CHAP. I. The Nature of Justification explained, and that it is not a meer forgiving of Sin.

THE Doctrine of Justification by Free Grace and the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us, hath been so abundantly defended by our Protestant Writers of every Nation and every University, professing the Reformed Religion, that I need say little to confirm it; and especi­ally seeing I have met with nothing in our late Authors objected against it, but what hath been frequently objected against it by the Pa­pists before, and as frequently answered by our Writers: The chief Work is to discover [Page 2]the Artifice wherewith the New Doctrine of Conditional Justification is covered and made plausible; whereas it is indeed the Old Po­pish and Arminian Doctrine of Justification by Works, as I hope I have in some measure pro­ved in the former Part. Yet that this Trea­tise may be compleat, and that we may not seem only distruere aliena, and not at all ad­struere propria, I shall endeavour briefly to ex­plain the received Doctrine of Justification and imputed Righteousness. And first of the Nature of Justification. Our fore cited Au­thors and their Friends generally affirm, That the Justification of a Sinner before God is no­thing else but a full Pardon of all Sins, both of Omission and Commission, whereby all guilt and obligation to punishment being removed, Man is restored ipso facto to his former State, and to all those Priviledges which by Sin he forfeited. This they maintain that they may the more effectually overthrow the Imputati­on of Christ's Righteousness, supposing that if the bare Remission of Sin doth both acquit from Punishment and restore a Right to Life or Blessedness, then there needeth no positive Righteousness to be imputed to intitle to life and to make us acceptable with God. This is the main drift of Mr. Hotchkis his Book about Imputation of Righteousness;Great Pro­pi. p. 110. &c. and is largely prosecuted by Mr. Trueman, not without many confident mistakes. But this Opinion overthroweth their own Doctrine of Justifica­tion upon condition of our Obedience, as well as ours of the Imputation of Christ's Righte­ousness, [Page 3]and more; which I thus prove.

Meer Pardon of Sin is nothing else but a Dis­charge from the Process of the Law, that a Man should not suffer the Penalties of it, but enjoy quietly his former freedom and privi­ledges notwithstanding his Offences. Now this Discharge requireth no Righteousness at all, our own no more than Christs, This Par­don makes a Man righteous in the Law (they say) i. e. The Law hath no more to do with him or to say against him; he is as free from all condemnation as if he were innocent, and had fulfilled the Law. Hence it follows that a Man is justified without the intervening con­dition of his own Obedience: If any positive righteousness be necessary to pardon, it is not meer pardon: And why may not Christ's Righteousness imputed be joyned with and be the Cause of Pardon, as well as our own sin­cere Obedience? To say a Man is justified upon the condition of Gospel Obedience (which is our Inherent Righteousness) and that he is justified by the bare Remission of Sins, is a Contradiction. Moreover, these Authors do acknowledge that Christ merited the Pardon of Sin, so that a Sinner is justified or pardoned and so restored to favour for the sake of Christs Satisfaction. Doth it not then follow that the Death of Christ is the Cause of Pardon; then it is not meer pardon, but pardon procured or merited: and if Christs Death be the merito­rious cause of pardon to every Believer, then it is imputed or applyed to every pardoned sin­ner: For no cause can produce its effects with­out [Page 4]Application to the Subject, in whom the effect is wrought; and the Application of a me­ritorious cause to the Subject for whom it me­riteth, is Imputation, or accounting that what was done by that Cause was done for that Per­son. And thus we see this Doctrine maketh more against themselves than against us. But that Justification includeth more than Pardon of Sin, even a positive Righteousness, where­by Man is accepted to Life Eternal, I shall thus evince.

1. From the Notation of the Words. To Pardon is only to release from the Penalty of the Law; but to Justifie is to Acquit in Judg­ment, to discharge from guilt and accusation, Rom. 8.33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect? it is God that Justifieth. It is confessed that to justifie an innocent per­son is to acquit; but to justifie a Sinner, they say is only to forgive him: But in what Lan­guage doth the word so signifie? When the King pardoneth an Offender, doth any man say, doth the Law ever say the King justifies him? A Brother is commanded to forgive his Brother from the Heart; and so Job did no doubt forgive his Friends, and yet he saith, God forbid I should Justifie you. Job. 27. v. 4. Is any Man said to justfie him whom he pardoneth? Why should the Scripture besides the familiar words of Pardoning and Forgiving use another term, viz. to Justifie? which in its Etymology and common use signifieth to declare Righteous, and yet mean no more by Justification than [Page 5]bare Forgiveness.

'Tis said, A full Pardon makes a Man righ­teous, forasmuch as he that is discharged from all Sin, is accounted not to have broke the Law; and not to have broke it, is all one as to have fulfill'd it: But this is a mistake; He that forgives an Offender does not therefore account or make him Righteous, though he will not exact the Penalty of him. Pardon doth suppose a Man to have been a Sinner, and so it leaves him as one that hath deserv'd punishment, though by favour he is exempt­ed from it; the Law still chargeth him with sin and sentenceth him to punishment, though the Judge supersedeth his Sentence and will not execute the Law.

But it is said,Great Prop. p. 121. Pardon is dissolutio obligationis ad poenam, dissolveth the Obligation to punishment; and when there is no obligation to pu­nishment, a man is innocent and hath right to impunity.

I Answer: The Antecedent is untrue; The Obligation to punishment ariseth from the in­trinsecal Nature of the Law, which (being bro­ken) exacteth punishment as a due Debt. The Wages of Sin is death, Rom. 6.23. So that if pardon take away the obligation to punish­ment, it maketh sin to be no sin: But sin is sin though forgiven, and the Sinner deserves to die although he shall not die. Pardon taketh away the Ordination or Destination of a Man to Punishment that he is not appointed to die, but not the Obligation that he doth not deserve [Page 6]to die. I conclude Pardon doth not render a Man as innocent, as no Transgressor, and therefore 'tis not all one with justifying or de­claring righteous.

2. From those Phrases whereby Justificati­on is expressed, Eph. 1.4. It is paraphrased thus: As he hath chosen us in him that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. He who is only forgiven his Sins, is not accounted as holy and blameless: Pardon supposeth guilt and that which some call reatum culpae, the guilt of the fault remaineth after pardon, viz. That such a Man hath broken the Law, and by such habits or actions he hath been disobedient to the Commands. Pardon only takes away reatum penoe, the appointment of a Man to pu­nishment, therefore there must be something more to render men [...], holy and blameless before God, and Objects of his Love. Rom 4.3, 4, 5. Justification is called Imputing of Righteousness; And Rom. 10.5, 6. Justification by Works and by Faith are opposed by the Names of the Righteousness of the Law, and the Righteousness of Faith. To justifie therefore is to reckon or to declare in judgment, that a Man is righte­ous, and as if Man had been justified by the Law of Works he had then been pronounced righteous: So now he is to be justified by Faith, he is to be declared righteous by the Righteousness of Faith, though not of Works. Therefore Justification is more than Forgive­ness.

Object.'Tis said Pardon maketh a Man Righteous, as if he had not brok'n the Law.

Answ. Ans;w.This hath been answer'd before: I am sure we should take it very ill if one that hath greatly offended us, and received his life and all from our Mercy, should plead that he is as good as an innocent or righteous person, be­cause he is exempted from the Punishment he deserved.

Object.A person of quality argues thus: If pardon be not a Sinners Righteousness, and maketh him not righteous, then a man may be pardo­ned and be unrighteous still in the eye of the Law; which he thinketh absurd,Justific. Evangeli­cal, p. 18. or else there must be a medium betwixt being righteous and unrighteous, which he thinketh impossible.

Answ.Both parts of the disjunction are untrue: the first, that he that is pardoned is not un­righteous still: for if by favour punishment be remitted, and no satisfaction be made to the Law, then the Law remains broken still, and he is a Sinner still though forgiven. For it is not the Law that pardoneth (if that might take effect it would condemn) but the Law-Giver by his own Prerogative; which pardon is not therefore looked upon as the fulfilling or the Righteousness of the Law. But if (as in our case) the Law was satisfied, and by reason of that satisfaction man is pardoned (as this wor­thy Author acknowledgeth a little before) [Page 8]then that satisfaction of the Law repaireth the Breach of it, and so there is the real righte­ousness of the Law, first imputed to a Man, and then by reason thereof he is pardoned, i.e. acquitted from punishment to which he was obnoxious before: And thus here is a fair Contradiction that a Man is justified by a righ­teousness satisfactory to the Law yet barely pardoned. The second part of the Disjuncti­on; That there is no medium betwixt being righteous and unrighteous is also untrue; we speak of a declarative Righteousness. Now it is apparent that there is a Middle betwixt be­ing justified and being condemned, viz. Me­dium negationis, or rather privationis. Adam before he fell was not condemned, having not yet sinned; nor was he justified, having not fi­nished that course of obedience to which life was promised: It is true he was righteous in­herently, and also in the eye of the Law, so far as he had obeyed, and so far might be said to be justified, viz. Inchoatively. But in this Question we take justification for that perfect Act whereby a Sinner is fully acquitted and accepted to life eternal, and thus Adam was not justified, and therefore in a middle state: So then, Pardon doth not make a Man righte­ous or justified, but in the precise Notion of it, it is a Middle betwixt condemnation and ju­stification, viz. Non-condemnation, but if you add that a Man is forgiven for Christ's sake, then you add something besides Meer Pardon and so desert the Question.

3. I argue from the nature of Justification [...]s it is discovered in its immediate and most proper Effects; the chief whereof is this, That [...]t giveth a firm and immutable Right to Eter­nal Life. Our Opposites and we differ about [...]ustification in this Life: They say it is imper­fect and mutable, we say 'tis perfect and im­mutable; but we agree in this, That Justifi­cation whenever it is perfect and compleat gi­ [...]eth an immutable Right to life, such as shall [...]ever be lost as Adam's was.

Hence I argue, Meer Pardon or Relaxation [...]f punishment doth not give an immutable [...]ight to life, but only restores a Man to the [...]ondition he was in before, and leaveth him as subject and liable to lose it by new sins as e­ [...]er he was: But Justification by Christ doth [...]ot only restore Man to the Condition he was [...]n before, subject to change, but giveth him [...]n unchangeable Right to Life Eternal; there­fore it is more than Pardon: And further, that which gives an immutable right to life, must suppose the Law to be fulfilled, which promi­sed life, which being fulfilled, there is nothing further to be required, nor any further dan­ger of a threatning of death, but man is to be [...]eclared Righteous, and to receive the promi­sed Reward. But Justification giveth such a [...]ull and immutable right to life, therefore it supposeth fulfilling of the Law, by our selves [...]r another; and a Righteousness thence ari­ [...]ng, for which we are declared Righteous [...]nd receive the promised Life.

Object.'Tis said, Full pardon (such as God's Par­don is) delivereth from all punishment, sensu & damni, Trum. ut supra. from all positive punishment, and from the privation of all Priviledges which were or should have been enjoyed before; and this is equivalent to a right to life in the nature of the thing. For when a Man is exempted from all punishment and restored to his for men Estate or Favour with God, he is then in stat [...] quo prius, in the condition he was in before he sinned.

Answ.By this Argument, Pardon should restore man into the Condition of Adam before hi [...] Fall, which is apparently false: For that i [...] the State from whence he fell by sin, and to which Meer Pardon must restore him, at leas [...] when it is compleat, at the last Judgment: but neither then is man restored into Adam's condition, but to a new State of Happiness by the Redeemer.

Besides, this Argument makes strongly a­gainst themselves, for the Condition from which man fell was but a State of Probation, wherein he had no immutable right to life; therefore Pardon restoring him but to his for­mer Condition, putteth him again but into a State of Probation, and giveth no certain right to life. Nay by this Doctrine Sin is not par­doned in this Life: A Man is not acquitted or put out of danger of punishment, seeing his Salvation dependeth upon conditions which must be in fulfilling till his lives end: So that Pardon with them is no more, than a Suspen­sion [Page 11]of punishment, together with a promise of life and impunity if man fulfill the Conditi­ons of the Gospel. This putteth a Man into a possibility of life, but giveth him no actual or certain Title to it, and therefore is not Ju­stification.

4. The next Effect of Justification is a new Heart or Grace to fit and bring man to life which Justification entitleth to. The Spirit of Sons and the Glory of Heav'n are the Fruits of Adoption; but Life and Happiness simply, and the Spirit of Sanctification are the Effects of Justification, Heb. 8.10, 11, 12, 13. The new Heart is promised as an Effect of forgive­ness of sin. Hence I argue, That which gives with the right to life all the means necessary to attain life is more than pardon of sin: But Justification by Christ gives a right to all the Means necessary to attain eternal life, as well as to life it self: Ergò, The Reason of the Ma­jor is, pardon in the common notion of it, and with our Opposites, doth only put a man into that state or favour he was in before, but in that condition there was no certainty of grace to persevere and to come to life. When we pardon an Offendor we receive him into our former favour, and lay aside all thoughts of enmity, but we do not count our selves en­gaged by all means possible to endeavour to prevent his offending for the future; that care resteth on him; therefore if Justification give a right to the Grace of God which shall be ef­fectual to bring us to life, it is more than par­don, [Page 12]or putting us into our former conditi­on wherein we had no such promise. Mr. Tru­man ingeniously confesseth (what is the natural consequence of his Opinion) That Christ by his Satisfaction did not purchase grace to bring men to life,Great Pro­pit. p. 203. &c. but only a Law of Grace, where­by it was possible for all men to be saved i [...] they would, and God might justly save them, if they performed the Terms of that Law. He saith, Indeed Christ by the supereminency of his Person and Redemption did deserve that his Death should not be in vain, and consequently that some men should have grace given them [...] bring them to Heaven, but that he did not pre­perly merit this Grace should be giv'n them; So that this is a point of honour to Christ, not o [...] Justice or Debt upon the account of his Suffe­rings, that some should have Saving and Per­severing Grace. Yet he acknowledgeth that th [...] Father of his own good Pleasure giveth this grac [...] to those whom he hath chosen: So then the gift o [...] Grace is the immediate Fruit of Election not of Justification. But this Doctrine is as fall [...] as new: Man's Sin deprived him of Grace as well as of Happiness, and therefore if Christ purchased a right to Happiness for him (which shall be proved in the next Chapter) he pur­chased Grace also to attain it; the Means are included in the end. The loss of the denial o [...] Grace is the Effect of Sin, therefore the re­storing of Grace is the Effect of full Pardon and Justification. The Scriptures teach that all sulness of Grace was given to Christ, that we might receive of his Fulness Grace for [Page 13]Grace, John 1.14, 16. He hath power to send the Holy Spirit to abide with us for ever. Joh. 14.16. And the powring out of the Spirit was reserved till his Work of Redemption was fi­nished, and he should be possessed of Glory, John 16.7. And then he promised the Spirit [...]o lead us into all truth, to reveal himself to us, and to glorifie him in us, v. 12, 13, 14. Lastly, He prayed for sanctifying Grace and perseverance for them that did, and all that should hereafter believe, till they all come to be one in him, John 17.15, 16, 21. And wherefore is the Power of giving Grace com­mitted to the Mediatour, if not purchased by him, and why doth he interceede for that he never bought and paid for? If then Christ pur­chased Grace as well as a Right to Life, then Justification giveth a Right to Grace as well as to Life it self, and so is more than Par­don.

5. I argue from the Impulsive Causes; Par­don is an Act of meer Mercy, but Justificati­on is an Act of Justice; therefore it is not meer Pardon. God justifieth Believers not as a meer Act of Favour, though free Mercy be the Foundation and the prime impulsive cause of Justification, and all the Fruits of it, but immediately, it is an Act of Justice, Justice being the immediate Impulsive Cause. It is not only a Just thing with God to justifie a Sin­ner through Christ, that he may do it without wrong to his Justice, as some gloss it; but it is an Act of proper Justice, having received [Page 14]satisfaction to his Law, to justifie and acquit him; it would not be just to deny it. This is intimated, Rom. 8.33, 35. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect? It is God that Justifieth. [...]; Who shall indite or implead them in course of Law or Judgment (or else there is enough to be charged against them.) The Reason is, because it is God that justifieth, God who is to be Judge, to give the Sentence, and there­fore will justifie judicially or as an Act of Judg­ment: And the ground of this is in the next words [...]; Who shall condemn in Judgment, seeing Christ has died and so sa­tisfaction is made to Justice? When we par­don an Offence, which we might justly punish, we do cedere de jure, forbear our Right, and Justice gives place to Mercy; but Justice can­not pardon or acquit unless it be satisfied, un­less it have what is right and due according to Law.

Object.But it is said, That God pardoneth legally and judicially by virtue of the Evangelical Law, so it is an Act of Justice as well as of Mercy:Vid. Justi­if. Evang. p. 23. So Truman. They say a Sinner is not pardoned, by Free Grace and Absolute Pardon, but upon conditions and terms requi­red in the Gospel to be performed by him, which when he hath performed, the Evangeli­cal Law doth justifie him, pronounce him pardoned, and so his Pardon is an Act of Ju­stice according to the Gospel Law, though not according to the Law of Works, which is [Page 15]content with nothing but Satisfaction.

Answ.Let any fair Disputant judge whether this [...] not to shift the Question: They have said, [...]at Justification is meer Pardon, bare Par­don, nothing but Pardon, and yet it is not ab­ [...]ute Pardon, but Pardon upon condition to [...] performed by him that will receive Pardon. [...]re not these Conditions when persormed our [...]angelical Righteousness? This they con­ [...]d for; And are they not a positive Righte­ousness? Yes, they are Gospel Obedience: [...]hat sence is it then to say we are pardoned [...]thout any positive Righteousness, that Par­don alone is all our Righteousness. It may be [...]ese conditions are so small and so necessary to [...]e receiving of pardon ex natura rei, that [...]y are not to be accounted as any righteous­ness: Nay, but in the Gospel Law, all the [...]oral Duties that were required in the Cove­ [...]nt of Works are required still, though not [...]th the same necessity of perfection: And [...]w they are much more difficult than before. [...]me Moral Duties are required also and ne­cessary, which were not directly nnd properly [...]uties under the First Covenant; as Self-de­ [...]l, Mortification, and bearing the Cross. [...]sides these the Gospel prescribeth new posi­ [...]e Duties, which neither were nor could be [...]uties under the Law of Works, viz. Faith, [...]ve, and Obedience to the Mediator, with [...] holy and reverend use of all the positive In­ [...]tutions of the Gospel. Are these small things, [...]s it necessary to meer Pardon, that the par­doned [Page 16]should not only return to their forme Duty, but also receive new Terms, and Con­ditions which were never their Duty before If a Prince subdue Rebels, and then promi [...] them Impunity, if besides returning to the [...] ancient Duty and Allegiance they will receive some new Terms; which he shall please to im­pose on them, doth he freely pardon them doth he not deal with them as in a way [...] Mercy, so in a way of Soveraignty, giv [...] them new Laws, and making advantage to him­self and accession to his Power by occasion [...] their misdemeanour? Besides, this is ve [...] improper to talk of legal and judicial Pardon Pardon by a Law: For a Law is properly pre­ceptive, and judicial Proceedings are acqui­ting or condemning for keeping or breaki [...] the Law. Pardon is granted by supersed [...] the Sentence of the Law, at least the Execu­tion of it, or by a Promise or Declaration [...] Grace, which when establisht for securiti [...] sake and promulgated, is sometimes called a [...] Act of Grace, yet it hath not the full Natur [...] of a Law. It is the Soveraign Legislator wh [...] pardoneth, who hath power to relax the Exe­cution of the Law; a Law cannot pardon But the plain meaning of those men is, Th [...] God seeing through the Fall it was become impossible for man to keep, and so to be sa [...] by the Law of Works, was pleased to ma [...] a new, milder, and easier Law, and to decla [...] that if they would keep it, they should [...] pardoned and saved: Pardon then with the [...] is nothing else but a waving of the Covena [...] [Page 17]of Works, i. e. God will not proceed with men according to that Covenant, if they will sub­mit to his new Covenant; so then for all their specious words of meer Pardon to exclude Christ's Righteousness, they only mean that God will not execute his First Covenant which men have broken, but will save them if they fulfil his Second Covenant, i. e. will be righte­ous and obedient according to the Gospel, and thus they acknowledg a righteousness of a man's own, besides pardon whereby he must he justified.

6. The Law requireth a positive righteous­ness by the fulfilling of it: The end of every Law being obedience to it.Just. E­vang. p. 38, 39. Therefore Justi­fication cannot be Pardon of Sin without Im­putation of Righteousness. 'Tis said, That the Law of Works required a sinless perfect righteousness, which Christ hath satisfied for; but the Law of Grace is a better Covenant, ac­cepting an imperfect Righteousness. But this is nothing to the purpose; let the righteous­ness be such as the Law will accept, perfect or imperfect, it is all one, if the Law doth re­quire a positive righteousness, then a man can­not be justified without it: And do not they themselves teach that the Gospel requireth o­bedience to it, as our Evangelical Righteous­ness, therefore that cannot justifie us without a righteousness conformed to it self. 'Tis said further, Legal Justification,Ibidem. i. e. according to the Law of Works, requireth a fulfilling of that Law, but not Evangelical Justification, [Page 18]A fallacy in words: Legal and Evangelical Ju­stification differ not specie sed modo applicatio­nis, not in the righteousness which justifieth, but in the manner of its application to us. Had we fulfilled the Law of Works, we had been legally justified by our own righteousness, but now Christ hath fulfilled that Law for us we are still legally justified, to wit, by the righ­teousness of that Law; yet in an Evangelical or Gracious manner, that righteousness being not our own but Christ's imputed to us (a [...] shall be proved in the next Chapter) and I be­seech you when men are justified, i. e. pardon­ed, (say you) what Law is it that accuseth them, for the violation whereof they are par­doned? Is it not the Law of Works? (for i [...] they break the Gospel Covenant there is n [...] more sacrifice for sin.) There must then be a legal Justification by that Law of Works, un­less it be wholly waved and made void by the Gospel.

Object.But the Law of Works is satisfied by the suffering of Christ, and so pardon of all sins i [...] a sufficient Justification from it:Great Prop. p. 116. There need­eth not Obedience and suffering too.

Answ.The Law doth not directly and immediate­ly require both obedience and suffering the penalty, but obedience only is the end of the Law; suffering the penalty is no fulfilling of, or proper satisfaction to the Law, but a re­compence to Justice for the breach of the Law, that so contempt may not lie upon it: so that if [Page 19]the Law be broken it doth accidentally require both obedience and suffering of punishment; the latter for the recompence of injured Ju­stice, that the Law may not be despised or broken impunè, and the former as that which is the proper and natural end of the Law. When a man suffereth the penalty of any Law, the Law is so far satisfied that it can exact no far­ther punishment, but doth he therefore de­serve the rewards of the Law, as if he had o­beyed it? He is indeed restored to his former State, i. e. punishment ceaseth and he is ad­mitted to the priviledge of other men to live in obedience to the Law for the future, but he hath not the reward of obedience, nor is ac­counted for his suffering to be upon the same terms with the obedient: In like manner, our Lord Christ by suffering the penalties of the Law did recompence the injured Honour and Justice of God, and of the Law, so that it could require no more punishment of him or of those that believe in him; but he did not therefore deserve the rewards of the Law, they were procured by his obedience to it. It is not true of the Law of God, that it requi­reth either to be obeyed, or that the penalty should be endured; for so men should obey and fulfill the Law in a sort by going to hell for breaking it. The Law promised life only to obedience, not to the suffering of death; there­fore Christ by suffering of death did fulfill what the Law required, but accidentally and se­condarily by reason of sin, but by obeying the Law he fulfilled the primary and immediate [Page 20]end of the Law, and so merited the promised reward. There must therefore be a righte­ousness of conformity to the Law, whereby must be procured a right to life, as well as a suffering of the penalty, whereby a stop is put to further punishment, which is all that meer pardon of sin amounteth to. Upon these grounds I take leave to describe Justification an Act whereby God doth acquit and accept a Sinner as righteous unto life eternal for the righteousness of Christ, whereby he hath ful­filled the precept and suffered the penalty of the Law. Justification actively taken is Gods Act acquitting or declaring a man righteous; passively taken it is a mans state or relation to that Act of God, being declared and accept­ed as righteous, of which as it supposeth a change from a former state of guilt and con­demnation; the terminus a quo, or state from which he is tranflated is a state of Sin and wrath; the terminus ad quem, is a state of ab­solution or being righteous before God; par­don of sin or stop of punishment is included in it, or doth immediately result from it; so that Justification is one single Act and not several concurring to make it up, though divers things are given or granted by it, either immediate­ly or consequentially, as flowing from the im­mediate effect or benefit of it. The main Ar­gument against this Doctrine is, That the Scri­pture doth frequently describe Justification by pardon and forgiveness, as if they were aequi­pollent terms: But the reason of this is, First, Because men being sensible of sin and misery, [Page 21]do first look after pardon, and therefore par­don is promised as that which will be most welcome and comfortable to them; and also because men should be fensible of their own guilt, and in capacity of making satisfaction to God; and therefore that the righteousness by which they must be justified is not their own but Christs, nor contrived or provided by them but by God himself for them. What then, Justification is called pardon of sin, ergò, it is nothing else but Pardon; This is no con­sequence.

Object.But the Apostle, Rom. 4. fully describeth Justification, the nature of it; and he saith, v. 6, 7. That Blessedness cometh by forgiving,Justif. E­vang. p. 27. covering, not imputing sin.

Answ.But he saith also, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Now in the place here quoted, Gen. 15.6. and the context, there is a promise of positive Blessing made to. Abraham, and he believed that promise, and this was accounted to him for righteousness. Shall we say Abraham be­lieved, and this was accounted for par­don of sin? There is a positive righteousness intimated as well as a positive act whereby it was procur'd and appli'd, and positive promi­ses granted thereupon. David indeed under great horrors for his sin comforts himself most with apprehensions of forgiveness as most suit­able to his case, but what good will the fullest pardon imaginable do a man without a certain [Page 22]right to eternal life, and a promise of ef­fectual Grace to bring him to it? will he not sin again and so lose the benefit of his former pardon?

Object.But a Sinner is capable of no other righte­ousness, but that of forgiveness.

Answ.What then must become of the Evangelical Righteousness of Faith and Works, which they contend for? A Sinner can have no other righteousness but meer pardon, if it must rest upon him to satisfie or to provide satisfacti­on for the Law: But doth this hinder God's providing and bestowing on him the righteous­ness of his Son? As a Bankrupt is capable of nothing, but to have his debt freely forgiven him, for ought that he can do towards satis­faction, yet this hindreth not but his Friend may pay the Debt for him, and so render him solvent in Law.

'Tis once more said,Object. Iust [...]. E­vang. p. 35, 36. If a Sinner be not made Righteous by pardon, but may be counted a Sinner still, then by the same reason, when Christ his Righteousness is imputed, that being not his own Obedience he may be counted a Sinner still, and so be Righteous and a Sinner at the same time, which impli­eth a loud Contradiction.

Answ.It is no Contradiction being not eodem re­spectu, not in the same respect or in the same sence: A man is a Sinner in himself and righ­teous [Page 23]in Christ, the Law pronounceth him a Sinner, and sentenceth him to death, but the Law-giver who is above the Law accept­eth Christs fulfilling the Law for him; and thus being admitted upon Christs account, the Law it self must acknowledg him Righte­ous.

CHAP. II. The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to Believers explained and proved.

HAving proved that to Justifie is to accept as Just or Righteous, and likewise that our own Obedience is not, cannot be, the Righteousness wherein we must appear before God, it remaineth that it must be the Righte­ousness of Christ imputed to us, for and by which we must be justified, and this is now to be proved. But before we come to the Proof we shall briefly inquire, What we mean by Christs Righteousness, and what by the Imputa­tion of it. The Righteousness of Christ, which we say is imputed to a Sinner for his Justifica­tion, is that Righteousness which he fulfilled or wrought in conformity to the Law of God, whereby the Law violated by us, was fulfilled, and satisfied for us, and in our stead, Rom. 10.4. Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth. Therefore it is not the Righteousness of his Divine Person, which is imputed to us; for that is Infinite, such as men are uncapable of, and 'twas never requi­red from them: Yet the Perfections of his God-head do add the meritorious Dignity to his Satisfaction. Nor is it the connate habitu­al Righteousness of his Man-hood: For this is presuppos'd to enable to the performance of [Page 25]the Law, but not properly required by the Law, yet the Law requireth the preservation and exercise of perfect inherent righteousness. Adam was created perfect to make him capa­ble of receiving a Law of perfect obedience; therefore that Law supposed a Holy Nature and only required continuance in that perfe­ction of Nature which he had received. In like manner, it was necessary that Christ should be born with a perfect, holy Nature, that he might undertake the fulfilling of the Law for us; and the preserving and exercise of that Holiness once received was a part of his obedience to the Law: but that Holiness as natural and habitual was antecedent to the o­bedience of the Law, and therefore no pro­ber part of it. Christ's Righteousness then which is imputed to us, is his Holy Life in obedience to the Law of God, and his volun­tary obediential suffering the Penalties of the Law unto death it self, for us and in our stead. By the latter he made satisfaction for our sins and breach of the Law, and by the former he fulfill'd the Law in the proper and principal de­sign of it, and thereby purchased eternal life, which was promised by the Law to them that fulfill it. By obeying the substance of the Mo­ral Law, as given to Man-kind and suffering death, the Penalty thereof, he satisfied the Law and wrought Righteousness for men in general; and by obeving the Jewish Law, and suffering the penalties, and that kind of death threatned, and accursed particularly by [...]t, he wrought righteousness for the Jews, [Page 26] Gal. 4.4, 5. Now when we say, This Righ­teousness of Christ is imputed to Believes, rec­koned or accounted theirs, Rom. 4.3. [...] we do not mean, that they are accounted to have done and suffered those Actions and Penalties which Christ was Author of and endured. Christ and Believers are still distinct, natural persons, and so the actions and passions of one person cannot be reckoned properly the actions and passions of the other: Nor do we teach, by imputing Christs Righteousness to Believers, that God looketh upon them as if they had done and suffered in their own persons what Christ did in his, in any proper sence. For Christ only is accounted the Author of his own Righte­ousness, and though Believers be justified by it, yet the honour of working that righteous­ness, and of being the proper subject of its In­herence belongeth to Christ alone. But by Imputation we mean, that God accounteth the Righteousness of Christ to have been wrought by him for every one that believeth, and doth justifie or accept them to life eternal: for that very righteousness believed or trusted in, according to the promise of the Gospel, and so Christs Righteousness is reckoned theirs, or reckoned to them, put to their account, as if it were theirs, not efficienter, but effectivè; not as if they had wrought it, but that they may have the full benefit of it, and be justified by it as effectually as if they had obeyed the Law perfectly in their own persons. This is that which our Divines mean by saying Christ [Page 27]righteousness is ours in law, that Christ and Believer are one in Law, viz. that the Law [...]f God is as truly and sully satisfied for us by [...]he righteousness of Christ, as if we had fulfil­led it our selves; and that God being pleased [...]o admit of the fulfilling of the Law by Christ [...]or us, the Law doth pronounce us righteous [...]nd Heirs of life, for that righteousness which Christ wrought in obedience to it. In this [...]ence also they say, That the very formal righteousness of Christ is a Believers righteous­ness or imputed to him, viz. not that a Be­liever is reckoned to have wrought that righte­ousness as an efficient cause of it, nor that Christs righteousness is transfused into him, implanted in him, as the subject of inherence, [...]ut that the very righteousness which Christ wrought was intended and wrought for him by the Son, and is accepted for him by the Father, that he is justified for it and intituled to life e­ternal. Christ is the efficient & the subject of In­herence of his own active & passive obedience, but the immediate benefit of it as satisfactory to the Law is a Believers, and he is the subject of it, a subject of external denomination; he is denominated righteous from that righteous­ness wrought for him and accepted in his be­half. Thus it is not forma inhaerens, but deno­minans, not an internal but an external Form. When a Debtor is discharged, his Surety pay­ing the Debt, the Debtor cannot properly be said to be the Author of the payment; he paid not the Money, 'twas not his but the Sureties, yet the Money being paid for him, in his stead, [Page 28]for his benefit, by the Surety, and accepted for him, instead of his payment, by the Cre­ditor, he is a subject of denomination and may be truly accounted a clear and solvent person and the payment imputed to him, placed to his account, as really and as fully as if he had paid it with his own hand and with his own money.

Hence some call the Righteousness of Christ the Formal Cause of our Justification,Vid. Whitaker de Ecclesia p. 460, 461. Synop. Lei­dens. disput. 33. Th. 21, 23. and o­thers the Matter or Material Cause; both mean the same thing, viz. That Christs righ­teousness is the very thing for which we are accepted and justified before God. I will not contend about terms of Art, in so great a point whereon Salvation depends, yet it seemeth more logical to say; In Justification, man in the Matter or Subject, viz. the Person justi­fied, Christs righteousness is the Form, that by which he is constituted righteous, or just before God: Imputation, Gods accepting this righteousness for him, is as the Union be­twixt the Matter and the Form, even the Ap­plication of Christs righteousness to the per­son justified: God the Father is the Efficient, accepting or acquitting him for the sake of Christs righteousness. The Promise of the Gospel is the medium whereby this righteous­ness is conveyed; and Faith the instrument or disposition in the subject whereby it is ren­dred capable of receiving Christs righteous­ness or having it imputed to him: And Justi­fication is the Condition or State of a Man ac­cepted [Page 29]with God to life eternal through the righteousness of Christ imputed to him. From [...]ence I inser, that Imputation of Christs righ­teousness and Justification is all one and but [...]e real Act, and so Arctius defines it: Justi­ [...]atio est imputatio justitiae alienae gratuita, Lib. Probl. loc. 25. fa­ [...]a a Deo, respectu meriti Filii Dei, ad salutem [...]ni credenti. Some learned men make Justi­cation to consist of 2 Acts. The First where­by Christs righteousness is imputed to a Sin­ [...]er; The Second whereby his sins are forgi­ven and he accepted for the sake of that righ­teousness: But this makes it more perplext that it is to impute righteousness. We are righteous with the righteousness of Christ, [...]t in a Physical sence as if it were inherent or adherent to us, but judicially. We are ac­cepted as righteous, i. e. discharged from pu­nishment, and intituled to life for it, and this [...] to be justified. We may indeed make it Formal Acts, or formally distinct; the one thereby Christs righteousness is placed to our account, or reckoned to be done for us; the [...]ther, whereby we are accepted or intituled [...] life for that righteousness: But it's really [...]e same thing, to account Christs righteous­ [...] be wrought for us to satisfie and fulfill the [...]aw of God, and to accept us and give us [...]ight to life for that righteousness. God in [...]s Promise proposeth life to Sinners, on the account of Christs satisfaction, in which when [...]ey believe and trust, there is by virtue of that Promise a Grant and Title to life made o­ther to them, and hereby righteousness is im­puted [Page 30]to them, or they are justified, Thus, Rom. 4, 2. When the Apostle would prove Abraham was not justified by Works, he saith, v. 3. Faith was imputed to him for Righteous­ness: Then to justifie or impute Christs righ­teousness is all one, and God accounteth us righteous for this righteousness, i. e. God ju­stifieth or giveth us eternal life for Christs righ­teousness, and frees us from condemnation Nor is Christ first given to us and then his right ousness as some speak, as if we were actually interessed in Christs Person before we are his righteousness. God worketh Faith in the Heart which apprehendeth the promise of li [...] through the righteousness of Christ, and here­by we are accepted and justified, and this righ­teousness is thus made ours or given to us and no other way. Afterwards we are adop­ted and receive the Spirit of Sons by which Spirit we are united to Christ as to our Hear and the Fountain of Spiritual Life, and the Christ is most properly given to us, or w [...] are actually interessed in his person; in whom all the Elect have some interest before on the account of Election, but this was not actual and proper.

These things thus explained, the Question betwixt us and our Opposites is plainly th [...] Whether God justifieth men and intituled them Life for the Righteousness which Christ wrought in fulfilling and suffering the Penalties of the Law? The Affirmative is the Protestant Doctrine, and now to be proved.

CHAP. III. More Arguments to prove the Imputati­on of Christ's Righteousness to us.

CHAP. IV. An Answer to the Arguments against the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness.

WE are now to examin the Arguments which are brought against this Do­ctrine; where as I shall pass by none that I meet with which seem to have any weight, and whose solution may add any evidence to this weighty Truth; so I shall not count my self concerned in a great number of Objections, that are heaped up by some against it, some being meer devised cavilations, and many no­thing to the purpose. For our Opposites deal in this Argument as the Arminians did in the point of Reprobation, load it with calumnies, or with the unadvised expressions of some par­ticular men, but say but little that concludeth against the Truth it self. Their usual Fallacy is Plus in conclusione quam in praemissis, or igno­ratio Elenchi; when the plain Question is, Whether we are accepted and justified for the Righteousness of Christ wrought for us, and gi­ven to us by the Promise of the Gospel, and ac­cepted by Faith; And their Arguments should conclude against this naked truth, they usually conclude against Imputation of this Righte­ousness as exprest by the Antinomians, or by Popular and not Logical Men, or else against some terms of Art applyed to this Subject. [Page 76]The like they do when they dispute against the Imputation of our sins to Christ; yet some In­stances of this kind I must take notice of, that the Reader may be the more excited to ob­serve it in their Books.

Object.Christ's Righteousness is the Morally Effi­cient, sc. the meritorious Cause of our Justi­fication,Hotchkis ut supra, p. 23. therefore it is not the proper matter, or properly a material Cause of it: Matter being an internal constitutive Cause, and an efficient and external Cause, which cannot a­gree to the same thing.

Answ.The Question is not (nor did ever any man say it that knew what he said) whether Christs Righteousness be a proper material Cause, as Matter is opposed to a Form: When it is said to be the Matter or formal Cause of our Ju­stification, it is meant only Analogically; Christs Righteousness consisted in Actions and Passions, which were neither Matter nor Forms as taken for Internal Essential Parts of any thing: But when these Actions and Passi­ons are the thing for which a man is justified, they are analogically called the Matter of his Righteousness, because his Righteousness is made up of them; and as a man is accepted for these very Actions and Passions wrought for him, and imputed to him, so they may be called the Formal Cause of our Justification, as a man is denominated Just before God from that Righteousness: And thus as Christs Righteousness is analogically called Matter or [Page 77]Form, so it may analogically be said to con­stitute a man Just or Righteous before God, or to be pars constituens hominis justificati, qua­tenus juscificati, as any other Accident, moral or physical, intrinsecal or extrinsecal, being appli d to the subject maketh the concretum ex subjecto & accidenti, and so the subject in that composition is as the matter, though o­therways perhaps the Efficient; and the Ac­cident as the Form; both are the Constitu­tive Parts of that concretum, yet Analogically. Thus much for the Logick of this Argument, now for the Divinity. It is true that Christ's Obedience offered as a Ransom for all the E­lect in general is the Meritorious Cause of their Salvation, but when it is applied to each particular person (as all Causes must be applied to the Patient that they may produce their Effect) it is that thing for which God doth ac­cept and justifie them in particular, and so is said to be the matter of their Righteousness, the Material, and by some the Formal Cause of Justification,de Just. ch. 22. vid. Dav. Atque revera in justificatione, talis causa formalis ponenda est, quae simul & meritoria esse possit: Nisi enim con­tineat illam dignitatem in se, propter quam homo rite justificatus reputetur, nunquam erit formalis causa, &c.

2.Object. If Christ's Righteousness be imputed to us, then we are freed from all obligation to Obedience: If he hath obeyed for us,Trueman ut supra, p. 118.4. what need is there of our obedience, we cannot mend his, and if he hath done all, there is nothing left for us to do?

Answ.We are freed from any obligation to obedi­ence of that kind and to that end for which Christ obeyed: His Obedience was the Ful­filling of the Law of Works, as a Covenant of Life, and by fulfilling it he purchased life for us, and so was the perfective end of that Law or Covenant for righteousness to them that believe, Rom. 10.4. Perfect obedience to the Law of Works is not required of us, that we should live by it, or perish for lack of it, as it would have been, had not Christ obey­ed for us. But it doth not follow from hence that we are freed from all Obligations of Obe­dience upon other accounts, viz. as Crea­tures to a Creator, as Servants to an absolute and soveraign Lord, as Children to a Father, and as the Preparatives to an Eternal Life; upon these accounts we must obey still, though not to be justified by it: Christ himself is not freed from the general obligation of obedience to God, as he is a Man, though he hath finish­ed his satisfactory Obedience to the Law as the Means and Covenant of Life, and is for ever acquitted from the Obligation thereto: In like manner his Obedience hath acquitted us from all obligation to the Law as the way of life, yet not from all Obedience. But this Argument, as all the rest of this Author in the same place, is levelled against a Popular Ex­pression of this Doctrine, and are nothing to the main Question, viz. That Christ's Righte­ousness is so imputed to us, that we are accounted to have obeyed in him, to have fulfilled the Law, to have done and suffered all in him, &c. which [Page 79]Position is true only in this Sence, That all which Christ did and suffered was intended for us, is given to us, and doth as really justifie us, as if we had fulfilled it our selves. But it is not true that God accounteth us to have personally obeyed in Christs obeying, or us to have suffered in Christs suffering, to have fulfilled the Law in his fulfilling it: For then we must be accounted to have satisfied for our selves in him, and to have purchased our own Justification. The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness is God's, accounting it to be wrought for us, and so he accepteth us for it; but not his accounting us to have wrought it, or to have been actively righteous as if we had fulfilled his Law.

But did not Christ obey as a common and publick person for all the Elect,Quest. and so he and they are one in Law, and so what he did they are accounted to have done.

Christ was a common and publick person in that he intended his Obedience not for him­self nor for any one person, but for the whole Company of the Elect: Christ and they are one in Law, in that the benefit of his satisfy­ing the Law, was intended for them, and in time conferred on them: But he was not a common person, or one in Law with them so as they might be properly reckoned to have done what he did; for this holdeth only where the common person is a Delegate or Commis­sioner of others, when they appoint him their [Page 80]Representative, give him his Instructions and Authority to act in their Name, then they are lookt upon as doing what he doth, and not else. But it was God the Father and not Men that sent Christ, and appointed him to die for the Elect, gave him all his Instructions what to do and suffer, and then accepted it for them, being done by his own Appointment, not by theirs.

But are we not made Righteous with Christ's Righteousness, Quest. and so may be accounted to have obeyed, or fulfilled the Law in him?

Answ.We are made righteous with his righteous­ness, not morally, as if we were made perso­nally Holy and obedient by it, or were so ac­counted by God; but legally we are made righteous, that is, justified by his righteous­ness, acquitted from condemnation, and ac­cepted to life eternal. Therefore we are ju­stified as sinners, as ungodly, Rom. 4.5, 7. in the way of repentance, and acknowledg­ment of our sins, by faith in the promise of life through Christ. But we are not justified as innocent or blameless in our selves: Ju­stification doth not find us righteous but makes us righteous, viz. it acquitteth and recon­cileth us guilty, condemned sinners for the righteonsness of Christ; and thus we are made righteous in Law, such as shall not be con­demned, but have eternal life.

Are we then justified according to the Premi­ant and Retributive part of the Law, Quest. and not ac­cording to the Preceptive part also?

Answ.We are justified according to the Precept as well as according to the Promise, Christ having fulfilled or obeyed the Precepts for us, and thereby procured all the reward that was promised, with some addition of happiness, because of the eminency of his Person and O­bedience. He also purchased deliverance from the Curse threatned, by undergoing the Curse for us, yet we cannot be said to have o­beyed the Precepts, or to have born the Curse in him in any proper sence: He did it in our behalf, that we might thereby be justified and brought to life as certainly as if we were inno­cent, but not that we should be accounted really innocent in our own persons.M. Baxt. 4. disput. of Just. p. 263. As for the distinction of Righteousness according to the Precept and according to the Sanction, or retributive part of the Law, and that again di­vided into the promise and the threatning:Idem An­swer to Dr. Tully, p. 50. Righteousness according to the Promise being jus ad donum, a right to the thing promised, and righteousness according to the threatning being jus ad impunitatem, a right to impunity or to escape punishment; this distinction I say as to the matter of Justification, is very need­less and impertinent. For it is the fulfilling of the Precept which gives right to the reward promised, and the violation of the Precept which intituleth to punishment. What though [Page 82]the righteousness of obedience to the Precept, and the right to the blessing of the Promise dif­fer as the cause & effect, yet the latter doth op­pose the former, when we are to be justified be­fore God; so that if we have right to life on the account of Gods Promise to the righteousness of Christ, and this righteousness be his obey­ing the precept of the Law, then his obedi­ence to the precept is imputed to us also, and is the foundation of our right to the Promise: The like is to be said of our right to impunity, which is founded upon Christs suffering the pu­nishment for us, and therefore his suffering the penalty is imputed to us also, and thus that which is built upon this distinction falls to the ground, viz. That Righteousness as to the Promise and Threatning of the Law being in some sort distinct from the Righteousness of Obedience to the Precept; that therefore we may have the former without the latter, i.e. we may have a right to life by the promise of the Gospel, and a right to be delivered from wrath, and yet Christ's Righteousness of O­bedience and Suffering not to imputed to us. For this is the immediate Cause and Foun­dation of our right both to avoid the penalty and inherit the promise. The rest of Mr. Trueman's Arguments I pass by as being di­rected against the Antinomians only and not touching us, as also what he writes against the Imputation of Christ's active and passive Obedience in the sence before explained, which is repeated by a later Author,Just. E­vang. p. 54. as being part­ly impertinent and partly answered in the first [Page 83]Chapter. This later Author giveth us three Arguments against the Imputation of Christs Righteousness,p. 56. though he doth (as the others before him) miss the state of the Question; reporting our Opinion thus, That Christ's Righteousness is so imputed to us as if we are accounted to have personally done and suffered what he did:p. 57. His third Argument runneth wholly upon this mistake, therefore I shall pass it by, the two first deserve some conside­ration.

CHAP. V. The adverse Opinion propounded and examined: Pelagius and Armi­nius the Authors of it.

OF all that ever troubled the Church with their Errours, the Pelagians and their [...]ate Off-spring the Arminians have most per­plext it with their Opinions, partly by their importunity, reviving them and urging them [...]afresh from time to time, so that the Church hath had little quiet from them for the last twelve hundred years, though their Opinions have been most frequently and most fairly ex­amined and unanimously refuted above any Errours whatsoever, and that both by parti­cular Writers of all Ages, and also many Sy­ [...]ods greater and smaller: But principally by their dishonest Art of misrepresenting the Or­thodox Doctrine to perswade the Simple that they oppose particular mens Sentiments, not the Doctrine of the Church, and by covering their own Opinions, propounding them plau­sibly and ambiguously, that the Falshood may [...]ot be easily discern'd, that at once they may [...]nsinuate with the Simple, and have retreats [...]o avoid the Arguments of the Learned, where­in they do like those that sculk in Woods and Thickets, whom it is as hard to find out as it [...]s to conquer. It was a sit Epithite that Hie­ [...]om gave Pelagius, Coluber ille Britannus, that [Page 104]British Snake: For he had his many windings and foldings, and for his advantage could cast his Skin to. When he was taxed to deny Grace, ascribing all to mans free Will, he protested to ascribe all to Grace, and yet meant thereby nothing but Nature or Free Will, which he called Grace because it was the Gift of God;Vossius Hist. Pe­lag. lib. 1. pars 1. Joh. Lati­us Hist. Pe­lag. lib. 1. par. 1. and when all his Opinions were sum­med up and objected to him in the Synod of Diospolis or Lydda, he openly and severally renounct them all with Anathemas, and all by equivocal words, keeping the same meaning. The like did his Scholar Caelestius, when called to an account before the Bishops of Rome and Africa; Fostus and Cassianus the Semipela­gian Leaders trod in their steps, as the same Authors out of Augustin and Prosper have shewed. Arminius and his Followers have not come behind them in this Art. The Pre­face to the Synod of Dort and Lubertus suffi­ciently insorm us how Arminius strove to co­ver his Opinions,contra Bersium. till he might by secret insi­nuations gain a party to stand on his defence: When he was suspected of novelty by the Presbytery of Amsterdam, Sancté protestatus­est, &c. he solemnly profest that he knew no man in the Low-Countries, that had a mind to bring in Innovations in Religion. His Disci­ples were of the same temper, which they shewed both in the Synod and in their own Writing. By the same Art their Followers amongst us at this day create us much trouble, especially in this point of Justification by Christ's Righteousness imputed, about which [Page 105]they had their Doctrine from Arminius: Po­pular Insinuations is the best of their Rheto­rick; Generals, Equivocation and Tergiver­sation is the greatest part of their Logick, which we shall make now to appear by enqui­ring what is their Opinion concerning the Ef­fect of Christs death and obedience, who deny us to be properly justified by it, or it to be imputed to us: They do agree to retain the Term of Imputing Christ's Righteousness. Just. E­vang. p. 51. The notion of Imputation in general (saith one of them) is no way to be opposed, it being im­possible that we should receive benefit by, and the effects of what another doth without some kind of Imputation. But thus Socinus will say, What Christ did was imputed to us, i. e. it was nostro bono, for our good and be­nefit. Mr. Baxter chargeth Dr. Tully with the breach of all that is Sacred,Answ. to Dr. Tully p. 18, 172. for saying that he denyeth all Imputation of Christs Righte­ousness, and telleth us that he doth not only hold it in some sence, but in a larger sence than many do, viz. That not only his Passive Obedience is imputed to us, but his Active also, yea his Habitual and Divine Righteous­ness so far as influential to give merit to his O­bedience; and yet all this is but words. For whosoever asserteth the infinite value of the death of Christ, must and doth acknowledge the concurrence of his Active, Habitual,Papaeus. and Divine Righteousness, to make his death an infinite Prize, which it could not be unless the person dying, were God, of a perfect, holy Nature, and of perfect holy Life till the time [Page 106]of his death. But he that useth a common word (as this of Imputation is) and in that Question and Matter to which it belongeth properly, and useth it in a sence quite diffe­rent from the common acception and state of the Question, doth but equivocate in retaining that Term. Though Protestants have differed about the Righteousness of Christ imputed, whether it be the Passive only or the Active also, yet till of late there hath been no questi­on among them about the meaning of the term Imputation; all understanding thereby that we were justified and accepted to Life Eternal for the Righteousness of Christ intended and wrought for us. But it is more strange that he who is so earnest to be accounted a main­tainer of Imputation, should no better defend himself from the accusation of denying it. For when a few lines would have expressed any mans meaning in this point, who was willing to be understood, he gives us many distinctions, divisions,chap. 2. p. 48, &c. and sub-divisions, and fifty Propo­sitions to explain in what sence he holdeth Christ's Righteousness imputed, and in what not, and yet confesseth after all these that he doubteth he hath not made his meaning plain enough, to those who are not exercised in the Controversie, who had most need of his Ex­plication, and therefore addeth more distincti­ons and propositions to make his meaning plainer,chap. 3. p. 79. which is as well performed as if a man endeavouring to wash an Aethiopian white, should first plunge him into a River of Water and afterwards into a Vessel of Ink: He goes [Page 107] [...]n with the same Art and Chap. 4.p. [...]9. instead of opposing the Drs. sence of Imputation and de­ [...]ending his own, he thrusts together all the [...]ences of Imputation, which he denieth both [...]he sound and the unsound, and then disputes against Imputation with 43 Reasons, but a­gainst what or in what sence he would not have [...]he People but only his Friends to understand. [...] this be reconciling to devize new terms and [...]ew questions, if confounding things be clear­ing of them, if hiding ones meaning with mul­ [...]itudes of words be to explain onesself, then [...]his Author hath acquitted himself well. I will [...]dd another instance of his Explications: I did assert that Christ's Righteousness (even habi­ [...]ual, Appeal to the Light, p. 1. active and passive exalted by his Divine [...]ighteousness) being the fulfilling of his Law and Covenant of Mediation, hath perfectly me­ [...]ited Reconciliation, Pardon, Adoption, San­ [...]tification, Glory, and all the good which ever [...]e receive, to be given us freely in his own time, and on his own terms, by his New Covenant, by [...]is Spirit, and by his Providence; and that we are as justly and certainly justified, pardoned, and saved by and for this meritorious Righteous­ness and Sacrifice of Christ, as if we had done and suffered all our selves, and that he suffered for us and in our stead, that we might not suf­fer, and fulfill'd all Righteousness for us that were Sinners, to those proper uses we have and need no other Righteousness, and though it be not Scripture Phrase, we may truly say that thus Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us, &c. This was writ to avoid the charge of denying [Page 108]Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, and therefore worded in Protestant Phrases as much as could be, and yet a different sence couche in them, viz. in those words, to be given us on his own terms, and by his New Covenant whereby is intended that Christ merited [...] Reconciliation, Justification, &c. to be gi­ven to us as the immediate Effects of his Pur­chase, but to be given us upon the fulfilling the Commands of the Gospel, so that it is [...] Christ's Righteousness that justifies us, or [...] imputed to us to Justification, but it did only merit a New Covenant or Law by fulfilling whereof we should be justified. We shall not endeavour to make plain what these men would obscure and hide, viz. the difference betwin [...] them and us in the point of Imputation. It is the usual Protestant Doctrine that Jesus Christ undertook to fulfill that Law which men broken and to bare that Punishment which their Since deserved in the behalf of his Elect, and that God accepting this undertaking of his from Eternity, and the performance of it in time did therefore promise and grant pardon of sin, right to eternal life, and his Spirit, and all spiritual blessings to be conferred upon each of these Elect Persons, when by the Grace of Christ they should claim them, and put their trust in him: Hereupon we say, when a man is actually pardoned and intituted to life by virtue of this undertaking and grant, that Christ's Righeousness is imputed to him, i. e. that these benefits are bestowed upon him, for that Righteousness which Christ wrought and [Page 109] [...]d accepted, and he flyeth to for Salvation [...]d for no other reason: And hereupon ari­ [...]h in justified persons an immutable right to [...]e and the Grace of God to bring them to it; [...]ereupon they may be certain of their Perse­ [...]rance and Salvation: But on the contrary [...]ese men teach, first, That though Christ [...]d materially fulfill the Law broken by men, [...]d bore the Punishment due to their sins, [...]. did many things which the Law comman­ [...]d, and suffered many things which it threat­ [...]d against Sin, yet that he did not intend di­rectly and properly to satisfie that Law by o­ [...]ying the Precepts and undergoing the Penal­ [...]s of it, but did only fulfill the Law of a Me­ [...]ator imposed upon him and peculiar to him, which was to do and suffer such things as God [...]eased to enjoyn him. 2ly. That this which [...]hrist did and suffered did respect and was intended, not for any particular persons, but [...]r all mankind equally as Adam's Sin did. [...]y. That therefore this Obedience or Righ­ [...]ousness of Christ did not purchase Pardon, [...]stification, or any of the Fruits of it for all [...] for any man immediately. 4ly. But that [...] procured this only, That God being content [...]ot to insist upon the Law of Innocency, and [...] hold man to that which was now become [...]possible through the weakness of sinfull [...]esh, he should grant a Covenant of sincere [...]bedience to them, that would repent of their [...]rmer sins and receive Christ for their Lord [...]nd Saviour, that they should be saved as [...]ertainly as if they had not broke the Law of [Page 110]Innocency, or had satisfied it when broken 5ly. And therefore their Justification must be mutable as their sincere obedience is. 6ly. This is then that which they mean by Impu [...] ­tion of Christ's Righteousness, and its p [...] ­chasing Justification for us, viz. That it wa [...] a means of taking the Covenant of Works on of the way, and of procuring a New Covenant of sincere Obedience, which if men do per­form, they shall be justified or live by it, not­withstanding their sins and imperfections, a [...] much as they should have been justified b [...] doing the Law of Works; so that this Co [...] ­nant being the Effect of Christ's Death, [...] the Benefits of it, Justification, Adoption &c. are to be reckoned the Fruits of it al [...] and when we enjoy these Benefits, his Righte­ousness is imputed to us, i.e. we receive the Benefit of that Covenant which his righteou [...] ­ness purchased. Now I demand what it is th [...] justifyeth or giveth us a right to life immedi­ately and properly? By this Doctrine it is our fulfilling of the New Govenant, the Christ's Righteousness doth not properly [...] ­stifie us, or immediately procure our Pard [...] or Life; then this Righteousness is not imp [...] ­ted to us for Justification. To call this Imp [...] ­ting of Christ's Righteousness to us is a sence so remote from the state of the question, which is, By what Righteousness we are justified im­mediately before God; and from the very Notion of the word Imputation, and imp [...] ­ting or reckoning to one, that I cannot call [...] less than equivocation or trifling.

Object.But they say that Faith and Repentance or [...]ur fulfilling of the Gospel-Covenant is a means [...]f applying Christ's imputed Righteousness, 4 disp. of Just. p. 264. [...]nd so is a Righteousness subordinate and subservient to his, not at all derogating from [...].

Answ.By applying Christ's Righteousness they [...]ean that then we have the Benefits and Ef­fects of Christ's satisfaction, when we have fulfilled the Terms of the Gospel. As when a Man hath served his Apprentiship in a Corpo­ration, then he enjoyeth the Privileges of the Charter, which was boutht or given many [...]ears before; but will any man say that then [...]he buying or procuring of the Charter is [...]mputed to him? They teach that God hath [...]romised to pardon and save them that obey [...]is Gospel, what is it then that gives the im­mediate right to Pardon and Salvation, that [...]s constitutive of a man justified in Law, is it [...]ot this Obedience to the Gospel? Then this [...]s it which is imputed to a man for righteous­ness, but Christ's righteousness is not applied is that which doth constitute us righteous, for which we are justified, but when we are justi­fied by our obedience to the Gospel, this is a favour which we should never have had, if Christ had not purchased it: To call this ap­plying or imputing of Christ's Righteousness, [...]s to hide a Heterodoxie with usual and Or­thodox terms.

Object.But the same Author acknowledgeth that Christ's Righteousness is our only legal righ­teousness, or rather pro-legally,p. 274. Ibid. a righteous­ness instead of our righteousness or obedience to the Law: & passim.

Answ.If Christ fulfilled the Law of Works in our stead so that his Righteousness is accepted for our fulfilling it, then must we be justified by his righteousness without any further righte­ousness or conditions. For the Law being ful­filled for us, must acquit us and give us life; this we defend: but he means not so, Christ is our legal righteousness with him, not by proper fulfilling the Law of Works for us, but by taking it out of the way, so that no such perfect innocent righteousness should be re­quired of us to Salvation; and this he mean by pro-legal instead of our legal righteousness. This is still hiding his sence with ambiguous words. It remains then that by imputing Christ's Righteousness they intend nothing else but that Christ procured a Covenant of Grace, by fulfilling whereof we shall be justi­fied and saved though sinful and imperfect, which Justification and Salvation we must ori­ginally yet remotely ascribe to Jesus Christ, because he procured this mild Covenant for us; but the righteousness which constituteth us Just in Law, and for which we shall be pro­nounc'd righteous and Heirs of the Kingdom at Judgment is our own sincere Obedience, not Christ's Obedience, as appears at large from this Author.

It is pretended that Luther in the heat of his Spirit and Zeal against Popish Superstiti­ons,Object. let fall some words which sounded as if he thought Christ's Personal Righteousness was every Believers righteousness,Answer to Dr. Tully p. 15. § 11. and their Sins were made his, which afterwards he quali­fied, shewing that Christ's Righteousness is [...]urs, and our Sins his only in the Effects.

Answ.But that Luther maintained the same Impu­tation as we do, in opposition to all works, his Sermons and Comments on the Gal: sufficient­ly shew, and all both Papists and Protestants do acknowledge: And if by imputing Christ's Righteousness in the Effects be meant its Im­mediate Effects, viz. that we should be justi­fied immediately by that righteousness trusted in immedietate formae, without the interpositi­on of any other righteousness to be wrought by us, it is the Doctrine we contend for: but [...]f this be meant (as the drift seems to be) that [...]t is imputed so as to merit a New Covenant by performing of which we shall be justified, and so it be imputed only in its remote Effects, it is manifestly untrue.

Object.It is said again, That most of our Refor­mers rightly asserted that Christ's Righteous­ness was ours by the way of meriting our righteousness,Ibid. p. 16. § 13. though some of them follow­ed Luther's Expressions of the Imputation of Christ's Personal Righteousness.

Answ. Calvin and Melancthon who do not much fol­low Luther's Expressions, affirm, That our Justification consisteth in remission of sins for the Merit of Christ received by Faith only, and it is most untrue that any of our Refor­mers talked, That Christ only merited that we should be justified by our own Righteous­ness according to the Gospel Covenant (as is here meant.)Problem. loc. de Just. 6.25. Aretius Melancthon's Scholar defineth Justification by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, and doth charge Tham­merus once his fellow Pupil under the same Master, with deserting his Masters and the Doctrine of all Reformers, for teaching, That Faith in the business of Justification includeth Obedience to the Gospel, and that we are ju­stified by it as the Fulfilling of the Gospel, and that the Works which St. Paul excludeth from justifying, are the Works of the Law, not the Works of the Gospel, also that gratis per gratiam, being justified freely by his Grace, was meant only that for Christ's Sake our im­perfect obedience is accepted to Justification and sinless obedience not insisted on; where the Reader may find Thammerus his Argu­ments and interpretation of Scripture there cited at large, for substance the same produ­ced by our Authors, and sharply taxed as a deserting from the Reformation.

Object.It is farther said, The Papists fastning upon those Divines who held Imputation of Christ's Personal Righteousness in its self,Ibid. § 16. in the rigid sence, did hereupon greatly insult against the [Page 115] [...]rotestants, as if it had been their common [...]octrine, and it greatly stopt the Reforma­tion.

Answ.Thus Bellarmin pretended that amongst the [...]rotestants there were several Opinions about [...]e Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, one [...] Luther, another of Calvin, a third of some [...]hers, besides that of Osiander, de Just. cap. 22. p. 312. to which B. [...]avenant answers, Secundam sententiam illo­ [...]m commemorat, qui Christi obedientiam, ju­ [...]tiam, nobis imputatam, statuunt esse formalem [...]usam justificationis, at haec communis est nostro­ [...]m omnium sententia, neque quod ad ipsam rem [...]tinet, quicquam é nostris aliter aut censit aut [...]ipsit: He reckoneth this a second Opinion our Writers, That they say Christ's Righ­teousness is the formal cause of our Justificati­on, (i. e. its self is our Righteousness) but [...]is is the common opinion of all of us, nor did [...]er any of us write or speak otherways, as to [...]e substance of the thing: He also affirms, [...]at all the difference betwixt our Reformers [...]as only in the manner of expressing them­slves, and that Calvin who placeth Justifica­tion in Remission of sin, did yet mean that Re­ [...]ssion to be granted for the Imputed Righ­teousness of Christ, and that to be the Imme­diate Cause of it; and therefore adds as the [...]mmon Protestant Doctrine,p. 313. Absque imputa­ [...]ne obedientiae Christi, nulla remissio peccatorum [...]inetur— haec causa est remissionis, haec cau­ [...] acceptationis, haec causa translationis à statis [...]rtis ad statum vitae, i. e. without the Impu­tation [Page 116]of Christ's Righteousness there is no for­giveness; this is the cause of Pardon, this is the cause of our acceptance with God, and of our translation from the state of death to the state of life.

It is suggested that this offence of the Pa­pists occasioned the German Divines to dese [...] the Question of Imputation,Object. So Dr. Tully, § 17. q. 17, 18 and to dispute what Righteousness of Christ it is by which we are justified, and many Learned Men main­tained that it was the Passive only.

Answ.This Question arose and was agitated among themselves as Paraeus informs us in his Mis­cellanies, nor did it at all concern the Papis [...] who are Enemies to the proper Imputation of Christ's Righteousness passive as well as active, against his bearing our sins as well as perfor­ming the Law for us: And these Divines who maintain the Imputation of Passive Obedi­ence only, yet maintain that to be our For­mal Righteousness, by and for which we are justified, and not that it procured a Covenant of Grace only.Th. Theol. de Justif. Thus Ʋrsin, Justitia Evan­gelica est poena peccatorum nostrorum quam Con­stus pro nobis sustinuit, credentibus à Deo gr [...] ­tis imputata: So Paraeus in the Treatise alledg­ed, and Windeline also in his Theologia, cap­de Justif. Thes. 6. he saith, That the instru­mental cause of Justification is Faith or Affi­ance in that thing, for which we are acquitted in the Judgment of God and taken into favour, even the Merit of Christ. Instrumentalis of [Page 117]sides, h. e. fiducia, qua id amplectimur & nobis [...]pplicamus per & propter quod in judicio Dei ab­solvimur à maledictione legis, & in gratiam re­ [...]ipimur, nempe Christi meritum: And Thes. 7. That the satisfaction of Christ for our sin, or his Passive Righteousness is that for which or by which we are justified; Materia ejus est id [...]er quod & propter quod coram tribunali divino [...]maledictione legis absolvimur & innocentes & [...]usti reputamur; est id perfecta Christi pro nobis satisfactio, qua poenas propter peccata nobis de­ [...] it as nostro loco ipse fuit, &c. And that Mr. Gataker hereafter quoted, was of the same mind [...]s evident from his learned posthumons Trea­ [...]ise of Justification. In all this here is no foot­step of our Author's Notion of Imputation: [...]or the question is not What, Righteousness of Christ is imputed, but How it is imputed, whether formally, properly and immediately, as all these Divines affirm, or remotely only, [...]mediately and metaphorically, as some of late [...]contend.

In England most Divines used the Phrase,Object. Ibid. § 18. That we were justified by the Forgiveness of Sin and the Impputation of Christ's Righteous­ness, and being accepted as righteous unto life thereon; but the Sence of Imputation few pretended accurately to discusse, &c.

Answ.True, they did not distinguish away the sence of Imputation, & leave only an equivocal term. Our Homilies speak expresly that we may be said to have obeyed and suffered in what Christ [Page 118]hath done and suffered for us.ut supra. cap. 2. The Doctrine of the Church of England hath been constant­ly that we are justified by Faith, as an Hand receiving, as an Instrument applying the righ­teousness of Christ, as is manifest by the Ho­milies: King Edward's Catechism composed by Dr. Ponet B. of Winchester, where the Phrase of Faith, being an hand is extant; by the 39 Articles, with Articles of Lambeth; the whole University of Cambridge in the Re­cantation which they enjoyned Barret; by the Articles of Ireland composed by English men mostly; and by the publick Question dispu­ted in both Universities, collected out of their publick Records by Mr. Prin in his Antiar­minianism; and sure this is nothing to Christ's procuring a Covenant of Obedience and justi­fying us by that: Nor do Mr. Wotton's three Assertions, as here alledged overthrow the substance of our Doctrine. We grant there is an over rigid sence of these words, We are ju­stified by Christ's fulfilling the Law, as if we had fulfilled it in him: Yet this proveth not, That we are not justified immediately by Christ's fulfilling the Law, as intended and wrought for us. Pag. 24, 25. the Author gives us his own sence, viz. That all the Righteousness of Christ, habitual, active, passive, and divine, as advancing them in value, is the meritorious cause of our Justification. But are we accep­ted and justified immediately for this Righte­ousness? No: Yet that is the Imputation all former Divines maintained. How then? Why, for this Righteousness God maketh a [Page 119]Covenant of Grace, in which he freely giveth Christ, Pardon, and Life to all that accept the Gift as it is; so that the Accepters are by his Covenant or Gift as surely justified and sa­ved by Christ's Righteousness, as if they obey­ed and satisfied themselves, &c. viz. That the conditions of the Gift in the Covenant of Grace being performed by every penitent Be­liever, that Covenant doth pardon all their sins (as God's Instrument) and giveth them a right to eternal life for Christ's Merit. This is a confession of what we represented before, sc. That the fulfilling the Gospel-conditions of faith, repentance, &c. is the righteousness which gives us the immediate right to pardon and life, and that Christ's righteousness only merited this grant of life upon those conditions. It might be expected by this History of the controversie that some Divine should have been quoted which taught this Doctrine, but alas here is not one since the Reformation! Therefore I shall quote the true Authors of this Opinion after I have vindicated B. Dave­nant and Mr. Bradshaw, who are here and else­where ingeniously represented as laying the ground of this Opinion, and as maintaining Im­putation in another sence than all had done be­fore them.

For the most Learned and Pious Bishop, It is said, p. 18, 19. That though he most stifly defended Imputation in words, yet when he telleth what Protestants mean by it, he saith, That our own Actions, and Passions, and Qua­lities may not only be imputed to us, but also [Page 120]some extrinsecal thing neither inherent in us, nor done by us; de facto autem imputantur, quando illorum intuitus & respectus valent nobis ad aliquem effectum, aequè ac si a nobis aut in no­bis essent, i.e. They are imputed, when the sight or respect of them doth profit us for any effect, as much as if they were in us or done by us: [Note that he saith but ad aliquem ef­fectum non ad omnem, i.e. to some, not to eve­ry effect.]

Answ.By this we are to understand that the Bi­shop meant Christ's Righteousness was impu­ted for some certain Effect, viz. To procure a New Covenant, not immediately to justifie us. I see I need not despair, but my Books hereafter may be quoted for metaphorical im­putation. In truth the Bishop doth not say, ad aliquem tantùm, but to some effect, but ali­quem effectum, simply meaning quemvis, any effect, sc. That things without us (he intends Christ's Righteousness) may be imputed, i.e. profit us to any effect, as well as things in us or done by us; and that the following Simi­litudes shew, of a slothful person promoted for the Merits of his Ancestors, or a Male­factor pardoned by anothers suffering in his stead, which in both cases is done by the im­mediate imp [...]tation of such merits and suffe­ring, without performing conditions by the Parties. But that the Bishop maintained im­putation in the same sence that we do, and al­most in the same words, is so evident that I am ashamed to produce the Proofs in so clear a [Page 121]case. His 37th Determination is, That Ju­stifying Faith is fiducia, affiance in God for the remission of sins through the satisfaction of Christ, that this is the very formal Act of Ju­stifying Faith. His 8th Determination is, That the Sanctified may be sure of Salvation, which will not consist with conditional Justifi­cation, and one Proof is Arg. 4. As it is most certain that Christ paid a sufficient price for all men, so it is no less certain hanc satisfacti­onem omnibus fidelibus & paenitentibus imputari & applicari, quasi ab illis ipsis Deo oblata & praestita fuisset, i.e. That this satisfaction is imputed to all Believers, as if they themselves had made it and offered it to God. But I shall confine my self to that Book which is misre­presented. Chap. 22. he proposeth the Que­stion,de Just habit. & actual. Whether we are justified by the Obe­dience or Righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and that be the formal cause of Justifica­tion? Where he explaineth the Nature of Ju­stification, of Imputation, the Righteousness of Christ, and the Formal Cause of Justificati­on, in the same terms as we do and without any difference in sence. He gives us the Sum in these words, p. 313. Ʋno verbo, utcunque Deus sanctificatos nos reputat, at que inchoatè justos per impressam & inhaerentem qualitatem ju­stitiae, tamen justificatos, i.e. à peccatis absolu­tos & ad vitam aeternam acceptatos per & prop­ter justitiam Mediatoris, nobis ab ipso Deo dona­tam, hac side spiritúque applicatam, i.e. Though God reputeth us inchoatively righteous, or ho­ly by the habit of holiness wrought in us, yet he [Page 122]accounts us justified, acquitted from sin, and accepted to life by and for the Righteousness of Christ given to us by God and applyed by his Spirit and our Faith. Then he layers down two Propositions opposite to the Papists, which he pursueth to the 30th Chapter. The one excludeth Works as the Papists maintain them, the other affirmeth that the most per­fect Obedience of Jesus Christ dwelling in us and uniting himself to us, is the formal cause of our Justification, for as much as it is made ours by Faith and by the Gift of God. Prop. 1. Christi Mediatoris in nobis habitantis, atque per spiritum sese nobis unientis perfectissima obedi­entia, Ibid. est formalis causa justificationis nostrae, utpote quae ex donatione Pei & applicatione fi­dei fit nostra: Observe he doth not say Christ's righteousness doth in some sence justifie us, or is ours for or in some effects, but he saith we are justified for that very righteousness or obedience of Christ, this is the form whereby we are made righteous or justified in oppositi­on to our own Holiness; and that because it is our righteousness from Gods Gift, from our Union to Christ and Faith in him; and then he lays down the contrary Position of the Pa­pists to be refuted, and answereth their Ca­lumnies against our Doctrine of Imputation, which are much the same that are scattered in our late Authors. The Proposition is Thesis 2. Papistarum, Mediatoris obedientia sive ju­stitia non donatur aut applicatur credentibus, vice aut per modum causae formalis, Ibid. cujus vir­tute & fiducia stant justificati, aut Deo ad ae­ternam [Page 123]vitam acceptati. The Bishop goes on, and Chap. 24. answereth 11 Arguments of Bellarmin against Imputation, mostly the same with those alledged Chap. 4th. Chap. 25.ut supra, he answereth Bellarmins Citations out of the Fa­thers against the same Doctrine. Chap. 27. He further explaineth the Nature of Imputa­tion, and what we mean by a Formal Cause, just as we do. Chap. 28. He proveth that Christ's Righteousness is imputed as that very Righteousness which justifieth us, which he doth by 11 Arguments, and by all the same Scriptures out of the New Testament, which have been cited above Chap. 3. and by some others, all in the same sence which we take them. Chap. 29. He alledgeth the Fathers for our Doctrine. Chap. 30. He refuteth the Pa­pists slanders in saying that this Doctrine ta­keth away the necessity of good works, where he hath this memorable passage concerning the difference of the two Covenants, Lex in conditione operum vitam habet ipsam vim & for­mam icti faederis, p. 396. at Evangelium in Mediatoris sanguine fide apprehenso collocat ipsam vim & formam, operum autem conditionem annectit ut subservientem huic faederi Evangelico, non ut continentem aut constituentem ipsum faedus, i. e. the Covenant of Works includeth Works in the very form of it as the conditions of that Govenant, but the Gospel placeth the form and force of the Covenant in Faith in the Bloud of Christ, but that it subjoyneth works as a subservient condition, not as containing any part of the Covenant. Can any thing be more [Page 124]contrary to the Doctrine we oppose, that the Gospel is a Covenant of sincere Obedience, and that Obedience is the condition of the new Covenant whereby we must be justified? In all this here is not a word favouring this new Opinion: Chap. 31. There is something which may bare a colour of some approbation of this Doctrine, but it is but a colour. He saith, that Works are in some sort necessary to Ju­stification and Salvation; but that the term necessary ought not to be used in Disputes with Papists, or in Discourses to the People, lest they ascribe too much to them. Concl. 2, 3. And in the 4th he saith, No works are necessary nei­ther Legal nor Evangelical,p. 402. as a Meritorious Cause (but conditions of the Covenant are a meritorious cause) Nulla opera bona sunt rena­tis ad salutem aut justificationem necessaria, si per necessaria intelligamus sub ratione causae me­ritoriae necessaria, dico nulla, ut excludam non so­lummodò opera legalia, sed etiam opera inchoatae justificationis. And then Concl. 5th, he saith, Bona quaedam opera sunt necessaria ad justificati­onem, p. 403. ut conditiones concurrentes vel praecur­soriae— ut dolere de peccato, detestari peccatum & consimilia, i. e. Some good works are ne­cessary to Justification though not as efficient and meritorious causes, yet as previous or concomitant conditions, such as sorrow for sin, humiliation, begging of mercy, hoping in it, and the like. But by this he meaneth not that these dispositions have any direct in­fluence on Justification it self, but that they fit the Justified Person to use and improve his [Page 125]Justification: This we all acknowledge that ordinarily in persons that can use their reason there are such ministerial preparations both for conversion and justification, and yet they are the causes of neither: Nor doth this hin­der but that God may extraordinarily some­times work Grace, infuse Faith, and justifie men without such previous dispositions: The reason following shews this was the Bishop's sence. For God, saith he, doth not justifie Stocks and Beasts but Men, and those humble, con­trite, and tractable to his Word and Spirit:Ibid. Divina enim misericordia non justificat stipites, h. e. nihil agentes, neque equos & mulos, h. e. recalcitantes & libidinibus suis obstinatè adhae­rescentes, sed homines, eosdémque compunctos & contritos, ac verbi spiritúsque divini ductum se­quentes. vid. plura. To make it more plain he adds, When we say things are necessary it doth not presently follow that they are neces­sary as causes, but for orders sake: Not an­dum quandò dicimus aliquid necessarium ad hoc vel illud obtinendum, p. 404. ex ipsa vi verborum non ni­nuitur necessitas causalitatis sed ordinis. Ibid. Concl. 6th. he saith further, Good works are neces­sary to preserve the state of Justification; Bo­na opera sunt necessaria ad Justificationis statum retinendum & conservandum: But how? Not as causes that work or deserve the continuance of Justification, but as means without which God will not continue it: Non ut causae quae per se efficiunt aut mereantur hanc conservatio­nem, sed ut media seu conditiones sine quibus Deus non vult justificationis gratiam in homini­bus [Page 126]conservare. He explaineth himself, That a life of obedience is necessary, that a justified man may improve and enjoy the Fruits of Ju­stification, and also obtain the remission of following particular sins; and to prevent a course of sin, which is contrary to the nature of a justified man: In a word, That they are no otherways necessary to the continuance, then they were to the beginning of Justifica­tion, sc. by way of concomitance and order, not of influence: Nam ut nemo recipit Justifica­tionem generalem, quae liberat à reatu omnium praecedentium peccatorum, nisi concurrente paeni­tentia, &c. ita nemo retinet statum à reatu li­berum respectu peccatorum consequentium, nisi mediantibus iisdem actionibus, credendi, &c. Ratio est quod haec abesse non possint perpetuo ut non ad esse incipiant illorum opposita quae pugnant cum natura justificati. Ibid. Again, Quia Deus non vult carnales, &c. frui beneficio justificationis, requirit assidua opera fidei, &c. quorum praesen. tiâ arcentur incredulitas, &c. aliáque gratiae justificationis venena, at que particularium pec­catorum particularis condonatio obtinetur: p. 405. And Hae autem actiones non conservant vitam gratiae propriè & per se attingendo ipsum effectum con­versationis, sed impropriè & per accidens exclu­dendo & removendo causam destructionis. He acknowledgeth also, that the falls of the God­ly do not lose their Justification,Ibid. Concl. 7. Ʋt­cunque justificati in via bonorum operum claudi­care, atque aliquandiu extra hanc viam per ab­rnpta libidinum suarum aberrare possint, statu filiorum haud amisso.

Lastly, He saith good works are necessary to [...]alvation and our coming to Heaven; Non ne­cessitate causalitatis sed ordinis, not as causes [...]f it, but as the order that God hath appoin­ted, that we should first glorifie him on earth, and then be glorified with him in Heaven. Now what they have gained by the Bishop's Testi­mony; let the Reader judge: We willingly [...]ubscribe to all this in substance.

Mr. Bradshaw's Testimony will serve them to better;Praefat. de Just. they cite his Preface for their pur­pose: his words are, Quid enim prohibet quo minus [...]traque Christi obedientia ad peccati cujusque re­ [...]tum tollendum, & ad peccatorum nostrorum omnium veniam consequendam necessaria statua­ [...]ur? quid obstat? quo minus etiam ad imputa­tionem utriusque hoc sufficere dixerimus, quod Deus utramque cum bono nòstro admiserit obedi­ [...]ntiam, & propter cam utramque nos acceptos [...]abeat, ac si nos ipsi eo quo par erat modo, legem [...]livinam implevissemus, qut paenas aeternas ex ea­ [...]em nobis debitas apud inferos sustinuissemus. Here he endeavoureth to reconcile those that contend for the Imputation of either the A­ctive or Passive Obedience alone, and saith, That we may say they are both imputed, both performed for us, i. e. for our benefit, in that way that God thought fit, and that we are justified by both as much as if we had fulfilled the Law or suffered Eternal Death. But doth Mr. Bradshaw here express the manner how we are accepted by the Obedience of Christ? doth he at all derogate from our be­ing [Page 128]justified immediately by Christ's Righ­teousness, or doth he lay any foundation for Justification by fulfilling the Gospel-Covenant? There is not a word of that here, or in all his Book: He doth indeed speak more accurately and cautiously of the notion of Imputation, and what Obedience of Christ may be said to be imputed and what not, than others do; yet in substance he agreeth with them, and asserteth the old Protestant Doctrine parti­cularly Chap. 22, 23, 24. per totum: He affirmeth Christ's satisfaction to be the onely matter of our Justification, Chap. 22. Th. 1. In satisfactione Christi supradicta, vera & sola justificationis posita est materia; And that by this Satisfaction we are not onely freed from eternal wrath, but made truely righ­teous before God. Th. 2. Redemptio sive sa­tisfactio illa qua pretium ejusmodi persolvitur, cujus vi peccator non à debita tantùm poena libe­retur, sed etiam in foro divino vere justissimé­que justus factus dicitur, non est fucata, me­taphorica, &c. And that the form of our Justification is the alledging of Christ's Righ­teousness, Chap. 23. Th. 2. Hujus Justifica­tionis forma est satisfactionis sive justitiae illius in gratiam ejus pro quo praestita est coram Deo factae vel alligatio vel declaratio quaevis. And lastly, he saith, That the immediate effect of Justi­fication is Reconciliation, whereby all sins are forgiven, and God receives a Sinner into favour for the Satisfaction of Christ accepted in his behalf, Chap. 24. Th. 2. Hominis cum Deo reconciliatio ex vera justificatione orta est, [Page 129]qua Deus propter Christi satisfactionem gratio­sissimè admissam cum peccatore in gratiam redi­ens, remittit eidem peccata universa ipsámque pro verè justo habet. In the Conclusion of his Book he gives us the Sum of what he had de­livered immediately touching the point of Ju­stification.

• 1. Deus Pater justificat admittendo & im­putando.
• 2. Deus Filius satisfaciendo & advocatum agendo.
• 3. Sacro-Sanctus Spiritus revelando & obsig­nando.
• 4. Fides apprehendendo & applicando.
• 5. Bona opera manifestando & declarando.

This is the whole and usual Protestant-Doctrine.

We must now seek some other Authors of this Opinion.Art. 24. Arminius in answer to the 31st Article objected to him, saith, Christi justitia imputatur in justitiam mihi non probari dixi: Having in general terms as our Authors pro­fess, to acknowledge that Christ's Righteous­ness is imputed to us, and that we are justified by it; yet he here denyeth, That Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us for Righte­ousness, and gives this reason; Quicquid im­putatur in justitiam, vel ad justitiam, vel pro justitia, ad ipsum non est ipsa justitia strictè & rigidè sumpta: At Christi justitia quam ille praestitit Patri obediendo, est ipsissima justitia stri­ctè & rigidè sumpta: Ergò, non imputatur in justitiam; i. e. That which is imputed to us [Page 130]for righteousness, must not be righteousness strictly and properly so called; But Christ's Righteousness was a strict and proper Righte­ousness or obedience to his Father, Ergò. Armi­nius we see taketh imputing Christ's Righteous­ness for nothing else, but that it procureth Ju­stification for us, not that it self doth justifie us or make us accepted; and that the righte­ousness which is imputed to us, whereby we are justified, is not Obedience to the Law, but something else which God for Christ's sake graciously accepteth to our Justificati­on:Declar. sentent. o­per p. 102. What this is he expresseth, having said that Christ's Righteousness is the onely me­ritorious cause of Pardon: Statuo, hoc censeo benè & propriè dici fidem homini credenti in ju­stitiam ex gratia imputari, quatenùs Deus Je­sum Christum filium suum proposuit tribunal gra­tiae, sive propitiationem per fidem in sanguine ip­sius, h. e. Faith is imputed to us for righte­ousness in as much as God hath made Christ the Tribunal of Grace, which is all one as to say with ours, Christ as a King and Judge doth justifie us by and for believing in him.

And again in answer to the 26th Article objected to him, he contendeth, That though Faith may be said to concur as an Instrument to Justification; yet the Act of Faith doth justifie as it is graciously accepted for our Righteousness: Apprehensio Christi est pro­prior quam instrumentum apprehendens, vel quo objectum apprehenditur: Apprehensio au­tem est actio, itaque fides non quà instrumentum, [Page 131]sed quà actio, imputatur in justitiam, quan­quam propter illum quem apprehendit.

Bertius in his Epistles explaineth this that Faith is required by the Gospel instead of per­fect Obedience to the Law of Works,contra Lubbert. and so justifyeth us that should have done, as the ful­filling of the Command of God, with this dif­ference, That perfect Obedience needed no Pardon and Grace, but Faith per gratiosam ac­cepti lationem; of God's Gracious condescen­sion is accepted as a Man's Righteousness, he being pleas'd to require no more of him, be­cause of his inability to keep the Law; so then Christ's Righteousness hath purchased that we should be justified by our Faith, but it self doth not justifie us. But do the Armi­nians by Faith mean only the apprehending or trusting in Christ's Righteousness in oppositi­on to or contradistinction from all other Gra­ces and Works in the matter of Justification: Nothing less. By Faith they mean Obedience to the whole Gospel, and all good Works, they say, are intended in Faith, that Faith and Repentance are all one, though some­times they are separated and spoken of apart for clearness sake. Thus Hornbeck proposeth their Opinion,Sum. Con­tro. lib. 8. Quest. 20. Num coram Deo justificemur non fide apprehendendo Christi justitiam, quae so­la nobis imputetur in peccatorum remissionem, [...]sed fide ut est actus & opus nostrum, includens in se obedientiam operum Evangelicorum, prop­ter quam, quamvis non ex ejus dignitate & me­rito justificemur? i. e. That we are not justi­fied by Faith as it apprehendeth the Righteous­ness [Page 132]of Christ, but as it is an Act or Work of ours, including Obedience to all the Com­mands of the Gospel.Harm. Remonstr. & Socin. Art. 12, 17. Joh. Peltius hath large­ly shewed, That by Faith the Remonstrants mean Obedience to the whole Gospel, and that this is it by which they would have us justi­fied. Take 2 or 3 citations.

Art. 12. Parag. 6. p. 157. ex Remonstr. confes. cap. 10. Hac ratione considerata fides, totam hominis conversionem Evangelio praescriptam, ambitu suo continet. Faith comprehends man's whole Conversion. Episcop. disput. 22. Fi­des illa quae credenti imputari dicitur in justiti­am, bona opera non tantum non tollat, sed ea ipsa, aut eorum saltem faciendorum propositum natura sua in se contineat & comprehendat; i.e. Faith which is imputed for righteousness doth not exclude Works, but containeth them, or at least a purpose of doing them. Joannes Gei­ster. Confess. Bona opera & gratia non pug­nant inter sese, & sub fide etiam bona opera com­prehenduntur; i.e. Grace and Works are not opposite, and Faith comprehends Works. Yea this Man was so ingenuous as to tell us, that we do not contend with the Papists, whether we be at all justified by Works (in this the Remon­strants and Papists are agreed) the question only is, By what Works we must be justified: Quando cum Papistis disputatur, non est inqui­rendum, an per bona opera justificemur, sed per quae opera. He would only exclude Popish su­perstitious Works, as our Authors would have, The Apostle Paul only excludes Jewish Works or Ceremonial Observations, from our Justi­fication. [Page 133]Would you have the matter yet plainer, Adolph. Venator will put it out of question: Justificamúrne etiam ex operibus? Certè ita, i.e. Are we justified by works also? Yes verily: And the Remonstrants in their A­pology boldly affirm, ex operibus hominem ju­stificari istud non tantum non est absurdum, sed verissimum esse totidem verbis pronuntiat Apo­stolus, Jacob. 2. Nec evadent hunc ictum censo­res, cùm hunc locum pro suo more de declarati­one justificationis intelligendum esse dicunt, i.e. It is so far from being absurd that a man is ju­stified by works, that it is most true; and the express words of the Apostle James, which cannot be evaded by interpreting them of de­clarative Justification. Thus we see that the Arminians meant the same thing, when they said the [...] credere, the Act and Work of Faith it self doth justifie us, that our late Au­thors do when they ascribe Justification to Faith and Obedience; both agree that Faith in its usual acceptation and full latitude com­prehendeth assent and obedience to the whole Gospel, and that thus it justifies and no other way, and in this how the Remonstrants do con­spire with the Socinians, Peltius doth clearly demonstrate,ut supra, which also the Arminians do not deny, as in their Apology; Si quis dicat hanc sententiam, Quod Fides quàtenus viva est, ju­stificat, esse ipsissimam Socini sententiam, is, dato quod id verum sit, necesse est, ut fateatur tan­dem Socinum hac in parte conspirare cum refor­matis Ecclesiis quoad substantiam ipsam, i.e. If any man say that this is Socinus's Doctrine, [Page 134]he must confess that Socinus doth so far agree with the Reformed Churches in substance: And this also seemeth to have been the true sence of Pelagius, vid. Vos. Hist. Pe­lag. lib. 3. par. 1. viz. That men are justified and saved by their acknowledging and obeying the Gospel, for as much as he taught that un­der the Gospel men were saved by obeying it, as the Jews were by observing the Law of Moses, and those before Moses by observing the Law of Nature: He also ascribeth to the Death of Christ nothing but the pardon of sins; acceptance with God must depend upon mens own obedience, Christ helping them in it, by the instructions and encouragements of the Gospel and by his own Example; and this doth not much differ from the Doctrine in hand.

Thus we see that the First Authors of these Opinions were the Pelagians and Arminians, and that herein the Socinians differ little from them. Let us now inquire, seeing we must not be justified by the very Righteousness of Christ's Obedience and Death, to what End Christ died according to those men.

CHAP. VI. This Doctrine overthroweth Christ's Merit and Satisfaction.

THE Apostle Rom. 4.25. saith, That Christ was delivered, i. e. to death, for our Offences, and raised again for our Justifi­cation: Whence our Protestants have taught that the proper and immediate Effect of the Death of Christ was the procuring or grant of Pardon, Justification, Life Eternal, to all the Elect, in the Purposes of God, and that ac­cordingly God in due time publisheth to them the Promises of the Gospel, by which through the effectual operation of the Holy Ghost they are perswaded and drawn to Christ to believe and trust in him for Life, and so they are made actual partakers of his Death, and ju­stified. But these Authors denying us to be justified immediately and properly by the Righteousness of Christ, must and do deny Justification to be the immediate and proper Effect of it, and assign some other immediate End of Christ's Death. What this is we shall shew, and how it doth make void the Merit and Satisfaction of Christ. I meet with two Opinions in this matter: The First, saith, That the immediate and proper End of the Death of Christ was not to procure Reconcili­ation, Justification, &c. for all or any man, but to render God placable or reconcileable [Page 136]to man, i. e. not that God upon the Death of Christ doth grant, purpose, or covenant the Justification and salvation of any man, but that he may now justifie, forgive, and save men in what way and upon what terms he pleaseth. Thus Mr. Trueman as before:Gr. Prop. p. 86. The immediate Effect of Christ's Satisfaction is, that God might be Just, though he should pardon Sin­ners, that he might pardon salvâ justitiâ, not that he must pardon them, come what will of it, or be unjust— And again; The Justice of God as a flaming Sword obstructeth all treating with us upon any terms of Reconcilia­tion whatsoever, and this would have been an eternal Bar to all Influences and Effluxes of Favour; and now this Justice being satisfied, and this Bar and Obstacle removed, Divine Grace and Benignity is left at liberty freely to act how it pleases, and in what way and upon what terms and conditions it thinketh meet. This he had from Arminius, who having said, That Justification, Pardon, or Reconciliation of any man, is not immediately purchased by the Death of Christ: He tells us, The proper Effect of it is, Reconciliatio Dei, remissionis, justificationis & redemptionis apud Peum impe­tratio, contra Perkins, fol. 76. a­pud Twiss. qua factum est ut Deus jam possit, utpote justitiâ cui satisfactum est non obstante, homini­bus peccatoribus peccata remittere & spiritum gratiae largiri, i. e. the Reconciliation of God, the obtaining of remission and redemption, viz. That God may forgive and sanctifie men if he please without breach of Justice, which is now satisfied. Hereupon they go so far as [Page 137]to tell us, That when Christ had done and suf­fered all which was appointed him, God was free to save or not to save men, or to save upon what terms or whom he pleased. Thus Grevinch contra Ames. fol. 8.Peltius. p. 126. Postquam impe­tratio praestita ac peracta esset Deo, jus suum inte­grum mansit, pro arbitratu suo eam applicare vel non applicare, nec applicatio finis impetratio­nis propria fuit, sed jus & potestas applicandi pro liberrimo suo placito quibus & qualibus vel­let, i. e. After Christ's Purchase was made and finished, God was perfectly free to apply [...]t or not to apply it as he should please, nor was the Application of it the proper End of Christ's Purchase, but that God might have power to apply it to whom and how he should think fit. Episcopius goes a step further, and saith, There could not be a deliberate purpose in God of saving men, and opening a way of [...]ise to them, till Christ was sacrificed:Disp. 5. Ibid. Deli­ [...]eratum mortale salvandi salutisque ostium ape­tiendi propositum in Deo esse requirit, priusquam sacrificium oblatum esset. Now if this be the only proper Effect of the Obedience and Death of Christ, that God who was before bound to condemn Sinners by the Law of Works viola­ted by them, might now think of a way to save them if he pleased, and withal might chuse whether he would save them, or propound terms of Life to them or not. It followeth [...]ence:

1. That the Obedience of Christ was not meritorious, nor did merit any thing of the father: It is true there was an intrinsecal, in­finite [Page 138]value in Christ's Obedience, by reason of the Divine Excellency of his Person, and so there was an equality or proportion betwixt his Obedience and the Happiness which was to be procured for men: But this is the Foun­dation of Merit, not Actual Merit. To me­rit, is to deserve a Reward, to do something whereupon a Reward is due; so that Merit in its proper notion doth imply an actual Right or Obligation to a reward, which Obligation ariseth from some Law, Promise, or Com­pact betwixt the Parties; and he which doth not give that Reward according to Merit of­fendeth against some Law, either of strict Ju­stice, or at least of Gratitude, Generosity, Kindness, &c. If then God was not bound by Covenant, Promise, or so much as delibe­rate Purpose to save men, or to give them any terms of Life for all that Christ did or suffered, then his Obedience merited nothing, there was nothing due, no reward proposed to him, which he would challenge; for God was still free to do what he pleased with men: God (they say) would not have been unjust, if he had not saved men (though Christ died) he was not then bound by the Law of Justice (and he could not be bound by any other Law) to remunerate the Death and Sufferings of his Son with such an happy Effect, as man's Sal­vation. Christ's Death (say they) was a re­fuseable payment for sin, even when it was presented to the Father; God might then have refused it, and yet have been Just: But it would not have been just to have denyed Jesus [Page 393]Christ that which he merited, that would be due debt to him. They say indeed Christ was the meritorious cause of our Justification? But what did he merit? Justification: Then God was not free to deny it; he must justifie those for whom Christ merited Justification, or be unjust, unless there can be a cause with­out an effect or causality: The effect of merit is some reward deserved, given for the sake of the merit; the causality of merit is some compact Law or Promise, whereby one is bound to reward that merit: If then God was bound to nothing upon the Obedience of Christ, but still had jus integrum, intire free­dom to do what he pleased, then Christ did as freely offer his Obedience to the Father to do what he pleased with it, or upon it; and cer­tainly this is not to merit. Thus Slatius de­clar. apert. Jesus Christus per passionem & mor­tem suam nihil meritus est, nec solvit pro nostris peccatis, veluti vas pro debitore, qui non est sol­vendo. If they say that he took away the Covenant of Works and the necessity which God was under to condemn men, and this might be the Effect of his Merit; this is not true: By this Opinion Christ did not take away the Covenant of Works nor the Sentence of it: For then man must have been discharged with­out any further Covenant or Terms, which is the thing they oppose. They must say Christ of­fered himself to his Father in such manner, that he might take occasion from it, if he thought it, justly to lay aside his Obligation to Punish by the Law of Works, and proceed to terms of [Page 140]Grace, but not that he must do either; and so Christ merited nothing at all of his Father.

2ly. It followeth from this Doctrine, That Christ's Obedience and Death were not pro­perly satisfactory to Divine Justice. The say, That by Christ's Death God's Justice w [...] satisfied, the obstacle of Justice was removed, But how? God's Justice in this case is no­thing else but his Will or voluntary Obligati­on of himself to deal with men according to his Law: To satisfie God's Justice is to satisfied his Law, and to satisfie the Law is to fulfill [...] by obedience to it, or suffering the penalty [...] it, or both: But they will not allow, That Christ properly satisfied the Law of God Mr. Trueman saith,Ibid. p. 89. His death was not pro­per Payment at all: And if Christ did proper­ly satisfie the Law, then those for whom be did it must be hereupon discharged without any further conditions to be required, or [...] be performed of them. But if Christ satis­fied not the Law, how could he satisfie Divine Justice, which hath the Law for its Rule [...] is tied to it? It was of Divine prerogative or infinite Soveraignty, that God did accept of Christ to fulfill the Law for man, to wh [...] it was given, and who only was obliged by [...] But when the Law-makers Prerogative [...] accepted of the Surety, and of his under [...] ­king for the Sinner; then he himself was m [...] under the Law, and satisfied Justice by satis­fying the Law; but if he satisfied not the Law then his Obedience was not performed as O­bedience [Page 141]to the preceptive part of the Law, or his sufferings indured as subjection to the unitive part of it; and so neither of them [...]ere exacted in a way of Justice, or perfor­med as submission to Justice, either precep­tive, or punitive; and so Justice could no [...]ay be satisfied by his Obedience: Moreover [...] after all the Obedience of Christ, God was [...]ree to save or not to save men, then he was [...]ree either to give them new conditions of Life, [...]r to proceed to destroy them, according to [...]he sentence and curse of the Law of Works; and is it possible that Gods Justice should have received real satisfaction from an infinite Price and Person, and yet the Persons for whom sa­tisfaction was made not be discharged, but Justice still be left in full force to take venge­ance, if the Judge pleased? Surely among men, if Justice be satisfied either by the guil­ty person or by his Surety, by the Judge's consent, even Justice it self must acquit and discharge the party concerned. The truth is, By this Doctrine there was no satisfaction made to Divine Justice by Christ's Obedience, and therefore the Sinner hath no discharge procured, but the whole transaction of the business of Man's Redemption, betwixt the Father and the Son, was but a point of honour or a kind of generosity (if we may so speak) As if a young generous Prince should perform some noble and difficult exploits for the ho­nour of his Father, and the Father again should pardon some condemned Rebels, and restore them to his Favour hereupon, not as being [Page 142]any way obliged to it, but as an act of a No­ble and generous mind, and to express some honour and requital to his Son. Thus Slati [...] Epist. ad N. Martin. An Christus pro nob [...] satisfecit? Respondeo, Nos negare, i. e. Did Christ satisfie for sin? We deny it; And he gives five reasons, the last whereof is, The God could neither punish for sin, nor require Faith as a condition in order to Salvation.

3ly. It followeth also that Christ's Death was no Ransom, Redemption or Price for Sin­ners: For if God after the death of Christ was still free to save or not to save Sinners, then this death had properly bought or pur­chased nothing of him. A ransom or price is not a valuable consideration only for a thing worth it, or equal in value to it, but it must also be paid with the Compact or Agreement, that the thing bought or ransomed shall for that price become the Buyers, and the pro­perty be transferred to him, and no longer re­main in the Seller: If then Christ propetly bought us, ransomed us, &c. then our Salva­tion became his de jure, he had a right to it upon his death, and it could no longer remain in the free power of God to grant, or not to grant it: But if there were no compact that life should be granted to Sinners if Christ would die for them; if to give Life was still in God's absolute disposal, then his obedience is no ransom, nor was he a Redeemer, he did not purchase his Church with his own Bloud, nor was that Bloud a Price of their Redemp­tion.

4ly. It followeth that Christ did not at all die for sin: The Prophet saith, He was woun­ded and bruised for our iniquities, yea his Soul [...]us made an Offering for Sin, Isa. 53.5, 10. But if Christ did not take away sin and procure pardon, but left God still free to pardon or [...]ot, then he did not die for sin, sin was not [...]he meritorious cause of his Death, nor was [...]he pardon of sin the immediate end of his Death, but only to free the Father from the necessity of condemning Sinners: Sin could be [...]t the most but a remote occasion, or causa [...]ne qua non of the death of Christ: if that had not been, God would not have been bound up from the exercise of his natural goodness, and [...]o there would have been no occasion of Christ [...]o die, to remove that obstacle out of the way. And yet it is not easie to imagine what these [...]en mean by the obstacle of God's Justice, which hindred his Mercy to Sinners, which was removed by Christ's Obedience. For [...]oth they, and their Friends the Arminians [...]eem generally to grant, That God of his infi­nite Sovereignty might have pardoned sin with­out satisfaction, so that his absolute Justice [...] as not an obstacle to his Mercy; and for his Law, and that Justice which respecteth it, Christ (say they) did in no proper sence satisfie [...], and therefore his Obedience could have [...]o proper respect to Divine Justice, much less [...]o sin that had offended Justice.

5ly. Nor was Christ's Death a Propitiation [...]r Atonement for our sins. The Apostle, [Page 144]1 Joh. 2.1. saith, That Christ was a Propiti­ation for our Sins; that he loved us and wash­ed us from our sins with his own Bloud, Ap [...] 1.5. But this is true only accidentally and eventually, if the immediate effect of Christ's death was only that God might pardon, not that he must; and it was not the prime and principal intention of his death: Since God hath pleased to grant terms of Salvation upon the death of Christ; his death may improper­ly be said to have made atonement or recon­ciliation for them, because it occasioned it, [...] made some way for it; but that which left God still intirely free to pardon, or not, that did not appease his Anger, remove his dis­pleasure, reconcile him, or obtain his good Will (as is the nature of a Propitiation or pro­pitiatory Sacrifice) nor was it immediately [...] directly intended for that end.

6ly. Nor can it properly be ascribed to God's Love to the World, that he gave his Son to die, or to the Son's Love to Mankind, that he gave himself. For if love to men were the Motive of Christ s Obedience and Death, both to the Father and the Son, men's Salvation would have been immediately designed and intended in it; it would have been medium or­dinatum, a proper means, design'd to bring about their Salvation. But they tell us it was designed only to save God's Honour, in case he should forgive Sinners, but not that he had obliged himself any way to do it, no, nor that he had resolved with himself or deliberately [Page 145]purposed to grant terms of Salvation when he sent his Son into the World, or when he laid his wrath a curse upon him; it seems God did not yet know what use he would make of the Death of his Son, neither could the Son know, when the Father was not resolved. Thus we see this Opinion overthroweth the whole Nature and Intendment of Redemption; and Christ's Merit, Satisfaction, Ransom, Sacri­fice, and all that belong to it are but impro­per Metaphors, and the greatest Mystery of Godliness must fly for refuge to a poor Trope to save it from being an untruth; and Christ himself must be at most, but an honorary Me­diator and Redeemer.

The Second Opinion concerning the End of Christ's death is, That he died to purchase the Covenant of Grace, or Conditions and Terms of Salvation, by the fulfilling whereof men might be saved. Thus the Arminians used to speak, That Christ died viam salutis pandere, to open a way for Mens Salvation, to pur­chase conditions whereupon they might be sa­ved, whereas before their Salvation was im­possible, by reason of the Curse or Sentence of the Law of Works. Act. Syn. Dort. Art. 2. Remon. Christus merito mortis suae Deum Patrem universo generi humano hactenus reconci­liavit, ut Pater propter ipsius meritum, salva justitia & veritate sua, novum gratiae foedus cum peccatoribus & damnationi obnoxiis homini­bus inire & sancire potuerit & voluerit. Thus Mr. Baxter faith, That Christ purchased Ju­stification [Page 146]and life to be given by his New Co­venant; not that he purchased these abso­lutely, to be certainly given to any persons, but that he purchased a Covenant or Law of Grace, whereby these are promised upon condition of Faith and Obedience. And this must be the sence (if any) of those that assert Christ dying for all men to make them salva­biles, salvable; and to render their Salvation possible, being impossible before, while the Law of Works stood in such sorce. For be­fore Christ's death, Mens Salvation was possi­ble to God, no new power was acquired to him; and possible in its self, Men being sub­jects naturally capable of Salvation; this possi­bility then, must be a possibility in Law, as we say, id possumus, quod jure possumus, that Christ purchased a Law and grant of Salvation upon certain Terms, whereby it now became possi­ble for all Men to be saved if they should have sufficient notice of it. This Opinion is a little more plausible, but no more true than the former; which I thus prove,

1. It cannot be conceived how Christ did purchase this Covenant, according to the rest of their Notions. The occasion or ground of this Purchase was, That God was bound by his own Law of Works violated by Men, to condemn them without Mercy: Now then, could this Obligation be dissolved without sa­tisfaction to, and fulfilling that Law, which yet they will not allow Christ to have done, unless per accidens, as part of it is comprised [Page 147]in that special Law of Mediator, which was given to him: If it was the Law which hinder­ed God from shewing mercy, and made mans Salvation impossible, then that Law doth ob­lige God to see it fulfilled, or else to grant no life to Sinners; and if Christ did not fulfil it, nor was made properly subject to it, (as they teach) then he could not properly purchase a Covenant of life; if he did fulfil it for sinners, then they must be discharged by his satisfacti­on, without further conditions imposed on them, (as hath been often said.) They say the Law of Works was neither abolished nor fulfille by Christ, but relaxed; I suppose they mean, That God did not insist upon the ab­solute performance of the Law, but was pleas­ed to admit of an aequivalent reparation of his Honour, by the Obedience of Christ to that Law which he should impose on him, wherein should be comprehended a great part of the Moral Law. I reply, If God did relax the Law, so as not to require the proper fulfilling of it; then he did lose the obligation which was laid upon him to see it fulfilled: The or­dinate or relative Justice of God obliged him to proceed according to that Law; and if he admitted of another way of reparation to his Honour, he did not proceed in a way of Ju­stice in all that he laid upon Jesus Christ; and he might as well have saved Man without the Obedience of Christ as with it; his Justice or Law allowing that relaxation no more than a total superseding or laying aside the Law: by this purchase therefore they can mean no [Page 148]more, but that Jesus Christ did so honour the Father by his Obedience and Sufferings, that he might with Decorum to his Majesty give to Sinners terms of Salvation, and would do it: but this is no purchase, which transferreth a legal right to the Purchaser, if the Purchase be accepted; but dependeth meerly upon Promise or Terms of Honour. It is also great presumption for Men to judge what is becom­ming Divine Majesty, and what will salve his Honour, other then what is according to his Law or Promise: wherers here they make him to wave his own declared Law founded in the highest reason and equity.

2ly. Nor in this sence is the death of Christ a ransome, satisfaction or propitiation. A ran­some respecteth persons to be redeemed; it is a price given for them, not for Laws and Co­venants: Whoever paid a ransome without agreeing to whom it should extend, and that it should take certain effect? whereas here is nothing purchased but a Covenant or Promise, that all those that believe and obey the Gospel should be saved, which perhaps might be none nor was it agreed how long the World should stand, and so what number of Men should be made, or should need, or be capable of this Redemption. A satisfaction to God in this case, is a satisfaction to his Law, whereby the Sinner must immediately be discharged. A Propitiation is a Sacrifice appeasing and re­conciling God to Man; neither of which it done, if only a Promise be procured to [Page 149]save Men upon their fulfilling the conditions of a New Law.

3ly. If Christ only purchased a Covenant of life, then his Redemption is much more in-effectual to fave, than Adam's Fall was to destroy Man. The Apostle, Rom. 5.17, 18, 20. comparing the Death of Christ with A­dam's Fall, saith, As Sin reigned to death, so Grace much more reigneth to life; as Sin aboun­ded to condemnation, Grace much more aboun­deth to justification and life: but where is this much more? the Obedience of Christ falls far short of Adam's Disobedience in its effects, if he only purchased conditions of life. Adam in a few moments by one transgression procured a sentence of certain death upon every indivi­dual person that should naturally descend from him, as soon as they should have a Be­ing; but Jesus Christ by his transcendent Obe­dience of thirty four years, by induring the Wrath of God, the rage of Men and Devils, and a most ignominious death, purchased life for no one certain Man, but only conditions whereupon they that should hear of them (not half Mankind) should be saved, if they did fulfil them; which, for any thing he purchas­ed, or was contained in the Covenant of life, was a meer contingency, viz. whether any should ever believe and be saved or not.

4ly. If Christ only purchased a Covenant of life, then he purchased no more for the E­lect, than for others; no more for the Sheep, [Page 150]than the goats, and they that go to Heaven may hereafter say, Christ redeemed them no more than he did those in Hell; the difference be­twixt them proceeded from their applying and performing the Covenant and its conditions, which others neglected: For the Covenant is equal to all that hear it, promising life upon conditions only, which every one is equally concerned in, alike capable of Salvation, and one no more likely to perform the conditions than another. The Arminians grant this, that Christ died for all alike,Syn. Dordr. Ibid. Th. 2. Hete­rodox. Christi mortem impe­trasse omnibus hominibus restitutionem in statum gratiae & salutis.

5ly. It follows also, That for any efficacy there was in the death of Christ, there must have been no man saved. For the Covenant of Grace which only he purchased, would have been as true and as firm a Covenant, viz. That they should be saved who would believe and obey the Gospel, though no man had ful­filled it; and so been saved by it, as the Co­venant of Works was, which (according to them) was never fulfilled, nor ever gave life to any. The Covenant required no more, then that God should be ready faithfully to give eternal life ro all that fulfilled it; and all that Christ purchased, was a Promise that he would so be, which would have been true, though all men had perished by their unbe­lief, and so Christ might have had the empty Title of a Redeemer, without any person be­ing redeemed by him: And this Arminius, [Page 151]Gravirch, and others are not ashamed to con­fess. Arnoldus contra Molin. Omnino credo futurum fuisse ut finis mortis Christi constaret, eti­amsi nemo credidisset. Some of ours fay, That God had his Elect whom he purposed to bring to Christ and save by him: But the Scriptures are as express that Christ died for the Elect, as that God elected them; And if Christ pur­chased no more for them, then for others, they might have perished as well as others, for any thing his Redemption or Purchase could do for them or had done.

6ly. If Christ intended his death for certain particular persons, then he purchased more than a meer covenant or conditions of Life. The consequence is evident, If he purchased life to be given to certain men certainly & infallibly, then he purchased more than offer of life to them up­on conditions, which they might, or might not perform. The Minor, That Christ in his death intended the redemption of certain, particular persons, the Scriptures assirm, He laid down his Life for the Sheep, Joh. 10.15, 16. even for those of the Gentiles, that were not of the Jewish Fold, and so yet knew him not; And the effects of this laying down his life for them was on purpose to call them in due time, v. 16. to teach and make them follow him, v. 27. and to keep them safe to life eternal by his own and the Fathers power, v. 28, 29. and from these Sheep are distinguished those who are not of his Sheep, and therefore all means are ineffectual to make them believe, v. 25, 26. He died to gather together in one all [Page 152]the Children of God, Joh. 11.52. that were scattered abroad, i. e. all the Elect of God, dispersed throughout all Nations: And the Apostle Paul saith of himself, He loved me, and gave himself for me, Gal. 2.30. Therefore Christ redeemed particular persons, and did not only purchase Grants and Covenants.

7ly. Christ purchased the Spirit and Grace to make his Death effectual to those he died for; therefore he purchased more than a Cove­nant of Grace. A meer Covenant of Grace only promiseth Life upon conditions of Faith and Obedience, leaving it to men whether they will perform them or not; as the Cove­nant of Works promised life to perfect obedi­ence, and then left it to Adam whether he would obey or not: A meer Covenant makes no provision of grace and strength to enable men to perform it; If then Christ purchased grace, to believe and to obey for the Elect, he purchased more than a Covenant of Grace; and that he did so hath been partly proved, and may be further evidenced by this, That when Christ saith, he laid down his life for the Sheep, Joh. 10.16, &c. he presently adds he must bring home all the Sheep, and make one Fold, under one Shepheard himself, and that he will make them follow him, and will preserve and lead them to Eternal Life, and no Wolves shall pluck them out of his hand, v. 27, 28, 29. Also that he died to gather into one all the Children of God: This must be done by his Spirit and Grace purchased by his Redemption, and that [Page 153]power which is given to him not only to pur­chase, but also to apply the blessed Fruits of Redemption to them.

Thus our Divines at Dort. Rationes omnes, Act. Syn. Art. 2. Ibid. à scripturis, fidei (que) analogia petitae, quibus Chri­sti incarnatio, humiliatio, vel exaltatio, proba­tur, vel confirmatur, eò spectant, ut demonstre­tur divina expressa intentio de fructuoso hujus tanti mysterii effectu, non conditionaliter produ­cendo (nempe, si homines cùm aeque nolle possint, velint, ut hic fructus in de enascatur) sed infru­strabiliter efficiendo, potentiâ divinâ id operante, i. e. All those Arguments that prove the In­carnation, Humiliation, and Exaltation of Christ, tend to this, to shew, that it was God's express intention to produce the certain effects of that great Mystery infallibly, by his own power, and not to leave them to be con­ditional, depending upon Man's Will, who might as well neglect and refuse as accept of them.

I conclude, the Sum of this Doctrine comes to this, That God took occasion by the Incar­nation, Obedience and Death of our Lord Je­sus Christ to grant men terms of Salvation, viz. if they should believe and obey the Gospel, not as any satisfaction to his Justice or Law, which man had broke, but as some kind of salvo to his Honour, at least as he was pleased to interpret it: And what need Christ have been God to do no more than this? How easie is the slip from hence into the dead Sea of So­cinianism? To lay that Christ came by his Life [Page 154]and Death to declare and confirm only this Covenant of Life, on condition of Faith and Re­pentance, and to intercede for the Penitents Indeed the whole platform of this Doctrine was borrowed from Socinus by the Arminians, from whom most of our modern Writers have it, and some immediately from the Socinian; from whom also came that common (but illo­gical) Evasion of works, being not the meri­torious, but the causa sine qua non of our Justi­fication. Opera ea sunt ex quibus justificamur, sunt autem opera ista nostra, Soc. de Justif. apud Pelt. i. e. ut dictum fuit, obedientia quam Christo praestamus, licet nec essi­ciens nec meritoria, tamen causa, ut vocant sine qua non, justificationis coram Deo, at que aeterne salut is nostrae. I do not desire this should be believed on my credit, much less do I write to reproach any, who do in heart abhor that blasphemous heresie, however their words and notions may agree too much with it. I only beg that Scholars and Divines would take the pains to examin and compare them before they imbibe this new Doctrine.

CHAP. VII. Of the Nature of Faith, that it justi­fieth as an Instrument applying the Promises of life in Christ, and not as a Condition or Part of Obedience.

T The Apostle Paul was sent to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, Act. 26. v. 17, 18. to this end, that they might receive the for­giveness of sins, and an inheritance amongst thom which are sanctified by Faith which is in Christ; therefore forgiveness and a right to the heavenly Inheritance comes by Faith: But what this Faith is and how it gives right to Life, is now to be inquired into. In explain­ing the nature of Faith I shall wave all that is usually drawn from Philosophy to this Argu­ment, from the nature and difference of Man's Soul and his Faculties; and the difference of the Faculties from each other, also from the nature of Habits intellectual or moral, which things are fit Exercises for Scholars, but not fit to build the Doctrine of Justification and Eternal life upon; and if the best Philosophers can give us no certain account how men see and hear, and how the external Senses (which yet are more material in their operations than the understanding) do exercise their functions; there is much less certainty to be had concer­ning the Faculties, Operations and Habits of the rational part; and the Scripture speaks of [Page 156]believing as a work of the whole Soul, With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, Rom. 10.9. The like may be said of every Grace, and of every Sin, that hath the consent of the Heart, that they carry the whole Soul with them: What then is this Faith? The Socini­ans affirm Faith and Obedience to be really the same thing,Peltius, Artic. Parag. 21. distinct only formally or docendi causâ, Soc. resp. ad Epist. Joan. Opera & Fi­des nullo modo distinguuntur à Paulo, nec ab ea seperari queant, imò animo seu forma fidei sunt. The Arminians agree with them in this, and our late Authors with them both, and make believing and obeying the Gospel all one; and to be justified by Faith with them is to be ju­stified by obedience to the Gospel:Aphor. Th. 70. Hence it is that they describe Faith to be, so to believe God, as to love him, fear him, trust him, and obey him in every particular command, or more briefly, to be an accepting of Christ for our Lord and Saviour, i. e. to promise obedience to him,Ibid. 69, & 67. and to desire and expect to be saved by him. Now we grant, as the Go­spel is sometime taken for the whole Doctrine or Mind of Christ containing both Promises, Precepts and Threatnings, though properly it be nothing but a Promise of Life through Christ, in contradistinction to all Law and Precepts; so also the Faith of Christ and of the Gospel doth sometimes comprehend the whole Christian Profession, whereby we pro­mise both a belief of the doctrine and obedi­ence to the Command of Christ: Yet Faith, taken properly, is to be distinguished from [Page 157]all obediential Graces, viz. those that are the immediate cause of obedience, as much as those graces are distinct from each from other; as Love from Fear, both from Patience, &c. That we may wave that Philosophical questi­on also, whether Graces be several distinct ha­bits, or one universal habit, distinguished by several acts and objects, it is sufficient if Faith be distinct by its acts and proper object from all other graces, as much as they are distin­guished each from other: And that it is so, is evident, because it is an assent of the mind to divinely revealed truth: Its acts are to believe or assent; its formal object is the revealed truth of God, as such (we speak of Divine Faith only.) The immediate End of it is the satisfaction of the mind in the certainty of a true proposition, and the like. All these are distinct from love, fear, desire, which are the immediate principles of all obedience or pra­ctice, in doing good, or avoiding evil. More­over, Faith is the root of obedience, not as the immediate principle of the elicite acts of obedience, but as a more remote principle, which doth excite and direct all the immediate principles of it. Thus Faith is prerequired to seeking and serving of God, Heb. 11.2. to the End; and yet the immediate principles of them were fear, v. 7. self-denial, v. 25. ho­ly courage, contempt of the World, and the like. Faith worketh by love, Gal. 5.6. puri­fieth the heart, Acts 15.9. Therefore it is not love it self, or the purity of the heart, but something that inclineth and disposeth to love [Page 158]and purity; and surely before we can love and obey God, there must be an apprehensi­on of his goodness, faithfulness, readiness to accept and reward, which must incline the heart to it: We cannot love and serve him [...] we neither know him nor his Mind concerning us, nor have any confidence in his good wil [...] towards us: And this is Faith, which we may thus describe, Faith is a hearty and practical assent to all divine truth, so as to believe the Hi­stories, fear the Threatnings, trust in the I re­mises and expect the fulfilling of Prediction which proceed from God. All this is easily ga­thered out of the 11. Heb. where the Apostle having spoken in the end of the 10th Chapter of believing to the saving of the Soul, subjoyn [...] this description of Faith, v. 1. viz. That it is the substance ( [...]) the subsistence of things hoped for, and the evidence ( [...]) of things not seen, which subsistence and evi­dence things yet suture have only in God's Word and Man's real belief of it; things ho­ped for, properly respect the Promises; things not seen, the History of things past; as the belief of the Creation, v. 2. and the Predi­ction of things to come, as Noah by Faith feared the Deluge, v. 7. and all the Patri­archs died in faith or expectation of the com­ing of Christ, v. 13. Now that Faith hath seve­ral acts and causeth several affections, as hope, trust, fear in the soul, is because it hath seve­ral objects, things to be desired, things to be feared, and things to be hoped for, which is common to it with other graces, which have [Page 159]their several acts and affections towards seve­ral objects, or the same objects severally con­ [...]dered: That special act of Faith which re­ [...]ects Promises, or affection immediately [...]owing from Faith, without which it is not [...]ompleat, in Scripture is called by several [...]ames; rouling, resting, leaning, relying up­on God, flying to him for resuge, hiding our [...]lves under him, putting of our selves under [...]he Shadow of his Wings, which and the like [...]re Metaphors from the Body, and when we [...]eak properly of the acts of the Soul are best [...]prest by believing, or trusting in the Pro­mises; which the Protestants express by fidu­ [...]a, affiance or fiducial recumbence, which is [...]so the Scripture term, of putting our hope and confidence in God and [...], a per­vasion, and [...], a full assurance, of [...]is Promise. Now Faith justifieth a Sinner, [...]ot in its whole Latitude; for so it believeth [...]eer Histories as well as practical things, and [...]e Threatnings as well as the Promises, and [...]useth fear as well as hope: But a Sinner can­not be reconciled unto God by fearing his Wrath and Judgment, though fearing may [...]cite him to look after mercy in the Promise; [...]or by believing the History of things past, as [...]e Creation and Floud; or the Prediction of [...]ings to come, as the Resurrection and day [...] Judgment, though these things may set forth God's veracity, and confirm the Truth of his promise, and may excite fear and diligence [...] seeking after mercy; As trusting in the pro­mises of particular mercies and deliverances, [Page 160]is the means of obtaining those mercies, as the promises are made to such faith or [...] Isa. 26.3.4. Thou shalt keep him in perse peace whose mind is stayed on thee, because trusteth in thee. The promises of deliverant go before, and this is added as the means procure the accomplishment of them, viz. That they should trust in God; so in like m [...] ­ner, the general promise of Pardon and Just­fication is made to believing or trusting in and faith gives right to it, and is the means having it performed to us: Faith then justi [...] as it obtains mercy, Heb. 11.33. Saint [...] Faith obtained Promises, viz. a performan of them: and in the Gospel frequently, [...] Faith hath saved thee, and thy Faith hath m [...] thee whole, &c. As Faith obtains these mer­cies, neither as an act of obedience, not the cause or root of obedience; but only trusting in the Power and Faithfulness of G [...] ­engaged by the particular promises; so a [...] Faith justifieth a Sinner by trusting in [...] Grace and Mercy of God through Je [...] Christ expressed in the general Promise of [...] Gospel, He that believeth shall be saved, [...] the like. We do not contend about the a [...] ception of faith in this proposition: We a [...] justified by saith, whether it be taken object­ively only, as some think, i. e. we are justifi­ed by Christ believed on; or relatively, [...] are justified by faith as apprehending the mer­cy of God promised through Christ, and [...] by any works of our own; it cometh all one at last. The Mercy of God is the c [...] ­ [...]sa [Page 161]proegomena, the moving cause of our Justi­fication, the righteonsness of Christ wrought for us, the meritorious cause, procuring our acceptance with God, and also the ma­terial or formal cause, being the very thing for which God accepts us to life. The Pro­mise in the Gospel is the external, moral or legal means whereby God conveys Justifica­tion and this Righteousness, having promised [...] to them that believe: and faith is an in­ternal means on mans part, to apply Christ's Righteousness for his Justification, by trusting him, promising of it, and that partly natural, is faith is an act or habit, or act properly conversant about a promise; and partly mo­ [...]al, as God hath appointed our faith in the promise of Justification to be a means of ob­taining it; and this is all that Divines mean by saying, Faith justifys as an instrument, or in­trumentally, and when they call it the mouth and the hand of the soul, viz. That Man is Justified by the Righteousness of Christ, which Justification is proposed and promised in the Gospel to all that will accept it and trust in it; which is believing; so that Faith it self is [...]ot the matter or righteousness which doth Justifie us under the Gospel, instead of our O­bedience under the Law; but it is the means whereby through the Promise of the Gospel, Christs Righteousness is imputed or applied to us, by, and for which we are justified.

Object.It is no better than a cavil which is object­ed: If Faith justifys as an instrument, whose [Page 162]instrument is it, Gods or Mans? if Mans, then he justifys himself; if Gods, then Man doth nothing in the business of Justification, which is Antinomian. For,

Answ.The like may be asked of all instruments, Natural or Moral. Our Food, whose in­strument is it to nourish us? If Gods, then we need not eat; if ours, then we nourish our selves. The Word and Sacraments are instruments of grace, if they are our instru­ments, then we work grace in our selves; i [...] Gods, then we need do nothing: all these and the like are instruments of Gods appointing, to be used by us, to the right use of which he hath promised a blessing: he hath comman­ded us to take food, and promised life by it [...] to use the Ordinances, and promised grace by them, and that in believing him, we shall have life everlasting. So Faith, as the rest is Gods instrument, as to appointment an [...] success; ours, as to the use and practice of it [...] only it is not proper to call it a passive instru­ment (as some do) or to say it justifies passive­ly, (whose mistake is rather in the term, tha [...] in the sence.) For Faith is a Moral, not [...] proper Physical instrument, which only can be passive; Again, a passive instrument is tha [...] which hath no activity at all, but is meerly used by the Agent in his action, as a Knife Saw or the like; but Faith justifieth active­ly, or as a grace whereby the whole Soul un­derstanding the promise of pardon in Christ accepts it, trusteth in it, expecteth Salvatio [...] [Page 163]only that way; now this is a moral recep­tion, or acceptation of, and dependance upon Christ in the Promise, not a Physical passive­ness, as the term seems to imply. We are now to prove, That we are thus justified by Faith as hath been laid down, because, though the Scripture is full and express for it in ma­ny places; yet other sences are now put upon them.

CHAP. VIII. Objections against this Doctrine answered.

IT is objected by a late Author,Object. 1. If we are justified by trusting in the Mercy of God through the Bloud of Christ, then the whole end of justifying Sinners is to glorifie the Mercy of God, without providing for the Honour of his Justice or Holiness, both which seem better secur'd if Justification depend upon man's works, as well as faith, that he cannot be reconciled to God without a holy life as well as believing in Christ. For thus God would appear not only merciful but just and holy also, in that he will not pardon Sinners but in a way of holiness.

Answ. 1.The Justice and Holiness of God were abun­dantly declared in exacting satisfaction to the Law of Jesus Christ; his obedience and death did more declare and vindicate the Justice and Holiness of God, infinitely more than the worthless, imperfect obedience of men can do: Hereby it was declared, That God would not justifie Sinners but in a way of Holiness, and perfect obedience to his Law. There was perfect holiness and justice towards Christ, though infinite Mercy towards Sinners.

2 Though man be justified by Faith, not by Holiness, yet he is not saved without Holiness; it is that which qualifies him to receive the Kingdom, and Faith also procureth and ob­taineth his Holiness: For we believe not in Christ for pardon only, but for grace to bring us to glory. Nor doth Christ purchase, o [...] God promise pardon only, but grace and power to obey him: He gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity, and to purchase to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works, Tit. 2.14. So then, Faith trusting in God's mercy and free grace, supposeth for its foundation the Obedience of Christ, whereby God's Justice and Holiness hath been highly glorified, and also obtaineth for men, by and from Jesus Christ, the Spirit of Adoption, by whom they shall in due time be make con­formable to the Image of his own Son, and so more excellently holy than they would have been, if they had not sinned: Therefore in ju­stifying a Sinner, in the whole design, Holi­ness and Justice are as much magnified as Mercy, though Mercy only appear in the Act of justifying him without his own Righteous­ness.

This Doctrine seems to lead to Enthusiasm: Object. 2. If there be nothing for man to do that he may be justified, but only to believe in God's Mercy and Christ's Righteousness, then may they fancy themselves justified when they please; and if this Faith must be wrought by God, then must men onely expect till God will in­fuse [Page 175]Faith and so justifie them: What use then of the preaching of the Gospel.

Answ.For Fancy: May not men as well fancy their obedience to be sincere and their works [...]o be such as argue them good Christians and give them hopes to be saved, yea, do not most men thus think and profess? If works must be tried by the Scriture, so must faith also, and [...]hen this is no more liable to fancy than the [...]ther.

Answ. 2.For Enthusiasm, which is nothing else but infusion or inspiration of something into the Mind, we grant all the godly do injoy it in the working and increase of supernatural grace, and so must our Opposites also, unless they will turn down right [...]elagians, and say, That all Grace is the meer work of Nature and Reason: Thus Enthusiasm follows from the Doctrine of Supernatural Grace, whether we be justified [...]y Faith or Obedience: But Enthusiasm is were taken in the worst sence, and so the mean­ing must be, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith doth necessarily lead to ungrounded, unwarranted Enthusiasm: Now this may be reduced to two sorts: for matter and for manner: for matter, when men pretend In­piration of God for things contrary to [...]cripture, which God hath given as a stand­ing rule to the Worlds end: for manner, [...]hen Inspirations are expected to exclude and [...]upersede the use of reason, Scripture and [...]ll Divine Ordinances: these are properly [Page 176]called Enthusiasts who pretend to these. Now our Doctrine of Faith naturally leads to neither of these: Not to the first, in the matter, for faith apprehends & resteth only upon the Promi­ses revealed in the Scripture; out of that it see [...] ­eth nothing for its foundation: and that som [...] Antinomians have leaned to unwarranted Re­velations and Fancies, is no more a natural consequence of Justification by Faith, tha [...] the Papists pretending Revelation for Image worship, and many of their Will-worship do naturally flow from from the Doctrine [...] Justification by Works. Not the second, [...] the manner. We are so far from teaching [...] That men must expect Faith to be wrought o [...] increased, without the use of means appoint­ed; that on the contrary, we say with th [...] Scripture, That faith cometh by hearing, an [...] hearing by the Word of God, Rom. 10.15. Tha [...] God requires men to know, understand an [...] meditate on his Word, to use their Reason Conscience and Affections: and while they thu [...] do, he inspires faith into his Elect, which en­ables them to do it effectually and savingly much like as our Saviour, John 9. made Clay anointed the Eyes of the blind man with i [...] sent him to wash in the Pool of Siloam, an [...] while he thus did, by his divine Power he re­stored his Sight. The same also may be said if we must be saved by our Obedience, w [...] may sit still and expect God to work all [...] us; unless they will say, we need no super­natural Grace, or at least that it depended on, and followeth the Will of man: Enthu­siasms [Page 177]therefore are the abuses, not the just consequences of this Doctrine.

It is objected, If we be justified by Faith on­ly,Object. 3. then there need be no care of good works.

Answ.This follows as much as that objected to the Apostle, Rom. 3.8. We are slanderously reported to say, let us do evil that good may come of it, and Rom. 6.1. Let us continue in sin, that grace may abound. Surely there is more shew of reason to say, if we are justified by free grace only, then no matter though we sin, grace will be but the more magnified in our forgiveness, than to say, Because God justifies freely through Faith, therefore we need need not care to please him. The Apostle was not mo­ved to mitigate this Doctrine for the said slanders. Ungodly men will speak and act ac­cording to their own lusts, whatever their O­pinions be; and Calvin observes among the Papists, as we may the same among Prote­stants, that none are more zealous maintain­ers of Justification by good Works, than they who have fewest good works to shew; it seems therefore, that the Doctrine of Justification by Works, is not such a real incentive to ho­liness, as some men think, but rather, that the Doctrine of Justification by Faith, cross­eth corrupt nature more, and stirs up to more deep and inward holiness; else why should profane Wits, and unsanctified hearts so ge­nerally oppose it? But that this Doctrine doth not naturally lead to unholiness; but [Page 178]to most strict and spiritual holiness, may thus appear,

1. As Faith trusteth in the promise of eternal life, it doth naturally stir up men to use all means to attain that, and encourage men in the use of these means against all difficulties. If we fly to God for Salvation, and depend upon his Promise for it, doth not this in its own nature oblige us to follow him in the way he hath appointed for the performance of that promise? and doth it not undo and revoke what faith hath done in accepting and trust­ing in Christ for life, to be negligent of the means whereby it should be brought about? yea, it shews Man regards not life, and so doth not really trust in Christ for it: trust and con­fidence in any friend to bring any business to pass for us, makes no man more regardless of his friend, or negligent of doing his part.

2ly. Faith trusts in God for his Grace and Spirit, as well as for Pardon; though faith as justifying directly and formally, respects on­ly the ptomise of pardon and life; yet secon­darily it considers and trusts in the promises of a new heart, assistance and perseverance to the end; and here we are said to be kept by the power of God through faith to Salvation, 1 Pet. 1.8. and to be saved by hope, Rom. 8. because the power and grace of God to bring us to Heaven is given to us believing and trusting in it: If then Faith taketh in the promises of [Page 179]grace also, how should it open a way to sin and sloth?

3ly. Faith doth virtually include an accept­ance of grace, or of Christ to sanctifie, as well as to pardon; it implies some repentance and aversion from sin, and therefore must na­turally engage to mortification and holiness, [...]ot hinder it. I say not that accepting of Christ is a proper act of Faith (as is usually [...]firmed in popular discourses.) Acceptance [...]mally is rather an act of love, liking of, and [...]senting to such a person and his motions; [...] as before faith is wrought, the heart is ordinarily prepared to believe, by know­ledge, repentance, love, acceptance and de­ [...]e of pardon, and grace by the common [...]ork of the Spirit, so Faith really trusting in [...] promise of eternal life, resting upon it [...]h the whole heart doth include and imply [...]ind of acceptance of it, and afterwards it [...] up more express acts of desire and accep­tance from love, which follows faith; like­ [...]e the heart being prepared by Convictions [...] Sorrow to welcome Pardon, then it doth [...] all sincerity trust in the Promise of Par­ [...]; this doth include an aversion from sin, willingness to be holy, why else should we [...] strongly in the Promise of Forgiveness [...] Life, coming from a holy God through [...] holy Mediatour? and this necessarily ex­ [...] express acts of Repentance and Morti­ [...]tion; he that truly understands what it is [...] pardoned and justified, and trust in the [Page 180]promise of it with all his heart, doth in so do­ing shew an implicite resolution against sin, and must manisest an explicite one af­terwards.

4ly. Trusting in the grace of God, when true, brings the favour of the love of God and Christ, Rom. 5.1, 5. and this naturally inclineth to love, thankfulness and obedience. The groundless boast of Gods love, are made an occasion of sloth by unsanctified hearts, bu [...] a true apprehension of it is a great motive t [...] love and obedience, a greater and more effe­ctual than an expectation of being justified b [...] Obedience. For such Men will take a libert [...] to sin sometimes; but the sence of the love [...] God while strong in the heart, will suffer n [...] such thing; it is not only a rational, but [...] natural principle too, and therefore it wor [...] more forcibly, 2 Cor. 5.14. The Love [...] Christ constraineth us, because we thus judg [...] If one died for all, then were all dead; a [...] that he died for all, that they which live, should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto h [...] which died for them, and rose again. If t [...] true sense of Gods love, without danger [...] Hell, were not enough to engage men to [...] bedience, what engageth Saints and Ang [...] in Heaven? now this sense of the love of G [...] cometh by Faith in his Mercy, therefore Fa [...] engageth to Obedience.

If we are justified by trusting in Gods M [...] ­cy,Object. 4. and through the Righteousness of Chr [...] [Page 181]without fulfilling any Terms or Conditions,Vide True­man Gr. Prop. p. 89. then is there no proper Pardon of Sin: For Christ's Righteousness being the perfect ful­filling of the Law; and we being justified on­ly by applying that Righteousness to us, it seems we shall be accounted to have fulfilled the Law by our Surety, and so not to be chargeable with Sin, nor to need forgive­ness.

Answ. 1.They do wisely to begin to complain first; for their own Opinion is not only liable to the same exception, but seemeth inexcusable from it. There are but two kinds of sins, as they distribute them; some against the Law of Works, others against the Law of Grace and the Gospel, and neither of these are properly pardoned: Not the sins against the Law, for saith our Author, (and his friends must say the same) Christ did not properly fulfil the Law, nor was the Curse of it pro­perly executed upon him; but he endeavour­ed that the legal threat might not be execu­ted, and gave to God a valuable consideration, for which he might with Justice not execute that Law, and be free to prescribe new con­ [...]itions of life to Sinners.

Hence I argue, The Law was waved, not fulfilled by the sinner, or any for him, neither was the sinner thereupon reconciled; there­fore the sins against the Law, when men come under the Gospel, are waved, superseded, but not pardoned. Proper pardon is not on­ly a forbearing to punish, but a remission of [Page 182]the punishment, with a reconciliation to th [...] offendor: but in this case God is not recon­ciled, but only gives them new terms of Sa­vation, nor doth he remit the punishment though he forbear it for the present: for if af­ter trial they fulfil not the Terms of the Gos­pel, their sins against the Law also shall b [...] charged upon them: and if at last they d [...] fulfil the conditions of the Gospel, they a [...] saved thereby, fulfilling the new terms tha [...] are given them; then their old sins against the Law are forgotten and past over; but the [...] is no proper pardon of them, or reconcilin [...] the breakers of the Law, as such. Nor [...] there pardon of their sins against the Gospel for if men fulfil not the conditions of it, the [...] are condemned, and so not pardoned: If the [...] do fulfil them, this is their righteousness, b [...] this they are justified and saved, because the [...] have performed those terms whereupon li [...] is promised: where then is there place f [...] pardon, when the Law is fulfilled? If they say their Obedience is imperfect and sinful, I an­swer, it is so, compared with the Law [...] Works, but not, compared with the Law [...] Grace: Sincere Obedience to the Gospel, [...] as much as is required to bring a man to Hea­ven; therefore by the Gospel, it is reckone [...] a fulfilling of what was required, and so [...] need no pardon: Nor can it be conceive [...] how the sinful infirmities of the Saints should be pardoned by this Opinion. For as the Au­thor tells us, Christ did not properly fulfil th [...] Old Law, so they also say, (and with mo [...] [Page 183]truth) he fulfilled not the conditions of the Gospel for us; nor give he any satisfaction to God for them: how then should they be for­given?

Thus this Opinion excludes all use of Par­don, and teacheth that man is justifind by ful­filling what is required in the Gospel, the de­mands of the Law being waved, i. e. he is justified by a Gospel-innocency of his own; though not by the Innocency of Adam, or the Law of Works.

Answ. 2 We grant, (as is well used by the Author forenamed) if the Covenant of Works had run thus; that Man should obey and live, and die if he disobeyed, either he or his Surety; we grant in this case there had been no proper pardon; but God in Justice would have been bound to discharge the sinner, when the Sure­ty had satisfied the Law for him; because it was his own agreement, that either the prin­ciple or the Surety should satisfy disjunctive­ly; and when there is such an agreement, it is all one to the Creditor, would have been all one to God, which pays the debt or fulfils the Law: But this is to state the question for us, and then to dispute against it. We say not, that the first Covenant did allow of a Surety; much less, joyned him in the Covenant with Man: Man himself was to obey, or die: but God, as the infinite Sovereign and Law-Ma­ter, was pleased to substitute a Surety to ful­fil thee Law for him; who as he was not in­duded in the Law; so was not there any par­ticular [Page 184]Covenant in the Law against a Surety; and this supposed, we further answer.

Answ. 3 Though Christ fulfilled the Law in Mans stead, and so life for man was a debt to him; yet to man it is conveyed by true and proper pardon of sin: for the Surety was not provi­ded by Man, but by God who was offended; yea, he was the Son of God, and God him­self, and that when no such thing was condi­tioned and promised. God himself revealed this Surety to Man, and gives him that Faith whereby we should have interest in him, and benefit by him: now in all this, here is a vo­luntary remission of the punishment due to sin: a voluntary providing a mean of recon­ciliation, and at last an actual reconciliation, discharging Man from guilt, and taking him into favour by Faith in Christ; and to be­lieve he there daily is a pardon of sinful infir­mities, upon the account of the fame Righte­ousness of Christ believed in, 1 John ult. & 2.1. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive them: and the bloud of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin. If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous, and he is a Propitiation for our sins [...] The bloud and his being a Propitiation are her [...] joyned with forgiveness of Sin.

Yet we grant further, That the Justifica­tion of a Sinner, is an act of Justice as wel [...] as of Mercy. Mercy and Forgiveness as to him; but Justice as to Christ, who by God's [Page 185]appointment and consent had satisfied the Law in Man's stead, and therefore it was just and due, that they who should be interested in it, viz. Believers, should be discharged and ju­stified by his Obedience: They also must grant, if Man be justified by his Obedience, his Justification is an act of Justice, according to the New Covenant.

Object. 5 It is objected that Afflictions both tempo­ral and spiritual, fall on Believers in this life, as Chastisements for, and therefore punish­ments of sin, therefore they are not fully ju­stified by believing.

Answ.Afflictions may be distributed into three ranks,

1. Such as arise from the common conditi­on of Mankind since the Fall: as crosses in Children, in Worldly Affairs, &c. in these the Saints must have their share while they live here, though they were perfect in grace, and perfectly justifyed; because these cala­mities are annexed to this present State, and therefore these cannot be reckoned punish­ments, or do argue a defect in their Justifica­tion, who live here below, seeing they befal them upon the account of others, more than themselves, and they would come were they never so perfect.

2ly. A Second sort are such as though they were occasioned by sin; yet they come not upon the godly for any particular sin, but are means of quickning and encreasing grace; [Page 186]such were David's in his younger days, and Job's, and many others dayly, who are afflict­ed from their youth upward: That these are not punishments, or argue any defects in their Justification, is manifest from hence, because they usually fall in the greatest measure, upon the best Christians, where there is most grace to bare them well to the Honour of God. If afflictions be properly the punishment of sin, then in equity, they that are most sinful, and least sanctifyed, should have most afflictions; but it is often otherwise.

3ly. A Third kind, are those which are sent upon occasion of particular sins; as the cala­mities that befel David for his great sin, 2 Sam. 12. and these are most properly cha­stisements, the other are means of improving and sometimes, of working grace, being joyn'd with the Word, suited to Man's sinful and dull temper in this life; which the godly are not to take as signs of hatred, nor to faint un­der them; but these chastisements for speci­al sins, are effects of Gods Fatherly displea­sure, and may be called Paternal punish­ments; yet are they not judicial or legal pu­nishments, or any parts of the curse, Isa. 27.9. By this shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged, and this is all the fruit to take away his sin: If that be all the fruit then, that is all that God intendeth by affliction, and not to execute the Curse of the Law, or to satisfie his Ju­stice, Heb. 12.5, 6, 7. Whom the Lord loveth, he chastneth, and scourgeth every Son whom he [Page 187]receiveth. If you endure chastning God deal­eth with you as with Sons, but if you be with­out chastning whereof all are Partakers, their are you Bastards and not Sons, &c. If cha­stisements be signs that we are Sons of God, how are they signs that we are not perfectly justified? If they are certain effects of God's Love, how are they proper punishments and fruits of the Curse? It is rather a fruit of the Curse to want them when we need them, a sign we are Bastards and not Sons; therefore to have them cannot be a part of the Curse: But to make this more clear, I shall add these two Reasons.

The Curse was the Sentence of death pro­nounced against man,1st. of death at last and all miseries tending to that issue, Gen. 3.17, 18, 19. If then the afflictions of this life are parts of the Curse to the godly, then are they in­tended for their death and ruine, but if they are intended only for their good, then they are natural evils but not curses, and natural evils may be inflicted without sin: Even Ar­minius, Episcopius and others of their chief Friends grant, That God may without inju­stice lay temporal evils upon men without re­spect to sin, of his own meer pleasure.

If Afflictions be part of the Curse to the godly, it must be by some Law:2ly. It cannot be by the Law of Grace; for that is a remedia­ting Law, threatning no curse to them that o­bey it: If by the Law of Works, then Belie­vers [Page 188]are in part still under the Law; whereas the Apostle makes these inconsistent, to be un­der the Law and under Grace, Rom. 6.14. Moreover, Afflictions (if they be punish­ments) must be satisfactory to Divine Justice. For the Law requires nothing but in order to satisfie Divine Justice by obedience, or pu­nishment for failure, and then Christ hath not redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, part of it remaining for us to bare; and so Christ's Redemption must be diminished, he having onely purchased that the Law should not have its full force, viz. to condemn us for ever, but that we should have terms of grace or life eternal; nevertheless that we should be left in the hands of the Law for this life, that God may lay what curses upon us he pleaseth, so that he save our Souls. The same is to be said concerning sin and spiritual evils; some sins are proper chastisements, when men are suffered to run into some sins to correct them for former sins: As David's Murder was a correction for his Adultery; but these cha­stisements proceed really from the love of God though mixed with fatherly displeasure: but for the general, that God hath left sin in the hearts and lives of the Godly is not to sa­tisfie his Law or the Curse, but to magnifie his Grace and Wisdome in over-ruling sin and death to his own Glory, and to further man's Salvation by those things which the Devil de­signed to undermine and overthrow both.

Object. 6 If Faith only justifie and give right to life, then is there no use of the Law to Believers nor [Page 189]any thing for them to do in way of obedience, but only to expect that God should bring them to Heaven by his Grace, to which Faith gives right as well as to life it self.

Answ.As Faith it self is commanded, though it be the work of God, so is the use of all means whereby Grace is to be improved and exerci­sed, and in the use of them in dependance on God's Grace lies a Christian's Obedience: The Promises of Grace and Perseverance do encourage to obedience, but alter not the na­ture of obedience, Phil. 2.12, 13. As you have always obeyed, &c. work out your Salvation with fear and trembling: For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Our Saviour came not to dissolve the Moral Law, nor gave he commission to any man to do it, but requireth better obe­dience to it than that of the Pharisees, though they expected to be justified by it, Mat. 5.18, 19, 20. and upon all occasions he directs men to the Law as the rule of Life, Mat. 19.17. Chap. 22. v. 37. &c. Though Faith encou­rage and Love incline to good works, yet these works are properly obedience, because done upon the Command of God. It is true, the Law is not a Covenant of Works, or a Law of Life to Believers, promising Life to Obedience perfect or imperfect, and threat­ning death to the want of it: Nor is this essen­tial to a Law that life and death must depend thereon, though they do so upon some Laws; nor is it essential to obedience that it must pro­ceed [Page 190]from hope of life and fear of death. For there is no such thing with Saints in Heaven, where yet is perfect obedience; yet is it a Rule of Obedience, a Declaration of God's Will, how his Children ought to walk and to please him, which is the very nature of a Law.

But it is not necessary to the Sanction of every Law,Quest. that there should be Promises to o­bedience, and Threatnings to disobedience?

Answ.Not from the nature of a Law, but because of man's infirmities it is needful, Gal. 3.19. So the Gospel hath promises of Blessings in this Life, peace of Conscience, increase of Grace, and the Fatherly Love and Presence of God, to obedience and diligence, and the threatning of the contrary to negligence and disobedience; yea the knowledge of the Co­venant of Works, as it restrains the ungodly, so it is of use to the godly in this life, to curb the flesh, and to make them more afraid of sin, and to quicken them to diligence: But life and death eternal are not the Sanctions of the Law as properly given to Believers.

But do not the sins of Believers deserve Hell and put them into a damned state?Quest.

Answ.No. They interrupt their peace with God and the Work of Grace, but make them not Children of wrath; their sins in their own nature tend to death, as they are an aversion [Page 191]from God, but he will recover them out of them by repentance, at death, if not before; and they deserve death according to the Law of Works by which they must judge of the [...]inousness of them, and be humbled accor­dingly: But as the Law is tempered by the Gospel, they shall not bring death. And de­ [...]rt of sin being obligatio ad poenam ex lege, the Laws binding a man over to punishment, [...] may be truly said they do not deserve death according to the Gospel; because that doth not threaten death eternal to them, yet they [...] deserve other corrections threatned there­ [...]y, which are more effectual to restrain the godly, than the threatning of Hell is to the [...]icked.

But doth not this open a way to Sin and Sloth,Quest. [...]hen men that think they are Believers shall [...]hen conclude their sins shall not damn them?

Answ.No. For it is not the promise of great Re­tards, nor threatning of great Punishment that [...] keep men from sin, else the Angels and Adam would never have sinned; but it is the certain assistance of effectual grace which can [...] will make men obedient, without such [...]nctions by other Reasons and Motives. If Christians were left to their free will as much is Adam was, then would there be a necessity [...] the like Promises and Threats to keep them [...] their Duty; but because God hath under­taken to work all our Works in us, it is enough [...]at God declare his Will to them, and will [Page 192]make them obedient; Promises and Threa [...] of another nature are added because of the in­firmity of the Flesh, but they could not kee [...] them in obedience if there were not a certain­ty of prevailing grace, and when these infir­mities shall be taken away, then the Decla­ration of God's Will without any Promise [...] Threat will be a sufficient Obligation to Obe­dience for ever, by the perfect and full con­currence of the Grace of God. For it is the Spirit of Grace that holdeth men to obedi­ence, whether there be Promises or Threa [...] or none, or whatever they be, which he do [...] in this life with many infirmities, and in Heaven without any.

CHAP. IX. That Faith doth not justifie as a Conditi­on, and that it doth not justifie as be­lieving in Christ, as King and Pro­phet as well as Priest.

THat Faith justifieth a Sinner as it is a trust in the Promise of Life through the Righ­teousness of Jesus Christ, hath been proved and vindicated in the preceding Chapters: We are now to consider what the opposite Opinion is concerning Faith and its Influence upon Justification.

The Scriptures teach that Abraham the Fa­ther and great Exemplar of all Believers was justified by Faith, his Faith was counted to him for Righteousness, Rom. 4.3. And that this Faith was a Trust in the Promise of God is evi­dent, both from the occasion and immediate Object of it, the Promise of a Son against all natural hope and probability, and that his Seed should be numerous, be the people of God, the Blessed of the World, Gen. 15.4, 5, 6, 18. &c. and also from the Apostles Explication, or Amplification of this Faith, in this Chapter, v. 19, 20, 21, 22. viz. That it was a believing in hope against hope and a not considering the natural impossibility of the thing promised, and not staggering at the Promise through unbelief, but being strong in Faith and fully perswaded that God was [Page 194]able to perform what he promised; and that this Faith justified him, as such a trust in the Promises, and not as an Act of Obedience, is evident from the Apostles own Reason in the close of that Discourse, v. 22. Therefore i [...] was imputed to him for Righteousness; Where­fore? Because it was a firm trust in the Pro­mise of God: It is also added, v. 23. That this Example was written, not for Abraham's sake only, but for ours that succeed, be­cause Faith also shall be imputed to us for Righteousness, if we believe in him that rai­sed Christ from the dead, who died for our sins and rose again for our justification, v. 24, 25. If this was written for our sakes, then the Faith that justifieth us must be a trust in the Promise as Abraham's was, even in the Promise of Life through the death of Christ, and must ju­stifie us as a trust in that Promise as his did him, and not upon any other account. It is the Righteousness of Christ for which God ju­stifies believing Sinners; but because they are rational Creatures, God doth not justifie them without their knowledge, consent, or accep­tance, but with and by means of it; and this is Faith, sc. Man's trusting in or acceptance of Life promised in Christ, which doth render the subject, as a rational Creature, capable of pardon and mercy by a Promise, though that natural capacity of the subject would not obtain pardon, if it were not promised to it, and this is all we mean, when we say, Faith is the Instrument of our Justification, viz. That God having promised Justification through [Page 195]Christ to all that believe or trust in it; this Faith doth trust in it, or is that disposition of the soul, whereby it doth trust in that promise, and so obtain a grant of Jnstification: We acknowledge, to believe God's Promises is commanded by him, and an act of our Obe­dience to him always indispensibly due; but we say, That Faith obtaineth any thing promi­sed, and Justification in particular; not as, or because it obeyeth the general command of believing Gods Promises; but as it trusteth in, dependeth upon the Promises, and conse­quently, that God fulfilleth the Promise of Pardon, Justification, and the immediate fruits of it to a Believer, out of his meer goodness and faithfulness, not out of remunerative Ju­stice and Debt, as he must, if he justifieth for Faith, as an act of Obedience to any Com­mand.

But our Opposites will have Faith to justi­fie us as the condition of the New Covenant [...] Gospel, not as a meer trust in the Pro­mise. A condition saith Amyrald, Amyrald. dissert. de grat. unic. p. 52. is a certain [...]aw added to a matter or business, which is required to be performed by a man: Conditio [...] Lex addita negotio quae ab homine exigitur: [...]o that believing in Christ is annexed to the promise of Justification, as a Law requiring that faith; and then saith must justifie as obe­dience to, or fulfilling of that Command; is Perfect Obedience was the condition of the [...]aw: So (they tell us) Faith is the conditi­on of the Gospel, and one justifyeth now, as [Page 196]the other did then, sc. as Man should then have been justified for his Perfect Obedience, as the fulfilling of the Law to which life was promised; so now Faith justifieth as, or be­cause it obeyeth the Gospel Chmmand of be­lieving in Christ to which life is promised to Sinners. To strengthen this, they further say, (which indeed is but a just consequence of it) that as the Covenant of Works, upon the condi­tion of Perfect Obedience, was made with all Mankind in Adam; so also the Covenant of Grace, was made with all Mankind in him also, after the Fall, and renewed to Noah up­on the condition of Faith in Christ, i. e. as be­fore they were all commanded to obey per­fectly, and they should live for so doing; so now, they are all commanded to believe in Christ, and they shall live for so doing: Foedus gratiae salutaris & in Adamo cum omnibus & singulis hominibus initum, Ibid. p. 87. et in Noa, cum omnibus & singulis hominibus sancitum fuit, sub fidei con­ditione, adeo ut si omnes & singuli crederent, salutis à Christo partae compotes fierent. This we are now to examine, and there are two Opinions about it: One acknowledgeth Faith to be fiducia, a trust in the promise, and this only to be the condition of Justification; the other makes Faith to include Obedience to the Gospel Command; so that when they say [...] Faith justifys, they mean Faith and Obedience flowing from it.

To begin with the First, 'Tis usual with Di­vines to call Faith the Condition of the Gos­pel and Justification, but they take the ter [...] [Page 197]condition improperly, and largely for any thing required of us, and that must be in us, in order to being justifyed; they mean no more, but that men are not justifyed by the Death of Christ, as a Ransom paid for them, without any thing in them to apply it to them­selves in particular; but that his death doth justi­fy them, being offered in the Promises, & trust­ed in them for themselves in particular,Ibid. in this sence we grant Faith to be a condition of Justifi­cation: But some, Amyraldus and others, take a condition strictly for something required, not only as a disposition of the subject, or as an internal rational means of obtaining a thing; but also as acquiring a right to it, as the per­formance of that Command which required it; and thus they say, Faith is the Condition of Justification, i. e. we are justifyed, because we fulfil or obey the Command of believing in Christ: Against this, I thus argue,

1. If Faith justify as a fulfilling the com­mand of believing, then the [...] credere, Faith it self is our Righteousness, and Christ's Right­eousness hath only procur'd a Covenant of Faith, by fulfilling whereof we should be ju­stifyed, as we should have been by fulfilling the Law of Works. For in this Opinion, Faith justifyeth as Obedience to the Com­mand of believing, and Obedience cannot be the Medium of applying Christ's Obedience for our Righteousness; but is it self a right­eousness according to the Law that requires it: So then, Faith must be our Righteousness now, as perfect Obedience was under the Law; and must justify as the Work of the Gospel.

2ly. Faith is the unfittest of all Graces to be the condition of life, because it is only a trust in Free-Mercy, and carries with it, an acknowledgement of our unworthiness, and nothingness, and so bringeth nothing to God, but a bare object of Mercy and Compassion. All other graces bring some positive Honour to God, together with a denyal of our selves, and our inordinate desires to the Creatures; but Faith bringeth nothing but a confession of Misery with a desire and hope of Mercy; therefore is unfit to be our Righteousness, and to come into the room of Perfect Obedi­ence.

3ly. If Faith justify as a condition, then Man hath a natural power to believe in Christ, how else can Faith be required of him, as a new condition of life, after he had failed of life by the first condition of Obedience? The Gospel by this Doctrine, is a Law of Faith, but a proper Law doth suppose power to obey in the subjects of it;Quest. Obj. Quest. 9. Vid. Pelt. Art. 13. Paragr. 2. This Arminius confesseth, Deum non posse ullo modo fidem in Jesum Christum postulare ab homine lapso, quam ex se habere non potest, nisi aut dederit aut dare paratus sit gratiam sufficientem, quâ credere pos­sit si velit, i. e. God cannot by any means, require Fallen Man to believe, which of him­self he cannot do, unless he hath given him, or will be ready to give grace sufficient to be­lieve, if he will.

4ly. If Faith be the gift of special grace (as is acknowledged by these I now deal with) how can it be required of all that hear the Gospel? seeing they have neither power of their own to believe, nor a promise that Faith shall be given them. If it be said, that Faith is promised, I ask, is it promised on some other condition, or absolutely? If upon condition, then we shall have conditions in infinitum; unless we stop in something that is in Man's Power to do,Ibid. p. 55. as Amyraldus well observeth, Fides impetrata fuit non ut offere­tur sub acceptandi conditione, sed ut ipsa illa conditio esset, per quam salus recipitur, alioqui res abiret in infinitum, nec ullus unquam esset terminus conditionum impetrandarum. If abso­lutely, either to all that hear the Gospel, and so all should believe, or to some only, but no such promise can be produc'd, that when the Gospel is preach'd to a people, such and such shall have Faith given them. But if it be said, the Promise of Life in Christ is de­clared to all, and God persuadeth whom he pleaseth to trust in it; Is it not then better to say, that Faith is only an instrument whereby God inableth Men to lay hold of the Promise [...]o Justification, than to offer violence to the nature of all proper Laws and the conditions of them, by making Faith the condition re­quired by a proper Law, which Man hath not [...]ower to perform, nor is sure to have it gi­ven when he needeth it: and I suppose no in­stance can be given of any such Law, either [Page 200]Human or Divine, that requireth a conditi­on out of the power, or beyond the ability of the subject, before the Law was made, and doth not certainly provide that ability for him any other way.

The Second Opinion is of those that affirm, Obedience to be included in Faith, and so Faith and Obedience to be the condition of life, i. e. that we are required sincerely to be­lieve and obey the Gospel Commands, Hi­stories and Promises to our lives end, and for so doing, we shall be justified and saved. Faith in this Opinion, is not an immediate trust in the Promise of life through Christ, but a general belief of the truth of the Histories and Promises of the Gospel, encouraging to obey the Precepts of it; yea, though there be [...] particular persuasion, that this man in parti­cular shall be saved if he obey the Gospel [...] yet this is not proper trust or affiance, but a more practical assent to the general Promi­ses and Doctrine of the Gospel; a trust up­on an uncertain condition, is no more a tru [...] and proper trust, than a proposition depend­ing on a future contingency, is a proper o [...] certain proposition, or hath determinate truth or falshood: This is the Doctrine [...] the Remonstrants (as hath been shewed Chap [...] 5.) We may also observe, That though th [...] Opinion be commonly exprest by believing in, or receiving Christ as our King and Pro­phet, as well as Priest; yet in truth, it mak­eth Faith, or the condition of the Gospel, t [...] [Page 201]respect Christ only as a King immediately, and as a Prophet and Priest accidentally and remotely. For to prescribe Laws and Condi­tions of Life, whereby men must be judged, saved, or condemned, and then to judge them by those Laws, and either justifie or condemn them for their obedience or disobedience to them, are all Kingly Acts or Exercises of Kingly Power, and these only are immedi­ately respected by this Faith, which is nothing else but obeying what Christ hath commanded upon belief of the truth of what he hath decla­red, and promised to that Obedience, and so is that for which men shall be judicially justi­fied. It is true, Christ as a Prophet doth ex­plain and teach his own Law, but this is acci­dental to a Legislator, and men must obey the teaching of Christ, but obedience as such is not because he teacheth, but because he that teacheth is also the Law maker, and hath au­thority to command obedience: Therefore Faith, as obedience, and so justifying, doth not properly respect Christ as a Prophet, nor doth it eye him as a Priest, being not a trust in his satisfaction and Righteousness to be sa­ved by it, which was the main Exercise of his Priestly Office, but an obedience to the New Law which Christ had made as a King, and only had purchased as a Priest leave of the Father to make such a Law, and that those that obeyed it should be saved: The Priest­hood therefore of Christ is but remotely re­spected in believing, as the foundation of his Law and Promises annexed to it: This Mr. [Page 202] Baxter confesseth in effect,1 Disput. of Just. P. 25. when he saith, Christ's Merit is the remote, moral cause of our Justification, but his granting of this Promise or Act of Grace, is the true, natural, efficient, in­strumental cause of our Justification, even the immediate cause. If Christ's Merit was but the remote Cause of Justification, then justify­ing Faith doth respect it but remotely, as the procuring cause of the New Covenant; and if the grant of an Act of Grace be the only, pro­per and immediate Cause of Justification, then Faith only respects that immediately when it justifies, and so Christ only as a King, or as the Enacter of a New Law.Ibid. p. 27. Again, he saith, It is most evident in Scripture that Merit & Sa­tisfaction are but the moral, remote, prepara­tory causes of our Justification (though exceed­ing eminent, &c.) and that the perfecting, neerer, efficient causes were by other Acts of Christ, and that all concurred to accomplish the work. By this it appears that Justification is an Act of Christ as a King only, though his Merit made way for his Kingly Power; and his Prophetical teaching promoteth mans obe­dience, & that his justifying us is his acquitting us from guilt and condemnation, because we have obeyed his Law or New Covenant; and that obedience to that Law, as obedience to a Royal Law, is the condition of our Justifi­cation, or the thing for which we must be ju­stified; and that Faith with these men is no­thing but obedience to the Gospel-Precepts grounded upon a belief that they came from Christ, and shall be rewarded according to [Page 203]his Promise, and therefore when they contend, That Faith justifieth not by one act of affiance, but by all its acts, they do but confound them­selves and the question: For even according to themselves, Faith justifieth properly and im­mediately by one act only, or under one one­ly notion, viz. of obedience to the Gospel; and that directed to Christ only as King, and that the other acts of it respecting his Merit and Teaching, are but accidental to it, and without its notion as justifying: We are then to prove that obedience to the Gospel is not the condition of our Justification, though joy­ned with, or builded upon Faith in the truth of it, and thus I argue:

CHAP. X. An Answer to the Arguments for Obe­dience being the Condition of Justifi­cation.

WE come now for a close of this Work to consider the Principle Arguments that are brought to prove, That Obedience to the Gospel or Faith, as comprehending all Obedience, is the Condition, by fulfilling whereof we must be justified; and it is al­ledged,

1st. That this way of Justification seemeth most rational, obvious and agreeable to the whole Tenour of Scripture, which maketh the Promises both of this Life and that which is to come, to Obedience, 1 Tim. 4.8. And that the way of Justification by trusting in the Pro­mise of Mercy putteth some force both upon Reason and many Texts of Scripture: Thus Mr. Trueman often.

1st. It was Melancthon's Observation,Answ. Lex com. de isustif. judic. in Rom. That man's Reason, which he call'd humana Philo­sophia, doth always cherish a notion of being justified by Works, and therefore Justificati­on by Faith ever hath been, and ever shall be opposed both by curious Wits and by grave Moral Men, not only among Heathens, but in the Church also; which cometh partly from the Pride of Man, who would fain be something, but chiefly from the impression of [Page 227]the Law of Nature or Works, which taught and allowed no other way of Justification, and therefore men's Consciences, though they hear the Letter of the Gospel, do not, cannot believe that they can be justifyed by Free Grace, without any respect to their Works, till they are inwardly persuaded by the Spirit of Christ. Christ crucifyed was a stumbling Block to the Jews, who trusted to the Works of the Law, and Foolishness to the Greeks, who thought themselves wise and rational men, 1 Cor. 1.23. It is therefore no inconvenience, that Justification by obedience is most agree­able to carnal and unsanctified reason, and Ju­stification by Faith not suitable to it: But I suppose this Author by rational, meant, That the several parts and consequences of the Do­strine of Justification by Obedience did better cohere and agree together, than if it were affirmed to be by Faith only. Of this let the [...]ious Reader, that hath been sensible of sin [...]d guilt, and feelingly understands the grounds of a Christian's Hope and Peace, [...]dge. They say, That man being under [...]rath for breaking the Law of Works, desti­ [...]te of the Image or Grace of God, did yet receive a New Law purchased by the Death [...]f Christ, to repent, believe, and obey the [...]recepts of it, and for so doing he should be [...]aved, his former sins forgiven; yet all this [...]hile he is not able to repent, believe, or o­ [...]y, nor is there any promise that he shall be [...]ade able; and if he receive Grace to do this [...]any measure, yet it is not insured to him; he [Page 228]may and many do lose it, yea he may re­cover and and lose it again, and if death should seise him in any of these sad intervals, all his obedience profiteth nothing, but he pe­risheth for ever; if this will comfort or settle an afflicted, unsettled conscience, or be agree­able to the tasts any have had of the Grace o [...] God, let such judge. On the other side, we teach, That man being utterly lost by guil [...] and inability to obedience, God sent his So [...] fully and absolutely to satisfie his Justice and to purchase eternal life for as many as he had chosen. This purchase he declared in the Go­spel, promising pardon and eternal life to al [...] that humbly fly to and trust in him for it, that when his promise is published God sendet [...] forth his Spirit, and perswadeth the hearts o [...] his Elect to trust in it, that hereupon he giv­eth them pardon of all their sins, and a right to eternal life, for the sake of his Son's satis­faction and purchase, that being thus recon­ciled to them; he doth further make them h [...] Children, and heirs of Glory for his Son sake, and because they are his Children, h [...] giveth them the Spirit of his Son to rene [...] them after his Image, to continue and perse [...] grace in them, and forgiveth all their infirm [...] ­ties, and blesseth them with all temporal an [...] spiritual blessings in Christ, and ordereth a [...] his providences for their good, to purge o [...] sin and to perfect grace, till at last of his Fa­therly Goodness he crowns them with etern [...] life, after their hard service on Earth; to e [...] courage them in which Heaven was proposed [Page 229]as a Reward to them; wherein is this irrati­onal or inconsistent with it self?

The Scripture for the most part speaketh to the Conscience and Affections,2dly. more than the Judgement, and therefore handleth not things distinctly and didactically, but putteth many things together, saith and obedience in general or in particular duties, as is most suited to practice; and therefore it is no good Argument, Faith and Obedience are joyned together often times as the means of Salvation without distinguishing the several Offices of each, and what influence each have upon the several parts of our Salvation, ergò, both to­gether and alike do justify us before God. Yet it is evident from the whole Tenour of the Scripture, That forgiveness of sin, reconcilia­tion, peace; with God, hope of Heaven, all come by our flying to and hope in Mercy and Grace alone. This was renew'd to Adam by promise of the Seed of the Woman, Gen. 3.17. And by Sacrifices; in like manner renewed to Abraham by promise, with the Seal of Cir­cumcision, and a more particular promise of Christ. The Psalms practically exemplify, That our only refuge is Free Mercy: The Prophets are full of promises of Pardon, of healing Backslidings, Jer. 3.12. of loving freely, Hos. 14.4. of forgiving beyond man's thoughts, Isa. 54.6, 7, 8. and the like. Our Saviour and the Apostles preached this Do­ctrine to convinced and humbled Sinners, though they insist much upon Obedience to [Page 230]convince and reclaim the hypocritical backsli­ding Jews: To the Heathens, who had no ex­cuse for sin, they preached nothing but par­don at first, and besides this, when the Do­ctrine of Justification is distinctly propounded and proved, it is wholly ascribed to Faith in the Promise, in two most argumentative Epi­stles to the Romans and Galatians; upon which they that would bring in obedience are fain to make a manifest force, whereas we force no Scripture, but explain those that speak gene­rally, by shewing the several Acts of Faith, and ascribing to it and to Obedience their di­stinct Offices.