F. undertakes to defend therefore Mr. F. insinuates to his Reader that Mr. S's Notion doth imply unless he will allow that we are Justified by being made righteous by the perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed to us such a Justification as cannot be properly so called nor maintained to be such without perverting the Scriptures from their plain and proper sense to that which is but so Metaphorically And to this end he takes it for granted that Justification in Mr. S's Notion of it contains in it remission of Sins and then argues that remission of Sin is not Justification in a proper sense and consequently that Mr. S's Notion of justification cannot be made good from the Scriptures without understanding them in an improper sense But if Mr. F. would have done this designed business indeed against Mr. S. he should have done one of these two things which yet he hath not done Either first shewed that Mr. S. hath defined justification by pardon of sin or Secondly that according to his Notion of it it must be so defined neither of which he hath done that I finde And therefore he doth but beat the air while he would have his Reader think he is beating Mr. S. That pardon of sin is promised in the Covenant of Grace to those that believe and obey the Gospel Mr. S. doth indeed assert and that according to the Scriptures and this pardon when vouchsafed doth discharge us from whatever lay against us either from Law or Gospel and is called in Scripture a not mentioning our sins unto us Ezek. 33.16 the remembring them no more Heb. 10.17 a not imputing of them Rom. 4.8 2. Cor. 5.19 but then these are two distinct things to justifie a person against an accusation of not believing and obeying the Gospel and the conferring upon him the benefits promised to those that have If they be not different but one and the same thing then the giving of eternal life it self is an assentiall part of our justification as well as the forgiveness of our sins for that as well as the forgiveness of sins is promised to those who believe and obey the Gospel And I think no man yet ever asserted that the giving of eternal life was justification it self but a benefit promised to those who are justified according to St. Paul Rom. 8.30 Whom he Justified them he also glorified Justification is God's imputing righteousness to men or their faith to them for righteousness and thus Abraham was justified by having his faith imputed to him for righteousness But pardon of sin is his not imputing to them their Trespasses and I must needs say I cannot apprehend how the imputation of faith for righteousness and the non-imputation of sin can be all one God in justifing men avoucheth and pronounceth them to be such as to whome he hath promised pardon that is true believers such as have performed the condition of the promise But then the counting of this performance of the condition for righteousness unto them is one thing and the conferring on them the benefit promised on that condition is another as I said If God had promised pardon only upon account of what Christ hath done and suffered for Sinners without any condition to be performed on their part then they would have had title to pardon without the justification I speak of But since it is otherwise a man's title to pardon is not cleared without being justified in order thereto as a performer of the condition Moreover the clearing the equity of God's proceeding in pardoning some and not other some depends upon this viz. That he can justifie one sort to be such as have repented and performed the condition on which he promised pardon whereas he cannot do so concerning the other Ezek. 18. And when I consider this I cannot see but that we have as much reason to think it meet and necessary that there should be such a difference between justification and pardon as hath been intimated as there is to believe that its fit and necessary that the reason and equity of god's proceedings should be cleared before Angels and men in pardoning some and not others And if this be found agreeable to reason then you have an evidence from the reason and nature of the thing why it should be so as well as from the Scriptures to shew that it is so Yet it s very true also that there is so very close and inseparable a connexion between Justification and Remission of Sin as that the Scripture which does not alwayes nicely difference things which yet are distinguishable but sometimes terms things by the same name which differ only but in some respect and sometimes denotes things of the same nature by different phrases and forms of speech I say the connexion between Justification and Remission is so close and inseparable as that the Scripture sometimes speakes of them promiscuously scarcely leaving any difference to be discerned between them which I conceive hath led so many to place Justification in Remission of Sin as are of that Judgement Such is Rom. 4.6 7. for one where the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth Righteousness without works is thus described by David as St. Paul saith reciting his words saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered Where you will hardly perceive any difference made between the imputation of Righteousnes and forgiveness of Sins unless we distinguish between righteousness imputed and the blessedness of haveing sin pardoned as consecuent upon it which I think may very well be done For the Apostle doth not say that David describes the Justification of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness withont works when he saith Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven but the blessedness of such a person who is so justified or to whom righteousness is imputed Which blessedness he placeth in the forgiveness of sins and being restored to the Divine favour So that these words of David as I said are not a description of Justification but of the blessedness a man comes to be possessed of by being justified The reason and design of the Apostle in reciting these words of David I shall shew afterwards Again Acts 13.39 is another such Scripture where it 's said that by him all that believe are justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses Where to be justified and to be delivered from the desert of sin seem to be the same Unless you will distinguish as well you may between that from which we are delivered to wit the obligation to Punishment and that by meanes whereof we come so to be delivered to wit our being justified and then to be justified from those things signifies no more here than by justification to come to be pardoned and so delivered from condemnation But if you will understand Justification in a large sense as comprehending and taking in with it its effects in which sense faith
it selfe is oft to be understood then indeed it includes pardon of sin and then in this sense to be pardoned is to be justified and to be justified is to be pardoned In which sense or respect it may be it is that many renowned both Persons and Churches have made little or no difference between Justification and remission of sin And now Sir if what I have suggested have any weight in it which I submit to tryal then you may see that there is a Justification of believers properly so called plainly and without figure asserted in Scripture and yet not consisting in that imputation of Righteousness neither which Mr. F. so much contends for nor yet in Remission of Sin neither the necessity of which he would inferr in case the other be denyed but in the imputation of that believing and obeying the Gospel for Righteousness to which Mr. S. saith pardon is promised And if so then Mr. F. hath only shewed us what he had a mind to do but not at all performed what he undertook But when Mr. F. asserts That unless we are justified by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in his sense of Imputation we cannot be said to be justified properly but only to be pardoned and that to be pardoned is not to be justified properly he proceeds therein upon a mistaken ground and confounds the terms and conditions of the original Law and Gospel Covenant together For he supposeth that in order to our Justification in a proper sense we must one way or other have such a Righteousness as will answer the demands of the Law in point of perfect obedience and of the Gospel otherwise and which will justifie us against all accusations to the contrary And that therefore we having no such Righteousness of our own we cannot be justified but by having the Righteousness of Christ made ours by Imputation that we may therewith answer the demands and accusations of the Law Or in case we should not be justified by the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ to answer the demands of the Law yet that then we must be justified by being pardoned and Pardon is not Justification properly so called But while he argues at this rate he overlooks what God hath done to supersede and relax the rigorous terms of the primitive Law by a new Law of Grace established in Christ with all Mankind and according to which he will now proceed with us and not according to the rigorous demands of the primitive Law By reason of this to wit God's relaxing the old and introducing new terms of Justification and Life it follows that neither a perfect Legal Righteousness is now necessary to Justification nor yet that Justification must consist only in pardon of Sin though we have no such Righteousness inherent or imputed in Mr. F's sense of Imputation as will answer the demands of the Law in point of perfection Such a Righteousness is not now necessary to Justification First because that which once made it necessary to that end is now relaxed by a new Law this I have shewed before * This new Law doth not relax the duty due by the old hut alter the condition onwhich the divine favour was at first enjoyable and hath now made sincere obedience to it and to the Gospel the condition of it instead of sinless perfection And it grants pardon of all past offences against both to such as are justified against the accusation of not having performed the Condition and of all after-offences also that are consistent with godly sincerity By reason whereof an answering the old demands of the Law absolute perfection is not now necessary to justification neither as inherent in us nor as imputed to us otherwise than as Christ's perfect righteousness is imputed to us in the fruits and benefits of it which is quite another thing than the imputation of his righteousness it self to us differing as much as the ects of his mediation differ from the benefits received thereby Secondly because by this new Law the Righteousness which consisteth in a penetential regenerating obediential Faith is made the condition upon which Pardon and Life are promised And because likewise the performance of this Condition is by God counted to us for Righteousness like as a fulfilling of the Legal Condition would have been counted our Legal Righteousness had we never sinned Although the Righteousness of Christ's Active and Passive Obedience is that Righteousness by which the Covenant it self and the benefits of it were conditionally obtained for us and granted to us And although it is of God's mercy and by vertue of Christ's Merits and the Promise and Ordination of God that we come to have any title to Pardon and Life when we have performed the Condition and not by vertue of any merit or desert in the performance it self yet this Righteousness of Christ does not entitle us to Pardon and Life until we have performed the Condition on our part required thereto which is such a believing as aforesaid And in the last issue we are accounted by God Righteous or Unrighteous according as we have or have not perform'd the Condition God's design towards us is to restore us to happiness and in order thereto to recover and bring again into our Nature those Vertues in which our likeness to God at first did consist by the loss of which we became miserable and without a recovery of which we cannot be happy And as most suitable to this design God hath made such a Faith the Condition of Pardon and Life as by which the renovation of our Nature is gradually wrought and without which we have no ground to expect those benefits how desirable soever they are to us and notwithstanding all that Christ hath done and suffered to obtain them for us To suppose that God accounts us Righteous and so confers a title to Pardon and Life only by the Righteousness of Christ imputed without respect to our being renewed in the Spirit of our minds and sanctified by Faith is to suppose him acting disagreably to his own design and method of Grace in recovering us from our undone condition To think we are made Righteous only by what our Saviour hath done without us without being renewed by a work of Faith within us To suppose we are by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness delivered from the danger of the Hell without us without being at all freed from the Hell within us which consists in unnatural Lusts and the uneasie effects of them To imagine that God should restore us to a participation of the priviledges of his Children by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness without restoring us at all to a participation in the Divine and New Nature of his Children is absurd and that which is opposed by the constant tenour of Divine Doctrine in the holy Scriptures And yet these are but the natural consequences of the Doctrine of being justified by the imputation of Christ's Righteousness alone and of
being justified by Faith alone as abstracted from it's effect of renewing us And if either of these Doctrines were true we might have an immediate title to Pardon and Salvation without Repentance and without being born again unless we will suppose that Justification does not immediately entitle us to these which to suppose is as absurd as any of the rest For what I pray you would such a Justification signisie And then as concerning the other thing viz. That if we have not by the Imputation of Christ's perfect Righteousness a Rightteousness to answer the demands of the Law that then as Mr. F. infers we can have no Justification but what consists in the remission of Sins I answer That for the same reason that we are accounted Righteous upon our performing the Condition of the promise pardon cannot be our Justification but a benefit consequent upon it For if God's owning or avouching the Condition to be performed on our part as he does when it is performed on which he hath promised Pardon and Salvation be his justifying of us or his accounting us righteous according to the tenour of the Covenant of Grace as indeed it is then Pardon is not our Justification it self but one of the benefits unto which our Justification by vertue of the New Covenant doth entitle us for the one is promised but on condition of the other And as the thing promised and the Condition on which it is promised are not the same so neither is the reckoning or accounting us righteous as having performed the Condition of the Promise of Pardon and the actual Pardon it self the same but so much as these differ so much does Justification and Pardon differ But yet for all that I do not deny but that in a large sense as Justification is opposed to Condemnation it may comprehend remission of Sins That is if by Condemnation you understand both conviction of impenitency which is the opposite to Justification properly and the obligation or obnoxiousness thereby to suffer the pains of the second Death And by Justification both a vindication from impenitency and unbelief which is Justification properly and also a discharge thereby from obnoxiousness to eternal punishment then as I said Justification thus opposed to condemnation does indeed include in it remission of Sin though when strictly and most properly considered Justification seems to be one thing and Pardon of Sin another It is wont to be alledged That when St. Paul saith in Rom. 4.6 that God imputeth Righteousness without Works the meaning is That he imputeth the Righteousness of Christ to us without any Works of ours at all Legal or Evangelical External or Internal And because great stress is laid on it by some I will briefly shew how the Context directs us to another sense of those words The Scope of the Apostle in this and the former Chapter is to prove that Justification proceeds from God of Grace and favour and not of Debt To make this good he shews here that it must needs be so because it is vouchsafed not unto such who have been alwayes righteous for he had proved before Chap. 3. that there are none such but that all both Jews and Gentiles have sinned but to such as have been ungodly when once they believe and therefore cease to be so and become sincerely righteous And the Apostle's reason depends upon this manifest truth That such as have once sinned can never by any after-works which they can do merit the Divine favour as a Debt due to them by desert of their Works nor are capable of that favour upon any other terms than what God of his mere Grace is pleased to appoint as the Condition of it as he hath done that of Faith For to him that worketh not saith he but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is counted to him for righteousness ver 5. And to prove as well as to assert that God justifieth none upon account of their having been alwayes righteous and in his favour as some Jews fancied themselves to have been upon account of their observing the Law of Moses as he in the Gospel who said All these have I kept from my youth up he shew's out of the Psalms of David how that the ancient godly Jews did alwayes esteem their happiness of being in God's favour not to proceed from the merit of their Works in observing the Law of Moses but from the Grace and Mercy of God in forgiving their Sins and accepting their sincere endeavours to please him Even as David saith he describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth righteousnes without works saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered ver 6 7. And you may easily discern if you observe it that what is said in this sixth and seventh verses is to back and make good what he had said in vers 5. touching God's justifying men upon their believing notwithstanding they had been in a state of ungodliness before And to shew that if he justifie such men upon such terms Justification must needs proceed of Grace and not of Debt or merit of Works of which he had spoken vers 4. saying Now to him that worketh the reward is not reckoned of Grace but of Debt So that in making a Judgment of what Works St. Paul speaks when he saith Righteousness is imputed without Works vers 6. if you do but take your rise from what 's said in vers 4. touching such Works the reward of which is reckoned not of Grace but of Debt and so follow the discourse and the design of it to vers 6. you will find that you cannot fairly turn aside to another but must needs understand him to this sense to wit That the Righteousness which is by Faith of which he had spoken in vers 5. is imputed without such Works as make the reward to be not of Grace but of Debt mentioned v. 4. His Argument runs thus in other words They to whom God imputed Righteousness heretofore were such as stood in need of forgiveness from God therefore they could not possibly merit his favour And although St. Paul doth not improve the words of the Psalmist further than to prove that no man is restored to the Divine favour and the blessedness consequent upon it without forgiveness of Sins and that therefore it must needs be of Grace and not of Debt and Merit that any man attains it by being justified this being his end in alledging them Yet it 's also evident by the words immediately following those the Apostle here recites That Godly sincerity is the conditional qualification required of such to whom the favour of forgiveness is vouchsafed For it 's there said Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity and in whose Spirit there is no guile No guile notes the Sincerity I speak of Psal 32.2 And it 's to the same sense when in the writings of the New Testament Faith as the
these ends of Government be secured in shewing favour the stighteousness and Justice of God will never suffer any disparagement how great soever the Grace and Favour be that is shewed to Offenders But now that God in justifying men upon account of sincere obedience and inherent righteousness considering what hath been done by our Lord Christ to make way for it and to bring things to that issue does not in the least countenance Sin past or encourage to the committing of it for time to come but that which is altogether contrary thereunto will sufficiently appear if you consider these two things First That notwithstanding God is so good and gracious so merciful and ready to forgive as he is yet he would not grant any terms at all of receiving us into favour again having once sinned except his own dear Son himself would take upon him our Nature and become a Sacrifice to make an Atonement for our Sin nor spare him when he had undertaken so to be notwithstanding that great love wherewith he loved him but delivered him up to death for us all when he undertook to become a propitiation for our Sins rather than we should have no terms of pardon granted God's granting terms of pardon and restauration to his favour upon no cheaper terms did clearly demonstrate him to be an enemy and hater of Sin in the highest and so irreconcilable to it as that no Sinner could have any ground to hope to escape the punishment due to it but upon observing that Condition of escaping it the obtaining of which cost so dear In that Christ thus suffered in the flesh he condemned Sin in the flesh as the phrase is Rom. 8.3 and that effectually and with a witness Hereby he condemned it in the sight of Heaven and Earth yea and of Hell too as a thing most abominable to God and contrary to his Nature and to the goodness and equity of his Laws and Government when deliverance from the desert of it could be obtained at no cheaper rate or easier terms than the Son of God his suffering in the Sinners stead no not upon repentance it self without this In that God hath thus set forth his Son to be a propitiation for Sin through Faith in his Blood it is to declare his Righteousness in the remission of Sins that are past that he is righteous although he forgive and that he might be just even when he is the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus Rom. 3.25 26. Secondly When God for Christ's sake and for what he hath done and suffered did grant terms of Grace by which we Sinners might come to be justified pardoned and saved yet they were such and none other but what tend to reclaim us from Sin and Rebellion and to reduce us to obedience and of Rebels to make us to become good Subjects And in doing this God is far from countenancing Sin or doing any thing disagreeable to the righteousness wisdom and goodness of his Government indeed so far from it that it highly commends and sets these off The terms of favour granted for Christ's sake are such as these That believing and being perswaded in our own minds that God is good and ready to forgive for his Son's sake we heartily repent that ever we rebell'd against him and that we desist from continuing in our Rebellion any longer and that we return to our duty and sincerely endeavour to please him in all things for the future It 's true indeed God knows that by reason of the wounds and disease we got by our fall and while we were in rebellion we have brought so great debility upon our selves as that though we do return to him yet we cannot do him such service now as man was capable of performing before the fall and his running into rebellion and therefore he is content for his Son's sake to accept of such service as we in this state of weakness and frailty are capable of performing provided we do the best we well can and make use of all helps and means afforded us whereby we may gather strength and grow better and do better and are heartily sorry that ever we have made our selves so uncapable as we have done of doing him better service These and such like are the terms granted us for Christ's sake But without some such Change as this God hath not promised to receive any man into favour Now then if it be not inconsistent with the righteousness and wisdom of his Government for God to offer and promise to receive Sinners into favour again upon these terms and conditions and I cannot think Mr. F. will say it is Then it cannot be inconsistent therewith for him to own that they have performed these conditions when indeed they have and so to own them now for his true and faithful Servants and Subjects to their power and according to the term set in his act of Grace which is his justifying of them or the imputing to them for righteousness such their faithful service as they are capable of performing These things considered I dare appeal to Mr. F's better and more impartial Judgment whether it be not consistent with the Holiness of God to justifie men upon the terms aforesaid I confess I cannot possibly understand why it should not as well consist with the Holiness of God to justifie us upon our believing and upon our obeying the Gospel too as it is to do it upon our believing alone And Mr. F. does not think that God doth justifie us at all or impute righteousness to us at all in one sense or another without our believing So that the imputation of righteousness to us for our justification in which sense soever we take it depends upon our own act in believing and so likewise is the application of what Christ hath done and suffered for our justification suspended upon our believing In what Notion soever you understand the application of the righteousness of Christ's life and satisfaction of his death to be made as whether by being imputed to us in it self or vertually by having our Faith for the sake thereof imputed to us for Righteousness yet still this application depends upon our believing because God hath made that the condition of it without which Christ shall profit us nothing I take notice further how Mr. F. by his Notion of having the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us otherwise than in its effects is led to think and say that our Sins also were otherwise imputed to Christ than in the effects of them To say saith he that our Sins were imputed to Christ in the effects of them but not in the guilt is to contradict all principles of Reason For guilt and obnoxiousness to punishment being equipollent phrases he cannot be supposed to be made liable to the last upon the account of our Sins without having been brought under the first p. 410. Nor is it imaginable let me say how any person should come under the