The Righteousness of God Revealed, Part 2

The Righteousness of God Revealed · Part 2

p. 16The Second PART.

I Know that ſeveral of our chiefeſt Divines, have been ſo far from imbibing the Sence of this Righteouſneſs, which is my Theme, The Righteouſneſs of God revealed in the Goſpel, that their Doctrine, in oppoſition to the Papiſts, is extream, in the thwarting (without being truly aware,) of it: When thoſe Prudential Catholicks, who underſtand, that Qualitas Gratiae infuſa non Natura ſua, ſed ex Dei acceptatione & ordinatione habet ut Hominem Deo gratum reddat, are to be heard rather than them. Nay, the deep and acute Mr. Baxter (ſo far as I remember any thing he has) never came to lay this Righteouſneſs of God enough to his Thoughts, when nothing almoſt elſe eſcapes him, as it appears by his frequent approbation (or mention) of the Learned, Sober, Logically Judicious Mr. Anthony Wotton, and ſometimes Mr. Hotchkis his Follower. I will examine therefore a little into Mr. Wotton's Opinion. Juſtification by him is thus defined: It is, Reconciliationis pars, qua Deus in Chriſtum credentibus fidem reputans ad juſtitiam, omnia illis peccata condonat. Reconciliation is God's Return into Grace and Favour with Sinners (as he ſays) whom Sin had made his Enemies, through Satisfaction given him by Chriſt. God is ſaid to be angry with Sin and Sinners, and upon Chriſt's Satisfaction and their Repentance, to be appeaſed, or reconciled; Not that Man's Repentance, or Chriſt's Satisfaction works any change in God, but Ex Connotatione Objecti, God is denominated. Man's Repentance changes himſelf, and Chriſt's Satisfaction makes a change in the Order of Things; but God is unchangeable, while yet the Scripture ſpeaks, Lingua Filiorum hominum, as the Jews ſay, Or as the Schools, Secundum noſtrum concipiendi modum, in many Matters incomprehenſible. To leave Mr. Wotton's Genus Definitionis therefore to himſelf, without farther concern, he hath defined Juſtification by Remiſſion of Sin, in oppoſition to thoſe that define it by the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs; and he hath elaborately proved this to be the Sence of the Church of England, and Calvin's, with many others. I do now agree with Mr. Wotton herein, in excluding the Imputation p. 17of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs (in his Sence intended, that is as our Formal Righteouſneſs) out of the Definition, becauſe there is no ſuch thing as the Imputation thereof, In ſe, tho' the Merit of it be imputed to Believers, as to the Effects. But I do not agree with him, in making Remiſſion of Sin to be (that he wont let the other be) the Form, or Formal Reaſon of our Juſtification: Becauſe I hold, with Mr. Bradſhaw, our Actual Pardon to be the Effect, or Benefit of it. The Righteouſneſs of God, which is not yet throughly underſtood by Proteſtant or Papiſt, and I have made the Subject of this Diſſertation, is indeed that Formal Righteouſneſs we are ſeeking; and I do not think, that any Man in his firſt natural reading Paul's Epiſtle to the Romans, who brought not his Underſtanding from without to the place, did ever apprehend by that Righteouſneſs of God now Revealed (when Remiſſion of Sin was a thing never Hid) that Pardon only is to be underſtood. I will adviſe every Judicious Man therefore, when any material Point is concerned in a Text, to ponder it in the Original ſeveral times, 'till he come to ſome Reſolution about it in his own Mind, becauſe when he hath ſucked in the Sence of another, his own Judgment is worth nothing. Mr. Wotton hath ſaid enough to turn a Man to his Opinion, he is ſo rational a Man; but having been myſelf otherwiſe inclined, as to the Sence of this Righteouſneſs, and finding the Scripture calling no Man righteous, but upon the Account of doing righteouſly, I cannot comply with Mr. Wotton in his Notion, nor with the contrary in ſuch, as the hitherto prevailing Dr. Owen, in theirs. The Miniſtry of the Goſpel, is called the Miniſtration of Righteouſneſs, upon the Account of this Righteouſneſs, as alſo the Miniſtration of the Spirit, in regard of the Grace the Spirit brings to perform it; which Auſtine (I remember) in his Book, De Spiritu & Littera, hath told us: It can by no means be called the Miniſtration Thereof, in regard to Remiſſion of Sins. There are many the like Arguments, I think, I could find out againſt Mr. Wotton's Opinion, but that my Diſcourſe is rather to be Demonſtrative, than Elenctical; and therefore I muſt not omit that place in Daniel, where it is propheſied, that Chriſt ſhall bring in Righteouſneſs; that is, a Righteouſneſs procured by his Death and Merits, and called an Everlaſting Righteouſneſs, being that by which they that ever were, are, or ſhall be ſo, are juſtified, and ſaved; and it is ſaid, brought in, and at ſuch a time, when the Meſſiah ſhall be ſlain, as it is ſaid Now Manifeſted, or Revealed by the Goſpel, which p. 18is (I ſaid but now) the Miniſtration of it. To which purpoſe it is to be underſtood and obſerved farther, that Righteouſneſs as well as Reconciliation, and the making an End of Sins, is one End of our Redemption; which I have explained more**That the End of Chriſt's coming in the World, of our Redemption, and the Covenant of Grace, was, that we ſhould be holy and righteous, is ſaid ordinarily by Divines, according to the Scriptures; but the right and plain Underſtanding, or Reaſon, of what they ſay, is not ſaid by them. He hath choſen us in Christ, that we ſhould be Holy. He hath redeemed us from Iniquity, that we ſhould be a peculiar People. We are his Workmanſhip, created unto Good Works, in (or through) Christ Jeſus. Well! when God made Man at firſt, and gave him a Law, was it not that he ſhould live holy? And when Righteouſneſs, then was the End of his Creation, and the Law thereof; how is this ſaid to be the End of his Redemption? I anſwer therefore, Righteouſneſs (or Holineſs, as they are one) we muſt know, does lie in a Conformity to the Law which God gives us. There is nothing leſs than this (the full Performance of a Law given) that is Righteouſneſs. Upon this Account, as ſoon as Man once fell, and broke the Law of his Creation, it is impoſſible he ſhould be righteous any more, unleſs there were a New Law brought in, in the Performance whereof he might attain to that again which he had loſt. Now to this End was it, that Chriſt came and died; This was the very main Buſineſs (I count) of his Redemption, (as to free us from Condemnation by the Old, ſo) even the procuring this New Law, or another Law, with lower Terms, which ſome Men performing, they do thereby become righteous, and ſo have Righteouſneſs, according to that Law, imputed to them, for Remiſſion, and Life Eternal. Here you ſee what that Righteouſneſs indeed is, which Chriſt is ſaid to bring in, and in what Sence he hath brought it in, or how ſuch Texts (as theſe before) does attribute our Holineſs to him. It is called an Everlaſting Righteouſneſs, as the Goſpel is called the Everlaſting Goſpel, becauſe it is the Righteouſneſs, in oppoſition to that of the Law, or of Works, that all Men from the Beginning of the World, to the End of it, do obtain Everlaſting Salvation. Mid. Way of Juſtif. p. 43. other-where. Daniel 9.24. Titus 2.14.

Well! you will ſay then, if the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs be not the Form of our Juſtification, nor Remiſſion of Sins, when ſome Proteſtants ſay the one, and ſome the other, and ſome both, what then is the Form of it? I anſwer, Mr. Wotton hath told us truly, in the reſt of his Words: It is God's imputing to a Man his Faith for Righteouſneſs. This is Scripture expreſs, and the Righteouſneſs of God I am treating of, is otherwhere called the Righteouſneſs of God by Faith, and the Righteouſneſs of Faith; for that is expreſs Scripture alſo. Juſtification ſuppoſes a Man juſt. Juſtificationis formam juſtitia conſtare certum est. God cannot account a Man righteous, without a Righteouſneſs. The Papiſts therefore, are hot here with Calvin, that will have a Man be juſtified only by Remiſſion of Sins, without an inherent Righteouſneſs; and the Proteſtants as hot with the Papiſts, that will have any inherent Grace, or Righteouſneſs of ours, to be ſuch as anſwers the Law, that it ſhould juſtifie us; p. 19for by Righteouſneſs both underſtand a Conformity to the Law of Works. Both therefore are out. There is no ſuch inherent Grace, as anſwers the Law, nor any Grace from without either Remiſſion of Sins or Chriſt's Righteouſneſs imputed, that is, or can be our Formal Righteouſneſs; but it is Faith which is Grace and Righteouſneſs inherent, that juſtifies us in oppoſition to both. There is a Righteouſneſs of God, I ſay, that is neither of theſe, unknown to the Diſputants on both ſides, that is the Formal Righteouſneſs for which they ſtrive. St. Auſtin (I remember) does often tell us, that by this Righteouſneſs of God, we muſt not underſtand that whereby himſelf is righteous, but that whereby we are ſo: As the Love of God is taken ſometimes, not for that whereby he loves us, but that whereby we love him. Juſtitia Dei, non qua juſtus est, ſed qua juſtos nos facit. I cannot forget theſe words, becauſe I find them uſed by the Council of Trent in their defining Juſtification. Auſtin believed a Righteouſneſs infuſed, a Righteouſneſs that makes a Man, Ex impio juſtum, and to be that which juſtifies him. He believed not this Righteouſneſs to be Remiſſion of Sins, becauſe he ſtill ſpeaks of it as Grace inherent, and ſometimes calls it Charity: But he ſeemed not to ſpeak of it as any ſuch perfect Righteouſneſs that a Man may bring to the Bar to juſtifie him, ſeeing you will ever and anon have ſuch ſenſible Expreſſions, that the beſt of Righteouſneſs that Man has, does conſiſt rather in God's being merciful to his Unrighteouſneſs, than in the Perfection of his Vertues. The truth is, I found not in Reading Auſtine, that he did fully underſtand himſelf, or made me to underſtand, what this Righteouſneſs of God does mean, when the Apoſtle ſpeaks of ſomething Myſterious in it (he counts) but now Revealed. That there ſhould be a Righteouſneſs, and not anſwer the Law, a Righteouſneſs without a Conformity thereunto, this is ſomething myſterious, when there is no ſuch indeed in Nature: Or that Faith without Works ſhould yet be made or conſtituted ſuch a Righteouſneſs as Formally to juſtifie us, this is the Matter Revealed, and called the Righteouſneſs of God, becauſe of this Ordination.

That we may not miſtake the word Formally, A Man may be Formaliter juſt two ways (ſays Mr. Wotton) Qualitate & Lege. Qualitate, no Man is formally juſt (he counts) but he that is perfectly conformable to the Law, which no Man is: But Lege, a Man is juſt (he ſays) Formaliter, by Pardon, Cùm omnis imputatio culpae ſublata est. Let me give this a Turn. Qualitate Faith is not p. 20Righteouſneſs (to wit, Tali qualitate, and ſuch a Righteouſneſs), but Lege, Lege Evangelii, Faith is. It is not Ex rei Natura, but Ex Dei Conſtitutione, that Faith is made the Righteouſneſs that juſtifies. The Foundation-miſtake of Proteſtant and Papist lies in this, that they diſpute as if it were by the Law we are to meaſure this Righteouſneſs, and be judged: When it is to be meaſured, and God will judge us according to the Goſpel. A Conformity to the Law of Works, Fac hoc & Vives, is the Righteouſneſs theſe Diſputants ſtill thought on, but it is a Conformity to the New Law, the Law of Grace, Crede & ſaluaberis, that St. Paul means by the Righteouſneſs of God that juſtifies Sinners. Our Divines here, ſince Mr. Baxter wrote, underſtand the Point better. Juſtification (ſays Mr. Williams) is a Judicial Act of God, by a Goſpel. Rule, ſuppoſing Chriſt's Satisfaction, Goſ. Truth, p. 108. There is more of Light in one ſuch Line now, than heretofore in a Volume of Diſputation. Fides est conditio (ſays Mr. Wotton) & quidem talis condition ad Juſtificationem per Chriſtum in foedere gratuito, qualis erant Opera ad Juſtificationem ex operibus Legis. Hence I argue. But Works were the Formal Righteouſneſs of Juſtification by the Law. Ergo, Faith is the Formal Righteouſneſs of our Juſtification by the Goſpel.

To come more home (than I have already from the ſame Notion before in Melancthon, and Chemnitius) to the Conſcience (eſpecially the Tender one) of every Chriſtian, here are two things that go into this Formal Righteouſneſs, Faith, and the Imputation of it for Righteouſneſs. Here is Faith which is our Goſpel-Righteouſneſs, and this being ſhort, it is through Chriſt's Merits that it is imputed to us in the ſtead of one that is perfect. Faith indeed (ſays Luther, upon Gal. 3, v. 6.) is a Formal Righteouſneſs, and yet this Righteouſneſs is not enough, for after Faith there remains certain Remnants of Sin in our Fleſh, wherefore the other part of Righteouſneſs must be added to finiſh the ſame in us, that is to ſay, God's Imputation. Here Luther acknowledges Faith is a Formal Righteouſneſs, which I note to remove Prejudice, but in regard to its Imperfection, there muſt be God's Imputation, or it would never juſtifie us. I ſay thus likewiſe, our Faith and Duty being imperfect, it is through Chriſt's Merits, and his Merits only, that God does accept it, or impute it for Righteouſneſs. Chriſtian Righteouſneſs (ſays Luther again) conſiſteth in two things, Faith in the Heart, and God's Imputation. It is lively true as to my meaning. The holiest Men have Concupiſcence, Paſſions, remains of Infidelity, but p. 21ſuch Faults (ſays he) are not laid to their Charge, becauſe of their Faith in Christ. That is, becauſe of Chriſt's Merits, our Faith relying or truſting on thoſe Merits, God forgives the Failings, and accepts of it forgiven. Deus imputat iſtam imperfectam fidem ad juſtitiam perfectam propter Chriſtum. This is full indeed to my purpoſe, as nothing can be fuller. But the Lutheran Imputation and Mine, I confeſs, are not the ſame. Theirs is an Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs in itſelf, which cannot be ours but in Imagination: Mine is of the Merit only of his Righteouſneſs, which is made ours indeed in the Effects. Theirs is an Imputation of that Righteouſneſs In ſe, to the Perſon, which cannot be: Mine, is an Imputation of this Merit to our Performances, which does verily render them acceptable, for all their Imperfection, to Life Eternal.**There is the Duty, and the Condition (I am ſaying there) of the Law of Grace, or the Goſpel. No Man we muſt know, does perform the Duty, but every Man muſt perform the Condition (our Divines will ſay), or he cannot be ſaved. This Condition (as obtained for the World) is the Grand Benefit of Chriſt's Purchaſe, or Main Fruit of his Death, and is accepted when performed only through him. It is not for my Works, or Merit, ſayeſt thou, that my Perſon is accepted, but for Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, and in this alone is thy Comfort. And I ſay, it is not for the Works ſake, or Merit of any thing, or all we do, but for Chriſt's ſake, that the Condition is accepted, and in this is my Comfort. In this it is (I account) that we have, or can have, any grounded Suſtentation. To ſay thou art juſtified by Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, when yet thou muſt acknowledge his Righteouſneſs is none of thine, unleſs thou haſt performed the Condition, what empty Comfort is that? But to ſay that through Chriſt's Merits and Righteouſneſs, this itſelf, which I do, is the Condition, here is Comfort indeed. That, what we are enabled by his Grace (I ſay) to do, how little ſoever, if ſincerely done (if it be but the Grain of Muſtard-ſeed, in a hungring and thirſting after Righteouſneſs) ſhall be accepted unto Life (that is, be that Condition) upon the Account of what Chriſt hath done for us, this, I ſay, is ſolid Conſolation. Thou ſayeſt, when I look on my Works my Heart ſinks, I am not ſure I am ſincere, but in the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt I am ſafe. I ſay, this is certain, if thou art not ſincere, thou art not ſafe: And when I doubt whether I am or not, I can have no Support but in this, that I hope I am, I truſt I am; and that it is upon the Satisfaction and Merit of Chriſt, that Faith, that Hope does depend. For that there is any Condition at all, that the Condition is ſuch, that what I do ſhall be accepted as the Condition performed, it muſt be all put upon Chriſt's Performance and Merit in our behalf; and his Merit is ſufficient however imperfect be our Duty, for its acceptance with God. When then upon a Sence of my Deficiency, inſtead of ſinking I grow bolder in my reliance on Chriſt's Merits, and God's Mercy, I do not preſume on myſelf, but I magnifie his Grace, and the higher I raiſe my Faith thereupon (provided I live not willingly in any Conſcience-waſting Sin) the more Glory (am I humbly perſwaded) do I give my gracious Saviour, and good God. Thou Man, haſt the Comfort to apply to thy ſelf Chriſt's Merits, if thou haſt performed the Condition: But I have the Comfort to apply Chriſt's Merits to the Condition, which makes his Yoke eaſie, and his Burden light, as to the Performance, and my Deſires and weakeſt Endeavours to find Acceptance. When I read ſuch Prayers of David, That God would not enter into Judgment with him, that he would not be extream to mark what he had done amiſs, for then he could not abide it, and that yet he will have God to ſearch him, and try his Reins and Heart, and the like, I cannot but be convinced, that in the Acceptance of ſuch an imperfect Righteouſneſs, as he accounted his was, through God's meer gracious Condeſcenſion, Mercy, and Forgiveneſs to him he placed his Juſtification; in which Sence alſo he calls him the God of his Righteouſneſs: When as for any Acceptance of him through the Righteouſneſs of the Meſſiah to come, a Righteouſneſs without him made his by Faith, which could abide God's diſtrict Juſtice, I find not the Footſtep of one ſuch Thought. To rely therefore (I will ſay) on Chriſt's Righteouſneſs as ours, without regard to any thing within, or without regard to the Condition, is Self-deceiving: But to rely on God's Mercy, and on Chriſt's Merits for Acceptance of what we do, and Pardon for the Failings, is ſubſtantial Religion; and of Juſtification by Faith in Chriſt's Blood, a good Expoſition. I will fetch here one Leaf out of my late Book, Pacification, and put it into the Margin, for the Uſe and Comfort of this Explication.

p. 22I return to Mr. Wotton, who indeed does ſweat with ſtir to prove that Remiſſion of Sin is Righteouſneſs, for wiping off that blame the Papiſts lay on his Opinion, that a Man is juſtified without a Righteouſneſs, if it be by Pardon only. But this I ſtick upon, that though pardon in ſome Sence is, or may be called Righteouſneſs, yet is it not this Righteouſneſs, it is not the Righteouſneſs of God I am concerned about that the Apoſtle means, and which is (by Mr. Wotton's own acknowledgment) that which juſtifies the Believer. It did (I muſt needs ſay) at firſt, and ſtill does move me, that I find not one Scripture from Geneſis to the Revelation, that denominates any one to be a juſt or righteous Perſon from Pardon, but from his righteous living [He that doeth Righteouſneſs is righteous]: Yet that which does convince me is, that by Mr. Wotton's leave, it is not Remiſſion of Sin, in oppoſition to Works, but this Righteouſneſs of God in oppoſition to Works (and that is our Evangelical Righteouſneſs) which the Apoſtle means, while he contends that it is by Faith, and not Works, that we are juſtified, or that is Faith and not Works is our Formal Righteouſneſs in Juſtification. See a peculiar Argument I offer in my Mid. Way of Juſt. p. 48. I am (I ſay) convinced that the Notion the Apoſtle had of Juſtification could not be Pardon, becauſe in his Diſpute whether it be by Faith or Works we are juſtified, he does ſuppoſe, that if a Man had Works, they would juſtifie him, and make the Reward of Debt, but that Abraham, and none had, or have them: And conſequently while he ſuppoſes that if a Man could keep the Law (as if Adam in Innoceny had kept it) he ſhould be juſtified, it is plain he cannot underſtand Pardon by Juſtification, ſeeing where ſuch Works are, that is perfect Works (which he certainly means) there were no Sin, to Pardon. This Argument may be more pungently framed p. 23than it is here or there, but the Medium of Probation aroſe to me in my Mind as perfect Conviction. I will now define Juſtification.

Juſtification is an Act of Free Grace, whereby God imputes to every Sound Believer his Faith for Righteouſneſs, upon the Account of Chriſt's Satisfaction and Merits, giving him Pardon and Life as the Benefits of it. I need ſay nothing of the Genus Definiti, [an Act of Free Grace] it is the Aſſemblies. By a Sound Believer I mean one, whoſe Faith works by Love, including Repentance and New Obedience, which together makes our Evangelical Righteouſneſs: And this Sound Faith is imputed for Righteouſneſs, I account, in this Sence, that God does accept it in the room of a perfect Righteouſneſs, not accounting it as perfect, but accepting it (I ſay) in the room of that Perfection required unto Life by the Law, and conſequently rewarding it for Chriſt's Merit ſake, as much, if not more, than if it were that. I add then, giving Pardon and Life, as the Effects or Benefits, diſtinguiſhed from the Form of Juſtification. A Right to Impunity and Life Chriſt hath purchaſed, and gives by his Covenant; they that are juſtified by this Covenant, are adjudged to theſe Benefits, ſo that Pardon and Salvation flow to us (I ſay) as the Benefits, and are not the Form of Juſtification. One of them is never accounted to be the Form, and by the ſame Reaſon neither may be the other. The Goſpel-Law, or Covenant, does both make and declare all Believers righteous (as having a Right to the Benefits of it, by Performance of the Condition): But as for this or that particular Perſon that is a Believer, or Performer, it is God muſt be Judge. This Judgment is to be ſuppoſed preceding, and the Benefits to be actually conferred by it. When I ſay this Righteouſneſs (or Faith) is the Form, I underſtand it in that Sence as theſe Divines do, who ſay, Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is the Form, or Remiſſion is the Form (the Word therefore is not to be ſcrupled), not the Form of that Imputation, but of Juſtification paſſively taken. I add at laſt, upon the Account of Chriſt's Merits, or through Chriſt, or for Chriſt's ſake, becauſe this Faith of ours, or Evangelick Righteouſneſs, hath ſo many Defects in the beſt of Chriſtians, that if through the Sacrifice of Chriſt they were not pardoned, and through his Merits that imperfect Duty which is done accepted, it could not be imputed to us for Righteouſneſs. And I do more eſpecially ſignifie thereby, that Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, which cannot be imputed to us as the Formal p. 24Cauſe of our Juſtification, is, and muſt be very carefully brought to our Account (and granted to be imputed) as the Meritorious Cauſe of that Acceptation. And in making it the Meritorious, I have learn'd of Mr. Baxter, to allow it to be the Material alſo (which he ſays is nothing elſe but to be the Matter of that Merit) becauſe I make our Faith the Formal, in our Juſtification. After this I diſtinguiſh between this pardoning, and bearing with the Defects of our Faith, Repentance, New Obedience, which are the Conditions of the Goſpel Covenant, and ſo our Goſpel. Righteouſneſs, or that which is imputed for Righteouſneſs; and that General or Total Pardon which the Covenant promiſes, and becomes Abſolute upon performing the Condition. The one of theſe is that very Grace, or Act of Grace itſelf, as goes into that Act of Imputation, or Act, that imputes our Faith for Righteouſneſs, when the other I ſay ſtill, is the Effect or Benefit following Juſtification.

Juſtification being thus defined by God's imputing a Man's Faith to him for Righteouſneſs, it may be underſtood what Mr. Baxter ſtill tell us, that Juſtification is the making us righteous, as well as the accounting us righteous, and dealing with us as righteous. I have been ſhy hitherto of admitting the firſt of theſe, becauſe of the Papiſts, but I will now diſtinguiſh. There is a making a Man juſt or righteous by Infuſion, or by Imputation. Gods making a Man juſt by Infuſion is Regeneration, which the Papiſts hold, and we diſtinguiſh from Juſtification. I ſuppoſe Mr. Baxter once intended no other. Thoſe that will have Juſtification nothing but Forgiveneſs do readily grant this, that Juſtification makes one juſt, for when Sin is forgiven, ſo that there is not the Guilt of any Omiſſion or Commiſſion imputed to a Perſon, he is made Righteous by Non-imputation. But I am for neither of theſe. Juſtification is not making a Man righteous by Infuſion, nor by Non imputation, but by Imputation, God imputing our Faith to us for Righteouſneſs. Per formalem Juſtificationis cauſam juſti conſtituimur. Our Faith and Evangelick Obedience is imperfect and ſinful, and we are unrighteous in the Eye of the Law for all that, but God in his judging us according to the Law of Grace, does allow of that for Chriſt's ſake, inſtead of all which the Law requires to our Juſtification. By this may that Expreſſion of the Apoſtle, that God juſtifies the Ungodly, be rightly underſtood. Not in the Sence or either of the former, that take it only in Senſu diviſo, ſo that he who before his Juſtification was p. 25ungodly, is no longer ſo after, but In ſenſu compoſito. Our Faith, I ſay, or Evangelical Obedience, in regard to the Law, or in regard to thoſe Works that are required by the Law to our Juſtification, are no Righteouſneſs, no Righteouſneſs which in its own Nature would juſtifie us, but God conſtitutes it ſuch by the Law of the Goſpel, and according to that Law imputes it to us for Righteouſneſs. A Man believes; Let us ſuppoſe that Sound Faith; The Spirit muſt have been given to work it in him; Where the Spirit is given to work inherent Grace in a Perſon, he is Regenerate; But this Regeneration is not Juſtification. For ſuppoſe a Regenerate Man ſhould live all his Life as righteouſly as he is able, yet if God ſhould deal with him according to the Law of Works, he is ſtill ungodly in that regard, and he could not be juſtified, and God's dealing with him otherwiſe according to his Law of Grace, and accounting or adjudging him righteous by that Law, notwithſtanding all his Failings for Chriſt's ſake, is this imputing Faith to him for Righteouſneſs, which is the Formal Reaſon of Juſtification.

I muſt take leave to rake this again a little over, for I ſee ſome need, and I muſt confeſs Mr. Baxter hath perplexed me often as to this particular. In ſome of his Books he ſpeaks of Juſtification, making us just by Pardon, which freeing us from the Guilt of all Sin, Omiſſion, and Commiſſion, does make us (he accounts) righteous as we can be made. In others he ſeems to underſtand with Auguſtine, that Juſtification makes us juſt by Grace inherent. A Man muſt believe and repent before he is juſtified; He cannot do that without God's Grace; God does therefore firſt make him righteous by this inherent Grace, before he accounts him juſt, or deals with him as ſuch. Mr. Baxter was induced to this (I think) by the Judicious Le Blanc, who apprehends that there are three or four places (for which he quotes ſome of our chief Proteſtants) that make Juſtification the ſame with Sanctification. Unto which Texts I ſhould chooſe rather to give Anſwer according to others, than to conſent to this, becauſe it comes ſo near the Papiſts, as to leave us almoſt no difference from them. I will therefore advance here a Diſtinction to the ſame purpoſe as but now, which among the many Mr. Baxter hath, he yet has not, and it is this. There is a threefold making a Man juſt. By Converſion, or Regeneration, and this is Auſtine's, and the Papiſts Juſtification. By Pardon, and this is Mr. Wotton's Juſtification. Or by the Righteouſneſs of God, which I p. 26made the Subject of theſe Sheets, as ſomething between Proteſtant and Papist, and this is God's imputing our Faith for Righteouſneſs, which is my Juſtification, and I will call it mine, becauſe I take it to be the Scriptures, where it is expreſly delivered, as cannot be gainſaid. The Papiſts Opinion (to make things clear) is that the Grace of God infuſed is the Formal Righteouſneſs that juſtifies us, or makes us juſt in God's ſight, according to the Law of Works. Juſtitia Habitualis à Deo infuſa ſatis est ut homo illa indutus poſſit in Divino judicio ſiſti & vere juſtus haberi. In this Sence the Proteſtants lay down this contrary Poſition, that a Sinner is juſtified, not by any Formal Righteouſneſs in himſelf, but by the Mercy of God, through the Satisfaction of Christ. The Proteſtants I own here againſt the Papiſt, according to the Papiſts Sence. Our Faith, or Evangelick Righteouſneſs, or inherent Grace (I muſt ſay this over) is imperfect, and cannot be our Formal Righteouſneſs according to the Law, it is no Conformity to the Law of Works, and they of Trent thought of no other: but our imperfect Faith, Repentance, New Obedience, is a Conformity to that which God hath made the Condition of Life by his Law of Grace, or the Goſpel, and is our Formal Righteouſneſs according to that Law, being made ſo by that Act of Imputation, which may be attributed to God, or his Law, when he imputes it to us for Righteouſneſs, as I have had it already. By the Evangelical Law this is our Righteouſneſs, we are made righteous, that is, not guilty of the Non-performance of the Condition, according to Mr. Baxter. To this purpoſe aforeſaid I will note, that when in that remarkable Text (Rom. 3.30.) Predeſtination, Calling, Juſtification, and Glorification, are linked without mentioning Sanctification, we muſt ſuppoſe that intended, either in Calling, or Juſtification, and I have always received it under Calling, that is Effectual Calling, or Converſion. Now a Man is converted, and he believes, and repents; but this being no Righteouſneſs according to the Law, there comes after Calling, Juſtification, and it is that makes this imperfect Believing, Repenting, New Obedience, to become our Righteouſneſs by Imputation. God's imputing it to us for Righteouſneſs, making it by that Act, Et Juris & Judicis, to ſerve us in the room of ſuch a Righteouſneſs as is perfect, rewarding it for Chriſt's ſake, as he would the other. The having Faith, Repentance, New Obedience, is one thing, the having it accepted for Righteouſneſs is another. The one is Regeneration, or Sanctification, the other Juſtification, and p. 27without the one, there cannot be the other. Fides inquiunt juſtitia noſtra formalis eſſe non potest: Concedo (upon his Opinion he muſt ſay ſo, not I, tho' in the Popiſh Sence I ſay Concedo too), At potest à Deo juſtitiae loco haberi, ut preater ipſam nihil amplius à nobis flagitet ad juſtitiam conſequendum, ſays Mr. Wotton.

As for this Righteouſneſs of God now in his imputing to the Believer his Faith, or the Performance of the Evangelick Condition for Righteouſneſs, we muſt not conceive as Dr. Owen objects, that here is an Imputation only of that which is ours, ſo that accounting it an imperfect Righteouſneſs, God cannot deal with us, but only according to an imperfect one: When he does certainly deal with us according to a perfect one, and we underſtand ſo by this Imputation. Dr. Owen (who never gave the Matter its due Conſideration, not perhaps Mr. Baxter neither) Philoſophizes thus. There is an Imputation to us of a thing that is Ours, and that is judging it Ours, and dealing with us accordingly: Or of a thing which is not Ours, and that is by a Donation of it on ſome juſt Ground, and dealing with us according to it made Ours. Of this he makes the Application, that our Righteouſneſs cannot, but Chriſt's muſt, be that which is imputed to our Juſtification. But I will Philoſophize otherwiſe, and ſo may any that**When ever we read of Imputing or Accounting to a Man a thing that is good, it is an Act of Grace, and Law-acceptilation, and ſignifies ſomething which is not. Truman's Endeavour, p. 222. pleaſe. As there is therefore an imputing to a Perſon that which is His, or that which is not His: So is there an imputing alſo to a Perſon that which is partly His, and partly not His, but that which in the Effect may become His too by the Imputation. Such is the Caſe here, but never ſunk in the Doctor's Mind. There are two things in the matter I have ſaid before from Luther, Our Faith, and God's Imputation. Our Faith, or the Evangelick Condition performed which is Ours, and God's Imputation which brings with it (in the Effect I ſay) that which was not Ours, that is the Satisfaction and Merits of Chriſt (his Satisfaction for Pardoning the Failings, and his Merit for accepting that which is done though imperfect) to the accounting us righteous, and dealing with us no otherwiſe than if we were perfect. A Man that has not a legal ſinleſs Perfection (for that is meant by the Ungodly, Rom. 4.5.) his Faith is accounted for Righteouſneſs, that is, his Faith ſhall avail him as much to all intents, and ſtand him in as much ſtead as a perfect ſinleſs Righteouſneſs would do, ſays Sir Charles Woleſley in his p. 28Book of Evangelical Juſtification. This is moſt certain, that there is no Grace vouchſafed to a Sinner from God, in order to Life, but upon the Account of Chriſt's Satisfaction and Merit, againſt the Socinian: When this exceeding Grace and Favour therefore that an imperfect Righteouſneſs is accepted in the room of a perfect one (as is intended in this expreſs Scripture, that ſays, Our Faith is imputed for Righteouſneſs), the Satisfaction and Merits of Chriſt muſt be ſuppoſed as its Foundation: And conſequently they are imputed to our Faith for its Acceptation, as we ſay they are imputed to us for Ours. That Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is imputed to us, we aſſume without Scripture, but this is expreſs that Righteouſneſs is imputed, and that our Faith is imputed for Righteouſneſs; and it will be ſtrange if any ſhall queſtion an Imputation of Chriſt's Merit to our Duty when it is accepted, and accepted only through him. Our Diſſenting Brethren in their Printed Agreement (Dec. 1692.) have theſe Words. God looking on the Good Works of Believers in his Son, is pleaſed to accept and reward that which is ſincere, though accompanied with many Weakneſſes and Imperfections. I quote theſe Words not as rare, but as the common Judgment, to ſhew, that an Imputation of Chriſt's Merit to our Duty, is undeniable. Here are the Believers Works, and that is our imperfect inchoate Obedience, and this accepted, and it is accepted in Christ, that muſt be through his Satisfaction and Merit, and is rewarded too upon his Account. What is there more in the accepting our Perſons in Juſtification? Our maimed Righteouſneſs is accepted to Salvation as if it were perfect (ſays one Dr. Owen cites) for that it ſhould be ſo, Christ hath merited by his most perfect Righteouſneſs. When this unnamed Author ſays, As if it were perfect, he accounts it, it is not ſo Legally, or In ſe, but Evangelically, or quoad Effectum; that is, it ſtands us in the ſtead of a perfect one, through the Merits of Chriſt. And unto this ſaying of his (whoſoever he be) does that Elder in the Revelations well accord, who tells St. John, that the Robes of the Saints, which are their inherent Grace, their Good Works or Holy Life, are made white (that is rewardable with Glory) by their waſhing them in the Blood of the Lamb. We are accepted in the Beloved, that is, in Chriſt. We are accepted in Chriſt no otherwiſe than our Duty is accepted, that is, as the Meritorious Cauſe of that Acceptance. The Satisfaction and Merit of Chriſt, is that upon the Account whereof God does juſtifie us: But if Chriſt's Righteouſneſs it ſelf be imputed to us, it is not Meritoriè upon the p. 29Account thereof, but Formaliter, that we are juſtified by it.

Before I yet quite leave Mr. Wotton, there are two Texts moſt commonly urged by thoſe that define Juſtification only by Remiſſion, which I muſt ſpeak to, not ſtopping at Human Argument unbacked with Authority of Scripture.

The one is, Acts 13.38. Be it known unto you Men and Brethren, that through this Man is preached to you Forgiveneſs of Sins. And by him all that believe are juſtified from all things from which ye could not be juſtified by the Law of Moſes. For this Text I have forelaid a Diſtinction with ſome Reference in my Mind to it. There is a double Remiſſion I have ſaid, a Remiſſion that precedes Juſtification, and a Remiſſion that comes after it. That which goes before Juſtification belongs to All but upon Condition, and that is this Remiſſion, which in the former Verſe of the two is Preached by the Apoſtle, A Univerſal Conditional Remiſſion, and all one with Redemption. This now being Preached to all, ſome believe, and perform the Condition, and as it follows in the other Verſe, are accordingly juſtified, and then this General Conditional Pardon before Preached becomes Abſolute, or Actual to ſuch Particular Perſons, and they are thereby free from the Guilt and Puniſhment of all their Sins whatſoever, even ſuch as there was no Attonement allowed to be made by the Law of Moſes. The Law, or Covenant of the Goſpel promiſes Pardon and Life upon Condition. He that performs the Condition hath Right to the one and the other, but a Man muſt be Juſtified before he is Glorified, and therefore before pardoned alſo. There is a Pardon procured by Chriſt, granted and paſſed by God (we muſt ſuppoſe as an Act of Grace paſſing in Parliament). This Pardon is given out orderly. The Condition muſt be performed, the Judge find it, and then the Man hath the Benefit. This aforeſaid Diſtinction therefore is exemplified in this Text, and ſeeing there is no Particular Actual Pardon, 'till Man's Believing, and God's Juſtification (which is his accounting or declaring him a Believer) do orderly intervene, as to the Courſe of the Nature of the Thing, it is plain, that Remiſſion (this Remiſſion as well as the other) is not Juſtification itſelf, but a Benefit of the Covenant, that as Conditional goes before, but as Actual, or Abſolute (which is that a Particular Man enjoys) does follow Juſtification (I muſt ſay ſtill) as the Effect of it.

p. 30The other Text is in Rom. 4. where Paul ſhewing that it is not by Works, but by Faith that we are juſtified after Abraham's Example, he lays down this Poſition, That not to him that worketh, but believeth, his Faith is accounted for Righteouſneſs: And then in the next Verſe coming to bring Proof from David, he uſhers it in theſe Words, Even as David alſo deſcribed the Bleſſedneſs of that Man unto whom God imputeth Righteouſneſs without Works, whereby it is plain indeed, that he intends the ſame thing by God's counting to a Man his Faith for Righteouſneſs, and imputing to him Righteouſneſs without Works (that is, ſuch Works, Meritorious Works, Perfect Works, which Paul in the Verſes before undoubtedly intends): But it is not ſo in the Quotation itſelf, which thus follows, Bleſſed are they whoſe Iniquities are forgiven, and Sins covered. Bleſſed is the Man to whom the Lord will not impute Sin. It is a miſtake here in thoſe many, who think this Non-imputation of Sin in this Verſe, is the ſame with the imputing Righteouſneſs without Works, and Faith for Righteouſneſs in the former. St. Paul does intend indeed thoſe two before for one, but this he intends only for a Probation. He proves that God imputes Righteouſneſs to a Man without Works, or Faith for Righteouſneſs, by this Medium that they are bleſſed who are forgiven. Now however theſe Words are conſtrued, this is no Definition of Juſtification by Faith without Works, but I ſay a Probation. The Man is bleſſed whoſe Sin is pardoned; The Man therefore hath Sin to be forgiven; He that hath Sin, hath not Works (ſuch as Paul ſpeaks of) to juſtifie him; If the bleſſed Man then be a juſtified Man, it is evident thereupon, that it is not by Works one is juſtified. However, from a Probation, this Identity cannot be argued. They are bleſſed, in one Verſe, to whom Righteouſneſs is imputed without Works. They are bleſſed, in another, to whom God imputeth not Sin. Ergo, Non-imputation of Sin, and imputing Righteouſneſs without Works are the ſame. I deny the Argument. Bleſſed are they that hear the Word, and keep it. Bleſſed are they whoſe Sins are forgiven. Ergo, Hearing and obeying the Word is Forgiveneſs of Sin. But leaving ſuch Puſhpin of Pro and Con, I will take up with this. That which is made a Medium, or the Medius Terminus, to prove another thing, cannot be that thing (or intended for the ſame thing) that it proves: And ſeeing the Quotation out of the Pſalmiſt [The Man is bleſſed whoſe Sins are forgiven] is brought by the Diſputant for a Probation of his Point in hand that a Man is juſtified by p. 31Faith, and not by Works, I am ſufficiently perſwaded, that Non-imputation of Sin, or Pardon is not intended by him to be the ſame thing with Juſtification. If any require more Conſideration in regard to theſe two Texts, let him read a Book called, The Chriſtian Juſtification ſtated. I need ſay no more but thus much, which is not ſaid there, or throughly comprehended by that Author.

I know indeed, and will not paſs it, that Mr. Truman, a Man of a bright Judgment, defines Juſtification as Mr. Wotton, by Pardon only, and ſays that Juſtification is no more, or hath no more in it than Pardon, and therefore is all one with it. This, in regard to the common Opinion, which ſays it is more (defining it by the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, as well as Forgiveneſs of Sin) is to the purpoſe. But what if I ſay Pardon is more than Juſtification, then is it nothing to me. For whether Juſtification be more than Pardon, or Pardon more than Juſtification, if one be more than the other, they are not the ſame. Now Pardon is a Fruit or Benefit of Juſtification, and a Thing alone is not ſo much as the Thing and its Benefit. Pardon and Life makes up Salvation, for Salvation from Wrath is Pardon, and to Glory is Life, but Salvation coming after, is a farther Bleſſing, and more indeed than Juſtification only. Pardon, Mr. Truman ſays farther (of all Sins, he means, both of Omiſſion and Commiſſion) puts a Man in that State as if he had offended the Law in nothing, and that is all one with a State as if he had performed the Law in every thing, and therefore Pardon and Juſtification are the ſame. Our Divines he oppoſes deny theſe States to be one. Though they be conſequentially one, they are in their Nature different. Pardon is of the Guilty: Juſtification of him that pleads Not Guilty. But I will ſuppoſe Mr. Truman in the right, and that Pardon puts a Man in a State as if he had treſpaſſed in nothing (which Quoad rearum poenae is true), and conſequently as if he had obeyed in all things, And therefore do I deny Juſtification to be Pardon, becauſe the Formal Righteouſneſs of our Juſtification, which is the Righteouſneſs of Faith only imputed to us for Righteouſneſs, is not a Righteouſneſs that hath offended in nothing, and obeyed in every thing, as Mr. Truman deſcribes Pardon, but is an inchoate imperfect Righteouſneſs, that hath Failings covered with Chriſt's Satisfaction, and its Work done (I may ſay ſtill) accepted only through his Merit, ſo that the more acute this Man is, and the further he does go, the more he is out, p. 32and muſt be, ſo long as he hath not once the Sence upon his Mind (through his whole Book called, The Great Propitiation, nor in his other two) of the Righteouſneſs of God, which the Apoſtle himſelf gives us as the Handle, and the only Handle to underſtand his Doctrine of Juſtification by.

This one thing yet is to be noted, that theſe worthy Men that define Juſtification by Pardon only, and ſay it is impoſſible that a Sinner can be juſtified, or made, and accounted righteous, any otherwiſe, do yet plead for a Perſonal Evangelical Righteouſneſs as neceſſary to Juſtification, as much, or more than others. Witneſs Sir Charles Woleſley. This now to me is a Contradiction, unleſs it be underſtood à parte post only. For, if Pardon only can make a Sinner righteous, how can there be any Perſonal Righteouſneſs preceding it? The Matter is thus. Before a Man believes and repents, he is not pardoned or made righteous by Pardon, that is certain. When a Man performs the Evangelick Condition, it is the Evangelick Law, (or God by it as his Inſtrument) makes him, or conſtitutes him righteous, and being thereby ſo made, God muſt account him ſo, which is all one with imputing that Condition performed for Righteouſneſs, or juſtifying him. This Conſtitutive Juſtification then proceeding in Order of Nature, though not in Time, Pardon, and Life do follow as the Fruit or Benefits of it. Note here, that when the Evangelick Law does conſtitute the Performer of the Condition righteous, it is righteous quoad hoc only, for he is ungodly, that is, Not righteous ſtill (as I ſay before) in regard to the Law, but righteous as not guilty of the Accuſation of his Non-performance of the Condition of the Goſpel: So that after this Righteouſneſs Quoad hoc, a Univerſal Righteouſneſs of Not Guilty of any Omiſſion, or Commiſſion that brings a Man into a State as if he had offended in nothing, and fulfilled the Law in every thing, as Mr. Truman deſcribes Pardon, does manifeſtly appear to be a farther Benefit or Bleſſing than Juſtification ſtrictly taken. What may be underſtood by it largely taken, may be conſidered hereafter before I have done.