The Imputation of Christs Righteousness, Polemic 1 · Chapter 3
CHAP. III. A further explication of the Controverſie.
Yet I am afraid leſt I have not made the ſtate of the Controverſie plain enough to the unexerciſed Reader, and leſt the very explicatory diſtinctions and propoſitions, though needful and ſuitable to the matter, ſhould be unſuitable to his capacity; I will therefore go over it again in a ſhorter way, and make it as plain as poſſibly I can; being fully perſwaded, that it is not ſo much Argumentation, as help to underſtand the matter, and our own and other mens ambiguous words, that is needful to end our abominable Contentions.
§ 1. THE Righteouſneſs of a Perſon is formally a moral Relation of that Perſon.
§ 2. This moral Relation, is the Relation of that perſon to the Rule by which he is to be judged.
§ 3. And it is his Relation to ſome Cauſe, or ſuppoſed Accuſation or Queſtion to be decided by that judgment.
§ 4. The Rule of Righteouſneſs here is Gods Law, naturally or ſupernaturally made known.
§ 5. The Law hath a Preceptive part, determining what ſhall be due from us, and a Retributive part determining what ſhall be due to us.
§ 6. The Precept inſtituting Duty, our Actions and Diſpoſitions, which are the Matter of that duty, are phyſically conſidered, conform or diſconform to the Precept.
§ 7. Being Phyſically, they are conſequently ſo Morally conſidered, we being Moral Agents, and the Law a Rule of Morality.
§ 8. If the Actions be righteous or unrighteous, conſequently the Perſon is ſo, in reference to thoſe Actions, ſuppoſing that to be his Cauſe, or the Queſtion to be decided.
§ 9. Unrighteouſneſs as to this Cauſe, is Guilt, or Reatus Culpae; and to be unrighteous is to be Sons, or Guilty of ſin.
§ 10. The Retributive part of the Law is, 1. Premiant, for Obedience; 2. Penal, for Diſobedience.
§ 11. To be Guilty or Unrighteous as to the reward, is, to have no right to the reward (that being ſuppoſed the Queſtion in judgment): And to be Righteous here, is to have right to the reward.
§ 12. To be Guilty as to the penalty; is to be jure puniendus, or Reus poenae, or obligatus ad poenam. And to be righteous here, is to have Right to impunity, (quoad poenam damni & ſenſus.)
§ 13. The firſt Law made perſonal, perfect, perſevering Innocency both mans duty, and the Condition of the Reward and Impunity, and any ſin the condition of puniſhment.
§ 14. Man broke this Law, and ſo loſt his Innocency, and ſo the Condition became naturally impoſſible to him, de futuro.
§ 15. Therefore that Law as a Covenant, that is, the Promiſſory part with its Condition, ceaſed; ceſſante capacitate ſubditi; and ſo did the preceptive part. 1. As it commanded abſolute Innocency (of act and habit.) 2. And as it commanded the ſeeking of the Reward on the Condition and by the means of perſonal Innocency. The Condition thus paſſing into the nature of a ſentence; And puniſhment remaining due for the ſin.
§ 16. But the Law remained ſtill an obliging Precept for future perfect Obedience, and made puniſhment due for all future ſin: and theſe two parts of it, as the Law of lapſed Nature, remained in force, between the firſt ſin, and the new-Covenant promiſe or Law of Grace.
§ 17. The eternal Word interpoſing, a Mediator is promiſed, and Mercy maketh a Law of Grace, and the Word becometh mans Redeemer by undertaking, and by preſent actual reprieve, pardon and initial deliverance: and the fallen world, the miſerable ſinners, with the Law and obligations which they were under, are now become the Redemers jure Redemptionis, as before they were the Creator's jure Creationis.
§ 18. The Redeemers Law then hath two parts; 1. The ſaid Law of lapſed nature (binding to future perfect obedience or puniſhment) which he found man under (called vulgarly the Moral Law.) 2. And a pardoning Remedying Law of Grace.
§ 19. Becauſe man had diſhonoured God and his Law by ſin, the Redeemer undertook to take mans nature without ſin, and by perfect Holineſs and Obedience▪ and by becoming a Sacrifice for ſin, to bring that Honour to God and his Law which we ſhould have done, and to attain the Ends of Law and Government inſtead of our Perfection or Puniſhment, that for the Merit hereof we might be delivered and live.
§ 20. This he did in the third perſon of a Mediator, who as ſuch had a Law or Covenant proper to himſelf, the Conditions of which he performed, (by perfect keeping. 1. The Law of Innocency; 2. Of Moſes; 3. And that proper to himſelf alone) and ſo merited all that was promiſed to him, for Himſelf and Us.
§ 21. By his Law of Grace (as our Lord-Redeemer) he gave firſt to all mankind (in Adam, and after in Noah, and by a ſecond fuller edition at his Incarnation) a free Pardon of the deſtructive puniſhment (but not of all puniſhment) with right to his Spirit of Grace, Adoption and Glory, in Union with Himſelf their Head, on Condition initially of Faith and Repentance, and progreſſively of ſincere Obedience to the end, to be performed by his Help or Grace.
§ 22. By this Law of Grace (ſuppoſing the Law of lapſed nature aforeſaid, incluſively) all the World is ruled, and ſhall be judged, according to that edition of it (to Adam or by Chriſt) which they are under. And by it they ſhall be Juſtified or Condemned.
§ 23. If the queſtion then be, Have you kept or not kept the Conditions of the Law of Grace, Perſonal Performance or nothing muſt ſo far be our Righteouſneſs, and not Chriſts keeping them for us, or Satisfaction for our not keeping them. And this is the great Caſe (ſo oft by Chriſt deſcribed Mat. 7. & 25. &c.) to be decided in judgment; and therefore the word Righteous and Righteouſneſs are uſed for what is thus perſonal hundreds of times in Scripture.
§ 24. But as to the queſtion, Have we kept the Law of Innocency? we muſt confeſs guilt and ſay, No: neither Immediately by our ſelves, nor Mediately by another, or Inſtrument: for Perſonal Obedience only is the performance required by that Law; Therefore we have no Righteouſneſs conſiſting in ſuch Performance or Innocency; but muſt confeſs ſin, and plead a pardon.
§ 25. Therefore no man hath a proper Ʋniverſal Righteouſneſs, excluding all kind of Guilt whatſoever.
§ 26. Therefore no man is juſtified by the Law of Innocency (nor the Law Moſaical as of works;) either by the Preceptive or Retributive part: for we broke the Precept, and are by the Threatning heirs of death.
§ 27. That Law doth not juſtifie us, becauſe Chriſt fulfilled it for us: For it ſaid not (in words or ſenſe) [Thou or one for thee ſhall Perfectly Obey, or Suffer:] It mentioned no Subſtitute: But it is the Law-giver (and not that Law) that juſtifieth us by other means.
§ 28. But we have another Righteouſneſs imputed to us inſtead of that Perfect Legal Innocency and Rewardableneſs, by which we ſhall be accepted of God, and glorified at laſt as ſurely and fully (at leaſt) as if we had never ſinned, or had perfectly kept that Law; which therefore may be called our Pro-legal Righteouſneſs.
§ 29. But this Righteouſneſs is not yet either OURS by ſuch a propriety as a Perſonal performance would have bin, nor OURS to all the ſame ends and purpoſes: It ſaveth us not from all pain, death or penal deſertion, nor conſtituteth our Relation juſt the ſame.
§ 30. It is the Law of Grace that Juſtifieth us, both as giving us Righteouſneſs, and as Virtually judging us Righteous when it hath made us ſo, and it is Chriſt as Judg according, to that Law (and God by Chriſt) that will ſentence us juſt, and executively ſo uſe us.
§ 31. The Grace of Chriſt firſt giveth us Faith and Repentance by effectual Vocation: And then the Law of Grace by its Donative part or Act doth give us a Right to Ʋnion with Chriſt as the Churches Head (and ſo to his Body) and with him a right to Pardon of paſt ſin, and to the Spirit to dwell and act in us for the future, and to the Love of God, and Life eternal, to be ours in poſſeſſion, if we ſincerely obey and perſevere.
§ 32. The total Righteouſneſs then which we have (as an Accident of which we are the Subjects,) is 1. A right to Impunity, by the free Pardon of all our ſins, and a right to Gods Favour and Glory, as a free gift quoad valorem, but as a Reward of our Obedience, quoad Ordinem conferendi & rationem Comparativam (why one rather than another is judged meet for that free gift.) 2. And the Relation of one that hath by grace performed the Condition of that free Gift, without which we had been no capable recipients: which is initially [Faith and Repentance] the Condition of our Right begun, and conſequently, ſincere Obedience and Perſeverance (the Condition of continued right.)
§ 33. Chriſts perſonal Righteouſneſs is no one of theſe, and ſo is not our Conſtitutive Righteouſneſs formally and ſtrictly ſo called: For Formally our Righteouſneſs is a Relation, (of right;) and it is the Relation of our own Perſons: And a Relation is an accident: And the numerical Relation (or Right) of one perſon cannot be the ſame numerical Accident of another perſon as the ſubject.
§ 34. There are but three ſorts of Cauſes; Efficient, Conſtitutive, and Final.
1. Chriſt is the efficient cauſe of all our Righteouſneſs: (1. Of our Right to Pardon and Life; 2. And of our Goſpel-Obedience:) And that many waies: 1. He is the Meritorious Cauſe: 2. He is the Donor by his Covenant; 3. And the Donor or Operator of our Inherent Righteouſneſs by his Spirit: 4. And the moral efficient by his Word, Promiſe, Example, &c.
2. And Chriſt is partly the final cauſe.
3. But all the doubt is whether his perſonal Righteouſneſs be the Conſtitutive Cauſe.
§ 35. The Conſtitutive Cauſe of natural bodily ſubſtances conſiſteth of Matter diſpoſed, and Form. Relations have no Matter, but inſtead of Matter a Subject (and that is Our own perſons here, and not Chriſt.) and a terminus and fundamentum.
§ 36. The Fundamentum may be called both the Efficient Cauſe of the Relation (as commonly it is) and the Matter from which it reſulteth: And ſo Chriſts Righteouſneſs is undoubtedly the Meritorious efficient Cauſe, and undoubtedly not the Formal Cauſe of our perſonal Relation of Righteouſneſs: Therefore all the doubt is of the Material Cauſe.
§ 37. So that all the Controverſie is come up to a bare name and Logical term, of which Logicians agree not as to the aptitude. All confeſs that Relations have no proper Matter, beſides the ſubject: all confeſs that the Fundamentum is loco efficientis, but whether it be a fit name to call it the Conſtitutive Matter of a Relation, there is no agreement.
§ 38. And if there were, it would not decide this Verbal Controverſie: For 1. Titulus eſt fundamentum Juris: The fundamentum of our Right to Impunity and Life in and with Chriſt, is the Donative act of our Saviour in and by his Law or Covenant of Grace: that is our Title; And from that our Relation reſulteth, the Conditio tituli vel juris being found in our ſelves. 2. And our Relation of Performers of that Condition of the Law of Grace, reſulteth from our own performance as the fundamentum (compared to the Rule.) So that both theſe parts of our Righteouſneſs have a nearer fundamentum than Chriſts perſonal Righteouſneſs.
§ 39. But the Right given us by the Covenant (and the Spirit and Grace) being a Right merited firſt by Chriſts perſonal Righteouſneſs, this is a Cauſa Cauſae, id eſt, fundamenti, ſeu Donationis: And while this much is certain, whether it ſhall be called a Remote fundamentum (viz. Cauſa fundamenti) and ſo a Remote Conſtitutive Material Cauſe, or only (properly) a Meritorious Cauſe, may well be left to the arbitrary Logician, that uſeeth ſuch notions as he pleaſes; but verily is a Controverſie unfit to tear the Church for, or deſtroy Love and Concord by.
§ 40. Queſt. 1. Is Chriſts Righteouſneſs OƲRS? Anſ. Yes; In ſome ſenſe, and in another not.
§ 41. Queſt. 2. Is Chriſts Righteouſneſs OƲRS? Anſ. Yes; In the ſenſe before opened; For all things are ours; and his righteouſneſs more than lower Cauſes.
§ 42. Queſt. 3. Is Chriſts Righteouſneſs OƲRS as it was or is His own, with the ſame ſort of propriety? Anſ. No.
§ 43. Queſt. 4. Is the formal Relation of Righteous as an accident of our perſons, numerically the ſame Righteouſneſs? Anſ. No; It is impoſſible: Unleſs we are the ſame perſon.
§ 44. Queſt. 5. Is Chriſt and each Believer one political perſon? Anſ. A political perſon is an equivocal word: If you take it for an Office (as the King or Judg is a political perſon) I ſay, No: If for a Society, Yea ▪ But noxia & noxa caput ſequuntur: True Guilt is an accident of natural perſons, and of Societies only as conſtituted of ſuch; and ſo is Righteouſneſs; Though Phyſically Good or Evil may for ſociety-ſake, befal us without perſonal deſert or conſent.
But if by [Perſon] you mean a certain State or Condition (as to be a ſubject of God, or one that is to ſuffer for ſin) ſo Chriſt may be ſaid to be the ſame perſon with us in ſpecie, but not numerically; becauſe that Accident whence his Perſonality is named, is not in the ſame ſubject.
§ 45. Queſt. 6. Is Chriſts Righteouſneſs imputed to us? Anſ. Yes; If by imputing you mean reckoning or reputing it ours, ſo far as is aforeſaid, that is ſuch a Cauſe of ours.
§ 46. Queſt. 7. Are we reputed our ſelves to have fulfilled all that Law of Innocency in and by Chriſt, as repreſenting our perſons, as obeying by him? Anſ. No.
§ 47. Queſt. 8. Is it Chriſts Divine, Habitual, Active or Paſſive Righteouſneſs which Juſtifieth us? Anſ. All: viz, the Habitual, Active and Paſſive exalted in Meritoriouſneſs by Union with the Divine.
§ 48. Queſt. 9. Is it Chriſts Righteouſneſs, or our Faith which is ſaid to be imputed to us for Righteouſneſs? Rom. 4. Anſ. 1. The text ſpeaketh of imputing Faith, and by Faith is meant Faith, and not Chriſts Righteouſneſs in the word: But that Faith is Faith in Chriſt and his Righteouſneſs; and the Object is quaſi materia actus, and covenanted.
2. De re, both are Imputed: that is, 1. Chriſts Righteouſneſs is reputed the meritorious, Cauſe. 2. The free-gift (by the Covenant) is reputed the fundamentum juris (both oppoſed to our Legal Merit.) 3. And our Faith is reputed the Conditio tituli, and all that is required in us to our Juſtification, as making us Qualified Recipients of the free-Gift merited by Chriſt.
§ 49. Queſt. 10. Are we any way Juſtified by our own performed Righteouſneſs? Anſ. Yes; Againſt the charge of non-performance, (as Infidels, Impenitent, Unholy,) and ſo as being uncapable of the free-gift of Pardon and Life in Chriſt.