Justification Without Conditions, Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. The several Opinions of Divines, touching the meaning of this Position, [A man is justified by Faith.]
THe Question depending between me, and Mr. W. is not, Whether we are justified by Faith? which the Scripture frequently affirms, and no man that I know, denies it; Papists and Protestants, Orthodox and Socinians, Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants, do unanimously consent, That we are justified by Faith. All the difference is, about the Sense and Meaning of this Proposition, A man is justified by Faith. Whether Faith therein, be to be taken Properly, or Tropically? For though there be great variety in Expression aVid. Stegm. Photin. p. 739, &c.amongst Divines, concerning this Matter, yet all their several Opinions and Explications may be reduced unto these two heads. The first takes Faith in sensu proprio, for the act, or habit of Faith; the other takes Faith metonymicè & relativè, for the object of Faith, (i. e.) The obedience and satisfaction of Jesus Christ.
§. 2. Our Protestant Divines (who have hitherto been counted Orthodox) do take Faith in this Proposition [A man is justified by Faith] in a Tropical and F…gurative Sence; as thus▪ A man is justified in the sight of God, from all sin and punishment by Faith. i. e. By the Obedience and Righteousness of Jesus Christ, in whom we believe, and upon whom we relie for Life and Righteousness. Nor is this any unusual Trope, either in Scripture, or in other Authors, to put Habitum, vel actum pro objecto, as Rom. 8.24. Hope that is seen, is not hope, i. e. The thing that is seen, is not hoped for. Christ is oftentimes called our Hope, our Joy, our Love, &c. because he is the object of these Acts and Affections; when the same thing is attributed distinctly, both to the act, and the object, it must needs be attributed to one, in a proper, and to the other, in an improper sence; and therefore (says Dr. Downham bOf Just. l. 6. c. 15. sect. 2. Ib. p. 415.) When Justification is attributed to Faith, it cannot be attributed in the same sence, as to the death and obedience of Christ in propriety of Speech; but of necessity it is to be understood by a Metonymy: Faith being put for the object of Faith, which is the Righteousness of Christ, &c. And holy Pemble *Vind. Fid., If we list not to be contentious, it is plain enough (saith he) that in those places, where the Apostle treats of Justification by Faith, he means the Grace of God in Jesus Christ, opposing Works and Faith; that is, the Law and the Gospel, the Righteousness of the Law, to the Righteousness of the Gospel, which is no other but the Righteousness of Christ. Thus (saith he) Faith is taken, Gal. 3.23. before Faith came. i. e. Before Christ came, and the clear exhibition of his Righteousness: And in this sence (as another hath observed) it is used at least thirteen times in this Chapter, where the Apostle expresly treats of our Justification before God. cDe fide & Justi. Cont. 2. fol. 47.Albertus Pighius, though a Papist, was so far convinced of this truth, by reading of Calvins Institutions, that he acknowledged, If we speak formally and properly, we are justified, neither by Faith nor Charity, but by the onelyonly Righteousness of Christ communicated to us, and by the onelyonly mercy of God, forgiving our sins.
§. 3. Some of our Divines, who do utterly deny, That Faith in this Question is taken sensu proprio, or that the foreign credere, or act of believing is imputed to us for Righteousness, do yet ascribe an instrumentallity, or inferior causality unto Faith it self, in our Justification before God. They say, That we are justified by Faith instrumentally, and relatively; which terms, I confess, sound harshly in my ears, but I hope, I shall be excused, if I do not understand them, seeing a far learneder man dDr. Hammonds Letters to Dr. C…. p. 120.then my self, hath professed, That they were not very intelligible to him. That Faith is taken relatively in this Question of Justification, to wit, For the object, it relates unto; Christ, and his Righteousness, I do readily grant; but that it justifies us Relatively, I cannot assent to it; for it seems to me, to carry this sence with it, either (1) that Faith doth procure our Justification, though not by its own worth and dignity, yet through the vertue, and merit of its object. As the Papists say of Works, That they do justifie and save us tincta sanguine Christi, being dipped in the Blood of Christ: Or (2) that Faith, together with Christ its object, doth make us just in the sight of God; whereby it is made a social cause with the blood of Christ, which shall be sufficiently disproved anon. Again, that Faith is a passive Instrument of our Justification, to wit, such an Instrument whereby we receive and apply this benefit to our selves, was shewn before eCap. 4. sect. 3.; but that it is an active efficacious Instrument to make us just and righteous in the sight of God, is no part of my Creed. For 1. it seems to me a contradiction to say, That Faith is not to be taken sensu proprio, but metonymicè, for the object thereof, and yet say, That we are justified by Faith instrumentally; for it is not the object, but the act of Faith▪ which is an Instrument: Faith considered as an Instrument, is taken sensu proprio, and consequently the foreign credere, which they disclaim, must be said to justifie. 2. Mr. Baxter fAphoris. 56. p. 219.in my judgement disputes rationally against this notion. If Faith (saith he) be the Instrument of our Justification, it is the Instrument either of God, or man; not of man, for Justification is Gods act, he is the sole Justifier. Rom. 3.26. man doth not justifie himself; not of God, for it is not God that believeth. To which I adde, that God neither needs, nor is capable of using an Instrument in the act of justifying; for though he useth Instruments to declare and reveal this Grace to sinners, yet not to will it to particular persons; the acts of his will are not wrought by any Organ, or Instrument, without himself. 3. By making Faith the Instrument of our Justification, Justification is made the Effect, and Faith the Cause; and so consequently, a man shall be said to justifie himselfgSee Mr. Baxters Append. p. 121., whereas the Scripture every where ascribes our Justification unto God and Christ, making us totally passive in this work, Rom. 3.24, 26. & 8.33. Eph. 2.8. We can no more justifie our selves, then raise our selves from the dead, Eph. 2.1, 5. or then we could give our selves a being, when as yet we were not, Vers 10. Man is so far from being the total, or principal Cause of his Justification, that he is no cause at all; by ascribing the least causality, or efficiency to man, in his Justification, we derogate from the Grace of God in Jesus Christ.
§. 4. Others do take Faith in a proper sence, as the Papists, Socinians, and Remonstrants; amongst whom, though there be some difference in Expression, yet they all agree in this, That by Faith in this Proposition [A man is justified by Faith] is meant the act or habit of Faith, or such a Faith as is accompanied with faithful Actions. The Papists say, That Faith, and other inherent Graces, though in their own nature they do not deserve Justification, yet through the merits of Christ, and Gods gracious acceptance, they do procure and obtain the forgiveness of our sins. Though they ascribe a meritoriousness to Faith, it is but in a qualified sence. Faith (saith Bellarmine hBellar. de Just. l. 1. Quatuor …ult. capit.) doth but Suo quidem modo mereri remissionem, after a manner merit remission, scil. By vertue of Gods Promise and Covenant, who hath annexed forgiveness unto this condition. If a King (saith he) doth promise a Beggar a thousand pound a year upon no condition, then indeed the Beggar doth not deserve it; but if it be upon condition, that he do some small matter, as to come and fetch it, or to bring him a Posie of flowers, then he doth deserve it, because the promiser is bound unto performance: And in this sence Mr. B. iThes. 26.ascribes a meritoriousness to works. But the chief difference between them and us, lies in this: We say a man is justified by the imputation of Christs Righteousness; they, That we are justified by inherent Righteousness, or by doing of Righteous Actions, such as are Faith, Love, Fear, &c. Ipsa fides in Christum (saith Bellarmine kDe Justif. l. 1. c. 17.) est justitia. Faith it self is our righteousness; And that it doth justifie us, impetrando, promerendo, & inchoando …ustificationem. Arminius, and the Remonstrants, though they have exploded the word merit, yet they attribute as much to Faith, and faithful Actions▪ as the Papists themselves. Dico (saith Arminius lEp ad Hip. pol. & Resp. ad 31. Art. Art. ….) ipsum fidei actum, foreign credere, imputari in justitiam, idquè sensu proprio▪ non metonymicè. The very same is affirmed by Vorstius, Bertius, Episcopius, and the rest of the Remonstrants. Their Opinion in brief is this, That God in the Legal Covenant required the exact obedience of all his Commandments, but now in the Covenant of Grace he requires Faith, which in his gracious acceptation stands instead of that obedience to the Moral Law, which we ought to perform; Which (say they) is procured by the merit of Christ, for whose sake God accounts our imperfect faith, to be perfect Righteousness.
§. 5. Some of our late Divines (who seem to disclaim the Doctrine of the Papists and Arminians) say the very same; who explain themselves to this effect, That Faith doth justifie as a condition, or antecedent qualification; by which we are made capable of being justified, according to the order and constitution of God: The fulfilling of which condition (say they) is our Evangelical Righteousness, whereby we are justified in the sight of God. Mr. B. is so fond of this notion, That although in one place mEpistle to th… Reader before his Saint… Rest, p. 7.he findes fault with the length of our Creeds and Confessions; yet he would have this made an article of our Creed, a part of our Childrens Catechisms, and to be believed by every man that is a Christian nAphoris. The… 20. p. 109.; so apt are we to smile upon our own Babes. Though I honor Mr. Baxter for his excellent parts, yet I must suspend my assent to his new Creed. I shall prove anon oCap. 9., That Faith is not said to justifie, as an antecedent condition, which qualifies us for Justification; but at present, I shall onelyonly render him the Reasons of my disbelief, Why I cannot look upon Faith as that Evangelical Righteousness, by which we are justified. I shall not insist upon it, though it be not altogether unconsiderable, that this notion is guilty of too much confederacy, with the aforenamed enemies of the Christian Faith; for though it is no good Argument to say, That Papists, Socinians, &c. do hold this, or that, therefore it is not true; yet it will follow, That such and such Tenents have been held by Papists, &c. and unanimously opposed by our Protestant Writers; therefore they ought to be the more suspected, and especially such Tenents of theirs, as are the cheif points in difference between us and them, as this is. Our Brethren that have started this notion, do take Faith, as the others do, in a proper sence, they attribute as much to the foreign credere, as Bellarmine, Arminius, or any other. Faith it self (says Mr. B.) is our Righteousness. There was never any Papist so absurd, as to say, That our Faith, Love, &c. are perfect Legal Righteousness, but that God judicio misericordiae, non justitiae, doth account and accept of it instead of perfect Righteousness. For my part I must confess, that I can see no d…fference between them, but in Expression. The Papists do acknowledge the satisfaction of Christ, and that he is the meritorious cause of our Justification pCounc. Trent. Sess. 6. c. 7.. They say indeed, That we are not justified by the Righteousness of Christ imputed▪ but by a Righteousness inherent in us, or righteous actions performed by us. And what do our Brethren say less less then this? But I shall not follow the Parallel, any further.
§. 6. The Reasons which turn the Scales of my Judgement against this notion, That our Faith, or Faithful Actions are that Evangelical Righteousness by which we are justified, Are
1. If we are not justified by our own works, then our believing▪ &c. is not that Evangelical Righteousness by which we are justified; but we are not justified by our own works▪ Ergo. The Assumption is written with a Sun beam throughout the Scripture, Tit. 3.5. Not by works of Righteousness, which we have done. Rom. 11.6. If it be of Works, then were Grace no more Grace. It is the cheif scope of the Apostle throughout this, and the Epistle to the Galatians, to prove, That we are not justified by works. The sequel of the Proposition is as evident, Because Faith, and Obedience to Gospel Precepts, are our works. It is man that believes and obeys, and not God, though we do them by his help and assistance, yet they are our acts or works; so that consequently, we are not justified by them in the sight of God. The Papists to elude the force of this Argument say. That the minde of the Apostle was onelyonly to exclude from Justification, works of Nature, and not of Grace; works which we our selves do, by our own strength, without the help of Grace, and not those works which we do by the aid of Grace. But Mr. Pemble answers well qVind. …id. …. 37.; This distinction of works done without grace, and works done by grace, was devised by one that had neither wit nor grace, being a meer trick to elude the force of such Scriptures, as do indefinitely exclude all works from our Justification, without distinguishing, either of the time when they are done, whether before or after; o… of the aid and help whereby they are done; whether by Nature, or by Grace. Others say, that when the Apostle denies, That we are justified by works, he means that we are not justified by the works of the Law; but yet by works required in the Gospel, such as are Faith and Faithful actions, we may be justified. To which I answer, (1) That the Apostle speaks indefinitely; now the rule is, Non est distinguendum ubi Lex non distinguit: An indefinite Proposition is equivalent to a universal. A man is not justified by works, is as much as if he had said, A man is not justified by any works of his own. (2) The Apostle excludes all works from our Justification, which do make the reward to be a due debt, Rom. 4.4, 5. Now the works required in the Gospel (supposing it to be a Conditional Covenant) when they are performed, do make the thing covenanted a due debt, which the promiser is bound to give, no less then works required in the Law. (3) He denies expresly, that Abraham was justified by faithful actions, which he performed by the help and assistance of Gods Spirit, Rom 4.2. (4) They are the same works for the substance, which are commanded in the Law and the Gospel; there is no Precept enjoyned us in the New Testament, which is not also commanded us in the Moral Law; though the Law doth not expresly command us to believe in Christ, yet virtually, and by consequence it doth: The Law requires us to believe whatsoever God shall reveal, or propose to us to be believed; and consequently to believe in Christ▪ when God in his Gospel shall reveal him to us. There is no reason therefore to interpret this Proposition [A man is not justified by works] He is not justified by Legal, but by Evangelical works, seeing they are for substance one and the same. (5) There would be no such opposition between Justification by Works, and Justification by Faith, as the Apostle makes, if we were justified by Evangelical works of our own performing. All his disputing about Justification would amount but to meer Logomachy, or strife of words; for there was never any man so sottish, as to think, that a sinner can be justified by Legal works, unless the Law be mitigated, and the rigor thereof be in part remitted. The Apostle doth not dispute against Justification by works, which we cannot perform; but by works, which men presume they are able to perform: He excludes not onelyonly perfect works, but all manner of works that are wrought by us.
§. 7. 2. If the Righteousness whereby we are justified, be a perfect Righteousness, then we are not justified by our Obedience to Gospel precepts. But the Righteousness, whereby we are justified, is a perfect Righteousness, Ergo. The Sequel is evident, because our Obedience to Gospel precepts is imperfect and defective, at least in degrees; we do not believe, love, and obey so perfectly as we ought, the best of us may say with him in the Gospel, Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief, Mark 9.24. And when we have done our utmost, that we are but unprofitable servants, Luke 17.10. Now this imperfection and defect in our Faith, and other vertues being defectus debiti in esse, is sinful and culpable rQuamdiu augeri potest charitas, profecto illud quod minùs est, ex vitio est. Aug. ep. 29. ad Hieron. Peccatum est, cum charitas minor est quàm debet. Id. lib. de perf. justif. ad 15.…; for which cause our Saviour oftentimes sharply reproved it, Matth. 6.30. & 8.26. & 14.31. & 16.8, &c. And we are oftentimes exhorted to increase our Faith, to abound in duties of Obedience, and to perfect holiness, Luke 17.5. 1 Thes. 4.1. 2 Cor. 7, 1. In this last place the Apostle hints, that the imperfection of our holiness ariseth from the filthiness of the flesh and spirit, and consequently it is a defiled, and sinful imperfection. The Assumption (that we are not justified by an imperfect righteousness) needs not, I suppose, any long proof; for surely, God will not account that for perfect justice, which is not so indeed; for as the Apostle sayes well, The judgement of God is according to truth, Rom. 2.2. It is certain, God will not justifie any man without Righteousness; and it is as certain, That God will not account that to be perfect Righteousness, which is imperfect and sinful; to say, That God doth not account our imperfect holiness to be Righteousness judicio justitiae, but onelyonly judicio misericordiae, is a meer shift, which serves but to set the attributes of God at variance between themselves, which in the Justification of a sinner do kiss and embrace each other, Psal. 85.10. When God judgeth according to mercy, he judgeth according to truth; his merciful judgement is a just, and a righteous judgement; the mercy of God is shewn, not in accounting a sinner perfectly righteous, for that Righteousness which is imperfect; but in accounting to him that Righteousness, which is not his own, the perfect Righteousness of the Mediator In this judgement of God, Justice and Mercy do both meet; Justice, in that he will not justifie a sinner without a perfect Righteousness; Mercy, in that he will accept him for such a Righteousness, which is neither in him, nor performed by him, but by his surety the Lord Jesus Christ. Some of our Protestant Divines do call Inherent holiness, Evangelical Righteousness, in respect of the principle from whence it flows, A heart purified by Faith; and to distinguish it from that Legal Righteousness, which Reprobates and Unbelievers have attained to, being but the fruit of a Natural Conscience. I am sure it is no Protestant Doctrine, that Inherent Sanctification (which on all hands is acknowledged to be imperfect and defective) is that Evangelical Righteousness, whereby we are justified in the sight of God; which must needs be such a Righteousness, as God himself sitting on the Throne of his Justice can finde no fault with at all, but doth present the person that hath it, just and perfect before Gods Tribunal.
3. If the Righteousness, whereby we are justified, be the Righteousness of God, then we are not justified by our Obedience to Gospel precepts; but the Righteousness whereby we are justified, is the Righteousness of God, Ergo. The Sequel is clear, because our Obedience to Gospel precepts, is not that Righteousness which the Scripture calls the Righteousness of God. For though we receive it from God, it being the gift of his Grace, yet it is every where called ours; as our Faith, Matth. 9.2, 22. Rom. 1.8. Hab. 2.4. Jam. 1.3. Our Charity, 2 Cor. 8.8, 24 1 Cor. 16.24. Philem. v. 1, 7. Our Hope, Phil. 1.20. 1 Thes. 2.19. Our good Works, Matth. 5.16. Revel. 2.2. Our Patience, Luke 21.19. 2 Thes. 1.4. Revel. 2.2. & 3.10. & 13.10, &c. Now the Scripture doth not call these Inherent Graces ours, to exclude the Divine assistance in the working of them, as if they proceeded onelyonly from our selves, the strength of Nature in us or the towardliness of our own wills: The Jews who went about to establish their own Righteousness, or Justification by their own works, did not deny that these works are the gift of God; the Pharisee expresly acknowledgeth as much, therefore gives thanks unto God for them, Luke 18.11 sAgebat gratius Deo, de sua justitia, proinde à Deo eam se habere credebat. Bel. de Justif. l. 1. c. 8.. But they are called ours, because they are subjectively in us, and instrumentally wrought by us; and in opposition to the Righteousness of Christ, which is neither in us, nor performed by us; but is (as the Scripture rightly terms it) the Righteousness of God, not the Essential Righteousness of God, as Osiander supposed, but the Righteousness of our Mediator, God-man; which though it be Inherent in the Humane Nature, and performed by it, yet is it truly called the Righteousness of God, because it is the Righteousness of that Person, who is perfect God: And thus the blood by which we are redeemed, is called The blood of God, Acts 20.28. Or which is all one, The blood of the Son of God, 1 John 1.7. The life which was laid down for us, was the life of God, 1 John 3.16. The death by which we are reconciled to God, is the death of his Son, Rom. 5.10. The Obedience by which we are constituted just, Rom. 5.19. is The Obedience of the same Son of God. See Gal. 4.4, 5. Christs Mediatorial Righteousness is called the Righteousness of God, to shew the dignity, and perfection of it, it being the Righteousness of so great a person, who is not onelyonly Man, but God: And that we should not think it to be any thing in us from God, it is sometimes called his blood, Rom. 5.9. sometimes his obedience, Vers. 19. By the imputation whereof we are made the Righteousness of God in him, as he by the imputation of our sins, was made sin for us *2 Cor. 5.21.. And thus the godly learned, yea, and some of the Popish Doctors have expounded the Righteousness of God, mentioned in the 1, 3, and 10 Chapters to the Romans, of Christ and his Righteousness tSee Downh. of Justif. p. 130.; which, says Cajetan, is called the Righteousness of God, Quia est in Deo personaliter, sum quia est apud divinum tribunal vera justitia, ad differentiam justitiarum nostrarum, quia apud divinum tribunal sunt velut pannus menstruatus, &c. i. e. Because it is personally in God, as also, because at Gods tribunal it is accounted Righteousness, and to distinguish it from our Righteousness, which in the sight of God, is as filthy rags. There is nothing more clear, then that our Obedience to Evangelical precepts, is not that Righteousness of God the Scripture mentions; which is not inherent in us, but imputed to us, being without us in Christ, God-man. The Assumption, That the Righteousness whereby we are justified, is the Righteousness of God, is undeniably proved from Rom. 1.17. & 3.21. & 10.3. In which last place, the Apostle shews, there is such an opposition betwixt Gods Righteousness, and ours, in the point of Justification, That whosoever seeks to be justified by his own Righteousness, cannot be justified by the Righteousness of God; and therefore he himself professeth, that in the Question of Justification he utterly renounceth his own righteousness, desiring to be found in Christs Righteousness alone, Phil. 3.9. This Righteousness of Christ, which is out of us in him, is properly called Evangelical Righteousness, because it is the matter, or substance of the whole Gospel; the Gospel doth reveal it, and not the Law. Rom. 1.17. If the foreign credere, or act of believing, were that Evangelical Righteousness, by which we are justified, this Scripture would be guilty of a gross Tautology, The Righteousness of God is revealed from Faith to Faith; for then the meaning must be, our Evangelical Righteousness is revealed from Evangelical Righteousness to Evangelical Righteousness, which is absurd.
§. 9.4. If we are not justified by two Righteousnesses, existing … two distinct subjects, then our Obedience to Gospel precepts is not that Righteousness, whereby we are justified: But we are not justified by two Righteousnesses existing in two distinct subjects. Ergo. The Sequel is manifest, in regard the Righteousness of Christ is inherent in him, and obedience to Gospel precepts, is a Righteousness inherent in us. The Scripture sundry times declares, That we are justified by Christ, and his Righteousness, Rom. 3.24. & 5.9, 19. Now if we were likewise justified by our Obedience to Gospel precepts, it would follow, That we are justified by two Righteousnesses existing in two distinct subjects. But this is gain-said in the Assumption, which will be secured by this proof; If by Christs Righteousness alone we are made perfectly just, and righteous in the sight of God, then there is no other Righteousness which concurs with his to our Justification: For what needs an addition to that which is perfect? But by Christs Righteousness alone we are made perfectly just, and righteous in the sight of God; as these, and many other Scriptures do witness, Heb. 1.3. & 10.14. Col. 1.22. & 2.10, 13. Again, if we are justified partly by Christs Righteousness, and partly by our own, our Faith for Justification must relie partly upon Christ, and partly upon our selves. Paul might have desired to be found in his own Righteousness; But our faith and trust for Justification, may not in any part relie upon our selves, Jere. 17.5. Phil. 3.3. Gal. 5.2, 3, 4. The Adversaries of Grace (as we shewed before) acknowledge, that it is the safest course to trust and relie upon Christ alone, and to fetch the comfort of our Justification from his perfect Obedience onelyonly.
§. 10.5. That which overthrows the main difference, between the Law and the Gospel, ought not be admitted; for the confounding of them will open an in-let to innumerable Errors; nay by this means the Gospel it self will become a meer cypher. The Apostle we see was exceeding careful to keep these Doctrines distinct each from other; and therefore throughout all his Writings he still opposeth the Law and Grace. Works and Faith, our Righteousness and Christs Righteousness; instructing us thereby, how needful it is they should be kept a sunder. But the making our Obedience to Gospel precepts, the Righteousness whereby we are justified, overthrows the main difference between the Law and the Gospel. Ergo. For herein (as Bishop Downham well ob…ves vOf Justif. l. 1. c. 4. sect 7.) standeth the chief Agreement, and Difference between the Law, and the Gospel; they agree in this, That unto Justification, both do require the perfect fulfilling of the Law; but herein they differ, That the Law requireth to Justification, a Righteousness inherent in us, and perfect Obedience to be performed in our own persons; the Gospel reveals for our Justification the perfect Righteousness of an other, even of Christ, which is accepted in their behalf, that do believe in him, as if it had been performed in their own persons. Now if Faith, and new Obedience be that Evangelical Righteousness whereby we are justified, then doth the Gospel also propound for our Justification, a Righteousness inherent in us, and performed by us; and so consequently there remains no material difference between the Law and Gospel, especially seeing the same duties are prescribed in both. If any shall say, That the Gospel precepts do not require such exact and perfect Obedience, as those in the Law, their Assertion will want a Proof; nay, these and such like Scriptures, do prove it to be utterly false, 1 John 3.16. Matth. 5▪44, 45. 1 Pet. 1.15, 16. A defect in degrees is a sin against the Gospel, as well as against Legal precepts. To these I might adde all those Arguments, which our Divines have used against Justification by Inherent Righteousness; but this may suffice to shew, That Faith and Obedience to other Gospel precepts, is not that Righteousness whereby we are justified in the sight of God.
§. 11. Now briefly my sence of this Proposition [We are justified by Faith] is no other, then that which hath been given by all our Ancient Protestant Divines, who take Faith herein, Objectively, not Properly, and explain themselves to this effect. We are justified from all sin and death, by the satisfaction and obedience of Jesus Christ; who is the sole Object or Foundation of our Faith, or whose Righteousness we receive and apply unto our selves by Faith. Yet I say it doth not follow, That it was not applied to us by God; or that God did not impute Righteousness to us, before we had Faith: We that believe, are justified by the Righteousness of Christ; it is no good Consequence, Ergo We were not justified in the sight of God, before we did believe; but now that we may foreign, Speak the truth in love, I shall give the Reader a clearer account of my Judgement, concerning this Matter, in the following Chapter.