The Righteousness of God Revealed, Part 3

The Righteousness of God Revealed · Part 3

p. 33The Third PART.

BEfore I come to any Cloſe of my Diſcourſe, there is a matter of Four Things to be propoſed (whether by way of Queſtion, or Objection, it is indifferent), as neceſſary for the Satisfaction of ſuch as have the Reaſon, Candour, and Chriſtian Humility to ſeek it.

The Firſt is this. The Scripture, and thoſe therefore that duly preach it, does call upon all Men to believe and repent, in order to their Juſtification and Salvation, and when Faith and Repentance are required as Conditions of being juſtified, how can that which is pre-requiſite as a Condition, be made, or become the Form, Formal Cauſe, or Formal Reaſon of Juſtification? This I put firſt, becauſe I believe here, that nothing almoſt that a Scholar (who hath got Ariſtotelian Terms in his Head, putting his Phyſical Conſtructions on Divinity Points) is like to be more gravell'd at than at this. But it is nothing (let Terms or Words be once look'd through), for it is this is the very thing I affirm and ſtand upon, that what God hath made the Condition of his Covenant, and the Bleſſings thereof, and ſo of our Juſtification, before it is performed, when perform'd does become the Formal Righteouſneſs that juſtifies us. God does by that Act of Imputation (Inſtrumentally done by his Word) make our Faith which is not in itſelf a Righteouſneſs, to become our Righteouſneſs, and as it becomes a Righteouſneſs, it is made the Formal Reaſon of our Juſtification. There is the Carpenter's Work, the Bricklayer's Work, the Smith's Work, goes to the Building a Houſe: There muſt be therefore Timber, Bricks, and Iron prepared, and the preparing theſe are Conditions of the Building, or Materials, before, but when the Houſe is built, they all put together are the Houſe it ſelf, and as a Houſe, the Formal Cauſe, Formal Reaſon, or Form of it.

A Second Thing to be propoſed is this. Our Divines we know, do ordinarily bring together Remiſſion of Sin, and the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs into the Matter of our p. 34juſtification, and when the Aſſembly have given us a Definition comprizing the ſame Things I do in mine, why ſhould I offer another? Unto this I will make that Anſwer as ought to content any honeſt Man, that would have but ſuch a one as he would be allowed himſelf to give, and I ſay, that I do readily give my Suffrage to the Aſſembly's Catechiſm to be learned and uſed above any I know, and am not concern'd though a Learner of it be not ſo accurate in his Underſtanding as to ſee any Difference between my Definition and theirs, when what is in mine, is in theirs, and what in theirs, is in mine. I am perſwaded that a believed groſſer Knowledge of the Principles of Religion, is better for ordinary People, than that which is more exact, and I receive all that is in their Definition, only with liberty of Explication. In Juſtification I acknowledge a Forgiveneſs, and an Imputation of Chriſt's Obedience, but I do not acknowledge either as our Formal Righteouſneſs. I ſay, Forgiveneſs is a Benefit we receive by it, but it is not the Formal Reaſon of it: and I acknowledge Chriſt's Righteouſneſs imputed, Sub genere cauſae efficientis per modum meriti, and ſo received by Faith not in itſelf, but in the Merit of it only. And I give Notice that he who thinking more does ſay, that Chriſt's Righteouſneſs In fe, is made ours Legally (tho' Phyſically and Morally he diſowns it) that Man muſt make it to juſtifie us, Sub ratione cauſae formalis, when perhaps he does not know it, which is an unadviſed Poſition, I look upon, as that foreign, of our former great Divines which gave the Riſe to Antimonianiſm.

A Third Thing to be propoſed is. Our Proteſtants have their Mouths full of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs imputed, when the Scripture hath no ſuch Expreſſion, and what hath not Authority from Scripture, may be again refuſed, Eadem facilitate (ſays Hierom) as it hath been received. It is ſit therefore this be a little examin'd into, and there may be two Queſtions ask'd. The one, What is there in the thing at bottom, as to the reality and truth of it? The other, And what then ſhall we ſay to it? For the Firſt, That which is in reality in this Matter, The Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, is, that Chriſt by the Appointment of his Father, and his own Good Will, did undertake in our behalf to do and ſuffer what was required of us to ſuffer by the Law, ſo far, that the Honour of God, in regard to his Law, being ſaved, and the Ends thereof ſecured, we that were liable to Damnation, might be delivered from it, in the Way or Manner p. 35the Father and Son deſigned, which is by that Act of Grace promulgated in the Goſpel, that upon our believing and repenting we ſhall be juſtified, and ſo pardoned, and have Life Everlaſting. And what then ſhall we ſay thereupon, but that the very Righteouſneſs of Chriſt In ſe, did go into, or may be ſaid imputed unto the Impetration of this great Benefit for us, but the Benefit only, and not his Righteouſneſs can be ours in the Application. That we ſhould be juſtified by Faith, was obtained by Chriſt's Righteouſneſs or Performance, but it is our Faith, not Chriſt's Performance, is imputed to us for Righteouſneſs in our Juſtification. Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is that for which, not by which, Cauſa propter quam, not Per quam, we have this Benefit, that upon on believing we are juſtified. The Application is our Work, the Impetration Chriſt's; the Imputation of what he did to us God's; And there is no ſuch thing can be, as the making that formally ours by the Application.**As for the Commutation of Perſons (which while ſome Divines, as Dr. Owen, do found in the Myſtical Union, inſtead of the Hypoſtatical, between Chriſt and Believers, they make I know not what of it) I acknowledge ſuch a one, as is neceſſary to the Impetration of our Redemption, but I underſtand none ſo as to go into the Applicacation. Chriſt took on him our Fleſh, made Satisfaction in our ſtead, and procured an Act of Grace, or Pardon for all: But there is no Commutation I know, as to Particular Perſons in the Point of Juſtification. If Chriſt made an Exchange of his Righteouſneſs with Peter for his Sins, any otherwiſe than as to the Impetration of Pardon on Condition that concerns all alike, then Chriſt's Righteouſneſs muſt now be Peter's, and James, and John could never have it. In Chriſt's uniting himſelf to us, by his taking our Nature, obeying, ſuffering, ſatisfying God's Juſtice, I acknowledge a Commutation, even ſuch, to wit, that our Sins were ſo imputed to him, as that he died for them, and in our ſtead, (underſtanding the Phraſes aright) and his Righteouſneſs ſo imputed as to be the Cauſe, that upon our believing we enjoy the Benefit: But in Chriſt's uniting us to him, by giving his Spirit to work in us that Condition, whereby we have our Right to the Benefit, there is nothing done by him in Our ſtead, nothing by us in His, no new, no other, no farther Imputation. The Fruit of his Purchaſe (Pardon and Salvation by a Law of Grace) cannot be His, and if that that he communicates to us be not his, how is there a Commutation? Of this Sacrifice and Righteouſneſs itſelf we are uncapable: Of the Effects and Fruits (as Pardon of Sin) he is uncapable. What he hath not, he cannot communicate: What he hath, we cannot receive. There is, there can be no subſtitution of Perſon, in our partaking the Benefits purchaſed, as there was, there muſt be, in the purchaſing them for us. Pacif. p. 16. Then Pacif. p. 30, 31, 32. What I have ſaid before about the Commutation of Perſons, that it is to be held in regard to the Impetration, not Application of our Redemption, I would offer over again likewiſe, in regard to the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs. I have ſaid, and ſaid it over, that this Phraſe is not found in Scripture, but I will acknowledge the thing in the true Sence of it, which is this. Chriſt Jeſus did really obey the Law, and ſuffer its Penalty for us in the Sence of, in our place of ſtead. To do a thing now in my ſtead, is for another to do it ſo, as to ſave me the doing it. Chriſt's ſuffering and obeying was to ſave us that ſuffering and obeying. In what reſpect I ſhew there—And in the next Page I go on. God looks not on us, as if we our ſelves had obeyed or ſuffered, either in his Perſon, or he to have done it ſtrictly in Ours, but that he obeyed and ſuffered Loco noſtro, to free us from ſo Obeying (there ſhewn) and ſuffering as he himſelf did, which is the making his Death and Obedience Ours only as to this Benefit. Thus much being right, and the Righteouſneſs of, Chriſt conſiſting in this Obedience, and ſuffering thus in our room, what now at laſt is the Imputation of it? Why certainly the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is, and muſt be nothing elſe, but God's accounting the Matter to be thus as it is. Here is the Point, that what Chriſt hath done, is look'd upon, is accepted as done in our behalf, or the granting it to be ſo; that, upon this obeying and ſuffering of his in our place, as the Meritorious Cauſe, we ſhall be freed from the ſame, as the Effect of it. This is the only Fundamental Truth in the Phraſe, and this Imputation then of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs (which Man hath ſo phraſed) going into this Grant on God's part, or Obtaining the Grant on Chriſt's part, which precedes the Application, it cannot go into the Application itſelf (that follows after upon Performance of the Goſpel-Terms) ſo as to make Chriſt's Righteouſneſs Ours, any otherwiſe than in this Benefit only. Beſides this, the fancying ſuch Acts in God, as the imputing Chriſt's Righteouſneſs to every ſingle Perſon upon his believing, any otherwiſe than by that one Act of Grace now promulgated in the Goſpel, is not becoming the Divine Being. There is, there can be no new Act in God. He is Actus purus, his Will one. I muſt not grow too ſubtile here, only I muſt ſay, there is his Will, and the Effects of his Will, and in thoſe Effects there is an Order. In that Order the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt precedes the Impetration of all the Benefits we have by him, as the Meritorious Cauſe of them. The Impetration precedes the Application, and the Application can be therefore but of the Effects thereof. Not of this Righteouſneſs (I ſay) itſelf (In ſe) but of the Benefits themſelves we have by it. To be more ſhort. That Commutation of Perſons, and Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs (which comes both in earneſt to this one thing, Man's Benefit upon the Account of Chriſt's Satisfaction) howſoever the Thoughts thereof have amuſed ſo many Good Men, when you have throughly conſidered them, and made as much of them as ever you can, it muſt all of it, every Drop of it you can make, go into that Act of Grace (Salvation upon Goſpel-Conditions) which is already procured and paſſed. Unto the Impetration then of our Redemption Chriſt's Righteouſneſs was indeed imputed In ſe: In the Application it can be imputed only in the Effect. I have delivered my Conceptions more fully in my late Book, (Pacif. p. 30, 31, 32.), not without Care, but without Reſervation. There are none as yet have wrote upon it, but when Mr. Williams, or ſome other ſhall, p. 36thoſe that attend this Diſpute, ſhall be the better able to judge of it. For my part, I have put no Life or Vigour into my Notion by my Words, which are there very poor, but the plain dull Sence I am perſwaded does carry that Truth in it, as when it comes into a more Authoritative Pen may be received. This is a common thing by Experience, that let a Notion be offered by an ordinary Body, it is like to lie, but if ſome Perſon of Credit takes it up, it goes currant. I never read in any before myſelf ſaid it in my firſt Impreſſion (about 25 Years ſince) of my Mid. Way of Juſt (tho' many perhaps I know not, might have ſaid it, it being now ordinary in Pulpit and Preſs) that Paul by the Righteouſneſs of his Own, which he renounces (Rom. 10.2. Phil. 3.9.) muſt be underſtood of his Righteouſneſs as a Jew, and not of his Chriſtian Righteouſneſs (that is His own, not Another's p. 37own,) which if he be not found in, he could not be ſaved: But after Sir Charles Woleſley in his Book, ſaid the ſame, I cannot but note, how that grave, learned, holy, humble, worthy, and the more worthy becauſe humble, Mr. Samuel Cradock, in his Supplement to Knowledge and Practice, upon a deeper Reflection on the Point than he ſeems to have had in his former moſt Induſtrious, Thanks-deſerving Books (his Harmony of the Evangeliſts, his Apoſtolick Hiſtory, and his Hiſtory of the Old Teſtament, all Methodized) falls in with Sir Charles, and acquieſcently receives the ſame Notion from him, which if he had read in me (from whom I know Sir Charles took it) it is ten to one, but he had paſſed it unregarded. There was Mr. Hotchkis, ſince that Paper of mine, and others that I could name, with Mr. Williams, have conſented to that Apprehenſion, but there is that Book before-named, The Chriſtian Juſtification ſtated, Printed 1678, hath ſo exceeding well improved it (a ſober Writer, but no Univerſity-Man) that he hath, I think, carried the Bell in it. But Mr. Cradock I have named more purpoſely, becauſe if any ſhall be willing to write againſt my Books, I would have him read thoſe three Pages, (p. 184, 185, 186.) of his Book mentioned, and when he ſhall be firſt ſeaſoned with the gracious Spirit, and modeſt Judgment of that Orthodox Author, and then find there the Doctrine of Imputation ſo throughly corrected, and an Interpretation of theſe Texts (2 Cor. 5.21. Phil. 3.9. Rom. 5.19.) ſo perfectly concordant with what I have wrote, it may be enough to calm him if furious, if but contrary minded to ſatiſfie him. And nevertheleſs Mr. Cradock is out as to one thing by following Sir Charles, which is in his making Juſtification to be all one with Remiſſion of Sin, as Mr. Hotchkis, after Mr. Wotton hath done, who made it (I have ſhewn) the Formal Righteouſneſs of our Juſtification. Mr. Bradſhaw, who wrote after Mr. Wotton, and ſaw what he had wrote (as I believe by his Epiſtle to his excellent little Treatiſe) tells us on the contrary, that Pardon and Juſtification are two things, and ſo diverſe in their Nature, that he who hath committed a Fault, if he be pardoned without making amends, he cannot be juſtified.

I have therefore a Laſt Thing to be propoſed, which will take up more room, and it is this. Our Divines, myſelf, and all agree againſt the Socinian about Chriſt's Satisfaction, that it is upon Acc…t thereof we are juſtified, and how then can it be by our Faith, and the Imputation thereof for Righteouſneſs, p. 38as I have defined Juſtification? Here the Buſineſs I have now left me to do, is to ſhew the concurrence of Faith, which is our Evangelical Righteouſneſs, and Chriſt's Satisfaction which was his (but not our) Legal Righteouſneſs, without any inconſiſtency as to both in our Juſtification. And this I muſt ſay is no hard Matter to do, ſeeing the true Conception lies in the Thoughts of moſt conſiderate Men, only for want of a more fixt and reſolved Judgment the Vacillation remains. To proceed in it, I muſt return to Mr. Bradſhaw where I left. He hath told us, That if a Fault be charged on a Perſon, that Man cannot be juſtified but by the Plea, either that the thing was not done by him, or if done, it was no fault, which is pleading Not Guilty, as David was juſtified by Saul; or by pleading that Amends is made for the Fault. Now Amends may be made either by one's ſelf, or by another: And by another, either as one whom he hath got to do it, or one that does it of his own accord: Where Satisfaction is made by a Man's Self, or by one he hath got to do it (which we muſt conceive done to the ſame End as himſelf would have done it) a Man is to be accounted to be reſtored into the ſame State, in regard to the Party offended, as he was before the Fault was committed, that is, to be immediately juſtified, made righteous, or clear of the Fault: But it is not ſo, where Satisfaction is neither made by a Man's ſelf, nor by any means of his Procurement (only another out of Pity and Compaſſion to him, hath agreed with the offended Party, and by a valuable Conſideration for the Fault hath ſatisfied him), for here the Perſon for whom Satisfaction is made, is not juſtifiable any otherwiſe, but as the Perſon that made the Satisfaction for him did intend, together with the offended Party, who might have refuſed that Satisfaction, ſo that they may agree both upon Terms to be impoſed on the Party offending for reaping the benefit of that Satisfaction. This is the Caſe between God, Chriſt, and Us. We finned, Our ſelves could make no Amends, nor did any thing to procure Chriſt to do it. Chriſt hath done it voluntarily, but with the Intent, and by his Father's Agreement, that we ſhall repent and believe, and be judged true penitent Believers (which is juſtifying us) before we are Partakers of the Benefit intended. We are not to conceive of this Matter any otherwiſe, for this is the Tenour of the New Covenant procured by our Redeemer hereby. On our part, Faith, Repentance, is required as the Condition: On God's part the Benefits of p. 39Chriſt's Satisfaction are promiſed: Upon our ſincere believing God judges us Performers: That Performance he imputes to us for Righteouſneſs: Upon the Account of Chriſt's Merits it is done, and the Benefits are conferred, which are freedom from Puniſhment, and Eternal Salvation.

As for the Imputation now of Chriſt's Satisfaction to the Believer, which muſt be allowed ſo far as our being juſtifiable thereupon does import, we are to underſtand farther, that it is not neceſſary that what is imputed to the Juſtification of another, ſhould be reputed as done by him that is juſtified, tho' what is imputed is accepted for that he ſhould have done, that is accepted in the room or place of it, which I have been careful to keep to, in my laſt Sheets; Nay, tho' I ſay farther, that when the Satisfaction of another is imputed to the Juſtification of a Man, the Treſpaſſes of that other, after a ſort muſt be ſaid imputed to him, and yet neither is that Satisfaction Formaliter made his that is juſtified, nor that Treſpaſs Formaliter made his that makes the Satisfaction, but Effective or Meritorie only, in the one's bearing the Puniſhment, and the other obtaining the Benefit of it. This being underſtood, when our Divines do account that we are juſtified by Chriſt's Satisfaction ſo as to be made juſt by it, and accordingly to be made righteous by the Righteouſneſs of another, which is being made juſt by Imputation: Such Words (I count) ought to be a little changed, and the Sence verified. It ſhould not be ſaid by, but through Chriſt's Satisfaction, through his Righteouſneſs, through the Imputation of it, and then that Truth which is in it is this, that through Chriſt's Satisfaction or Righteouſneſs, or Imputation of it as the Meritorious Cauſe (which we know is an external Cauſe moving the Efficient to act) we are indeed juſtified, but by no means muſt we underſtand them ſo, as that it is the Formal Cauſe of our Juſtification.

But the truth is here, that our former Polemical Divines (even the chief) in oppoſition to a Man's being juſtified by any Works, Merits, or Righteouſneſs of his own, maintain'd againſt the Papiſts, that it is by Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, Sub genere cauſae formalis, that we are juſtified, or that Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is ſo made ours by Faith, as to be the Formal Reaſon of our Juſtification. Our excellent Dr. Davenant undertook this Task (whoſoever in thoſe times did not), but where the Scripture is for us, we are to truſt no Mortal againſt it. The Queſtion as he propoſes it is, Quae p. 40& qualis illa juſtitia ſit quae coram Deo hominem juſtificat, hoc est, cujus intuitu ipſe Deus hominem à peccato & poena peccati liberum pronunciet, atque favore ſuo & vita aeterna dignum reputet. Let us define the Thing by its Form, and ſpeak this Hoc est in ſhort, Cujus intuitu hominem credentem juſtum reputat. Now Cujus intuitu, all know is all one with Id propter quod, that is the Meritorious Cauſe only, when he would maintain that Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is the Cauſa formalis, that is Cauſa per quam, we are juſtified. He therefore being put to it is forced to affirm thus, In Juſtificatione talis formalis cauſa ponenda est quae ſimul & meritoria eſſe poſſit. His Reaſon for it is out of the ſame Quiver, that is, more Words for the bearing out an abſurd Affirmation, by putting ſome Face upon it. I am ſufficiently aſſured he hath ſhot beyond the Mark, and I will not go after his Arrow. By the way, there are two places I remember, where we are ſaid to be juſtified by Chriſt's Blood, but it is foreign, and ſhould be tranſlated, through his Blood, and muſt be interpreted no otherwiſe than Cujus intuitu, that is, as the Meritorious Cauſe, I ſay, not as by Faith in his Blood, which is the Formal Cauſe of our Juſtification. When we ſpeak therefore and allow our Divines to ſpeak of the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs as they ordinarily do, we muſt underſtand them ſo as never to make our ſelves the Proprietors of that righteouſneſs (Legally, or any way elſe impoſſible), or that Faith ſo makes it ours as to be our Formal Righteouſneſs (which when we ſee ſuch great Divines have held, no wonder if the leſſer Fry do ſwallow), but that it is the Cauſe for which (as I have ſaid before) not the Cauſe by which we are juſtified. And here I will give Mr. Williams Notice, that this is the Reaſon why the very Righteouſneſs of Christ cannot be imputed to us but in the Effects, becauſe I ſay that if it were imputed to us In ſe, it muſt (according to our oppoſite Brethren) be then our Formal Righteouſneſs, which he and I are to deny. I muſt confeſs, I think Mr. Williams might not have ſo fully digeſted this before, (as likewiſe myſelf) as he may now, and that the Expreſſion of his which I have exagitated in my Book, with that which follows in his, that Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is pleadable by the Believer, as if himſelf had done and ſuffered what Christ did; as alſo, To impute to one what is ſuffered by another, is to eſteem the one undertaken for in the Sufferings of the other, and to deal with him as if himſelf had ſuffered, are ſhot too high. For if a Man had made Satisfaction himſelf, or God did impute Chriſt's Satisfaction to him, ſo as if himſelf p. 41had made it, then were this his Formal Righteouſneſs, and there were no need of that of Faith, this alone being that which muſt immediately juſtifie him. If therefore there be ſuch a thing to be expected ever from Mr. Williams, as any Veſtigia retrorſum, I will be ready to look for the Prints thereof made in the Words I have quoted, as well as his Brethren may in any others.

But the Difficulty concerning the Point of the Concurrence of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs and Ours in the matter of Juſtification is not yet off our hands: For there is a Sermon of Mr. Gibbons, that Mr. Baxter often commended, which I think fit to mention. This Gentleman hath treated the Doctrine of Juſtification as I. Righteouſneſs (ſays he) is a Conformity to the Law: A Man is actually juſtified, when he is conſtituted righteous. The New Law runs thus, He that believes ſhall not periſh: The Believer keeps or fulfils this Law: Faith therefore is imputed to him for Righteouſneſs: The Law-Giver by his very making the Law conſtitutes him righteous, and the Judge muſt pronounce him ſo. The Goſpel then juſtifies Qua lex Lata, Faith juſtifies Vi Legis latae: As the King's Stamp gives the Value to the Money. I ſet this together, and quote it for the clearneſs of it, and my approbation to it. Nevertheleſs he tells us alſo, That it is Chriſt's Satisfaction in reſpect to the Law of Works that is our proper Legal Righteouſneſs, and I call it (ſays he) Our Righteouſneſs, becauſe it becomes imputed to us upon believing. Theſe are Words that in appearance are Ambidextrous, holding with the Hound, and running with the Hare, as the Proverb is, unleſs we put an Underſtanding upon them, which I am not ſure that very ingenuous (but young) Man did. As likewiſe ſuch Words (or Sence) as Mr. Williams hath ſomewhere concerning this double Righteouſneſs, Chriſt's and Ours, accounting the one the Principal, and the other Subordinate to it. Now, if Mr. Gibbons, or Mr. Williams, hitherto ſhould have conceived our Righteouſneſs we call Evangelical, to be Subordinate to Chriſt's, which was His (but not Our) Legal Righteouſneſs, Sub ratione ejuſdem cauſae, they are Mired: But when thus much is forelaid, that Chriſt's Righteouſneſs does concur to our Juſtification only, Sub genere, ſub ratione, or Per modum cauſae efficientis Meritoriae, and not Per modam cauſae formalis, it is but underſtanding that the Meritorious Cauſe in our Juſtification it preferred before, or valued above the Formal (which without the Virtue of that were none) by ſuch Expreſſions, and if any be in the Mire, they may come out. Mr. Gibbons for explaining p. 38duplicate page p. 39duplicate page p. 40duplicate page p. 41duplicate page p. 42himſelf; ſuppoſes us as if we ſtood at a double Bar, the Bar of the Law, and the Bar of the Goſpel. At the one it is Ratione Objecti, that Faith juſtifies: At the other it juſtifies Formaliter. As to the one Faith, (ſays he) lays hold on Chriſt's Satisfaction, which is our Legal Righteouſneſs: As to the other, Faith itſelf is keeping Covenant (underſtand Quoad faederis Conditionem) or fulfilling the Goſpel. Very fine, I muſt profeſs all, if Faith indeed made Chriſt's Legal Righteouſneſs to be Formaliter Ours (as it is Formaliter, our Evangelical itſelf) which formerly our great Divines apprehended, but were exceedingly out, and wounded our Cauſe. It cannot be that this Righteouſneſs ſhould any otherwiſe be ours than Per modum Meriti, that is only in the Effects. And in this Sence (Non formaliter, but Effective) muſt that Expreſſion be underſtood, The Lord our Righteouſneſs, if by the Lord, Chriſt perſonally be intended: If not, Hominis Juſtitia est Dei indulgentia, does give the true and full Sence of it.

I muſt confeſs I am at a ſtand about this Gentleman's two Bars. That all Men who hear the Goſpel ſhall be judged by it, I hold for certain, upon the Account (if we had no more for it) that Chriſt ſent out his Apoſtles to declare to the World in his Name, That He that believes ſhall be ſaved, and He that believes not ſhall be damned. The Believer is one freed from the Law, and cannot be brought therefore to its Bar. He that believes ſhall not come into Judgment. If we walk after the Spirit, we are not under the Law. There is no Condemnation to them that are in Christ Jeſus. We are not under the Law, but under Grace. Theſe are plain Texts as to the Believer, and as for the Unbeliever we know he is condemned already, and there needs no bringing him afreſh to the ſame Bar. One Bar will ſerve both, where the Grand Inqueſt will be this only, whether or no we have performed the Condition of the Goſpel. They that have, are acquitted: they that have not, are left under that Condemnation. To wave this therefore any farther than it is of Concern, let me recur to the Legal Righteonſneſs Mr. Gibbons ſpeaks of (and Mr. Williams accordingly) which he counts we muſt have together with our Evangelical to juſtifie us, and therefore I will ſhew, that if he mean it in the common Sence, and Sence of others, that he is out, and that he is in a miſtake. I will ſhew that thoſe that ſpeak thus according to the common Apprehenſions of the Proteſtants, that they are firſt out, and then I will ſhew their Miſtake, and ſet them right.

p. 43That they are out I ſhew firſt. By this Legal Righteouſneſs what they underſtand we ſufficiently know, that is the Righteouſneſs of Christ made theirs in a Legal Sence, to wit, though the Righteouſneſs of one cannot become another's Naturally, or Morally, yet Legally the common Opinion is, that Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is every true Believers. Here then let us diſtinguiſh of this Legal Righteouſneſs, in reſpect to the Preceptive or Retributive part of the Law. As to the Preceptive part of it, I do avouch with Mr. Baxter, that no Man or Woman is, or ever hath (except Chriſt himſelf) been juſtified by the Performance thereof, either by himſelf, or by another in his Civil Perſon, as fully repreſenting him. For if we are reputed ſuch (ſays Mr. Baxter) as have fulfilled the Law, there is no room for Chriſt's Sufferings, for Repentance, for Faith in his Blood, for Pardon, or Prayer for it, or for any Duty which ſuppoſeth Sin, as Sacraments, and other Ordinances, and ſo the Goſpel is ſubverted, as he ſtill tells us. And as for the Retributive part of the Law I muſt ſay no leſs, that if we are reputed in Chriſt to have born the Penalty, or his bearing it be indeed our Legal Righteouſneſs, then muſt our Evangelical be made needleſs, for when we are free from all Guilt, both of Omiſſion and Commiſſion; ſo that we are as righteous as we can be made already, there is no more to be impoſed, or can be, in order to our being juſtified or ſaved, and ſo the Goſpel is ſubverted alſo. Not that Mr. Baxter, or I, deny the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, as to the Retributive part of the Law to be imputed, no, nor that of his as to the Perceptive part (ſeeing his Satisfaction conſiſts in both) but that neither are otherways imputed than as I ſay before, Per modum meriti, as to the Effects, and to give it in Mr. Baxter's own Words, Imputed ſo as that we have it in the relation of a Meritorious Cauſe, to the End, or Uſe which God accepts it for, and hath aſſigned in the Goſpel.

That they miſtake, and how they miſtake (to make it out, and make it up) I muſt ſhew next. That Chriſt obeyed the Law and ſuffered the Penalty for us, ſo as what he did and ſuffered was in our behalf, in our ſtead, room, or place, is by us all acknowledged. What is done or ſuffered in another's ſtead (we are then to underſtand) is done or ſuffered to free the other from doing or ſuffering the ſame, which elſe he ſhould, as I have ſtood upon it in my other Sheets. Thus the Beast died, inſtead of the Sacrificer of it. Whereas then this Legal Righteouſneſs which the common Opinion ſuppoſes, muſt be Ours to juſtifie us, was p. 44performed by Chriſt in our room or ſtead, that we might not our ſelves perform it, how manifeſtly are they of that Opinion miſtaken, in that Suppoſition? Chriſt did perfectly fulfil the Precept of the Law, that ſuch a perfect fulfilling of it might not be required of us as the Condition of Life, as by the Law it was: Chriſt did undergo the Penalty that we might not our ſelves ſuffer it, and be damned. The Satisfaction then of Chriſt (which contains both) cannot In ſe be imputed to us, or reputed as Our Satisfaction, becauſe then it muſt not be in our room, or place, that he ſatisfied, nor God accounted that he did. God does impute to us his Sufferings that we might not ſuffer, and therefore does not look on us as having ſuffered: He does impute to us his fulfilling the Law that we might not be put to it to fulfil it our ſelves (and yet have the Reward as much as if we had, where is Imputation ſtill we ſee only Quoad fructus & effectus), and therefore looks not on us as if we had performed it. Here is the Mercy of God, and happy Miſtake of theſe Men. A Legal Righteouſneſs is impoſed on his Son, that an Evangelical only, may be accepted from Man. A perfect one offered for us to God, that our inchoate and imperfect one may be imputed to us for Righteouſneſs through him; and that is to make it ſerve the turn, as that a perfect one would have done, if we could have performed it. Faith is really (ſays Mr. Baxter) the Condition of the Covenant of Grace, which who ſo performeth, he is righteous againſt the Charge of Non-performance of that Condition: And ſuppoſing Chriſt's Merits, and our Redemption by him, this Goſpel Righteouſneſs is all that is required of us on our parts, inſtead of all that perfect Obedience which the Law of Innocency required. Let Mr. Williams therefore be here perſwaded that there is no making Chriſt's Righteouſneſs Ours, any otherwiſe than in the Effects: Yet let him believe too, that Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is made Ours in the Effects (for the Effects are Ours): And this is one Effect wherein it is made Ours, that our Faith is imputed to us for Righteouſneſs; and alſo, that conſequently there needs no perfect one In ſe, to be imputed, becauſe this imperfect one is inſtead of one, or as good to us as one, by that Imputation. But if Chriſt's Righteouſneſs was Legally Ours, or imputed to us otherwiſe than in the Effects then could not our Faith be imputed to us for Righteouſneſs, that is inſtead of a perfect one, becauſe a perfect one were imputed to us already in Chriſt.

p. 45That there are two Righteouſneſſes concur in our Juſtification I am ſatisfied with Mr. Baxter, but when he ſpeaks of one to be ſubordinate to the other, or ſubſervient, I cannot but hear Dr. Owen objecting, That upon this Suppoſition Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is made to ſerve Ours (which elſe could not be imputed for Righteouſneſs), and therefore Ours is not ſubſervient to That. It is neceſſary therefore for us to keep in our Minds, that our Righteouſneſs, and Chriſt's, concur in our Juſtification, but not on the ſame Account, not under the reaſon of the ſame, but diverſe Cauſes, and therefore if they be held Co-ordinate, I ſee no hurt, ſo long as they are not Co-equal, the one being of infinite Value, and giving Virtue to the other. If as there are two Righteouſneſſes, we conceive with Mr. Gibbons, two Bars, two Juſtifications, that is, that Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is our Legal Righteouſneſs, and the Formal Cauſe of our Legal Juſtification, and our Faith, or Evangelick Righteouſneſs, the Formal Cauſe of our Evangelical Juſtification, there were no queſtion in making one Righteouſneſs and Juſtification ſubordinate, or ſubſervient to the other Righteouſneſs and Juſtification: But if Mr. Williams when he ſays, The very Righteouſneſs of Christ is imputed to a Believer beſides the Effects; and Mr. Gibbons apprehended the Matter ſo, we are to know Mr. Baxter muſt not apprehend with them; who teaches, that the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is not imputed In ſe, and conſequently is never to be allowed our Formal Righteouſneſs in regard to the Law, or Goſpel. It is ſomething hard therefore for me to ſet this right, only thus much we know and ſay with Mr. Baxter, that Chriſt by his Obedience and Sufferings hath obtained a Grant of Impunity and Life for Sinners, which he gives upon Terms; we performing thoſe Terms, have a Right to thoſe Benefits; And ſo a Righteouſneſs by that Right; Hereof Chriſt's Righteouſneſs being the meritorious procuring Cauſe, his Righteouſneſs is ſaid to be Ours, in regard to that Effect: But there being other Effects of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs beſides theſe, and this one more eſpecially, that Our Faith, or the Evangelick Condition, is upon that Account imputed for Righteouſneſs, which elſe were none, how is it, that our Evangelical Perſonal Righteouſneſs can be ſaid ſubordinate, ſubſervient to, or required in order for the obtaining of the Righteouſneſs of Christ, when we have it already as to that Effect, or in that Imputation? It appears to me therefore not unfit to ſay here, that the Righteouſneſs of Christ, and the Performance of the Evangelick Condition, do concur p. 46to our Juſtification as to the Form of is, which is the imputing to us that Evangelick Condition performed for Righteouſneſs, in a Co-ordination of diverſe Cauſes as to that Effect, but in a Subordination as to the Effects or Benefits, both of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs and Juſtification, that follow.