The Righteousness of God Revealed, Part 4

The Righteousness of God Revealed · Part 4

p. 46The Fourth PART.

I Know in this Diſcourſe of the Righteouſneſs of God, I do aſſert that which our Proteſtants hitherto have denied (but ſcarce taken into their. Thoughts to examine, with the Bereans, whether it be ſo or no) to wit, that Faith (which is a living working Faith) is our Formal Righteouſneſs, the reaſon of their denial having been much, becauſe they have confounded the Cauſa per quam, and Propter quam, and ſpoken of them as one, as appears by Davenant before quoted, and others, their meaning in the Main being only, that it is not our Righteouſneſs but Chriſt's, which is Id propter quod, or Cujus merito, we are juſtified, unto which we all agree. But it is time if they have underſtood otherwiſe to ſet the Matter right now. By Faith, ſays the Scripture again and again, we are juſtified. By is, Id per quod, the Cauſa formalis, and I avert accordingly, that it is Formaliter, or Per modum Cauſae formalis; that by Faith we are juſtified. And why ſhould I not ſtick to that the Scripture does ſo expreſly warrant? Davenant that here is quite oppoſite, and holds, that it is Chriſt's Righteouſneſs which does Formaliter, juſtifie us, does yet acknowledge that we are in Scripture ſtill denominated, or accounted righteous by God, in regard to our Evangelical Righteouſneſs, and never in regard to Chriſt's. Now Juſtificari is Juſtum eſſe cenſeri. Juſti autem cenſemur (according to him) à juſtitia inchoata, and yet Ab inchoata juſtitia non juſtificamur, but à juſtitia Chriſti imputata. Juſti cenſemur (ſays he) à juſtitia inchoata: Juſtificati dicimur à juſtitia perfectiſſima Chriſti imputata. What is this, but Apparent Conviction, and Authoritative Tergiverſaſation? There are two Reaſons I find move our Proteſtants. One is, they are ſtartled by a Word, the Word Cauſe, they will not have our Works, nor Faith, as a Work, to juſtifie, becauſe that p. 47makes it a Cauſe of our Juſtification, which to Avoid they will call it a Condition only. Now a Condition being Cauſe ſine qua non does make our Evangelick Righteouſneſs as neceſſary (ſo as we cannot be juſtified without it) as the making it a Cauſe does; And I find it no regret in my Mind to call it a Cauſe, as well as a Condition, for it is both, only we muſt conſider what Cauſe we make it. If we made our Works, or Faith, as a Work, to juſtifie us, Sub genere, Cauſae Efficientis, it muſt be that which is Procatarctick, and ſo the Meritorious Cauſe thereof, which were to bring our Works▪ or Faith, into the Office of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, and to derogate from Grace, a thing we utterly diſclaim: But when we make it the Formal Cauſe only (of our Paſſive Juſtification), we do nothing thereby, but advance God's Grace, and Chriſt's Merits, as having obtained for us, not only than God ſhould require of us no other Condition but our Faith, or this inchoate Righteouſneſs unto Life, but alſo that he ſhould conſtitute by his Now Law this Condition performed to be our Righteouſneſs, in the room of that perfect one required by the Old; So that, as Adam, if he had perfectly obeyed, his Obedience had been his Formal Righteouſneſs, in regard to the Law, ſo is this, Ours, in regard to the Goſpel. The other Reaſon then of their denial, is the Suppoſition that both Proteſtants and Papiſts have gone upon, to wit, that the Law is the Rule of that Righteouſneſs, which they on both ſides contend for as the Formal Reaſon of their Juſtification. And upon this Account they both of them are out, for the Papiſt on one ſide ſpeaks up for inherent Grace, and his Works done by it, ſo as he would have them Meritorious and Perfect (for the Papiſt pleads for Merit and Perfection), but he can never bring them up to anſwer the Law, ſeeing he muſt ſtill pray, Enter not into Judgment, and forgive us our Treſpaſſes, and therefore the Proteſtant denies, that our Faith, or Works, are any Formal Righteouſneſs that can juſtifie us, and I ſay the ſame in the Sence they underſtand one another, for our inchoate Obedience cannot be ſo, when the Law is made the Rule of it: On the other ſide, the Proteſtant pleads therefore for Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, which is a Righteouſneſs indeed that anſwers the Rule (they both make ſo), but this Righteouſneſs being without us, though it be upon the Account thereof, Id propter quod, or Cujus merito, we are juſtified, the Papiſt ſays ſtiffly it can never be made Formally Ours, ſo as to be Id per quod, we are juſtified, and I muſt ſay the ſame, for Truth is Truth, and p. 48Abſurdity is Abſurd, whether on one ſide or the other. The Suppoſition then, the Ground on which they go, being a Miſtake, it muſt be rectified. Let us underſtand therefore here, that there is a double Rule, a Rule of Life, and a Rule of Judgment, there is Norma Officii, and Norma Judicii, as I have it in my Pacification, and although the Law of Works be the Rule of Life or Duty, and being the Law of Nature it muſt abide ſo for ever, yet Jeſus Chriſt having perfectly obeyed it in our ſtead, for the fleeing us from it (in regard to its Condition), it is relaxed (as I ſhew there) through Grace, and the Goſpel made the Rule of Judgment, and conſequently of that Righteouſneſs which is the Formal Cauſe of our Juſtification. Chriſt's Obedience was perfect according to Law, but it is not by the Law that God pronounces the Believer righteous. The Law is not of Faith, and Righteouſneſs cometh not by the Law. If it be by the Goſpel then, not by the Law God pronounces a Man righteous, it is not by the Righteouſneſs of Christ imputed, which is a Righteouſneſs according to the Law, but by the Evangelick Condition performed, which is a Righteouſneſs accordingly (accepted through the Merit and Satisfaction of Chriſt) that the Believer is juſtified. Inter Proteſtantes certum est fidem etiam vivam non eſſe juſtitiam illam per quam coram ſevero Dei Judicio ſtamus, ſays Le Blanc. This is true, I have juſt now acknowledged, but I wonder that this very conſiderate Man ſhould never come to underſtand that, that ſevere Judgmen of God he ſpeaks of, is the Judgment of God according to the Law, and that we ſtand not at that Judgment. I acknowledge again, that at that Judgment our inchoate inherent Grace is not any Formal Righteouſneſs, or the Juſtitia per quam, we can ſtand there: But there is a Paternal Judgment of God according to the Goſpel, and at this Judgment our Faith is the Righteouſneſs, Per quam, or Formal Righteouſneſs by which we are juſtified. If here you will conceive of two Bars, you muſt not conceive of them as before, ſo as if after you are juſtified upon a Perſonal Righteouſneſs, you muſt come to another to be juſtified by Chriſt, but you muſt conceive of the Bar of the Law as erected firſt. There was but two Perſons ever brought to that Bar, and they were Adam and Christ, where the one was condemned, and the other juſtified. They were both Publick Perſons, and as we all were condemned in Adam, ſo are we all freed from that Condemnation by Christ, but upon the Terms of the Goſpel. We are then, as it were, already paſſed the Bar of the p. 49Law, in Chriſts anſwering there in our Perſons for us, and God will never call him to any move Account, ſo that what Charge or Accuſation ſoever may be raiſed thence, they are all Terrors only, as thoſe or Children going in the dark, when the Charge, alone we are concerned in, is the Charge of Non-performance of the Goſpel Condition. I know our Divines are ſtill ready to ſtate the Queſtion between us and the Papiſts thus. What is that when the Conſcience is …ſaid under the Sence of Sin, that we can oppoſe againſt the Wrath of God, and reſt upon for our Peace? It is our own Righteouſneſs, Works, or Merits, or is it the Satisfaction of Christ? But this is partial and wide, there is no Man but will anſwer ſtreight to the Queſtion, and ſay Chriſt's Satisfaction. It is that (we all know) that did, or could appeaſe God's Juſtice. And this we all know too, that we are ſo far from doing this our ſelves by our Works or Merits, that Chriſt hath done it without our doing any thing at all towards it. It was wholly of Free Grace, and there can be no doubt or fear upon the Conſcience in regard to that. This is therefore not the Queſtion, but the Satiſfaction of Chriſt and our Redemption by it preſuppoſed, and ſo a General Pardon proceding Juſtification already obtained, which being Conditional, the Queſtion only is, whether it be not by performing the Condition that we are juſtified, to make that Pardon abſolutely Ours, or to have Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, or Satisfaction made ſo, as to that Effect, which can be ours no otherwiſe, but Quoad fructus out effectus only. This indeed is the Queſtion between ſome of Ours and the Papiſts, the more is the pity, but the Queſtion as to the terrified Chriſtian himſelf, can be only whether the Condition be performed. If that be ſo, the Danger is all over. If you will ask further, What we muſt reſt upon, and truſt to here in this Caſe? I ſay, to the Satisfaction and Merits of Chriſt upon the Performance. Tho' we truſt not our Duty, we muſt truſt on God in Duty, and I have no apprehenſive fear about reſting in Duty, but this, leaſt we ſit down ſhort of Sincerity. It is by the Performance through Chriſt's Satisfaction the Believer is juſtified. There is yet this Comfort here, tho' none elſe in the World, for this alone is worth a World, that we may, muſt, ought to truſt, lean, caſt our ſelves upon the Satisfaction and Merit of Chriſt, for pardoning all our Failings, and accepting our poor Mite, and if the Soul remains in doubt, it muſt quiet itſelf upon him. If with the Phariſee I juſtifie myſelf, God may condemn me: If I condemn myſelf p. 50with the Publican he may acquit me. And what muſt I do in this Caſe? Behold, O Lord I am at thy Bar and I commit my Cauſe unto my Judge. Thy Bar is a Bar, or Throne of Grace: I caſt myſelf on thy Grace. And the Lord ſend me a good Deliverance at the Great Day. As for Actual Pardon and Life that follows Juſtification the Merit is to be attributed to that which procured Juſtification on that Condition. There is nothing of Merit but Chriſt's throughout. It is Chriſt's Satisfaction runs through all (I muſt ſtill ſay) as the Meritorious Cauſe, when Performance of the Condition becomes thereby the Formal Cauſe of our Juſtification.

I know how hardly this is like to be received by many, when Dr. Owen will allow nothing of any Perſonal Righteouſneſs, or) any Works Legal or Evangelical, but excludes them all from our Juſtification, ſuppoſing that if it be of Works any way, it is not of Grace at all, when it is therefore of Faith (or upon the Evangelick Condition) that it may be of Grace. Dr. Owen is a Perſon whoſe Name I honour for his Worth Learning, Comprehenſive Parts, and one in whom was more of a Gentleman, as to his Deportment, than in any Divine I knew ever among us: Yet is he more Authorative ſometimes in his Book than he needs, which being liable to hurt the humbly Inquiſitive, I will ſpeak the more poſitively in this matter, that the Doctor is out, as I believe, and never came to the plain true knowledge of what Paul means by the Works he oppoſes to Faith in this Point of Juſtification: Which Works are ſuch as would juſtifie a Man in the Apoſtles Account if he had them, but that no Man is juſtified by Works, becauſe he has them not. This I am paſt doubt is Paul's meaning, and in this particular the Learned and Honoured Sir Charles Woleſley, before quoted, is rather to be attended. A Man (ſays Sir Charles) that has not a Legal Sinleſs Perfection, is that Paul means by the Ungodly, Rom. 4.5. In my firſt Papers I wrote, I had this Sence of the place, and I have it before, and in my Pacification I ſay the like of that Text**For ſolving this Matter, Auſtin, and from him the Schools diſtinguiſh of Opera Naturae, and Opera Gratiae. We are not ſaved by Works, or according to Works done in our own Strength, but by Works done by Grace. But is this the Apoſtle's meaning? No, I have ſhewn in my Book of Juſt. that One Thing of Three wherein Auſtin was out, and hath miſled the Schools, is this Notion of Grace. By Grace he underſtands ſtill this inherent Grace, or Operation of God's Spirit in us, when Paul underſtands it of that without, his Favour, or Condeſcenſion to us. Not of Works, but of Grace, is all one, as not of Deſert, but of Favour only. Grace is Mercy without, or contrary to Merit. Now when the Papiſt receives the Solution mentioned, the Proteſtants generally will have all Works, tho of the Regenerate, to be but Rags, and Chriſt's Righteouſneſs alone to ſave us. But they are both out, for Paul's meaning it plainer than they think. Not by Works of Righteouſneſs we have done. The Righteouſneſs which the Jew hath done, is living according to the Law of Moſes: The Righteouſneſs which the Gentile hath done, is his living according to the Law of Nature. There is neither one or the other that fulfil that Righteouſneſs which anſwers God's Law, ſo as it ſhould be able to ſave him, and therefore it is of Grace or Mercy that Any are ſaved. Pacif. p. 29. Not by the Works of Righteouſneſs we have done, p. 51but according to his Mercy he ſaved us: Which Words have put ſo many to the inventing Diſtinctions, when the right underſtanding is to make none, the meaning being only, Not by the Works of Righteouſneſs we have done, becauſe we have not done them, and it muſt be of Mercy therefore, and in another way, we are ſaved, or not at all. See the Quotation above. The Works then I have ſaid there and here, and muſt ſtill ſay, which Paul means, are ſuch as would juſtifie us, ſuch as would make the Reward of Debt if we had them, that is perfect Works, Such (ſays the Judicious Le Blanc) as the Law requires to Juſtification: And as for that the Doctor hath in anſwer to this, that it is a wild Imagination that the perfect Works of the Law will not juſtifie us, but imperfect Works which anſwer not the Law will do ſo, it does confirm what I judge of the Doctor's Conceptions, that certainly he never underſtood the Apoſtle as to this Matter, who (I ſay) excludes not Works of the Law from Juſtification, as if they would not juſtifie us if we had them, but becauſe none have them to be juſtified by them. It is therefore the Righteouſneſs of God, the Righteouſneſs of the Evangelick Condition that he in his Mercy through Chriſt's Merits hath inſtituted in the room of Works, to juſtifie the Chriſtian. And as for the Doctor's quoting Socinus ſaying this, to prejudice the Reader againſt it, I muſt needs ſay, I like this excellent Doctor's Judgment the meaner, and ſeeing I took the Notion from Scripture, and am ſure I am no Socinian myſelf, Socinus was a Man of Reaſon, and it is to be lik'd the better for that.

It is a thing (whether ſo propoſed or not) more worth the Thoughts of a ſerious Man, how the Doctrine of Juſtification as formerly it hath been taught, and is maintained by the Doctor, can be made to lodge with the Doctrine of Sanctification, or Regeneration in the ſame Scripture, or be preached together in the ſame Goſpel. The Papiſts are ſo careful to have theſe agree, that they make them one: The Proteſtants are ſo careful to keep them aſunder that they will not have any Works of ours, not Faith itſelf as a Work, or the Fruits of it Repentance and a Good Life, to be brought into our Juſtification, leaſt by going to eſtabliſh our own Righteouſneſs p. 52we ſubmit not to the Righteouſneſs of God, and periſh. Let the Works be wrought in us (ſays the Doctor. Of Juſt. p. 524.) if they be alſo wrought by us, I fear their Introduction into our Juſtification doth include beaſting. This (he adds) is a dangerous Point, even like to make us loſe all the Benefit we might otherwiſe expect by the Grace of God. I cannot but remember ſince I was young, holy Mr. Shepherd's Book, The Sincere Convert, and do reflect ſometimes on that Terror the Reading that, and the like Books, hath wrought in many for fear on one hand leaſt they live ſhort of that univerſal unreſerved Obedience, which is the moſt general Mark given of Sincerity, and on the other hand, when they have come to be ſatisfied a little as to that, leaſt they ſplit on the Book of truſting to themſelves, or reſting in Duty, inſtead of the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt received by Faith only. All things that are comprized any way in following after Righteouſneſs, ſuch as are all our Duties and Works are excluded from any Influence in our Juſtification, ſays the Doctor, p. 490. And in p. 493, he ſays, When the Apoſtle James affirms, that a Man is juſtified by Works, and not by Faith only, he cannot intend our Juſtification before God, where it is impoſſible they ſhould both concur. I have no doubt but St. James, and St. Paul both, underſtood by the Juſtification they ſpeak of, our Juſtification before God, I have proved it, Mid. Way of Juſt. p. 51, 52. The Juſtification of Abraham before, and at his Offering his Son, argues nothing but that Juſtification is a continued Act (as a Pardon at Law), and ſeeing his Faith and Works had Influence in it againſt the Doctor, I conceive that Faith and Works may be made to concur in Juſtification more kindly, than Juſtification and Sanctification can, in their Preaching of the Goſpel. The moſt of the Objections the Doctor tells us, that are raiſed againſt his Doctrine, do ariſe (he ſays) for want of a due Comprehenſion of the Order of the Work of Grace, and our Compliance therewithal in a Way of Duty. I muſt ſay the ſame of him, and as to all that is raiſed by any againſt the Doctrine of the Righteouſneſs of God, which I am endeavouring to eſtabliſh againſt that which is the Doctor's, and the common Proteſtants Own, inſtead of Paul's, Revealed in the Goſpel. The Goſpel calls for Repentance out of Queſtion, as well as Faith, and the Doctor, and others, could never exclude all Works from Juſtification againſt St. James, but for want of a due Comprehending the Way and Method of becoming Righteous, which God of his Grace and abundant Mercy, (when we were loſt and liable to Damnation, through the need of an irrecoverable Innocency) p. 53hath inſtituted through Chriſt's Redemption, and the Evangelick Condition, accepted by him inſtead of the Righteouſneſs of Works, from whence we are fallen. This is the Righteouſneſs of God, in a ſhort Explanation.**Well! Let us conſult what is that Righteouſneſs of God St. Paul ſpeaks of, Rom. 1.17. Rom. 3.21, 22, 26. Rom. 10.3. 2 Cor. 5.21. Phil. 3.9. which he calls ſo, God's Righteouſneſs, the Righteouſneſs of Faith, that which is through the Faith of Christ, the Righteouſneſs which is of God by Faith, in oppoſition to Works, in the Point of Juſtification? Is it the Righteouſneſs of Christ, who is God? I am perſwaded this is a Firſt Thought, ſo ſhallow, that it muſt be ſhort. What then indeed is it? This Righteouſneſs of God is that Way and Method of becoming Righteous, which is of God's Inſtitution, as Another hath expreſſed it. That is, not the Righteouſneſs of Christ, but that Righteouſneſs through Christ, which is Ordained of God, and promulgated in the Goſpel, to be accepted (I ſay, through him) unto Juſtification and Salvation. But what Way and Method is that? When God made Man, we muſt conceive he had in his Proſpect what to do with him, and that was to glorifie himſelf in Saving him. There was two Ways to do this, Either by the Way of Works, or Grace. Man was Created with an Original Righteouſneſs, and what was Original muſt be Natural, and if he had ſtood, he muſt according to Nature have been Righteous, and all his Poſterity, and the Reward then (as it is reckon'd by the Apoſtle) would have been of Debt, or Merit, and not of Grace. God hereby ſhould have glorified his Juſtice and Goodneſs in Saving Man, but he ſhould have ſhewn no Mercy, nor Man have any need of it: No, nor any need of a Saviour, or Redemption, or the Holy Spirit's Operation: That is, of that Grace which is Medicinal, or Habitual Grace, for I ſay, if he had an Original Righteouſneſs, he had no need of the Infuſion of a New, to heal Original Corruption. He would have been ſaved by Works proceeding from Nature, Ex Regula, & viribus Naturae, and not from Grace or the Spirit, and have needed none of that Grace neither which is Favour, but only God's Juſtice to have dealt with him according to that Law of Innocency, which he had performed. God therefore did not chooſe this Way, that Man ſhould be ſaved by a Righteouſneſs of his own, according to Nature, but by Way of Grace, and Works proceeding from Grace, or the Holy Spirit, and not of himſelf, and that is by a Righteouſneſs which is of God by Faith. For by Grace are ye ſaved through Faith, and not of your ſelves, least any Man ſhould boast: That is, not a Righteouſneſs of your effecting, but of God's own Contrivance, who hath choſen this way rather than that of Works, that none may aſcribe that to themſelves, which is due only to God. Not by Works of Righteouſneſs which we have done, but according to his Mercy he ſaved us, by the waſhing of Water, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Note, here is the Righteouſneſs we have done, and the Renewing of the Holy Ghost ſo oppoſed, as that we are ſaved by that Righteouſneſs which is of God, and of God's Spirit, and not by that which is our Own. How is that? Why, They being ignorant of God's Righteouſneſs, and going about to eſtabliſh their own, have not ſubmitted to that which ſhould have ſaved them. The Performance of the Law of Moſes, was the Jews Righteouſneſs (for God ſays, This ſhall be your Righteouſneſs), and the Performance of the Law of Nature, or Covenant of Works, is all Mankind's Righteouſneſs; and when neither Jew could perform the One, nor any Mortal the Other, there are none can be ſaved by the Righteouſneſs of their Own, but it muſt be by Another Righteouſneſs, called by the Apoſtle the Righteouſneſs of God. But now the Righteouſneſs of God without the Law is manifest, being witneſſed by the Law and Prophets, even the Righteouſneſs of God, which is by the Faith of Jeſus Christ. Here is a Righteouſneſs that was ever on foot in the World (or none elſe could have been ſaved) but now revealed by the Goſpel, which is the Righteouſneſs that ſave us, in oppoſition to the Righteouſneſs of the Law, or of Works, even the Righteouſneſs of Faith, that is a Righteouſneſs according to the Law or Covenant of Grace, which Chriſt hath procured by his Blood. Hence do we read it is ſaid of Chriſt in Daniel, that as he ſhould make Reconciliation for Iniquity, ſo he ſhould bring in an Everlaſting Righteouſneſs, that is, by his Death he ſhould procure a Covenant or Law of Grace, by our Performance whereof (without the Law) we are righteous, and muſt be juſtified and ſaved. 'Tis that is this Righteouſneſs. If Chriſt had not procured for us this New Law, there could have been no Righteouſneſs in the Earth, for the Law of Innocency no Man can perform, and therefore hath he by procuring this New Covenant, brought in a Righteouſneſs in the World, and that which is the abiding Righteouſneſs, the Righteouſneſs of this Covenant, whereby all are ſaved, that have, or ever ſhall be ſaved. Now when we have here a Righteouſneſs which lies in the Performance of the Law of Grace, purchaſed for us by Chriſt, and wrought in us by the Spirit of Grace (for the spirit we muſt know is not given to perform the Law of Works, but this Law) we do ſee what does belong to this Way of Grace, which God hath choſen to ſave Man by. This Way of Grace does contain in it the giving of Chriſt, the Redemption we have by him, our Reconciliation with God, Pardon of Sin, the Covenant itſelf, and the Diſpenſation of the Spirit, or his Grace for performing the Condition of it. All this, and more, hang together, ſo that when we ſay it is not by Works but by Grace, that we are ſaved, it is all one as to ſay, it is not by Perfect Works, but by an Evangelical Righteouſneſs, by Mercy, by Pardon, by Chriſt. See what this Righteouſneſs of God comes to in its right and full Definition. Mid. Way of Juſt. p. 57, 58.Rom 1:17Rom 3:21Rom 3:22Rom 3:26Rom 10:32 Cor 5:21Phil 3:9 I have two Pages to ſet it out more fuller in my Mid. Way of Juſt. p. 57, 58; and I have two Pages in my Pacif. p. 27, 28, 29, 30. which ſhould be read, rather than here abridged. p. 54The Deſign of God to ſave Man was to magnifie his Grace, and therefore of two Ways to do it, God choſe this of Grace, and not the Way of Works, unto which yet was Man created, and by which he ſhould have lived if he had ſtood, and it is ſuch Works (which Dr. Owen never came to conſider) unto which Grace is oppoſed by the Apoſtle. To this End the Fall is permitted, Redemption by Chriſt appointed. This Redemption is double, from Sin, and from Condemnation. Chriſt redeems us from Death by the Sacrifice of himſelf, upon which an Act of Grace paſſes, that gives Pardon and Life upon Condition, and the Condition is Repentance toward God, and Faith toward Jeſus Christ. Redemption from Sin is by the Grace of God's Spirit working in us this Repentance and Faith in order to our Juſtification, and is called by our Divines Effectual Vocation. It is ſo far therefore from Truth to exclude Evangelical Works from any Intereſt in our Juſtification, that they are ordained of God in order to it. God hath linked his Golden Chain, ſo that Election does enter our Calling, for Effectual Calling is Actual Election; and our Effectual Calling does enter our Juſtification, for the Works of it, Faith, Repentance, New Obedience, are imputed to us for that Righteouſneſs that juſtifies us; and our Juſtification, and inchoate Righteouſneſs does enter and is the Infancy of Glory.

p. 55From hence the Juſtification of a Sinner by the Righteouſneſs of God may come under a double Conſideration. It may be conſider'd Preciſely in itſelf, or Complexly with its Antecedents, and Conſequents. That which is Antecedent to it is Redemption, and that from Damnation as that from Sin, both being wrought without our doing any thing (not ſo much, ſays Ruiz, as to give an Active Occaſion) towards it, but wholly of Grace. It is like, that in regard to the Antecedents, the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the Freeneſs of our Juſtification, ſo as he does Rom. 3.24. and the like places when otherwiſe he lets us know, that without Converſion, or a Call of Turning from Sin unto God, no Man can be juſtified and ſaved. Unto whom I ſend thee to turn them from Darkneſs to Light, from the Power of Satan unto God, that they may receive Forgiveneſs of Sins, Acts 27.18. There is therefore the Antecedents, the Conſtituents, and Subſequents of this Righteouſneſs of God, and our Juſtification by it. Redemption and Calling are Antecedents: The Work of that Calling, which is the Performance of the Condition, and the Imputation of it for Righteouſneſs (the one being as it were the Matter, and the other giving the Form to it) are the Conſtituents: Actual or Abſolute Pardon and Life the Subſequents, or Benefits of it. This Diſtinction I would not omit before I go; off, becauſe I would have none ſo ſtiff in theri own Opinions (much leſs froward), but that they may yield to others alſo ſomething in theirs. If Auſtin will place Juſtification in the Infuſion of Grace, I will grant it him as Antecedent to it. If Mr. Wotton will place it in Pardon, I will grant it him as Conſequent to it, or as the Special Benefit of it. If the Aſſembly will place it in Pardon, and the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, if they mean it, Per modum Meriti, and not In ſe, I will grant it. If Mr. Baxter will place it in a Perſonal Righteouſneſs ſubſervient to the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, not formally made Ours, but in the Effects (that is as much as to ſay, required in order to our having Impunity and Life as Comprehenſive of all its Effects or Benefits) I will grant it him, as Conſtituent of it. If Dr. Owen will be content, tho' others differ from him, ſo long as Remiſſion of Sin, Acceptance with God, Right to Life, are acknowledged all to be owing to the Righteouſneſs of Christ, and not the Merit of our Works, I kiſs Dr. Owen's Hand alſo. Let this Righteouſneſs of God for Juſtification of Life, be taken in its Complex Conſideration, and we may all joyn in ſome Agreement in it, tho' where it is Preciſely taken, every own will ſtand for his own p. 56Opinion. I was long before I could come to this. God accounting a Man righteous by the Law of Grace, as having performed the Condition I always thought to be Juſtification; and this Mr. Baxter granted me. Pardon then I counted the Effect of this, and therefore different from it, beſides that the Word methoughts would not allow them to be the ſame. Pardon of Sin is not ſignified by the Word Juſtification in any place of Scritpure, ſays Dr. Owen, p. 173. The Word is never found ſo uſed, either in the Hebrew or Greek Writers, Sacred or Profane, nor in our common Speech, ſays Gattaker (on Iſa. 5.23), who was in this yet a more competent Judge. How theſe two Things being different, as the Cauſe and Effect, ſhould enter the ſame Definition, and be made one, I could not deviſe or admit, 'till I was taught by one Word in a Letter I receiv'd from Mr. Baxter. Pardon (ſays he) is not that Juſtifications. The Word [That] inſtructed me, that Juſtification being a Forenſical Term oppoſed to Accuſation, According to the Accuſation, ſuch he counted Juſtification. There are now two Charges (as moſt ſay) againſt the Sinner, a Charge of the Law, and a Charge of the Goſpel. The Charge of the Law is, that we have broke it, and are liable to the Curſe, Gal. 3.10. Our Juſtification againſt this Charge, is by an Acknowledgment of the Indictment, but we plead a Stature made in the Year of our Lord Chriſt's Death, when and where it is Enacted, That whoſoever believes and repents, ſhall be freed from that Condemnation. That is, Our Plea in ſhort is, a Pardon upon Chriſt's Satisfaction. But this Pardon being General and Conditional, there ariſes the Charge of the Goſpel. This Charge is that we have not performed the Condition, And our Juſtification againſt this Charge, is by pleading Not Guilty, for the Performance of the Evangelick Condition (accepted through Mercy and Chriſt's Merits, is our Righteouſneſs, as Not Guilty (which is ſhewn before) of this Charge of Non-performance. Here De Re, I agree with Mr. Baxter, but De Nomine, I am not ſatisfied yet, to allow any other than one Juſtification. Our Juſtification at Judgment, Come ye bleſſed, for when I was hungry ye fed me, is plainly the Evangelick Condition performed, and that is the Righteouſneſs according to which the Sentence paſſes, and as is the Juſtification of the Judge, ſuch muſt be that of the preſent Law, whereby he judges, and that is therefore our Evangelical Juſtification. As for the Charge of the Law, I count it can have no place at the Judgment of God, for the Satisfaction of p. 57Chriſt, and the Pardon upon it cannot there be brought in queſtion. If a Charge may be ſuppoſed, the Satisfaction of Chriſt, which is our Plea againſt it, is not Ours, or imputed to us for Ours, not imputed In ſe (I and Mr. Baxter hold) and ſo cannot be here our Formal Righteouſneſs, without which a Legal Juſtification thereby ariſes not. Beſides this, the Pardon granted upon Chriſt's Satisfaction, is that Univerſal Conditional Remiſſion which precedes Juſtification, and when it comes to be Abſolute or Actual to any one, it is the Conſequent of his Juſtification, and muſt not be Juſtification itſelf, as ſome make it. I am not willing therefore to apprehend, that becauſe here are two Righteouſneſſes, there are two Juſtifications, for Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, as the Meritorious Cauſe of it goes into that Evangelical one, and makes not Another: But I would have one only Juſtification, yet ſet forth in Scripture, and ſpoken of by Divines under a double Conſideration, as Strictly and Largely taken. Under a Strict and Preciſe Conſideration, I ſuppoſe nothing but what goes into the Form of it, may be ſaid of it: Under a Large and Complex Conſideration, I allow the thing and benefit, tho' Cauſe and Effect (which was my heretofore Scruple) may be comprized in our ſpeaking of one and the ſame Juſtification. I will preſs this Difficulty no further, nor move any other, but will break off with that Reſolution I take up from Chemnicius, and he, by the Stile, I ſuppoſe, from Luther. Quae dialectica ſubtilitate diſſolvi non poſſunt, piſcatoria ſimplicitate praecidantur. And as to theſe aforeſaid Charges or Accuſations, I ſay this only, that let as many be raiſed, as any can raiſe, they need not every one a Particular, but are all diſcharg'd by one Univerſal Evangelical Juſtification.

FINIS.