Obedience their distinct Offices Argument 2. They argue That God is not to be considered as a Creditor in the business of Justification but as a Rector or Governour dealing with Sinners Gr. Prop. p. 86. not as with Debtors but as with rebellious Subjects who are to be forgiven and reclaimed by Laws and by granting them Terms and Conditions of Pardon and reconciliation Mr. Trueman Answ The Scripture setteth out God under the notion of a Creditour and pardon by forgiving of debts Mat. 18.23 27. c. and such a one as doth not release part only and requiring a third or fourth of the Debt but as one that forgives all even to ten thousand Talents and we are taught daily to pray Forgive us our Debts as we forgive our Debtors and yet we acknowledge That God in justifying dealeth with men as a Rector or Governor To Pardon is an act of Government yea of Sovereignity none but a Sovereign can forgive the breach of his own Laws and restore offenders to favour God as as a Supream Legislator and Rector thought of a way to save sinners appointed his Son to die for them accepted his satisfaction when it was made promiseth pardon to them that fly to his mercy and mercifully forgiveth them that trust in it and justly acquitteth and dischargeth them for the Righteousness of his Son and when they are justified and made his Children he doth eternally govern them by his Laws of Obedience all these are the acts of a Rector therefore on this account there is no need that they should be justifyed by Conditions of New Obedience Argument 3. They argue From the comparison of Mens forgiveness which is always upon conditions of amendment either expressed or implied When a Prince Proclaims Pardon to Rebels it is either exprest or implied that they lay down their Arms and return to their obedience and continue in it In like manner they think God cannot pardon men but upon Conditions of Repentance and obedience for the remainder of their lives Answ If a man should receive and accept satisfaction from another in the behalf of an offendor and then impose conditions upon him for his Pardon or Reconciliation he would certainly be unjust and this is our case towards God he hath accepted a Ransom and Atonement in the Bloud of his Son and forgiveth men for and in respect to that and therefore requireth no conditions of them for their reconciliation but that they accept of a trust in the mercy promised in his Son There is another great difference betwixt God and Man in the matter of forgiveness 2dly Man cannot make the Offendor obedient for the future nor can be sure he will be obedient and therefore he makes conditions with him and obligeth him by hope of impunity and fear of punishment if he offend again but God can and doth intend when he pardoneth man to give him a heart to love and obey him to the end and therefore needs not make this a condition of their pardon Besides the greatest Princes have not such absolue Power of pardon in the breach of their own Laws as God hath of his nor can they repair the dishonour done to themselves and their Law as God can partly in magnisying his grace and partly in the inestimable value of his Sons bloud by which all the dishonour done to him by Man is abundantly repaired But Mr. Baxter hath handled this question in a set Disputation to which he refers us 4 Disp of Justedisp 1 where he give us 10 Arguments to prove this Thesis p. 13. We are justifyed by God by our believing in Christ as Teacher and Lord and not only by believing in his Bloud or Righteousness which I shall briefly consider so far as they tend to prove Obedience to be the condition of our Justification which is the main drift of them though not as they mediately respect the terms of his Thesis which I have before proved out of this same disputation to be oequivocal and improper For by this Doctrine we are justifyed only by obeying the Gospel of Christ which consisteth of his Precepts Promises and Threatnings which all proceed from him as a King not as a Priest or Prophet i. e. therefore we are justifyed by believing in him as King only not as a Priest or Prophet unless accidentally and remotely as he confesseth p. 25. The Argument follows Argument 1. From the confession of those that we dispute with p. 13. If it be granted that believing in Jesus Christ as Lord and Teacher is a real part of the condition of our Justification then it is granted that by this believing in him we are justifyed as by a condition but the former is true therefore the latter Answ If he had quoted any Authors we might the better have judged of the truth of the Antecedent all that looks like a proof is p. 14. 3dly They expresly make it antecedent to our Justification as of Moral necessity ex constitutione promittentis and say it is the Fides quae justificat All the meaning whereof is that as the Gospel revealeth Christ who dyed for us to be a King and Teacher of his People so in order to our coming to him to be saved by him we must acknowledge or believe this Doctrine that he died for our sins and is to teach us and rule us that he may save us But 1. It is not necessary to Justification that persons should have a distinct knowledge of the Offices of Christ but 't is sufficient that they seek Pardon and Salvation only through him This Faith saved them before Christ's coming though without any distinct knowledge of his Person and under the Gospel many ignorant persons and weak capacities yet true Christians scarce ever have a more distinct knowledge of their Saviour in whom they trust much less have they it before Justification 2ly If believing in Christ as Lord and Teacher mean as it ought in this Argument a purpose or promise of Obedience to Christ it is no part or act of justifying Faith not of the faith quae justificat but an effect wrought by it and if any of our Divines say it is they speak popularly not logically and are popularly to be understood viz. that justifying Faith is always conjoyned with a purpose of obedience 3ly If believing in Christ as Lord and Teacher as well as in his bloud be taken for trusting in Christ to be taught sanctified and ruled by him to eternal life as well as to have our sins forgiven this we grant to be justifying Faith Faith quae justificat but these are several acts of Faith and they have their several particular objects and their order and do not all go before Justification but a sinner first looks to Christ to satisfy the Law to reconcile him to God to deliver him from wrath and when the Promise of this is revealed to him he trusteth in it and hereby is accepted and reconciled his
next care is how he shall hold out to serve God and to be brought to his Kingdom and then upon knowledge of the Promises of the Spirit and Grace of Christ flowing from him as Prophet and King he trusteth in them to be preserved to the Heavenly Kingdom but this follows his Justification and is the immediate root of his Obedience for having hope in Christ for grace and perseverance he is thereby stirr'd up to make a Covenant or Promise of all Obedience but all this is nothing to prove that our Obedience is the condition whereby we must be justified but the quite contrary Argument 2. The usual language of the Scripture is p. 14. that we are justified by Faith in Christ or by believing in him without any exclusion of any essential part of that Faith But Faith in Christ doth essentially contain our believing in him as Teacher Priest and King or Lord Ergò Answ To the Major Faith as including habits and acts of all grace is an aggregatum and hath no essential parts and as a single habit is a quality or something like it and hath not essential parts To the Minor I answer That justifying Faith doth contain an assent to the Doctrine of Christ's Person and his Offices at least implicitely and a trust in the promise of the benefits of them all and this is essential to it but from hence it follows not that Obedience justifies as well as Faith But if by believing in Christ as Prophet Priest and King be meant as it seemeth to be a belief of and subjection to the whole Gospel of Christ then the Minor is false Justifying Faith doth not include this as the essential parts of it Obedience to the Gospel and to Christ as King and Prophet is the effect not a part of Faith or any elicit act of it and though Faith do essentially rather integrally include a belief of the whole Doctrine of the Gospel yet the sum of that Doctrine is comprised in the Promise of Justification by Christ all other truths being some way subservient and to be referred to it and so Faith hath nothing else essential to it but an assent to and trust in the promise and those things th t belong to it When it is added That we are to prove that to justifie is restrained to any one Act of Faith exclusive of the rest that is sufficiently done when we prove that Works are excluded and that Faith justifies only instrumentally or as a trust in the Promise The Scriptures alledged do some of them prove that Faith taken complexly for all Gospel-obedience is required to Salvation Mar. 16.16 Joh. 3.16 17 18. and v. 36. but then Salvation also is taken complexly for the whole deliverance from sin and misery till we are brought to Heaven whereof Justification is but one part and others spake of Faith properly which is opposed to Works said to justifie us without them as Rom. 1.16.17 18. and Rom. 3.22 25 28 31. Rom. 5.1 c. And this we deny to include the promise or purpose of Obedience Here it is not unseasonable to shew the concurrence of Dr. Preston with us in his explaining justifying Faith to extend to all the Offices of Christ because he is confidently alledged by those we dispute against for their Opinion though as injuriously as the two former They that will satisfy themselves may please to peruse his 11th Sermon on the Govenant out of which I observe these few things He saith That the way to obtain the Spirit 1st Vse 3. Ibid. to mortify Sin is to believe to apply to a man's self the Covenat of Grace the promise of the Pardon of his Sins These are his own words That is the way to get the Spirit that is the way to mortify the deeds of the flesh and to get the heart changed and to be made a new Creature For he adds Hope of pardon and mercy melteth the heart and maketh a man go about the Commands of God as now possible yea to be delighted in It is plain the Dr. maketh the Covenant of Grace and the promise of Pardon to be believed and applyed to our selves before we can make any Covenant of Obedience with God and that believing is trusting in the Covenant as a Promise and that the Promise of Pardon is the first thing a Sinner is to apply to himself as the meansto humble change and to bring him to God He saith Vse 4. God's Covenant with Abraham and with all believers is to give them all blessings in Christ and distinctly from all his Offices pardon from his Priesthood teaching from his Prophetical the Spirit and Victory over all their corruptions together with all other Priviledges from his Kingly Office He saith The Condition of this Covenant that God requireth to make a man Partaker of these Blessings is Faith alone The Condition saith he is Thou shalt believe this thou shalt believe that such a Messiah shall be sent into the World Art thou able to believe this Abraham c. Again Abraham did believe and God accounted that Faith of his for Righteousness i. e. he accepted him for it for that Faith he reckoned him a man sit to make a Covenant withal he accounted him a Righteous person i. e. he was willing to enter into a Covenant with him because he believed him Moreover That his believing for a Son and for the Inheritance of Canaan were tryals whether he could believe the Promise of the Messiah that they were not the Faith that did immediately intitle him to the Covenant but acts of the same Grace of Faith of the same habit or gracious disposition whereby he believed the Promise of the Messiah and that his Faith was tried again when he was commanded to offer his Son whereupon God renewed his Covenant with an Oath Sure saith he I will perform my Covenant since I see that thou believest me and fearest me and preferrest me before thine onely Son N. B. These are but the Concomitants of Faith Again The Condition that God requires of every man to be made Partaker of his Covenant is nothing but to believe in God i.e. God saith I will give my Son to you and I will make him a King a Priest and a Prophet to bless you he shall give you remission of sins he shall teach you to mortifie your lusts and shall make you Partakers of his Kingdom he shall make you Heirs and Sons This is a very great Promise can you believe this If a man will but believe God now I say it makes him Partaker of the Covenant Hence it is manifest that Faith only intitleth to the Covenant of Grace that this Faith is nothing else but a trust in the Promise of the Benefits of Christ in all his Offices and that by a Condition is meant only a qualification of the Subject whereby he is made fit to be covenanted with This is further proved by the Reasons he giveth why
Lutherus Redivivus OR The Protestant Doctrine of JUSTIFICATION By Christ's Righteousness Imputed to BELIEVERS Explained and Vindicated PART II. By John Troughton Minister of the Gospel sometimes Fellow of S. John's Coll. in Oxon. Augustin Epist 105. Ad Sixtum Presbyterum Romanum Nullane ergò sunt merita Justorum Sunt planè quia justi sunt sed ut justi fierent merita non fecerunt Justi enim facti sunt cum justificati sunt sed sicut dicit Apostolus Justificati gratis per gratiam ipsius LONDON Printed for Sam. Lee near Popes-Head-Alley in Lumbard-Street 1678. THE PREFACE TO THE READER Courteous Reader IN the former Part of this Work I endeavoured to open and refute the Novel Opinion of Justification upon condition of Obedience to the Gospel Which however plausibly worded and vented is in substance no other than the Old Popish Doctrine of Merits and Justification by Works And wherein it is refin'd from the old School-Notions it cometh but so much the nearer to Socinianism from whence the whole Platform of this Doctrine was taken and differs from it very little In this present Treatise my work is to explain and confirm the Protestant Doctrine of Justification by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us by God and received by us by Faith which is denied by the Assertors of Conditional Justification They are indeed almost as loath the People should know that they deny us to be justified by the Merits or Righteousness of Christ as once Steph. Gardner was That the Doctrine of Justification by Free Grace should be preached to them And for the same Reason viz. The saving of their own Credit And hence they tell us That the Term of Imputation of Righteousness is still to be retained That Christ meriteth our Justification That he is our Legal or Pro-legal Righteousness c. They speak as like our Orthodox Divines as they can that it may not commonly appear wherein they differ Yet in all this they mean no more but that Christ by his Obedience or Death or both obtained a New Covenant for us i. e. the Evangelical Law which if we fulfill and continue in it to the end of our Lives we shall have our Sins pardoned shall be accepted and saved So that the Righteousness for which we shall be accepted and made Heirs of Eternal Life is our Obedience to the Gospel not the Obedience or Righteousness of Jesus Christ and with them the Imputing of Christ's Righteousness to us for Justification is our being justified by our own Obedience to the Gospel-Covenant which Christ procured by his Righteousness not our being justified or accepted to life for the Righteousness of Christ intended and performed immediately and only for us as all Protestants have hitherto taught except the Dutch Arminians and their Followers They do endeavour to obscure and perplex the Question what they can partly by the Rhetorical and sometimes Imprudent Expressions of Popular Preachers and Writers which ought rather to be interpreted and qualified than exagitated to the prejudice of Truth and partly by the Philosophical Notions and School-Terms accommodated to this Doctrine as well as others and too much transferred from the Schools of the Learned to the Pulpit and popular Congregations From both these they pick matters of quarrel against this received and fundamental Truth And always propose the Question in such terms that it may seem they dispute only against the Antinomians or some that have spoke too like them or else some Logical Notions and Formalities of School-Divines Amongst all that I have read with some care to know the true state of the Question and what the New Doctrine of those men is I have not met with one that doth fairly and ingenuously state the Question according to the Sence which they intend and dispute for But they always thrust in some terms lyable to exception which belong not to the substance of the Question it self e. g. They usually propound the Question thus Whether Christ's Righteousness be imputed to us so that we are accounted by God to have done and suffered all that Christ did and suffered for us whether we fulfill the Law in him and suffered the Penalty of it in him And then they infer from the Doctrine of Imputation in general what followeth only from their misrepresenting it That we satisfied for our selves obeyed and suffered for our selves were our own Mediatours and Saviours c. Which Consequences seem not only uncooth but absurd I and are readily received by the unlearned and precipitant Wits who had rather seem ingenious in finding fault with old received Doctrines than take pains to understand them throughly I have endeavoured to divest the Doctrine of Justification by Christ's Righteousness Imputed of the Additions both of School-Notions and popular Rhetorick and to present it in the plain Scriptural dress to prove it by plain Scripture and Arguments deduced thence in the three first Chapters and then to examine their Obâ—ections against it which when they are levelled against the Question as it is plainly stated are so inconsiderable that I cannot but wonder that Learned and Pious men should lay so great a stress upon them as to innovate and alter the Doctrine which all the Protestants have profest writ and died for this is done in the fourth Chapter In the fifth and sixth I examine the original and true meaning of the opposite Opinion and refute it In the rest of the Book I explain and defend the Instrumental Office of Faith in justifying us and answer the Objections against it The Question betwixt us is plainly this Whether God doth justifie Believing Sinners i. e. acquit them from Guilt and Punishment and give them a Right to Eternal Life for their own Obedience to the Gospel Or immediately for the Righteousness of Christ wrought for them and trusted in by them as it is declared in the Promises of the Gospel The former they affirm and we have disproved in the other Part The latter they deny and we affirm and â—â—ove viz. That God doth accept believing Sinners and gives them a certain grant of Eternal Life directly and immediately for the Obedience of Christ â—â—ought for them and proposed to them 〈◊〉 the Promises We say further As to impute Sin 〈◊〉 to account a man a Sinner and juâ—â—ciously to charge his Sin upon him to â—â—s Condemnation when a person hath â—â—thority to do it So to impute Righteousness is to account a man Righteous and judicially to discharge him â—â—om accusation and to grant him the â—â—ivileges and Benefits belonging to 〈◊〉 Righteous Man And therefore when righteousness is said to be imputed 〈◊〉 us without Works the meaning is â—â—at God accepteth us as Righteous â—schargeth us from all the Accusations 〈◊〉 the Law and grants us Right to all â—â—iritual Blessings without any respect 〈◊〉 our Obedience But immediately â—â—d properly for the Righteousness of â—â—rist wrought for us which is thereâ—â—re said to be imputed to us because
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
Divines at Dort Rationes omnes Act. Syn. Art 2. Ibid. à scripturis fideique analogia petitae quibus Christi incarnatio humiliatio vel exaltatio probatur vel confirmatur eò spectant ut demonstretur divina expressa intentio de fructuoso hujus tanti mysterii effectu non conditionaliter producendo nempe si homines cùm aeque nolle possint velint ut hic fructus in de enascatur sed infrustrabiliter efficiendo potentiâ divinâ id operante i. e. All those Arguments that prove the Incarnation Humiliation and Exaltation of Christ tend to this to shew that it was God's express intention to produce the certain effects of that great Mystery infallibly by his own power and not to leave them to be conditional depending upon Man's Will who might as well neglect and refuse as accept of them I conclude the Sum of this Doctrine comes to this That God took occasion by the Incarnation Obedience and Death of our Lord Jesus Christ to grant men terms of Salvation viz. if they should believe and obey the Gospel not as any satisfaction to his Justice or Law which man had broke but as some kind of salvo to his Honour at least as he was pleased to interpret it And what need Christ have been God to do no more than this How easie is the slip from hence into the dead Sea of Socinianism To lay that Christ came by his Life and Death to declare and confirm only this Covenant of Life on condition of Faith and Repentance and to intercede for the Penitents Indeed the whole platform of this Doctrine was borrowed from Socinus by the Arminians from whom most of our modern Writers have it and some immediately from the Socinian from whom also came that common but illogical Evasion of works being not the meritorious but the causa sine qua non of our Justification Opera ea sunt ex quibus justificamur sunt autem opera ista nostra Soc. de Justif apud Pelt i. e. ut dictum fuit obedientia quam Christo praestamus licet nec essiciens nec meritoria tamen causa ut vocant sine qua non justificationis coram Deo at que aeterne salut is nostrae I do not desire this should be believed on my credit much less do I write to reproach any who do in heart abhor that blasphemous heresie however their words and notions may agree too much with it I only beg that Scholars and Divines would take the pains to examin and compare them before they imbibe this new Doctrine CHAP. VII Of the Nature of Faith that it justifieth as an Instrument applying the Promises of life in Christ and not as a Condition or Part of Obedience T The Apostle Paul was sent to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles Act. 26. v. 17 18. to this end that they might receive the forgiveness of sins and an inheritance amongst thom which are sanctified by Faith which is in Christ therefore forgiveness and a right to the heavenly Inheritance comes by Faith But what this Faith is and how it gives right to Life is now to be inquired into In explaining the nature of Faith I shall wave all that is usually drawn from Philosophy to this Argument from the nature and difference of Man's Soul and his Faculties and the difference of the Faculties from each other also from the nature of Habits intellectual or moral which things are fit Exercises for Scholars but not fit to build the Doctrine of Justification and Eternal life upon and if the best Philosophers can give us no certain account how men see and hear and how the external Senses which yet are more material in their operations than the understanding do exercise their functions there is much less certainty to be had concerning the Faculties Operations and Habits of the rational part and the Scripture speaks of believing as a work of the whole Soul With the heart man believeth unto righteousness Rom. 10.9 The like may be said of every Grace and of every Sin that hath the consent of the Heart that they carry the whole Soul with them What then is this Faith The Socinians affirm Faith and Obedience to be really the same thing Peltius Artic. Parag. 21. distinct only formally or docendi causâ Soc. resp ad Epist Joan. Opera Fides nullo modo distinguuntur à Paulo nec ab ea seperari queant imò animo seu forma fidei sunt The Arminians agree with them in this and our late Authors with them both and make believing and obeying the Gospel all one and to be justified by Faith with them is to be justified by obedience to the Gospel Aphor. Th. 70. Hence it is that they describe Faith to be so to believe God as to love him fear him trust him and obey him in every particular command or more briefly to be an accepting of Christ for our Lord and Saviour i. e. to promise obedience to him Ibid. 69 67. and to desire and expect to be saved by him Now we grant as the Gospel is sometime taken for the whole Doctrine or Mind of Christ containing both Promises Precepts and Threatnings though properly it be nothing but a Promise of Life through Christ in contradistinction to all Law and Precepts so also the Faith of Christ and of the Gospel doth sometimes comprehend the whole Christian Profession whereby we promise both a belief of the doctrine and obedience to the Command of Christ Yet Faith taken properly is to be distinguished from all obediential Graces viz. those that are the immediate cause of obedience as much as those graces are distinct from each from other as Love from Fear both from Patience c. That we may wave that Philosophical question also whether Graces be several distinct habits or one universal habit distinguished by several acts and objects it is sufficient if Faith be distinct by its acts and proper object from all other graces as much as they are distinguished each from other And that it is so is evident because it is an assent of the mind to divinely revealed truth Its acts are to believe or assent its formal object is the revealed truth of God as such we speak of Divine Faith only The immediate End of it is the satisfaction of the mind in the certainty of a true proposition and the like All these are distinct from love fear desire which are the immediate principles of all obedience or practice in doing good or avoiding evil Moreover Faith is the root of obedience not as the immediate principle of the elicite acts of obedience but as a more remote principle which doth excite and direct all the immediate principles of it Thus Faith is prerequired to seeking and serving of God Heb. 11.2 to the End and yet the immediate principles of them were fear v. 7. self-denial v. 25. holy courage contempt of the World and the like Faith worketh by love Gal. 5.6 purifieth the
end of justifying Sinners is to glorifie the Mercy of God without providing for the Honour of his Justice or Holiness both which seem better secur'd if Justification depend upon man's works as well as faith that he cannot be reconciled to God without a holy life as well as believing in Christ For thus God would appear not only merciful but just and holy also in that he will not pardon Sinners but in a way of holiness Answ 1. The Justice and Holiness of God were abundantly declared in exacting satisfaction to the Law of Jesus Christ his obedience and death did more declare and vindicate the Justice and Holiness of God infinitely more than the worthless imperfect obedience of men can do Hereby it was declared That God would not justifie Sinners but in a way of Holiness and perfect obedience to his Law There was perfect holiness and justice towards Christ though infinite Mercy towards Sinners Though man be justified by Faith not by Holiness yet he is not saved without Holiness it is that which qualifies him to receive the Kingdom and Faith also procureth and obtaineth his Holiness For we believe not in Christ for pardon only but for grace to bring us to glory Nor doth Christ purchase oâ— God promise pardon only but grace and power to obey him He gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purchase to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works Tit. 2.14 So then Faith trusting in God's mercy and free grace supposeth for its foundation the Obedience of Christ whereby God's Justice and Holiness hath been highly glorified and also obtaineth for men by and from Jesus Christ the Spirit of Adoption by whom they shall in due time be make conformable to the Image of his own Son and so more excellently holy than they would have been if they had not sinned Therefore in justifying a Sinner in the whole design Holiness and Justice are as much magnified as Mercy though Mercy only appear in the Act of justifying him without his own Righteousness This Doctrine seems to lead to Enthusiasm Object 2. If there be nothing for man to do that he may be justified but only to believe in God's Mercy and Christ's Righteousness then may they fancy themselves justified when they please and if this Faith must be wrought by God then must men onely expect till God will infuse Faith and so justifie them What use then of the preaching of the Gospel Answ For Fancy May not men as well fancy their obedience to be sincere and their works â—o be such as argue them good Christians and give them hopes to be saved yea do not most men thus think and profess If works must be tried by the Scriture so must faith also and â—hen this is no more liable to fancy than the â—ther Answ 2. For Enthusiasm which is nothing else but infusion or inspiration of something into the Mind we grant all the godly do injoy it in the working and increase of supernatural grace and so must our Opposites also unless they will turn down right â—elagians and say That all Grace is the meer work of Nature and Reason Thus Enthusiasm follows from the Doctrine of Supernatural Grace whether we be justified â—y Faith or Obedience But Enthusiasm is were taken in the worst sence and so the meaning must be The Doctrine of Justification by Faith doth necessarily lead to ungrounded unwarranted Enthusiasm Now this may be reduced to two sorts for matter and for manner for matter when men pretend Inpiration of God for things contrary to â—cripture which God hath given as a standing rule to the Worlds end for manner â—hen Inspirations are expected to exclude and â—upersede the use of reason Scripture and â—ll Divine Ordinances these are properly called Enthusiasts who pretend to these Now our Doctrine of Faith naturally leads to neither of these Not to the first in the matter for faith apprehends resteth only upon the Promises revealed in the Scripture out of that it seeâ—eth nothing for its foundation and that somâ— Antinomians have leaned to unwarranted Revelations and Fancies is no more a natural consequence of Justification by Faith thaâ— the Papists pretending Revelation for Image worship and many of their Will-worship do naturally flow from from the Doctrine 〈◊〉 Justification by Works Not the second 〈◊〉 the manner We are so far from teachingâ— That men must expect Faith to be wrought oâ— increased without the use of means appointed that on the contrary we say with thâ— Scripture That faith cometh by hearing anâ— hearing by the Word of God Rom. 10.15 Thaâ— God requires men to know understand anâ— meditate on his Word to use their Reason Conscience and Affections and while they thuâ— do he inspires faith into his Elect which enables them to do it effectually and savingly much like as our Saviour John 9. made Clay anointed the Eyes of the blind man with iâ— sent him to wash in the Pool of Siloam anâ— while he thus did by his divine Power he restored his Sight The same also may be said if we must be saved by our Obedience wâ— may sit still and expect God to work all 〈◊〉 us unless they will say we need no supernatural Grace or at least that it depended on and followeth the Will of man Enthusiasms therefore are the abuses not the just consequences of this Doctrine It is objected If we be justified by Faith only Object 3. then there need be no care of good works Answ This follows as much as that objected to the Apostle Rom. 3.8 We are slanderously reported to say let us do evil that good may come of it and Rom. 6.1 Let us continue in sin that grace may abound Surely there is more shew of reason to say if we are justified by free grace only then no matter though we sin grace will be but the more magnified in our forgiveness than to say Because God justifies freely through Faith therefore we need need not care to please him The Apostle was not moved to mitigate this Doctrine for the said slanders Ungodly men will speak and act according to their own lusts whatever their Opinions be and Calvin observes among the Papists as we may the same among Protestants that none are more zealous maintainers of Justification by good Works than they who have fewest good works to shew it seems therefore that the Doctrine of Justification by Works is not such a real incentive to holiness as some men think but rather that the Doctrine of Justification by Faith crosseth corrupt nature more and stirs up to more deep and inward holiness else why should profane Wits and unsanctified hearts so generally oppose it But that this Doctrine doth not naturally lead to unholiness but to most strict and spiritual holiness may thus appear 1. As Faith trusteth in the promise of eternal life it doth naturally stir up men to use all means to attain that and
because we fulfil or obey the Command of believing in Christ Against this I thus argue 1. If Faith justify as a fulfilling the command of believing then the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere Faith it self is our Righteousness and Christ's Righteousness hath only procur'd a Covenant of Faith by fulfilling whereof we should be justifyed as we should have been by fulfilling the Law of Works For in this Opinion Faith justifyeth as Obedience to the Command of believing and Obedience cannot be the Medium of applying Christ's Obedience for our Righteousness but is it self a righteousness according to the Law that requires it So then Faith must be our Righteousness now as perfect Obedience was under the Law and must justify as the Work of the Gospel 2ly Faith is the unfittest of all Graces to be the condition of life because it is only a trust in Free-Mercy and carries with it an acknowledgement of our unworthiness and nothingness and so bringeth nothing to God but a bare object of Mercy and Compassion All other graces bring some positive Honour to God together with a denyal of our selves and our inordinate desires to the Creatures but Faith bringeth nothing but a confession of Misery with a desire and hope of Mercy therefore is unfit to be our Righteousness and to come into the room of Perfect Obedience 3ly If Faith justify as a condition then Man hath a natural power to believe in Christ how else can Faith be required of him as a new condition of life after he had failed of life by the first condition of Obedience The Gospel by this Doctrine is a Law of Faith but a proper Law doth suppose power to obey in the subjects of it Quest Obj. Quest 9. Vid. Pelt Art 13. Paragr 2. This Arminius confesseth Deum non posse ullo modo fidem in Jesum Christum postulare ab homine lapso quam ex se habere non potest nisi aut dederit aut dare paratus sit gratiam sufficientem quâ credere possit si velit i. e. God cannot by any means require Fallen Man to believe which of himself he cannot do unless he hath given him or will be ready to give grace sufficient to believe if he will 4ly If Faith be the gift of special grace as is acknowledged by these I now deal with how can it be required of all that hear the Gospel seeing they have neither power of their own to believe nor a promise that Faith shall be given them If it be said that Faith is promised I ask is it promised on some other condition or absolutely If upon condition then we shall have conditions in infinitum unless we stop in something that is in Man's Power to do Ibid. p. 55. as Amyraldus well observeth Fides impetrata fuit non ut offeretur sub acceptandi conditione sed ut ipsa illa conditio esset per quam salus recipitur alioqui res abiret in infinitum nec ullus unquam esset terminus conditionum impetrandarum If absolutely either to all that hear the Gospel and so all should believe or to some only but no such promise can be produc'd that when the Gospel is preach'd to a people such and such shall have Faith given them But if it be said the Promise of Life in Christ is declared to all and God persuadeth whom he pleaseth to trust in it Is it not then better to say that Faith is only an instrument whereby God inableth Men to lay hold of the Promise â—o Justification than to offer violence to the nature of all proper Laws and the conditions of them by making Faith the condition required by a proper Law which Man hath not â—ower to perform nor is sure to have it given when he needeth it and I suppose no instance can be given of any such Law either Human or Divine that requireth a condition out of the power or beyond the ability of the subject before the Law was made and doth not certainly provide that ability for him any other way The Second Opinion is of those that affirm Obedience to be included in Faith and so Faith and Obedience to be the condition of life i. e. that we are required sincerely to believe and obey the Gospel Commands Histories and Promises to our lives end and for so doing we shall be justified and saved Faith in this Opinion is not an immediate trust in the Promise of life through Christ but a general belief of the truth of the Histories and Promises of the Gospel encouraging to obey the Precepts of it yea though there be 〈◊〉 particular persuasion that this man in particular shall be saved if he obey the Gospel 〈◊〉 yet this is not proper trust or affiance but a more practical assent to the general Promises and Doctrine of the Gospel a trust upon an uncertain condition is no more a truâ— and proper trust than a proposition depending on a future contingency is a proper oâ— certain proposition or hath determinate truth or falshood This is the Doctrine 〈◊〉 the Remonstrants as hath been shewed Chapâ— 5. We may also observe That though thâ— Opinion be commonly exprest by believing in or receiving Christ as our King and Prophet as well as Priest yet in truth it maketh Faith or the condition of the Gospel tâ— respect Christ only as a King immediately and as a Prophet and Priest accidentally and remotely For to prescribe Laws and Conditions of Life whereby men must be judged saved or condemned and then to judge them by those Laws and either justifie or condemn them for their obedience or disobedience to them are all Kingly Acts or Exercises of Kingly Power and these only are immediately respected by this Faith which is nothing else but obeying what Christ hath commanded upon belief of the truth of what he hath declared and promised to that Obedience and so is that for which men shall be judicially justified It is true Christ as a Prophet doth explain and teach his own Law but this is accidental to a Legislator and men must obey the teaching of Christ but obedience as such is not because he teacheth but because he that teacheth is also the Law maker and hath authority to command obedience Therefore Faith as obedience and so justifying doth not properly respect Christ as a Prophet nor doth it eye him as a Priest being not a trust in his satisfaction and Righteousness to be saved by it which was the main Exercise of his Priestly Office but an obedience to the New Law which Christ had made as a King and only had purchased as a Priest leave of the Father to make such a Law and that those that obeyed it should be saved The Priesthood therefore of Christ is but remotely respected in believing as the foundation of his Law and Promises annexed to it This Mr. Baxter confesseth in effect 1 Disput of Just P. 25. when he saith Christ's Merit is the remote moral cause of our
themselves with that yet they that be throughly woundeâ— and humbled can never build their peace upon purposes or promises of obedience but upon the free Mercy of God in Christ from whence also they must have their power to obey or their purposes are in vain and also the acceptance and forgiveness of their poor imperfect obedience Whatever are the disputes of curious Wits or of rational Parts who would sain bring the Methods of Sovereign Grace to the Rules of Humane Reason yet I never met with any serious man nor I believe never shall who would soberly say That he expected to be saved or justified for and by his Obedience to the Gospel CHAP. X. An Answer to the Arguments for Obedience being the Condition of Justification WE come now for a close of this Work to consider the Principle Arguments that are brought to prove That Obedience to the Gospel or Faith as comprehending all Obedience is the Condition by fulfilling whereof we must be justified and it is alledged 1st That this way of Justification seemeth most rational obvious and agreeable to the whole Tenour of Scripture which maketh the Promises both of this Life and that which is to come to Obedience 1 Tim. 4.8 And that the way of Justification by trusting in the Promise of Mercy putteth some force both upon Reason and many Texts of Scripture Thus Mr. Trueman often 1st It was Melancthon's Observation Answ Lex com de isustif judic in Rom. That man's Reason which he call'd humana Philosophia doth always cherish a notion of being justified by Works and therefore Justification by Faith ever hath been and ever shall be opposed both by curious Wits and by grave Moral Men not only among Heathens but in the Church also which cometh partly from the Pride of Man who would fain be something but chiefly from the impression of the Law of Nature or Works which taught and allowed no other way of Justification and therefore men's Consciences though they hear the Letter of the Gospel do not cannot believe that they can be justifyed by Free Grace without any respect to their Works till they are inwardly persuaded by the Spirit of Christ Christ crucifyed was a stumbling Block to the Jews who trusted to the Works of the Law and Foolishness to the Greeks who thought themselves wise and rational men 1 Cor. 1.23 It is therefore no inconvenience that Justification by obedience is most agreeable to carnal and unsanctified reason and Justification by Faith not suitable to it But I suppose this Author by rational meant That the several parts and consequences of the Dostrine of Justification by Obedience did better cohere and agree together than if it were affirmed to be by Faith only Of this let the â—ious Reader that hath been sensible of sin â—â—d guilt and feelingly understands the grounds of a Christian's Hope and Peace â—â—dge They say That man being under â—rath for breaking the Law of Works destiâ—te of the Image or Grace of God did yet receive a New Law purchased by the Death â—f Christ to repent believe and obey the â—recepts of it and for so doing he should be â—â—aved his former sins forgiven yet all this â—hile he is not able to repent believe or oâ—â—y nor is there any promise that he shall be â—ade able and if he receive Grace to do this â—any measure yet it is not insured to him he may and many do lose it yea he may recover and and lose it again and if death should seise him in any of these sad intervals all his obedience profiteth nothing but he perisheth for ever if this will comfort or settle an afflicted unsettled conscience or be agreeable to the tasts any have had of the Grace oâ— God let such judge On the other side we teach That man being utterly lost by guilâ— and inability to obedience God sent his Soâ— fully and absolutely to satisfie his Justice and to purchase eternal life for as many as he had chosen This purchase he declared in the Gospel promising pardon and eternal life to alâ— that humbly fly to and trust in him for it that when his promise is published God sendetâ— forth his Spirit and perswadeth the hearts oâ— his Elect to trust in it that hereupon he giveth them pardon of all their sins and a right to eternal life for the sake of his Son's satisfaction and purchase that being thus reconciled to them he doth further make them hâ—â— Children and heirs of Glory for his Son sake and because they are his Children hâ— giveth them the Spirit of his Son to reneâ— them after his Image to continue and perseâ— grace in them and forgiveth all their infirmâ—ties and blesseth them with all temporal anâ— spiritual blessings in Christ and ordereth aâ— his providences for their good to purge oâ—â— sin and to perfect grace till at last of his Fatherly Goodness he crowns them with eternâ— life after their hard service on Earth to eâ—â— courage them in which Heaven was proposed as a Reward to them wherein is this irrational or inconsistent with it self The Scripture for the most part speaketh to the Conscience and Affections 2dly more than the Judgement and therefore handleth not things distinctly and didactically but putteth many things together saith and obedience in general or in particular duties as is most suited to practice and therefore it is no good Argument Faith and Obedience are joyned together often times as the means of Salvation without distinguishing the several Offices of each and what influence each have upon the several parts of our Salvation ergò both together and alike do justify us before God Yet it is evident from the whole Tenour of the Scripture That forgiveness of sin reconciliation peace with God hope of Heaven all come by our flying to and hope in Mercy and Grace alone This was renew'd to Adam by promise of the Seed of the Woman Gen. 3.17 And by Sacrifices in like manner renewed to Abraham by promise with the Seal of Circumcision and a more particular promise of Christ The Psalms practically exemplify That our only refuge is Free Mercy The Prophets are full of promises of Pardon of healing Backslidings Jer. 3.12 of loving freely Hos 14.4 of forgiving beyond man's thoughts Isa 54.6 7 8. and the like Our Saviour and the Apostles preached this Doctrine to convinced and humbled Sinners though they insist much upon Obedience to convince and reclaim the hypocritical backsliding Jews To the Heathens who had no excuse for sin they preached nothing but pardon at first and besides this when the Doctrine of Justification is distinctly propounded and proved it is wholly ascribed to Faith in the Promise in two most argumentative Epistles to the Romans and Galatians upon which they that would bring in obedience are fain to make a manifest force whereas we force no Scripture but explain those that speak generally by shewing the several Acts of Faith and ascribing to it and to
〈◊〉 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
such as the Law will accept perfect or imperfect it is all one if the Law doth require a positive righteousness then a man cannot be justified without it And do not they themselves teach that the Gospel requireth obedience to it as our Evangelical Righteousness therefore that cannot justifie us without a righteousness conformed to it self 'T is said further Legal Justification Ibidem i. e. according to the Law of Works requireth a fulfilling of that Law but not Evangelical Justification A fallacy in words Legal and Evangelical Justification differ not specie sed modo applicationis not in the righteousness which justifieth but in the manner of its application to us Had we fulfilled the Law of Works we had been legally justified by our own righteousness but now Christ hath fulfilled that Law for us we are still legally justified to wit by the righteousness of that Law yet in an Evangelical or Gracious manner that righteousness being not our own but Christ's imputed to us a◠shall be proved in the next Chapter and I beseech you when men are justified i. e. pardoned say you what Law is it that accuseth them for the violation whereof they are pardoned Is it not the Law of Works for i◠they break the Gospel Covenant there is n◠more sacrifice for sin There must then be a legal Justification by that Law of Works unless it be wholly waved and made void by the Gospel Object But the Law of Works is satisfied by the suffering of Christ and so pardon of all sins i◠a sufficient Justification from it Great Prop. p. 116. There needeth not Obedience and suffering too Answ The Law doth not directly and immediately require both obedience and suffering the penalty but obedience only is the end of the Law suffering the penalty is no fulfilling of or proper satisfaction to the Law but a recompence to Justice for the breach of the Law that so contempt may not lie upon it so that if the Law be broken it doth accidentally require both obedience and suffering of punishment the latter for the recompence of injured Justice that the Law may not be despised or broken impunè and the former as that which is the proper and natural end of the Law When a man suffereth the penalty of any Law the Law is so far satisfied that it can exact no farther punishment but doth he therefore deserve the rewards of the Law as if he had obeyed it He is indeed restored to his former State i. e. punishment ceaseth and he is admitted to the priviledge of other men to live in obedience to the Law for the future but he hath not the reward of obedience nor is accounted for his suffering to be upon the same terms with the obedient In like manner our Lord Christ by suffering the penalties of the Law did recompence the injured Honour and Justice of God and of the Law so that it could require no more punishment of him or of those that believe in him but he did not therefore deserve the rewards of the Law they were procured by his obedience to it It is not true of the Law of God that it requireth either to be obeyed or that the penalty should be endured for so men should obey and fulfill the Law in a sort by going to hell for breaking it The Law promised life only to obedience not to the suffering of death therefore Christ by suffering of death did fulfill what the Law required but accidentally and secondarily by reason of sin but by obeying the Law he fulfilled the primary and immediate end of the Law and so merited the promised reward There must therefore be a righteousness of conformity to the Law whereby must be procured a right to life as well as a suffering of the penalty whereby a stop is put to further punishment which is all that meer pardon of sin amounteth to Upon these grounds I take leave to describe Justification an Act whereby God doth acquit and accept a Sinner as righteous unto life eternal for the righteousness of Christ whereby he hath fulfilled the precept and suffered the penalty of the Law Justification actively taken is Gods Act acquitting or declaring a man righteous passively taken it is a mans state or relation to that Act of God being declared and accepted as righteous of which as it supposeth a change from a former state of guilt and condemnation the terminus a quo or state from which he is tranflated is a state of Sin and wrath the terminus ad quem is a state of absolution or being righteous before God pardon of sin or stop of punishment is included in it or doth immediately result from it so that Justification is one single Act and not several concurring to make it up though divers things are given or granted by it either immediately or consequentially as flowing from the immediate effect or benefit of it The main Argument against this Doctrine is That the Scripture doth frequently describe Justification by pardon and forgiveness as if they were aequipollent terms But the reason of this is First Because men being sensible of sin and misery do first look after pardon and therefore pardon is promised as that which will be most welcome and comfortable to them and also because men should be fensible of their own guilt and in capacity of making satisfaction to God and therefore that the righteousness by which they must be justified is not their own but Christs nor contrived or provided by them but by God himself for them What then Justification is called pardon of sin ergò it is nothing else but Pardon This is no consequence Object But the Apostle Rom. 4. fully describeth Justification the nature of it and he saith v. 6 7. That Blessedness cometh by forgiving Justif Evang p. 27. covering not imputing sin Answ But he saith also Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness Now in the place here quoted Gen. 15.6 and the context there is a promise of positive Blessing made to Abraham and he believed that promise and this was accounted to him for righteousness Shall we say Abraham believed and this was accounted for pardon of sin There is a positive righteousness intimated as well as a positive act whereby it was procur'd and appli'd and positive promises granted thereupon David indeed under great horrors for his sin comforts himself most with apprehensions of forgiveness as most suitable to his case but what good will the fullest pardon imaginable do a man without a certain right to eternal life and a promise of effectual Grace to bring him to it will he not sin again and so lose the benefit of his former pardon Object But a Sinner is capable of no other righteousness but that of forgiveness Answ What then must become of the Evangelical Righteousness of Faith and Works which they contend for A Sinner can have no other righteousness but
Sanâ—tification Glory and all the good which ever â—â—e receive to be given us freely in his own time and on his own terms by his New Covenant by â—is Spirit and by his Providence and that we are as justly and certainly justified pardoned and saved by and for this meritorious Righteousness and Sacrifice of Christ as if we had done and suffered all our selves and that he suffered for us and in our stead that we might not suffer and fulfill'd all Righteousness for us that were Sinners to those proper uses we have and need no other Righteousness and though it be not Scripture Phrase we may truly say that thus Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us c. This was writ to avoid the charge of denying Imputation of Christ's Righteousness and therefore worded in Protestant Phrases as much as could be and yet a different sence couche in them viz. in those words to be given us on his own terms and by his New Covenant whereby is intended that Christ merited â—â— Reconciliation Justification c. to be given to us as the immediate Effects of his Purchase but to be given us upon the fulfilling the Commands of the Gospel so that it is â—â— Christ's Righteousness that justifies us or â— imputed to us to Justification but it did only merit a New Covenant or Law by fulfilling whereof we should be justified We shall not endeavour to make plain what these men would obscure and hide viz. the difference betwinâ— them and us in the point of Imputation It is the usual Protestant Doctrine that Jesus Christ undertook to fulfill that Law which men broken and to bare that Punishment which their Since deserved in the behalf of his Elect and that God accepting this undertaking of his from Eternity and the performance of it in time did therefore promise and grant pardon of sin right to eternal life and his Spirit and all spiritual blessings to be conferred upon each of these Elect Persons when by the Grace of Christ they should claim them and put their trust in him Hereupon we say when a man is actually pardoned and intituted to life by virtue of this undertaking and grant that Christ's Righeousness is imputed to him i. e. that these benefits are bestowed upon him for that Righteousness which Christ wrought and â—â—d accepted and he flyeth to for Salvation â—â—d for no other reason And hereupon ariâ—â—h in justified persons an immutable right to â—â—e and the Grace of God to bring them to it â—ereupon they may be certain of their Perseâ—â—rance and Salvation But on the contrary â—â—ese men teach first That though Christ â—â—d materially fulfill the Law broken by men â—â—d bore the Punishment due to their sins 〈◊〉 did many things which the Law commanâ—â—d and suffered many things which it threatâ—d against Sin yet that he did not intend directly and properly to satisfie that Law by oâ—â—ying the Precepts and undergoing the Penalâ—â—s of it but did only fulfill the Law of a Meâ—â—ator imposed upon him and peculiar to him which was to do and suffer such things as God â—â—eased to enjoyn him 2ly That this which â—hrist did and suffered did respect and was intended not for any particular persons but â—â—r all mankind equally as Adam's Sin did â—â—y That therefore this Obedience or Righâ—â—ousness of Christ did not purchase Pardon â—â—stification or any of the Fruits of it for all 〈◊〉 for any man immediately 4ly But that 〈◊〉 procured this only That God being content â—â—ot to insist upon the Law of Innocency and 〈◊〉 hold man to that which was now become â—â—possible through the weakness of sinfull â—â—esh he should grant a Covenant of sincere â—bedience to them that would repent of their â—â—rmer sins and receive Christ for their Lord â—â—nd Saviour that they should be saved as â—ertainly as if they had not broke the Law of Innocency or had satisfied it when broken 5ly And therefore their Justification must be mutable as their sincere obedience is 6ly This is then that which they mean by Impuâ—â—tion of Christ's Righteousness and its pâ—â—chasing Justification for us viz. That it waâ— a means of taking the Covenant of Works on of the way and of procuring a New Covenant of sincere Obedience which if men do perform they shall be justified or live by it notwithstanding their sins and imperfections aâ—â— much as they should have been justified bâ— doing the Law of Works so that this Coâ—â—nant being the Effect of Christ's Death 〈◊〉 the Benefits of it Justification Adoption c. are to be reckoned the Fruits of it alâ—â— and when we enjoy these Benefits his Righteousness is imputed to us i.e. we receive the Benefit of that Covenant which his righteouâ—â—ness purchased Now I demand what it is thâ—â— justifyeth or giveth us a right to life immediately and properly By this Doctrine it is our fulfilling of the New Govenant the Christ's Righteousness doth not properly â—â—stifie us or immediately procure our Pardâ—â— or Life then this Righteousness is not impâ—â—ted to us for Justification To call this Impâ—â—ting of Christ's Righteousness to us is a sence so remote from the state of the question which is By what Righteousness we are justified immediately before God and from the very Notion of the word Imputation and impâ—â—ting or reckoning to one that I cannot callâ—â— less than equivocation or trifling Object But they say that Faith and Repentance or â—ur fulfilling of the Gospel-Covenant is a means â—f applying Christ's imputed Righteousness 4 disp of Just p. 264. â—nd so is a Righteousness subordinate and subservient to his not at all derogating from 〈◊〉 Answ By applying Christ's Righteousness they â—â—ean that then we have the Benefits and Effects of Christ's satisfaction when we have fulfilled the Terms of the Gospel As when a Man hath served his Apprentiship in a Corporation then he enjoyeth the Privileges of the Charter which was boutht or given many â—ears before but will any man say that then â—he buying or procuring of the Charter is â—mputed to him They teach that God hath â—romised to pardon and save them that obey â—is Gospel what is it then that gives the immediate right to Pardon and Salvation that â—s constitutive of a man justified in Law is it â—ot this Obedience to the Gospel Then this â—s it which is imputed to a man for righteousness but Christ's righteousness is not applied is that which doth constitute us righteous for which we are justified but when we are justified by our obedience to the Gospel this is a favour which we should never have had if Christ had not purchased it To call this applying or imputing of Christ's Righteousness â—s to hide a Heterodoxie with usual and Orthodox terms Object But the same Author acknowledgeth that Christ's Righteousness is our only legal righteousness or rather pro-legally p. 274. Ibid. a righteousness instead of our righteousness or obedience to the Law passim Answ If Christ fulfilled the
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
preserve the state of Justification Bona opera sunt necessaria ad Justificationis statum retinendum conservandum But how Not as causes that work or deserve the continuance of Justification but as means without which God will not continue it Non ut causae quae per se efficiunt aut mereantur hanc conservationem sed ut media seu conditiones sine quibus Deus non vult justificationis gratiam in hominibus conservare He explaineth himself That a life of obedience is necessary that a justified man may improve and enjoy the Fruits of Justification and also obtain the remission of following particular sins and to prevent a course of sin which is contrary to the nature of a justified man In a word That they are no otherways necessary to the continuance then they were to the beginning of Justification sc by way of concomitance and order not of influence Nam ut nemo recipit Justificationem generalem quae liberat à reatu omnium praecedentium peccatorum nisi concurrente paenitentia c. ita nemo retinet statum à reatu liberum respectu peccatorum consequentium nisi mediantibus iisdem actionibus credendi c. Ratio est quod haec abesse non possint perpetuo ut non ad esse incipiant illorum opposita quae pugnant cum natura justificati Ibid. Again Quia Deus non vult carnales c. frui beneficio justificationis requirit assidua opera fidei c. quorum praesen tiâ arcentur incredulitas c. aliáque gratiae justificationis venena at que particularium peccatorum particularis condonatio obtinetur p. 405. And Hae autem actiones non conservant vitam gratiae propriè per se attingendo ipsum effectum conversationis sed impropriè per accidens excludendo removendo causam destructionis He acknowledgeth also that the falls of the Godly do not lose their Justification Ibid. Concl. 7. Vtcunque justificati in via bonorum operum claudicare atque aliquandiu extra hanc viam per abrnpta libidinum suarum aberrare possint statu filiorum haud amisso Lastly He saith good works are necessary to â—alvation and our coming to Heaven Non necessitate causalitatis sed ordinis not as causes â—f it but as the order that God hath appointed that we should first glorifie him on earth and then be glorified with him in Heaven Now what they have gained by the Bishop's Testimony let the Reader judge We willingly â—ubscribe to all this in substance Mr. Bradshaw's Testimony will serve them to better Praefat. de Just they cite his Preface for their purpose his words are Quid enim prohibet quo minus â—traque Christi obedientia ad peccati cujusque reâ—tum tollendum ad peccatorum nostrorum omnium veniam consequendam necessaria statuaâ—ur quid obstat quo minus etiam ad imputationem utriusque hoc sufficere dixerimus quod Deus utramque cum bono nòstro admiserit obediâ—ntiam propter cam utramque nos acceptos â—abeat ac si nos ipsi eo quo par erat modo legem â—livinam implevissemus qut paenas aeternas ex eaâ—em nobis debitas apud inferos sustinuissemus Here he endeavoureth to reconcile those that contend for the Imputation of either the Active or Passive Obedience alone and saith That we may say they are both imputed both performed for us i. e. for our benefit in that way that God thought fit and that we are justified by both as much as if we had fulfilled the Law or suffered Eternal Death But doth Mr. Bradshaw here express the manner how we are accepted by the Obedience of Christ doth he at all derogate from our being justified immediately by Christ's Righteousness or doth he lay any foundation for Justification by fulfilling the Gospel-Covenant There is not a word of that here or in all his Book He doth indeed speak more accurately and cautiously of the notion of Imputation and what Obedience of Christ may be said to be imputed and what not than others do yet in substance he agreeth with them and asserteth the old Protestant Doctrine particularly Chap. 22 23 24. per totum He affirmeth Christ's satisfaction to be the onely matter of our Justification Chap. 22. Th. 1. In satisfactione Christi supradicta vera sola justificationis posita est materia And that by this Satisfaction we are not onely freed from eternal wrath but made truely righteous before God Th. 2. Redemptio sive satisfactio illa qua pretium ejusmodi persolvitur cujus vi peccator non à debita tantùm poena liberetur sed etiam in foro divino vere justissiméque justus factus dicitur non est fucata metaphorica c. And that the form of our Justification is the alledging of Christ's Righteousness Chap. 23. Th. 2. Hujus Justificationis forma est satisfactionis sive justitiae illius in gratiam ejus pro quo praestita est coram Deo factae vel alligatio vel declaratio quaevis And lastly he saith That the immediate effect of Justification is Reconciliation whereby all sins are forgiven and God receives a Sinner into favour for the Satisfaction of Christ accepted in his behalf Chap. 24. Th. 2. Hominis cum Deo reconciliatio ex vera justificatione orta est qua Deus propter Christi satisfactionem gratiosissimè admissam cum peccatore in gratiam rediens remittit eidem peccata universa ipsámque pro verè justo habet In the Conclusion of his Book he gives us the Sum of what he had delivered immediately touching the point of Justification 1. Deus Pater justificat admittendo imputando 2. Deus Filius satisfaciendo advocatum agendo 3. Sacro-Sanctus Spiritus revelando obsignando 4. Fides apprehendendo applicando 5. Bona opera manifestando declarando This is the whole and usual Protestant-Doctrine We must now seek some other Authors of this Opinion Art 24. Arminius in answer to the 31st Article objected to him saith Christi justitia imputatur in justitiam mihi non probari dixi Having in general terms as our Authors profess to acknowledge that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us and that we are justified by it yet he here denyeth That Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us for Righteousness and gives this reason Quicquid imputatur in justitiam vel ad justitiam vel pro justitia ad ipsum non est ipsa justitia strictè rigidè sumpta At Christi justitia quam ille praestitit Patri obediendo est ipsissima justitia strictè rigidè sumpta Ergò non imputatur in justitiam i. e. That which is imputed to us for righteousness must not be righteousness strictly and properly so called But Christ's Righteousness was a strict and proper Righteousness or obedience to his Father Ergò Arminius we see taketh imputing Christ's Righteousness for nothing else but that it procureth Justification for us not that
Opinions were the Pelagians and Arminians and that herein the Socinians differ little from them Let us now inquire seeing we must not be justified by the very Righteousness of Christ's Obedience and Death to what End Christ died according to those men CHAP. VI. This Doctrine overthroweth Christ's Merit and Satisfaction THE Apostle Rom. 4.25 saith That Christ was delivered i. e. to death for our Offences and raised again for our Justification Whence our Protestants have taught that the proper and immediate Effect of the Death of Christ was the procuring or grant of Pardon Justification Life Eternal to all the Elect in the Purposes of God and that accordingly God in due time publisheth to them the Promises of the Gospel by which through the effectual operation of the Holy Ghost they are perswaded and drawn to Christ to believe and trust in him for Life and so they are made actual partakers of his Death and justified But these Authors denying us to be justified immediately and properly by the Righteousness of Christ must and do deny Justification to be the immediate and proper Effect of it and assign some other immediate End of Christ's Death What this is we shall shew and how it doth make void the Merit and Satisfaction of Christ I meet with two Opinions in this matter The First saith That the immediate and proper End of the Death of Christ was not to procure Reconciliation Justification c. for all or any man but to render God placable or reconcileable to man i. e. not that God upon the Death of Christ doth grant purpose or covenant the Justification and salvation of any man but that he may now justifie forgive and save men in what way and upon what terms he pleaseth Thus Mr. Trueman as before Gr. Prop. p. 86. The immediate Effect of Christ's Satisfaction is that God might be Just though he should pardon Sinners that he might pardon salvâ justitiâ not that he must pardon them come what will of it or be unjust And again The Justice of God as a flaming Sword obstructeth all treating with us upon any terms of Reconciliation whatsoever and this would have been an eternal Bar to all Influences and Effluxes of Favour and now this Justice being satisfied and this Bar and Obstacle removed Divine Grace and Benignity is left at liberty freely to act how it pleases and in what way and upon what terms and conditions it thinketh meet This he had from Arminius who having said That Justification Pardon or Reconciliation of any man is not immediately purchased by the Death of Christ He tells us The proper Effect of it is Reconciliatio Dei remissionis justificationis redemptionis apud Peum impetratio contra Perkins fol. 76. apud Twiss qua factum est ut Deus jam possit utpote justitiâ cui satisfactum est non obstante hominibus peccatoribus peccata remittere spiritum gratiae largiri i. e. the Reconciliation of God the obtaining of remission and redemption viz. That God may forgive and sanctifie men if he please without breach of Justice which is now satisfied Hereupon they go so far as to tell us That when Christ had done and suffered all which was appointed him God was free to save or not to save men or to save upon what terms or whom he pleased Thus Grevinch contra Ames fol. 8. Peltius p. 126. Postquam impetratio praestita ac peracta esset Deo jus suum integrum mansit pro arbitratu suo eam applicare vel non applicare nec applicatio finis impetrationis propria fuit sed jus potestas applicandi pro liberrimo suo placito quibus qualibus vellet i. e. After Christ's Purchase was made and finished God was perfectly free to apply â—t or not to apply it as he should please nor was the Application of it the proper End of Christ's Purchase but that God might have power to apply it to whom and how he should think fit Episcopius goes a step further and saith There could not be a deliberate purpose in God of saving men and opening a way of â—ise to them till Christ was sacrificed Disp 5. Ibid. Deliâ—eratum mortale salvandi salutisque ostium apetiendi propositum in Deo esse requirit priusquam sacrificium oblatum esset Now if this be the only proper Effect of the Obedience and Death of Christ that God who was before bound to condemn Sinners by the Law of Works violated by them might now think of a way to save them if he pleased and withal might chuse whether he would save them or propound terms of Life to them or not It followeth â—ence 1. That the Obedience of Christ was not meritorious nor did merit any thing of the father It is true there was an intrinsecal infinite value in Christ's Obedience by reason of the Divine Excellency of his Person and so there was an equality or proportion betwixt his Obedience and the Happiness which was to be procured for men But this is the Foundation of Merit not Actual Merit To merit is to deserve a Reward to do something whereupon a Reward is due so that Merit in its proper notion doth imply an actual Right or Obligation to a reward which Obligation ariseth from some Law Promise or Compact betwixt the Parties and he which doth not give that Reward according to Merit offendeth against some Law either of strict Justice or at least of Gratitude Generosity Kindness c. If then God was not bound by Covenant Promise or so much as deliberate Purpose to save men or to give them any terms of Life for all that Christ did or suffered then his Obedience merited nothing there was nothing due no reward proposed to him which he would challenge for God was still free to do what he pleased with men God they say would not have been unjust if he had not saved men though Christ died he was not then bound by the Law of Justice and he could not be bound by any other Law to remunerate the Death and Sufferings of his Son with such an happy Effect as man's Salvation Christ's Death say they was a refuseable payment for sin even when it was presented to the Father God might then have refused it and yet have been Just But it would not have been just to have denyed Jesus Christ that which he merited that would be due debt to him They say indeed Christ was the meritorious cause of our Justification But what did he merit Justification Then God was not free to deny it he must justifie those for whom Christ merited Justification or be unjust unless there can be a cause without an effect or causality The effect of merit is some reward deserved given for the sake of the merit the causality of merit is some compact Law or Promise whereby one is bound to reward that merit If then God was bound to nothing upon the Obedience of Christ but still had jus