Lusts and deny their Wills and Worldly Interests to which end at last they got into Wildernesses and Monasteries where in Fasting and Prayer and a single life they might live as it were out of the World while they were in it Though indeed persecution first drove them thither to save themselves Into these Deserts and Monasteries those went that had most Zeal but not usually most Knowledg And they turned much of their Doctrine and discourses about these Austerities and about the practices of a Godly Life and about all the Miracles which were some really done and some feigned by credulous soft people said to be done among them So that in all these ages most of their writings are taken up 1. In defending Christianity against the Heathens which was the work of the Learned Doctors 2. And in confuting swarms of Heresies that sprung up 3. And in matters of Church-order and Ecclesiastical and Monastical discipline 4. And in the precepts of a Godly Life But the point of Imputation was not only not meddled with distinctly but almost all the Writers of those times seem to give very much to Mans free-will and to works of Holiness and sufferings making too rare and obscure mention of the distinct Interests of Christs Merits in our Justification at least with any touch upon this Controversie Yet generally holding Pardon and Grace and Salvation only by Christs Sacrifice and Merits though they spake most of Mans Holiness when they called men to seek to make sure of Salvation § 5. And indeed at the day of Judgment the Question to be decided will not be Whether Christ dyed and did his part but Whether we believed and obeyed him and did our part Not Whether Christ performed his Covenant with the Father but Whether we performed our Covenant with him For it is not Christ that is to be judged but we by Christ § 6. But Pelagius and Augustine disputing about the Power of Nature and Freewill and the Grace of Christ began to make it a matter of great Ingenuity as Erasmus speaketh to be a Christian Pelagius a Brittain of great wit and continence and a good and sober life as Austin saith Epist 120. stifly defended the Power of Nature and Freewill and made Grace to consist only in the free Pardon of all sin through Christ and in the Doctrine and Perswasions only to a holy life for the time to come with Gods common ordinary help Augustine copiously and justly defended God's special eternal Election of some and his special Grace given them to make them repent and believe and presevere For though he maintained that some that were true Believers Lovers of God Justified and in a state of Salvation did fall away and perish yet he held that none of the Elect did fall away and perish And he maintained that even the Justified that fell away had their Faith by a special Grace above nature Vid. August de bono Persever Cap. 8. 9. de Cor. Grat. Cap. 8 9. alibi passim § 7. In this their Controversie the point of Justification fell into frequent debate But no Controversie ever arose between them Whether Christ's personal Righteousness considered Materially or Formally was by Imputation made ours as Proprietors of the thing it self distinct from its effects or Whether God reputed us to have satisfied and also perfectly obeyed in Christ For Augustine himself while he vehemently defendeth free Grace speaketh too little even of the Pardon of sin And though he say that Free Pardon of sins is part of Grace yet he maketh Justification to be that which we call Sanctification that makes us inherently Righteous or new-Creatures by the operation of the Holy Ghost And he thinketh that this is the Justification which Paul pleadeth to be of Grace and not of works yet including Pardon of sin and confessing that sometimes to Justifie signifieth in Scripture not to make just but to judg just And though in it self this be but de nomine and not de re yet 1. no doubt but as to many texts of Scripture Austin was mistaken though some few texts Beza and others confess to be taken in his sence 2. And the exposition of many texts lieth upon it But he that took Justification to be by the operation of the Holy Ghost giving us Love to God could not take it to be by Imputation in the rigorous sence no question nor doth de re § 8. But because as some that it seems never read Augustine or understood not plain words have nevertheless ventured confidently to deny what I have said of his Judgment in the points of Perseverance in my Tract of Perseverance so it 's like such men will have no more wariness what they say in the point of Justification I will cite a few of Augustin's words among many to show what he took Justification to be though I differ from him de nomine Nec quia recti sunt corde sed etiam ut recti sint corde pretendit Justitiam suam quâ justificat impium Quo motu receditur ab illo fonte vitae cujus solius haustu justitia bibitur bona scil vita Aug. de Spir. Lit. Cap. 7. Deus est enim qui operatur in eis velle operari pro bona voluntate Haec est Justitia Dei hoc est quam Deus donat homini quum justificat impium Hanc Dei justitiam ignorantes superbi Judaei suam volentes constituere justitiae Dei non sunt subjecti Dei quippe dixit Justitiam quae homini ex Deo est suam vero quam putant sibi suficere ad facienda mandata sine adjutorio dono ejus qui legem dedit His antem similes sunt qui cum profiteantur se esse Christianos ipsi gratiae Christi sic adversantur ut se humanis viribus divina existiment implere mandata Epist 120. cap. 21. 22. Epist 200. Et de Spir. lit c. 26. Factores justificabuntur Non tanquam per opera nam per Gratiam justificentur Cum dicat Gratis justificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis nihilque aliud velit intelligi in eo quod dicit Gratu nisi quia justificationem opera non precedunt Aperte quippe alibi dicit si gratiâ jam non ex operibus alioquin gratia non est gratia Sed sic intelligendum est factores Legis justificabuntur ut sciamus eos non esse factores legis nisi justificentur ut non justificatio factoribus accedat sed factores legis justificatio precedat Quid est enim aliud Justificati quam Justi facti ab illo scilicet qui justificat Impium â—t ex impio fiat justus Aut certe ita dictum est Justificabuntur ac si diceretur Justi habebuntur justi deputabuntur Et ibid. cap. 29. Gentes qua non sectabantur justitiam apprehenderunt justitiam Justitiam autem quae ex fide est impretrando eam ex Deo non
Take your selves to be neither of Roman or any other Church as Vniversal which is less than the Vniversality of all Christians headed by Christ alone 9. Make this Love of all Christians the second part of your Religion and the Love of God of Christ of Holiness and Heaven the first and live thus in the serious practice of your Covenant even of Simple Christianity For it 's this that will be your Peace in Life and at Death 10. And if Men of various degrees of Learning or Speaking-skill and of various degrees of Holiness Humility and Love shall quarrel about Words and forms of Speech and shall hereticate and revile and damn each other while the Essentials are held fast and practised discern Right from Wrong as well as you can but take heed that none of them make Words a snare to draw you injuriously to think hatefully of your Brother or to divide the Churches or Servants of Christ And suspect such a Snare because of the great ambiguity of Words and imperfection of Mans Skill and Honesty in all Matters of debate And never dispute seriously without first agreeing of the Sense of every doubtful term with him that you Dispute with Dr. Tully's Allarm and other Mens militant Course perswaded me as a Preservative to commend this Counsel to you § XI Pag. 19. You next very justly commend Method ordering and expressing our Conceptions of which you say I seem to make little account in Comparison Answ 1. Had you said that I had been unhappy in my Endeavours your Authority might have gone for Proof with many But you could scarce have spoken a more incredible word of me than that I seem to make little account of Method I look for no sharper Censure from the Theological Tribe than that I Over-do in my Endeavours after Method You shall not tempt me here unseasonably to anticipate what Evidence I have to produce for my acquittance from this Accusation 2. But yet I will still say that it is not so necessary either to Salvation or to the Churches Peace that we all agree in Methods and Expressions as that we agree in the hearty reception of Christ and obedience to His Commands So much Method all must know as to know the Beginning and the End from the Effects and Means God from the Creature and as our true consent to the Baptismal Covenant doth require and I will thankfully use all the help which you give me to go further But I never yet saw that Scheme of Theologie or of any of its Heads which was any whit large and I have seen many which was so exact in Order as that it was dangerous in any thing to forsake it But I cannot think meet to talk much of Method with a Man that talketh as you do of Distinguishing and handleth the Doctrine of Justification no more Methodically than you do § XII But pag. 19. you instance in the difference between Protestants and Papists about the Necessity of Good works which is wide in respect of the placing or ranking of them viz. The one stretching it to the first Justification the other not but confining it to its proper rank and province of Inherent Holiness where it ought to keep Answ Wonderful Have you that have so loudly called to me to tell how I differ about Justification brought your own and as you say the Protestants difference to this Will none of your Readers see now who cometh nearer them you or I 1. Is this distinction our proof of your accurateness in Method and Order and Expression What meaneth a distinction between First-Justification and Inherent Holiness Do you difference them Quoad ordinem as First and Second But here is no Second mentioned Is it in the nature of the things Justification and Inherent Holiness What signifieth the First then But Sir how many Readers do you expect who know not 1. That it is not to the First Justification at all but to that which they call the Second or Increase that the Church of Rome asserteth the necessity or use of Mans meritorious Works See what I have fully cited out of them for this Cath. Theol. Lib. 2. Confer 13. pag. 267. c. saving that some of them are for such Preparatives as some call Merit of Congruity and as our English Divines do constantly preach for and the Synod of Dort at large assert though they disown the name of Merit as many of the Papists do They ordinarily say with Austine Bona opera sequuntur Justificatum non praecedunt Justificandum 2. But I hope the word First here overslipt your your Pen instead of Second But suppose it did so What 's the difference between the Papists first or second Justification and the Protestants Inherent Holiness None that ever I heard or read of Who knoweth not that the Papists take Justification for Inherent Holiness And is this the great difference between Papists and Protestants which I am so loudly accused for not acknowledging viz. The Papists place Good-Works before Justification that is Inherent Holiness and the Protestants more rightly place them before Inherent Holiness Are you serious or do you prevaricate The Papists and Protestants hold that there are some Duties and common Grace usually preparatory to Conversion or Sanctification which some Papists de nomine call Merit of Congruity and some will not The Papists and Protestants say that Faith is in order of nature at least before that Habitual Love which is called Holiness and before the Works thereof The Papists and Protestants say that Works of Love and Obedience follow our First Sanctification and make up but the Second part of it which consisteth in the Works of Holiness If you speak not of Works in the same sense in each part of your Assignation the Equivocation would be too gross viz. If you should mean Papists rank the necessity of preparatory Common Works or the Internal act of Faith or Love stretching it to the First Justification and Protestants rank other Works viz. The fruits of Faith and Love with Inherent Holiness All agree 1. That Common Works go before Sanctification 2. That Internal Love and other Grace do constitute Sanctification in the First part of it 3. That Special Works proceeding from Inward Grace are the effects of the First Part and the constitutive Causes of the Second Part of Sanctification as the word extendeth also to Holiness of Life And whilst Papists take Justâ—fication for Sanctification in all this there is De re no difference But your accurate Explications by such terms as Stretching Confirming Province c. are fitter for Tully than for Aristotle And is this it in the Application that your Zeal will warn Men of that we must in this take heed of joyning with the Papists Do you mean Rank Good-Works with Inherent Holiness and not with the First Sanctification and you then do widely differ from the Papists Will not your Reader say 1. What doth Inherent Holiness differ from the First
Reasons and you presently feign a Retractation of the Doctrine and of about sixty Books of Retractions It 's well that pag. 23. you had the justice not to justifie your Nec dubito quin imputatam Christi justitiam incluserit But to confess your Injustice was too much It is not your own Retractation that you are for it seems § XIV Pag. 23 24. You talk as if my supposing that both Justice and Imputation are capable of Definitions which are not the Things were a Fallacy because or is a disjunctive viz. When I say that the Definition of the one or the other is not the Thing Do you grant it of them Disjunctively and yet maintain the contrary of them Conjunct Yes you say Imputed Justice cannot differ from its true definition unless you will have it to differ really from it self And pag. 34. you say I am ashamed you should thus over and over expose your self as if supposing Definitions true they were not the same Re with the Definitum Good Sir talk what you please in private to such as understand not what you say and let them give you a grand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for your pains but you may do well to use more Civility to the reason of a Scholar though he hath not yet worn out his Freshmans Gown Answ This is no light or jesting Matter The comfort of Souls dependeth on it I see some Men expect that Reverence of their Scholarship should give them great advantage But if one argued thus with me for Transubstantiation I would not turn to him to escape the Guilt of Incivility If the Definition and the Definitum as in question now be the same Thing wo to all the Unlearned World and wo to all Freshmen that yet have not learnt well to define and wo to all Divines that differ in their Definitions except those that are in the right I know that a Word and a Mental Conception are not Nothing They may be called Things but when we distinguish the Things from their Signs Names or Definitions we take not the word Things so laxly as to comprehend the said Signs Names c. When we say that the Thing defined is necessary but to be able to Define it or actually to Define it is not necessary to Salvation it is notorious that we take Definition as Defining actively as it is Actus definientis and Definire sure is not the same with the Thing defined I have heard before your Letter told me that Definitum definitio idem sunt But I pray you let us not quibble almost all the World under a sentence of Damnation As long ago as it is since I read such words I remember our Masters told us I think Schibler in his Topicks for one that when they are taken Pro terminis Logicis definitio definitum non sunt idem but only when they are taken Pro rebus per eos terminos significatis and that there they differ in Modo significandi essentiam the definitum signifying the Essence confusedly and the Definition distinctly If you will take the Res definita for that which is strictly nothing but Rei conceptus inadaequatus seu partialis that is a Species and that not as the thing is Existent extra intellectum but as the conception is an operation of the Mind so I confess that he that hath a true Conception of a Species as meerly denominated or as defined hath the same conception of it And also the Thing named and the Thing defined is the same thing in it self Homo Animal rationale are the same that is it is the same essence which is denominated Homo and defined Animal rationale And it is the same Conceptus mentis which we have if true when we denominate and when we define But as Things are distinct from the knowledg and signs of Things nothing is Res that is not existent and nothing existeth but in Singulars or Individuals And as nothing can be defined but a Species so a Species or any Vniversal is nothing but a Notion or Ens rationis save as it existeth in the said Individuals And in the Individuals it is nothing but their being as partially or inadequatly taken or a Conceptus objectivus partialis whether it be of a thing really or only intellectually partible or any thing which our narrow Minds cannot conceive of Vno simplici conceptu activo Now if you take the word Definition for the Species as existent in Individuals it is really a part of the thing that is a Partial objective conceptus or somewhat of the Thing as Intelligible But this is to take Definition in Sensu passivo for the Thing defined which our Case distinguisheth But Sir I crave your leave to distinguish Real objective Beings from 1. The Knowledg 2. and the Names and other Logical Organs by which we know them and express our knowledg of them God Christ Grace Glory Pardon Justification Sanctification the Gospel-Doctrine Precept Promises Faith Hope Love Obedience Humility Patience c. are the Res definitae in our Case not as they are in esse cognito or in the notion or idea of them but in esse reali To Define properly is either 1. Mentally to conceive of these things 2. or Expressively to signifie such Conceptions agreeably to the nature of the things known or Expressively defined Which is if the Definition be perfect under the notions of a Genus and Differentia The Definition as in Words is but a Logical Organ as Names are also Notifying signs Mental defining is but the said distinct knowledg of the thing defined and is neither really the Thing it self nor usually of necessity to the Thing Which two I shall prove distinctly as to the sense of our Case 1. The Definition of Justification is either our Distinct knowledg or Expression of it Justification is not our Distinct knowledg or Expression of it Therefore the Definition of Justification and Justification are not the same Justification In sensu activo is not an Act of God and In sensu passivo is the Relative state of Man thereby effected But the Definition of Justification is neither The Definition of Justification is a work of Art but Justification is a Work of Grace A wicked damnable Man or a damned Devil may define Justification and so have the Definition of it but not Justification it self The Definition of Justification Faith Love c. is Quid Logicum but Justification Faith Love c. are things Physical and Moral A Man is Justified or hath Christs Righteousness imputed to him in his sleep and when he thinketh not of it but he hath not the Active definition of Justification in his sleep c. Other things be not the same Really with their Dâ—finition therefore neither is Justification Faith c. The Sun is not really the same thing with a Definition of the Sun nor Light Heat Motion c. A Brute can see taste feel smell that cannot
The Augustane Confession Art 3 4. Christ died that he might reconcile the Father to us and be a sacrifice not only for original sin but also for all the actual sins of men And that we may obtain these benefits of Christ that is Remission of sins justification and life eternal Christ gave us the Gospel in which these benefits are propounded To preach Repentance in his Name and Remission of sins among all Nations For when men propagated in the natural manner have sin and cannot truly satisfie Gods Law the Gospel reproveth sin and sheweth us Christ the Mediator and so teacheth us about Pardon of sins That freely for Christ's sake are given us Remission of sins Justification by Faith by which we must confess that these are given us for Christ who was made a Sacrifice for us and appeased the Father Though the Gospel require Penitence yet that pardon of sin may be sure it teacheth us that it is freely given us that is that it dependeth not on the Condition of our worthyness nor is given for any precedent works or worthyness of following works For Conscience in true fears findeth no work which it can oppose to the Wrath of God and Christ is proposed and given us to be a propitiator This honour of Christ must not be transferred to our works Therefore Paul saith ye are saved freely or of Grace And it is of grace that the promise might be sure that is Pardon will be sure when we know that it dependeth not on the Condition of our worthiness but is given for Christ In the Creed this Article I believe the Forgiveness of sins is added to the history And the rest of the history of Christ must be referred to this Article For this benefit is the end of the history Christ therefore suffered and rose again that for him might be given us Remission of sins and life everlasting Art 6. When we are Reconciled by Faith there must needs follow the Righteousness of good works But because the infirmity of mans nature is so great that no man can satisfie the Law it is necessary to teach men not only that they must obey the Law but also how this Obedience pleaseth lest Consciences fall into desperation when they understand that they satisfie not the Law This Obedience then pleaseth not because it satisfieth the Law but because the person is in Christ reconciled by Faith and believeth that the relicts of his Sin are pardoned We must ever hold that we obtain remission of sins and the person is pronounced Righteous that is is accepted freely for Christ by Faith And afterward that Obedience to the Law pleaseth and is reputed a certain Righteousness and meriteth rewards Thus the first Protestants VII The 11th Article of the Church of England to which we all offer to subscribe is Of the Justification of Man We are accounted Righteous before God only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith and not for our own works or deservings Wherefore that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholsome doctrine and very full of Comfort as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification The said Homilies of Salvation and Faith say over and over the same thing As pag. 14. Three things go together in our Justification On Gods part his great Mercy and Grace on Christs part Justice that is the Satisfaction of Gods Justice or the Price of our Redemption by the offering of his body and shedding of his blood with fulfilling of the Law perfectly and throughly And on our part true and lively Faith in the Merits of Jesus Christ which yet is not ours but by Gods working in us And pag. A lively Faith is not only the common belief of the Articles of our Faith but also a true trust and confidence of the mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ and a steadfast hope of all good things to be received at Gods hand and that although we through infirmity or temptation do fall from him by sin yet if we return again to him by true repentance that he will forgive and forget our offences for his Sons sake our Saviour Jesus Christ and will make us inheritors with him of his everlasting Kingdom Pag. 23. For the very sure and lively Christian Faith is to have an earnest trust and confidence in God that he doth regard us and is careful over us as the Father is over the Child whom he doth love and that he will be merciful unto us for his only Sons sake and that we have our Saviour Christ our perpetual Advocate and Prince in whose only merits oblation and suffering we do trust that our offences be continually washed and purged whensoever we repenting truely do return to him with our whole heart steadfastly determining with our selves through his grace to obey and serve him in keeping his Commandments c. So also the Apology This is our doctrine of Imputation VIII The Saxon Confession oft insisteth on the free Pardon of sin not merited by us but by Christ And expoundeth Justification to be Of unjust that is Guilty and disobedient and not having Christ to be made Just that is To be Absolved from Guilt for the Son of God and an apprehender by Faith of Christ himself who is our Righteousness as Jeremiah and Paul say because by his Merit we have forgiveness and God imputeth righteousness to us and for him reputeth us just and by giving us his Spirit quickeneth and regenerateth us By being Justified by Faith alone we mean that freely for our Mediator alone not for our Contrition or other Merits the pardon of sin and reconciliation is given us And before It is certain when the mind is raised by this Faith that the pardon of sin Reconciliation and Imputation of Righteousness are given for the Merit of Christ himself And after By Faith is meant Affiance resting in the Son of God the Propitiator for whom we are received and please God and not for our virtues and fulfilling of the Law IX The Wittenberge Confession In Corp. Conf. pag. 104 A man is made Accepted of God and Reputed just before him for the Son of God our Lord Jesus Christ alone by Faith And at the Judgment of God we must not trust to the Merit of any of the Virtues which we have but to the sole Merit of our Lord Jesus Christ which is made ours by Faith And because at the bar of God where the case of true eternal Righteousness and Salvation will be pleaded there is no place for mans Merits but only for God's Mercy and the Merits of our Lord Jesus Christ whom we receive by Faith therefore we think our Ancestors said rightly that we are justified before God by Faith only X. The Bohemian Confession making Justification the principal Article goeth the same way Pag. 183 184. By Christ men are Justified obtain Salvation and Remission of sin freely by Faith in Christ through mercy without
save us from suffering but he obeyed not to save us from obeying but to bring us to Obedience Yet his Perfection of Obedience had this end that perfect Obedience might not be necessary in us to our Justification and Salvation 27. It was not we our selves who did perfectly obey or were perfectly holy or suffered for sin in the Person of Christ or by Him Nor did we Naturally or Morally merit our own Salvation by obeying in Christ nor did we satisfie Gods Justice for our sins nor purchase pardon of Salvation to our selves by our Suffering in and by Christ All such phrase and sence is contrary to Scripture But Christ did this for us 28. Therefore God doth not repute us to have done it seeing it is not true 29. It is impossible for the individual formal Righteousness of Christ to be our Formal personal Righteousness Because it is a Relation and Accident which cannot be translated from subject to subject and cannot be in divers subjects the same 30. Where the question is Whether Christs Material Righteousness that is his Habits Acts and Sufferings themselves be Ours we must consider how a man can have Propriety in Habits Acts and Passions who is the subject of them and in Actions who is the Agent of them To Give the same Individual Habit or Passion to another is an Impossibility that is to make him by Gift the subject of it For it is not the same if it be in another subject To make one man really or physically to have been the Agent of anothers Act even that Individual Act if he was not so is a contradiction and impossibility that is to make it true that I did that which I did not To be ours by Divine Imputation cannot be to be ours by a false Reputation or supposition that we did what we did not For God cannot err or lie There is therefore but one of these two ways left Either that we our selves in person truly had the habits which Christ had and did all that Christ did and suffered all that he suffered and so satisfied and merited Life in and by him as by an Instrument or Legal Representer of our persons in all this Which I am anon to Confute or else That Christs Satisfaction Righteousness and the Habits Acts and Sufferings in which it lay are imputed to us and made ours not rigidly in the very thing it self but in the Effects and Benefits In as much as we are as really Pardoned Justified Adopted by them as the Meritorious cause by the instrumentality of the Covenants Donation as if we our selves had done and suffered all that Christ did as a Mediator and Sponsor do and suffer for us I say As really and certainly and with a fuller demonstration of Gods Mercy and Wisdom and with a sufficient demonstration of his Justice But not that our propriety in the benefits is in all respects the same as it should have been if we had been done and suffered our selves what Christ did Thus Christs Righteousness is ours 31. Christ is truly The Lord our Righteousness in more respects than one or two 1. In that he is the meritorious Cause of the Pardon of all our sins and our full Justification Adoption and right to Glory and by his Satisfaction and Merits only our Justification by the Covenant of Grace against the Curse of the Law of Works is purchased 2. In that he is the Legislator Testator and Donor of our Pardon and Justification by this new-Testament or Covenant 3. In that he is the Head of Influx and King and Intercessor by and from whom the Spirit is given to sanctifie us to God and cause us sincerely to perform the Conditions of the Justifying and saving Covenant in Accepting and Improving the mercy then given 4. In that he is the Righteous Judge and Justifyer of Believers by sentence of Judgment In all these Respects he is The Lord our Righteousness 32. We are said to be made the Righteousness of God in him 1. In that as he was used like a sinner for us but not esteemed one by God so we are used like Innocent persons so far as to be saved by him 2. In that through his Merits and upon our union with him when we believe and consent to his Covenant we are pardoned and justified and so made Righteous really that is such as are not to be condemned but to be glorified 3. In that the Divine Nature and Inherent Righteousness to them that are in him by Faith are for his Merits given by the Holy Ghost 4. In that God's Justice and Holiness Truth Wisdom and Mercy are all wonderfully demonstrated in this way of pardoning and justifying sinners by Christ Thus are we made the Righteousness of God in him 31. For Righteousness to be imputed to us is all one as to be accounted Righteous Rom. 4.6 11. notwithstanding that we be not Righteous as fulfillers of the Law of Innocency 34. For Faith to be imputed to us for Righteousness Rom. 4.22 23 24. is plainly meant that God who under the Law of Innocency required perfect Obedience of us to our Justification and Glorification upon the satisfaction and merits of Christ hath freely given a full Pardon and Right to Life to all true Believers so that now by the Covenant of Grace nothing is required of us to our Justification but Faith all the rest being done by Christ And so Faith in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost is reputed truly to be the condition on our part on which Christ and Life by that Baptismal Covenant are made ours 35. Justification Adoption and Life eternal are considered 1. Quoad ipsam rem as to the thing it self in value 2. Quoad Ordinem Conferendi Recipiendi as to the order and manner of Conveyance and Participation In the first respect It is a meer free-gift to us purchased by Christ In the second respect It is a Reward to Believers who thankfully accept the free-Gift according to its nature and uses 36. It is an error contrary to the scope of the Gospel to say that the Law of Works or of Innocency doth justifie us as performed either by our selves or by Christ For that Law condemneth and curseth us And we are not efficiently justified by it but from or against it 37. Therefore we have no Righteousness in Reality or Reputation formally ours which consisteth in the first species that is in a Conformity to the Preceptive part of the Law of Innocency we are not reputed Innocent But only a Righteousness which consisteth in Pardon of all sin and right to life with sincere performance of the Condition of the Covenant of Grace that is True Faith 38. Our pardon puts not away our Guilt of Fact or Fault but our Guilt of or obligation to Punishment God doth not repute us such as never sinned or such as by our Innocency merited Heaven but such as are not to be damned but to be glorified because pardoned and adopted
the least punishment upon For he that hath perfectly obeyed or hath perfectly satisfied by himself or by another in his person cannot justly be punished But I have elsewhere fully proved that Death and other Chastisements are punishments though not destructive but corrective And so is the permission of our further sinning 35. It intimateth that God wrongeth believers for not giving them immediately more of the Holy Ghost and not present perfecting them and freeing them from all sin For though Christ may give us the fruits of his own merits in the time and way that pleaseth himself yet if it be we our selves that have perfectly satisfied and merited in Christ we have present Right to the thing merited thereupon and it is an injury to deny it us at all 36. And accordingly it would be an injury to keep them so long out of Heaven if they themselves did merit it so long ago 37. And the very Threatning of Punishment in the Law of Grace would seem injurious or incongruous to them that have already reputatively obeyed perfectly to the death 38. And there would be no place left for any Reward from God to any act of obedience done by our selves in our natural or real person Because having reputatively fulfilled all Righteousness and deserved all that we are capable of by another our own acts can have no reward 39. And I think this would overthrow all Humane Laws and Government For all true Governours are the Officers of God and do what they do in subordination to God and therefore cannot justly punish any man whom he pronounceth erfectly Innocent to the death 40. This maketh every believer at least as Righteous as Christ himself as having true propriety in all the same numerical Righteousness as his own And if we be as Righteous as Christ are we not as amiable to God And may we not go to God in our Names as Righteous 41. This maketh all believers at least equally Righteous in degree and every one perfect and no difference between them David and Solomon as Righteous in the act of sinning as before and every weak and scandalous believer to be as Righteous as the best Which is not true though many say that Justification hath no degrees but is perfect at first as I have proved in my Life of Faith and elsewhere 42. This too much levelleth Heaven and Earth For in Heaven there can be nothing greater than perfection 43. The Scripture no-where calleth our Imputed Righteousness by the name of Innocency or sinless Perfection nor Inculpability Imputed Nay when the very phrase of Imputing Christs Righteousness is not there at all to add all these wrong descriptions of Imputation is such Additions to Gods words as tendeth to let in almost any thing that mans wit shall excogitate and ill beseemeth them that are for Scripture-sufficiency and perfection and against Additions in the general And whether some may not say that we are Imputatively Christ himself Conceived by the Holy Ghost Born of the Virgin Mary suffered under Pontius Pilate Crucified c. I cannot tell To conclude the honest plain Christian may without disquieting the Church or himself be satisfied in this certain simple truth That we are sinners and deserve everlasting misery That Christ hath suffered as a Sacrifice for our sins in our room and stead and satisfied the Justice of God That he hath by his perfect Holiness and Obedience with those sufferings merited our pardon and Life That he never hereby intended to make us Lawless have us Holy but hath brought us under a Law of Grace which is the Instrument by which he pardoneth justifieth and giveth us Right to life That by this Covenant he requireth of us Repentance and true Faith to our first Justification and sincere Obedience Holiness and Perseverance to our Glorification to be wrought by his Grace and our Wills excited and enabled by it That Christs Sufferings are to save us from suffering but his Holiness and Obedience are to merit Holiness Obedience Happiness for us that we may be like him and so be made personally amiable to God But both his Sufferings and Obedience do bring us under a Covenant where Perfection is not necessary to our Salvation CHAP. V. The Objections Answered Obj. 1. YOV confound a Natural and a Political person Christ and the several believing sinners are not the same natural Person but they are the same Political As are with us saith Dr. Tullie the Sponsor and the Debtor the Attorney and the Clyent the Tutor and the Pupil so are all the faithful in Christ both as to their Celestial regenerate nature of which he is the first Father who begetteth sons by his Spirit and seed of the Word to his Image and as to Righteousness derived by Legal Imputation Vid. Dr. Tullie Justif Paul p. 80 81. It 's commonly said that Christ as our surety is our Person Ans 1. The distinction of a Person into Natural and Political or Legal is equivoci in sua equivocata He therefore that would not have contention cherished and men taught to damn each other for a word not understood must give us leave to ask what these equivocals mean What a Natural Person signifieth we are pretty well agreed but a Political Person is a word not so easily and commonly understood Calvin tells us that Persona definitur homo qui caput habet civile For omnis persona est homo sed non vicissim Homo cum est vocabulum naturae Persona juris civilis And so as Albenius civitas municipium Castrum Collegium Vniversitas quod libet corpus Personae appellatione continetur ut Spigel But if this Definition be commensurate to the common nature of a civil person then a King can be none nor any one that hath not a civil head This therefore is too narrow The same Calvin in n. Personae tells us that Seneca Personam vocat cum prae se fert aliquis quod non est A Counterfeit But sure this is not the sence of the Objectors In general saith Calvin Tam hominem quam qualitatem hominis seu Conditionem significat But it is not sure every Quality or Condition Calvin therefore giveth us nothing satisfactory to the decision of the Controversie which these Divines will needs make whether each believer and Christ be the same Political Person Martinius will make our Controversie no easier by the various significations gathered out of Vet. Vocab Gel. Scaliger Valla Which he thus enumerateth 1. Persona est accidens conditio hominis qualitas quâ homo differt ab homine tum in animo tum in corpore tum in externis 2. Homo qualitate dictâ proditus 3. Homo insigni qualitate praeditus habens gradum eminentiae in Ecclesia Dei c. 4. Figura seu facies ficta larva histrionica c. 5. Ille qui sub hujusmodi figura aliquam representat c. 6. Figura eminens in aedificiis quae ore aquam fundit
a congruous way of disputing for Truth and Righteousness nor indeed is it tolerably ingenuous or modest If not then why doth he all along carry his professed agreement with me in a militant strain perswading his Reader that I savour of Socinianism or Popery or some dangerous Error by saying the very same that he saith O what thanks doth God's Church owe such contentious Disputers for supposed Orthodoxness that like noctambuli will rise in their sleep and cry Fire Fire or beat an Allarm on their Drums and cry out The Enemy The Enemy and will not let their Neighbours rest I have wearied my Readers with so oft repeating in my Writings upon such repeated importunities of others these following Assertions about Works 1. That we are never justified first or last by Works of Innocency 2. Nor by the Works of the Jewish Law which Paul pleadeth against 3. Nor by any Works of Merit in point of Commutative Justice or of distributive Governing Justice according to either of those Laws of Innocency or Jewish 4. Nor by any Works or Acts of Man which are set against or instead of the least part of God's Acts Christ's Merits or any of his part or honour 5. Nor are we at first justified by any Evangelical Works of Love Gratitude or Obedience to Christ as Works are distinguished from our first Faith and Repentance 6. Nor are we justified by Repentance as by an instrumental efficient Cause or as of the same receiving Nature with Faith except as Repentance signifieth our change from Vnbelief to Faith and so is Faith it self 7. Nor are we justified by Faith as by a mere Act or moral good Work 8. Nor yet as by a proper efficient Instrument of our Justification 9. Much less by such Works of Charity to Men as are without true love to God 10. And least of all by Popish bad Works called Good as Pilgrimages hurtful Austerities c. But if any Church-troubling Men will first call all Acts of Man's Soul by the name of WORKS and next will call no Act by the name of Justifying Faith but the belief of the Promise as some or the accepting of Christ's Righteousness given or imputed to us as in se our own as others or the Recumbency on this Righteousness as others or all these three Acts as others and if next they will say that this Faith justifieth us only as the proper Instrumental Cause And next that to look for Justification by any other Act of Man's Soul or by this Faith in any other respect is to trust to that Justification by Works which Paul confuteth and to fall from Grace I do detest such corrupting and abusing of the Scriptures and the Church of Christ And I assert as followeth 1. That the Faith which we are justified by doth as essentially contain our belief of the Truth of Christ's Person Office Death Resurrection Intercession c. as of the Promise of Imputation 2. And also our consent to Christ's Teaching Government Intercession as to Imputation 3. And our Acceptance of Pardon Spirit and promised Glory as well as Imputed Righteousness of Christ 4. Yea that it is essentially a Faith in God the Father and the Holy Ghost 5. That it hath in it essentially somewhat of Initial Love to God to Christ to Recovery to Glory that is of Volition and so of Desire 6. That it containeth all that Faith which is necessarily requisite at Baptism to that Covenant even a consenting-practical-belief in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and is our Christianity it self 7. That we are justified by this Faith as it is A moral Act of Man adapted to its proper Office made by our Redeemer the Condition of his Gift of Justification and so is the moral receptive aptitude of the Subject or the Dispositio materiae vel subjecti Recipientis Where the Matter of it is An adapted moral Act of Man by Grace The Ratio formalis of its Interest in our Justification is Conditio praestita speaking politically and Aptitudo vel Dispositio moralis Receptiva speaking logically which Dr. Twiss still calleth Causa dispositiva 8. That Repentance as it is a change of the Mind from Unbelief to Faith in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost is this Faith denominated from its Terminus à quo principally 9. That we are continually justified by this Faith as continued as well as initially justified by its first Act. 10. That as this Faith includeth a consent to future Obedience that is Subjection so the performance of that consent in sincere Obedience is the Condition of our Justification as continued Secondarily as well as Faith or consent it self primarily And that thus James meaneth that we are Justified by Works 11. That God judging of all things truly as they are now judgeth Men just or unjust on these Terms 12. And his Law being Norma judicii now vertually judgeth us just on these terms 13. And that the Law of Grace being that which we are to be judged by we shall at the last Judgment also be judged and so justified thus far by or according to our sincere Love Obedience or Evangelical Works as the Condition of the Law or Covenant of free Grace which justifieth and glorifieth freely all that are thus Evangelically qualified by and for the Merits perfect Righteousness and Sacrifice of Christ which procured the Covenant or free Gift of Universal Conditional Justification and Adoption before and without any Works or Conditions done by Man whatsoever Reader Forgive me this troublesom oft repeating the state of the Controversie I meddle with no other If this be Justification by Works I am for it If this Doctor be against it he is against much of the Gospel If he be not he had better have kept his Bed than to have call'd us to Arms in his Dream when we have sadly warred so many Ages already about mere words For my part I think that such a short explication of our sense and rejection of ambiguities is fitter to end these quarrels than the long disputations of Confounders 4. But when be saith Works make not a Man just and yet we are at last justified according to them it is a contradiction or unsound For if he mean Works in the sence excluded by Paul we are not justified according to them viz. such as make or are thought to make the Reward to be not of Grace but of Debt But if he take Works in the sense intended by James sincere Obedience is a secondary constitutive part of that inherent or adherent personal Righteousness required by the Law of Grace in subordination to Christ's Meritorious Righteousness And what Christian can deny this So far it maketh us Righteous as Faith doth initially And what is it to be justified according to our Works but to be judged so far as they are sincerely done to be such as have performed the secondary part of the Conditions of free-given Life 5. His According but not ex operibus at the
define them If you have a Bishoprick because you define a Bishoprick or have a Lordship a Kingdom Health c. because you can define them your Axiome hath stood you in good stead The Definition is but Explicatio rei But Rei explicatio non est ipsa res Individuals say most are not Definable But nothing is truly Res but Individuals Vniversals as they are in the Mind are existent Individual Acts Cogitations Nâ—tions As they are out of the Mind they are nothing but Individuorum quid intelligibile The Definition of Learning of a Doctor c. may be got in a day If Learning and Doctorship may be so what useless things are Universities and Books Perswade a hungry Scholar that he hath Meat and Drink or the Ambitious that he hath Preferment or the Covetous or Poor that he hath Money because he hath in his Mind or Mouth the Definition of it and quibble him into satisfaction by telling him that Definitio definitum sunt idem re We know and express things narrowly by Names and largely and distinctly by Definitions The Definition here is Explicatio nominis as Animal rationale of the name Homo and both Name and Definition as they are Verba mentis vel oris or Verborum significatio are surely divers from the things named and defined known and expressed unless by the Thing you mean only the Knowledg or Notion of the Thing Therefore though Cui competit definitio eidem quoque competit definitum contra quod convenit definitioni convenit definito Yet say not that Imputed Righteousness in Re is the same with the Definition as it is the Definers act By this time you have helpt Men to understand by an Instance why St. Paul so much warneth Christians to take heed lest any deceive them by vain Philosophy even by Sophistry and abused arbitrary Notions Remember Sir that our Case is of grand Importance As it is stated in my Direct 42. which you assaulted it is Whether if the Question were of the Object of Predestination of the nature of the Will 's liberty Divine concourse and determining way of Grace of the Definition of Justification Faith c. a few well studied Divines are not here to be preferred before Authority and the major Vote Such are my words I assert 1. That the Defining of Justification Faith c. is a work of Art 2. And I have many and many times told the World which you seem to strike at that Christians do not differ so much in their Real conceptions of the Matter as they do in their Definitions 1. Because Definitions are made up of Ambiguous words whose Explication they are not agreed in and almost all Words are ambiguous till explained and ambiguous Words are not fit to define or be defined till explained And 2. Because both selecting fit terms and explaining them and ordering them are works of Art in which Men are unequal and there is as great variety of Intellectual Conceptions as of Faces 3. And I have often said That a Knowledg intuitive or a Simple apprehension of a thing as Sensate or an Internal experience or Reflect act and a general notion of some things may prove the truth of Grace and save Souls and make us capable of Christian Love and Communion as being true saving Knowledg 4. And consequently I have often said that many a thousand Christians have Faith Hope Desire Love Humility Obedience Justication Adoption Vnion with Christ who can define none of these Unless you will speak equivocally of Definition it self and say as good Melancthon and as Gutherleth and some other Romists that Notitia intuitiva est definitio who yet say but what I am saying when they add Vel saltem instar definitionis If all are without Faith Love Justification Adoption who cannot give a true Definition of them how few will be saved How much more then doth Learning to Mens salvation than Grace And Aristotle then is not so far below Paul or the Spirit of Christ as we justly believe The Case is so weighty and palpable that you have nothing to say but as you did about the Guilt of our nearer Parents sins to yield all the Cause and with a passionate clamour to tell Men that I mistake you or wrest your words of which I shall appeal to every sober Reader that will peruse the words of mine which you assault and yours as they are an Answer to mine In a word you go about by the abuse of a trivial Axiome of Definitions 1. To sentence most Christians to Hell and cast them into Desperation as wanting the Grace which they cannot define 2. And to destroy Christian Love and Concord and tear the Church into as many Shreds as there be diversities of Definitions used by them 3. And you would tempt us to think much hardlier of your self than we must or will do as if your Faith Justification c. were unsound because your Definitions are so I know that Vnius rei una tantum est Definitio speaking 1. Not of the Terms but the Sense 2. And supposing that Definition to be perfectly true that is the truth of Intellection and Expression consisting in their congruity to the Thing while the thing is one and the same the conception and expression which is perfectly true must be so too But 1. Our understandings are all imperfect and we know nothing perfectly but Secundum quaedam and Zanckez saith truly that Nihil scitur if we call that only Knowledg which is perfect And consequently no Mental Definition is perfect 2. And Imperfections have many degrees 3. And our Terms which make up that which you know I called a Definition in my Dir. 42. as it is in words are as aforesaid various mutable and variously understood and used § XV. Pag. 24. Again you are at it Whom do you mean by that one rare Person whose single Judgment is to be preferred in the point of Justification and to whom Answ 1. No one that knoweth not the difference between an Invididuum vagum determinatum 2. No one that is of so hard Metal as in despite of the plainest words to insinuate to the World that these words A few well-studied Judicious Divines do signifie only one and that these words One Man of extraordinary understanding and clearness is to be preferred before the Rulers and major Vote in difficult speculations do signifie one individuum determinatum in the World and that the Speaker is bound to name the Man No one that thinketh that Pemble who in his Vind. Grat. hath almost the very same words said well and that I who repeat them am as criminal as you pretend No one who either knoweth not that almost all the World even Papists agree in this Rule or that thinketh his judgment fit herein to bear them all down No one who when his abuses are brought into the open Sun-shine will rather accuse the Light than repent But pag. 25. After some
might not be necessary to our Justification and this in the person of a Mediator and Sponsor for us sinners but not so in our Persons as that we truely in a moral or civil sence did all this in and by him Even so God reputeth the thing to be as it is and so far Imputeth Christ's Righteousness and Merits and Satisfaction to us as that it is Reputed by him the true Meritorious Cause of our Justification and that for it God maketh a Covenant of Grace in which he freely giveth Christ Pardon and Life to all that accept the Gift as it is so that the Accepters are by this Covenant or Gift as surely justified and saved by Christ's Righteousness as if they had Obeyed and Satisfied themselves Not that Christ meriteth that we shall have Grace to fulfil the Law our selves and stand before God in a Righteousness of our own which will answer the Law of works and justifie us But that the Conditions of the Gift in the Covenant of Grace being performed by every penitent Believer that Covenant doth pardon all their sins as Gods Instrument and giveth them a Right to Life eternal for Christs Merits This is the sence of Imputation which I and others asserted as the true healing middle way And as bad as they are among the most Learned Papists Cornelius a Lapide is cited by Mr. Wotton Vasquez by Davenant Suarez by Mr. Burges as speaking for some such Imputation and Merit Grotius de Satisf is clear for it But the Brethren called Congregational or Independant in their Meeting at the Savoy Oct. 12. 1658. publishing a Declaration of their Faith Cap. 11. have these words Those whom God effectually calleth he also freely justifieth not by infusing Righteousness into them but by pardoning their Sins and by accounting and accepting their persons as Righteous not for any thing wrought in them or done by them but for Christs sake alone not by imputing Faith it self the act of believing or any other evangelical Obedience to them as their Righteousness but by Imputing Christs Active Obedience to the whole Law and Passive Obedience in his death for their whole and sole Righteousness they receiving and resting on him and his Righteousness by Faith Upon the publication of this it was variously spoken of some thought that it gave the Papists so great a scandal and advantage to reproach the Protestants as denying all inherent Righteousness that it was necessary that we should disclaim it Others said that it was not their meaning to deny Inherent Righteousness though their words so spake but only that we are not justified by it Many said that it was not the work of all of that party but of some few that had an inclination to some of the Antinomian principles out of a mistaken zeal of free Grace and that it is well known that they differ from us and therefore it cannot be imputed to us and that it is best make no stir about it lest it irritate them to make the matter worse by a Defence give the Papists too soon notice of it And I spake with one Godly Minister that was of their Assembly who told me that they did not subscribe it and that they meant but to deny Justification by inherent Righteousness And though such men in the Articles of their declared Faith no doubt can speak intelligibly and aptly and are to be understood as they speak according to the common use of the words yet even able-men sometimes may be in this excepted when eager engagement in an opinion and parties carryeth them too precipitantly and maketh them forget something that should be remembred The Sentences here which we excepted against are these two But the first was not much offensive because their meaning was right And the same words are in the Assemblies Confession though they might better have been left out Scriptures Declaration Rom. 4.3 What saith the Scripture Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for Righteousness Ver. 5. To him that worketh not but believeth on him that Justifyeth the Vngodly his Faith is counted for Righteousness Ver. 9. For we say that Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness How was it then reckoned Ver. 11. And he received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being uncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that believe that Righteousness might be imputed to them also Ver. 13. Through the Righteousness of Faith Ver. 16. Therefore it is of Faith that it might be by Grace vid. Ver. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. He was strong in Faith fully perswaded that what he had promised he was able also to perform and therefore it was Imputed to him for Righteousness Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him but for us also to whom it shall be imputed if we or who believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead Gen. 15.5 6. Tell the Stars so shall thy seed be And he believed in the Lord and he counted it to him for Righteousness Jam. 2.21 22 23 24. Was not Abraham our Father justified by Works And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for Righteousness Luk. 19.17 Well done thou good Servant Because thou hast been Faithful in a very little have thou authority over ten Cities Mat. 25.34 35 40 Come ye blessed For I was hungry and ye gave me Meat Gen. 22.16 17 By my self I have sworn Because thou hast done this thing Joh. 16.27 For the Father himself loveth you because you have loved me and have believed that I came out from God Many such passages are in Scripture Our opinion is 1. That it is better to justifie and expound the Scripture than flatly to deny it If Scripture so oft say that Faith is reckoned or Imputed for Righteousness it becometh not Christians to say It is not But to shew in what sence it is and in what it is not For if it be so Imputed in no sence the Scripture is made false If in any sence it should not be universally denied but with distinction 2. We hold that in Justification there is considerable 1. The Purchasing and Meritorious Cause of Justification freely given in the new Covenant This is only Christ's Sufferings and Righteousness and so it is Reputed of God and Imputed to us 2. The Order of Donation which is On Condion of Acceptance And so 3. The Condition of our Title to the free Gift by this Covenant And that is Our Faith or Acceptance of the Gift according to its nature and use And thus God Reputeth Faith and Imputeth it to us requiring but this Condition of us which also he worketh in us by the Covenant of Grace whereas perfect Obedience was required of us by the Law of Innocency If we err in this explication it had been better to confute us than deny
through the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ 39. Yet the Reatus Culpae is remitted to us Relatively as to the punishment though not in it self that is It shall not procure our Damnation Even as Christ's Righteousness is though not in it self yet respectively as to the Benefits said to be made ours in as much as we shall have those benefits by it 40. Thus both the Material and the Formal Righteousness of Christ are made ours that is Both the Holy Habits and Acts and his Sufferings with the Relative formal Righteousness of his own Person because these are altogether one Meritorious cause of our Justification commonly called the Material Cause Obj. But though Forma Denominat yet if Christs Righteousness in Matter and Form be the Meritorious Cause of ours and that be the same with the Material Cause it is a very tolerable speech to say that His Righteousness is Ours in it self while it is the very matter of ours Ans 1. When any man is Righteous Immediately by any action that action is called the Matter of his Righteousness in such an Analogical sense as Action an Accident may be called Matter because the Relation of Righteous is founded or subjected first or partly in that Action And so when Christ perfectly obeyed it was the Matter of his Righteousness But to be Righteous and to Merit are not all one notion Merit is adventitious to meer Righteousness Now it is not Christs Actions in themselves that our Righteousness resulteth from immediately as his own did But there is first his Action then his formal Righteousness thereby and thirdly his Merit by that Righteousness which goes to procure the Covenant-Donation of Righteousnass to us by which Covenant we are efficiently made Righteous So that the name of a Material Cause is much more properly given to Christs Actions as to his own formal Righteousness than as to ours But yet this is but de nomine 2. Above all consider what that Righteousness is which Christ merited for us which is the heart of the Controversie It is not of the same species or sort with his own His Righteousness was a perfect sinless Innocency and Conformity to the preceptive part of the Law of Innocency in Holiness Ours is not such The dissenters think it is such by Imputation and here is the difference Ours is but in respect to the second or retributive part of the Law a Right to Impunity and Life and a Justification not at all by that Law but from its curse or condemnation The Law that saith Obey perfectly and live sin and die doth not justifie us as persons that have perfectly obeyed it really or imputatively But its obligation to punishment is dissolved not by it self but by the Law of Grace It is then by the Law of Grace that we are judged and justified According to it 1. We are not really or reputatively such as have perfectly fulfilled all its Precepts 2. But we are such as by Grace do sincerely perform the Condition of its promise 3. By which promise of Gift we are such as have right to Christs own person in the Relation and Union of a Head and Saviour and with him the pardon of all our sins and the right of Adoption to the Spirit and the Heavenly Inheritance as purchased by Christ So that besides our Inherent or Adherent Righteousness of sincere Faith Repentance and Obedience as the performed condition of the Law of Grace we have no other Righteousness our selves but Right to Impunity and to Life and not any imputed sinless Innocency at all God pardoneth our sins and adopteth us for the sake of Christ's sufferings and perfect Holiness But he doth not account us perfectly Holy for it nor perfectly Obedient So that how-ever you will call it whether a Material Cause or a Meritorious the thing is plain Obj. He is made of God Righteousness to us Ans True But that 's none of the question But how is he so made 1. As he is made Wisdom Sanctification and Redemption as aforesaid 2. By Merit Satisfaction Direction Prescription and Donation He is the Meritorious Cause of our Pardon of our Adoption of our Right to Heaven of that new Covenant which is the Instrumental Deed of Gift confirming all these And he is also our Righteousness in the sense that Austin so much standeth on as all our Holiness and Righteousness of Heart and Life is not of our natural endeavour but his gift and operation by his Spirit causing us to obey his Holy precepts and Example All these ways he is made of God our Righteousness Besides the Objective way of sense as he is Objectively made our Wisdom because it is the truest wisdom to know him So he is objectively made our Righteousness in that it is that Gospel-Righteousness which is required of our selves by his grace to believe in him and obey him 41. Though Christ fulfilled not the Law by Habitual Holiness and Actual Obedience strictly in the Individual person of each particular sinner yet he did it in the nature of Man And so humane nature considered in specie and in Christ personally though not considered as a totum or as personally in each man did satisfie and fullfil the Law and Merit As Humane Nature sinned in Adam actually in specie and in his individual person and all our Persons were seminally and virtually in him and accordingly sinned or are reputed sinners as having no nature but what he conveyed who could convey no better than he had either as to Relation or Real quality But not that God reputed us to have been actually existent as really distinct persons in Adam which is not true Even so Christ obeyed and suffered in our Nature and in our nature as it was in him and humane sinful nature in specie was Universally pardoned by him and Eternal life freely given to all men for his merits thus far imputed to them their sins being not imputed to hinder this Gift which is made in and by the Covenant of Grace Only the Gift hath the Condition of mans Acceptance of it according to its nature 2 Cor. 5.19 20. And all the individuals that shall in time by Faith accept the Gift are there and thereby made such as the Covenant for his merits doth justifie by that General Gift 42. As Adam was a Head by Nature and therefore conveyed Guilt by natural Generation so Christ is a Head not by nature but by Sacred Contract and therefore conveyeth Right to Pardon Adoption and Salvation not by Generation but by Contract or Donation So that what it was to be naturally in Adam seminally and virtually though not personlly in existence even that it is in order to our benefit by him to be in Christ by Contract or the new Covenant virtually though not in personal existence when the Covenant was made 43. They therefore that look upon Justification or Righteousness as coming to us immediately by Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us without the
that is judged to have no sin is judged to deserve no punishment Unless they will say that to prevent the form and desert of sin is eminenter though not formaliter to forgive But it is another even Actual forgiveness which we hear of in the Gospel and pray for daily in the Lords prayer Of all which see the full Scripture-proof in Mr. Hotchkis of Forgiveness of sin CHAP. III. A further explication of the Controversie Yet I am afraid lest I have not made the state of the Controversie plain enough to the unexercised Reader and lest the very explicatory distinctions and propositions though needful and suitable to the matter should be unsuitable to his capacity I will therefore go over it again in a shorter way and make it as plain as possibly I can being fully perswaded that it is not so much Argumentation as help to understand the matter and our own and other mens ambiguous words that is needful to end our abominable Contentions § 1. THE Righteousness of a Person is formally a moral Relation of that Person § 2. This moral Relation is the Relation of that person to the Rule by which he is to be judged § 3. And it is his Relation to some Cause or supposed Accusation or Question to be decided by that judgment § 4. The Rule of Righteousness here is Gods Law naturally or supernaturally made known § 5. The Law hath a Preceptive part determining what shall be due from us and a Retributive part determining what shall be due to us § 6. The Precept instituting Duty our Actions and Dispositions which are the Matter of that duty are physically considered conform or disconform to the Precept § 7. Being Physically they are consequently so Morally considered we being Moral Agents and the Law a Rule of Morality § 8. If the Actions be righteous or unrighteous consequently the Person is so in reference to those Actions supposing that to be his Cause or the Question to be decided § 9. Unrighteousness as to this Cause is Guilt or Reatus Culpae and to be unrighteous is to be Sons or Guilty of sin § 10. The Retributive part of the Law is 1. Premiant for Obedience 2. Penal for Disobedience § 11. To be Guilty or Unrighteous as to the reward is to have no right to the reward that being supposed the Question in judgment And to be Righteous here is to have right to the reward § 12. To be Guilty as to the penalty is to be jure puniendus or Reus poenae or obligatus ad poenam And to be righteous here is to have Right to impunity quoad poenam damni sensus § 13. The first Law made personal perfect persevering Innocency both mans duty and the Condition of the Reward and Impunity and any sin the condition of punishment § 14. Man broke this Law and so lost his Innocency and so the Condition became naturally impossible to him de futuro § 15. Therefore that Law as a Covenant that is the Promissory part with its Condition ceased cessante capacitate subditi and so did the preceptive part 1. As it commanded absolute Innocency of act and habit 2. And as it commanded the seeking of the Reward on the Condition and by the means of personal Innocency The Condition thus passing into the nature of a sentence And punishment remaining due for the sin § 16. But the Law remained still an obliging Precept for future perfect Obedience and made punishment due for all future sin and these two parts of it as the Law of lapsed Nature remained in force between the first sin and the new-Covenant promise or Law of Grace § 17. The eternal Word interposing a Mediator is promised and Mercy maketh a Law of Grace and the Word becometh mans Redeemer by undertaking and by present actual reprieve pardon and initial deliverance and the fallen world the miserable sinners with the Law and obligations which they were under are now become the Redemers jure Redemptionis as before they were the Creator's jure Creationis § 18. The Redeemers Law then hath two parts 1. The said Law of lapsed nature binding to future perfect obedience or punishment which he found man under called vulgarly the Moral Law 2. And a pardoning Remedying Law of Grace § 19. Because man had dishonoured God and his Law by sin the Redeemer undertook to take mans nature without sin and by perfect Holiness and Obedience and by becoming a Sacrifice for sin to bring that Honour to God and his Law which we should have done and to attain the Ends of Law and Government instead of our Perfection or Punishment that for the Merit hereof we might be delivered and live § 20. This he did in the third person of a Mediator who as such had a Law or Covenant proper to himself the Conditions of which he performed by perfect keeping 1. The Law of Innocency 2. Of Moses 3. And that proper to himself alone and so merited all that was promised to him for Himself and Us. § 21. By his Law of Grace as our Lord-Redeemer he gave first to all mankind in Adam and after in Noah and by a second fuller edition at his Incarnation a free Pardon of the destructive punishment but not of all punishment with right to his Spirit of Grace Adoption and Glory in Union with Himself their Head on Condition initially of Faith and Repentance and progressively of sincere Obedience to the end to be performed by his Help or Grace § 22. By this Law of Grace supposing the Law of lapsed nature aforesaid inclusively all the World is ruled and shall be judged according to that edition of it to Adam or by Christ which they are under And by it they shall be Justified or Condemned § 23. If the question then be Have you kept or not kept the Conditions of the Law of Grace Personal Performance or nothing must so far be our Righteousness and not Christs keeping them for us or Satisfaction for our not keeping them And this is the great Case so oft by Christ described Mat. 7. 25. c. to be decided in judgment and therefore the word Righteous and Righteousness are used for what is thus personal hundreds of times in Scripture § 24. But as to the question Have we kept the Law of Innocency we must confess guilt and say No neither Immediately by our selves nor Mediately by another or Instrument for Personal Obedience only is the performance required by that Law Therefore we have no Righteousness consisting in such Performance or Innocency but must confess sin and plead a pardon § 25. Therefore no man hath a proper Vniversal Righteousness excluding all kind of Guilt whatsoever § 26. Therefore no man is justified by the Law of Innocency nor the Law Mosaical as of works either by the Preceptive or Retributive part for we broke the Precept and are by the Threatning heirs of death § 27. That Law doth not justifie us because Christ fulfilled
it for us For it said not in words or sense Thou or one for thee shall Perfectly Obey or Suffer It mentioned no Substitute But it is the Law-giver and not that Law that justifieth us by other means § 28. But we have another Righteousness imputed to us instead of that Perfect Legal Innocency and Rewardableness by which we shall be accepted of God and glorified at last as surely and fully at least as if we had never sinned or had perfectly kept that Law which therefore may be called our Pro-legal Righteousness § 29. But this Righteousness is not yet either OURS by such a propriety as a Personal performance would have bin nor OURS to all the same ends and purposes It saveth us not from all pain death or penal desertion nor constituteth our Relation just the same § 30. It is the Law of Grace that Justifieth us both as giving us Righteousness and as Virtually judging us Righteous when it hath made us so and it is Christ as Judg according to that Law and God by Christ that will sentence us just and executively so use us § 31. The Grace of Christ first giveth us Faith and Repentance by effectual Vocation And then the Law of Grace by its Donative part or Act doth give us a Right to Vnion with Christ as the Churches Head and so to his Body and with him a right to Pardon of past sin and to the Spirit to dwell and act in us for the future and to the Love of God and Life eternal to be ours in possession if we sincerely obey and persevere § 32. The total Righteousness then which we have as an Accident of which we are the Subjects is 1. A right to Impunity by the free Pardon of all our sins and a right to Gods Favour and Glory as a free gift quoad valorem but as a Reward of our Obedience quoad Ordinem conferendi rationem Comparativam why one rather than another is judged meet for that free gift 2. And the Relation of one that hath by grace performed the Condition of that free Gift without which we had been no capable recipients which is initially Faith and Repentance the Condition of our Right begun and consequently sincere Obedience and Perseverance the Condition of continued right § 33. Christs personal Righteousness is no one of these and so is not our Constitutive Righteousness formally and strictly so called For Formally our Righteousness is a Relation of right and it is the Relation of our own Persons And a Relation is an accident And the numerical Relation or Right of one person cannot be the same numerical Accident of another person as the subject § 34. There are but three sorts of Causes Efficient Constitutive and Final 1. Christ is the efficient cause of all our Righteousness 1. Of our Right to Pardon and Life 2. And of our Gospel-Obedience And that many waies 1. He is the Meritorious Cause 2. He is the Donor by his Covenant 3. And the Donor or Operator of our Inherent Righteousness by his Spirit 4. And the moral efficient by his Word Promise Example c. 2. And Christ is partly the final cause 3. But all the doubt is whether his personal Righteousness be the Constitutive Cause § 35. The Constitutive Cause of natural bodily substances consisteth of Matter disposed and Form Relations have no Matter but instead of Matter a Subject and that is Our own persons here and not Christ and a terminus and fundamentum § 36. The Fundamentum may be called both the Efficient Cause of the Relation as commonly it is and the Matter from which it resulteth And so Christs Righteousness is undoubtedly the Meritorious efficient Cause and undoubtedly not the Formal Cause of our personal Relation of Righteousness Therefore all the doubt is of the Material Cause § 37. So that all the Controversie is come up to a bare name and Logical term of which Logicians agree not as to the aptitude All confess that Relations have no proper Matter besides the subject all confess that the Fundamentum is loco efficientis but whether it be a fit name to call it the Constitutive Matter of a Relation there is no agreement § 38. And if there were it would not decide this Verbal Controversie For 1. Titulus est fundamentum Juris The fundamentum of our Right to Impunity and Life in and with Christ is the Donative act of our Saviour in and by his Law or Covenant of Grace that is our Title And from that our Relation resulteth the Conditio tituli vel juris being found in our selves 2. And our Relation of Performers of that Condition of the Law of Grace resulteth from our own performance as the fundamentum compared to the Rule So that both these parts of our Righteousness have a nearer fundamentum than Christs personal Righteousness § 39. But the Right given us by the Covenant and the Spirit and Grace being a Right merited first by Christs personal Righteousness this is a Causa Causae id est fundamenti seu Donationis And while this much is certain whether it shall be called a Remote fundamentum viz. Causa fundamenti and so a Remote Constitutive Material Cause or only properly a Meritorious Cause may well be left to the arbitrary Logician that useeth such notions as he pleases but verily is a Controversie unfit to tear the Church for or destroy Love and Concord by § 40. Quest 1. Is Christs Righteousness OVRS Ans Yes In some sense and in another not § 41. Quest 2. Is Christs Righteousness OVRS Ans Yes In the sense before opened For all things are ours and his righteousness more than lower Causes § 42. Quest 3. Is Christs Righteousness OVRS as it was or is His own with the same sort of propriety Ans No. § 43. Quest 4. Is the formal Relation of Righteous as an accident of our persons numerically the same Righteousness Ans No It is impossible Unless we are the same person § 44. Quest 5. Is Christ and each Believer one political person Ans A political person is an equivocal word If you take it for an Office as the King or Judg is a political person I say No If for a Society Yea But noxia noxa caput sequuntur True Guilt is an accident of natural persons and of Societies only as constituted of such and so is Righteousness Though Physically Good or Evil may for society-sake befal us without personal desert or consent But if by Person you mean a certain State or Condition as to be a subject of God or one that is to suffer for sin so Christ may be said to be the same person with us in specie but not numerically because that Accident whence his Personality is named is not in the same subject § 45. Quest 6. Is Christs Righteousness imputed to us Ans Yes If by imputing you mean reckoning or reputing it ours so far as is aforesaid that is such a Cause of ours §
the Relation of evil Wicked Vngodly and Vnrighteous which resulteth from them And so it maketh Christ really hated of God For God cannot but hate any one whom he reputeth to be truly ungodly a Hater of God an Enemy to him a Rebel as we all were whereas it was only the Guilt of Punishment and not of Crime as such that Christ assumed He undertook to suffer in the room of sinners and to be reputed one that had so undertaken But not to be reputed really a sinner an ungodly person hater of God one that had the Image of the Devil 5. Nay it maketh Christ to have been incomparably the worst man that ever was in the World by just reputation and to have been by just imputation guilty of all the sins of all the Elect that ever lived and reputed one of the Murderers of himself and one of the Persecutors of his Church or rather many and the language that Luther used Catechrestically to be strictly and properly true 6. It supposeth a wrong sence of the Imputation of Adams sin to his posterity As if we had been justly reputed persons existent in his person and so in him to have been persons that committed the same sin whereas we are only reputed to be now not then persons who have a Nature derived from him which being then seminally only in him deriveth by propagation an answerable Guilt of his sinful fact together with natural Corruption 7. It supposeth us to be Justifiable and Justified by the Law of Innocency made to Adam as it saith Obey perfectly and Live As if we fulfilled it by Christ which is not only an addition to the Scripture but a Contradiction For it is only the Law or Covenant of Grace that we are Justified by 8. It putteth to that end a false sence upon the Law of Innocency For whereas it commandeth Personal Obedience and maketh Personal punishment due to the offender This supposeth the Law to say or mean Either thou or one for thee shall Obey or Thou shalt obey by thy self or by another And if thou sin thou shalt suffer by thy self or by another Whereas the Law knew no Substitute or Vicar no nor Sponsor nor is any such thing said of it in the Scripture so bold are men in their additions 9. It falsly supposeth that we are not Judged and Justified by the new Covenant or Law of Grace but but is said by the Law of Innocency 10. It fathereth on God an erring judgment as if he reputed reckoned or accounted things to be what they are not and us to have done what we did not To repute Christ a Sponsor for sinners who undertook to obey in their natures and suffer in their place and stead as a Sacrifice to redeem them is all just and true And to repute us those for whom Christ did this But to repute Christ to have been really and every one of us or a sinner or guilty of sin it self or to repute us to have been habitually as Good as Christ was or actually to have done what he did either Naturally or Civilly and by Him as our substitute and to repute us Righteous by possessing his formal personal Righteousness in it self All these are untrue and therefore not to be ascribed to God To Impute it to us is but to Repute us as verily and groundedly Righteous by his Merited and freely-Given Pardon and Right to Life as if we had merited it our selves 11. It feigneth the same Numerical Accident their Relation of Righteousness which was in one subject to be in another which is Impossible 12. It maketh us to have satisfied Divine Justice for our selves and merited Salvation and all that we receive for our selves in and by another And so that we may plead our own Merits with God for Heaven and all his benefits 13. The very making and tenor of the new Covenant contradicteth this opinion For when God maketh a Law or Covenant to convey the effects of Christs Righteousness to us by degrees and upon certain Conditions this proveth that the very Righteousness in it self simply was not ours else we should have had these effects of it both presently and immediately and absolutely without new Conditions 14. This opinion therefore maketh this Law of Grace which giveth the benefits to us by these degrees and upon terms to be an injury to Believers as keeping them from their own 15. It seemeth to deny Christs Legislation in the Law of Grace and consequently his Kingly Office For if we are reputed to have fulfilled the whole Law of Innocency in Christ there is no business for the Law of Grace to do 16. It seemeth to make internal Sanctification by the Spirit needless or at least as to one half of its use For if we are by just Imputation in Gods account perfectly Holy in Christs Holiness the first moment of our believing nothing can be added to Perfection we are as fully Amiable in the sight of God as if we were sanctified in our selves Because by Imputation it is all our own 17. And so it seemeth to make our after-Obedience unnecessary at least as to half its use For if in Gods true account we have perfectly obeyed to the death by another how can we be required to do it all or part again by our selves If all the debt of our Obedience be paid why is it required again 18. And this seemeth to Impute to God a nature less holy and at enmity to sin than indeed he hath if he can repute a man laden with hateful sins to be as perfecty Holy Obedient and Amiable to him as if he were really so in himself because another is such for him 19. If we did in our own persons Imputatively what Christ did I think it will follow that we sinned that being unlawful to us which was Good in him It is a sin for us to be Circumcised and to keep all the Law of Moses and send forth Apostles and to make Church-Ordinances needful to Salvation Therefore we did not this in Christ And if not this they that distinguish and tell us what we did in Christ and what not must prove it I know that Christ did somewhat which is a common duty of all men and somewhat proper to the Jews and somewhat proper to himself But that one sort of men did one part in Christ and another sort did another part in him is to be proved 20. If Christ suffered but in the Person of sinful man his sufferings would have been in vain or no Satisfaction to God For sinful man is obliged to perpetual punishment of which a temporal one is but a small part Our persons cannot make a temporal suffering equal to that perpetual one due to man but the transcendent person of the Mediator did Obj. Christ bore both his own person and ours It belongeth to him as Mediator to personate the guilty sinner Ans It belongeth to him as Mediator to undertake the sinners punishment in his own
Righteousness consisting in 1. perfect Innocency 2. And that in the Works of the Jewish Law which bind us not 3. And in doing his peculiar Works as Miracles Resurrection c. which were all His Righteousness as a conformity to that Law and performance of that Covenant which was made with and to him as Mediator But his Righteousness is the Meritorious Cause and Reason of another Righteousness or Justification distinct from his freely given us by the Father and himself by his Covenant So that here indeed the Similitude much cleareth the Matter And they that will not blaspheme Christ by making guilt of sin it self in its formal Relation to be his own and so Christ to be formally as great a sinner as all the Redeemed set together and they that will not overthrow the Gospel by making us formally as Righteous as Christ in kind and measure must needs be agreed with us in this part of the Controversie Object 9. When you infer That if we are reckoned to have perfectly obeyed in and by Christ we cannot be again bound to obey our selves afterward nor be guilty of any sin you must know that it 's true That we cannot be bound to obey to the same ends as Christ did which is to redeem us or to fulfil the Law of Works But yet we must obey to other ends viz. Ingratitude and to live to God and to do good and other such like Answ 1. This is very true That we are not bound to obey to all the same ends that Christ did as to redeem the World nor to fulfil the Law of Innocency But hence it clearly followeth that Christ obeyed not in each of our Persons legally but in the Person of a Mediator seeing his due Obedience and ours have so different Ends and a different formal Relation his being a conformity proximately to the Law given him as Mediator that they are not so much as of the same species much less numerically the same 2. And this fully proveth that we are not reckoned to have perfectly obeyed in and by him For else we could not be yet obliged to obey though to other ends than he was For either this Obedience of Gratitude is a Duty or not If not it is not truly Obedience nor the omission sin If yea then that Duty was made a Duty by some Law And if by a Law we are now bound to obey in gratitude or for what ends soever either we do all that we are so bound to do or not If we do it or any of it then to say that we did it twice once by Christ and once by our selves is to say that we were bound to do it twice and then Christ did not all that we were bound to but half But what Man is he that sinneth not Therefore seeing it is certain that no Man doth all that he is bound to do by the Gospel in the time and measure of his Faith Hope Love Fruitfulness c. it followeth that he is a sinner and that he is not supposed to have done all that by Christ which he failed in both because he was bound to do it himself and because he is a sinner for not doing it 3. Yea the Gospel binds us to that which Christ could not do for us it being a Contradiction Our great Duties are 1. To believe in a Saviour 2. To improve all the parts of his Mediation by a Life of Faith 3. To repent of our sins 4. To mortifie sinful Lusts in our selves 5. To fight by the Spirit against our flesh 6. To confess our selves sinners 7. To pray for pardon 8. To pray for that Grace which we culpably want 9. To love God for redeeming us 10. Sacramentally to covenant with Christ and to receive him and his Gifts with many such like which Christ was not capable of doing in and on his own Person for us though as Mediator he give us Grace to do them and pray for the pardon of our sins as in our selves 4. But the Truth which this Objection intimateth we all agree in viz. That the Mediator perfectly kept the Law of Innocency that the keeping of that Law might not be necessary to our Salvation and so such Righteousness necessary in our selves but that we might be pardoned for want of perfect Innocency and be saved upon our sincere keeping of the Law of Grace because the Law of Innocency was kept by our Mediator and thereby the Grace of the New-Covenant merited and by it Christ Pardon Spirit and Life by him freely given to Believers Object 10. The same Person may be really a sinner in himself and yet perfectly innocent in Christ and by imputation Answ Remember that you suppose here the Person and Subject to be the same Man And then that the two contrary Relations of perfect Innocency or guiltlesness and guilt of any yea much sin can be consistent in him is a gross contradiction Indeed he may be guilty and not guilty in several partial respects but a perfection of guiltlesness excludeth all guilt But we are guilty of many a sin after Conversion and need a Pardon All that you should say is this We are sinners our selves but we have a Mediator that sinned not who merited Pardon and Heaven for sinners 2. But if you mean that God reputeth us to be perfectly innocent when we are not because that Christ was so it is to impute Error to God He reputeth no Man to be otherwise than he is But he doth indeed first give and then impute a Righteousness Evangelical to us instead of perfect Innocency which shall as certainly bring us to Glory and that is He giveth us both the Renovation of his Spirit to Evangelical Obedience and a Right by free gift to Pardon and Glory for the Righteousness of Christ that merited it And this thus given us he reputeth to be an acceptable Righteousness in us CHAP. VI. Animadversions on some of Dr. T. Tullies Strictures § 1. I Suppose the Reader desireth not to be wearied with an examination of all Dr. Tullies words which are defective in point of Truth Justice Charity Ingenuity or Pertinency to the Matter but to see an answer to those that by appearance of pertinent truth do require it to disabuse the incautelous Readers Though somewhat by the way may be briefly said for my own Vindication And this Tractate being conciliatory I think meet here to leave out most of the words and personal part of his contendings and also to leave that which concerneth the interest of Works as they are pleased to call Man's performance of the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace in our Justification to a fitter place viz. To annex what I think needful to my friendly Conference with Mr. Christopher Cartwright on the Subject which Dr. Tullies Assault perswadeth me to publish § 2. pag. 71. Justif Paulin. This Learned Doctor saith The Scripture mentioneth no Justification in foro Dei at all but that One which is Absolution from
as fulfilled or from the Reatus Gulpae in se but by Christ's whole Righteousness from the Reatus ut ad paenam 2. But if this be his sense he meaneth then that it is only the Terminus à quo that Justification is properly denominated from And why so 1. As Justitia and Justificatio passive sumpta vel ut effectus is Relatio it hath necessarily no Terminus à quo And certainly is in specie to be rather denominated from its own proper Terminus ad quem And as Justification is taken for the Justifiers Action why is it not as well to be denominated from the Terminus ad quem as à quo Justificatio efficiens sic dicitur quia Justum facit Justificatio apologetica quia Justum vindicat vel probat Justificatio per sententiam quia Justum aliquem esse Judicat Justificatio executiva quia ut Justum eum tractat But if we must needs denominate from the Terminus à quo how strange is it that he should know but of one sense of Justification 3. But yet perhaps he meaneth In satisfactione Legi praestitâ though he say praestandâ and so denominateth from the Terminus à quo But if so 1. Then it cannot be true For satisfacere Justificare are not the same thing nor is Justifying giving Satisfaction nor were we justified when Christ had satisfied but long after Nor are we justified eo nomine because Christ satisfied that is immediately but because he gave us that Jus ad impunitatem vitam spiritum sanctum which is the Fruit of his Satisfaction 2. And as is said if it be only in satisfactione then it is not in that Obedience which fulfileth the preceptive part as it bound us for to satisfie for not fulfilling is not to fulfil it 3. And then no Man is justified for no Man hath satisfied either the Preceptive or Penal Obligation of the Law by himself or another But Christ hath satisfied the Law-giver by Merit and Sacrifice for sin His Liberavit nos à Lege Mortis I before shewed impertinent to his use Is Liberare Justificare or Satisfacere all one And is à Lege Mortis either from all the Obligation to Obedience or from the sole malâ—diction There be other Acts of Liberation besides Satisfaction For it is The Law of the Spirit of Life that doth it And we are freed both from the power of indwelling-sin called a Law and from the Mosaical Yoak and from the Impossible Conditions of the Law of Innocency though not from its bare Obligation to future Duty § 7. He addeth a Third Ex parte Medii quod est Justitia Christi Legalis nobis per fidem Imputata Omnem itaque Justificationem proprie Legalem esse constat Answ 1. When I read that he will have but one sense or sort of Justification will yet have the Denomination to be ex termino and so justifieth my distinction of it according to the various Termini And here how he maketh the Righteousness of Christ to be but the MEDIVM of our Justification though he should have told us which sort of Medium he meaneth he seemeth to me a very favourable consenting Adversary And I doubt those Divines who maintain that Christ's Rigâ—teousness is the Causa Formalis of our Justification who are no small ones nor a few though other in answer to the Papists disclaim it yea and those that make it but Causa Materialis which may have a sound sense will think this Learned Man betrayeth their Cause by prevarication and seemeth to set fiercly against me that he may yeeld up the Cause with less suspicion But the truth is we all know but in part and therefore err in part and Error is inconsistent with it self And as we have conflicting Flesh and Spirit in the Will so have we conflicting Light and Darkness Spirit and Flesh in the Understanding And it is very perceptible throughout this Author's Book that in one line the Flesh and Darkness saith one thing and in the next oft the Spirit and Light saith the contrary and seeth not the inconsistency And so though the dark and fleshy part rise up in wrathful striving Zeal against the Concord and Peace of Christians on pretence that other Mens Errors wrong the Truth yet I doubt not but Love and Unity have some interest in his lucid and Spiritual part We do not only grant him that Christ's Righteousness is a Medium of our Justification for so also is Faith a Condition and Dispositio Receptiva being a Medium nor only some Cause for so also is the Covenant-Donation but that it is an efficient meritorious Cause and because if Righteousness had been that of our own Innocency would have been founded in Merit we may call Christ's Righteousness the material Cause of our Justification remotely as it is Materia Meriti the Matter of the Merit which procureth it 2. But for all this it followeth not that all Justification is only Legal as Legal noteth its respect to the Law of Innocency For 1. we are justified from or against che Accusation of being non-performers of the Condition of the Law of Grace 2. And of being therefore unpardoned and lyable to its sorer Penalty 3. Our particular subordinate Personal Righteousness consisting in the said performance of those Evangelical Conditions of Life is so denominated from its conformity to the Law of Grace as it instituteth its own Condition as the measure of it as Rectitudo ad Regulam 4. Our Jus ad impunitatem vitam resulteth from the Donative Act of the Law or Covenant of Grace as the Titulus qui est Fundamentum Juris or supposition of our Faith as the Condition 5. This Law of Grace is the Norma Judicis by which we shall be judged at the Last Day 6. The same Judg doth now per sententiam conceptam judg of us as he will then judg per sententiam prolatam 7. Therefore the Sentence being virtually in the Law this same Law of Grace which in primo instanti doth make us Righteous by Condonation and Donation of Right doth in secundo instanti virtually justifie us as containing that regulating use by which we are to be sententially justified And now judg Reader whether no Justification be Evangelical or by the Law of Grace and so to be denominated for it is lis de nomine that is by him managed 8. Besides that the whole frame of Causes in the Work of Redemption the Redeemer his Righteousness Merits Sacrifice Pardoning Act Intercession c. are sure rather to be called Matters of the Gospel than of the Law And yet we grant him easily 1. That Christ perfectly fulfilled the Law of Innocency and was justified thereby and that we are justified by that Righteousness of his as the meritorious Cause 2. That we being guilty of Sin and Death according to the tenor of that Law and that Guilt being remitted by Christ as aforesaid we are therefore justified
by him Thus he states the Controversie And doth this Doctor fight for Truth and Peace by 1. passing by all this 2. Saying I am against Imputed Righteousness 3. And against the Reformed Were not all the Divines before named Reformed Was not Camero Capellus Placeus Amyrald Dallaeus Blondel c. Reformed Were not Wotton Bradshaw Gataker c. Reformed Were not of late Mr. Gibbons Mr. Truman to pass many yet alive Reformed Must that Name be shamed by appropriating it to such as this Doctor only 2. And now let the Reader judg with what face he denieth the Consequence that it supposeth us to have been in Christ legally c. When as I put it into the Opinion opposed and opposed no other But I erred in saying that most of our ordinary Divines hold it But he more in fathering it in common on the Reformed § 2. Dr. T. 2. Such Imputation of Righteousness he saith agreeth not with Reason or Scripture But what Reason meaneth he Is it that vain blind maimed unmeasurably procacious and tumid Reason of the Cracovian Philosophers Next he saith Scripture is silent of the Imputed Righteousness of Christ what a saying is this of a Reformed Divine so also Bellarmine c. Answ Is it not a doleful case that Orthodoxness must be thus defended Is this the way of vindicating Truth 1. Reader my words were these just like Bradshaws It teaâ—heth Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in so strict a sense as will neither stand with Reason nor the Doctrine of the Scripture much less with the PHRASE of Scripture which mentioneth no Imputation of Christ or his Righteousness 1. Is this a denying of Christ's Righteousness imputed Or only of that intollerable sense of it 2. Do I say here that Scripture mentioneth not Imputed Righteousness or only that strict sense of it 3. Do I not expresly say It is the Phrase that is not to be found in Scripture and the unsound sense but not the sound 2. And as to the Phrase Doth this Doctor or can any living Man find that Phrase in Scripture Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us And when he knoweth that it is not there are not his Exclamations and his Bug-bears Cracovian Reason and Bellarmine his dishonour that hath no better Weapons to use against the Churches Peace To tell us that the sense or Doctrine is in Scripture when the question is of the Phrase or that Scripture speaketh in his rigid sense and not in ours is but to lose time and abuse the Reader the first being impertinent and the second the begging of the Question § 3. Dr. T. The Greek word answering to Imputation is ten times in Rom. 4. And what is imputed but Righteousness we have then some imputed Righteousness The Question is only what or whose it is Christ's or our own Not ours therefore Christs If ours either its the Righteousness of Works or of Faith c. Answ 1. But what 's all this to the Phrase Could you have found that Phrase Christ's Righteousness is imputed why did you not recite the words but Reason as for the sense 2. Is that your way of Disputation to prove that the Text speaketh of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness when the Question was only In what sense What kind of Readers do you expect that shall take this for rational candid and a Plea for Truth 3. But to a Man that cometh unprejudiced it is most plain that Paul meaneth by imputing it for Righteousness that the Person was or is accounted reckoned or judged Righteous where Righteousness is mentioned as the formal Relation of the Believer so that what-ever be the matter of it of which next the formal Relation sure is our own and so here said And if it be from the matter of Christ's Righteousness yet that must be our own by your Opinion And it must be our own in and to the proper Effects in mine But sure it is not the same numerical formal Relation of Righteousness that is in Christ's Person and in ours And it 's that formal Relation as in Abraham and not in Christ that is called Abraham's Reputed Righteousness in the Text I scarce think you will say the contrary § 4. Dr. T. But Faith is not imputed to us for Righteousness Answ Expresly against the words of the Holy Ghost there oft repeated Is this defending the Scripture expresly to deny it Should not reverence and our subscription to the Scripture sufficiently rather teach us to distinguish and tell in what sense it is imputed and in what not than thus to deny without distinction what it doth so oft assert Yea the Text nameth nothing else as so imputed but Faith § 5. If it be imputed it is either as some Virtue or Humane Work the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Credere or as it apprehendeth and applyeth Christ's Righteousness Not the first If Faith be imputed relatively only as it applyeth to a Sinner the Righteousness of Christ it 's manifest that it 's the Righteousness of Christ only that is imputed and that Faith doth no more to Righteousness than an empty hand to receive an Alms. Answ 1. Sure it doth as a voluntarily receiving hand and not as a mere empty hand And voluntary grateful Reception may be the Condition of a Gift 2. You and I shall shortly find that it will be the Question on which we shall be Justified or Condemned not only whether we received Christ's Righteousness but whether by Faith we received Christ in all the Essentials of his Office and to all the essential saving Uses Yea whether according to the sense of the Baptismal Covenant we first believingly received and gave up our selves to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and after performed sincerely that Covenant 3. But let me defend the Word of God Faith is imputed for Righteousness even this Faith now described 1. Remotely ex materiae aptitudine for its fitness to its formal Office And that fitness is 1. Because it is an Act of Obedience to God or morally good for a bad or indifferent Act doth not justifie 2. More specially as it is the receiving trusting and giving up our selves to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost to the proper ends of Redemption or a suitable Reception of the freely offered Gift and so connoteth Christ the Object for the Object is essential to the Act in specie 2. But proximately Faith is so reputed or imputed as it is the performance of the Condition of the Justifying Covenant or Donation And to be imputed for Righteousness includeth That It is the part required of us by the Law of Grace to make us partakers of the Benefits of Christ's Righteousness which meriteth Salvation for us instead of a legal and perfect Righteousness of our own which we have not Or Whereas we fell short of a Righteousness of Innocency Christ by such a Righteousness hath merited our Pardon and Salvation and given title to them by a New Covenant of Grace which maketh