A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness

CHAP. I.

§ 1. IN the Gospel itself we have first Christ's Doctrine delivered by his own mouth. And in that there is so little said of this Subject that I find few that will pretend thence to resolve the Controversy, for Imputation in the rigorous sense. The same I say of the Acts of the Apostles, and all the rest of the New Testament, except Paul's Epistles.

The Apostle Paul, having to do with the Jews, who could not digest the equalizing of the Gentiles with them, and specially with the factious Jewish Christians, who thought the Gentiles must become Proselytes to Moses as well as to Christ, if they would be Justified and Saved, at large confuteth this opinion, and freeth the Consciences of the Gentile Christians from the Imposition of this yoke (as also did all the Apostles, Act. 15.) And in his arguing, proveth that the Mosaical Law is so far from being necessary to the Justification of the Gentiles, that Abraham and the Godly Jews themselves were not Justified by it, but by Faith; And that by the works of it (and consequently not by the works of the Law or Covenant of Innocency, which no man ever kept) no man could ever be justified: And therefore that they were to look for Justification by Christ alone, and by Faith in him, or by mere Christianity; which the Gentiles might have as well as the Jews, the Partition-wall being taken down. This briefly is the true scope of Paul in these Controversies.

§ 2. But in Paul's own days, there were some things in his Epistles which the unlearned and unstable did wrest, as they did the other Scriptures, to their own destruction, as Peter tells us, 2 Pet. 2. And it seemeth by the Epistle of James, that this was part of it: For he is fain there earnestly to dispute against some, who thought that Faith without Christian works themselves, would justify, and flatly affirmeth, that we are Justified by Works, and not by Faith only; that is, as it is a Practical Faith, in which is contained a Consent or Covenant to obey, which first putteth us into a justified state; so it is that Practical Faith actually working by Love, and the actual performance of our Covenant, which by way of Condition is necessary to our Justification, as Continued and as Consummate by the Sentence of Judgment. Against which sentence of James there is not a syllable to be found in Paul. But all the Scripture agreeth that all men shall be Judged, that is, Justified or Condemned, according to their works. But it is not this Controversy (between Faith and Works) which I am now to speak to, having done it enough heretofore.

§ 3. From the days of the Apostles till Pelagius and Augustine, this Controversy was little meddled with: For the truth is, the Pastors and Doctors took not Christianity in those days for a matter of Shcolastick subtlety, but of plain Faith and Piety. And contented themselves to say that Christ died for our sins, and that we are Justified by Faith; and that Christ was made unto us Righteousness, as he was made to us Wisdom, Sanctification and Redemption.

§ 4. But withal those three first Ages were so intent upon Holiness of Life, as that they addicted their Doctrine, their Zeal, and their constant endeavors to it: And particularly to great austerities to their Bodies, in great Fastings, and great contempt of the World, and exercises of Mortification, to kill their fleshly Lusts, and deny their Wills, and Worldly Interests; to which end at last they got into Wildernesses, and Monasteries, where, in Fasting and Prayer, and a single life, they might live as it were out of the World, while they were in it; (Though indeed persecution first drove them thither to save themselves.) Into these Deserts and Monasteries those went that had most Zeal, but not usually most Knowledge: And they turned much of their Doctrine and discourses about these Austerities, and about the practices of a Godly Life, and about all the Miracles which were (some really) done, and (some feigned) by credulous soft people said to be done among them. So that in all these ages most of their writings are taken up, 1. In defending Christianity against the Heathens, which was the work of the Learned Doctors. 2. And in confuting swarms of Heresies that sprung up. 3. And in matters of Church-order, and Ecclesiastical and Monastical discipline. 4. And in the precepts of a Godly Life: But the point of Imputation was not only not meddled with distinctly, but almost all the Writers of those times, seem to give very much to Mans free-will, and to works of Holiness, and sufferings, making too rare and obscure mention of the distinct Interests of Christ's Merits in our Justification, at least, with any touch upon this Controversy: Yet generally holding Pardon, and Grace and Salvation only by Christ's Sacrifice and Merits; though they spake most of Mans Holiness, when they called men to seek to make sure of Salvation.

§ 5. And indeed at the day of Judgment, the Question to be decided, will not be, Whether Christ died and did his part, but, Whether we believed and obeyed him and did our part: Not, Whether Christ performed his Covenant with the Father; but, Whether we performed our Covenant with him: For it is not Christ that is to be judged, but we by Christ.

§ 6. But Pelagius and Augustine disputing about the Power of Nature and Freewill and the Grace of Christ, began to make it a matter of great Ingenuity (as Erasmus speaketh) to be a Christian. Pelagius (a Britain, of great wit, and continence, and a good and sober life, as Austin saith, Epist. 120.) stiffly defended the Power of Nature and Freewill, and made Grace to consist only in the free Pardon of all sin through Christ, and in the Doctrine and Perswasions only to a holy life for the time to come, with God's common ordinary help. Augustine copiously (and justly) defended God's special eternal Election of some, and his special Grace given them to make them repent and believe, and presevere: (For though he maintained that some that were true Believers, Lovers of God, Justified and in a state of Salvation, did fall away and perish, yet he held that none of the Elect did fall away and perish; And he maintained that even the Justified that fell away, had their Faith by a special Grace above nature.) Vid. August. de bono Persever. Cap. 8, & 9. & de Cor. & Grat. Cap. 8, & 9. alibi passim.

§ 7. In this their Controversy, the point of Justification fell into frequent debate: But no Controversy ever arose between them, Whether Christ's personal Righteousness considered Materially or Formally, was by Imputation made ours as Proprietors of the thing itself, distinct from its effects; or, Whether God reputed us to have satisfied and also perfectly obeyed in Christ. For Augustine himself, while he vehemently defendeth free Grace, speaketh too little even of the Pardon of sin: And though he say, that Free Pardon of sins is part of Grace, yet he maketh Justification to be that which we call Sanctification, that makes us inherently Righteous or new-Creatures, by the operation of the Holy Ghost: And he thinketh that this is the Justification which Paul pleadeth to be of Grace and not of works; yet including Pardon of sin, and confessing that sometimes to Justify, signifieth in Scripture, not to make just, but to judge just. And though in itself this be but de nomine, and not de re; yet, 1. no doubt but as to many texts of Scripture Austin was mistaken, though some few texts Beza and others confess to be taken in his sense: 2. And the exposition of many texts lieth upon it. But he that took Justification to be by the operation of the Holy Ghost giving us Love to God, could not take it to be by Imputation in the rigorous sense no question; nor doth de re.

§ 8. But because, as some that, it seems, never read Augustine, or understood not plain words, have nevertheless ventured confidently to deny what I have said of his Judgment in the points of Perseverance (in my Tract of Perseverance) so, it's like such men will have no more wariness what they say in the point of Justification; I will cite a few of Augustine's words among many, to show what he took Justification to be, though I differ from him de nomine

Nec quia recti sunt cord, sed etiam ut recti sint cord, pretendit Justitiam suam, quâ justificat impium—Quo motu receditur ab illo fonte vitae, cujus solius haustu justitia bibitur, bona scil. vita. Aug. de Spir. & Lit. Cap. 7.

Deus est enim qui operatur in eis & velle & operari, pro bona voluntate. Haec est Justitia Dei, hoc est, quam Deus donat homini quum justificat impium. Hanc Dei justitiam ignorantes superbi Judaei, & suam volentes constituere, justitiae Dei non sunt subjecti.—Dei quippe dixit Justitiam, quae homini ex Deo est, suam vero, quam putant sibi suficere ad facienda mandata sine adjutorio & dono ejus qui legem dedit. His autem similes sunt qui cum profiteantur se esse Christianos, ipsi gratiae Christi sic adversantur ut se humanis viribus divin a existiment implere mandata. Epist. 120. cap. 21. & 22. & Epist. 200.

Et de Spir. & lit. c. 26. Factores justificabuntur:—Non tanquam per opera, nam per Gratiam justificentur: Cum dicat Gratis justificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis, nihilque aliud velit intelligi, in eo quod dicit Gratis, nisi quia justificationem opera non precedunt: Aperte quippe alibi dicit, si gratiâ, jam non ex operibus: alioquin gratia non est gratia. Sed sic intelligendum est, factores Legis justificabuntur, ut sciamus eos non esse factores legis nisi justificentur; ut non justificatio factoribus accedat, sed factores legis justificatio precedat: Quid est enim aliud Justificati, quam Justi facti, ab illo scilicet qui justificat Impium, ut ex impio fiat justus?—Aut certe ita dictum est, Justificabuntur, ac si diceretur Justi habebuntur, justi deputabuntur.

Et ibid. cap. 29. Gentes qua non sectabantur justitiam apprehenderunt justitiam; Justitiam autem quae ex fide est, impretrando eam ex Deo, non ex seipsis presumendo; Israel vero persequens legem justitiae, in legem justitiae, non pervenit: Quare? Quia non ex fide, sed tanquam ex operibus: id est tanquam eam per seipsos operantes; non in se credentes operari Deum. Deus est enim qui operatur in nobis—Finis enim legis Christus est omni credenti. Et adhuc dubitamus quae sint opera legis, quibus homo non justificatur; si ea tanquam sua credederit sine adjutorio & dono Dei, quod est ex side Jesu Christi—Ut possit homo facere bon • & Sancta, Deus operatur in homine per fidem Jesu Christi, qui finis ad Justitiam omni credenti: id est, per Spiritum incorporatus factusque membrum ejus, potest quisque illo incrementum intrinsecus dante, operari justitiam.—Justificatio autem ex fide impetratur—In tantum justus, in quantum salvus. Per hanc enim fidem credemus, quod etiam nos Deus a mortuis excitet; interim Spiritu, ut in novitate ejus gratioe temperanter & juste & pio vivamus in hoc seculo—qui in Resurrectione sibi congrua, hoc est, in Justification precedit:— c. 30. Fides impetrat gratiam qua Lex impleatur.—

Cap. 28. pag. 315. Ibi Lex Dei, non ex omni parte delata per injustitiam, profecto scribitur, renovata, per gratiam: Nec istam inscriptionem, quae Justificatio est, poterat efficere in Judaeis Lex in tabulis scripta.

Ibid. Cap. 9. pag. 307, 308. Justitia Dei manifestata est: non dixit, Justitia hominis vel justitia propriae voluntatis, sed justitia Dei; Non qua Deus justus est; sed qua induit, hominem cum justificat impium. Haec testificatur per Legem & Prophetas. Huic quippe testimonium perhibent Lex & Prophetae. Lex quidem hoc ipso, quod jubendo, & minando, & neminem justificando, satis indicat dono Dei justificari hominem per Adjutorium Spiritus —Justitia autem Dei per fidem Jesu Christi, hoc est, per fidem qua Creditur in Christum: sicut autem ista fides Christi dicta non est, qua Credit Christus, sic & illa Justitia Dei non qua Justus est Deus. Utrumque enim Nostrum est sed ideo Dei & Christi dicitur quod ejus nobis largitate donatur.—Justitia Dei sine lege est, quam Deus per Spiritum Gratiae Credenti confert sine adjutorio legis.—Justificati gratis per gratiam ipsius: non quod sine voluntate nostra fiat, sed voluntas nostra ostenditur infirma per legem, ut sanet Gratia Voluntatem, & sanata voluntas impleat Legem.—Et cap. 10. Confugiant per fidem ad Justificantem Gratiam, & per donum Spiritus suavitate justitiae delectati, poenam literae minantis evadant. Vid. Ep. 89. q. 2. Et lib. 3. ad Bonifac. c. 7.

Et Tract. 3. in Joan. when he saith that, Omnes qui per Christum Justificati justi, non in se, sed in illo; he expoundeth it of Regeneration by Christ.

Et Serm. 15. de verb. Apost. Sine voluntate tua non erit in te Justitia Dei. Voluntas non est nisi tua; Justitia non est nisi Dei: he expounds it of Holiness. —Traditus est propter delicta nostra, & resurrexit, propter justificationem nostram. Quid est, Propter Justificationem nostram? Ut justificet nos, & justos faciat nos. Eris opus Dei non solum quia homo es, sed quia Justus es: Qui fecit te sine te, non te justificat sine te: Tamen ipse justificat, ne sit justitia tua.—Dei justitiam dat non litera occidens, sed vivificans Spiritus.—Vid. de Grat. Christi Cap. 13, 14.

Abundance such passages in Augustine fully show that he took Justification to signify Sanctification, or the Spirits renovation of us; and thinks it is called the Righteousness of God and Christ, and not ours, because by the Spirit he worketh it in us. And when he saith that bona opera sequuntur Justificatum, non precedunt Justificandum (as in sense he often doth) he meaneth that we are freely sanctified, before we do good. I would cite abundance, but for swelling the writing, and tiring the Reader. And his followers Prosper, and Fulgentius go the same way, as you may easily find in their writings.

Johan. Crocius in his copious Treatise of Justification, Disp. 9. p. 442. saith, Augustinum Justificationis nomine utramque partem complecti, id est, tum Remissionem peccatorum quae proprie Justificatio dicitur, tum Sanctificationem—Cum quo nos sentimus quoad rem ipsam, tantum dissidemus in loquendi formâ.

§ 9. The Schoolmen being led by the Scholastic wit of Augustine, fell into the same phrase of speech and opinions, Lombard making Augustine his Master, and the rest making him theirs, till some began to look more towards the Semipelagian way.

§ 10. And when Church-Tyranny and Ignorance, had obscured the Christian Light, the true sense of Justification by the Righteousness of Christ, was much obscured with the rest, and a world of human inventions under the name of Good works, were brought in to take up the people's minds; And the merits of man, and of the Virgin Mary, sounded louder than the merits of Christ, in too many places: And the people that were ignorant of the true Justification, were filled with the noise of Pardons, Indulgences, Satisfactions, Penances, Pilgrimages, and such like.

§ 11. Luther finding the Church in this dangerous and woeful state, where he lived, did labor to reduce men's minds and trust, from human fopperies and merits, and indulgences, to Christ, and to help them to the Knowledge of true Righteousness: But according to his temper in the heat of his Spirit, he sometimes let fall some words which seemed plainly to make Christ's own personal Righteousness in itself to be every Believers own by Imputation, and our sins to be verily Christ's own sins in themselves by Imputation: Though by many other words he showeth that he meant only, that our sins were Christ's in the effects and not in themselves, and Christ's personal Righteousness ours in the effects and not in itself.

§ 12. But his Book on the Galatians, and some other words, gave occasion to the errors of some then called Antinomians, and afterward Libertines (when some additions were made to their errors.) Of these Islebius Agricola was the chief: Whom Luther confuted and reduced, better expounding his own words: But Islebius ere long turned back to the Contrary extreme of Popery, and with Sidonius and Julius Pflug, (three Popish Bishops made for that purpose) promoted the Emperors Interim to the persecution of the Protestants.

§ 13. The Protestant Reformers themselves spake variously of this subject. Most of them rightly asserted that Christ's Righteousness was ours by the way of Meriting our Righteousness, which was therefore said to be Imputed to us. Some of them followed Luther's first words, and said that Christ's sufferings and all his personal Righteousness was Imputed to us, so as to be ours in itself, and when judged as if we had personally done what he did, and were righteous with the same Righteousness that he was.

§ 14. Ambsdorsius, Gallus, and some other hot Lutherans were so jealous of the name of works, that they maintained that good works were not necessary to Salvation. (Yea as to Salvation some called them hurtful:) And Georgius Major a Learned sober Divine was numbered by them among the Heretics, for maintaining that Good works were necessary to Salvation; as you may see in the perverse writings of Chlusseburgius and many others.

§ 15. Andreas Osiander (otherwise a Learned Protestant) took up the opinion, that we are Justified by the very essential Righteousness of God himself. But he had few followers.

§ 16. The Papists fastening upon those Divines who held Imputation of Christ's personal Righteousness in itself in the rigid sense, did hereupon greatly insult against the Protestants, as if it had been their common doctrine, and it greatly stopped the Reformation: For many seeing that some made that a Fundamental in our difference, and articulus stantis & cadentis Ecclesiae, and seeing how easily it was disproved, how fully it was against the Doctrine of all the ancient Church, and what intolerable Consequences followed, did judge by that of the rest of our Doctrine, and were settledly hardened against all.

§ 17. The Learned Divines of Germany perceiving this, fell to a fresh review of the Controversy, and after a while abundance of very Learned Godly Doctors fell to distinguish between the Active and Passive Righteousness of Christ; and not accurately distinguishing of Imputation, because they perceived that Christ suffered in our stead, in a fuller sense than he could be said to be Holy in our stead, or fulfil the Law in our stead. Hereupon they principally managed the Controversy, as about the sort of Righteousness Imputed to us: And a great number of the most Learned famous Godly Divines of the Reformed Churches, maintained that Christ's Passive Righteousness was Imputed to us, even his whole Humiliation or Suffering, by which the pardon of all sins of Commission and Omission was procured for us; but that his Active Righteousness was not Imputed to us, though it profited us; but was Justitia Personae to make Christ a fit Sacrifice for our sins, having none of his own, but the Suffering was his Justitia Meriti. His Obedience they said was performed nostro bono, non nostro loco, for our good but not in our stead; but his Sufferings, both nostro bono & loco, both for our good and in our stead: but neither of them so strictly in nostrâ Personâ in our Person, as if we did it by and in Christ. The Writers that defended this were Cargius, and that holy man Olevian and Ursine, and Pareus, and Scultetus, and Piscator, Alstedius, Wendeline, Beckman, and many more. He that will see the sum of their arguings may read it in Wendeline's Theolog. lib. 1. cap. 25. and in Pareus his Miscellanies after Ursine's Corpus Theolog. After them Cameron with his Learned followers took it up in France. Leg. Cameron. p. 364. 390. Thes. Sal. vol. 1. Placaei Disp. de Just. § 29. & Part. 2 de Satisf. § 42. So that at that time (as Pareus tells you) there were four opinions: some thought Christ's Passive Righteousness only was Imputed to us; some also his Active instead of our Actual Obedience; some also his Habitual instead of our Habitual perfection; And some thought also his Divine Righteousness was Imputed to us, because of our Union with Christ, God and Man. (Imputed I say; for I now speak not of Osiander's opinion of Inhesion.) And Lubbertus wrote a Conciliatory Tractate favoring those that were for the Passive part. And Forbes hath written for the Passive only imputed. Molinaeus casteth away the distinction, Thes. Sedan. v. 1. p. 625. § 18.

§ 18. In England most Divines used the phrase, that we were Justified by the forgiveness of sin and the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, and being accepted as Righteous unto life thereon: But the sense of Imputation few pretended accurately to discuss. Davenant who dealt most claborately in it, and maintaineth Imputation stiflly in terms; yet when he telleth you what Protestants mean by it, saith, that [Possunt nobis imputari, non solum nostrae possiones, actiones, qualitates, sed etiam extrinseca quaedam, quae nec a nobis fluunt, nec in nobis haerent: De facto autem Imputantur, quando illorum intuitus & respectus valent nobis ad aliquem effectum, aeque ac si a nobis aut in nobis essent. (Note, that he saith, but ad aliquem effectum, non ad omn • m.) And he instanceth in one that is a slothful fellow himself, but is advanced to the Kings Favor and Nobility for some great Service done by his Progenitors to the Common-wealth. And in one that deserving death is pardoned through the Intercession of a friend, or upon some suffering in his stead which the King imposeth on his Friend. This is the Imputation which Davenant and other such Protestants plead for; which I think is not to be denied. Were it not for lengthening the discourse and wearying the Reader, I would cite many other of our greatest Divines, who plead for the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, that Davenant here expoundeth himself.

But some less judicious grating upon a harsh and unsound sense, Mr. Anthony Wotton a very Learned and Godly Divine of London, wrote a Latin Treatise de Reconciliatione, one of the Learnedst that hath ever been written of that subject, in which he laboreth to disprove the rigid Imputation of Christ's Holiness and Obedience to man; and showeth that he is Righteous to whom all sin of Omission and Commission is forgiven; and confuteth these three Assertions. 1. That A Sinner is Reputed to have fulfilled the Law in and by Christ. 2. And being reputed to have fulfilled the Law, is taken for formally just as a fulfiller of it. 3. And being formally just as a fullfiller of the Law, Life eternal is due to him by that Covenant, that saith, do this and live. Vid. Part. 2. li. 1. Cap. 11. pag. 152. Cum sequentibus. Thus and much further Mr. Wotton went to the very quick of the Controversy, and irrefragably overthrew the rigid Imputation.

But Mr. William Bradshaw, a Learned Godly Nonconformist, being grieved at the differences about the Active and Passive Righteousness, and thinking that Mr. Wotton denied all Imputation of the Active Righteousness (which he did not, but owneth it to be Imputed as a meritorious Cause:) Part. 2. li. 1. Cap. 13. pag. 165. Ne illud quidem negaverim, imputari nobis illius justitiam & obedientiam, ut ad nostrum fructum redundet: Id unum non concedo, Legem nos in Christo & per Christum servâsse, ut propter eam a nobis praestitam vita aeterna ex faedere, Hoc fac et vives, debeatur. Mr. Bradshaw I say attempted a Conciliatory middle way, which indeed is the same in the main with Mr. Wotton's: He honoreth the Learned Godly persons on each side, but maintaineth that the Active and Passive Righteousness are both Imputed, but not in the rigid sense of Imputation denying both these Propositions. 1. That Christ by the Merits of his Passive Obedience only, hath freed us from the guilt of all sin, both Actual and Original, of Omission and Commission. 2. That in the Imputation of Christ's Obedience both Active and Passive, God doth so behold and consider a sinner in Christ, as if the sinner himself had done and suffered th • se very particulars which Christ did and suffered for him. And he wrote a small book with great accurateness in English first, and Latin after, opening the nature of Justification, which hath been deservedly applauded ever since. His bosom-Friend Mr. Tho. Gataker, (a man of rare Learning and Humility) next set in to defend Mr. Bradshaw's way, and wrote in La • in Animadversions on Lucius (who opposed Piscator, and erred on one side for rigid Imputation) and on Piscator who on the other side was for Justification by the Passive Righteousness only; and other things he wrote with great Learning and Judgment in that cause.

About that time the Doctrine of personal Imputation in the rigid sense began to be fully improved in England, by the Sect of the Antinomians (trulyer called Libertines) of whom Dr. Crisp was the most eminent Ring-leader, whose books took wonderfully with ignorant Professors under the pretence of extolling Christ and free Grace. After him rose Mr. Randal, and Mr. John Simpson, and then Mr. Town, and at last in the Armies of the Parliament, Saltmarsh, and so many more, as that it seemed to be likely to have carried most of the Professors in the Army, and abundance in the City and Country that way: But that suddenly (one Novelty being set up against another) the opinions called Arminianism rose up against it, and gave it a check and carried many in the Army and City the clean contrary way: And these two Parties divided a great part of the raw injudicious sort of the professors between them, which usually are the greatest part: but especially in the Army which was like to become a Law and example to others.

Before this John Goodwin (not yet turned Arminian) preached and wrote with great diligence about Justification against the rigid sense of Imputation, who being answered by Mr. Walker, and Mr. Robourough, with far inferior strength, his book had the greater success for such answerers.

The Antinomians then swarming in London, Mr. Anthony Burgess, a very worthy Divine was employed to Preach and Print against them; which he did in several books: but had he been acquainted with the men as I was, he would have found more need to have vindicated the Gospel against them than the Law.

Being daily conversant myself with the Antinomian and Arminian Soldiers, and hearing their daily contests, I thought it pity that nothing but one extreme should be used to beat down that other, and I found the Antinomian party far the stronger, higher, and more fierce, and working towards greater changes and subversions; And I found that they were just falling in with Saltmarsh, that Christ hath repented and believed for us, and that we must no more question our Faith and Repentance, than Christ. This awakened me better to study these points; And being young, and not furnished with sufficient reading of the Controversy, and also being where were no libraries, I was put to study only the naked matter in itself. Whereupon I shortly wrote a small book called Aphorisms of Justification, &c. Which contained that Doctrine in substance which I judge sound; but being the first that I wrote, it had several expressions in it which needed correction; which made me suspend or retract it till I had time to reform them. Men's judgments of it were various, some for it and some against it: I had before been a great esteemer of two books of one name, Vindiciae Gratiae, Mr. Pembles and Dr. Twisses, above most other books. And from them I had taken in the opinion of a double Justification, one in soro Dei as an Immanent eternal Act of God, and another in foro Conscientiae, the Knowledge of that; and I knew no other: But now I saw, that neither of those was the Justification which the Scripture spake of. But some half -Antinomians which were for the Justification before Faith, which I wrote against, were most angry with my book. And Mr. Crandon wrote against it, which I answered in an Apology, and fullier wrote my judgment in my Confession; and yet more fully in some Disputations of Justification against Mr. Burgess, who had in a book of Justification made some exceptions; and pag. 346. had defended that [As in Christ's suffering we were looked upon by God as suffering in him; so by Christ's obeying of the Law, we were beheld as fulfilling the Law in him.] To those Disputations I never had any answer. And since then in my Life of Faith, I have opened the Libertine errors about Justification, and stated the sense of Imputation.

Divers writers were then employed on these subjects: Mr. Eyers for Justification before Faith (that is, of elect Infidels) and Mr. Benjamin Woodbridg, Mr. Tho. Warren against it. Mr. Hotchkis wrote a considerable Book of Forgiveness of sin, defending the sounder way: Mr. George Hopkins, wrote to prove that Justification and Sanctification are equally carried on together: Mr. Warton, Mr. Graile, Mr. Jessop, (clearing the sense of Dr. Twisse,) and many others wrote against Antinomianism. But no man more clearly opened the whole doctrine of Justification, than Learned and Pious Mr. Gibbons Minister at Black-Friars, in a Sermon Printed in the Lectures at St. Giles in the Fields. By such endeavors the before-prevailing Antinomianism was suddenly and somewhat marvelously suppressed, so that there was no great noise made by it.

About Imputation that which I asserted was against the two fore-described extremes; in short,

This is the sense of Imputation which I and others asserted as the true healing middle way. And as bad as they are, among the most Learned Papists, Cornelius a Lapide is cited by Mr. Wotton, Vasquez by Davenant, Suarez by Mr. Burgess, as speaking for some such Imputation, and Merit: Grotius de Satisf. is clear for it.

But the Brethren called Congregational or Independant in their Meeting at the Savoy, Oct. 12. 1658. publishing a Declaration of their Faith, Cap. 11. have these words [Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth; not by infusing Righteousness into them, but by pardoning their Sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as Righteous, not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone: not by imputing Faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical Obedience to them, as their Righteousness; but by Imputing Christ's Active Obedience to the whole Law, and Passive Obedience in his death, for their whole and sole Righteousness; they receiving and resting on him and his Righteousness by Faith.]

Upon the publication of this it was variously spoken of: some thought that it gave the Papists so great a scandal, and advantage to reproach the Protestants as denying all inherent Righteousness, that it was necessary that we should disclaim it: Others said that it was not their meaning to deny Inherent Righteousness, though their words so spake, but only that we are not justified by it: Many said that it was not the work of all of that party, but of some few that had an inclination to some of the Antinomian principles, out of a mistaken zeal of free Grace; and that it is well known that they differ from us, and therefore it cannot be imputed to us, and that it is best make no stir about it, lest it irritate them to make the matter worse by a Defense, & give the Papists too soon notice of it. And I spake with one Godly Minister that was of their Assembly, who told me, that they did not subscribe it, and that they meant but to deny Justification by inherent Righteousness. And though such men in the Articles of their declared Faith, no doubt can speak intelligibly and aptly, and are to be understood as they speak according to the common use of the words; yet even able-men sometimes may be in this excepted, when eager engagement in an opinion and parties, carrieth them too precipitantly, and maketh them forget something, that should be remembered. The Sentences here which we excepted against are these two. But the first was not much offensive because their meaning was right; And the same words are in the Assemblies Confession, though they might better have been left out.

CHAP. II.

Of the true stating of the Controversy, and the explication of the several points contained or merely implied in it.

THough a man that readeth our most Learned Protestants, prosessing that they agree even with Bellarmine himself in the stating of the case of Imputation, would think that there should need no further stating of it. I cited you Bellarmine's words before with Vasseurs consent: I here add Johan. Crocius de Justif. Disp. 10. pag. 500. 501. Vide hominis sive vertiginem sive improbitatem, clamat fieri non posse ut Justitia Christi nobis imputetur eo sensu qui haereticis probetur—Et tamen rectam vocat sententiam, quam suam faciunt Evangelici. Quod enim cum rectâ ration pugnare dicit, nos per Justitiam Christi formaliter justos nominari & esse, nos non tangit: Non dicimus; Non sentimus: Sed hoc totum proficiscitur e Sophistarum officinâ, qui phrasin istam nobis offingunt, ut postea eam exagitent tanquam nostram: (yet some of our own give them this pretence.) Nos sententiam quam ill rectam judicat, tenemus, tuemur; sic tamen ut addamus, quod Genti adversariae est intolerabile, non alia ration nos justos censeri coram Deo.] But by Justification the Papists mean Sanctification: And they count it not intolerable to say that the penalty of our sins is remitted to us, by that Satisfaction to the Justice of God according to the Law of Innocency, which Christ only hath made. But though many thrust in more indeed, and most of them much more in words; yet you see they are forced to say as we say whether they will or not: For they seem unwilling to be thought to agree with us, where they agree indeed.] And the following words of Job. Crocius pag. 506, 507. &c. show the common sense of most Protestants, [When Bellarmine observeth that Imputation maketh us as righteous as Christ, he saith, [If we said that we are Justified by Christ's essential righteousness.—But we say it not. Yea above all we renounce that which the Sophister puts in of his own, even that which he saith of Formal Righteousness: For it is not our opinion, that we are constituted formally Righteous by Christ's Righteousness, which we rather call the Material cause.— § 32. Christ's satisfaction is made for all: But it is imputed to us, not as it is made for all, but as for us. I illustrate it by the like. The Kings Son payeth the debt of a Community deeply indebted to the King, and thence bound to perpetual slavery. This payment gets liberty for this, and that, and the other member of the Community: For it is imputed to them by the King as if they had paid it. But this Imputation transferreth not the honor to them, but brings them to partake of the Benefit. So when the price paid by Christ for all, is imputed to this or that man, he is taken into the society of the Benefit,— Pag. 503. Distinguish between the Benefit, and the Office of Christ. The former is made ours, but not the latter,— Pag. 542. The Remission of sin is nothing but the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness. Rom. 4. Where Imputation of Righteousness, Remission of Iniquities, and non-imputation of sin, are all one,— Pag. 547. God imputeth it as far as he pleaseth,— Pag. 548. Princes oft impute the merits of Parents so unworthy Children,— Pag. 551. He denieth that we have Infinite Righteousness in Christ, because it is imputed to us in a finite manner, even so far as was requisite to our absolution.

But I will a little more distinctly open and resolve the Case.

1. We must distinguish of Righteousness as it relateth to the Preceptive part of the Law▪ and as it relateth to the Retributive part: The first Righteousness, is Innocency contrary to Reatus Culpae: The second is Jus ad impunitatem & ad premium (sen d • num,) Right to Impunity and to the Reward.

2. We must distinguish of Christ's Righteousness, which is either so called, formally and properly, which is the Relation of Christ's person to his Law of Mediation imposed on him, 1. As Innocent and a perfect obeyer; 2. As one that deserved not punishment, but deserved Reward. Or it is so called materially and improperly; which is, Those same Habits, Acts and Sufferings of Christ, from which his Relation of Righteous did result.

3. We must distinguish of Imputation, which signifieth (here) 1. To repute us personally to have been the Agents of Christ's Acts, the subjects▪ of his Habits and Passion in a Physical sense. 2. Or to repute the same formal Relation of Righteousness which was in Christ's person, to be in ours as the subject. 3. Or to repute us to have been the very subjects of Christ's Habits and Passion, and the Agents of his Acts in a Political or Moral sense, (and not a physical); as a man payeth a debt by his Servant, or Attorney, or Delegate. 4. And consequently to repute a double formal Righteousness to result from the said Habits, Acts, and Passions; one to Christ as the natural Subject and Agent, and another to us as the Moral, Political, or reputed Subject and Agent (And so his Formal Righteousness not to be imputed to us in itself as ours, but another to result from the same Matter.) 5. Or else that we are reputed both the Agents and Subjects of the Matter of his Righteousness, morally and also of the Formal Righteousness of Christ himself. 6. Or else by Imputation is meant here, that Christ being truly reputed to have taken the Nature of sinful than, and become a Head for all true Believers, in that undertaken Nature and Office in the Person of a Mediator, to have fulfilled all the Law imposed on him, by perfect Holiness and Obedience, and Offering himself on the Cross a Sacrifice for our sins, voluntarily suffering in our stead, as if he had been a sinner, (guilty of all our sins) As soon as we believe we are pardoned, justified, adopted for the sake and merit of this Holiness, Obedience and penal Satisfaction of Christ, with as full demonstration of divine Justice, at least, and more full demonstration of his Wisdom and Mercy, than if we had suffered ourselves what our sins deserved (that is, been damned) or had never sinned: And so Righteousness is imputed to us, that is, we are accounted or reputed righteous, (not in relation to the Precept, that is, innocent, or sinless, but in relation to the Retribution, that is, such as have Right to Impunity and Life,) because Christ's foresaid perfect Holiness, Obedience and Satisfaction, merited our Pardon, and Adoption, and the Spirit; or merited the New-Covenant, by which, as an Instrument, Pardon, Justification and Adoption are given to Believers, and the Spirit to be given to sanctify them: And when we believe, we are justly reputed such as have Right to all these purchased Gifts.

4. And that it may be understood how far Christ did Obey or Suffer in our stead, or person, we must distinguish, 1. Between his taking the Nature of sinful man, and taking the Person of sinners. 2. Between his taking the Person of a sinner, and taking the Person of you and me, and each particular sinner. 3. Between his taking our sinful persons simply, & ad omnia, and taking them only, secundum quid, in tantum, & ad hoc. 4. Between his suffering in the Person of sinners, and his obeying and sanctity in the Person of sinners or of us in particular.

5. Between his Obeying and Suffering in our Person, and our Obeying and Suffering in his Person (Natural or Political.) And now I shall make use of these distinctions, by the Propositions following.

Prop. 1. The phrase of [Christ's Righteousness imputed to us] is not in the Scripture.

2. Therefore when it cometh to Disputation, to them that deny it, some Scripture-phrase should be put instead of it; because, 1. The Scripture hath as good, if not much better, phrases, to signify all in this that is necessary. 2. And it is supposed that the Disputants are agreed of all that is express in the Scripture.

3. Yet so much is said in Scripture, as may make this phrase [of Imputing Christ's Righteousness to us] justifiable, in the sound sense here explained: For the thing meant by it is true, and the phrase intelligible.

4. Christ's Righteousness is imputed to Believers, in the sixth sense here before explained; As the Meritorious cause of our Pardon, Justification, Righteousness, Adoption, Sanctification and Salvation, &c. as is opened.

5. Christ did not suffer all in kind (much less in duration) which sinful man deserved to suffer: As e. g. 1. He was not hated of God; 2. Nor deprived or deserted of the sanctifying Spirit, and so of its Graces and God's Image; Nor had 3. any of that permitted penalty by which sin itself is a misery and punishment to the sinner. 4. He fell not under the Power of the Devil as a deceiver and ruler, as the ungodly do. 5. His Conscience did not accuse him of sin, and torment him for it. 6. He did not totally despair of ever being saved. 7. The fire of Hell did not torment his body. More such instances may be given for proof.

6. Christ did not perform all the same obedience in kind, which many men, yea all men, are or were bound to perform. As 1. He did not dress and keep that Garden which Adam was commanded to dress and keep. 2. He did not the conjugal offices which Adam, and millions more, were bound to. 3. Nor the Paternal Office to Children. 4. Nor all the offices of a King on Earth, or Magistrate: nor of a Servant, &c. Nor the duty of the Sick. 5. He did not repent of sin, nor turn from it to God, nor mortify or resist in himself any sinful lust; nor receive a Savior by Faith, nor was circumcised or baptized for the Remission of his sins; nor loved God or thanked him for redeeming or pardoning him; nor obeyed God in the use of any Ordinance or Means, for the subduing of sin, and healing or saving of his Soul from any sin or deserved wrath of God; with much more such.

7. Christ did perform much which no man else was bound to do: As to redeem Souls, to work his Miracles and the rest of the works, peculiar to the Mediator.

8. That Law which bound us to Suffering, (or made it our due) bound not Christ to it, (as being innocent); But he was bound to it by the Fathers Law of Mediator, and by his own voluntary sponsion.

9. The Law obliging every sinner himself to suffer, was not fulfilled by the Suffering of Christ our Sponsor: But only the Lawgiver satisfied by attaining its Ends. For neither the letter nor sense of it said, [If thou sin, thou or thy surety shall suffer.]

10. Christ satisfied Justice and obeyed in Human Nature, which also was Holy in him.

11. He did not this as a Natural Root, or Head to man, as Adam was; to convey Holiness or Righteousness by natural propagation, as Adam should have done; and did by sin: For Christ had no Wife or natural Children; But as a Head, by Contract as a Husband to a Wife, and a King to a Kingdom, and a Head of Spiritual Influx.

12. No as being Actually such a Head to the Redeemed when he Obeyed and Suffered; but as a Head by Aptitude and Office, Power and Virtue, who was to become a Head actually to everyone when they Believed and Consented; Being before a Head for them, and over those that did exist, but not a Head to them, in act.

13. Therefore they were not Christ's members Political, (much less Natural) when he obeyed and died.

14. A Natural Head being but a part of a person, what it doth the Person doth. But seeing a Contracted Head, and all the members of his Body Contracted or Politick, are everyone a distinct Person, it followeth not that each person did really or reputatively what the Head did. Nay it is a good consequence that [If he did it as Head, they did it not (numerically) as Head or Members.]

15. Christ Suffered and Obeyed in the Person of the Mediator between God and man; and as a subject to the Law of Mediation.

16. Christ may be said to suffer in the person of a sinner, as it meaneth his own person reputed and used as a sinner by his persecutors, and as he was one who stood before God as an Undertaker to suffer for Man's sin.

17. Christ suffered in the place and stead of sinners, that they might be delivered, though in the person of a Sponsor.

18. When we are agreed that the Person of the Sponsor, and of every particular sinner are divers; and that Christ had not suffered, if we had not sinned, and that he as a Sponsor suffered in our stead, and so bore the punishment, which not he, but we deserved; If any will here instead of a Mediator or Sponsor call him our Representative, and say that he suffered even in all our Persons reputatively, not simpliciter, but secundùm quid, & in tantum only; that is, not representing our Persons simply and in all respects, and to all ends, but only so far as to be a sacrifice for our sins, and suffer in our place and stead what he suffered; we take this to be but lis de nomine, a question about the name and words: And we will not oppose any man that thinketh those words fittest, as long as we agree in the matter signified. And so many Protestant Divines say that Christ suffered in the person of every sinner, (at least Elect,) that is, so far only and to such effects.

19. Christ did not suffer strictly, simply, absolutely, in the person of any one elect sinner, much less in the millions of persons of them all, in Lawsence, or in God's esteem. God did not esteem Christ to be naturally, or as an absolute Representer, David, Manasseh, Paul, and every such other sinner, but only a Mediator that suffered in their stead.

20. God did make Christ to be sin for us; that is, A Sacrifice for our sin, and one that by Man was reputed, and by God and Man was used, as sinners are, and deserve to be.

21. Christ was not our Delegate in Obeying or Suffering: We did not commission him, or depute him to do what he did in our stead: But he did it by God's Appointment and his own Will.

22. Therefore he did it on God's terms, and to what effects it pleased God, and not on our terms, nor to what effects we please.

23. God did not suppose or repute Christ, to have committed all or any of the sins which we all committed, nor to have had all the wickedness in his nature which was in ours, nor to have deserved what we deserved: Nor did he in this proper sense impute our sins to Christ.

24. The false notion of God's strict imputing all our sins to Christ, and esteeming him the greatest sinner in the World, being so great a Blasphemy both against the Father and the Son, it is safest in such Controversies to hold to the plain and ordinary words of Scripture. And it is not the Wisdom nor Impartiality of some men, who greatly cry up the Scripture-perfection, and decry the addition of a Ceremony or Form in the Worship of God; that yet think Religion is endangered, if our Confession use not the phrases of [God's Imputing our sin to Christ, and his Imputing Christ's Righteousness to us] when neither of them is in the Scripture; As if all God's Word were not big or perfect enough to make us a Creed or Confession in such phrases as it is fit for Christians to take up with: Countenancing the Papists, whose Faith is swelled to the many Volumes of the Councils, and no man can know how much more is to be added, and when we have all.

25. God doth not repute or account us to have suffered in our Natural persons what Christ suffered for us, nor Christ to have suffered in our Natural persons.

26. Though Christ suffered in our stead, and in a large sense, to certain uses and in some respects, as the Representer, or in the Persons of sinners; yet did he not so far represent their persons in his Habitual Holiness and Actual Obedience (no not in the Obedience of his Suffering,) as he did in the suffering itself. He obeyed not in the Person of a sinner, much less of millions of sinners; which were to say, In the person of sinners he never sinned. He suffered, to save us from suffering; but he obeyed not to save us from obeying, but to bring us to Obedience. Yet his Perfection of Obedience had this end, that perfect Obedience might not be necessary in us to our Justification and Salvation.

27. It was not we ourselves who did perfectly obey, or were perfectly holy, or suffered for sin in the Person of Christ, or by Him: Nor did we (Naturally or Morally) merit our own Salvation by obeying in Christ; nor did we satisfy God's Justice for our sins, nor purchase pardon of Salvation to ourselves, by our Suffering in and by Christ; All such phrase and sense is contrary to Scripture. But Christ did this for us.

28. Therefore God doth not repute us to have done it, seeing it is not true.

29. It is impossible for the individual formal Righteousness of Christ, to be our Formal personal Righteousness. Because it is a Relation and Accident, which cannot be translated from subject to subject, and cannot be in divers subjects the same.

30. Where the question is, Whether Christ's Material Righteousness, that is, his Habits, Acts and Sufferings themselves, be Ours, we must consider how a man can have Propriety in Habits, Acts and Passions who is the subject of them: and in Actions, who is the Agent of them. To Give the same Individual Habit or Passion to another, is an Impossibility; that is, to make him by Gift the subject of it. For it is not the same, if it be in another subject. To make one man really or physically to have been the Agent of another's Act, even that Individual Act, if he was not so, is a contradiction and impossibility; that is, to make it true, that I did that which I did not. To be ours by Divine Imputation, cannot be, to be ours by a false Reputation, or supposition that we did what we did not: For God cannot err or lie. There is therefore but one of these two ways left, Either that we ourselves in person, truly had the habits which Christ had, and did all that Christ did, and suffered all that he suffered, and so satisfied and merited Life in and by him, as by an Instrument, or Legal Representer of our persons in all this; Which I am anon to Confute: or else, That Christ's Satisfaction, Righteousness, and the Habits, Acts and Sufferings in which it lay, are imputed to us, and made ours; not rigidly in the very thing itself, but in the Effects and Benefits; In as much as we are as really Pardoned, Justified, Adopted by them, as the Meritorious cause, by the instrumentality of the Covenants Donation, as if we ourselves had done and suffered all that Christ did, as a Mediator and Sponsor, do and suffer for us: I say, As really and certainly, and with a fuller demonstration of God's Mercy and Wisdom, and with a sufficient demonstration of his Justice. But not that our propriety in the benefits is in all respects the same, as it should have been if we had been, done, and suffered ourselves what Christ did. Thus Christ's Righteousness is ours.

31. Christ is truly The Lord our Righteousness; in more respects than one or two: 1. In that he is the meritorious Cause of the Pardon of all our sins, and our full Justification, Adoption, and right to Glory: and by his Satisfaction and Merits only, our Justification by the Covenant of Grace against the Curse of the Law of Works is purchased. 2. In that he is the Legislator, Testator and Donor of our Pardon, and Justification▪ by this new-Testament or Covenant. 3. In that he is the Head of Influx, and King and Intercessor, by and from whom the Spirit is given, to sanctify us to God, and cause us sincerely to perform the Conditions of the Justifying and saving Covenant, in Accepting and Improving the mercy then given. 4. In that he is the Righteous Judge and Justifyer of Believers by sentence of Judgment. In all these Respects he is The Lord our Righteousness.

32. We are said to be made the Righteousness of God in him: 1. In that, as he was used like a sinner for us, (but not esteemed one by God) so we are used like Innocent persons so far as to be saved by him. 2. In that through his Merits, and upon our union with him, when we believe and consent to his Covenant, we are pardoned and justified, and so made Righteous really, that is, such as are not to be condemned but to be glorified. 3. In that the Divine Nature and Inherent Righteousness, to them that are in him by Faith, are for his Merits, given by the Holy Ghost. 4. In that God's Justice and Holiness Truth, Wisdom, and Mercy, are all wonderfully demonstrated in this way of pardoning and justifying sinners by Christ. Thus are we made the Righteousness of God in him.

33. For Righteousness to be imputed to us, is all one as to be accounted Righteous, Rom. 4. 6, 11. notwithstanding that we be not Righteous as fulfillers of the Law of Innocency.

34. For Faith to be imputed to us for Righteousness, Rom. 4. 22, 23, 24. is plainly meant, that God who under the Law of Innocency required perfect Obedience, of us to our Justification and Glorification, upon the satisfaction and merits of Christ, hath freely given a full Pardon and Right to Life, to all true Believers; so that now by the Covenant of Grace nothing is required of us, to our Justification, but Faith: all the rest being done by Christ: And so Faith in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, is reputed truly to be the condition on our part, on which Christ and Life, by that Baptismal Covenant, are made ours.

35. Justification, Adoption, and Life eternal are considered; 1. Quoad ipsam rem, as to the thing itself in value. 2. Quoad, Ordinem Conferendi & Recipiendi, as to the order and manner of Conveyance and Participation. In the first respect, It is a mere free-gift to us, purchased by Christ: In the second respect, It is a Reward to Believers, who thankfully accept the free-Gift according to its nature and uses.

36. It is an error contrary to the scope of the Gospel to say, that the Law of Works, or of Innocency, doth justify us, as performed either by ourselves, or by Christ. For that Law condemneth and curseth us; And we are not efficiently justified by it, but from or against it.

37. Therefore we have no Righteousness in Reality or Reputation formally ours, which consisteth in the first species; that is, in a Conformity to the Preceptive part of the Law of Innocency; we are not reputed Innocent: But only a Righteousness which consisteth in Pardon of all sin, and right to life, (with sincere performance of the Condition of the Covenant of Grace, that is, True Faith.)

38. Our pardon puts not away our Guilt of Fact or Fault, but our Guilt of, or, obligation to Punishment. God doth not repute us such as never sinned, or such as by our Innocency merited Heaven, but such as are not to be damned, but to be glorified, because pardoned and adopted through the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ.

39. Yet the Reatus Culpae is remitted to us Relatively as to the punishment, though not in itself; that is, It shall not procure our Damnation: Even as Christ's Righteousness is, though not in itself, yet respectively as to the Benefits said to be made ours, in as much as we shall have those benefits by it.

40. Thus both the Material and the Formal Righteousness of Christ are made ours; that is, Both the Holy Habits and Acts, and his Sufferings, with the Relative formal Righteousness of his own Person, because these are altogether one Meritorious cause of our Justification, commonly called the Material Cause.

Obj. But though Forma Denominat; yet if Christ's Righteousness in Matter and Form, be the Meritorious Cause of ours, and that be the same with the Material Cause, it is a very tolerable speech to say, that His Righteousness is Ours in itself, while it is the very matter of ours.

Ans. 1. When any man is Righteous Immediately by any action, that action is called the Matter of his Righteousness, in such an Analogical sense as Action, an Accident may be called Matter, because the Relation of Righteous is founded or subjected first or partly in that Action. And so when Christ perfectly obeyed, it was the Matter of his Righteousness. But to be Righteous and to Merit are not all one notion: Merit is adventitious to mere Righteousness. Now it is not Christ's Actions in themselves that our Righteousness resulteth from immediately as his own did; But there is first his Action, then his formal Righteousness thereby; and thirdly, his Merit by that Righteousness which goes to procure the Covenant-Donation of Righteousnass to us, by which Covenant we are efficiently made Righteous. So that the name of a Material Cause is much more properly given to Christ's Actions, as to his own formal Righteousness, than as to ours. But yet this is but de nomine. 2. Above all, consider what that Righteousness is which Christ merited for us, (which is the heart of the Controversy.) It is not of the same species or sort with his own. His Righteousness was a perfect sinless Innocency, and Conformity to the preceptive part of the Law of Innocency in Holiness. Ours is not such. The dissenters think it is such by Imputation, and here is the difference. Ours is but in respect to the second or retributive part of the Law; a Right to Impunity and Life, and a Justification not at all by that Law, but from its curse or condemnation. The Law that saith, Obey perfectly and live, sin and die, doth not justify us as persons that have perfectly obeyed it, really or imputatively; But its obligation to punishment is dissolved, not by itself, but by the Law of Grace. It is then by the Law of Grace that we are judged and justified. According to it, 1. We are not really or reputatively such as have perfectly fulfilled all its Precepts: 2. But we are such as by Grace do sincerely perform the Condition of its promise. 3. By which promise of Gift, we are such as have right to Christ's own person, in the Relation and Union of a Head and Savior, and with him the pardon of all our sins, and the right of Adoption to the Spirit, and the Heavenly Inheritance as purchased by Christ. So that besides our Inherent or Adherent Righteousness of sincere Faith, Repentance and Obedience, as the performed condition of the Law of Grace, we have no other Righteousness ourselves, but Right to Impunity and to Life: and not any imputed sinless Innocency at all. God pardoneth our sins and adopteth us, for the sake of Christ's sufferings and perfect Holiness: But he doth not account us perfectly Holy for it, nor perfectly Obedient. So that how-ever you will call it, whether a Material Cause or a Meritorious, the thing is plain.

Obj. He is made of God Righteousness to us.

Ans. True: But that's none of the question. But how is he so made? 1. As he is made Wisdom, Sanctification and Redemption as aforesaid. 2. By Merit, Satisfaction, Direction, Prescription and Donation. He is the Meritorious Cause of our Pardon, of our Adoption, of our Right to Heaven, of that new Covenant which is the Instrumental Deed of Gift, confirming all these: And he is also our Righteousness in the sense that Austin so much standeth on, as all our Holiness and Righteousness of Heart and Life, is not of our natural endeavor, but his gift, and operation by his Spirit; causing us to obey his Holy precepts and Example. All these ways he is made of God our Righteousness: Besides the Objective way of sense; as he is Objectively made our Wisdom, because it is the truest wisdom to know him; So he is objectively made our Righteousness, in that it is that Gospel-Righteousness which is required of ourselves, by his grace, to believe in him and obey him.

41. Though Christ fulfilled not the Law by Habitual Holiness and Actual Obedience, strictly in the Individual person of each particular sinner; yet he did it in the nature of Man: And so human nature, (considered in specie, and in Christ personally, though not considered as a totum, or as personally in each man,) did satisfy and fullfil the Law and Merit. As Human Nature sinned in Adam actually in specie, and in his individual person, and all our Persons were seminally and virtually in him, and accordingly sinned, or are reputed sinners, as having no nature but what he conveyed who could convey no better than he had (either as to Relation or Real quality): But not that God reputed us to have been actually existent, as really distinct persons in Adam (which is not true.) Even so Christ obeyed and suffered in our Nature, and in our nature as it was in him; and human sinful nature in specie was Universally pardoned by him, and Eternal life freely given to all men for his merits, thus far imputed to them, their sins being not imputed to hinder this Gift; which is made in and by the Covenant of Grace: Only the Gift hath the Condition of man's Acceptance of it according to its nature, 2 Cor. 5. 19, 20. And all the individuals that shall in time by Faith accept the Gift, are there and thereby made such as the Covenant for his merits doth justify, by that General Gift.

42. As Adam was a Head by Nature, and therefore conveyed Guilt by natural Generation; so Christ is a Head (not by nature but) by Sacred Contract; and therefore conveyeth Right to Pardon, Adoption and Salvation, not by Generation, but by Contract, or Donation. So that what it was to be naturally in Adam, seminally and virtually, though not personlly in existence; even that it is, in order to our benefit by him to be in Christ by Contract or the new Covenant, virtually, though not in personal existence when the Covenant was made.

43. They therefore that look upon Justification or Righteousness, as coming to us immediately by Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us, without the Instrumental Intervention and Conveyance or Collation by this Deed of Gift or Covenant, do confound themselves by confounding and overlooking the Causes of our Justification. That which Christ did by his merits was to procure the new Covenant. The new Covenant is a free Gift of pardon and life with Christ himself, for his merits and satisfaction sake.

44. Though the Person of the Mediator be not really or reputatively the very person of each sinner, (nor so many persons as there are sinners or believers,) yet it doth belong to the Person of the Mediator, so far (limitedly) to bear the person of a sinner, and to stand in the place of the Persons of all Sinners, as to bear the punishment they deserved, and to suffer for their sins.

45. Scripture speaking of moral matters, usually speaketh rather in Moral than mere Physical phrase: And in strict Physical sense, Christ's very personal Righteousness (Material or Formal) is not so given to us, as that we are proprietors of the very thing itself, but only of the effects (Pardon, Righteousness and Life,) yet in a larger Moral phrase that very thing is oft said to be given to us, which is given to another, or done or suffered for our benefit. He that ransometh a Captive from a Conquerer, Physically giveth the Money to the Conquerer & not to the Captive, & giveth the Captive only the Liberty purchased: But morally and reputatively he is said to give the Money to the Captive, because he gave it for him. And it redeemeth him as well as if he had given it himself. He that giveth ten thousand pounds to purchase Lands, & freely giveth that land to another; physically giveth the Money to the Seller only, and the Land only to the other. But morally and reputatively we content ourselves with the metonymical phrase, and say, he gave the other ten thousand pound. So morally it may be said, that Christ's Righteousness, Merits and Satisfaction, was given to us, in that the thing purchased by it was given to us; when the Satisfaction was given or made to God. Yea when we said it was made to God, we mean only that he was passively the Terminus of active Satisfaction, being the party satisfied; but not that he himself was made the Subject and Agent of Habits and Acts, and Righteousness of Christ as in his human nature, except as the Divine Nature acted it, or by Communication of Attributes.

46. Because the words [Person] and [Personating] and [Representing] are ambiguous (as all human language is,) while some use them in a stricter sense than others do, we must try by other explicatory terms whether we agree in the matter, and not lay the stress of our Controversy upon the bare words. So some Divines say that Christ suffered in the Person of a sinner, when they mean not that he represented the Natural person of any one particular sinner; but that his own Person was reputed the Sponsor of sinners by God, and that he was judged a real sinner by his persecutors; and so suffered as if he had been a sinner.

47. As Christ is less improperly said to have Represented our Persons in his satisfactory Sufferings, than in his personal perfect Holiness and Obedience; so he is less improperly said to have Represented all mankind as newly fallen in Adam, in a General sense, for the purchasing of the universal Gift of Pardon and Life, called The new Covenant; than to have Represented in his perfect Holiness and his Sufferings, every Believer considered as from his first being to his Death. Though it is certain that he died for all their sins from first to last. For it is most true, 1. That Christ is as a second Adam, the Root of the Redeemed; And as we derive sin from Adam, so we derive life from Christ, (allowing the difference between a Natural and a Voluntary way of derivation.) And though no man's Person as a Person was actually existent and offended in Adam, (nor was by God reputed to have been and done) yet all men's Persons were Virtually and Seminally in Adam as is aforesaid; and when they are existent persons, they are no better either by Relative Innocency, or by Physical Disposition, than he could propagate: and are truly and justly reputed by God to be Persons Guilty of Adams fact, so far as they were by nature seminally and virtually in him: And Christ the second Adam is in a sort the root of Man as Man, (though not by propagation of us, yet) as he is the Redeemer of Nature itself from destruction, but more notably the Root of Saints as Saints, who are to have no real sanctity but what shall be derived from him by Regeneration, as Nature and Sin is from Adam by Generation. But Adam did not represent all his posterity as to all the Actions which they should do themselves from their Birth to their Death; so that they should all have been taken for perfectly obedient to the death, if Adam had not sinned at that time, yea or during his Life. For if any of them under that Covenant had ever sinned afterward in their own person, they should have died for it. But for the time past, they were Guiltless or Guilty in Adam, as he was Guiltless or Guilty himself, so far as they were in Adam: And though that was but in Causâ, & non extra causam; Yet a Generating Cause which propagateth essence from essence, by self-multiplication of form, much differeth from an Arbitrary facient Cause in this. If Adam had obeyed, yet all his posterity had been nevertheless bound to perfect personal persevering Obedience on pain of Death. And Christ the second Adam so far bore the person of fallen Adam, and suffered in the nature and room of Mankind in General, as without any condition on their part at all; to give man by an act of Oblivion or new Covenant a pardon of Adams sin, yea and of all sin past, at the time of their consent, though not disobliging them from all future Obedience. And by his perfect Holiness and Obedience and Sufferings, he hath merited that new Covenant, which Accepteth of sincere, though imperfect, Obedience, and maketh no more in us necessary to Salvation. When I say he did this without any Condition on man's part, I mean, He absolutely without Condition, merited and gave us the Justifying Testament or Covenant. Though that Covenant give us not Justification absolutely, but on Condition of believing, fiducial Consent. 2. And so as this Universal Gift of Justification upon Acceptance, is actually given to all fallen mankind as such; so Christ might be said to suffer instead of all, yea and merit too, so far as to procure them this Covenant-gift.

48. The sum of all lieth in applying the distinction of giving Christ's Righteousness as such in itself, and as a cause of our Righteousness, or in the Causality of it. As our sin is not reputed Christ's sin in itself, and in the culpability of it (for then it must needs make Christ odious to God) but in its Causality of punishment: so Christ's Material or Formal Righteousness, is not by God reputed to be properly and absolutely our own in itself as such, but the Causality of it as it produceth such and such effects.

49. The Objections which are made against Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in the sound sense, may all be answered as they are by our Divines; among whom the chiefest on this subject are Davenant de Justit. Habit Habit & Actual. Johan. Crocius de Justif. Nigrinus de Impletione Legis, Bp. G. Dowman of Justif. Chamier, Pareus, Ames and Junius against Bellarm. But the same reasons against the unsound sense of Imputation are unanswerable. Therefore if any shall say concerning my following Arguments, that most of them are used, by Gregor. de Valent. by Bellarm. Becanus, or other Papists, or by Socinians, and are answered by Nigrinus, Crocius, Davenant, &c. Such words may serve to deceive the simple that are led by Names and Prejudice; but to the Intelligent they are contemptible, unless they prove that these objections are made by the Papists against the same sense of Imputation against which I use them, and that it is that sense which all those Protestants defend in answering them: For who-ever so answereth them, will appear to answer them in vain.

50. How far those Divines who do use the phrase of Christ's suffering in our person, do yet limit the sense in their exposition, and deny that we are reputed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ: because it is redious to cite many, I shall take up now with one, even Mr. Lawson in his Theopolitica, which (though about the office of Faith he some-what differ from me) I must needs call an excellent Treatise, as I take the Author to be one of the most Knowing men yet living that I know.) Pardon me if I be large in transcribing his words.

Here I would add only these Animadversions. 1. That whereas he explaineth Christ's personating us in suffering by the similitude of a Debtor and his Surety who are the same person in Law: I note 1. That the case of Debt much differeth from the case of Punishment. 2. That a Surety of Debt is either antecedently such, or consequently: Antecedently, either first one that is bound equally with the Debtor; 2. or one that promiseth to pay if he do not. I think the Law accounteth neither of these to be the Person of the principal Debtor (as it doth a Servant by whom he sends the Debt.) But Christ was neither of these: For the Law did not beforehand oblige him with us, nor did he in Law-sense undertake to pay the Debt, if we failed. Though God decreed that he should do so; yet that was no part of the sense of the Law. But consequently, if a friend of the Debtor when he is in Jail will, without his request or knowledge, say to the Creditor, I will pay you all the Debt; but so that he shall be in my power, and not have present liberty (lest he abuse it) but on the terms that I shall please; yea not at all if he ungratefully reject it] This Consequent Satisfyer, or Sponsor, or Paymaster, is not in Law-sense the same Person with the Debtor: But if any will call him so, I will not contend about a word, while we agree of the thing (the terms of deliverance.) And this is as near the Case between Christ and us, as the similitude of a Debtor will allow.

2. I do differ from Mr. Lawson and Pareus, and Ursine, and Olevian, and Scultetus and all that sort of worthy Divines in this; that whereas they make Christ's Holiness and perfect Obedience to be but Justitia personae, necessary to make his Sacrifice spotless and so effectual: I think that of itself it is as directly the cause of our Pardon, Justification and Life, as Christ's Passion is; The Passion being satisfactory and so meritorious, and the personal Holiness Meritorious and so Satisfactory. For the truth is, The Law that condemned us was not fulfilled by Christ's suffering for us, but the Lawgiver satisfied instead of the fulfilling of it: And that Satisfaction lieth, in the substitution of that which as fully (or more) attaineth the ends of the Law as our own suffering would have done. Now the ends of the Law may be attained by immediate Merit of Perfection as well as by Suffering; but best by both. For 1. By the perfect Holiness and Obedience of Christ, the Holy and perfect will of God is pleased: whence [This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.] 2. In order to the ends of Government, Holiness and perfect Obedience, is honored and freed from the contempt which sin would cast upon it; and the holiness of the Law in its Precepts is publicly honored in this grand Exemplar; In whom only the will of God was done on Earth, as it is done in Heaven. And such a Specimen to the World is greatly conducible to the ends of Government: So that Christ voluntarily taking human nature, which as such is obliged to this Perfection, He first highly merited of God the Father hereby, and this with his Suffering, went to attain the ends that our suffering should have attained, much better. So that at least as Meritorious, if not secondarily as satisfactory, I see not but Christ's Holiness procureth the Justifying Covenant for us, equally with his Death. A Prince may pardon a Traitor for some noble service of his Friend, as well as for his suffering: much more for both. This way go Grotius de satisf. Mr. Bradshaw and others.

3. When Mr. Lawson saith that the Law binds not to Obedience and Punishment both, he meaneth as to the same Act: which contradicts not what Nigrinus and others say, that it binds a sinner to punishment for sin past, and yet to Obedience for the time to come: (which cannot be entire and perfect.)

So pag. 311. Cap. 22. Qu 2. Whether there be two parts of Justification, Remission and Imputation of Christ's Righteousness. 1. He referreth us to what is aforecited against Imputation of Christ's Active Righteousness, separated or abstracted for Reward from the Passive. 2. He showeth that Paul taketh Remission of sin and Imputation of Righteousness for the same thing.] So say many of ours.

In conclusion I will mind the Reader, that by reading some Authors for Imputation, I am brought to doubt whether some deny not all true Remission of sin, that is, Remission of the deserved punishment. Because I find that by Remission they mean A non-Imputation of sin under the formal notion of sin; that God taketh it not to be our sin, but Christ's; and Christ's Righteousness and perfection to be so ours, as that God accounteth us not as truly sinners. And so they think that the Reatus Culpae as well as Poenae simply in itself is done away. Which if it be so, then the Reatus Poenae, the obligation to punishment, or the dueness of punishment, cannot be said to be dissolved or remitted, because it was never contracted. Where I hold, that it is the Reatus ad Poenam the Dueness of punishment only that is remitted, and the guilt of sin not as in itself, but in its Causality of punishment. And so in all common language, we say we forgive a man his fault, when we forgive him all the penalty positive and privative. Not esteeming him, 1. Never to have done the fact. 2. Or that fact not to have been a fault, and his fault; 3. but that punishment for that fault, is forgiven him, and the fault so far as it is a cause of punishment. We must not feign God to judge falsely.

This maketh me think of a saying of Bp. Ushers to me, when I mentioned the Papists placing Justification and Remission of sin conjunct, he told me that the Papists ordinarily acknowledge no Remission. And on search I find that Aquinas and the most of them place no true Remission of sin, in Justification: For by Remission (which they make part of Justification,) they mean Mortification, or destroying sin itself in the act or habit. But that the pardon of the punishment is a thing that we all need, is not denyable; nor do they deny it, though they deny it to be part of our Justification. For it's strange if they deny Christ the pardoning power which they give the Pope. And as Joh. Crocius de Justif. oft tells them, They should for shame grant that Christ's Righteousness may be as far imputed to us, as they say a Saints or Martyrs redundant merits and supererogations are.

But if the Guilt of Fact and Guilt of Fault in itself considered, be not both imputed first to us, that is, If we be not judged sinners, I cannot see how we can be judged Pardoned sinners; For he that is judged to have no sin, is judged to deserve no punishment. Unless they will say that to prevent the form and desert of sin, is eminenter, though not formaliter, to forgive. But it is another (even Actual) forgiveness which we hear of in the Gospel, and pray for daily in the Lord's prayer. Of all which see the full Scripture-proof in Mr. Hotchkis of Forgiveness of sin.

CHAP. III.

A further explication of the Controversy.

§ 1. THE Righteousness of a Person is formally a moral Relation of that Person.

§ 2. This moral Relation, is the Relation of that person to the Rule by which he is to be judged.

§ 3. And it is his Relation to some Cause, or supposed Accusation or Question to be decided by that judgment.

§ 4. The Rule of Righteousness here is God's Law, naturally or supernaturally made known.

§ 5. The Law hath a Preceptive part, determining what shall be due from us, and a Retributive part determining what shall be due to us.

§ 6. The Precept instituting Duty, our Actions and Dispositions, which are the Matter of that duty, are physically considered, conform or disconform to the Precept.

§ 7. Being Physically, they are consequently so Morally considered, we being Moral Agents, and the Law a Rule of Morality.

§ 8. If the Actions be righteous or unrighteous, consequently the Person is so, in reference to those Actions, supposing that to be his Cause, or the Question to be decided.

§ 9. Unrighteousness as to this Cause, is Guilt, or Reatus Culpae; and to be unrighteous is to be Sons, or Guilty of sin.

§ 10. The Retributive part of the Law is, 1. Premiant, for Obedience; 2. Penal, for Disobedience.

§ 11. To be Guilty or Unrighteous as to the reward, is, to have no right to the reward (that being supposed the Question in judgment): And to be Righteous here, is to have right to the reward.

§ 12. To be Guilty as to the penalty; is to be jure puniendus, or Reus poenae, or obligatus ad poenam. And to be righteous here, is to have Right to impunity, (quoad poenam damni & sensus.)

§ 13. The first Law made personal, perfect, persevering Innocency both man's duty, and the Condition of the Reward and Impunity, and any sin the condition of punishment.

§ 14. Man broke this Law, and so lost his Innocency, and so the Condition became naturally impossible to him, de futuro.

§ 15. Therefore that Law as a Covenant, that is, the Promissory part with its Condition, ceased; cessante capacitate subditi;