Divine Truths in Jesus Christ, Chapter 11

Divine Truths in Jesus Christ · Chapter 11

p. 325CHAP. XI.

Chap. 11 Touching Juſtification, as to the Law. Chriſt's Righteouſneſs conſtitutes us Righteous. A double imputation: One to the proper Agent, another to thoſe in Conjunction; the Conjunctions between Chriſt and us; how Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is imputed to us; that it is not only the Meritorious, but Material cauſe of our Juſtification; this is proved from that phraſe, The Righteouſneſs of God; from the nature of Juſtification; from the parallel of the two Adams; from other phraſes in Scripture; from a pardon as not being the ſame with Juſtification; from Chriſt's ſuffering in our ſtead; the Objections againſt imputed Righteouſneſs anſwered; what juſtifies us as to the Goſpel terms; the Neceſſity and connexion of a twofold Righteouſneſs; how we are juſtified by Faith; how Good Works are neceſſary. A ſhort Concluſion.

THERE remaineth yet behind one Eminent piece of Grace; I mean Juſtification; this in Luther is, Articulus ſtantis & cadentis Eccleſiae, and in Chemnitius, Arx & propugnaculum Religionis Chriſtianae; a Sacred thing it is, and difficult to explain; the true meaſures of it cannot be taken from any thing but the holy Scripture, where this Myſtery is revealed. Touching Juſtification there are three things conſiderable, viz. Firſt we are conſtituted righteous; then eſteemed or pronounced ſuch; and at laſt treated as ſuch. The firſt conferrs a righteouſneſs upon us; the ſecond ownes and declares it; the third gives us the conſequent reward thereof. p. 326The firſt we have in that phraſe of Juſtifying the Ungodly, Rom. 4.5. for that, unleſs it were collative of a Righteouſneſs, would be the ſame abomination with the Juſtifying the Wicked, Prov. 17.15. The ſecond in that phraſe of Juſtifying the Righteous, Deut. 25.1. where the word (Juſtifying) is not effectionis, ſed aeſtimationis & declarationis ſignificativum: the third is not ſo much a part of Juſtification, as a conſequent of it; neither do I remember that it is called Juſtification in Scripture: The firſt is the foundation of the other two; unleſs a Man be conſtituted righteous, God, who is Truth it ſelf, cannot eſteem or pronounce him ſuch: for that were for him to err, which is impoſſible; neither can he, who is Sanctity it ſelf, treat him as ſuch; for an unrighteous Perſon cannot poſſibly enter into the holy Heaven, where Eternal Life is given to the Righteous.

The main Quaere in Juſtification is, What it is that conſtitutes us righteous before God: Righteouſneſs relates to ſome Law: we are under a double Law; the one the Law of Nature or Creation, which calls for perfect Obedience in every point. The other the Law of Grace, which accepts of ſincerity; we muſt, if juſtified, be made righteous to both theſe, accordingly I ſhall diſcourſe of both.

We are under the Moral Law of Nature; this is immortalized by its own intrinſecal rectitude; it ſo naturally reſults out of the Relation which Man ſtands in towards God, that as long as God is God, the Supream Truth and Goodneſs, and Man Man, a Creature endued with Reaſon and Will, it cannot ceaſe to be, or to oblige: it is not imaginable, that ſuch a thing as Reaſon ſhould be unbound to look up to the original Truth, from whence it came, or that p. 327ſuch a thing as Free-will, ſhould be unbound to embrace that infinite Good which made it; this Law ſtands faſter than the pillars of Heaven and Earth: it hath a double Sanction; a promiſe of Eternal Life upon perfect obedience, and a threatning of eternal Death upon the leaſt Tranſgreſſion. The promiſe though never abrogated by God, could not of it ſelf bud or bring forth Life; a Sinner, becauſe a Sinner, not being capable of perfect obedience, could not have Life from that promiſe, ceſſat materia. There could be no perſon capable of the promiſed Life; the Law was weak, though not in it ſelf, yet through the Fleſh, the ſin of Man. Man ſinned away the Promiſe, but the Threatning he could not ſin away; nay, by his ſin he put himſelf under the Curſe and Wrath of it. Sin made him a fit object and fuel for theſe; the caſe ſtanding thus, how or which way ſhould a Sinner be juſtified as to the Law? In a Sinner there was matter enough for the Treatning, but more for the Promiſe. Death might juſtly ſeize him, but Life he was not payable of by vertue of that Law; here infinite Wiſdom found out that which no created Eye could ſpy out, a way of Juſtification without abrogating the Law: thus therefore it was contrived, the Law, being under the power of the Legiſlator, was relaxed, though not abrogated; there may be a double notion of the Law; either it may be taken as it is in it ſelf, in ſummo apice, in its primordial rigor, requiring perfect perſonal obedience from us; and thus it doth not, cannot juſtifie us; there is a foreign, an utter impoſſibility upon it. Rom. 8.3. Righteouſneſs could not come by the Law, nay, in this ſenſe it worketh wrath, it condemns and curſes the Sinner; or elſe it may be taken as it is by the great p. 328Legiſlator relaxed, to admit of a ſatisfaction in our Sponſor Jeſus Chriſt; and thus it hath its end, its foreign, a Righteouſneſs which ſatisfied it in him; thus it cannot condemn Believers: a ſatisfied Law, ſo far as it is ſatisfied, hath nothing to ſay againſt them who partake of that ſatisfaction: That of Learned Mr. Gataker is remarkable, Juſtificatio noſtri tum ab Evangelio, tum à Lege pendet; à Lege quatenùs eidem ſatisfit pro delictis adversùs eam admiſſis; ab Evangelio, quatenùs ſatisfactio, non à nobis, ſed à Chriſto Vicariâ operâ pro nobis exhibetur; The Goſpel reveals ſuch a Sponſor as hath ſatisfied the Law for us; the Law being ſatisfied cannot condemn thoſe who partake of that ſatisfaction.

It appears by this, That Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is that which conſtitutes us righteous as to the Law; only here many worthy learned Divines are at a difference, how it doth ſo: doubtleſs it doth it in a way of Imputation, but the mode of that Imputation is not agreed on. Some ſay, that Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is the meritorious cauſe of our Juſtification, and ſo imputed to us in the effects, in that pardon which diſcharges us from the Law: Others, That it is it ſelf in ſome ſort imputed to us, and ſo becomes the material cauſe of our Juſtification; I take it, our former Divines, who diſputed with the Papiſts about Imputed Righteouſneſs, are of the latter opinion. Hence Biſhop Davenant ſaith,De Juſt. hab. fol. 364, 373. that, Ipſiſſima Chriſti obedientia nobis imputatur, quaſi eſſet noſtra perſonalis; The very obedience of Chriſt is imputed to us, as if it were our perſonal Righteouſneſs. And again he ſaith, that In ſe, it is cauſa meritoria Juſtificationis; but as it is apply'd to Believers, Subit vicem cauſae formalis, it is in the room of a formal cauſe. 'Tis p. 329true, he ſaith, That it is imputed to us ad aliquem effectum; not that it is imputed only in the effect, but that it is imputed in a meaſure, and to ſome intents, though not in the full latitude, or as it is in Chriſt. The Learned Profeſſors of Leyden determine thus: Mirum hîc videri non debet Chriſti Juſtitiam non meritoriae ſolùm, ſed & materialis, imò & formalis cauſae rationem habere, cum id diverſimodè fiat, nempe, quâ illud eſt, propter quod, in quo, ſive ex quo, & per quod juſtificamur: To quote no more, If Chriſt's Righteouſneſs be only a meritorious cauſe of Juſtification, then our former Divines have ſtriven in the dark, the Controverſies between them and the Papiſts in this point have been but a vain jangling; no Papiſt ever denied, that Chriſt merited Juſtification for us, no Proteſtant ſhould ask any more. The Council of Trent, laying down the cauſes of Juſtification, ſaith, Chiſtus ſuâ ſanctiſſimâ Paſſione in ligno Crucis nobis Juſtificationem meruit, & pro nobis Deo Patri ſatisfecit. Here our Divines ſhould have acquieſced in ſilence, but ſurely they thought there was ſomewhat more in it: For my own part, I conceive Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is ſo far imputed to us, as to be the matter of our Juſtification; before I come to offer my Reaſons, I ſhall lay down ſeveral things tending to explain my meaning in this point.

Firſt, There is a double Imputation. The one, when a thing inherent or tranſient is imputed to the very Subject or Agent of it. The other, when it is imputed to thoſe in conjunction with the Subject or Agent, as being parts and portions of him. The firſt Imputation is according to the courſe of Nature, the ſecond is according to ſome juſt conſtitution made touching the ſame: the former is unqueſtionable, p. 330the latter is that which is to be cleared, that ſuch an Imputation is poſſible; and when it is done, truth may appear by theſe Inſtances. The primitive Righteouſneſs of our Nature was only inherent in Adam: Yet was it imputed to us; we were by God eſteemed as righteous in him, elſe we are not fallen Creatures, neither do we need any ſuch thing as Regeneration. Adam's ſin was an act done by him, yet is it imputed to us; it is derived down upon us as Members of him, elſe the want of Righteouſneſs in us is not a privative want of what we once had in Adam, and afterwards loſt in him, but a meer negative want, as being only of that we never had or forfeited: Adam's Righteouſneſs being not imputed to us, we never had it; Adam's ſin being not imputed to us, we never forfeited it; ſuch a meer negative want is no ſin. Nay, if Adam's ſin be not imputed to us, our inherent pravity is no ſin; it cannot be ſin in unfallen Creatures; it is no ſin to be born into the World; there is no foundation in us to make it ſin; and the conſequence of this is, that there is no ſuch thing as original ſin at all in us, which to ſay, is to oppoſe the Doctrine of the Church in all Ages: We ſee here, that ſuch an imputation to thoſe in conjunction is poſſible, becauſe it is actually done; and it muſt needs be true, becauſe it is done by God, who is Truth it ſelf, and cannot err. You will ſay, It cannot be true, primitive Righteouſneſs was never in us, we never committed Adam's ſin: I anſwer, This is one thing which over-turns Religion; we are apt to reject that as falſe, which our weak Reaſon cannot comprehend. Is not an internal ſin in the Will imputed to the Members of the Body? if not, why muſt the Body riſe and ſuffer for it? if ſo, ſin may be imputed p. 331to that which it never reſided in; in this caſe the conjunction ſalves the matter; and by a parity of Reaſon, Adam's Righteouſneſs and Sin may be imputed to us, as being parts and Members of him; and the Imputation is true, becauſe it is to thoſe in conjunction, and according to a juſt conſtitution. God ſet Adam to be a Head of Mankind; we are propagated from him as Branches from the Root; his fin therefore may be juſtly imputed to us: the Imputation of it is according to the Divine Conſtitution: But the reaſon of that Imputation is, becauſe Adam, the Head of Mankind, ſinned, and all in him: It is a pretty queſtion which is ſtarted in Anſelm, De Concept. Virg. cap. 4.how the Senſes and Members in Man ſhould be guilty of ſin, when God himſelf ſubjected them to Man's Will? I anſwer, God's order was meet and congruous in ſo ſubjecting them; yet the act of the Will renders them guilty, as being in conjunction with it: in like manner, God's Conſtitution that Adam ſhould be the Head of Mankind, was juſt and equitable, but this tranſgreſſion of Adam derives a guilt upon us, as being parts and Members of him.

2ly. The Conjunction between Chriſt and us muſt be conſidered, and that is double.

The one is that Conjunction which is between Chriſt and Mankind in common; the Titles given to Chriſt will manifeſt it; he is a Mediator, not only an internuntial one, but a ſatisfying and atoning one, a Mediator above all Peer or Parallel, and that in all his Offices, in which he acted not as a private Perſon, or in his own name only, But, as the Office was in Gods or ours; in his Prophetical and Kingly Offices he acted in God's Name towards us; in his Prieſtly Office, he acted in our Name towards God; hence p. 332the Apoſtle ſaith, that every Prieſt is ordained foreign, for Men, Heb. 5.1. to act in their behalf towards God: he was our Sponſor or Surety, he undertook to ſatisfie Juſtice for us. Loe, I come to do thy will, O God, ſaith he, Heb. 10.7. Burnt-offerings and Sacrifices could not pay our Debts, but he would do it; and for that purpoſe he took an Humane Nature to do it in: never was there ſuch a Surety as he; he undertook to ſatisfie for us, not as common Sureties do, upon a meer contingency, but upon a certain determinate Counſel; not when we were ſolvents or able to reimburſe him again, but when we were known utter bankrupts, under a perfect impoſſibility to expiate the leaſt ſin. So plenary was that ſatisfaction, that if we receive him by Faith, we are Debtors no longer, all our debts are blotted out of God's Book, no more to be charged upon us; a ſecond payment cannot be demanded of us; he was the repreſentative of Mankind. He did ſuſtinere noſtram perſonam, he ſtood in our room; he ſuffered in our ſtead, not only noſtro bono, but noſtro loco: it may be thought perhaps that Chriſt was not a proper ſubſtitute; but it was well ſaid by the Learned Rivet in another caſe, Regulis & Legibus humanis Deum alligare vult pulvis & cinis: We are apt to limit the Holy one to our Rules and meaſures: But if the Myſteries of Chriſt may be put into the ſtraights of humane Laws and Reaſon, he can ſcarce be properly any thing of that which the Scripture aſcribes to him, he cannot properly be a Surety and a Mediator too, much leſs a Prieſt and a Sacrifice too; leaſt of all theſe, and a Redeemer too in the ſame ſufferings: A Mediator doth not pay as a Surety doth; nor a Surety offer as a Prieſt doth; nor a Prieſt die as a Sacrifice doth; p. 333neither is a Redeemer the very ſame with theſe, but diſtinct from them all; may there be a proper Prieſt and Redeemer, a proper Offering and Paying, a proper Sacrifice and Price in the ſame ſufferings: theſe conjunctions ſeem to carry difficulty in them. Nevertheleſs, I verily believe, that he was properly all theſe, yet in a way of tranſcendency above humane Law and Reaſon; it is obſervable in Scripture, that one notion of Chriſt runs into another, the notion of a Mediator into that of a Redeemer; he is a Mediator, who gave himſelf a ranſom, 1 Tim. 2.5, & 6. the notion of a Mediator into that of a Prieſt, he is a Mediator for the Redemption of Tranſgreſſions, Heb. 9.15. that is, for the expiation of them by offering up himſelf to God, as it is in the precedent verſe; the notion of a Prieſt into that of a Surety: hence in the midſt of a Divine Diſcourſe touching his Prieſthood, comes in foreign, the ſurety of the Covenant, Heb. 7.22. nay, it is obſervable, that theſe notions of Chriſt are interwoven with that of a Subſtitute, as the mode of performing them. Thus as a Prieſt he gave himſelf an Offering and a Sacrifice for us, Epheſ. 5.2. as a Redeemer he was made a Curſe for us, Gal. 3.13. as a Mediator and Redeemer he gave himſelf a ranſom for all, 1 Tim. 2.5, & 6. in each of which the ſubſtitution comes in: hence it appears, that Chriſt is properly all theſe; or elſe, as Socinus would have it, all ſeems to be but a Metaphor. To add no more, theſe Conjunctions tell us, that Chriſt was ſo far one with us, that thoſe things fell upon him, which otherwiſe he was utterly incapable of. The Holy One was made ſin, the Bleſſed One a curſe; his ſufferings were properly penal, ſuch as were not inflicted by Soveraignty, but Juſtice, ſuch p. 334as were not the Curſe cauſleſs, but merited by ſin; unleſs they were merited by ſin, they were meer ſuffering, not puniſhment; puniſhment for nothing, is no puniſhment: if there was no puniſhment in his ſufferings, how were they ſatisfactory? If there was no merit of ſin to procure them, how were they penal? If Juſtice inflicted them not, how were they a puniſhment? or, if they were penal, how could Juſtice inflict them upon an Innocent? Here we have nothing to ſay, but this, Chriſt was ſo far made one with us, as to render his ſufferings penal and ſatisfactory.

The other is that ſpecial conjunction, which is between Chriſt and Believers; Chriſt is the Head, they are the Members: the Ligatures of this Myſtical Union are the Holy Spirit and Faith, the quickning Spirit (ſaith the reverend Ʋſher) deſcends downwards from the head to be in us a fountain of ſupernatural life; a lively Faith, wrought by the ſame Spirit, aſcends from us upward to lay faſt hold upon him. The Scripture notably ſets forth this Union, We dwell in Chriſt, and he in us, John 6.56. We abide in him, and he in us, John 15.4. We are Members of his Body, of his Fleſh, and of his Bones, Epheſ. 5.30, 32. And he is in us the hope of Glory, Col. 1.27. This the Apoſtle calls a great Myſtery, and the Riches of the Glory of the Myſtery; we are ingraſted into him as Branches into a Root; cemented to him as the building is to the foundation; incorporated with him as the food is with our Bodies; united to him as Members are to the Head. We eat his Fleſh, and drink his Blood, and become one Spirit with him; nothing can be more emphatical, the Holy Spirit, which reſides in him the Head, falls down upon us p. 335his Members, and ſo makes a kind of continuity between him and us, too Spiritual and Divine to be interrupted by any local diſtance: Hence St. Chryſoſtom ſaith, that there is, foreign,Com. 1 Cor. 3.11.1 Cor 3:11 no medium or middle between Chriſt and us; hence St. Auſtin ſaith, that, Fideles ſiunt cum homine Chriſto unus Chriſtus, Believers are made one Chriſt with the Man Chriſt, the Head and the Body make up one Chriſt: Hence that of Aquinas, that Chriſt and his Members are but, una perſona myſtica, one myſtical perſon; the conſequence of this admirable Union is the communication of Divine Bleſſings from him to us, tota verae juſtitiae, ſalutis, vitae participatio ex hâc perneceſſariâ cum Chriſto foreign pendet: ſaith the learned Zanchy, All our good things depends on this moſt neceſſary Ʋnion.

Thirdly, The righteouſneſs of Chriſt may be taken under a double notion, either as it was the very idem to all the Laws he was under, or elſe as it was the tantundem, a plenary ſatisfaction to the moral Law by us violated; in the firſt notion it was a righteouſneſs ex naturâ ſuâ, being a perfect conformity to thoſe Laws; in the ſecond it was a ſatisfaction ex divinâ ordinatione, being by God ordained ſo to be; in the firſt notion it was not for us; who, being once ſinners, were incapable of it. But for himſelf to juſtifie and ſanctifie him in that ſtate, which he undertook to be in: In the ſecond it was not for himſelf; who, as being pure from all ſin, was incapable of it; but for us, to juſtifie us ſinners againſt the Law: Here I ſhall only add, that, under the notion of ſatisfaction, I take in all Chriſt's righteouſneſs, Active as well as Paſſive; though I think the Active in it ſelf alone could not have amounted to a ſatisfaction, p. 336becauſe without ſhedding of blood there was no remiſſion to be; yet the Active being in Conjunction with the Paſſive, is a part of the ſatisfaction, and makes it the more compleat; for a ſatisfaction made up of both together, anſwers the threatning, and honours the precept of the Law; it ſatisfies God's Juſtice in it ſelf by penal ſufferings, and in its foundation, that is, God's holineſs, by perfect obedience.

Fourthly, The Active and Paſſive Righteouſneſs of Chriſt are not imputed to us, as they are the Idem, a perfect conformity to the Laws he was under; for we were not under the Mediatorial Law: nor, being once ſinners, are we capable of a perfect conformity to the moral: but they are imputed to us, as they are the tantundem, a plenary ſatisfaction to the moral Law by us broken; for ſo they are very apt and proper to juſtifie ſinners againſt the Law: Neither is Chriſt's ſatisfaction imputed to all actually to juſtifie them againſt the Law, for all are not juſtified againſt it, but it is imputed to Believers, as being myſtical parts and portions of him: hence that Learned Biſhop ſaith,Dav. de Juſt. hab. 369. Quia inſiti ſumus in corpus ejus, & coaleſcimus cum illo in unam perſonam, ideò ejus juſtitia noſtra reputatur, becauſe we are ingrafted into his body, and grow as it were, into one Perſon with him, therefore his Righteouſneſs is reputed ours; neither is Chriſt's ſatisfaction imputed to his belleving Members according to its fulneſs and latitude as it is in Chriſt the Head, but in ſuch ſort and meaſure as is meet for it to be communicated to Members: this is notably illuſtrated in the parallel of the two Adams, who are two ſuch communicative Heads, as never were the like, who communicate to theirs in ſuch p. 337proportion as is congruous between Head and Members. Adam's ſin is derived to each of us, not in its full latitude, but pro menſurâ membri; and in like manner, Chriſt's ſatisfaction is derived to each Believer, not in its full latitude, but pro menſurâ membri; ſo much of Ada's ſin comes upon each one of us, as ſoon as he is proles Adae, as makes him a ſinner; ſo much of Chriſt's ſatisfaction comes upon each one of us, as ſoon as he is proles Chriſti, as makes him Righteous againſt the Law; in both there is a communication to Members, yet in ſuch a way, as that the difference between Head and Members is obſerved.

Fifthly, There was a Divine Conſtitution, that Jeſus Chriſt ſhould be our Sponſor, and ſtanding in our room, ſhould ſatisfie for us, that he ſhould be an Head to Believers, and his ſatisfaction ſhould ſo far become theirs, as to juſtifie them againſt the Law: accordingly that ſatisfaction is truly imputed to them. Some Perſons have been pleaſed to ſpeak of Imputed Righteouſneſs, as if it were a fancy, a meer putative imaginary thing; but we ſee here upon what grounds it ſtands: the firſt Foundation of it, is the Divine conſtitution made touching Chriſt; the intermediate Foundation is this, that Chriſt was our Sponfor and ſatisfied for us: the immediate Foundation is this, that Chriſt is a communicating Head to his believing Members, and they as Members participate in his ſatisfaction; theſe things are ſufficient to make us conclude as Biſhop Davenant doth, Imputatio non nititur fictitiâ aliquâ ſuppoſitione, ſed verâ participatione rei imputatae: Imputation doth not ſtand upon any fictitious ſuppoſition, but upon a true participation of the thing imputed. Theſe things being thus laid down, I p. 338ſhall come directly to the point, my Opinion is, That the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is not meerly the meritorious cauſe of Juſtification, but ſomwhat more; neither is it meerly imputed to us in the Effects, but it ſelf, as a ſatisfaction, is ſo far imputed to us, as to be the material cauſe of Juſtification, as to the Law, I think nothing can be more proper to juſtifie us as the Law than that which ſatisfied it. I cannot tell how to ſuppoſe that one thing ſhould ſatisfie the Law, and another juſtifie againſt it: And here I ſhall firſt lay down my Reaſons, and then anſwer the Objections made againſt my Opinion: For Reaſons I ſhall offer ſeveral things.

Firſt, I ſhall begin with that memorable phraſe, The Righteouſneſs of God, which cannot but be of great moment in this point: ſome take it for the mercy of God, and ſo it is ſometimes taken in the Old Teſtament, The Mercy of the Lord is upon them that fear him, and his Righteouſneſs unto Childrens Children, Pſal. 103.17. where Mercy and Righteouſneſs are one and the ſame; but in the New Teſtament, where this phraſe often occurs, it is never ſo taken; the Righteouſneſs of God is revealed in the Goſpel, Rom. 1.17. Revealed, that, which before was only obſcurely hinted, was in the Goſpel clearly opened; but the Mercy of God was not only darkly hinted, but openly proclaimed in very high and ſtately terms in the Old Teſtament. An Inſtance we have of it, Exod. 34.6, and 7. where the Titles of Mercy carry as much of Glory and Magnificence as any thing can do. We are ſaid to be made the Righteouſneſs of God, 2 Cor. 5.21. but never to be made his Mercy; neither would be at all proper to ſay ſo. Others take it for our Inherent Graces, which p. 339are our Evangelical Righteouſneſs; but theſe, though they come down from Heaven, are never called the Righteouſneſs; nay, on the contrary they are called our own, as being inherent in us: Hence we find Your Faith, Rom. 1.8. your Love, 2 Cor. 8.8. your Patience, Luke 21.19. your Hope, 1 Pet. 1.21. your Righteouſneſs, Matth. 5.20. that, which in Scripture is called the Righteouſneſs of God, is not the ſame with that which is called our own there; were our Inherent Graces imported in that phraſe. Faith, which is a prime excellent Grace, muſt have its ſhare therein; but the Righteouſneſs of God is by Faith, Rom. 3.22. Therefore it is not Faith, the Righteouſneſs of God is upon the Believer, therefore it is not in him: Others take it for Pardon; but neither can this Interpretation ſtand. The Jews were ignorant of God's Righteouſneſs, Rom. 10.3. but ſurely they were not ignorant, that God was a God pardoning iniquity, that Pardon which in the Old Teſtament is elegantly decyphered by Covering, Blotting out, Remembring no more, Caſting away ſin, is not in the New vailed in an Expreſlion, ſo obſcure and improper for it, as that of the Righteouſneſs of God ſeems to be to that intent; leaving theſe, I take it, that the Righteouſneſs of God imports that of Chriſt; and in this ſence the phraſe is as Glorious and Illuſtrious, as it would be obſcure and improper to denote Pardon: The Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is indeed the Righteouſneſs of God; it is the Righteouſneſs of him who is God, of him, whoſe Blood is called the Blood of God; it is a pure perfect Righteouſneſs which can conſiſt before the Tribunal of God, which was by God ordained to make us Righteous: This is it which, being before but darkly hinted, was in p. 340the Goſpel manifeſtly revealed; this is that which is upon the Believer as a rich Covering to hide his imperfections, this is it which the Jews were ignorant of, and ſubmitted not unto: the Apoſtle tells us, That they ſubmitted not to the Righteouſneſs of God, Rom. 10.3. and what that Righteouſneſs is, the next Verſe expreſſes; for Chriſt is the end of the Law for Righteouſneſs to every one that believeth; the Law hath its end in nothing but in his Righteouſneſs, which ſatisfied it. But beſides there is one place, which in terminis calls the Righteouſneſs of God the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, to them who have obtained like precious Faith with us through the Righteouſneſs of God and our Saviour Jeſus Chriſt, 2 Pet. 1.1. Obſerve, it is not through the Righteouſneſs foreign, of God, and of our Saviour Jeſus Chriſt, as noting two Perſons, but foreign, of God and our Saviour, as betokening one, as Biſhop Downham hath obſerved; like that Tit. 2.13. The glorious Appearance of the great God and our Saviour, where one Perſon is intended: Thus far it appears, that the Righteouſneſs of God denotes the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt. That which remains is to enquire, Whether the Righteouſneſs of God never import any more than a meer meritorious cauſe: 'Tis true in that place 2 Pet. 1.1. it imports no more; but in others it ſpeaks further: We are made the Righteouſneſs of God, 2 Cor. 5.21. The Righteouſneſs of God is upon us, Rom. 3.22. and, as a paraphraſe upon the Righteouſneſs of God, the Apoſtle tells us, that Chriſt is the end of the Law for Righteouſneſs to the Believer, Rom. 10.4. Here I take it, the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is ſet forth not only as a meritorious antecedent cauſe of Juſtification, but as an Ingredient, a material cauſe in it: he p. 341that hath only the effect, cannot be ſaid to be made the Impetrating cauſe, no more can we be ſaid to be made the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, if we only have the fruit of it, not the thing it ſelf: That Righteouſneſs, as a meritorious cauſe, may be ſaid to be for us; but not to be upon us, unleſs by Imputation it be made ours: Chriſt in reſpect of Merit only is no more for Righteouſneſs (which yet is the Emphaſis of the Text) than for ſanctifying Graces, theſe being as much merited as the other; Chriſt is ſo far Righteouſneſs as he is the end of the Law, and that he is in the ſatisfaction it ſelf, not in Remiſſion, which is the effect of it; the Satisfaction it ſelf therefore is made ours in Juſtification. It ſeems to me a great departure from the Text to ſay, Chriſt is the end of the Law for Righteouſneſs, that is for Pardon, which is the Effect, or for Impunity, which is the Effect of the Effect.

Secondly, It is utterly impoſſible that there ſhould be a Juſtification without a Righteouſneſs. Conſtitutive Juſtification makes us Righteous, Eſtimative or ſentential Juſtification eſteems or pronounces us ſuch; a Juſtification cannot be without a Righteouſneſs; nor can any thing be a Righteouſneſs, unleſs it anſwer the Law. What then is our Righteouſneſs as to the Law? Faith, anſwers the Goſpel terms: But what anſwers the Law? Surely nothing under Heaven can do it but Chriſt's Satisfaction. The Quaere therefore is, Whether that Satisfaction be our Righteouſneſs in it ſelf, or only in its effects: if in the effects only, then ſomething leſs than Chriſt's ſatisfaction, viz. an effect, is our Righteouſneſs as to the Law, and by conſequence ſomething leſs than that ſatisfies the Law: I cannot imagine p. 342that one thing ſhould ſatisfie the Law, and another juſtifie againſt it; one and the ſame ſatisfaction of Chriſt doth both. There are but two ſorts of Righteouſneſs as to the Law; the one a Righteouſneſs in the idem, a direct conformity to it; the other a Righteouſneſs in valor, a full compenſation or ſatisſaction for the breaches of it, a third cannot be found, where there is neither ſuch a conformity to the Law, that all is done as it ought to be, nor ſuch a ſatisfaction to it, that all that is done amiſs, is compenſated, there is no ſuch thing as Righteouſneſs, a pardon or freedom from puniſhment there may be, but a Righteouſneſs there is not. Becauſe there is nothing done to the Law; either by way of obedience or recompence; and where nothing is done to the Law, there cannot be a Righteouſneſs: Now a Sinner not being capable of a Righteouſneſs of conſormity, his Righteouſneſs muſt be that of a ſatisfaction or compenſation; not an effect of it, but the thing it ſelf, no other thing can be a Sinners Righteouſneſs. It is obſervable in Scripture, That Juſtification is ſo ſet forth, that the Law is eſtabliſhed in it, Rom. 3.31. that its Righteouſneſs is fulfilled, Rom. 8.4. that it hath its end, Rom. 10.4. And all this becauſe in Chriſt's Satisfaction there is a full compenſution made for ſin, ſuch as comes in the room of a perfect conformity, and ſupplies that defect of it which riſes out of the ſuult committed: This is done by the Satisfaction it ſelf, not by an effect of it. Nothing leſs than it ſelf could give the Law its end or eſtabliſhment: If that Satisfaction be our Righteouſneſs, not in it ſelf but in its effects, what is that effect? Is it a Pardon? that is God's act; God's act may make or eſteem us righteous, but it is not the Righteouſneſs p. 343it ſelf; it is a jus impunitatis that is not the Righteouſneſs it ſelf; a Righteouſneſs as to the Law muſt be either a perfect conformity or a ſatisfaction, but a Jus impunitatis is neither of theſe; as in Condemnation the Obligatio ad paenam is not the very culpa, but a conſequent of it. So in Juſtification the Jus impunitatis is not the very Righteouſneſs, but a conſequent of it. A Jus impunitatis is oppoſite to the reatus paenae; but a Satisfaction, which is our true Righteouſneſs, is oppoſite to the reatus culpae, as compenſating the fault committed. It remains therefore that Chriſt's Satisfaction is not in its effects, but in it ſelf our Righteouſneſs, which alſo further appears: In that, when we are to anſwer for our breaches of the Law, our great Plea is to that no other than his Satisfaction; Oſtendo fide juſſorem meum, De Juſt. hab. 370.ſaith Biſhop Davenant, When the Law makes its demands againſt me, I ſhew my Sponſor Chriſt, who ſatisfied it. Now, if his Satisfaction be it ſelf our Righteouſneſs, it muſt be made ours by Imputation, for that which is not ours, cannot be our Righteouſneſs; neither doth God, who judgeth according to Truth, eſteem it ſuch: You will ſay, Though it ſelf be not ours, yet it is that for which God doth juſtifie us: To which I anſwer, Though God juſtifie us for it, yet, unleſs it be ours, it is no more our Righteouſneſs than it is our Holineſs; when God ſanctifies us for it, no Man (I think) will call it our Holineſs, no more, unleſs it be ours, may we call it our Righteouſneſs. If it be ours by Imputation, then it is more than a meritorious cauſe. It is the very matter of our Juſtification; neither can I tell how to think it leſs, ſeeing a Sinner is capable of no other Righteouſneſs, as to the Law, but a Satisfaction, p. 344ſeeing ſo glorious a Satisfaction, as that of Chriſt is, is uſhered into the World for that very end; it is to me unimaginable, that that Satisfaction ſhould yet not be our Righteouſneſs as to the Law, but ſomething leſs than it ſelf ſhould have the honour of it.

Thirdly, Very momentous in this point, is the collation of the two Adams, Rom. 5. the firſt Adam was the Origen of Sin; Chriſt the ſecond Adam, was the Origen of Righteouſneſs and Life: never were there in the World two ſuch Heads as theſe, uterque quod ſuumeſt cum ſuis communicat, as the Learned Beza hath it, Adam communicates Sin and Death to his Poſterity; Chriſts Righteouſneſs and Life to his believing Seed, in the parallel it is obſervable, that Chriſt is as ſtrong; nay, a ſtronger Head than Adam, Adam was foreign a Type of him that was to come; and leſs then the Antitype, who was more potent to rebuild the ruines of the fall, than Adam was to make them, Righteouſneſs came as full from Chriſt, as ſin did from Adam; nay, more fully, as the Apoſtle hints in the foreign, verſe. 15. and in the abundance and ſuperabundance of Grace, verſ. 17. & 20. hence it appears, that ſo far as Adam's ſin was ours, ſo far is Chriſt's Righteouſneſs ours alſo. Adam's ſin was not ours in the full latitude, as it was in him, we did not eat the Fruit in our own perſons, we were not heads of Mankind, we did not uſher in Sin and Death upon the World, no, this was, foreign, by that one Adam, neither was it ours in the effect only, for then our innate pravity would be no ſin, as meerly proceeding from that firſt ſin of Adam, in which we participated not: that in the Schools muſt needs be true, peccatum habituale dicit eſſentialem ordinem ad praecedens actuale; Its impoſſible, that one ſhould be a ſinner habitually, who in no ſenſe was a ſinner before: hence that of St. p. 345Auſtin, quoted by Dr. Ward, Nulla foret hominis culpa, ſt talis a Deo Creatus eſſet, qualis nunc naſcitur, it remains therefore that Adam's ſin it ſelf is derived to each one of us, pro ratione membri, proportionably: Chriſt's ſatisfaction is not ours in the full latitude, as it was in him; we ſatisſied not God's Juſtice in our own Perſons, we were not Heads of the Church, neither did we uſher in Life and Righteouſneſs into the World; no, it was foreign, by that one Chriſt, neither is it ours in the effect only; for then the effect a thing leſs than the ſatisfaction it ſelf, ſhould juſtifie or make us righteous againſt the Law, which cannot be: It remains therefore that it is it ſelf derived upon each one of us, pro menſurâ membri: Again, Adam's ſin did firſt in order of Nature, make us ſinners by it ſelf imputed, and then by the inherent pravity conſequent; in like manner Chriſt's ſatiſfaction doth firſt in order of Nature make us righteous by it ſelf imputed, and then by the ſanctifying Graces communicated by vertue of it: Now if Chriſts ſatisfaction be not it ſelf communicated to us as Members of him; then the Glory of his Headſhip ſeems to fail, he is not ſo ſtrong an Head as Adam, Righteouſneſs is not ſo amply communicated from Chriſt, as ſin is from Adam, Adam communicates the ſin it ſelf to us, but Chriſt communicates his Righteouſneſs in the effects only; if Chriſt only merited Juſtification, the Glory of his Headſhip ſeems not to ſtand in it; in Sanctification he as our Head communicates ſanctifying Graces to us, to be the matter of our Sanctification, but in Juſtification he doth not communicate his ſatisfaction to us, to be the matter of our Juſtification; he merited Juſtification upon Goſpel-terms before our Union with him, p. 346What doth he after, or more, as our head in Juſtification? his ſatisfaction not being communicated to us, he ſeems not to be ſo compleat an Head in Juſtification, as in Sanctification; to make this Argument from Chriſt's Headſhip more clear, it will not be amiſs to conſider ſome paſſages in that fifth Chapter to the Romans; Wherefore as by one Man ſin entred into the World, and Death by Sin, and ſo Death paſſed upon all Men, for that all have ſinned, verſe 12. in this and the two following verſes one part of the collation, viz. That of Adam being laid down, where is the foreign collationis? or how is it to be ſupplyed? ſome Divines think, that it is quite omitted by the Apoſtle, others conceive it to be couched in thoſe words, Who is the figure of him that was to come, verſe 14. but whether it be the one or the other, ſurely there muſt be ſomewhat underſtood on Chriſt's part as correſpondent to that of Adam, who was a Type of him, Piſcator ſupplies it thus, Plena comparatio ſic habet quemadmodum per Adam peccatum introiit in omnes homines, & per peccatum mors, eo quod in Adamo omnes peccarunt, ſic per Chriſtum Juſtitia introiit in omnes credentes, & per Juſtitiam vita, eo quod in Chriſto omnes credentes pro peccatis ſatisfecerunt; he ſaith, that all Believers ſatisfied in Chriſt, I intend ſomewhat more in this point then I ſuppoſe he did. Yet I would ſpeak leſs in words then ſo, I think the expreſſion, that we ſatisfied in him, is not an expedient one, though in Scripture nothing to me ſeems to ſound more like an anſwer to that, foreign, verſe 12. then that Text foreign, 2 Cor. 5.15. though the Learned Camero ſaith,De Eccleſ. fol. 224. in Chriſti morte Eccleſiae eſt veluti ſatisfaciens Deo: Yet I wave that expreſſion, for it p. 347ſeems to import, as if Chriſt's ſatisfaction were in its full latitude imputed to us: It is as much as I intend, that we as Members of him do in a meaſure participate of his ſatisfaction, ſo far, that it is the matter of our Juſtification againſt the Law: Adam's ſin is is not communicated to us in the full latitude, but ſo far as to make us ſinners; Chriſt's Satisfaction is not communicated to us in the full latitude, but ſo far as to make us righteous. But to go on to another paſſage in that Chapter, As by one Man's diſobedience many were made ſinners, ſo by the obedience of one ſhall many be made righteous, Verſ. 19. In this famous Text thoſe words (foreign and foreign, as and ſo alſo) are to be noted; it is as much as to ſay, as it was in the one caſe, ſo it is in the other, as Adam's ſin was derived upon us, ſo alſo is Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, if Adam's ſin were in ſome meaſure communicated to us to make us ſinners; then Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is in ſome meaſure comunicated to us to make us righteous; we ſee, what is the beſt way to judge how far Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is imputed to us, not by comparing the Imputation of our Sin to Chriſt, and the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs to us, but by comparing the Imputation of Adam's ſin to us, and the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs to us, in that Text (He was made Sin for us, that we might be made the Righteouſneſs of God in him, 2 Cor. 5.21.) there is no (as and ſo alſo) as there is in the parallel of the two Adams: though I think it hard to ſay, that ſin was Imputed to Chriſt only in the effects, for unleſs our ſin, as it was fundamentum paenae, was Imputed to him, unleſs it was ſo far Imputed, as to render his ſufferings puniſhments, his ſufferings were not penal, and if not penal, ſin was not at all imputed to him; p. 348no, not in the effect: yet if ſin was Imputed to him only in the effect, it follows not, that his Righteouſneſs ſhould be ſo only Imputed to us, the Apoſtle ſaith not, as he was made ſin, ſo we are made Righteouſneſs, there is no (as and ſo) in that Text as there is in the parallel of the Adam's: there is a great diſparity in the caſes; Sin was not imputed to Chriſt to conſtitute him a ſinner, but Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is imputed to us to conſtitute us righteous; Sin was imputed to Chriſt, that it might be abſorpt and ſwallowed up in his ſweet-ſmelling Sacrifice; but Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is imputed to us, that it may abide upon us as the matter of our Juſtification: We ſee here, in the point of Imputed Righteouſneſs, we muſt take our meaſures; not from our ſin imputed to Chriſt, but from Adam's ſin imputed to us: Further, The word (foreign) in the 19. Verſe emphatically points out the material cauſe of Juſtification. Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, as a meritorious cauſe, is an impulſive to God to conſtitute us righteous, but to be an impulſive to conſtitute is not properly to conſtitute, as a meritorious cauſe it impetrates, that we ſhall be made righteous; but by that Impetration it doth no more make us righteous, than by the Impetration of ſanctifying Graces it makes us holy: notwithſtanding theſe Impetrations, we are not indeed holy without thoſe Graces, nor are we righteous without a Righteouſneſs: as a meritorious cauſe it was before Faith, nay, before the Covenant of Promiſe, but then it conſtituted none righteous. It was for all, but it conſtitutes not all: You will ſay, As ſoon as a Man by Faith hath a capacity, it conſtitutes him righteous; How ſo? It was a meritorious cauſe before Faith, now it is no more; at the firſt it procured p. 349that Men ſhould be juſtified upon Goſpel-terms, and now what new or freſh act or energy hath it? Indeed there is ſomewhat more on Man's part, viz. Faith; ſomewhat more on God's viz. Juſtifying the Believer. But what is there more on Chriſt's? the merit is as before, one and the ſame, and impetrates Juſtification on Goſpel-terms for all; on our part there is a difference, one believes, not another; on God's a difference, he juſtifies one, not another; but Chriſt ſtands only as a common cauſe, his Satisfaction is in communi, and conſtitutes no one righteous more than another: He is no more, as it ſeems, the end of the Law for Righteouſneſs to the Believer, than to the Unbeliever. Now if this be, as it is durus ſermo, then it remains that Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is by particular imputation made over to Believers, and ſo becomes the matter of their Juſtification; accordingly the Apoſtle in Rom. the fifth ſpeaks of it, not as a common cauſe, but as peculiarized to Believers, ſuch as receive Grace: He doth not ſpeak of what Chriſt merited for all, but of what Chriſt as an Head communicates to his Members: The ſcope of the parallel between the two Adams evinces this; it being no other than this, That both of them communicate to thoſe, who are in them. The ſum of all is, Adam and Chriſt are ſet forth by the Apoſtle as two communicative Heads; if Adam's ſin be imputatively ours, ſo is Chriſt's Righteouſneſs alſo.

I ſhould now paſs on to another Reaſon: But poſſibly ſome may object, That there is a great difference between the two Heads. We were ſeminally in Adam, we receive an Humane Nature from him; but we were not ſeminally in Chriſt, we receive not a Nature from him: therefore, though Adam's ſin be p. 350imputatively ours, yet ſo is not Chriſt's Righteouſneſs. In anſwer to this I ſhall offer ſeveral things.

Firſt, We receive an Humane Nature from Adam; but is this the only foundation of the Imputation of his ſin to us? No, ſurely: Then all the ſins of our Progenitors ſhould be as much imputed to us, as the firſt ſin of Adam was. Which I cannot at all believe; Adam was a moral Head of Holineſs and Righteouſneſs to all Mankind, but ſince the fall, no Man, no, not Adam himſelf, was ſuch; the ſin of Adam is univerſally imputed to all, even to the moſt holy, but ſo are not the ſins of other Progenitors; we were not therefore one with Adam only by a Natural union, but by a Divine Conſtitution.

Secondly, We receive an Human Nature from Adam; and have we not a Divine Nature from Chriſt? are we not called his Seed? are we not begotten by his Spirit and Word? were we not in a Spiritual ſence ſeminally in his Blood and Merits? how elſe ſhould any ſuch thing as the New Creature, be produced in a lapſed Nature? Theſe things are as proper to make us Parts and Members of Chriſt, as an Humane Nature is to make us Parts and Members of Adam; therefore the communication of Righteouſneſs from Chriſt muſt be as full and great, as the communication of ſin is from Adam. Biſhop Ʋſher tells us, That we have a more ſtrict conjunction in the Spirit with Chriſt, then ever we had in Nature with Adam, one and the ſame Spirit is in Chriſt and Believers, but there is not one Soul in Adam and his Poſterity: the communication from Chriſt therefore, if anſwerable to the Union, muſt be as great, nay greater than that from Adam.

Thirdly, Adam was a Head both by Nature, and p. 351by Conſtitution; Sin, unleſs in Conjunction with Nature, could not paſs from him to us, neither could we, without a Nature conveyed from him, have been members of him: It di… therefore appertain to his Headſhip to convey a Nature to us; but Chriſt was an Head not by Nature, But above it by Divine Conſtitution; he was not to convey Naturals to us, but ſuper-naturals; ſince the Fall, Righteouſneſs was not to paſs to us, in Conjunction with Nature; Nature was to be from one Head, and Righteouſneſs from another; we were to be made Members of Chriſt, not by communication of Nature, but of Grace; it therefore did not appertain to his Headſhip to communicate Nature to us, yet was his Headſhip as potent to convey Righteouſneſs to us, as Adam's was to convey ſin; the Divine Conſtitution made him ſuch an Head, that his Satisfaction might become ours for our Juſtification: thus much touching this Argument drawn from the Headſhip of Chriſt.

Fourthly, Thoſe Scripture phraſes of being purged, ſprinkled, cleanſed, waſhed, juſtifyed in the Blood of Chriſt, notably import two things, the one, that Juſtification is in a ſignal manner attributed to Chriſt's Blood, as Sanctification is to the Spirit; the other, that Chriſt's Blood juſtifies by way of Application: but neither of theſe can ſtand, if that Blood be only a meritorious cauſe, not the firſt, how can Juſtification, be ſignally attributed to it; when as a meritorious cauſe, it no leſs impetrates Sanctification than Juſtification? nothing ſingular is done by it in the one more than in the other; not the ſecond, how can it juſtifie by Application, when as a meritorious cauſe, it operates only by impetration? You p. 352will ſay, Chriſt's Blood is applyed in the effect, in a pardon: I anſwer, thoſe Scripture phraſes before quoted, ſhew, that the Blood it ſelf is applyed to us; how elſe is it ſaid, that we are purged, cleanſed, ſprinkled, waſhed in it? unleſs it be applyed to us, the phraſes, how emphatical ſoever, ſeem to be improper: ſurely a ſatisfaction muſt in its own nature be a juſtifying matter againſt the Law, next to an abſolute conformity to the Law. Nothing is or can be more juſtifying againſt it then a ſatisfaction; when God hath provided a plenary ſatisfaction to juſtifie us, how may we think, that it is not it ſelf applyed to us actually to juſtifie us, or that ſomething leſs than it ſelf ſhould do it? the Scripture ſets forth this Application on both hands, on our part it is applyed by Faith, We receiving the Atonement, Rom. 5.11. and Chriſt, being a propitiation through Faith in his Blood, Rom. 3.25. and on God's part by Imputation, we being made the Righteouſneſs of God in him, 2 Cor. 5.21. and the Righteouſneſs of God being upon us, Rom. 3.22. I cannot tell how to think, that ſuch an excellent juſtifying matter, as Chriſt's Satisfaction is, ſhould be provided for us, and yet not applyed to us, according to the terms of the Goſpel: a pardon is, as I take it, upon the ſatisfaction not meerly made but applyed; for it is given to Believers only: if the ſatisfaction be it ſelf applyed, then that is our Righteouſneſs againſt the Law; if it be applyed in the effect, that is, in a pardon, then the pardon is the very application, and not a pardon upon a ſatisfaction applyed; or if there be a pardon upon a ſatisfaction applyed, there will be a pardon before a pardon; a pardon in the application, and a pardon upon it; if the ſatisfaction be it ſelf applyed, then it may precede a p. 353pardon, and a pardon may be upon it; but if it be applyed only in the effect, in a pardon, then it cannot precede a pardon, no more then a pardon can precede it ſelf: You will ſay, a pardon is not upon a ſatisfaction applyed, but is the very application. To this I anſwer, the Learned Mr. Gataker ſaith, remiſſio eſt Juſtificationis efficacis conſequens neceſſarium; and the worthy Mr. Bradſhaw ſaith, culpae remiſſio accuratè conſiderata neque totum neque pars Juſtificationis exiſtit, ſed contingens tantùm Juſtificationis effectus: I conceive, the application of Chriſt's Juſtifying Blood, is in order of Nature antecedent to remiſſion; under the Law, firſt the Atonement was made, and Blood ſprinkled, and then there was forgiveneſs; under the Goſpel, firſt Chriſt's Blood is applyed and ſprinkled upon us, and then there is remiſſion; Chriſt is a propitiation through Faith in his Blood, ſaith the Apoſtle, Rom. 3.25. and then he adds, To declare his Righteouſneſs for the Remiſſion of ſins: Chriſt's Blood is firſt applyed, and then remiſſion follows upon it; I ſay, it follows upon it, but it is no more the ſame with it under the Goſpel, then forgiveneſs under the Law was the ſame with the ſprinklings and purifyings by the Blood of the Sacrifices; when in Scripture there is attributed to Chriſt's Blood, purging, waſhing, ſprinkling, cleanſing from Sin, and to a pardon, covering, blotting out, taking away, and caſting away of Sin, I cannot imagine that both theſe are the ſame, as if Chriſt's Blood did not by it ſelf do away Sin, but only impetrate that it might be done away in a pardon; I take it, theſe are diſtinct, firſt that Blood in the ſence herein after declared, frees us à culpâ, and then the conſequent pardon frees us à Baenâ.

p. 354Fifthly, If Chriſt's Righteouſneſs be Imputed to us, not in it ſeif, but in its effect only, that is, a pardon, then Juſtification, as to the Law, wholly conſiſts in a pardon; on the other hand, if Juſtification do not ſtand in a pardon, then it ſtands in the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs to us: in this great point I ſhall offer ſeveral things.

Firſt, The Scripture muſt be the great Rule to judge of Juſtification by, there I find that we are juſtified by Chriſt's Blood, that we are made rightcous by his Obedience; but that we are juſtified by a Pardon, I find not. There I read that Chriſt is made to us Righteouſneſs, that we are made the Righteouſneſs of God in him; but, not that an Immunity from puniſhment is a Righteouſneſs. I know many Learned Divines take Juſtification and Pardon to be one and the ſame, but I ſhall conſider the chief Scriptures which look that way; The firſt is Rom. 4. There the Imputation of Righteouſneſs, Ver. 6. and the remiſſion of ſin, Verſ. 7. and 8. ſeem to be the very ſame; the quotation of the 32. Pſalm ſeems to make it clear to anſwer to this. I ſhall conſider the ſcope of the Apoſtle: He doth in the third Chapter lay down this Concluſion, That we are juſtified by Faith, Ver. 28. and in the fourth Chapter he lays down this, That we are not juſtified by Works, Ver. 4. that is, perfect Works, ſuch as Man may glory in, ſuch as might make the reward of debt. Abraham himſelf could not reach ſuch a Juſtification: this is proved by two things; the one is this, Abraham's Faith was counted to him for Righteouſneſs, therefore he was not juſtified by Works: For Faith is not Works. The other is this, A juſtified Man is a pardoned one, therefore he is not juſtified by Works; p. 355for perfect Obedience leaves no room at all for a Pardon. Touching the firſt, I ſhall firſt conſider what was the object of Abraham's Faith, and then how Faith is counted for Righteouſneſs: The primary object of Abraham's Faith was Chrriſt; for the Apoſtle in the third Chapter ſpeaks of the Faith of Chriſt; and in the fourth, where the ſame Diſcourſe of Juſtification is continued, the object cannot in any reaſon be varied. Abraham is ſet forth as a great pattern of believing, and he can hardly be ſo to Chriſtians, if his Faith had not for ſubſtance the ſame object with theirs. The Scripture fore-ſeeing that God would juſtifie the Heathen through Faith, preached before the Goſpel unto Abraham; ſaying, In thee ſhall all Nations be bleſſed, Gal. 3.8. That Abraham's Faith and ours might have the ſame object, God took care, that a Goſpel,foreign, Evangelizandi verbum peculiariter conſervatum eſt Doctrinae de Gratuita per Chriſtum reconciliatione, Bez. in loc. a Bleſſing, Chriſt ſhould be ſet before him: his Eyes were ſo far opened, that he could ſee Chriſt's day, and in a kind of Triumph of Faith, rejoyce at it, 1 Joh. 8.56. 'Tis true, our Faith, as having more of Evangelical light in it, is more explicite than Abraham's was; Abraham's was in the Meſſiah in univerſali, in more general terms; ours is in him in particulari, in propriâ formâ, in a ſatisfying atoning Meſſiah, in his Blood and Righteouſneſs; nevertheleſs (this being but a gradual difference according to gradual Light) our Faith and Abraham's are for ſubſtance the ſame and center in one object; and Chriſt's Righteouſneſs and Satisfaction, though not ſo clearly known to Abraham, as to us, was no leſs imputed to him than to us, there being the ſame way of Juſtification by Imputed righteouſneſs for him as for us. Chriſt being the p. 356object of Abraham's Faith, the next thing is, how Faith is imputed for Righteouſneſs. Here I anſwer, Faith is counted for Righteouſneſs, not as taken in abſtracto, meerly in it ſelf, but as taken in concreto, in its conjunction with its object: that is, Chriſt and his Righteouſneſs, and then we have the full Righteouſneſs of Juſtification, Faith in it ſelf anſwering to the Goſpel-terms, and in its object Chriſt's Righteouſneſs anſwering to the Law. Here I crave leave to ſet down the words of an Excellent Perſon, though different from my ſelf in this point; the words are theſe:Sir Charles Wolſ. Juſtif. Evang. 42. Faith looks both ways, reſpects both the Law and the Goſpel, and comprizeth all that is requiſite to our Juſtification with reference to both; all the charge of the Law it anſwers ratione objecti, in reſpect of its object, which is Chriſt, and all that is required by the Goſpel, ratione ſui, as being it ſelf the performance of the condition annexed thereunto. Thus he; I quote not theſe words, as if in this point he were of my opinion, but becauſe they are full and expreſſive of my thoughts: Now, that Faith is in this place to be taken in conjunction with its object, appears thus; the Apoſtle in the third Chapter proves, That as to the Law every Mouth muſt be ſtopped, that all the world muſt become guilty before God, verſe 19, and then concludes, that by the deeds of the Law, no Fleſh can be juſtified, verſe 20. And in his After-diſcourſe (as the following words (but now) do import) he ſheweth what it is that juſtifieth us againſt the Law, viz. The Righteouſneſs of God; that is of Chriſt, which is not Faith it ſelf, but by Faith, Verſ. 21, & 22. And at laſt he concludes, That we are juſtified by Faith, Verſ. 28. but Faith in it ſelf cannot juſtifie p. 357us againſt the Law; for Faith was not crucified for us, neither did it ſatisfie Juſtice on our behalf: it is therefore Faith in its object, that is Chriſt's Righteouſneſs which juſtifies us againſt the Law; that Faith which is counted for Righteouſneſs, is that which eſtabliſhes the Law, Verſ. 31. and that Eſtabliſhment Faith makes, not in it ſelf, but in its object, Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, which eſtabliſhed the Law by ſatisfying of it; Faith therefore and its object muſt be taken together: Hence the Apoſtle, who mentions the Imputation of Faith. Ver. 5. in the 4. Chapter, mentions alſo the Imputation of Righteouſneſs, Ver. 6. It's true, both are but one in ſence, but in words the latter expreſſes the object of Faith, as the former doth the Act: Thus, as I ſaid before, Faith in Conjunction with its object takes in the whole of Juſtification, and then the after-words, quoted out of the Pſalm, touching Remiſſion, do not deſcribe the Imputation of Righteouſneſs in its proper Nature, but in its bleſſed Fruit, viz. Pardon of ſin, which is not properly our Righteouſneſs, but a conſequent upon it. Another place is this; —Through this Man is preached unto you the Forgiveneſs of ſin; and by him all that believe are juſtified from all things, from which you could not be juſtified by the Law of Moſes, Acts 13.38, & 39. Here it ſeems, that what is called Remiſſion in the firſt verſe, is called Juſtification in the next: but I take it, they are not the ſame in the 38. Ver. We have Remiſſion in the offer or tender of the Goſpel, in the 39. we have Juſtification actual as it is in the Believer. So they are not the ſame; Juſtification here is not Remiſſion, but Juſtification by Sacrifice; Juſtification by Chriſt's Sacrifice is oppoſed to Juſtification by the Legal ones: Juſtification by theſe was typical, p. 358and but in ſome caſes, the Law not allowing a Sacrifice in all, but Juſtification by that is real, and in all caſes where Faith is not wanting; here therefore Juſtification and Remiſſion are not the ſame. Another place is Luke 18. when the Publican penitentially prayed for Pardon, God be merciful to me a Sinner, he went home juſtified, Verſ. 13, & 14. Juſtified is the ſame with Pardoned. I anſwer, This place ſhews that Juſtification follows upon true Repentance, but not that Juſtification and Pardon are the ſame; the Satisfaction of Chriſt juſtifies a Sinner, a Pardon only frees him from puniſhment. To name but one place more; The Free-gift is of many offences to juſtification, Rom, 5.16. foreign, the Free-gift, ſeems here to import Pardon, as if Pardon and Juſtification were all one. To this I anſwer; The Apoſtle in this famous place ſets down a Parallel between the two Heads, Adam and Chriſt; Adam's Sin and Chriſt's Righteouſneſs; Adam's Sin making us Sinners unto death, and Chriſt's Righteouſneſs making us righteous unto Life. But the word (Pardon or Remiſſion) is not ſo much as once named in all the Parallel; by the Free-gift Verſ. 16. is not meant Remiſſion, but Chriſt's Righteouſneſs. This is clear upon a double account: the one is this; The Free-gift is oppoſed to Adam's ſin, and that which in this Parallel is oppoſed to Adam's ſin, muſt needs be Chriſt's Righteouſneſs; this appears throughout the whole Parallel, in the 15, & 16. Verſ. Adam's Sin and the Free-gift are oppoſed; in the 18. Verſ. Adam's Offence and Chriſt's Righteouſneſs are oppoſed; in the 19. Verſ. Adam's Diſobedience and Chriſt's Obedience are oppoſed: Hence it appears, that what is the Free-gift in the 15, and 16. Verſ. is the Righteouſneſs or Obedience of Chriſt p. 359in the 18. & 19. Verſ. neither indeed can the Parallel ſtand, if any other thing than Chriſt's Righteouſneſs ſhould be oppoſed to Adam's ſin. The other is this; theſe words, The Free-gift, are put inſtead of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs or Obedience; this appears in that, where the one is mentioned, the other is omitted, in the 15, 16, 17. Verſ. The Free-gift is mentioned, but the Righteouſneſs or Obedience of Chriſt is omitted; in the 18, and 19. Verſ. the Righteouſneſs and Obedience of Chriſt is mentioned, but the Freegift is omitted. Indeed in our Tranſlation we have the Free-gift Verſ. 18. but not in the Original. Hence it appears that they are the ſame; I ſuppoſe that in the 18. Verſ. ſhould be otherwiſe ſupplied: Thus it appears that the Free-gift is not Pardon. Having ſeen the moſt material Texts; I ſhall obſerve one thing more: Juſtification is ſet forth in ſuch a way in Scripture, that it muſt needs be diſtinct from Pardon: It is ſet forth ſo, that the Law is eſtabliſhed by it, Rom. 3.31. but the Law is not eſtabliſhed by a Pardon, but by a Satisfaction. You will ſay, Our Pardon is upon a Satisfaction; but if that Satisfaction do not juſtifie us, if it be no Ingredient in our Juſtification; then in our Juſtification the Law is not eſtabliſhed as the Apoſtle ſpeaks; Juſtification is ſet forth ſo, that the Righteouſneſs of the Law is fulfilled in us, Rom. 8.4. But the Righteouſneſs of the Law is not fulfilled in a Pardon; neither is it fulfilled in our imperfect, though ſincere Obedience: The Greek word foreign, is, as Ariſtotle ſaith, foreign,Eth. l. 5. cap. 7. Correctio injuriae, Satisfaction for the injured Law, but nothing is ſuch but Chriſt's Righteouſneſs. The Apoſtle in the precedent Verſe ſaith, That ſin was condemned in the Fleſh of Chriſt; and of this, there p. 360is a double Fruit; firſt Juſtification: The Righteouſneſs of the Law is fulfilled in us; that is, Chriſt's Satisfaction becomes imputatively ours, and then Sanctification; we walk not after the Fleſh, but after the Spirit: This Interpretation harmonizes with the firſt Verſe; ther firſt we have Juſtification, There is no Condemnation to them who are in Chriſt; and then Sanctification, We walk not after the Fleſh, but after the Spirit; as therefore Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is the only thing which ſatisfies the Law, ſo it is the only juſtifying matter againſt it: Juſtification is ſo ſet forth, that the Law hath its end: Thus the Apoſtle, Chriſt is the end of the Law for Righteouſneſs to the Believer, Rom. 10.4. as he is the end of the Law, ſo he is for Righteouſneſs; he is not the end of the Law in a procured pardon, but in a Satisfaction made and applied; Juſtification therefore conſiſts not in a Pardon, but in a Satisfaction applied and made ours by Imputation. Thus far out of Scripture.

Secondly, Juſtification cannot be without a Righteouſneſs; that God (who judgeth according to truth, who is Juſt, and a Juſtifyer) doth not eſteem or pronounce us righteous unleſs we are ſo; a pardon is not our Righteouſneſs; for that is God's Act, and God's Act, though it may make or eſteem us righteous, is not it ſelf our Righteouſneſs, neither is that, which a pardon gives, viz. an immunity from puniſhment; ſuch an immunity from puniſhment, which is, ex merâ indulgentiâ, as in the caſe of a pardoned Malefactor, is not ſuch; the Malefactor in that caſe is treated in point of puniſhment as a righteous Man, but he is not ſuch indeed, his plea is only a pardon, he is free only à paenâ, not à culpâ, the Judge doth not eſteem him as righteous, but as one p. 361exempt from puniſhment; nay, an immunity, which is ex Juſtitiâ, as in the caſe of an innocent perſon, though it ſuppoſe a Righteouſneſs in him, yet it is no more it ſelf a righteouſneſs than in the other caſe; it is diſtinct from his Righteouſneſs as a conſequent is from its antecedent: Now if a pardon or immunity from puniſhment be not our Righteouſneſs, then Chriſt's Righteouſneſs (which was penal and obediential to an infinite value, and did compenſate the very culpâ, and free us from it) is, as ſoon as it is made ours by Imputation, our Righteouſneſs againſt the Law.

Thirdly, If a pardon might be called Juſtification, it is but improperly ſuch; there are then as (I will ſuppoſe for Diſcourſe ſake) three ſorts of Juſtification to be diſtinguiſhed, one by the idem, the very ſame perfect Righteouſneſs, which the Law calls for, another by the tantundem, a Righteouſneſs which is a plenary ſatisfaction to the broken Law; a third by Remiſſion only: the firſt is more ſtrictly Juſtification than the ſecond, becauſe the very Letter of the Law is fulfilled in it, which it is not in the other; the ſecond is more properly Juſtification than the third, becauſe there is a plenary compenſation to the Law in it; when in the other there is nothing but a meer condonation: the third is the moſt improper Juſtification of all the reſt, becauſe it communicates not Righteouſneſs, but an Indulgence: Now in our caſe, had there been no ſatisfaction at all, Juſtification, if poſſible, muſt have ſtood in remiſſion only; but a great and glorious ſatisfaction being made, it ſeems very ſtrange, that Juſtification ſhould conſiſt only in the leſs proper, in remiſſion, which frees us à paenâ, whilſt the proper, Chriſt's Satisfaction, which p. 363in a way of compenſation, frees us à culpâ, is waved: It is true, it is not totally waved; it is allowed to be an antecedent meritorious cauſe of Juſtification, but being no Ingredient in it, Juſtification ſtill conſiſts in the leſs proper, while the more proper in that reſpect is waved.

Before I paſs on, I muſt conſider one objection; pardon takes away reatum penae, the obligation to puniſhment, and what more can be done to a ſinner? ſtill the reatus culpae abides, the fault will be a fault; the Sinner a Sinner; that is, one who ſinned; and if no more can be done to a ſinner, why is not immunity from puniſhment, his Righteouſnes, or what can be Righteouſneſs if that be not ſo?

In anſwer to this great Objection, I ſhall offer two or three things.

Firſt, It is indeed a rule of reaſon, that, factum infectum fieri non poteſt; yet it is worthy the conſideration of the Learned, whether the culpâ, which ever continues in facto, in it ſelf may not yet ceaſe in jure, ſo far as not to redound upon the Perſon to make him culpable? I ſhall only mention one inſtance, and ſo leave it; the Bleſſed Virgin, not being, as her Son was, conceived of the Holy Ghoſt, was no doubt fubject to Original Sin, that put a culpâ upon every part of her, and factum infectum fieri non poteſt. Nevertheleſs, when the Word was made Fleſh; when his Body was framed out of the Subſtance of the Virgin, no culpâ did remain, or redound upon his Humane Nature, much leſs upon his Sacred Perſon which aſſumed it: in Sacred Myſteries we muſt not be too peremptory upon our reaſon, but ſpeak with all caution and reverence.

p. 362Secondly, Beatus culpae, or guilt of fault, may be conſidered under a double notion, either in it ſelf, in its intrinſecal deſert of puniſhment, or elſe in its redundancy upon the ſinner, which conſiſts in three things. Firſt, it ſo redounds upon him as to denominate him a ſinner, that is, one who hath ſinned; then it ſo redounds as to make him continue worthy of puniſhment; and again it ſo redounds, as actually to oblige him to puniſhment: Now the reatus in its ſelf, in its intrinſecal deſert, muſt needs be perpetual, becauſe ſin cannot ceaſe to be ſin, the denominating him a ſinner, one who hath ſinned, muſt be perpetual too, becauſe factum infectum fieri non poteſt: but, as I take it, that redundancy which makes him worthy of puniſhment, is removed in Juſtification, and that which actually obliges him to puniſhment, is removed in remiſſion; it is uſually ſaid in the Schools, tranſit actus, manet reatus, after the Act of Sin is paſſed and gone, the guilt abides; we may ſay of the ſinner, that he hath ſinned in praeterito, nay, and in praeſenti, that he is filius mortis, worthy to die, and ſuffer puniſhment; but after he hath received the great atonement, after Chriſt's ſatisfaction (which is more than an aequipondium to his unworthineſs) is Imputed and made over to him, he continues no longer worthy of puniſhment; the ſin it ſelf is worthy of it, but he is not; he was once worthy of it, but now he is no longer ſo. I cannot imagine, that Chriſt's foreign, or worthy ones, Rev. 3.1. ſhould remain foreign, worthy of Death, Rom. 1.32. Or that the pure Heavens ſhould be inhabited by ſuch as ſtill continue worthy of Hell: Chriſt's Righteouſneſs ſo much outweighs and counterpoiſes the meritum paenae that is p. 364in ſin, that though the worthineſs of puniſhment cannot be ſeparated from the ſin it ſelf, yet it ceaſes to redound upon the ſinner, as ſoon as he believes and hath an intereſt in that Righteouſneſs: Its true, the ſinner as he is in himſelf, is worthy of puniſhment, but as he is in Chriſt, a part or Member of him, a participant of his Satisfaction, he is not worthy thereof.

Thirdly, If we look diſtinctly upon a ſatisfaction, or plenary compenſation for ſin of the one hand, and upon a pardon, or immunity from puniſhment of the other, it will be eaſily ſeen where our Righteouſneſs lies, and what is our juſtifying Plea and matter againſt the Law; a pardon frees from puniſhment, but a Satisfaction ſalves the honour of the broken Law, repairs the damage done to it, compenſates for the violations of it, and comes in the Room of that perfect conformity which the Law did primarily aim at: in this therefore, not in the other ſtands our Righteouſneſs as to the Law. Thus much touching my fifth Reaſon, that Juſtification conſiſts not in a pardon.

Sixthly, Chriſt ſuffered noſtro loco, in our place and ſtead; thoſe pregnant Scriptures (that he gave his Life a ranſom foreign, in the ſtead of many, Matth. 20.28. that he gave himſelf foreign a counterprize for all, 1 Tim. 2.6. that he ſuffered the juſt for the unjuſt, 1 Pet. 3.18.) are no cold improprieties, but full proofs of it; he did ſuſtinere noſtram perſonam, ſuſtein our perſon in his ſufferings; there was a double commutaton, his perſon was put in the room of our perſons, and his ſufferings in the room of our ſufferings; he that ſatisfies for another, muſt do it nomine debitoris, he that p. 365pays in his own name, cannot ſatisfie for another. When our Saviour ſaid to Peter, That give foreign for me and thee, Matth. 17.27. if Peter had paid it only in his own name, he could not have ſatisfied for his Maſter. In like manner, if Chriſt had ſuffered only in his own Name, he could not have ſatisfied for Peter or any other: The Debt which he ſatisfied for was ours, not his; he ſtood as our Repreſentative, and ſatisfied for us; he did not only ſuffer noſtro bono, that the profit might be ours, but noſtro loco, that the Satisfaction it ſelf might be ours; nevertheleſs, according to Divine Conſtitution; that is, that it might be ours; not immediately, but as ſoon as we become Members of him; not according to the full latitude, but according to the capacity of Members; not to all intents, but that it might be the matter of our Juſtification as to the Law.

Having laid down my Reaſons, I ſhall now proceed to anſwer the Objections made againſt Imputed Righteouſneſs; only here I muſt remember the Reader of one thing. Let him not think that there are no Myſteries in our Religion, as if all there were within the line of Humane Reaſon: There are Super-rational Myſteries in Chriſt's perſon; mortal and immortal, temporal and eternal, the Creature and the Creator; do in an ineffable manner meet together in one Perſon; and why may there not be ſuch in Chriſt Myſtical too? The union between Chriſt and Believers is a great Myſtery, Epheſ. 5.32. and the communication of his Righteouſneſs to them, which enſues upon that union, hath too much of Myſtery in it to be meaſured by Humane Reaſon. Proclus ſaid well, foreign, Why doſt thou reproach Divine things with Humane Reaſonings? p. 366Reaſon is no competent Judge of ſuch matters.

Object. 1. An Accident cannot be removed from its ject: Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is an accident.

Anſ. An Accident cannot be removed from its Subject, ſo as to have a novel inheſion; but it may be transferred by a juſt Imputation. I ſhall give two inſtances of this: Adam's ſin was imputed unto us; if not, then, as I have before proved, there can be no ſuch thing as original ſin, the Doctrine of which hath been owned by the Church in all Ages: Again, our ſin was imputed unto Chriſt, elſe his ſufferings could not be penal; the Scripture is emphatical, he was made Sin for us, 2 Cor. 5.21. The Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all, Eſa. 53.6. St. Auſtin ſaith, that he was delictorum ſuſceptor, non commiſſor. St. Jerom ſaith, non de coelis attulit, ſed de nobis aſſumpſit: if our ſin was not at all imputed to him, his ſufferings could not be penal: To clear this, I ſhall firſt prove that Chriſts ſufferings were penal in a proper ſence, and then, that they could not be ſuch without ſin imputed: Firſt, Chriſt's ſufferings were penal; in Scripture we find, that our ſins were born in his body, and condemned in his fleſh, that he was wounded and bruiſed for them, that he was made a curſe for us; all which ſpeak penal ſufferings: If his ſufferings were not penal, how were they ſatisfactory? a proper ſatisfaction can hardly be proved from an improper puniſhment. How did he ſuffer in our ſtead; If he did, it was in a no-puniſhment, which is all one, as if Archelaus had reigned in the room of his Father in a No-kingdom: what foreign, or example was there in his ſufferings to deterr us from ſin? There is no ſuch thing in ſufferings not penal: p. 367what demonſtration of Juſtice was there in them? in ſufferings not penal power may appear, but juſtice cannot: We ſee here his ſufferings were penal, but without ſin imputed how could they be ſo? Socinus (who would not have them penal, leſt they ſhould be ſatisfactory too ſaith, that Chriſt died, quia ita & Deo & ipſi viſum eſt, Deſerv. l. 3. cap. 9.becauſe ſo it ſeemed good to God and him: but would this make his ſufferings penal? no, he intended no ſuch thing, neither will this do it; God's meer Will may inflict ſufferings, but nothing but Juſtice can inflict puniſhment. Juſtice, unleſs moved, inflicts it not; neither is there any other mover, but that of ſin imputed. Where no ſin is imputed, there it is, as to puniſhment, all one as if there were no ſin; and where there is no ſin at all, there can be no ſuch thing as puniſhment: We are therefore under a neceſſity to ſay, that ſin was in tantum, ſo far imputed to Chriſt as to render his ſufferings penal, and withal we ſee an accident paſſing to another by imputation; only here it will be objected, that ſin was only imputed to Chriſt in the effects; but, I take it, this ſuffices not; for the effect of ſin is puniſhment; and puniſhment cannot be, where no ſin is imputed; a puniſhment without a why or a wherefore, is a puniſhment for nothing; that is, it is no puniſhment; and where there is no puniſhment, ſin is not ſo much as imputed in the effect. So that if it be imputed in the effect, it ſelf muſt be ſo far imputed, as to render the ſufferings penal, which makes good the inſtance.

Object. 2. If Chriſt's Righteouſneſs be indeed imputed to us, then it is imputed in the full latitude; we are reputed by God to have ſatisfied Divine Juſtice, we are then imputatively our own Saviours and Redeemers; p. 368Nay, as Bellarmine ſaith, Redemptores & Salvatores Mundi, Redeemers and Saviours of the World.

Anſ. If this Principle, That all Imputation is in the full latitude, be true, I yeild up the cauſe for ever. I am ſure I am not my own Saviour or Redeemer; I never ſatisfied Divine Juſtice for my ſins; but that this Principle is not true, I ſhll endeavour to manifeſt. Non-imputation and Imputation muſt needs have the ſame Rules to be governed by: this, I ſuppoſe, muſt not be denied by thoſe who ſay, That the Non-imputation of ſin, is the Imputation of Rightouſneſs, Rom. 4.1. Sin is not imputed to Believers: But how what, totally and in every reſpect? No, ſurely; ſtill the culpa abides, the ſin will be a ſin, the Sinner a Sinner; that is, one who ſinned; but it is not imputed as to puniſhment: If Sin may be Non-imputed in ſome reſpects, then Righteouſneſs may be imputed in a limited ſence alſo; if all Imputation be in the full latitude, then there is no Imputation of a thing at all (ſave only to the proper doer of it) neither according to Principles of meer Nature, nor according to Principles of Juſtice, nor yet according to a Divine Conſtitution: Not according to Principles of meer Nature; according to theſe ſin internal in the Will is imputed to the Members of the Body, as being in conjunction with the Soul; elſe the Body ſhould not riſe and ſuffer for it: But how is it imputed? what, in the full latitude? Doth God account that the ſin properly did iſſue from the Members, and reſide there? It is not true, or poſſible, yet in a lower and diminutive manner is it to them imputed; nor according to Principles of Juſtice; our ſin (and that, as but now was proved) not in the effect only, but in ſome ſence in it ſelf, was imputed to p. 369Chriſt; and that upon Principles of Juſtice, upon his Sponſion to ſatisfie for us, our ſin was imputed to him; but what in the full latitude? what to make as if there were a ſpot or turpitude in the Holy one? as if he by his own ſinful commiſſions had deſerved penal ſufferings? No, by no means; but in the leaſt reſpect that could poſſibly be, in no other reſpect than this, viz. So far as to render his ſufferings penal. Nor yet according to the Divine Conſtitution; this is moſt proper to the preſent caſe. And for this I muſt bring forth the Parallel of the two Adams, becauſe there never were any two ſuch Heads as theſe: Adam's ſin, as I have before proved, was imputed to us; but what, in its full latitude? Were we the Head of Mankind? did we uſher in Sin and Death upon the World, as Adam did? No: This was by one Adam; but in a lower meaſure, and according to the capacity of Members; it came upon us, as Bellarmine well expreſſes it, Eo modo, quo communicari poteſt id quod tranſit, nimirum per imputationem; it came upon us ex poſt facto, after the action done; Interpretativè and by way of reception, it only ſo far redounded upon us, as by that ſin to make us ſinners, Rom. 5.19. In like manner, Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is imputed to us; but what, in its full latitude? were we the Saviours or Redeemers of the World? did we uſher in Life and Righteouſneſs upon the Church? No; This was by one Chriſt; but in a lower meaſure, and according to the capacity of Members; it comes upon us only by Imputation, and Interpretativè, it only ſo far redounds upon us, as by that Righteouſneſs to make us righteous againſt the Law, Rom. 5.19. Theſe things being laid down, it appears, that the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs to us doth not imply p. 370that we are our own Saviours or Redeemers, much leſs that we are ſuch to the World; we did not ſatiſfie Divine Juſtice: No: This is, as Biſhop Davenant tells Bellarmine, Ridicula illatio, a thing which cannot be inferred from imputed Righteouſneſs; we do only as Members of Chriſt ſo far participate of his Satisfaction, as to be thereby juſtified againſt the Law. To ſay, that his Satisfaction, if imputed to us, muſt become ours as amply as it is his, is to ſay things impoſſible, as if Imputation were as much as Action; or the derivative could equalize the Primitive; as if Head and Members, becauſe there is a communication between them, muſt be confounded and become the ſame, as if the Believer, if once called into Communion with Chriſt, as the Apoſtle ſpeaks 1 Cor. 1.9. muſt become a Chriſt, a Saviour or Mediator; all which is meer confuſion: But in Imputation, the proportion between Head and Members is kept inviolate. Chriſt the Head communicates to Believers, yet Salva praerogativâ capitis; Believers receive from him, but it is only in the meaſure of Members.

Object. 3. If Chriſt's Righteouſneſs be imputed to us, then God reputes us to have made ſatisfaction, and ſo errs in his Judgement, which cannot be.

Anſ. God with out error imputes Adam's ſin to us; yet doth not repute us to be the very doers of it: he without error imputes the internal ſin of the Will to the Members of the Body, yet doth not repute the Members to have done it; Chriſt's Satisfaction is not imputed to us as to Agents, but as to Participant Members; and that truly, becauſe according to that Divine Conſtitution, which made Chriſt an Head as ſtrong to communicate Righteouſneſs, as Adam was to convey ſin.

p. 371Object. 4. If Chriſt's Righteouſneſs be imputed to us, then we are as righteous as Chriſt is.

Anſ. The Conſequence is abſurd, and the Learned Chamier gives this Reaſon, Fieri non poſſe, ut tàm juſtus ſit, qui inhaerenter injuſtus; imputativè juſtus eſt, quàm qui inhaerentèr juſtus; nam iſte à ſe & per ſe juſtus eſt, ille tantùm precariò, id eſt, aliundè & in alio; Chriſt's Righteouſneſs hath diſtinct reſpects; as to himſelf it was the idem, as to us the tantundem; as it was inherent in him, it was Juſtifying and Sanctifying too; as it is imputed to us, it is Juſtifying only; it was Chriſt's in the Agency; the glory of it is ours only by Participation; Chriſt is the Author of the Satisfaction; we are but the Receivers in the quality of Members; it was his in the capacity of a Sponſor, Saviour, Redeemer, Mediator, Head; it is ours only derivatively, and as participant Members of him.

Object. 5. Imputed Righteouſneſs is the root of Antitinomianiſm, this diſſolves the Law, as if it did no longer oblige us to Obedience.

Anſ. Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is not imputed to us as it is the idem of the Law, but as it is a Satisfaction made thereunto neither was that ſatisfaction meant: to diſſolve the Law-obligation, ſo as that it ſhould ceaſe to be a Rule of Holineſs in point of Sanctification; but to diſſolve it ſo, as that the Law ſhould demand from Believers no other matter but it ſelf in point of Juſtification. Did it ceaſe to be a Rule of Holineſs in Sanctification; we muſt all be Antinomians. Did it not ceaſe to demand no more than it ſelf in Juſtification, we muſt all be undone: its further demand, viz. Perfect Obedience from us in our Perſons being impoſſible, Juſtification and Salvation muſt be ſo alſo. Chriſt's Satisfaction was made, that p. 372we might be juſtifiable againſt the Law; it is imputed, that we may be actually juſtified againſt it. If the Satisfaction imputed run into Antinomianiſm, ſo doth the Satisfaction made, which is indeed the Socinian out-cry;Contr. Meiſn. 208. Quis nexus, quae copula inter ſidem, quâ creditur Chriſtum pro nobis Deo pleniſſimè ſatisfeciſſe, & inter bonorum operum ſtudium? So Schlictingius; Quid cauſae eſt, De Ver. Rel. l. 5. c. 22.cur is, qui ſatisfactionem iſtam perſuaſam habens, aliquid, in repellendâ à ſe impietate, juſtitiá que colendâ, laboris ſibi ponendum exiſtimet? So Volkelius: Now what is anſwered on the behalf of Satisfaction made, viz. That the Law is ſtill a Rule of Holineſs; that Chriſt's Satisfaction is an inflammative to it, that the juſt odium of ſin is ſeen in the atoning Blood; that that Blood is ſprinkled only upon Believers, with the like; the ſame may be as truly anſwered on the behalf of Satisfaction imputed.

Object. 6. If Chriſt's Righteouſneſs be imputed to us, then God ſees no ſin is in us.

Anſ. God ſees not ſin in us with a vindictive Eye, but with an intuitive one he doth; nay, he cannot but do ſo, as long as there is omniſcience in him, and ſin in us; Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is imputed to us as it is a Satisfaction; and that ſuppoſes us to have been Sinners; elſe what need could there be of a Satisfaction? though the Law were ſatisfied in point of Juſtification, yet ſtill it demands duty in point of Sanctification; though that Satisfaction take away the imperfection of our duties and Graces as to the guilt, yet not as to the very being.

Object. 7. If Chriſt's Righteouſneſs be imputed to us, there needs no new Obedience in order to Salvation.

Anſ. The Socinians object this againſt Chriſt's Satisfaction; in which notion I take it, that Chriſt's p. 373righteouſneſs is imputed to us.**Cont. Meiſ. Fol. 138. Si jàm Deo plenè perſolutum eſt, quod ei à nobis plenè debebatur, quid adhuc nos pietate & bonis operibus maceremus? jam nec Deus nos jure punire, not ab aeternâ vitâ jure excludere poteſt; ſo Schlictingius. But Chriſt's Satisfafaction may very well ſtand with our obedience; Chriſt ſatisfied the Law ſo far, as that his righteouſneſs imputed juſtifies us againſt the Law, but not ſo far, as that it ſhould be our very ſanctity and holineſs: for then, of imputed, it ſhould become ſuch as they are, inherent; which is impoſſible: in this reſpect therefore the Law asks obedience from us, every Believer is foreign. Under the Law to Chriſt, as far under it as it is a rule to our life. Nay, Chriſt's righteouſneſs is far from evacuating our obedience, that it is the great foundation upon which the Holy Spirit, the fountain of Holineſs, is communicated to us, as it was under the Law in cleanſing the Leper; the holy Oyl was put upon the Atoning Blood, Levit. 14.17. So it is under the Goſpel in purifying us. Firſt, the Blood of Chriſt is ſprinkled on us by imputation, and then the holy Unction, the Divine ſpirit, is poured out upon us: were there no Atoning blood ſhed, the Holy Spirit would not ſo much as touch upon fallen man: were that Blood not applied to us, the Holy Spirit would never dwell in us as a principle of obedience.

Object. 8. Chriſts righteouſneſs cannot be both the meritorious and material cauſe of Juſtification, for then it ſhould be both an external and internal cauſe thereof: Which cannot be.

Anſ. We muſt not here take our meaſures from reaſon; it was well ſaid by one, In Logicis ratio facit p. 374fidem, in Theologicis fides facit rationem, Evangelical myſteries, though above the line of humane reaſon, muſt be owned in Faith, though the mode of them be inexplicable by us; Chriſt's righteouſneſs may be conſidered under a double reſpect, either as it is offered up to God, or as it is applied to men. In the firſt reſpect it is common for all, ſo far as to render them juſtifiable on Goſpel terms: In the ſecond it is peculiarized to Believers; In the firſt it founds the promiſes of juſtification by Chriſt's blood, in the ſecond it executes them, and (which is as eaſily conceiveable as the other) in the firſt it is a meritorious cauſe of juſtification; in the ſecond a material.

Having anſwered theſe Objections, which I look upon as moſt material; I ſhall conclude as I began, that Chriſt's righteouſneſs, as it is a Satisfaction, is ſo far imputed to his believing members, as to be the matter of their juſtification: The Law in that point can ask no more of them than that ſatisfaction; there is enough in that to anſwer for all their ſins.

Thus far I have treated touching our righteouſneſs as to the Law. I now come to ſpeak of our righteouſneſs as to the Goſpel; Chriſt's righteouſneſs anſwers as to the Law of works: Faith anſwers as to the terms of the Goſpel. Do this, or die, was ſatisfied by Chriſt's righteouſneſs: Believe and live; is anſwered by Faith. Chriſtus eſt impletio Legis, Spirious eſt impletio Evangelii: Now here I ſhall firſt ſhew the neceſſity of this two-fold righteouſneſs; and then the connexion which is between them.

1. There is a neceſſity of this two-fold righteouſneſs. p. 375God at firſt made man a holy, righteous creature; and upon the fall, he ſet to his hand a ſecond time to lift up man out of the Chains of Sin and wrath, into a ſtate of Grace and Life eternal. God as Creator gave man a Law of perfect obedience ſuited to his primitive nature, and as it were interwoven with the principles of it. God as Redeemer gave us a Law of Grace; in which there is as much abatement and condeſcention to our faln eſtate, as could comport with his own Holineſs and Majeſty: In the former God ſtood upon the higheſt terms of perfect ſinleſs obedience; in the latter he comes down to the loweſt terms imaginable: He will juſtifie and ſave every one who by true Faith yields and reſigns himſelf up to the conditions of the Goſpel; where there are diſtinct Laws, there muſt be diſtinct righteouſneſſes to anſwer them: That which comes up to the condeſcending terms of the Goſpel: falls much ſhort of the high terms of the Law; That which ſatisfies the Law, is a thing of incomparably greater excellency than that which anſwers to the terms of the Goſpel: There are two diſtinct charges, or accuſations to be ſuppoſed; the one, that we are Sinners, ſuch as have broken the Law: The other, that we are Unbelievers, ſuch as have rejected the Goſpel: Here therefore muſt be diſtinct Plea's; To the Firſt, the Plea is Chriſt's Satisfaction to diſcharge us from the Law: To the Second, the Plea is Faith, which is the condition of the Goſpel. To the charge of final unbelief it is no Plea to ſay, that Chriſt hath ſatisfied; to the charge of being a ſinner, the Plea doth not conſiſt in Faith it ſelf; but in its object, viz. Chriſt's Satisfaction: The righteouſneſſes themſelves are of different natures, p. 376as to the Law our righteouſneſs is without us, in the glorious Satisfaction of Chriſt made ours by a gracious imputation; as to the Goſpel, our righteouſneſs is within us, in that Faith which complies with the Evangelical terms; as to the Law, our righteouſneſs is not the idem, but a ſatisfaction made for the breaches of it; as to the Goſpel, our Faith is the very idem which the Goſpel condition calls for. It is of great concern in Juſtification, to place theſe two righteouſneſſes in their proper Orbes; if either of them be carried out of their own Sphear, Religion is ſubverted. As to the Law, Chriſt's Satisfaction is our only righteouſneſs, it is true; Faith receives the Atonement, but neither Faith, nor any other inherent Grace can here be our righteouſneſs. All theſe have their ſpots of imperfection; how faltring is our Faith? how cold our charity? how much is there wanting in all our graces? all are but in part, not in their full meaſure; but in their firſt lineaments: Neither do they dwell alone, but there is a ſad inmate of corruption under the ſame Roof: All theſe muſt paſs ſub veniâ, under a pardon, and under the Wings of Chriſt; theſe are not able to cover their own blots and imperfections; theſe therefore are not our Saviours or Redeemers; theſe do not ſatisfie the Law; theſe do not compenſate for ſin; theſe do not come in the room of perfect obedience; neither can the true God, though one of infinite mercy, accept them as ſuch: No, nothing but Chriſt's Satisfaction can here be our righteouſneſs. Hence the Apoſtle having proved, that all the world is guilty before God. Rom. 3.19. Immediately after adds, but now the righteouſneſs of God is manifeſted, v. 21. Where by the righteouſneſs of God; p. 377that of Chriſt muſt needs be meant; for that, and that only is proper and appoſite to anſwer that charge of the Law, which makes us guilty before God; that was a Salvo to the honour of the Law; that was a plenary compenſation for the breaches of it; that came in the room of perfect Obedience; that therefore is the only, thing which could anſwer that charge: if we bring in Faith. or any other Grace into this Orb, we ſet them up as Chriſt's or Saviours; and in effect we ſay, that Chriſt died in vain.

As to the Goſpel, Faith anſwers to the terms of it; here Chriſt's Satisfaction doth not ſupply the room: It's true, he ſatisfied for us, but he did not repent or believe for us; for then he ſhould have left nothing for us to do; no, not ſo much as to accept of that glorious Satisfaction made for us. His Satisfaction was not to ſpare, but by its ſuperexcellent fulneſs to draw out our Faith to it ſelf; his atoning. Blood was not to excuſe, but upon a view of his Wounds to provoke our repentant Tears; he died not for our ſins, that we might live in them; his pure Fleſh was not crucified, that our corrupt Fleſh might be ſpared. The Son of God came not down from Heaven to open a door to wickedneſs, but to promote a deſign of Holineſs: it is therefore we who muſt, though not without Grace, repent and believe: Faith muſt keep its Station, or elſe Holineſs, which is the great Deſign of the Goſpel, muſt be over-turned.

Secondly, The connexion between theſe two Righteouſneſſes is to be conſidered; in this connexion lies the total ſum of Juſtification. Chriſt's Satisfaction anſwers to the Law; Faith anſwers to the terms of the Goſpel; Believers, who are righteous to both, cannot but be in a very bleſſed condition; nevertheleſs p. 378it is to be noted (as Learned Mr. Baxter hath obſerved) Faith is but a particular Righteouſneſs, a Righteouſneſs ſecundum quid, only as to the performance of the Evangelical condition; but Chriſt's Satisfaction is an Univerſal Righteouſneſs as to all other things, ſave only that performance, for the final neglect of which he never died: Faith is a Righteouſneſs as to the Evangelical condition; yet it is but a Righteouſneſs propter aliud, a Righteouſneſs ſubordinate and ſubſervient to that great Righteouſneſs of Chriſt's Satisfaction, to make us capable to participate thereof. In this connexion we have an heap of Myſteries ſet before us; Juſtice is ſatisfied by a plenary compenſation for ſin; Mercy is exalted, in that we, though Sinners, are juſtified upon terms on our part as low as the Holy one could poſſibly condeſcend unto; the great thing, the Satisfaction, which no Man, no Angel could accompliſh, was from Jeſus Chriſt; who being God in the Fleſh, was able to perform it; the comparatively little thing, I mean Faith, which our fallen Nature through Grace might arrive at, was that which was required at our hands; Satisfaction, which we could not have in our ſelves, we have in another, even in Chriſt our Sponſor: Faith, which we have in our ſelves, is that capacity whereby we are made meet to have that Satisfaction communicated to us; the Satisfaction which I think is the Righteouſneſs of God in Scripture mentioned, is communicated to us; yet, as infinite Wiſdom ordered it, it is communicated to us in the loweſt poſture of the Creature; I mean when we are by Self-emptying and Self-annihilating, Faith yielding and reſigning up our ſelves to the terms of the Goſpel; Faith, which is ſubjectively ours, is that capacity p. 379wherein we receive Chriſt's Satisfaction; that Satiſfaction in the Glory and Plenitude is only his; yet, as the Sun hangs down his Beams to the lower World, it derives it ſelf upon each Believer, pro ratione membri: I mention the Sun, becauſe the Prophet tells us, That upon thoſe that fear God's Name, The Sun of Righteouſneſs ariſes with Healing in his Wings; a choice part of which Healing I take to be in the communication of his Satisfaction to us, that only heals the deadly Wound of Guilt which is upon us. In Chriſt's Righteouſneſs there is a Merit to procure Faith; in Faith there is a capacity to have that Righteouſneſs made ours; in that Righteouſneſs there is that which covers the imperfections of Faith. Thus there is an admirable connexion between theſe two Righteouſneſſes: Further touching our Juſtification as to the terms of the Goſpel, we muſt firſt conſider, what that Faith, by which we are juſtified, is; and then how we are juſtified by it.

Firſt, That Faith whereby we are juſtified, is not Reaſon in its own Sphere converſing about God and his Goodneſs, but it is totally ſupernatural; ſupernatural in its Principle; it is the Gift of God: and, as the ſecond Aranſican Councel tells us, It is per inſpirationem Spiritûs ſancti, Can. 6. Supernatural in its object, it is fixed in a God in Covenant, and in his Grace. It hangs upon Chriſt and his Sweet-ſmelling Sacrifice. It falls in with ſupernatural promiſes of Grace and Glory: neither is this Faith a meer naked aſſent, which may be in wicked Men; nay, and in Devils; but it is that which receives Chriſt, and feeds upon him, eating his Fleſh, and drinking his Blood unto Life Eternal: Vitam à Vitae Fonte haurimus, & in ipſum quaſi totos. nos immergimus, ſaith Biſhop Davenant; p. 380We draw Life from the Fountain of Life, and wholly drown our ſelves in him: True Faith takes the Divine objects propoſed, not by piece-meal, but in their entireneſs; it is not meerly for God's Grace, that Hony-comb of infinite ſweetneſs; but for his Holineſs too, that the Soul may be more and more transformed and aſſimilated to the Divine Image and likeneſs. Faith very well knows, That no Man, who by his rebellions ſtrikes at his Holineſs, can poſſibly lean on his Grace: ſo to do, is not to believe, but to preſume and truſt in a lye: Faith is for all Chriſt; not only for a meriting and atoning Chriſt, but for a teaching and ruling one: it knows that Chriſt muſt not be mangled or torn in pieces; the Merit muſt not be divided from the Spirit; nor the Water from the Blood; theſe muſt ever be in conjunction; an half Chriſt is not the Chriſt of God, but a Chriſt of his own fancy, ſuch as cannot profit us; Faith is not meerly for Promiſes, which are cordials, and Pots of Manna, but for Precepts too; it is Meat and Drink to doe the Will of God; Promiſes and Precepts run together in Scripture; Promiſes are the effluxes of Grace, and Faith takes them into the heart by recumbency; Precepts are effluxes of Holineſs, and Faith takes them in by an Obediential Subjection; both are owned by Faith, and muſt be ſo as long as there is Grace and Holineſs in God; Faith cannot ſtand without repentance; it truſts in Infinite Mercy: and an impenitent one, who ſtill holds up his Arms of Rebellion, cannot do ſo; it reſts upon the Merits and Righteouſneſs of Chriſt; and an impenitent one, who tramples under foot the atoning Blood, cannot do ſo. It hath a reſpect for the holy Commands; and the impenitent, who by willful ſinning caſts them away, and as much as in him lieth, makes them void, p. 381can have no reſpect for them; there can no ſuch thing as an impenitent Faith: We ſee by theſe things what a Faith that is, by which we are juſtified.

Secondly, The next thing is, How we are juſtified by Faith. Faith may be conſidered under a double notion; either as it reſpects Chriſt, or as it reſpects the condition of the Goſpel: As it reſpects Chriſt, it unites us to him; it makes us Members of his Myſtical Body; thus it is a Sacred Medium to have Chriſt's Righteouſneſs imputatively become ours, that we may be juſtified againſt the Law; nothing can juſtifie us againſt it but Chriſt's Satisfaction; that cannot do it unleſs it become ours; ours it cannot be, unleſs we are Believers. Hence the Apoſtle ſaith, That the Righteouſneſs of God is upon the Believer, Rom. 3.22. That Chriſt is the end of the Law for Righteouſneſs to the Believer, Rom. 10.4. Here Faith doth not juſtifie us in it ſelf, but in its object, Chriſt; to whom it ſo unites us, that his Righteouſneſs ſo far becomes ours, as to juſtifie us againſt the Law. As it reſpects the Condition of the Goſpel, it is the very thing which that Condition calls for; in the Law of Works the Condition and the Precept were coextenſive; the one was as large as the other; no Man could live by that Law, but he who had the perfect Obedience commanded in the Precept; but in the Law of Grace it is otherwiſe. The Precept hath more in it than the Condition; the Precept calls for Faith, not in its Truth only, but in its Statures and gradual Perfections; it would have us aſpire after a foreign, a fiducial Liberty, a foreign, a perſuaſion with full ſails towards the great things in the Promiſe, as if they were ſenſibly preſent with us; but the Condition calls only for a true Faith, and no p. 382more; the leaſt Faith, if true, though it be but as a little ſmoak or wick in the ſocket; though it be but a little ſpark or ſeed of Faith latent in a Deſire or Willing Mind; is performance of the Condition. Hence the poor in Spirit, who ſeem to themſelves to have nothing of Grace at all in them, have a Bleſſedneſs entailed on them; which could not be, unleſs they had performed the Condition; woe would it be to Chriſtians, if all that is in the Precept were in the Condition alſo; if their Juſtification were ſuſpended till they had reached the top and higheſt altitude of the Precept; in reference to the Precept, Faith hath its Degrees and Statures; it comes up more or leſs to the Precept; but in reference to the Condition, Faith hath no Degrees, but ſtands in puncto indiviſibili; it hath no magis or minùs in it; the leaſt true Faith doth as much perform the Condition as the ſtrongeſt. Cruciger who prayed thus, Invoco te, Domine, languidâ & imbecillâ Fide, ſed Fide tamen, did as much perform the Condition, as he who hath the ſtrongeſt confidence in God's Mercy. The verity of Faith is all that the Condition calls for; theſe things, as I have learned from Mr. Baxter, being ſo, I conclude thus; as to the Precept, true Faith falls ſhort; it is not as it ought to be, it juſtifies not; nay, in reſpect of defects and imperfections, it ſelf wants to be juſtified and covered with the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt; but as to the Condition, it fully comes up; it is as it ought to be; it is in it ſelf the very thing required; it is in this point a particular Righteouſneſs, anſwering for us, That we have performed the Condition: Yet ſtill we muſt remember, that this particular Righteouſneſs is ſubordinate to Chriſt's Satisfaction, which is our univerſal Righteouſneſs.

p. 383There is yet one thing behind, viz. To conſider how or in what Reſpect Obedience or Good Works are neceſſary unto Juſtification: I ſhall ſet down my thoughts in the following particulars.

Firſt, Our good Works do not come in the room of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs to juſtifie us as to the Law; to ſecure this, the Apoſtle often concludes, That we are not juſtified by the Works of the Law; our good Works are full of imperfection; the pureſt of them come forth ex laeſo principio, out of an Heart ſanctified but in part; and in their egreſs from thence gather a taint and tincture from the in-dwelling ſin; never any Saint durſt ſtand before God in his own Righteouſneſs. Job, though perfect, would not know his own Soul, Job 9.21. David, though a Man after God's Heart, would not have him mark iniquities, Pſalm. 130.3. Anſelm upon this account cries out, Terret me Vita mea, My own Life makes me afraid; all of it was in his Eyes ſin or barrenneſs; our Good Works did not, could not ſatisfie the Law; no, this was that which nothing but Chriſts Righteouſneſs could accompliſh: We find not the Saints in Scripture ſtanding upon their own bottom, but flying to a Mercy ſeat; and, as the expreſſion is, Hebr. 12, 2. foreign, looking off from themſelves unto Jeſus the Author and Finiſher of their Faith, in whom alone perfect Righteouſneſs is to be found.

Secondly, Our Good Works have not the ſame ſtation with Faith; this appears upon a double account; the one is this, Faith unites us to Chriſt. And ſo it is a Divine Medium to have his Righteouſneſs made ours; but Good Works follow after Union; we are by Faith married to Chriſt, that we might bring forth fruit to God, Rom. 7.4. Before Faith, which p. 384is our Eſpouſal of Chriſt; we bring forth no genuine Obedience; Good Works are the progeny of a Man in Chriſt; one who by Union with him is rightly ſpirited to do the Will of God: not of a Man in Adam, one who ſtands in the power of Nature: the other is this, In the very inſtant or firſt entrance into Juſtification, Faith is there, but ſo is not Obedience; a Believer, in the very inſtant of believing, before any Good Works ſpring up in his Life, hath a true title to the promiſes of the Goſpel; the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is upon him; the Spirit of Grace is communicated to him; Obedience is a bleſſed fruit, which enſues upon theſe.

Thirdly, Obedience is neceſſary, though not to the firſt entrance into Juſtification, yet to the continuance of it. Not indeed as a Cauſe, but as a Condition:De Juſt. Actual. fol. 404. Thus Biſhop Davenant, Bona opera ſunt neceſſaria ad Juſtificationis ſtatum retinendum & conſervandum; non ut cauſae, quae per ſe efficiant aut mereantur hanc conſervationem; ſed ut media ſeu conditiones, fine quibus Deus non vult Juſtificationis Gratiam in hominibus conſervare. If a Believer, who is inſtantly juſtified upon believing, would continue juſtified, he muſt ſincerely obey God. Though his Obedience in meaſure and degree reach not fully to the Precept of the Goſpel; yet in truth and ſubſtance it comes up to the Condition of it; elſe he cannot continue juſtified; this to me is very evident; we are at firſt juſtified by a living Faith, ſuch as virtually is Obedience; and cannot continue juſtified by a dead one, ſuch as operates not at all. We are at firſt juſtified by a Faith which accepts Chriſt as a Saviour and Lord; and cannot continue juſtified by ſuch a Faith as would divide Chriſt, taking his Salvation from guilt, and p. 385by diſobedience caſting off his Lordſhip; could we ſuppoſe that which never comes to paſs, that a Believer ſhould not ſincerely obey: How ſhould he continue juſtified? if he continue juſtified, he muſt, as all juſtified perſons have, needs have a right to life eternal; and if he have ſuch a right, how can he be judged according to his works? no good works being found in him after his believing, how can he be adjudged to life? or how to death, if he continue juſtified? Theſe things evince, that obedience is a condition neceſſary as to our continuance in a ſtate of Juſtification: Nevertheleſs it is not neceſſary, that obedience ſhould be perfect as to the Evangelical precept; but that it ſhould be ſuch, that the truth of Grace, which the Evangelical condition calls for, may not fail for want of it: Bleſſed are they that do his Commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life; and may enter in through the gates into the City, Rev. 22.14. The firſt fundamental right to Heaven they have by the Faith of Chriſt only; but ſincere obedience is neceſſary that that right may be continued to them: In this ſence we may fairly conſtrue that concluſion of St. James, Te ſee then how that by works a man is juſtified, and not by Faith only. Jam. 2.24. Faith brings a man into a juſtified eſtate: But may he reſt here? No; his good works muſt be a proof of his Faith, and give a kind of experiment of the life of it: Nay, they are the Evangelical condition, upon which his bleſſed eſtate of juſtification is continued to him; in foro legis, Chriſt and his Righteouſneſs is all; neither our Faith nor our Works can ſupply the room of his Satisfaction to juſtifie us againſt the Law: But in foro gratiae, our obedience p. 386anſwers to the Evangelical condition, and is a means to continue our juſtified eſtate: It's true, St. Paul aſſerts that we are juſtified by Faith, not by Works, Rom. 4. Which ſeems directly contrary to that of St. James, that a man is juſtified by Works, not by Faith only; but the difference is reconciled very fairly; if we do but conſider what the Works are in St. Paul, and what they are in St. James: In St. Paul the Works are perfect Works, ſuch as correſpond to the Law, ſuch as make the reward to be of Debt, verſ. 4. Hence Calvin ſaith, operantem vocat, qui ſuis meritis aliquid promeretur, non operantem, cui nihil debetur operum merito: In St. James the Works are ſincere only, ſuch as anſwer not to the Law, but to the Evangelical condition; ſuch as merit not, but are rewarded out of meer Grace: Works in St. Paul, are ſuch as ſtand in competition or coordination with Chriſt and his Righteouſneſs, which ſatisfied the Law for us: Works in St. James, are ſuch as ſtand in due ſubordination to Chriſt and his Righteouſneſs, and are required only as fruits of Faith, and conditions upon which we are to continue in a juſtified eſtate. Works in St. Paul, are ſuch as no man can do; Nay, as no man muſt ſo much as imagine that he can do, unleſs he will caſt away Chriſt and Grace. Works in St. James are ſuch as muſt be done, or elſe we prove our ſelves hypocrites, and our Faith dead and vain; in both Apoſtles Abraham is brought in as an inſtance. In St. Paul the queſtion was, whether Abraham was a Sinner? and here the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt did juſtify him. In St. James the queſtion was, whether Abraham was a true Believer? and here his obedience did prove him to be ſo, and did anſwer to the p. 387Evangelical condition: theſe differences conſidered, it is eaſie to underſtand how we cannot be juſtified by good works in St. Pauls ſence; and yet how according to St. James good works are neceſſary to prove our Faith a living one; and to anſwer the condition of the Goſpel, that the ſtate of Juſtification, into which we entred by Faith, may be continued.

To ſhut up this Diſcourſe touching Juſtification, we muſt here ſtand and adore the infinite Wiſdom and mercy of God in this great Work; what poor faln Creatures were we? into what an horrible gulf of ſin and miſery were we ſunk? whither could we turn? or how could we think ever to ſtand before the holy God? ſtorms of wrath hung over our heads, and might juſtly have fallen upon us; but how ſhould we be juſtified, or ever eſcape? Might the pure perfect Law be abrogated, that we might be acquitted? No, it could not be; it was immortalized by its own intrinſecal rectitude and equity: might God wave his holineſs and juſtice, that his mercy might be manifeſted upon us? would the great Rector pardon the Sin of a world without any recompence or Satisfaction? No, his Law is ſacred and honorable? Sin is no light or indifferent thing in his eyes: Where then ſhall a ſatisfaction be found; no Creature could poſſibly undertake it; no Man, no Angel could or durſt ſtart ſuch a thought, as that one of the Sacred Trinity ſhould do it: See then and admire this incomparable work; the Son of God, very God, leaves his Fathers boſom, aſſumes our frail fleſh; in it fulfills all righteouſneſs; and at laſt is made Sin and a Curſe for us, that we might be juſtified and pardoned: No ſooner are we p. 388by Faith in Union with him, but his righteouſneſs is upon us, his blood waſhes away all our guilt; through him we (but vile worms in our ſelves) become no leſs than Sons of God, and Heirs of Heaven: What are we, that ſuch things as theſe ſhould be made known to us? that Heaven ſhould open and let down ſuch myſteries before our eyes? What manner of perſons ought we to be, who live in the ſhining days of the Goſpel; who have ſo much of the Divine glory breaking out upon us? let us a little ſit down and conſider how infinite is the malignity of Sin, how deep the ſtain of it; when God, who cannot nugas agere, made ſuch ado about the expiation of it; when nothing leſs than the Blood of his own Son could waſh it out? Now to have ſlight thoughts of it, is to Blaſpheme the great Atonement; now to indulge it, is to rake in the wounds of Chriſt, and Crucify him afreſh to our ſelves: How precious ſhould Chriſt be to us? how altogether lovely? what a Perſon is the Eternal Word? what an Union is Immanuel, God and Man in one? what a Laver is his Blood? what a ſweet-ſmelling Sacrifice is his Death? who can tell over the unſearchable riches of his merit, or ſet a rate high enough upon that righteouſneſs of his, which refreſhes the heart of God and Man? what a Sponſor was he, who ſatisfied infinite Juſtice for the Sin of a World? and what an excellent head, who makes his Righteouſneſs reach down to every Believer in the World? who would not now ſay, that he is totus deſideria, altogether loves and deſires? what little things are Worlds and Creatures? what Droſs and Dung in compariſon? what a wretched thing is a dead and frozen heart, which will not warm p. 389and take fire at ſo raviſhing an Object? Who would now live in the old Adam, the head of Sin and Death, any longer? or content himſelf in any ſtate ſhort of an Union with Chriſt, in whom Righteouſneſs and Life are to be had? O how ſhould we act our Faith upon him, and give him the glory of his Righteouſneſs and Satisfaction by believing? How ſhould we venture our Souls, what ever our Debts are, upon the great Surety? Who paid the utmoſt Farthing, and had a total diſcharge in his Reſurrection: How we ſhould hide our ſelves in the Clefts of the Rock, in the precious wounds of Chriſt as in a City of refuge; where the avenging Law, ſatisfied therein, can never purſue and overtake us? How willing ſhould we now be, to have Chriſt reign over us? What! hath he come from Heaven, and in our fleſh fulfilled all Righteouſneſs; and by his obedience unto Death, even the death of the Croſs, ſatisfied for our ſins, and turned away the dreadful wrath due to the ſame, and ſhall he not Reign over us? Hath he bore the heavy end of the Law; the ſinleſs obedience which we could not perform, and the curſe; which, if we had been under, would have ſunk us down into Hell for ever, and ſhall he not Reign over us? when by a condeſcending Law of Grace ſuited to our frailty, he calls for nothing from us but ſincerity: Oh! prodigious ingratitude! who would be guilty of it, or can be ſo, that is a Believer indeed? Let us therefore by Faith joyn our ſelves to Chriſt, that we may be juſtified by his Righteouſneſs; and as a real proof of it, let us reſign up our ſelves in ſincere obedience to him; that having our fruit unto holineſs, we may have the end everlaſting Life.