The Protestant Doctrine of Justification by Christs Righteousness Part 2, Tract · Chapter 1
CHAP. I. The Nature of Juſtification explained, and that it is not a meer forgiving of Sin.
THE Doctrine of Juſtification by Free Grace and the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt imputed to us, hath been ſo abundantly defended by our Proteſtant Writers of every Nation and every Univerſity, profeſſing the Reformed Religion, that I need ſay little to confirm it; and eſpecially ſeeing I have met with nothing in our late Authors objected againſt it, but what hath been frequently objected againſt it by the Papiſts before, and as frequently anſwered by our Writers: The chief Work is to diſcover the Artifice wherewith the New Doctrine of Conditional Juſtification is covered and made plauſible; whereas it is indeed the Old Popiſh and Arminian Doctrine of Juſtification by Works, as I hope I have in ſome meaſure proved in the former Part. Yet that this Treatiſe may be compleat, and that we may not ſeem only diſtruere aliena, and not at all adſtruere propria, I ſhall endeavour briefly to explain the received Doctrine of Juſtification and imputed Righteouſneſs. And firſt of the Nature of Juſtification. Our fore cited Authors and their Friends generally affirm, That the Juſtification of a Sinner before God is nothing elſe but a full Pardon of all Sins, both of Omiſſion and Commiſſion, whereby all guilt and obligation to puniſhment being removed, Man is reſtored ipſo facto to his former State, and to all thoſe Priviledges which by Sin he forfeited. This they maintain that they may the more effectually overthrow the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, ſuppoſing that if the bare Remiſſion of Sin doth both acquit from Puniſhment and reſtore a Right to Life or Bleſſedneſs, then there needeth no poſitive Righteouſneſs to be imputed to intitle to life and to make us acceptable with God. This is the main drift of Mr. Hotchkis his Book about Imputation of Righteouſneſs;Great Propi. p. 110. &c. and is largely proſecuted by Mr. Trueman, not without many confident miſtakes. But this Opinion overthroweth their own Doctrine of Juſtification upon condition of our Obedience, as well as ours of the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, and more; which I thus prove.
Meer Pardon of Sin is nothing elſe but a Diſcharge from the Proceſs of the Law, that a Man ſhould not ſuffer the Penalties of it, but enjoy quietly his former freedom and priviledges notwithſtanding his Offences. Now this Diſcharge requireth no Righteouſneſs at all, our own no more than Chriſts, This Pardon makes a Man righteous in the Law (they ſay) i. e. The Law hath no more to do with him or to ſay againſt him; he is as free from all condemnation as if he were innocent, and had fulfilled the Law. Hence it follows that a Man is juſtified without the intervening condition of his own Obedience: If any poſitive righteouſneſs be neceſſary to pardon, it is not meer pardon: And why may not Chriſt's Righteouſneſs imputed be joyned with and be the Cauſe of Pardon, as well as our own ſincere Obedience? To ſay a Man is juſtified upon the condition of Goſpel Obedience (which is our Inherent Righteouſneſs) and that he is juſtified by the bare Remiſſion of Sins, is a Contradiction. Moreover, theſe Authors do acknowledge that Chriſt merited the Pardon of Sin, ſo that a Sinner is juſtified or pardoned and ſo reſtored to favour for the ſake of Chriſts Satisfaction. Doth it not then follow that the Death of Chriſt is the Cauſe of Pardon; then it is not meer pardon, but pardon procured or merited: and if Chriſts Death be the meritorious cauſe of pardon to every Believer, then it is imputed or applyed to every pardoned ſinner: For no cauſe can produce its effects without Application to the Subject, in whom the effect is wrought; and the Application of a meritorious cauſe to the Subject for whom it meriteth, is Imputation, or accounting that what was done by that Cauſe was done for that Perſon. And thus we ſee this Doctrine maketh more againſt themſelves than againſt us. But that Juſtification includeth more than Pardon of Sin, even a poſitive Righteouſneſs, whereby Man is accepted to Life Eternal, I ſhall thus evince.
1. From the Notation of the Words. To Pardon is only to releaſe from the Penalty of the Law; but to Juſtifie is to Acquit in Judgment, to diſcharge from guilt and accuſation, Rom. 8.33. Who ſhall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect? it is God that Juſtifieth. It is confeſſed that to juſtifie an innocent perſon is to acquit; but to juſtifie a Sinner, they ſay is only to forgive him: But in what Language doth the word ſo ſignifie? When the King pardoneth an Offender, doth any man ſay, doth the Law ever ſay the King juſtifies him? A Brother is commanded to forgive his Brother from the Heart; and ſo Job did no doubt forgive his Friends, and yet he ſaith, God forbid I ſhould Juſtifie you. Job. 27. v. 4.Is any Man ſaid to juſtfie him whom he pardoneth? Why ſhould the Scripture beſides the familiar words of Pardoning and Forgiving uſe another term, viz. to Juſtifie? which in its Etymology and common uſe ſignifieth to declare Righteous, and yet mean no more by Juſtification than bare Forgiveneſs.
'Tis ſaid, A full Pardon makes a Man righteous, foraſmuch as he that is diſcharged from all Sin, is accounted not to have broke the Law; and not to have broke it, is all one as to have fulfill'd it: But this is a miſtake; He that forgives an Offender does not therefore account or make him Righteous, though he will not exact the Penalty of him. Pardon doth ſuppoſe a Man to have been a Sinner, and ſo it leaves him as one that hath deſerv'd puniſhment, though by favour he is exempted from it; the Law ſtill chargeth him with ſin and ſentenceth him to puniſhment, though the Judge ſuperſedeth his Sentence and will not execute the Law.
But it is ſaid,Great Prop. p. 121. Pardon is diſſolutio obligationis ad poenam, diſſolveth the Obligation to puniſhment; and when there is no obligation to puniſhment, a man is innocent and hath right to impunity.
I Anſwer: The Antecedent is untrue; The Obligation to puniſhment ariſeth from the intrinſecal Nature of the Law, which (being broken) exacteth puniſhment as a due Debt. The Wages of Sin is death, Rom. 6.23. So that if pardon take away the obligation to puniſhment, it maketh ſin to be no ſin: But ſin is ſin though forgiven, and the Sinner deſerves to die although he ſhall not die. Pardon taketh away the Ordination or Deſtination of a Man to Puniſhment that he is not appointed to die, but not the Obligation that he doth not deſerve to die. I conclude Pardon doth not render a Man as innocent, as no Tranſgreſſor, and therefore 'tis not all one with juſtifying or declaring righteous.
2. From thoſe Phraſes whereby Juſtification is expreſſed, Eph. 1.4. It is paraphraſed thus: As he hath choſen us in him that we ſhould be holy and without blame before him in love. He who is only forgiven his Sins, is not accounted as holy and blameleſs: Pardon ſuppoſeth guilt and that which ſome call reatum culpae, the guilt of the fault remaineth after pardon, viz. That ſuch a Man hath broken the Law, and by ſuch habits or actions he hath been diſobedient to the Commands. Pardon only takes away reatum penoe, the appointment of a Man to puniſhment, therefore there muſt be ſomething more to render men foreign, holy and blameleſs before God, and Objects of his Love. Rom 4.3, 4, 5. Juſtification is called Imputing of Righteouſneſs; And Rom. 10.5, 6. Juſtification by Works and by Faith are oppoſed by the Names of the Righteouſneſs of the Law, and the Righteouſneſs of Faith. To juſtifie therefore is to reckon or to declare in judgment, that a Man is righteous, and as if Man had been juſtified by the Law of Works he had then been pronounced righteous: So now he is to be juſtified by Faith, he is to be declared righteous by the Righteouſneſs of Faith, though not of Works. Therefore Juſtification is more than Forgiveneſs.
Object.'Tis ſaid Pardon maketh a Man Righteous, as if he had not brok'n the Law.
Anſw.Ans;w.This hath been anſwer'd before: I am ſure we ſhould take it very ill if one that hath greatly offended us, and received his life and all from our Mercy, ſhould plead that he is as good as an innocent or righteous perſon, becauſe he is exempted from the Puniſhment he deſerved.
Object.A perſon of quality argues thus: If pardon be not a Sinners Righteouſneſs, and maketh him not righteous, then a man may be pardoned and be unrighteous ſtill in the eye of the Law; which he thinketh abſurd,Juſtific. Evangelical, p. 18. or elſe there muſt be a medium betwixt being righteous and unrighteous, which he thinketh impoſſible.
Anſw.Both parts of the diſjunction are untrue: the firſt, that he that is pardoned is not unrighteous ſtill: for if by favour puniſhment be remitted, and no ſatisfaction be made to the Law, then the Law remains broken ſtill, and he is a Sinner ſtill though forgiven. For it is not the Law that pardoneth (if that might take effect it would condemn) but the Law-Giver by his own Prerogative; which pardon is not therefore looked upon as the fulfilling or the Righteouſneſs of the Law. But if (as in our caſe) the Law was ſatisfied, and by reaſon of that ſatisfaction man is pardoned (as this worthy Author acknowledgeth a little before) then that ſatisfaction of the Law repaireth the Breach of it, and ſo there is the real righteouſneſs of the Law, firſt imputed to a Man, and then by reaſon thereof he is pardoned, i.e. acquitted from puniſhment to which he was obnoxious before: And thus here is a fair Contradiction that a Man is juſtified by a righteouſneſs ſatisfactory to the Law yet barely pardoned. The ſecond part of the Diſjunction; That there is no medium betwixt being righteous and unrighteous is alſo untrue; we ſpeak of a declarative Righteouſneſs. Now it is apparent that there is a Middle betwixt being juſtified and being condemned, viz. Medium negationis, or rather privationis. Adam before he fell was not condemned, having not yet ſinned; nor was he juſtified, having not finiſhed that courſe of obedience to which life was promiſed: It is true he was righteous inherently, and alſo in the eye of the Law, ſo far as he had obeyed, and ſo far might be ſaid to be juſtified, viz. Inchoatively. But in this Queſtion we take juſtification for that perfect Act whereby a Sinner is fully acquitted and accepted to life eternal, and thus Adam was not juſtified, and therefore in a middle ſtate: So then, Pardon doth not make a Man righteous or juſtified, but in the preciſe Notion of it, it is a Middle betwixt condemnation and juſtification, viz. Non-condemnation, but if you add that a Man is forgiven for Chriſt's ſake, then you add ſomething beſides Meer Pardon and ſo deſert the Queſtion.
3. I argue from the nature of Juſtification …s it is diſcovered in its immediate and moſt proper Effects; the chief whereof is this, That …t giveth a firm and immutable Right to Eternal Life. Our Oppoſites and we differ about …uſtification in this Life: They ſay it is imperfect and mutable, we ſay 'tis perfect and immutable; but we agree in this, That Juſtification whenever it is perfect and compleat gi…eth an immutable Right to life, ſuch as ſhall …ever be loſt as Adam's was.
Hence I argue, Meer Pardon or Relaxation …f puniſhment doth not give an immutable …ight to life, but only reſtores a Man to the …ondition he was in before, and leaveth him as subject and liable to loſe it by new ſins as e…er he was: But Juſtification by Chriſt doth …ot only reſtore Man to the Condition he was …n before, ſubject to change, but giveth him …n unchangeable Right to Life Eternal; therefore it is more than Pardon: And further, that which gives an immutable right to life, muſt ſuppoſe the Law to be fulfilled, which promiſed life, which being fulfilled, there is nothing further to be required, nor any further danger of a threatning of death, but man is to be …eclared Righteous, and to receive the promiſed Reward. But Juſtification giveth ſuch a …ull and immutable right to life, therefore it ſuppoſeth fulfilling of the Law, by our ſelves …r another; and a Righteouſneſs thence ari…ng, for which we are declared Righteous …nd receive the promiſed Life.
Object.'Tis ſaid, Full pardon (ſuch as God's Pardon is) delivereth from all puniſhment, ſenſu & damni, Trum. ut ſupra.from all poſitive puniſhment, and from the privation of all Priviledges which were or ſhould have been enjoyed before; and this is equivalent to a right to life in the nature of the thing. For when a Man is exempted from all puniſhment and reſtored to his for men Eſtate or Favour with God, he is then in ſtat… quo prius, in the condition he was in before he ſinned.
Anſw.By this Argument, Pardon ſhould reſtore man into the Condition of Adam before hi… Fall, which is apparently falſe: For that i… the State from whence he fell by ſin, and to which Meer Pardon muſt reſtore him, at leaſ… when it is compleat, at the laſt Judgment: but neither then is man reſtored into Adam's condition, but to a new State of Happineſs by the Redeemer.
Beſides, this Argument makes ſtrongly againſt themſelves, for the Condition from which man fell was but a State of Probation, wherein he had no immutable right to life; therefore Pardon reſtoring him but to his former Condition, putteth him again but into a State of Probation, and giveth no certain right to life. Nay by this Doctrine Sin is not pardoned in this Life: A Man is not acquitted or put out of danger of puniſhment, ſeeing his Salvation dependeth upon conditions which muſt be in fulfilling till his lives end: So that Pardon with them is no more, than a Suſpenſion of puniſhment, together with a promiſe of life and impunity if man fulfill the Conditions of the Goſpel. This putteth a Man into a poſſibility of life, but giveth him no actual or certain Title to it, and therefore is not Juſtification.
4. The next Effect of Juſtification is a new Heart or Grace to fit and bring man to life which Juſtification entitleth to. The Spirit of Sons and the Glory of Heav'n are the Fruits of Adoption; but Life and Happineſs ſimply, and the Spirit of Sanctification are the Effects of Juſtification, Heb. 8.10, 11, 12, 13. The new Heart is promiſed as an Effect of forgiveneſs of ſin. Hence I argue, That which gives with the right to life all the means neceſſary to attain life is more than pardon of ſin: But Juſtification by Chriſt gives a right to all the Means neceſſary to attain eternal life, as well as to life it ſelf: Ergò, The Reaſon of the Major is, pardon in the common notion of it, and with our Oppoſites, doth only put a man into that ſtate or favour he was in before, but in that condition there was no certainty of grace to perſevere and to come to life. When we pardon an Offendor we receive him into our former favour, and lay aſide all thoughts of enmity, but we do not count our ſelves engaged by all means poſſible to endeavour to prevent his offending for the future; that care reſteth on him; therefore if Juſtification give a right to the Grace of God which ſhall be effectual to bring us to life, it is more than pardon, or putting us into our former condition wherein we had no ſuch promiſe. Mr. Truman ingeniouſly confeſſeth (what is the natural conſequence of his Opinion) That Chriſt by his Satisfaction did not purchaſe grace to bring men to life,Great Propit. p. 203. &c. but only a Law of Grace, whereby it was poſſible for all men to be ſaved i… they would, and God might juſtly ſave them, if they performed the Terms of that Law. He ſaith, Indeed Chriſt by the ſupereminency of his Perſon and Redemption did deſerve that his Death ſhould not be in vain, and conſequently that ſome men ſhould have grace given them … bring them to Heaven, but that he did not preperly merit this Grace ſhould be giv'n them; So that this is a point of honour to Chriſt, not o… Juſtice or Debt upon the account of his Sufferings, that ſome ſhould have Saving and Perſevering Grace. Yet he acknowledgeth that th… Father of his own good Pleaſure giveth this grac… to thoſe whom he hath choſen: So then the gift o… Grace is the immediate Fruit of Election not of Juſtification. But this Doctrine is as fall… as new: Man's Sin deprived him of Grace as well as of Happineſs, and therefore if Chriſt purchaſed a right to Happineſs for him (which ſhall be proved in the next Chapter) he purchaſed Grace alſo to attain it; the Means are included in the end. The loſs of the denial o… Grace is the Effect of Sin, therefore the reſtoring of Grace is the Effect of full Pardon and Juſtification. The Scriptures teach that all ſulneſs of Grace was given to Chriſt, that we might receive of his Fulneſs Grace for Grace, John 1.14, 16. He hath power to ſend the Holy Spirit to abide with us for ever. Joh. 14.16. And the powring out of the Spirit was reſerved till his Work of Redemption was finiſhed, and he ſhould be poſſeſſed of Glory, John 16.7. And then he promiſed the Spirit …o lead us into all truth, to reveal himſelf to us, and to glorifie him in us, v. 12, 13, 14. Laſtly, He prayed for ſanctifying Grace and perſeverance for them that did, and all that ſhould hereafter believe, till they all come to be one in him, John 17.15, 16, 21. And wherefore is the Power of giving Grace committed to the Mediatour, if not purchaſed by him, and why doth he interceede for that he never bought and paid for? If then Chriſt purchaſed Grace as well as a Right to Life, then Juſtification giveth a Right to Grace as well as to Life it ſelf, and ſo is more than Pardon.
5. I argue from the Impulſive Cauſes; Pardon is an Act of meer Mercy, but Juſtification is an Act of Juſtice; therefore it is not meer Pardon. God juſtifieth Believers not as a meer Act of Favour, though free Mercy be the Foundation and the prime impulſive cauſe of Juſtification, and all the Fruits of it, but immediately, it is an Act of Juſtice, Juſtice being the immediate Impulſive Cauſe. It is not only a Juſt thing with God to juſtifie a Sinner through Chriſt, that he may do it without wrong to his Juſtice, as ſome gloſs it; but it is an Act of proper Juſtice, having received ſatisfaction to his Law, to juſtifie and acquit him; it would not be juſt to deny it. This is intimated, Rom. 8.33, 35. Who ſhall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect? It is God that Juſtifieth. foreign; Who ſhall indite or implead them in courſe of Law or Judgment (or elſe there is enough to be charged againſt them.) The Reaſon is, becauſe it is God that juſtifieth, God who is to be Judge, to give the Sentence, and therefore will juſtifie judicially or as an Act of Judgment: And the ground of this is in the next words foreign; Who ſhall condemn in Judgment, ſeeing Chriſt has died and ſo ſatisfaction is made to Juſtice? When we pardon an Offence, which we might juſtly puniſh, we do cedere de jure, forbear our Right, and Juſtice gives place to Mercy; but Juſtice cannot pardon or acquit unleſs it be ſatisfied, unleſs it have what is right and due according to Law.
Object.But it is ſaid, That God pardoneth legally and judicially by virtue of the Evangelical Law, ſo it is an Act of Juſtice as well as of Mercy:Vid. Juſtiif. Evang. p. 23. So Truman. They ſay a Sinner is not pardoned, by Free Grace and Abſolute Pardon, but upon conditions and terms required in the Goſpel to be performed by him, which when he hath performed, the Evangelical Law doth juſtifie him, pronounce him pardoned, and ſo his Pardon is an Act of Juſtice according to the Goſpel Law, though not according to the Law of Works, which is content with nothing but Satisfaction.
Anſw.Let any fair Diſputant judge whether this … not to ſhift the Queſtion: They have ſaid, …at Juſtification is meer Pardon, bare Pardon, nothing but Pardon, and yet it is not ab…ute Pardon, but Pardon upon condition to … performed by him that will receive Pardon. …re not theſe Conditions when perſormed our …angelical Righteouſneſs? This they con…d for; And are they not a poſitive Righteouſneſs? Yes, they are Goſpel Obedience: …hat ſence is it then to ſay we are pardoned …thout any poſitive Righteouſneſs, that Pardon alone is all our Righteouſneſs. It may be …eſe conditions are ſo ſmall and ſo neceſſary to …e receiving of pardon ex natura rei, that …y are not to be accounted as any righteouſneſs: Nay, but in the Goſpel Law, all the …oral Duties that were required in the Cove…nt of Works are required ſtill, though not …th the ſame neceſſity of perfection: And …w they are much more difficult than before. …me Moral Duties are required alſo and neceſſary, which were not directly nnd properly …uties under the Firſt Covenant; as Self-de…l, Mortification, and bearing the Croſs. …ſides theſe the Goſpel preſcribeth new poſi…e Duties, which neither were nor could be …uties under the Law of Works, viz. Faith, …ve, and Obedience to the Mediator, with … holy and reverend uſe of all the poſitive In…tutions of the Goſpel. Are theſe ſmall things, …s it neceſſary to meer Pardon, that the pardoned ſhould not only return to their forme Duty, but alſo receive new Terms, and Conditions which were never their Duty before If a Prince ſubdue Rebels, and then promi… them Impunity, if beſides returning to the… ancient Duty and Allegiance they will receive ſome new Terms; which he ſhall pleaſe to impoſe on them, doth he freely pardon them doth he not deal with them as in a way … Mercy, ſo in a way of Soveraignty, giv… them new Laws, and making advantage to himſelf and acceſſion to his Power by occaſion … their miſdemeanour? Beſides, this is ve… improper to talk of legal and judicial Pardon Pardon by a Law: For a Law is properly preceptive, and judicial Proceedings are acquiting or condemning for keeping or breaki… the Law. Pardon is granted by ſuperſed… the Sentence of the Law, at leaſt the Execution of it, or by a Promiſe or Declaration … Grace, which when eſtabliſht for ſecuriti… ſake and promulgated, is ſometimes called a… Act of Grace, yet it hath not the full Natur… of a Law. It is the Soveraign Legiſlator wh… pardoneth, who hath power to relax the Execution of the Law; a Law cannot pardon But the plain meaning of thoſe men is, Th… God ſeeing through the Fall it was become impoſſible for man to keep, and ſo to be ſa… by the Law of Works, was pleaſed to ma… a new, milder, and eaſier Law, and to decla… that if they would keep it, they ſhould … pardoned and ſaved: Pardon then with the… is nothing elſe but a waving of the Covena… of Works, i. e. God will not proceed with men according to that Covenant, if they will ſubmit to his new Covenant; ſo then for all their ſpecious words of meer Pardon to exclude Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, they only mean that God will not execute his Firſt Covenant which men have broken, but will ſave them if they fulfil his Second Covenant, i. e. will be righteous and obedient according to the Goſpel, and thus they acknowledg a righteouſneſs of a man's own, beſides pardon whereby he muſt he juſtified.
6. The Law requireth a poſitive righteouſneſs by the fulfilling of it: The end of every Law being obedience to it.Juſt. Evang. p. 38, 39. Therefore Juſtification cannot be Pardon of Sin without Imputation of Righteouſneſs. 'Tis ſaid, That the Law of Works required a ſinleſs perfect righteouſneſs, which Chriſt hath ſatisfied for; but the Law of Grace is a better Covenant, accepting an imperfect Righteouſneſs. But this is nothing to the purpoſe; let the righteouſneſs be ſuch as the Law will accept, perfect or imperfect, it is all one, if the Law doth require a poſitive righteouſneſs, then a man cannot be juſtified without it: And do not they themſelves teach that the Goſpel requireth obedience to it, as our Evangelical Righteouſneſs, therefore that cannot juſtifie us without a righteouſneſs conformed to it ſelf. 'Tis ſaid further, Legal Juſtification,Ibidem. i. e. according to the Law of Works, requireth a fulfilling of that Law, but not Evangelical Juſtification, A fallacy in words: Legal and Evangelical Juſtification differ not ſpecie ſed modo applicationis, not in the righteouſneſs which juſtifieth, but in the manner of its application to us. Had we fulfilled the Law of Works, we had been legally juſtified by our own righteouſneſs, but now Chriſt hath fulfilled that Law for us we are ſtill legally juſtified, to wit, by the righteouſneſs of that Law; yet in an Evangelical or Gracious manner, that righteouſneſs being not our own but Chriſt's imputed to us (a… ſhall be proved in the next Chapter) and I beſeech you when men are juſtified, i. e. pardoned, (ſay you) what Law is it that accuſeth them, for the violation whereof they are pardoned? Is it not the Law of Works? (for i… they break the Goſpel Covenant there is n… more ſacrifice for ſin.) There muſt then be a legal Juſtification by that Law of Works, unleſs it be wholly waved and made void by the Goſpel.
Object.But the Law of Works is ſatisfied by the ſuffering of Chriſt, and ſo pardon of all ſins i… a ſufficient Juſtification from it:Great Prop. p. 116. There needeth not Obedience and ſuffering too.
Anſw.The Law doth not directly and immediately require both obedience and ſuffering the penalty, but obedience only is the end of the Law; ſuffering the penalty is no fulfilling of, or proper ſatisfaction to the Law, but a recompence to Juſtice for the breach of the Law, that ſo contempt may not lie upon it: ſo that if the Law be broken it doth accidentally require both obedience and ſuffering of puniſhment; the latter for the recompence of injured Juſtice, that the Law may not be deſpiſed or broken impunè, and the former as that which is the proper and natural end of the Law. When a man ſuffereth the penalty of any Law, the Law is ſo far ſatisfied that it can exact no farther puniſhment, but doth he therefore deſerve the rewards of the Law, as if he had obeyed it? He is indeed reſtored to his former State, i. e. puniſhment ceaſeth and he is admitted to the priviledge of other men to live in obedience to the Law for the future, but he hath not the reward of obedience, nor is accounted for his ſuffering to be upon the ſame terms with the obedient: In like manner, our Lord Chriſt by ſuffering the penalties of the Law did recompence the injured Honour and Juſtice of God, and of the Law, ſo that it could require no more puniſhment of him or of thoſe that believe in him; but he did not therefore deſerve the rewards of the Law, they were procured by his obedience to it. It is not true of the Law of God, that it requireth either to be obeyed, or that the penalty ſhould be endured; for ſo men ſhould obey and fulfill the Law in a ſort by going to hell for breaking it. The Law promiſed life only to obedience, not to the ſuffering of death; therefore Chriſt by ſuffering of death did fulfill what the Law required, but accidentally and ſecondarily by reaſon of ſin, but by obeying the Law he fulfilled the primary and immediate end of the Law, and ſo merited the promiſed reward. There muſt therefore be a righteouſneſs of conformity to the Law, whereby muſt be procured a right to life, as well as a ſuffering of the penalty, whereby a ſtop is put to further puniſhment, which is all that meer pardon of ſin amounteth to. Upon theſe grounds I take leave to deſcribe Juſtification an Act whereby God doth acquit and accept a Sinner as righteous unto life eternal for the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, whereby he hath fulfilled the precept and ſuffered the penalty of the Law. Juſtification actively taken is Gods Act acquitting or declaring a man righteous; paſſively taken it is a mans ſtate or relation to that Act of God, being declared and accepted as righteous, of which as it ſuppoſeth a change from a former ſtate of guilt and condemnation; the terminus a quo, or ſtate from which he is tranflated is a ſtate of Sin and wrath; the terminus ad quem, is a ſtate of abſolution or being righteous before God; pardon of ſin or ſtop of puniſhment is included in it, or doth immediately reſult from it; ſo that Juſtification is one ſingle Act and not ſeveral concurring to make it up, though divers things are given or granted by it, either immediately or conſequentially, as flowing from the immediate effect or benefit of it. The main Argument againſt this Doctrine is, That the Scripture doth frequently deſcribe Juſtification by pardon and forgiveneſs, as if they were aequipollent terms: But the reaſon of this is, Firſt, Becauſe men being ſenſible of ſin and miſery, do firſt look after pardon, and therefore pardon is promiſed as that which will be moſt welcome and comfortable to them; and alſo becauſe men ſhould be fenſible of their own guilt, and in capacity of making ſatisfaction to God; and therefore that the righteouſneſs by which they muſt be juſtified is not their own but Chriſts, nor contrived or provided by them but by God himſelf for them. What then, Juſtification is called pardon of ſin, ergò, it is nothing elſe but Pardon; This is no conſequence.
Object.But the Apoſtle, Rom. 4. fully deſcribeth Juſtification, the nature of it; and he ſaith, v. 6, 7. That Bleſſedneſs cometh by forgiving,Juſtif. Evang. p. 27. covering, not imputing ſin.
Anſw.But he ſaith alſo, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteouſneſs. Now in the place here quoted, Gen. 15.6. and the context, there is a promiſe of poſitive Bleſſing made to. Abraham, and he believed that promiſe, and this was accounted to him for righteouſneſs. Shall we ſay Abraham believed, and this was accounted for pardon of ſin? There is a poſitive righteouſneſs intimated as well as a poſitive act whereby it was procur'd and appli'd, and poſitive promiſes granted thereupon. David indeed under great horrors for his ſin comforts himſelf moſt with apprehenſions of forgiveneſs as moſt ſuitable to his caſe, but what good will the fulleſt pardon imaginable do a man without a certain right to eternal life, and a promiſe of effectual Grace to bring him to it? will he not ſin again and ſo loſe the benefit of his former pardon?
Object.But a Sinner is capable of no other righteouſneſs, but that of forgiveneſs.
Anſw.What then muſt become of the Evangelical Righteouſneſs of Faith and Works, which they contend for? A Sinner can have no other righteouſneſs but meer pardon, if it muſt reſt upon him to ſatisfie or to provide ſatisfaction for the Law: But doth this hinder God's providing and beſtowing on him the righteouſneſs of his Son? As a Bankrupt is capable of nothing, but to have his debt freely forgiven him, for ought that he can do towards ſatisfaction, yet this hindreth not but his Friend may pay the Debt for him, and ſo render him ſolvent in Law.
'Tis once more ſaid,Object. Iuſt…. Evang. p. 35, 36. If a Sinner be not made Righteous by pardon, but may be counted a Sinner ſtill, then by the ſame reaſon, when Chriſt his Righteouſneſs is imputed, that being not his own Obedience he may be counted a Sinner ſtill, and ſo be Righteous and a Sinner at the ſame time, which implieth a loud Contradiction.
Anſw.It is no Contradiction being not eodem reſpectu, not in the ſame reſpect or in the ſame ſence: A man is a Sinner in himſelf and righteous in Chriſt, the Law pronounceth him a Sinner, and ſentenceth him to death, but the Law-giver who is above the Law accepteth Chriſts fulfilling the Law for him; and thus being admitted upon Chriſts account, the Law it ſelf muſt acknowledg him Righteous.