cited Authors and their Friends generally affirm That the Justification of a Sinner before God is nothing else but a full Pardon of all Sins both of Omission and Commission whereby all guilt and obligation to punishment being removed Man is restored ipso facto to his former State and to all those Priviledges which by Sin he forfeited This they maintain that they may the more effectually overthrow the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness supposing that if the bare Remission of Sin doth both acquit from Punishment and restore a Right to Life or Blessedness then there needeth no positive Righteousness to be imputed to intitle to life and to make us acceptable with God This is the main drift of Mr. Hotchkis his Book about Imputation of Righteousness Great Propi p. 110. c. and is largely prosecuted by Mr. Trueman not without many confident mistakes But this Opinion overthroweth their own Doctrine of Justification upon condition of our Obedience as well as ours of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness and more which I thus prove Meer Pardon of Sin is nothing else but a Discharge from the Process of the Law that a Man should not suffer the Penalties of it but enjoy quietly his former freedom and priviledges notwithstanding his Offences Now this Discharge requireth no Righteousness at all our own no more than Christs This Pardon makes a Man righteous in the Law they say i. e. The Law hath no more to do with him or to say against him he is as free from all condemnation as if he were innocent and had fulfilled the Law Hence it follows that a Man is justified without the intervening condition of his own Obedience If any positive righteousness be necessary to pardon it is not meer pardon And why may not Christ's Righteousness imputed be joyned with and be the Cause of Pardon as well as our own sincere Obedience To say a Man is justified upon the condition of Gospel Obedience which is our Inherent Righteousness and that he is justified by the bare Remission of Sins is a Contradiction Moreover these Authors do acknowledge that Christ merited the Pardon of Sin so that a Sinner is
justified or pardoned and so restored to favour for the sake of Christs Satisfaction Doth it not then follow that the Death of Christ is the Cause of Pardon then it is not meer pardon but pardon procured or merited and if Christs Death be the meritorious cause of pardon to every Believer then it is imputed or applyed to every pardoned sinner For no cause can produce its effects without Application to the Subject in whom the effect is wrought and the Application of a meritorious cause to the Subject for whom it meriteth is Imputation or accounting that what was done by that Cause was done for that Person And thus we see this Doctrine maketh more against themselves than against us But that Justification includeth more than Pardon of Sin even a positive Righteousness whereby Man is accepted to Life Eternal I shall thus evince 1. From the Notation of the Words To Pardon is only to release from the Penalty of the Law but to Justifie is to Acquit in Judgment to discharge from guilt and accusation Rom. 8.33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect it is God that Justifieth It is confessed that to justifie an innocent person is to acquit but to justifie a Sinner they say is only to forgive him But in what Language doth the word so signifie When the King pardoneth an Offender doth any man say doth the Law ever say the King justifies him A Brother is commanded to forgive his Brother from the Heart and so Job did no doubt forgive his Friends and yet he saith God forbid I should Justifie you Job 27. v. 4. Is any Man said to justfie him whom he pardoneth Why should the Scripture besides the familiar words of Pardoning and Forgiving use another term viz. to Justifie which in its Etymology and common use signifieth to declare Righteous and yet mean no more by Justification than bare Forgiveness 'T is said A full Pardon makes a Man righteous forasmuch as he that is discharged from all Sin is accounted not to have broke the Law and not to have broke it is all one as to have fulfill'd it But this is a mistake He that forgives an Offender does not therefore account or make him Righteous though he will not exact the Penalty of him Pardon doth suppose a Man to have been a Sinner and so it leaves him as one that hath deserv'd punishment though by favour he is exempted from it the Law still chargeth him with sin and sentenceth him to punishment though the Judge supersedeth his Sentence and will not execute the Law But it is said Great Prop. p. 121. Pardon is dissolutio obligationis ad poenam dissolveth the Obligation to punishment and when there is no obligation to punishment a man is innocent and hath right to impunity I Answer The Antecedent is untrue The Obligation to punishment ariseth from the intrinsecal Nature of the Law which being broken exacteth punishment as a due Debt The Wages of Sin is death Rom. 6.23 So that if pardon take away the obligation to punishment it maketh sin to be no sin But sin is sin though forgiven and the Sinner deserves to die although he shall not die Pardon taketh away the Ordination or Destination of a Man to Punishment that he is not appointed to die but not the Obligation that he doth not deserve to die I conclude Pardon doth not render a Man as innocent as no Transgressor and therefore 't is not all one with justifying or declaring righteous 2. From those Phrases whereby Justification is expressed Eph. 1.4 It is paraphrased thus As he hath chosen us in him that we should be holy and without blame before him in love He who is only forgiven his Sins is not accounted as holy and blameless Pardon supposeth guilt and that which some call reatum culpae the guilt of the fault remaineth after pardon viz. That such a Man hath broken the Law and by such habits or actions he hath been disobedient to the Commands Pardon only takes away reatum penoe the appointment of a Man to punishment therefore there must be something more to render men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy and blameless before God and Objects of his Love Rom 4.3 4 5. Justification is called Imputing of Righteousness And Rom. 10.5 6. Justification by Works and by Faith are opposed by the Names of the Righteousness of the Law and the Righteousness of Faith To justifie therefore is to reckon or to declare in judgment that a Man is righteous and as if Man had been justified by the Law of Works he had then been pronounced righteous So now he is to be justified by Faith he is to be declared righteous by the Righteousness of Faith though not of Works Therefore Justification is more than Forgiveness Object 'T is said Pardon maketh a Man Righteous as if he had not brok'n the Law Answ Ans w. This hath been answer'd before I am sure we should take it very ill if one that hath greatly offended us and received his life and all from our Mercy should plead that he is as good as an innocent or righteous person because he is exempted from the Punishment he deserved Object A person of quality argues thus If pardon be not a Sinners Righteousness and maketh him not righteous then a man may be pardoned and be unrighteous still in the eye of the Law which he thinketh absurd Justific Evangelical p. 18. or else there must be a medium betwixt being righteous and unrighteous which he thinketh impossible Answ Both parts of the disjunction are untrue the first that he that is pardoned is not unrighteous still for if by favour punishment be remitted and no satisfaction be made to the Law then the Law remains broken still and he is a Sinner still though forgiven For it is not the Law that pardoneth if that might take effect it would condemn but the Law-Giver by his own Prerogative which pardon is not therefore looked upon as the fulfilling or the Righteousness of the Law But if as in our case the Law was satisfied and by reason of that satisfaction man is pardoned as this worthy Author acknowledgeth a little before then that satisfaction of the Law repaireth the Breach of it and so there is the real righteousness of the Law first imputed to a Man and then by reason thereof he is pardoned i.e. acquitted from punishment to which he was obnoxious before And thus here is a fair Contradiction that a Man is justified by a righteousness satisfactory to the Law yet barely pardoned The second part of the Disjunction That there is no medium betwixt being righteous and unrighteous is also untrue we speak of a declarative Righteousness Now it is apparent that there is a Middle betwixt being justified and being condemned viz. Medium negationis or rather privationis Adam before he fell was not condemned having not yet sinned nor was he justified having not finished
if we should perform that new Law which he should give us But this shall be particularly considered in the Sixth Chapter CHAP. IV. An Answer to the Arguments against the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness WE are now to examin the Arguments which are brought against this Doctrine where as I shall pass by none that I meet with which seem to have any weight and whose solution may add any evidence to this weighty Truth so I shall not count my self concerned in a great number of Objections that are heaped up by some against it some being meer devised cavilations and many nothing to the purpose For our Opposites deal in this Argument as the Arminians did in the point of Reprobation load it with calumnies or with the unadvised expressions of some particular men but say but little that concludeth against the Truth it self Their usual Fallacy is Plus in conclusione quam in praemissis or ignoratio Elenchi when the plain Question is Whether we are accepted and justified for the Righteousness of Christ wrought for us and given to us by the Promise of the Gospel and accepted by Faith And their Arguments should conclude against this naked truth they usually conclude against Imputation of this Righteousness as exprest by the Antinomians or by Popular and not Logical Men or else against some terms of Art applyed to this Subject The like they do when they dispute against the Imputation of our sins to Christ yet some Instances of this kind I must take notice of that the Reader may be the more excited to observe it in their Books Object Christ's Righteousness is the Morally Efficient sc the meritorious Cause of our Justification Hotchkis ut supra p. 23. therefore it is not the proper matter or properly a material Cause of it Matter being an internal constitutive Cause and an efficient and external Cause which cannot agree to the same thing Answ The Question is not nor did ever any man say it that knew what he said whether Christs Righteousness be a proper material Cause as Matter is opposed to a Form When it is said to be the Matter or formal Cause of our Justification it is meant only Analogically Christs Righteousness consisted in Actions and Passions which were neither Matter nor Forms as taken for Internal Essential Parts of any thing But when these Actions and Passions are the thing for which a man is justified they are analogically called the Matter of his Righteousness because his Righteousness is made up of them and as a man is accepted for these very Actions and Passions wrought for him and imputed to him so they may be called the Formal Cause of our Justification as a man is denominated Just before God from that Righteousness And thus as Christs Righteousness is analogically called Matter or Form so it may analogically be said to constitute a man Just or Righteous before God or to be pars constituens hominis justificati quatenus juscificati as any other Accident moral or physical intrinsecal or extrinsecal being appli d to the subject maketh the concretum ex subjecto accidenti and so the subject in that composition is as the matter though otherways perhaps the Efficient and the Accident as the Form both are the Constitutive Parts of that concretum yet Analogically Thus much for the Logick of this Argument now for the Divinity It is true that Christ's Obedience offered as a Ransom for all the Elect in general is the Meritorious Cause of their Salvation but when it is applied to each particular person as all Causes must be applied to the Patient that they may produce their Effect it is that thing for which God doth accept and justifie them in particular and so is said to be the matter of their Righteousness the Material and by some the Formal Cause of Justification de Just. ch 22. vid. Dav. Atque revera in justificatione talis causa formalis ponenda est quae simul meritoria esse possit Nisi enim contineat illam dignitatem in se propter quam homo rite justificatus reputetur nunquam erit formalis causa c. 2. Object If Christ's Righteousness be imputed to us then we are freed from all obligation to Obedience If he hath obeyed for us Trueman ut supra p. 118.4 what need is there of our obedience we cannot mend his and if he hath done all there is nothing left for us to do Answ We are freed from any obligation to obedience of that kind and to that end for which Christ obeyed His Obedience was the Fulfilling of the Law of Works as a Covenant of Life and by fulfilling it he purchased life for us and so was the perfective end of that Law or Covenant for righteousness to them that believe Rom. 10.4 Perfect obedience to the Law of Works is not required of us that we should live by it or perish for lack of it as it would have been had not Christ obeyed for us But it doth not follow from hence that we are freed from all Obligations of Obedience upon other accounts viz. as Creatures to a Creator as Servants to an absolute and soveraign Lord as Children to a Father and as the Preparatives to an Eternal Life upon these accounts we must obey still though not to be justified by it Christ himself is not freed from the general obligation of obedience to God as he is a Man though he hath finished his satisfactory Obedience to the Law as the Means and Covenant of Life and is for ever acquitted from the Obligation thereto In like manner his Obedience hath acquitted us from all obligation to the Law as the way of life yet not from all Obedience But this Argument as all the rest of this Author in the same place is levelled against a Popular Expression of this Doctrine and are nothing to the main Question viz. That Christ's Righteousness is so imputed to us that we are accounted to have obeyed in him to have fulfilled the Law to have done and suffered all in him c. which Position is true only in this Sence That all which Christ did and suffered was intended for us is given to us and doth as really justifie us as if we had fulfilled it our selves But it is not true that God accounteth us to have personally obeyed in Christs obeying or us to have suffered in Christs suffering to have fulfilled the Law in his fulfilling it For then we must be accounted to have satisfied for our selves in him and to have purchased our own Justification The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness is God's accounting it to be wrought for us and so he accepteth us for it but not his accounting us to have wrought it or to have been actively righteous as if we had fulfilled his Law But did not Christ obey as a common and publick person for all the Elect Quest and so he and they are one in Law and so what he
Law of Works in our stead so that his Righteousness is accepted for our fulfilling it then must we be justified by his righteousness without any further righteousness or conditions For the Law being fulfilled for us must acquit us and give us life this we defend but he means not so Christ is our legal righteousness with him not by proper fulfilling the Law of Works for us but by taking it out of the way so that no such perfect innocent righteousness should be required of us to Salvation and this he mean by pro-legal instead of our legal righteousness This is still hiding his sence with ambiguous words It remains then that by imputing Christ's Righteousness they intend nothing else but that Christ procured a Covenant of Grace by fulfilling whereof we shall be justified and saved though sinful and imperfect which Justification and Salvation we must originally yet remotely ascribe to Jesus Christ because he procured this mild Covenant for us but the righteousness which constituteth us Just in Law and for which we shall be pronounc'd righteous and Heirs of the Kingdom at Judgment is our own sincere Obedience not Christ's Obedience as appears at large from this Author It is pretended that Luther in the heat of his Spirit and Zeal against Popish Superstitions Object let fall some words which sounded as if he thought Christ's Personal Righteousness was every Believers righteousness Answer to Dr. Tully p. 15. § 11. and their Sins were made his which afterwards he qualified shewing that Christ's Righteousness is â—urs and our Sins his only in the Effects Answ But that Luther maintained the same Imputation as we do in opposition to all works his Sermons and Comments on the Gal sufficiently shew and all both Papists and Protestants do acknowledge And if by imputing Christ's Righteousness in the Effects be meant its Immediate Effects viz. that we should be justified immediately by that righteousness trusted in immedietate formae without the interposition of any other righteousness to be wrought by us it is the Doctrine we contend for but â—f this be meant as the drift seems to be that â—t is imputed so as to merit a New Covenant by performing of which we shall be justified and so it be imputed only in its remote Effects it is manifestly untrue Object It is said again That most of our Reformers rightly asserted that Christ's Righteousness was ours by the way of meriting our righteousness Ibid. p. 16. § 13. though some of them followed Luther's Expressions of the Imputation of Christ's Personal Righteousness Answ Calvin and Melancthon who do not much follow Luther's Expressions affirm That our Justification consisteth in remission of sins for the Merit of Christ received by Faith only and it is most untrue that any of our Reformers talked That Christ only merited that we should be justified by our own Righteousness according to the Gospel Covenant as is here meant Problem loc de Just 6.25 Aretius Melancthon's Scholar defineth Justification by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness and doth charge Thammerus once his fellow Pupil under the same Master with deserting his Masters and the Doctrine of all Reformers for teaching That Faith in the business of Justification includeth Obedience to the Gospel and that we are justified by it as the Fulfilling of the Gospel and that the Works which St. Paul excludeth from justifying are the Works of the Law not the Works of the Gospel also that gratis per gratiam being justified freely by his Grace was meant only that for Christ's Sake our imperfect obedience is accepted to Justification and sinless obedience not insisted on where the Reader may find Thammerus his Arguments and interpretation of Scripture there cited at large for substance the same produced by our Authors and sharply taxed as a deserting from the Reformation Object It is farther said The Papists fastning upon those Divines who held Imputation of Christ's Personal Righteousness in its self Ibid. § 16. in the rigid sence did hereupon greatly insult against the â—rotestants as if it had been their common â—octrine and it greatly stopt the Reformation Answ Thus Bellarmin pretended that amongst the â—rotestants there were several Opinions about â—â—e Imputation of Christ's Righteousness one 〈◊〉 Luther another of Calvin a third of some â—â—hers besides that of Osiander de Just. cap. 22. p. 312. to which B. â—avenant answers Secundam sententiam illoâ—â—m commemorat qui Christi obedientiam juâ—tiam nobis imputatam statuunt esse formalem â—â—usam justificationis at haec communis est nostroâ—â—m omnium sententia neque quod ad ipsam rem â—â—tinet quicquam é nostris aliter aut censit aut â—â—ipsit He reckoneth this a second Opinion our Writers That they say Christ's Righteousness is the formal cause of our Justification i. e. its self is our Righteousness but â—â—is is the common opinion of all of us nor did â—â—er any of us write or speak otherways as to â—â—e substance of the thing He also affirms â—â—at all the difference betwixt our Reformers â—â—as only in the manner of expressing themslves and that Calvin who placeth Justification in Remission of sin did yet mean that Reâ—â—ssion to be granted for the Imputed Righteousness of Christ and that to be the Immediate Cause of it and therefore adds as the â—â—mmon Protestant Doctrine p. 313. Absque imputaâ—â—ne obedientiae Christi nulla remissio peccatorum â—â—inetur haec causa est remissionis haec cauâ—â— acceptationis haec causa translationis à statis â—â—rtis ad statum vitae i. e. without the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness there is no forgiveness this is the cause of Pardon this is the cause of our acceptance with God and of our translation from the state of death to the state of life It is suggested that this offence of the Papists occasioned the German Divines to deseâ—â— the Question of Imputation Object So Dr. Tully § 17. q. 17 18 and to dispute what Righteousness of Christ it is by which we are justified and many Learned Men maintained that it was the Passive only Answ This Question arose and was agitated among themselves as Paraeus informs us in his Miscellanies nor did it at all concern the Papisâ—â— who are Enemies to the proper Imputation of Christ's Righteousness passive as well as active against his bearing our sins as well as performing the Law for us And these Divines who maintain the Imputation of Passive Obedience only yet maintain that to be our Formal Righteousness by and for which we are justified and not that it procured a Covenant of Grace only Th. Theol. de Justif Thus Vrsin Justitia Evangelica est poena peccatorum nostrorum quam Constus pro nobis sustinuit credentibus à Deo grâ—tis imputata So Paraeus in the Treatise alledged and Windeline also in his Theologia capde Justif Thes 6. he saith That the instrumental cause of Justification is
Faith or Affiance in that thing for which we are acquitted in the Judgment of God and taken into favour even the Merit of Christ Instrumentalis of sides h. e. fiducia qua id amplectimur nobis â—pplicamus per propter quod in judicio Dei absolvimur à maledictione legis in gratiam reâ—ipimur nempe Christi meritum And Thes 7. That the satisfaction of Christ for our sin or his Passive Righteousness is that for which or by which we are justified Materia ejus est id â—â—er quod propter quod coram tribunali divino â—â—maledictione legis absolvimur innocentes â—â—usti reputamur est id perfecta Christi pro nobis satisfactio qua poenas propter peccata nobis deâ—â— it as nostro loco ipse fuit c. And that Mr. Gataker hereafter quoted was of the same mind â—s evident from his learned posthumons Treaâ—ise of Justification In all this here is no footstep of our Author's Notion of Imputation â—or the question is not What Righteousness of Christ is imputed but How it is imputed whether formally properly and immediately as all these Divines affirm or remotely only â—â—mediately and metaphorically as some of late â—â—contend In England most Divines used the Phrase Object Ibid. § 18. That we were justified by the Forgiveness of Sin and the Impputation of Christ's Righteousness and being accepted as righteous unto life thereon but the Sence of Imputation few pretended accurately to discusse c. Answ True they did not distinguish away the sence of Imputation leave only an equivocal term Our Homilies speak expresly that we may be said to have obeyed and suffered in what Christ hath done and suffered for us ut supra cap. 2. The Doctrine of the Church of England hath been constantly that we are justified by Faith as an Hand receiving as an Instrument applying the righteousness of Christ as is manifest by the Homilies King Edward's Catechism composed by Dr. Ponet B. of Winchester where the Phrase of Faith being an hand is extant by the 39 Articles with Articles of Lambeth the whole University of Cambridge in the Recantation which they enjoyned Barret by the Articles of Ireland composed by English men mostly and by the publick Question disputed in both Universities collected out of their publick Records by Mr. Prin in his Antiarminianism and sure this is nothing to Christ's procuring a Covenant of Obedience and justifying us by that Nor do Mr. Wotton's three Assertions as here alledged overthrow the substance of our Doctrine We grant there is an over rigid sence of these words We are justified by Christ's fulfilling the Law as if we had fulfilled it in him Yet this proveth not That we are not justified immediately by Christ's fulfilling the Law as intended and wrought for us Pag. 24 25. the Author gives us his own sence viz. That all the Righteousness of Christ habitual active passive and divine as advancing them in value is the meritorious cause of our Justification But are we accepted and justified immediately for this Righteousness No Yet that is the Imputation all former Divines maintained How then Why for this Righteousness God maketh a Covenant of Grace in which he freely giveth Christ Pardon and Life to all that accept the Gift as it is so that the Accepters are by his Covenant or Gift as surely justified and saved by Christ's Righteousness as if they obeyed and satisfied themselves c. viz. That the conditions of the Gift in the Covenant of Grace being performed by every penitent Believer that Covenant doth pardon all their sins as God's Instrument and giveth them a right to eternal life for Christ's Merit This is a confession of what we represented before sc That the fulfilling the Gospel-conditions of faith repentance c. is the righteousness which gives us the immediate right to pardon and life and that Christ's righteousness only merited this grant of life upon those conditions It might be expected by this History of the controversie that some Divine should have been quoted which taught this Doctrine but alas here is not one since the Reformation Therefore I shall quote the true Authors of this Opinion after I have vindicated B. Davenant and Mr. Bradshaw who are here and elsewhere ingeniously represented as laying the ground of this Opinion and as maintaining Imputation in another sence than all had done before them For the most Learned and Pious Bishop It is said p. 18 19. That though he most stifly defended Imputation in words yet when he telleth what Protestants mean by it he saith That our own Actions and Passions and Qualities may not only be imputed to us but also some extrinsecal thing neither inherent in us nor done by us de facto autem imputantur quando illorum intuitus respectus valent nobis ad aliquem effectum aequè ac si a nobis aut in nobis essent i.e. They are imputed when the sight or respect of them doth profit us for any effect as much as if they were in us or done by us Note that he saith but ad aliquem effectum non ad omnem i.e. to some not to every effect Answ By this we are to understand that the Bishop meant Christ's Righteousness was imputed for some certain Effect viz. To procure a New Covenant not immediately to justifie us I see I need not despair but my Books hereafter may be quoted for metaphorical imputation In truth the Bishop doth not say ad aliquem tantùm but to some effect but aliquem effectum simply meaning quemvis any effect sc That things without us he intends Christ's Righteousness may be imputed i.e. profit us to any effect as well as things in us or done by us and that the following Similitudes shew of a slothful person promoted for the Merits of his Ancestors or a Malefactor pardoned by anothers suffering in his stead which in both cases is done by the immediate impâ—tation of such merits and suffering without performing conditions by the Parties But that the Bishop maintained imputation in the same sence that we do and almost in the same words is so evident that I am ashamed to produce the Proofs in so clear a case His 37th Determination is That Justifying Faith is fiducia affiance in God for the remission of sins through the satisfaction of Christ that this is the very formal Act of Justifying Faith His 8th Determination is That the Sanctified may be sure of Salvation which will not consist with conditional Justification and one Proof is Arg. 4. As it is most certain that Christ paid a sufficient price for all men so it is no less certain hanc satisfactionem omnibus fidelibus paenitentibus imputari applicari quasi ab illis ipsis Deo oblata praestita fuisset i.e. That this satisfaction is imputed to all Believers as if they themselves had made it and offered it to God But I shall confine my self to
that Book which is misrepresented Chap. 22. he proposeth the Question de Just habit actual Whether we are justified by the Obedience or Righteousness of Christ imputed to us and that be the formal cause of Justification Where he explaineth the Nature of Justification of Imputation the Righteousness of Christ and the Formal Cause of Justification in the same terms as we do and without any difference in sence He gives us the Sum in these words p. 313. Vno verbo utcunque Deus sanctificatos nos reputat at que inchoatè justos per impressam inhaerentem qualitatem justitiae tamen justificatos i.e. à peccatis absolutos ad vitam aeternam acceptatos per propter justitiam Mediatoris nobis ab ipso Deo donatam hac side spiritúque applicatam i.e. Though God reputeth us inchoatively righteous or holy by the habit of holiness wrought in us yet he accounts us justified acquitted from sin and accepted to life by and for the Righteousness of Christ given to us by God and applyed by his Spirit and our Faith Then he layers down two Propositions opposite to the Papists which he pursueth to the 30th Chapter The one excludeth Works as the Papists maintain them the other affirmeth that the most perfect Obedience of Jesus Christ dwelling in us and uniting himself to us is the formal cause of our Justification for as much as it is made ours by Faith and by the Gift of God Prop. 1. Christi Mediatoris in nobis habitantis atque per spiritum sese nobis unientis perfectissima obedientia Ibid. est formalis causa justificationis nostrae utpote quae ex donatione Pei applicatione fidei fit nostra Observe he doth not say Christ's righteousness doth in some sence justifie us or is ours for or in some effects but he saith we are justified for that very righteousness or obedience of Christ this is the form whereby we are made righteous or justified in opposition to our own Holiness and that because it is our righteousness from Gods Gift from our Union to Christ and Faith in him and then he lays down the contrary Position of the Papists to be refuted and answereth their Calumnies against our Doctrine of Imputation which are much the same that are scattered in our late Authors The Proposition is Thesis 2. Papistarum Mediatoris obedientia sive justitia non donatur aut applicatur credentibus vice aut per modum causae formalis Ibid. cujus virtute fiducia stant justificati aut Deo ad aeternam vitam acceptati The Bishop goes on and Chap. 24. answereth 11 Arguments of Bellarmin against Imputation mostly the same with those alledged Chap. 4th Chap. 25. ut supra he answereth Bellarmins Citations out of the Fathers against the same Doctrine Chap. 27. He further explaineth the Nature of Imputation and what we mean by a Formal Cause just as we do Chap. 28. He proveth that Christ's Righteousness is imputed as that very Righteousness which justifieth us which he doth by 11 Arguments and by all the same Scriptures out of the New Testament which have been cited above Chap. 3. and by some others all in the same sence which we take them Chap. 29. He alledgeth the Fathers for our Doctrine Chap. 30. He refuteth the Papists slanders in saying that this Doctrine taketh away the necessity of good works where he hath this memorable passage concerning the difference of the two Covenants Lex in conditione operum vitam habet ipsam vim formam icti faederis p. 396. at Evangelium in Mediatoris sanguine fide apprehenso collocat ipsam vim formam operum autem conditionem annectit ut subservientem huic faederi Evangelico non ut continentem aut constituentem ipsum faedus i. e. the Covenant of Works includeth Works in the very form of it as the conditions of that Govenant but the Gospel placeth the form and force of the Covenant in Faith in the Bloud of Christ but that it subjoyneth works as a subservient condition not as containing any part of the Covenant Can any thing be more contrary to the Doctrine we oppose that the Gospel is a Covenant of sincere Obedience and that Obedience is the condition of the new Covenant whereby we must be justified In all this here is not a word favouring this new Opinion Chap. 31. There is something which may bare a colour of some approbation of this Doctrine but it is but a colour He saith that Works are in some sort necessary to Justification and Salvation but that the term necessary ought not to be used in Disputes with Papists or in Discourses to the People lest they ascribe too much to them Concl. 2 3. And in the 4th he saith No works are necessary neither Legal nor Evangelical p. 402. as a Meritorious Cause but conditions of the Covenant are a meritorious cause Nulla opera bona sunt renatis ad salutem aut justificationem necessaria si per necessaria intelligamus sub ratione causae meritoriae necessaria dico nulla ut excludam non solummodò opera legalia sed etiam opera inchoatae justificationis And then Concl. 5th he saith Bona quaedam opera sunt necessaria ad justificationem p. 403. ut conditiones concurrentes vel praecursoriae ut dolere de peccato detestari peccatum consimilia i. e. Some good works are necessary to Justification though not as efficient and meritorious causes yet as previous or concomitant conditions such as sorrow for sin humiliation begging of mercy hoping in it and the like But by this he meaneth not that these dispositions have any direct influence on Justification it self but that they fit the Justified Person to use and improve his Justification This we all acknowledge that ordinarily in persons that can use their reason there are such ministerial preparations both for conversion and justification and yet they are the causes of neither Nor doth this hinder but that God may extraordinarily sometimes work Grace infuse Faith and justifie men without such previous dispositions The reason following shews this was the Bishop's sence For God saith he doth not justifie Stocks and Beasts but Men and those humble contrite and tractable to his Word and Spirit Ibid. Divina enim misericordia non justificat stipites h. e. nihil agentes neque equos mulos h. e. recalcitantes libidinibus suis obstinatè adhaerescentes sed homines eosdémque compunctos contritos ac verbi spiritúsque divini ductum sequentes vid. plura To make it more plain he adds When we say things are necessary it doth not presently follow that they are necessary as causes but for orders sake Not andum quandò dicimus aliquid necessarium ad hoc vel illud obtinendum p. 404. ex ipsa vi verborum non ninuitur necessitas causalitatis sed ordinis Ibid. Concl. 6th he saith further Good works are necessary to
the Debtor cannot properly be said to be the Author of the payment he paid not the Money 't was not his but the Sureties yet the Money being paid for him in his stead for his benefit by the Surety and accepted for him instead of his payment by the Creditor he is a subject of denomination and may be truly accounted a clear and solvent person and the payment imputed to him placed to his account as really and as fully as if he had paid it with his own hand and with his own money Hence some call the Righteousness of Christ the Formal Cause of our Justification Vid. Whitaker de Ecclesia p. 460 461. Synop. Leidens disput 33. Th. 21 23. and others the Matter or Material Cause both mean the same thing viz. That Christs righteousness is the very thing for which we are accepted and justified before God I will not contend about terms of Art in so great a point whereon Salvation depends yet it seemeth more logical to say In Justification man in the Matter or Subject viz. the Person justified Christs righteousness is the Form that by which he is constituted righteous or just before God Imputation Gods accepting this righteousness for him is as the Union betwixt the Matter and the Form even the Application of Christs righteousness to the person justified God the Father is the Efficient accepting or acquitting him for the sake of Christs righteousness The Promise of the Gospel is the medium whereby this righteousness is conveyed and Faith the instrument or disposition in the subject whereby it is rendred capable of receiving Christs righteousness or having it imputed to him And Justification is the Condition or State of a Man accepted with God to life eternal through the righteousness of Christ imputed to him From â—â—ence I inser that Imputation of Christs righteousness and Justification is all one and but â—â—e real Act and so Arctius defines it Justiâ—atio est imputatio justitiae alienae gratuita Lib. Probl. loc 25. faâ—â—a a Deo respectu meriti Filii Dei ad salutem â—â—ni credenti Some learned men make Justication to consist of 2 Acts. The First whereby Christs righteousness is imputed to a Sinâ—er The Second whereby his sins are forgiven and he accepted for the sake of that righteousness But this makes it more perplext that it is to impute righteousness We are righteous with the righteousness of Christ â—â—t in a Physical sence as if it were inherent or adherent to us but judicially We are accepted as righteous i. e. discharged from punishment and intituled to life for it and this 〈◊〉 to be justified We may indeed make it Formal Acts or formally distinct the one thereby Christs righteousness is placed to our account or reckoned to be done for us the â—ther whereby we are accepted or intituled 〈◊〉 life for that righteousness But it 's really â—â—e same thing to account Christs righteousâ—â— be wrought for us to satisfie and fulfill the â—aw of God and to accept us and give us â—ight to life for that righteousness God in â—s Promise proposeth life to Sinners on the account of Christs satisfaction in which when â—â—ey believe and trust there is by virtue of that Promise a Grant and Title to life made other to them and hereby righteousness is imputed to them or they are justified Thus Rom. 4 2. When the Apostle would prove Abraham was not justified by Works he saith v. 3. Faith was imputed to him for Righteousness Then to justifie or impute Christs righteousness is all one and God accounteth us righteous for this righteousness i. e. God justifieth or giveth us eternal life for Christs righteousness and frees us from condemnation Nor is Christ first given to us and then his right ousness as some speak as if we were actually interessed in Christs Person before we are his righteousness God worketh Faith in the Heart which apprehendeth the promise of liâ—â— through the righteousness of Christ and hereby we are accepted and justified and this righteousness is thus made ours or given to us and no other way Afterwards we are adopted and receive the Spirit of Sons by which Spirit we are united to Christ as to our Hear and the Fountain of Spiritual Life and the Christ is most properly given to us or wâ—â— are actually interessed in his person in whom all the Elect have some interest before on the account of Election but this was not actual and proper These things thus explained the Question betwixt us and our Opposites is plainly thâ—â— Whether God justifieth men and intituled them Life for the Righteousness which Christ wrought in fulfilling and suffering the Penalties of the Law The Affirmative is the Protestant Doctrine and now to be proved Argument 1. 1. I argue from the Parallel of Christ and Adam Christ is called the Second Adam the Second Man 1 Cor. 15.45 47. Adam was the Figure of him who was to come viz. Christ Rom. 5.14 Whence is this but in respect of the general Influence of what they did upon the rest of Markind Hence I argue As Adam's Disobedience condemned men so Christ's Obedience acquitteth and justifieth them But the very Acts of Adam's Disobedience are imputed to men to their Condemnation they are condemned for them therefore they that believe have the very righteousness of Christ imputed to them and by that are justified The Major is largely proved by the Apostle Rom. 5.12 ad finem where he sheweth That Justification and Life come into the World in like manner as Death and Condemnation did each by a common Person and by them derived upon the rest of Mankind As many were made Sinners 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one Mans Obedience so by the Obedience of one many shall be made righteous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 19. They are constituted righteous and unrighteous in the same manner unrighteous by Adams disobedience righteous by the obedience of Christ But this I suppose will not be denied and he that denieth the Minor viz. That Adams disobedience is imputed to us as the immediate Cause of our Condemnation is a down right Pelagian But because iâ— this Age all the Foundations are destroyed we shall prove it from the fore-cited Text Rom. 5.12 where the Apostle affirms That by one man Sin and death entred into the World and Death passed upon all men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether we translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iâ— whom all have sinned as the the Fathers did against the Palagians meaning Adam 〈◊〉 whom all his Posterity sinned or in quantum for as much as all men have sinned the Sence is all one Sin and Death came upon all men from one man i. e. Adam and therefore they were all made Sinners in him and by him But this is clearer v. 15. where it is said Many are dead by the Offence of this one man viz. Adam And v. 26. The Judgment or Sentence unto Condemnation came by one man 〈◊〉
hereupon account the Law to be satisfied and like to be purchased for them without any thing to be further done by them as a condition of life But their true Sence is That the Obedience of Christ is ours remotely only sc that it hath merited a New Covenant which if we perform we shall live 2ly According to this Sence Christs righteousness is no way our righteousness It may be the means of benefit to us but it doth in no sence make us righteous or is the cause of our righteousness or justification which the Scriptures alledged do intend This is thus proved It is none of the four kind of Causes nor reducible to them therefore it is no Cause The Antecedent I thus prove It is not the Material or Formal Cause this they grant For then we must be immediately justified by it it must compose our righteousness they sometimes call it the matter of our righteousness but without sence It is not the Final Cause Christs righteousness is not the end for which we are justified It is not the Efficient neither Physical nor Moral Not Physical for then Christs obedience must actively work obedience or righteousness in us which is absurd Not a Moral Cause or Meritorious which they most insist on For Christ did not merit Grace whereby we should obtain the Gospel and so be justified as they acknowledge seeing he died for all alike though thus he would be but a remote meritorious Cause of Justification meriting that for which we should be justified but he merited only the Covenant of Life upon sincere obedience to the Law he should prescribe All then that he is the Meritorious Cause of is the New Covenant for when this Covenant is promulgated it is left to men whether they will obey or no and so whether they will be justified or no He hath merited nothing further Now if any man come to be justified by performing the condition of this Covenant can Christ be said to merit this Justification for him which as to his Merits was contingent might or might not be and depended wholly upon his own Will and Obedience If a man procure a Charter for a Town and make them a Corporation thereby and by virtue of this Charter they that serve an Apprentiship shall have the Privileges and Freedom of this Town shall it be said of those that thus come into the Freedom some hundred years after that their Freedom was merited bought or procured by him that procured the Charter Surely they themselves merit their Freedom the other was but an Instrument of procuring the Charter In like manner if Christ only merited the Covenant by performing whereof men shall be justified surely men themselves are the proper meritorious immediate causes of their own Justification or Righteousness because they fulfill the condition whereto it is promised and which is the formal righteousness for which they are justified and Christ is but an Instrument of procuring the Covenant and an improper remote and contingent cause of their Justification by their fulfilling it And thus in their sence Christ is no true Cause of our Righteousness Argument 4. Fourthly Mat. 20.28 I argue from these Scriptures which say Christ laid down his Life as a Ransom for us redeemed us 1 Tim. 2.6 Col. 1.14 Tit. 2.14 Rev. 1.5 Isa 43.3 Exod. 30.10 11. Num. 18.15 that in him we have redemption and that he washed us from our Sins in his own Blood From whence I argue Redemption is of persons a ransom and price is paid for persons not for Laws and Covenants and this was typified by the redemption of Israel out of Aegypt whom God saith he redeemed and gave Nations for them By the Redemption of the First Born and of the whole People whenever they were numbred and by the year of Jubilee which is called the Year of Redemption I subsume Ransoms and Redemptions if not paid and purchased by the Persons themselves who were in Bondage are imputed to them i.e. they are immediately delivered set at liberty by the payment of them as much as if they had paid the Prize themselves Therefore if Christ properly redeemed bought purchased us paid a Ransom or Prize for us then it is imputed to us we must be delivered by that very prize and ransom as much as if we had paid it our selves Our Opposites are loath to speak down-right with the Socinians and to deny that Christ's Death was a Prize and Ransom for us but they must and do interpret this Ransom Prize Redemption c. to be all improper and metaphysical Thus Mr. Trueman saith That the immediate Effect of Christ's Satisfaction was only a Satisfaction to Justice Gr. Prop. p. 86. that God might be juâ—â— though he should pardon Sinners and that he might pardon them salvâ justitiâ upon what terms he pleases not that he must pardon them come what will of it or else be unjust not that Sinners should ipso facto be pardoner the Prize being undertaken paid and accepted And again p. 89. Christ's Sufferings were not proper payment but a valuable consideration or you may call it a refuseable payment though it be not properly payment at all And Mr. Hotchkis paraphraseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tix 2.6 not a Ransom but something instead of a Ransom they do therefore implicitely yield if Christs death was a Ransom and Prize for us that then we must be immediately delivered by it which is all one with his Righteousness being imputed to us and in denying the Imputation of Christs Righteousness they do deny That his death was a Ransom Prize or Payment for us against the current of the Scriptures They make all the Effect of the Obedience of Christ to be only the removing of that necessity which lay upon God to condemn all men for breaking the First Covenant so that he might if he pleased save Sinners by any other Covenant p. 86. So Trueman exprefly From whence it follows That notwithstanding the death of Christ God might have refused to have made a New Covenant or to have saved any Sinner if he pleased Which also the Synod of Dort charged upon the Dutch Arminians Proprium integrity finem mortis Christi fuisse Act. Syn. Dordr in Judic Theol. Mag. Bri. Art 2. ut Deo Patri acquireret jus potestatem servandi homines quibus vellet conditionibus How far then was Christ from redeeming men if God after the death of Christ would have been just though he should have saved no man Moreover how can we be said to be washt with Christs Blood if Pardon and Justification was not immediately procured by it Under the Law when the People were sprinkled with the Blood of t e Sacrifice in allusion to which Christs Blood is called the Blood of Sprinkling Heb. 12.24 they were immediately discharged from gâ—ilt and reconciled If then we are sprinkled or washt with Christs Blood we must in like manner be justified and reconciled by
heart Acts 15.9 Therefore it is not love it self or the purity of the heart but something that inclineth and disposeth to love and purity and surely before we can love and obey God there must be an apprehension of his goodness faithfulness readiness to accept and reward which must incline the heart to it We cannot love and serve him 〈◊〉 we neither know him nor his Mind concerning us nor have any confidence in his good wilâ— towards us And this is Faith which we may thus describe Faith is a hearty and practical assent to all divine truth so as to believe the Histories fear the Threatnings trust in the I remises and expect the fulfilling of Prediction which proceed from God All this is easily gathered out of the 11. Heb. where the Apostle having spoken in the end of the 10th Chapter of believing to the saving of the Soul subjoynâ— this description of Faith v. 1. viz. That it is the substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the subsistence of things hoped for and the evidence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of things not seen which subsistence and evidence things yet suture have only in God's Word and Man's real belief of it things hoped for properly respect the Promises things not seen the History of things past as the belief of the Creation v. 2. and the Prediction of things to come as Noah by Faith feared the Deluge v. 7. and all the Patriarchs died in faith or expectation of the coming of Christ v. 13. Now that Faith hath several acts and causeth several affections as hope trust fear in the soul is because it hath several objects things to be desired things to be feared and things to be hoped for which is common to it with other graces which have their several acts and affections towards several objects or the same objects severally conâ—dered That special act of Faith which reâ—â—ects Promises or affection immediately â—owing from Faith without which it is not â—ompleat in Scripture is called by several â—ames rouling resting leaning relying upon God flying to him for resuge hiding our â—â—lves under him putting of our selves under â—he Shadow of his Wings which and the like â—re Metaphors from the Body and when we â—eak properly of the acts of the Soul are best â—prest by believing or trusting in the Promises which the Protestants express by fiduâ—a affiance or fiducial recumbence which is â—â—so the Scripture term of putting our hope and confidence in God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a pervasion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a full assurance of â—is Promise Now Faith justifieth a Sinner â—ot in its whole Latitude for so it believeth â—eer Histories as well as practical things and â—e Threatnings as well as the Promises and â—â—useth fear as well as hope But a Sinner cannot be reconciled unto God by fearing his Wrath and Judgment though fearing may â—cite him to look after mercy in the Promise â—or by believing the History of things past as â—â—e Creation and Floud or the Prediction of â—â—ings to come as the Resurrection and day 〈◊〉 Judgment though these things may set forth God's veracity and confirm the Truth of his promise and may excite fear and diligence 〈◊〉 seeking after mercy As trusting in the promises of particular mercies and deliverances is the means of obtaining those mercies as the promises are made to such faith or 〈◊〉 Isa 26.3.4 Thou shalt keep him in perse peace whose mind is stayed on thee because trusteth in thee The promises of deliverant go before and this is added as the means procure the accomplishment of them viz. That they should trust in God so in like mâ—ner the general promise of Pardon and Justfication is made to believing or trusting in and faith gives right to it and is the means having it performed to us Faith then justiâ—â— as it obtains mercy Heb. 11.33 Saintâ— Faith obtained Promises viz. a performan of them and in the Gospel frequently 〈◊〉 Faith hath saved thee and thy Faith hath mâ— thee whole c. As Faith obtains these mercies neither as an act of obedience not the cause or root of obedience but only trusting in the Power and Faithfulness of Gâ—engaged by the particular promises so aâ— Faith justifieth a Sinner by trusting in 〈◊〉 Grace and Mercy of God through Jeâ— Christ expressed in the general Promise of 〈◊〉 Gospel He that believeth shall be saved 〈◊〉 the like We do not contend about the aâ— ception of faith in this proposition We aâ—â— justified by saith whether it be taken objectively only as some think i. e. we are justified by Christ believed on or relatively 〈◊〉 are justified by faith as apprehending the mercy of God promised through Christ and 〈◊〉 by any works of our own it cometh all one at last The Mercy of God is the câ—â—sa proegomena the moving cause of our Justification the righteonsness of Christ wrought for us the meritorious cause procuring our acceptance with God and also the material or formal cause being the very thing for which God accepts us to life The Promise in the Gospel is the external moral or legal means whereby God conveys Justification and this Righteousness having promised 〈◊〉 to them that believe and faith is an internal means on mans part to apply Christ's Righteousness for his Justification by trusting him promising of it and that partly natural is faith is an act or habit or act properly conversant about a promise and partly moâ—al as God hath appointed our faith in the promise of Justification to be a means of obtaining it and this is all that Divines mean by saying Faith justifys as an instrument or intrumentally and when they call it the mouth and the hand of the soul viz. That Man is Justified by the Righteousness of Christ which Justification is proposed and promised in the Gospel to all that will accept it and trust in it which is believing so that Faith it self is â—ot the matter or righteousness which doth Justifie us under the Gospel instead of our Obedience under the Law but it is the means whereby through the Promise of the Gospel Christs Righteousness is imputed or applied to us by and for which we are justified Object It is no better than a cavil which is objected If Faith justifys as an instrument whose instrument is it Gods or Mans if Mans then he justifys himself if Gods then Man doth nothing in the business of Justification which is Antinomian For Answ The like may be asked of all instruments Natural or Moral Our Food whose instrument is it to nourish us If Gods then we need not eat if ours then we nourish our selves The Word and Sacraments are instruments of grace if they are our instruments then we work grace in our selves iâ— Gods then we need do nothing all these and the like are instruments of Gods appointing to be used by us to the right use of which he hath promised a blessing he hath commanded us to take food and
Argument 4. We are justifyed by Christ as Priest p. 24. Prophet and King conjunctly and not by any of these alone much less by his Humiliation and Obedience alone then according to the Opponents own Principles who argue from the distinct interest of the several parts of the Objects to the distinct interest of the several acts of Faith we are justified by believing in Christ as Priest Prophet and King Answ Faith as a distinct habit hath no acts but practical assent to a revealed truth which in respect of the promise is called trust or affiance One habit hath but one sort of elicite acts though it may cause divers effects upon the will and affections according to the nature of divers objects therefore we do not argue from the distinct interest of several acts of Faith but from Faith as trusting in the Promise of Justification as the special object of the act that justifieth Again the Object of justifying Faith according to this Opinion must be the whole declared Will of Christ or the whole Gospel for that is it which we believe and obey and Obedience to it is the form or righteousness by and for which we are justifyed therefore those Terms of Christ's justifying in his whole Person and all his Offices or Faith justifying with respect to them are added in vain they being no more included in the nature of Justification or respected by Faith as justifying in this way than in ours The promise of life by Christ to believing only is as much founded upon his whole Person and all his Offices as if the promise were made to our Obedience to the whole Gospel But we deny the Antecedent let us hear the proof The Word Justification signifieth these 3 acts p. 24. 1st Condonation or constitutive Justification by the Law of grace or promise of the Gospel 2ly Absolution by sentence in judgment 3ly The execution of the former by actual liberation from penalty The two former are more properly called Justification As for the first I argue Christ doth as King and Benefactor on supposition of his antecedent Merits enact the Law of grace or promise by which we are justified Ergò As King and Benefactour he doth justifie us by condonation or constitution As the Father by a right of Creation was Rector of the new created World and so made the Covenant of Life that was then made so the Son and the Father by right of Redemption is Rector of the new redeemed World and so made the Law of grace that gives Christ and life to all that will believe c. Answ Christ as God the same in substance with the Father did together with him enact both the Covenants of Works and of Grace but as Mediator which only is to our purpose he did not enact the Covenant or Law of Grace and it is only said that he did and not proved It was God as God and in special the Father according to the order of the Three Persons that gave the Law of Works that was offended by sin that condemned sinners and therefore he only that could appoint a way whereby they should be saved and he only coul justifie him Christ as Mediator though God in Nature yet in Office was God's Servant Isa 53.11 Mat. 12 18. and his business was not to enact Laws or constitute a way for Man's Redemption but to work out and bring to pass that way which God purchased and to fulfil his Will in it Heb. 10.7 which he did first by satisfying the Law and purchasing Reconciliation as a Priest then by declaring as a Prophet that Pardon was to be had by believing in his Bloud and Lastly as a King yet ministerial under the Father by overpouring the hearts of Gods Elect to believe that God might justify them and then by sanctifying and ruling them by his Word and Spirit to bring them to life It belongeth to the Father to justifie constitutively i. e. to propose the way wherein Men should be justified and through believing to justifie them to the Mediator almost but ministerially to declare it to Men by authority from the Father but most properly to bring it to pass by the execution of all his Offices Rom. 8.33 34. It is God that justifies it is Christ that died rose and intercedeth p. 25. 2ly It is said Justification by sentence of judgment is undeniably by Christ as King for God hath appointed to judge the World by him Acts 17.31 c. Answ Christ in judging the World is but a ministerial King For God is the Supream Judg Heb. 12.23 however we deny what is here took for granted That the sentence of the General Judgment is a declaration of a sinners Justification from the guilt of sin It is only the adjudging of justified Believers to Glory in Heaven for their Obedience according to Gods Fatherly promise p. 25. 3ly It is said For the execution of the sentence by actual liberation there can be little doubt being after both the former Answ Christ is ministerial in this also for he calleth Believers to inherit the Kingdom as being the blessed of the Father and it being prepared for them from the beginning of the World Mat. 25.34 Besides Glory in Heaven is a fruit of Adoption not of Justification immediately and Adoption is the act of the Father not of the Mediator And let it be observed That here all Justification is referred to Christ as King properly and immediately as was before said and he as Priest and Prophet did but make way for his justifying of us as King and therefore these offices are mentioned in the Question only for a shew that they acknowledge we are justifyed by his Bloud This is in effect confessed in the following words As the Teacher of the Church Christ doth not immediately justify but yet mediately he doth Ibid. and it is but mediately that he justifyeth by his Merits It is also said That Christ's granting the Promise or Act of Grace is the true natural p. 25. efficient instrumental Cause of Justification even the immediate Cause So then the whole Gospel as to be obeyed by us is the proper and immediate Instrument of our Justification and our obedience to the Gospel together with God's acceptance of it is the only internal Cause of Justification or the Righteousness for which we are justifyed and Christ's Merit and Righteousness and his Promulgation of the Gospel are but extrinsecal remote and preparatory Causes of it and these not absolutely necessary seeing these Authors do not deny but that God might have saved man without satisfaction and then it will follow if a man obey the Precepts of the Gospel and acknowledge Christ as Lord and King he may be saved although he believe only in a Glorified Saviour as the Jesuites preached to the people of China yea I understand not but a Socinian may be saved by obeying the Gospel though he deny the Merit of Christ having
meer pardon if it must rest upon him to satisfie or to provide satisfaction for the Law But doth this hinder God's providing and bestowing on him the righteousness of his Son As a Bankrupt is capable of nothing but to have his debt freely forgiven him for ought that he can do towards satisfaction yet this hindreth not but his Friend may pay the Debt for him and so render him solvent in Law 'T is once more said Object Iustâ—â— Evang p. 35 36. If a Sinner be not made Righteous by pardon but may be counted a Sinner still then by the same reason when Christ his Righteousness is imputed that being not his own Obedience he may be counted a Sinner still and so be Righteous and a Sinner at the same time which implieth a loud Contradiction Answ It is no Contradiction being not eodem respectu not in the same respect or in the same sence A man is a Sinner in himself and righteous in Christ the Law pronounceth him a Sinner and sentenceth him to death but the Law-giver who is above the Law accepteth Christs fulfilling the Law for him and thus being admitted upon Christs account the Law it self must acknowledg him Righteous CHAP. II. The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to Believers explained and proved HAving proved that to Justifie is to accept as Just or Righteous and likewise that our own Obedience is not cannot be the Righteousness wherein we must appear before God it remaineth that it must be the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us for and by which we must be justified and this is now to be proved But before we come to the Proof we shall briefly inquire What we mean by Christs Righteousness and what by the Imputation of it The Righteousness of Christ which we say is imputed to a Sinner for his Justification is that Righteousness which he fulfilled or wrought in conformity to the Law of God whereby the Law violated by us was fulfilled and satisfied for us and in our stead Rom. 10.4 Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth Therefore it is not the Righteousness of his Divine Person which is imputed to us for that is Infinite such as men are uncapable of and 't was never required from them Yet the Perfections of his God-head do add the meritorious Dignity to his Satisfaction Nor is it the connate habitual Righteousness of his Man-hood For this is presuppos'd to enable to the performance of the Law but not properly required by the Law yet the Law requireth the preservation and exercise of perfect inherent righteousness Adam was created perfect to make him capable of receiving a Law of perfect obedience therefore that Law supposed a Holy Nature and only required continuance in that perfection of Nature which he had received In like manner it was necessary that Christ should be born with a perfect holy Nature that he might undertake the fulfilling of the Law for us and the preserving and exercise of that Holiness once received was a part of his obedience to the Law but that Holiness as natural and habitual was antecedent to the obedience of the Law and therefore no prober part of it Christ's Righteousness then which is imputed to us is his Holy Life in obedience to the Law of God and his voluntary obediential suffering the Penalties of the Law unto death it self for us and in our stead By the latter he made satisfaction for our sins and breach of the Law and by the former he fulfill'd the Law in the proper and principal design of it and thereby purchased eternal life which was promised by the Law to them that fulfill it By obeying the substance of the Moral Law as given to Man-kind and suffering death the Penalty thereof he satisfied the Law and wrought Righteousness for men in general and by obeving the Jewish Law and suffering the penalties and that kind of death threatned and accursed particularly by â—t he wrought righteousness for the Jews Gal. 4.4 5. Now when we say This Righteousness of Christ is imputed to Believes reckoned or accounted theirs Rom. 4.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we do not mean that they are accounted to have done and suffered those Actions and Penalties which Christ was Author of and endured Christ and Believers are still distinct natural persons and so the actions and passions of one person cannot be reckoned properly the actions and passions of the other Nor do we teach by imputing Christs Righteousness to Believers that God looketh upon them as if they had done and suffered in their own persons what Christ did in his in any proper sence For Christ only is accounted the Author of his own Righteousness and though Believers be justified by it yet the honour of working that righteousness and of being the proper subject of its Inherence belongeth to Christ alone But by Imputation we mean that God accounteth the Righteousness of Christ to have been wrought by him for every one that believeth and doth justifie or accept them to life eternal for that very righteousness believed or trusted in according to the promise of the Gospel and so Christs Righteousness is reckoned theirs or reckoned to them put to their account as if it were theirs not efficienter but effectivè not as if they had wrought it but that they may have the full benefit of it and be justified by it as effectually as if they had obeyed the Law perfectly in their own persons This is that which our Divines mean by saying Christ righteousness is ours in law that Christ and Believer are one in Law viz. that the Law â—f God is as truly and sully satisfied for us by â—he righteousness of Christ as if we had fulfilled it our selves and that God being pleased â—o admit of the fulfilling of the Law by Christ â—or us the Law doth pronounce us righteous â—nd Heirs of life for that righteousness which Christ wrought in obedience to it In this â—ence also they say That the very formal righteousness of Christ is a Believers righteousness or imputed to him viz. not that a Believer is reckoned to have wrought that righteousness as an efficient cause of it nor that Christs righteousness is transfused into him implanted in him as the subject of inherence â—ut that the very righteousness which Christ wrought was intended and wrought for him by the Son and is accepted for him by the Father that he is justified for it and intituled to life eternal Christ is the efficient the subject of Inherence of his own active passive obedience but the immediate benefit of it as satisfactory to the Law is a Believers and he is the subject of it a subject of external denomination he is denominated righteous from that righteousness wrought for him and accepted in his behalf Thus it is not forma inhaerens but denominans not an internal but an external Form When a Debtor is discharged his Surety paying the Debt
to be called by the same Name This is the Name whereby she shall be called The Lord our Righteousness Answ But the Context sheweth that it speaketh of the same Person and almost in the same words sc the righteous Branch of David c. And therefore learned men translate it This is the name of him who shall call her viz. The Church The Lord our Righteousness So Junius translates it also the Geneva and the Dutch Annotions and others but if it be meant of the hurch as Mr. Gataker contends it must Gataker in locum it only because the Name of Christ is put upon or as being clothed with his Righteousness the New Jerusalem the Gospel Church named Jehovah Shammah the Lord is there â—â—om his Presence in her and as God himself pleased to take upon himself the Name of â—â—s People Ps 24.6 Ezek. 48.35 This is the Generation 〈◊〉 them that seek thy Face O Jacob i. e. the â—â—â—d of Jacob. Dan. 9.24 Seventy weeks are determined â—â—on thy People and upon thy Holy City to finish the Transgression and to make an end of â—â—ins and to make reconciliation for Iniquity and 〈◊〉 bring in Everlasting Righteousness Daniel â—â—d prayed for the deliverance of the Jews â—â—d the forgiveness of their Sins and that not â—â—r the sake of their own Righteousness but â—â—ods great Mercy v. 18 19. He is answerâ—â—d that the City shall be built again and the â—eople saved by the Messiah v. 25. and that 〈◊〉 his being cut off not for himself v. 26. â—â—plying that it should be for them and that â—â—en should be brought in everlasting Righteousness whereby Israel should be justified and â—â—ved This is the Righteousness of the Mesâ—â—ah for none else is a standing and everlasting â—ighteousness Ours is mutable and subject 〈◊〉 fail Hos 6.4 Neither was our righteousness in special manner to be brought in by â—â—e Death of Christ it had been before in the Sanctified in all Ages of the Church It was a new Righteousness then to be wrought and brought in at the Death of Christ though by the Virtue of it the former Saints were saved yet it was not actually wrought and Justification by it distinctly declared till now Therefore it is all one with finishing transgression making an end of sin making reconciliation for the people which is plainly Justification to be had by this Everlasting Righteousness Rom. 5.18 19. As by the offence of one Judgment came upon all men to condemnation even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life All men were condemned by the offence or sin of Adam So they that believe shall be justified by the righteousness of Christ the free gift oâ— grant of life comes by the righteousness of Jesus Christ as the sentence of death came by Adams unrighteousness The 19 v. makes it clearer As by the disobedience of one many are made sinners so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous Adam did not make way by his Sin for mens condemnation he did not only render them liable to death if they should sin as he did and break the same Covenant But he brought them under the Curse and Sentence of death absolutely by and for his Sin so that all that are of his Seed are under the Judgement of Condemnation ipso facto as soon as they have a Being In like manner Christ must not only make way for mens Justification or procure them a Covenant whereby they shall be justified if they perform it as he performed the Covenant of a Mediator but he must also justifie them intitle them to life so soon as they believe in him by and for his own Righteousness and Obedience One Exception against this place hath been answered in the former Chapter Another excepteth Object The Apostle doth not say IN one mans obedience many shall be made righteous Just Evang p. 72. but BY one mans obedience as a consequent and effect of it many shall be made righteous As the effect of one mans disobedience many come to be shapen in iniquity and brought forth in a sinful condemned nature so as the effect of one mans obedience many come to be new born and brought forth in a Righteous and Saving State Answ The vanity of the exception from the word BY hath been manifested before The Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used signifieth BY or WITH which is the proper sence of the place the term IN would be more obscure And thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated Rom. 14.20 To him that eateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with offence but the Sum of this Exception is as it is largely prosecuted p. 68. c. That Adams personal disobedience is not imputed to his Posterity but he virtually containing all men in his Nature and Sinning before the Act of Propagation he did corrupt his Nature and so begat Children in a sinful mortal State But I have before proved the Imputation of his Actual Sin I now add Do Mankind derive a sinful mortal Nature from Adam by meer necessity of Nature seeing the effect must be like the cause or by virtue of Divine Constitution that his Posterity should inherit the Fruits of his Sin If by necessity of Nature as this Author seems to intimate then the Soul of Man must be ex traduce derived from the Parents else it could not be born sinful by necessity of Nature and then it must be corrupted with the Body and cannot exist without it and at best must be raised with the Body and sleep in the dust till the last day as the Socinians teach Nor would the want of original righteousness no nor positive dispositions to sin in our Nature as derived from Adam be sinful in us they be poena causa peocati the Punishment of Adams Sin and the cause of Sin in us but not peccatum our Sin no more than the natural Diseases of the Body which we derive from our Parents For that which comes by meer natural necessity cannot be a Sin But if it be by Divine Constitution then the meaning must be either that God appointed that if Adam should sin that one Sin then not only he should perish but that he should also propagate a sinful mortal Nature to all his Seed without exception and then the sin and misery of all Mankind is directly and properly the punishment of Adams personal sin only which besides the horrour of the thing that so many millions in all Ages should be made miserable both here and for ever as the punishment of another mans Sin in which they were no way concern'd is also against Gods own Law The Children shall not be put to death for the Fathers nor the Fathers for the Children but â—very man for his own sin Deut. 24.16 Or â—lse this Constitution must mean that God appointed that Adam shall stand or fall for all his â—osterity and then
excellency of the Knowledge of Christ Jesus c. that I may win Christ and be found in him c. From hence it appeareth that the Apostle speaks of Justification by Christ in opposition to being justified by any thing else and of rejoycing in him contrary to any rejoycing in our selves In the 9th v. therefore he opposeth being found in Christ to having his own Righteousness which is of the Law sc of any works whatsoever and explaineth it by having the Righteousness of Faith the Righteousness which is of God by Faith What can the Righteousness of God mean when opposed to his own Righteousness of the Law but either the Righteousness of him which is God or a Righteousness which God provideth for him and which he did not work himself which is Christ's Also the Righteousness of Faith is opposed to the Righteousness of the Law and the Righteousness of God by Faith opposed to the same Righteousness of the Law must be a Righteousness which God gives us by believing and this is the Righteousness of Christ imputed Object It is excepted By the Law he means the Jewish Law and by his own Righteousness he means that which was his own when a Jew Hotchkis p. 190. not that which was his own when a Convert to the Christian Faith and that the things there opposed are Judaism and Christianity or Judaical Observances and the practical knowledge of Christ so that our own Evangelical Righteousness is not there opposed to the Obedience of Christ 1. Answ If the Apostle here only compare the Jewish and Christian Religion then all he meaneth is that the Christian Religion is far more excellent than the Jewish but he cannot oppose them properly in the matter of Justification For the sincere Practice of the Jewish Religion did justifie the Jews according to this opinion as well as the Practice of Christian Religion justified Christians Yea methinks these Authors who some of them can allow the Idolatrous Heathens to be justified by their obedience to the Law of Nature and hope in God's Mercy though they have no express knowledge of Christ should not deny that Jews may be saved by their Religion and their Hope in the Messias if they be only ignorant who he is and not malicious against him If so there must be more meant by opposing Faith to the Works of the Law then the Law meerly as Jewish 2ly The Apostle doth not only renounce the Works of the Jewish Law but all other things which may be thought matter of confidence in our selves v. 8. 3ly There is the same reason for the renouncing Christian as Jewish Works in Justification and those are Works of the Flesh when trusted and rejoyced in as well as these For the Moral Law is the same to Christians as it was to the Jews and all the Evangelical Precepts were the same to the Jews as to us if then they could not justifie them they cannot justifie us But if this Author intend only the Ceremonial Law it is contrary to the Text for after mention of the External Rights and Privileges the Apostle saith He was blameless as touching the Righteousness of the Law which must mean the Moral Law and the Ceremonial Law when in force had its part in justifying as well as the Moral and now it is abrogated it cannot be damning if practised out of ignorance only Acts 21.20 c. But that the Righteousness of the Law here doth by parity of reason exclude Christian Obedience from Justifying is thus proved This is not the Righteousness of God sc of God's providing but our own Righteousness as well as Jewish Obedience was It is also the righteousness of a Law the Gospel Law though not the Jewish Law Melanct. in Rom. p. 8. Vocari lex debet ubicunque praecepta leguntur sive in libris Mosis sive in libris Apostolorum c. And further It is not the righteousness of Faith or by Faith any more than the Works of Jews For No Law is of Faith but be that doth it shall live by it Gal. 3.12 It is spoken immediately of the Jewish Law but the Reason extendeth it to every Law he that is justified by obedience to any Law liveth by it is justified by doing it not by believing And it may be said of the Gospel in our Authors Sence He that doth it shall live by it as truly as of the Law of Moses or Adam It hath also been shewed that the Law hath some Faith joyned with it viz. the trust to be justified by performing that Law and therefore when doing and believing are opposed as irreconcileable extreams in Justification believing must mean a trust in anothers Righteousness not in our own for that is doing and thus the righteousness of Faith here excludeth all our own Works therefore must be the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us Add to all this That the Apostle in this place doth not speak of Christian Religion as this Author saith or of the Doctrine of Christ but of his Person and what he wrought for us For having exprest his desire of being found in him not having his own righteousness c. he subjoyneth immediately v. 10 11. That I may know him and the Power of his Resurrection and the Fellowship of his Sufferings c. If by any means I might attain unto the Resurrection of the Dead And v. 12. That I might apprehend that for which I am apprehended of Christ These things concern Christ himself not the Precepts of his Religion Object The general Evasion whereby those men wave the force of these and the like Scriptures is this Hotchkis p. 44 c. That Christ's Righteousness or Obedience is ours in the Fruits and Effects of it but not our Righteousness properly viz. That Christ's Righteousness is not that for which we are accepted of God immediately Trueman Gr. Prop. p. 116. but that it is the morally efficient or meritorious Cause of our Righteousness i. e. that we shall be accepted with God if we fulfill the Commands of the Gospel because Christ hath removed the Old Covenant of Works and purchased this New Covenant for us 1. Answ Here it may not be amiss to advertise the Reader of the equivocation that lies in these Words especially as used by some Authors whereby they hide their sence and deceive many sc when they oppose the Imputation of Christs righteousness to the Fruits and Effects of it which with us are not opposite For by imputation of his righteousness we do not mean that Christs righteousness is transferred to us and made inherently ours or that we can be denominated righteous by it as if we had wrought that righteousness but we mean that for the obedience of Christ God doth immediately pardon and justifie them that trust in it and give them a right to all the Fruits of it as truly and validly as if it were their own personal righteousness so that God doth
did they are accounted to have done Christ was a common and publick person in that he intended his Obedience not for himself nor for any one person but for the whole Company of the Elect Christ and they are one in Law in that the benefit of his satisfying the Law was intended for them and in time conferred on them But he was not a common person or one in Law with them so as they might be properly reckoned to have done what he did for this holdeth only where the common person is a Delegate or Commissioner of others when they appoint him their Representative give him his Instructions and Authority to act in their Name then they are lookt upon as doing what he doth and not else But it was God the Father and not Men that sent Christ and appointed him to die for the Elect gave him all his Instructions what to do and suffer and then accepted it for them being done by his own Appointment not by theirs But are we not made Righteous with Christ's Righteousness Quest and so may be accounted to have obeyed or fulfilled the Law in him Answ We are made righteous with his righteousness not morally as if we were made personally Holy and obedient by it or were so accounted by God but legally we are made righteous that is justified by his righteousness acquitted from condemnation and accepted to life eternal Therefore we are justified as sinners as ungodly Rom. 4.5 7. in the way of repentance and acknowledgment of our sins by faith in the promise of life through Christ But we are not justified as innocent or blameless in our selves Justification doth not find us righteous but makes us righteous viz. it acquitteth and reconcileth us guilty condemned sinners for the righteonsness of Christ and thus we are made righteous in Law such as shall not be condemned but have eternal life Are we then justified according to the Premiant and Retributive part of the Law Quest and not according to the Preceptive part also Answ We are justified according to the Precept as well as according to the Promise Christ having fulfilled or obeyed the Precepts for us and thereby procured all the reward that was promised with some addition of happiness because of the eminency of his Person and Obedience He also purchased deliverance from the Curse threatned by undergoing the Curse for us yet we cannot be said to have obeyed the Precepts or to have born the Curse in him in any proper sence He did it in our behalf that we might thereby be justified and brought to life as certainly as if we were innocent but not that we should be accounted really innocent in our own persons M. Baxt. 4. disput of Just p. 263. As for the distinction of Righteousness according to the Precept and according to the Sanction or retributive part of the Law and that again divided into the promise and the threatning Idem Answer to Dr. Tully p. 50. Righteousness according to the Promise being jus ad donum a right to the thing promised and righteousness according to the threatning being jus ad impunitatem a right to impunity or to escape punishment this distinction I say as to the matter of Justification is very needless and impertinent For it is the fulfilling of the Precept which gives right to the reward promised and the violation of the Precept which intituleth to punishment What though the righteousness of obedience to the Precept and the right to the blessing of the Promise differ as the cause effect yet the latter doth oppose the former when we are to be justified before God so that if we have right to life on the account of Gods Promise to the righteousness of Christ and this righteousness be his obeying the precept of the Law then his obedience to the precept is imputed to us also and is the foundation of our right to the Promise The like is to be said of our right to impunity which is founded upon Christs suffering the punishment for us and therefore his suffering the penalty is imputed to us also and thus that which is built upon this distinction falls to the ground viz. That Righteousness as to the Promise and Threatning of the Law being in some sort distinct from the Righteousness of Obedience to the Precept that therefore we may have the former without the latter i.e. we may have a right to life by the promise of the Gospel and a right to be delivered from wrath and yet Christ's Righteousness of Obedience and Suffering not to imputed to us For this is the immediate Cause and Foundation of our right both to avoid the penalty and inherit the promise The rest of Mr. Trueman's Arguments I pass by as being directed against the Antinomians only and not touching us as also what he writes against the Imputation of Christ's active and passive Obedience in the sence before explained which is repeated by a later Author Just Evang p. 54. as being partly impertinent and partly answered in the first Chapter This later Author giveth us three Arguments against the Imputation of Christs Righteousness p. 56. though he doth as the others before him miss the state of the Question reporting our Opinion thus That Christ's Righteousness is so imputed to us as if we are accounted to have personally done and suffered what he did p. 57. His third Argument runneth wholly upon this mistake therefore I shall pass it by the two first deserve some consideration The First Argument is If every Believer be personally righteous before God in the very individual Acts of Christs Righteousness p. 58. one of these two things will thence ensue Either that Christ in his own person did perform all the particular Acts of Righteousness required as due from each saved person or else That every saved persons righteousness before God is identically and numerically the same with Christ in his publick capacity as Mediator and so every saved person is personally righteous with a Righteousness that hath a stock of merit in it sufficient to save the World Answ This Argument is untrue both in the dilemma and in the consequence In the dilemma because there is no opposition betwixt the Members of it viz. Christs performing the obedience due from every Believer and their being righteous with a Righteousness that hath an infinite merit in it These are not destructive the one of the other The consequence is untrue because neither of these things follow from the Doctrine of Imputation The Error of this worthy person proceeded from his thrusting two Arguments into one when the Form of it would not bear it I shall therefore take leave to separate them and answer them apart The one is If we be justified by the very personal Righteousness of Christ then he must have performed all the Duties that belong to every particular Believer the Ceremonial and the Moral to the married and to the