A Breviate of the Doctrine of Justification.

Pr. 1. WE must first agree, what Righte­ousness is. Righteousness is for­mally a Relation: And there­fore must have the definition of a Relation: I need not tell Schollars what that is.

2. The subject of this Relation, is, first mens actions and habits, and their Titles and Rights, and then their Persons as the subject of these.

3. Righteousness is a Relation to the Rule or Law: And is an Agreeableness thereto: If it be Gods Law, it is Righteousness before God. If but mans, it is but humane Righteousness.

4. As a Law hath two parts; the precept and the retribution of reward and punishment▪ so there are two sorts of unrighteousness and righteousness: As to the precept, Obedience is Righteousness, and Sin is Unrighteousness. As to the Retributi­on. Right to Impunity and to the promised Re­ward is the Persons Righteousness, and so contra­ry.

5. Righteousness materially is either, 1. Parti­cular, in some one cause, or few causes, 2. Or Ʋniversal and perfect in all causes.

6. Righteousness particular is either in some small matter that we are not made happy by. 2. Or in some great cause which our happiness dependeth on.

7. The first Law required personal perfect con­stant obedience on pain of death; and so justifieth none without it.

[Page 2]8. Adam was the Father of all mankind, from whom they spring, but he did not so represent the Persons of all that were to spring of him, as if his obedience without their own would have justified any of them at age. If Adam had not sinned, Ca­in should have been condemned if he sinned; and so others.

9. The first Law being broken, man was made uncapable of either part of Justification by it; ei­ther as one that sinned not, or as one that was not by it to be condemned. And so it was no more to him a Promise or Covenant of Life; the Con­dition being now become impossible, and so no condition; and the threatning becoming as a Sen­tence.

10. This Law neither gave, mentioned or own­ed any Surety, Substitute, or Mediator.

11. But the blessed Lawgiver our Creator would not so lose his Creature, but the eternal word pre­sently interposing, undertook mans Redemption, and God gave man a new Law of Life, or a Cove­nant of Grace▪ promising him a Mediator in the fullness of time, and giving him freely for his sake both pardon of his sin, and right to Life, on the Terms of Grace therein prescribed: and command­ing him future obedience, especially in the recep­tion of his Grace, and use of the means of Grace appointed him.

12. This Law of Grace was made to Adam the lapsed head of all mankind, and so to all mankind in him: And it was renewed to Noah in the same capacity: so that all fallen mankind was put under this Law of Grace in that first Edition of it, made to Adam, and Noah. And were neither left law­less, nor utterly desperate as under the meer damn­ing violated Law, which now no more offered [Page 3] Life to any, the condition being become of natu­ral impossibility: God is not to be supposed to say now to sinners, If you be not Sinners you shall li [...]; when it's known that they are.

13. Abraham, being eminently righteous, ac­cording to this Law of Grace, and Believing a spe­cial promise of God, and not withholding his only Son in his obedience to his command, God made with him moreover a Covenant of peculiarity, su­peradded to the common Law of Grace. In which he chuseth out his Seed as a peculiar Holy Nation, from whom the Me [...]iah should come, in whom all the Nations of the Earth shou [...]d be blessed. This pro­mise was renewed to Isaac (and Jac [...]b) Gen. 26.4, 5. Because that Abraham obeyed my Voice and kept my Charge, my Commandments, my Statutes, and my Laws.

14. This Covenant of Peculiarity with Abra­ham, nulled not the common Law of Grace made to mankind, nor was it ever nulled or abro [...]ate, but perfected after: Though men make them­selves uncapable of the benefits.

15. God useth none of fallen mankind according to the severity of the first Law, but giv [...]th to all men undeserved forfeited Mercy, and bindeth them to use some means for their recovery; to re­pent in hope, and to receive and thankfully use the measures of mercy which he vouch [...]eth them. And all men shall be judged according to that edi­tion of the Law of Grace which they were under, and the receiving and using the Grace or Mercy which was given or offered them.

16. When the peculiar Seed was formed into a Nation, God gave them by Moses a peculiar Law, which exempli [...]ied the Holiness of the first Law, but had the Promises and Grace of the second, with [Page 4] the peculiar additions; and plainlier pointed out the Messiah to come but by a way of operous Ce­remonies, and severe Discipline, suitable to their rude minority.

17. In the fulness of time. Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost, in a Virgin▪ and being God and Man, a [...] made by the Will of the Deity was made a Subject under a Law peculiar to himself, according to his peculiar works; and this Law given to our Mediator had three parts. 1. That he should perfe [...]tly obey the Law of Innocency so far as it was fitted to his case, and overcome the Tempter. 2. That he should perfectly keep the Law of Mose [...], so far as it agreed to him. 3. That he should perfectly do all that was proper to the Redeemer, in being a Sacrifice for sin, clearing and publi [...]hing the New Covenant; sealing it by Miracles, rising again, instituting his Word, Sacra­ments and Ministry, ascending, giving the Spirit, interceding in Heaven, &c. his promised reward being the success of his undertaking, the saving of his Church and his Glory, in the glorifying of God the Father: This is the peculiar Law to the Me­diator.

18. That which is called The Covenant between the Father and the Son▪ is this Covenant made to and with Christ In [...]arnate, and the fore-dec [...]eing thereof, with the Prophecies of it. If there be more, it is past our reach.

19. Christ perfectly fulfilled all that he under­took, and this as the second Adam; not a Na­tural Root, but a Voluntary Sponsor: Not our Substitute or Servant sent by us, but chosen by t [...]e Father, and sent by him to do all his Will for Mans Redemption.

20. As he took the common Nature of Man, so [Page 5] the sins of all, and not only of the Elect were the causes of his sufferings, and said upon him, and the fruits of his sufferings and merits were some com­mon, and some peculiar to the Elect.

21. He being not as Adam, our natural Parent, was not meerly by natural generation to convey his benefits to the Redeemed; but by such means as he should chuse, and Man consent to, even by a holy Covenant or Contract, being also his Do­ctrine, and his Law in several respects; which Co­venant having great and precious Promises, is Gods Instrument of Donation and Condonation, and our title to all the blessings promised; by which God doth give us right to Pardon and Sal­vation: This Law of Grace is the Rule of our du­ty, and the Rule by which we shall be judged.

22. This Law or Covenant giveth a Conditio­nal Pardon to all in the tenour of it, with Adop­tion and Right to Life Eternal: But actual Par­don and Right accrueth to none, till the Condi­tion be performed, which is to be Believers, or their Infant seed dedicated to God by Covenant Con­sent.

23. This Condition is not that we our selves make God amends or satisfaction, or give him any thing that hath any merit in Commutative Justice, or do any kind of work which shall make the re­ward to be of debt, and not of grace: But it is [ the Belief of, and Consent to the Covenant of Grace, and the Believing Acceptance of the gifts and grace of the Covenant, according to their nature, and [...] their proper use; and is the same thing which is to be professed in Baptism, which is the solemnizing of this mutual Covenant, and in which God the Fa­ther, Son and Holy Ghost, do give themselves to us, for grace and glory, and we give up our selves [Page 6] by consent to him, believingly accepting his grace, and penitently renouncing the lusts of the flesh, the world and the Devil; and so are sacramentally invested in a state of Justification, Adoption and Spiritual Life.

24. The profession of this Faith and Consent in Baptism, maketh men visible Christians and Church▪members; and true heart consent in Faith maketh men Living and Justified Members.

25. This belief and consent, or performance of the Condition, is not the Efficient Cause of our Pardon or Justification, but is the necessary [...] posi­tion or qualification of the Receiver, in the very nature of the Act suitable and needful, and by Divine Insti­tution and Promise made the Condition and acceptable.

26. Though we are not capable Receivers of Justification, till we thus penitently and believing­ly consent, yet when we do so, it is the merit of Christs Righteousness by which we are justified: For the Covenant of God is but his Instrument by which he giveth us Christ (to be our Head) and Life in and with him, and so giveth us Justifica­tion as procu [...]d by his Merits.

27. Justification is a word of many senses: some­times it signifieth [ making us righteous] sometimes, the Law or Covenants virtu [...]l judging us righteo [...]s, it being the Rule of Judgment: sometimes Gods esteeming us righteous in his own mind: sometimes for a Justifying by [...]vidence or Witness: sometimes by [...]polo [...]y of an Advocate: sometimes by the Sen­tence of the Judge: and sometime for the Execu­tion of that Sentence. But the notable special sorts are three, Making just, [...]udging just, and Ʋsing as just: And they that will dispute of Justification, and not tell in what sense they take the word, do but abuse their time and talk.

[Page 7]28. No man is judged righteous by God, that is not first made righteous.

29. He that is made righteous, is justifiable in Judgment, and virtually justified (in Law.)

30. No sinner is made righteous as to the Precep­tive part of the Law of Innocency; it being a contra­diction to have been a sinner and no sinner.

31. Pardon of sin doth not make the fact done to be undone, or not done, nor the sin to be no sin, nor not to have deserved punishment: But it re­mitteth the punishment and the fault, so far as it in­ferreth punishment, because of the merit and satis­faction of the Mediator; and delivereth the sinner from that which he was bound to suffer by the violated Law.

32. To make a man righteous before God that hath sinned, all these things must concur: 1. He must have a Mediator that must answer the Ends of the Law that condemneth him, and so meriteth his Ju­stification. 2. This Saviour must make him a Pardoning and Justifying Covenant, to convey the right of the purchased benefits to him. 3. He himself (by grace) must per [...]orm the Conditions of that Covenant; accepting the free gift believingly accord­ing to its nature and use. 4. Upon this the Cove­nant (by virtue of the foresaid Merit of the Me­diator) must effectually justifie him.

33. Though we have no Righteousness of our own, that is so denominated by the Law of Inno­cency, yet have we a Righteousness to plead for our Justification from its Sentence, which by our Mediator was performed to it, by which the Law­giver hath received satisfaction; and we must have the personal subordinate [...]ighteousness required by the Covenant of Grace.

34. All that are made righteous, are esteemed and judged righteous, and used as righteous.

[Page 8]35. Pardon of Sin, and Right to Life, are not that Righteousness which answereth the Precept of the Law: But they are that Righteousness which ju­stifieth us against the Accusation, [ that we are not to be saved, but to be damn [...]d▪]

35. Christs Perfe [...] Ob [...]di [...]nce to the Law of In­nocency, exempteth u [...] from the necessity of per­fect obedience to it▪ and from all duty of obeying it as the condition of life: But he did not Repent and Believe in obedience to his own Law of Grace, to exempt us from the necessity of Repenting and Believing, which we must do our selves by his grace, or perish.

36. To make a man righteou [...] implieth, that he was before unrighteous: But to judge him righte­ous, supposeth him to be righteous; yet either ac­cused of unrighteousness, or accusable; Justification here supposing either actual or virtual Accusation.

37. The Law is the Virtual Accuser, but that speaketh nothing but truth; ( viz. that we sinned and deserved damnation.) Satan is the Actual Accu­ser, and the Father of Lies.

38. We shall not be justified by denying the true Accusation of the Law, but by denying the false Accusation of Satan: That we are sinners must be granted; and that our sin deserved Hell: But (that we have no part in Christ, that we are unpardoned, unreconciled sinners, that we are unbelievers, impenitent, unregenerate, unholy, or hypo­crites, must be denied, or we perish: As also that hereupon we ought to be damned, and not to be glorified.

39. By this it is very plain how far a man must be justified in Judgment by his own personal Righ­teousness; and also how to understand, Matth. 25▪ [...]nd all the descriptions of the last Judgment, and the Reasons there assigned of the Sentence; and what [Page 9] it is to be Justified or Condemned by our words, and to be judged according to our works, or what we have done in obedience or disobedience to the Law of grace; and what is meant in James by be­ing justified by works, and not by faith alone. For though Christs righteousness is to be then honoured, it is not his part, but ours, that is by him to be Exa­mined and Judged. And it is the Law of Grace by which we must be judged, which prescribed us the Conditions of Pardon and Salvation. The perfor­mance of which must therefore be the cause of the day to be Examined and Judged.

4. To justify a mans Right to Salvation is to justi­fy the man when his right is the thing tried: There­fore the causes of our Right to Salvation are neces­sary causes of our Justification. All this is plain, and I think, not by a Christian to be denied: And is not here enough to be the matter of our Christi­an peace and concord in this one point of Justification. But we are not so happy; It is a greater number of Controversies that the teachers of Christians have raised about it, than many hours will serve to han­dle. I will name some that are too many, and yet far from all, and give you my sense of them plain­ly and briefly, that you may truly understand the matter and me.

Cont. 1. Passing by all the old quarrels, about Christs Person, by the Arrians, Nestorians, Eutychi­ans, Monothelites, Phantasiastae, and abundance more, about Justification it self, the first that I shall men­tion is that which a few great and worthy men have unhappily raised, Whether Justification be not an Immanent act in God, and so eternal: This they assert, and I deny: There is nothing in God but God; Nothing therefore that hath beginning and [Page 10] end, but all is Eternal. But Relations and Extrin­sick denominations, and also Effects may begin and end. The world was not from Eternity: God did not make it from Eternity, nor was the creator of it from Eternity, in proper speech. And yet no Act as it is in God had beginning or end; for it is God himself. But Gods Essential will or word is not called creating till it actually create. So is it in Justification: Nothing is new in God, besides Relation and Denomination; but much is new by and from God. Justification is a transient act of God. It is the act of his Covenant and his Judgment and Execution. Therefore he that saith Elect Infidels are Justified from Eternity, Contradicteth Gods word, that saith we are justified by faith, and till then are under Condemnation.

Cont. 2. Whether the Covenant of Grace, be made only with Christ, or with us also? The first is put into a Catechism where I am sorryer to find it, than in Maccovius, Cluto, Cocceius and Cloppenburgius. The Covenant made with Christ is not the same that is made between Christ and us, and which we ce­lebrate in Baptism. It is not only Christ that is bap­tized, but all his members; And baptism is the mu­tual Covenant. We are the receivers of the Relation to God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; and we are the Promisers (the word Restipulation is too presumptu­ous.) If we are not Covenanters, we can be no Co­venant breakers, nor have right to the benefits of such a Covenant: It is the same thing that in several respects is called a Law and a Covenant. And if we are not under Christs Law we are Lawless, or not his Subjects. Deny Christs Law and Covenant to us, and you will subvert all Christiani­ty and deny the rule of Judgment and Justification.

[Page 11]Cont. 3. Whether the Covenant of grace have any condition required of us.

Ans. Here we first shew our weakness in con­tending about the word [ Condition] while we a­gree not of the sense, though till men made a diffe­rence on this ill occasion, there were few words that men were more agreed in (of such a Sub­ject.) And the word we must use, hath no other name that I remember which our Grammar hath taught us to call such Conjunctions by as [ If] is▪ but [ Conditional] nor any other name that Law and Civil use hath taught us to call the thing de­fined by but [ CONDITION] without circumlo­cution, uncouthness or obscurity. The common de­finition of Lawyers is that it is, [ Lex addita ne­gotio qua [...] donec praestetur eventum suspendit: It is in our case the Mode of the Law or Promise requiring a Duty or Moral Act or qualification, on the presence or absence, performance or non-performance whereof the Law or Donation annexeth or suspendeth the event. This is a Condition as it is in the▪ Law or Covenant, or Pro­mise, being but its Modus: But as it is in the person and performance, it is a Moral Act or qualification, required by the Law, or Promise, to which it annexeth, and till it be performed sus­pendeth the event. Natural or meerly contingent conditions that are not moral, belong not to our enquiry. (As if it be a fair day to morrow. If such a ship come safe home! If I live so long, &c.)

Some define a condition here to be any Moral medium of obtaining a benefit ex pacto: But 1. A Law hath its conditions, and so hath a Donation or promise, when there is no proper mutual pactum or Covenant. 2. There are other Moral media ex pacto besides conditions (as are all simple duties.) 3. But [Page 12] these definers cannot congruously deny the Gospel Covenant of grace to have conditions of our [...]ustifi­cation and Salvation: For none but an Infidel can congruously deny that Faith and Repentance are conditions of our Justification and Salvation, if e­very Moral medium be a condition which is ex [...]acto. Is faith, and is repentance no means? And are they not required of us? and do we not profess them at present and promise them for the future?

Sometimes the same thing is a moral cause and a Condition of the Event. And sometimes it is a meer Condition and but sine qu [...] non, and no proper cause; usually in Moral Conditions there is something in the Nature of the matter for the sake of which the Donor or Lawgiver maketh it necessary; which is its aptitude as a means to some of his ends.

If Faith had no more fitness to be the condition of Justification than Ʋnbelief or hating God, and if God­liness or Holiness had no more fitness to be the Condi­tion of our Salvation than wickedness, they would not have been deputed to this place, Office and Honour.

Faith is no Condition of Gods making the promise (He abso [...]utely made some Conditional promises, and others only on conditions performed by Christ.) But it is the condition of our right to or possession of the thing promised; or of the event.

Either the deniers of conditions deny all or but some. If all then they deny that Christ performed any conditions. If but some, they deny either the name only, or the thing also. If the name only. 1. Is it worth their Zeal and Contention? 2. Are they not singular; and singularity in the use of words tendeth to causless quarrels. 3. Why do they not commend to us some better name for the same thing? Grammar and common use hath taught us this. Dr. Twisse hath found another, oft and oft [Page 13] saying that [ Faith is a dispositive cause of Justificati­on.] I dislike not his notion, save that, 1. It is too general there being more dispositive causes besides Conditions. 2. That it is not Political enough as the Subject requireth (or Civil.) 3. That it is in two words when one is better; and 4. That the very terms [ Cause] is liable to mistake. For faith is no efficient cause of Justification, principal nor in­strumental: We must not ascribe so much to it. Nor is it a final cause, nor the formal cause. But it is as the Dr. speaketh Dispositio Subjecti recipientis: Not a natural, but Moral disposition; Yet made such by Gods institution, because the very nature of the act containeth a fitness to its receptive Office; even as it is the believing acceptance of such a free and wonderful gift to such special ends and uses.

2. But if it be not the Name only but the thing defined that is denied the Gospel is denied, and that which is of necessity to Salvation is denied. To de­ny faith to be necessary to Pardon, Justification and Salvation as a moral means congruous in its nature and instituted of God, is Infidelity or open prophaneness; Nor can those be meet Preachers of the Gospel that deny it and oppose it.

Two ways Scripture sheweth that Justification and Salvation are given conditionally. 1. By the plain Conditional Phrase, and 2. By the conditional de­scription, in the mode of the promise: To instance in a few Texts among a multitude, Mar. 16.16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.

Rom. 4.25. To whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.

Rom. 10.9, 10. For if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy heart that [Page 14] God raised him from the dead, thou shall be saved. For with the heart man believeth to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto Salvation.

Joh. 1.12. To as many as received him to them gave he power to become the Sons of God, even to them that believe in his name.

Joh. 3.19.18, 16. Joh 6. throughout.

Mat. 6.14.15. If ye forgive men their tres­passes, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if ye forgive not, &c.

Luk. 13.3, 5. Except ye repent ye shall all like­wise perish.

Acts 10.35. In every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him.

Acts 8.37. If thou believest with all thy heart thou maist, ( i. e. Be baptized for the remission of sins.)

But I have recited so many Texts of this sort in my Confession and other books, that I will here for­bear unnecessary recitals. Mat. 5. alone may suf­fice, and all the Texts that say, Faith his imputed for or to righteousness▪ and that we are justified by it.

Furthermore; 1. If the Baptismal Covenant have no condition, then none is to be prerequired in the person to be baptized, nor his promise of any demanded. But the consequent is false: Else the baptism instituted by Christ and ever practised in the Church is false.

And here you see what a Baptism these men would make: If they practice it according to this principle; and how they would overthrow our Christianity, and baptize Infidels.

The major is evident because, where no condi­tion is required of God or imposed, there none should be required or imposed by the Mini­ster. And if so in Baptism, why not also [Page 15] in Absolution and the Lords Supper.

2. If the Promise of Pardon and Justification be Absolute without any condition, then either to All men, or but to some. If to All, then all are justified. If but to some, to whom? If you say to the Elect; no man knoweth them, while they are unbelievers: and so neither the Person nor the Minister can apply that Promise to any singular man: If you say, To Believers, you grant Faith to be a necessary, moral antecedent: And if so, whence can you imagine it to be such, but Aptitudinally [...] in the Nature of the Act ( receiving Christ, which some call it's Instrumentality) and Actually by Gods Institution in the Tenor of his Word: Now this is 1. In the Tenor or Mode of the Precept, and that maketh it a Duty. 2. In the Tenor or Mode of the Promise, and that maketh it it's Con­dition: In what other respect do they (exclusive­ly) feign it necessary?

Obj. As an Antecedent? Ans. That speaketh but the Order: But what Antecedent is it?

Obj. As a sign? Ans. Of what? and why Is it as a sign of Election? But Holiness, the Love of God, and man, &c. are signs of Election, and yet not pre­requisite to baptism and pardon. And whence is it that this sign of Election is prerequisite, but that Gods precept made it a duty, and the promise a condi­tion? Grant it a sign, the question is still of the reason of this signs necessity to Justification. 3. If Signification be the thing necessary, it must be ei­ther to God, to the Sinner, or to the Baptizer. Not to God, that needs no notice by signs: and so it would follow that before God Elect Infidels are justified, which is false, as is oft proved: And to the Minister it is not certainly known: Nor may he baptize any meerly as Elect, if he could know [Page 16] it (by revelation) before Faith. Nor might such a person claim it. Nor do believers usually at the very first know their Election. It's pity that any catechized person should be so ignorant as to deny so plain a Truth as it is that the Promise ma­keth Faith antecedently necessary to Justification under the form of an apt condition; when no used phrase can speak the thing to us so intelligibly and truly as this doth.

Obj▪ It is prerequisite as an Instrument? Ans. Of this I shall speak by it self anon. By an Instrument I hope when considered they will not mean any proper efficient Instrument of Justification (Though in exciting, the acts of Sanctification in us it may be called our Instrument and Gods by us:) But ju­stifying is wholly and only Gods Act, and the Co­venant as an Act of oblivion, and Grace is his In­strument [...] giving us our Right to impunity and Life, (in which our Constitutive, Justification doth consist) But they mean a Metaphorical Receiving Instrument, and to [...]eceive Christ is but the very essence of Faith, which they call the Tò credere, and so to be justi­fied by Faith as it receive [...]h Christ, and as a recei­ving Instrument, and as it is the Tò credere in specie, are all one. And all this is true, if you ask but for what Natural aptitude God made Faith the Con­dition of Justification: And it's more aptly called by the foresaid Dr. Causa dispositiva; and yet more aptly dispositio receptiva moralis, necessary and success­ful, aptitudinally in its Nature, and Actually by the tenor of Gods Promise or Donation, making it a Condition: that is, saying [ He that believeth shall be justified and saved, and he that doth not shall be damned.] if God had not given Christ and Life by a Promise of this Tenor, [ If thou believe thou shalt have Christ and Life,] it's aptitude would have [Page 17] had no use. If the King by an Act of Oblivion say [ All Rebels and Malefactors that thankfully come and take out their pardon, and lay down arms shall live, and the rest shall be unpardonable.] Here, 1. The Act of Oblivion is the pardoning Instrument, and the receivers Title and fundamentum juris 2. The Reception is made a Condition by the Act being the modus donandi seu condonandi. 3. Next this Condition is performed. 4. And next the effect followeth from it's proper efficient causes, e. g. suppose, 1. The Kings Clemency. 2. His Sons Intercession. 3. The Act of Oblivions Instrumen­tality. 4. The Offenders performing the Condi­tion, which doth but make him a capable Recei­ver of the Effect. 5. And lastly, the Ministers in­strumental applicatory sealing, delivering and inve­stiture. This is all plain, to men that by preju­dice fight not against the light.

And that the Promises of Salvation, or Glory (and perseverance) have their Conditions, I will not for shame and tediousness stand to prove to such as you.

Obj. But he that performeth a Condition may boast and ascribe somewhat to himself.

Ans. 1. I find many that thus argue the pro­nest of most Christians to boast of, or to defend their honour and the honour of their party against any that would vilifie them; and [...]o ascribe some­thing to them, even to be the best sort of men. 2. God boasteth of his Servants, and ascribeth much to them, viz. to have his Image, the divine nature, to be the Salt and Lights of the Earth, his Jewels, the Apple of his Eye, &c. He bids them turn themselves, save themselves and work out their Salvation, and keep themselves in his Love and continue in his Love, &c. 3. If saying that [Page 18] they believe and repent, and give up themselves to God in Christ be culpable boasting, then all that have been baptized on such a required profession, have thereby sinned, and all the Christian bap­tism hath been sin. 4. No man is a Christian▪ ju­stified, or can be saved that cannot so boast (that he is not an Infidel, but a Penitent Believer.) 5. Is it a matter of boasting that God commandeth when he commandeth us to repent and believe the Go­spel? If he freely pardon condemned Sinners for the sake of Christs Sacrifice, Righteousness and Intercession, on Condition, that they do not final­ly refuse the gift, but believingly accept it accord­ing to it's Nature, and all this by his Grace; is this matter of boasting? May a pardoned Traytor boast of his Merit to the King, if the Condition of his pardon be, that he shall not refuse it, and spit in the Kings face, or continue a rebel?

Obj. Where all is of Grace, and Faith it self given and promised by the Covenant, there the Covenant is not Conditional.

Ans. 1. As to the giving of Faith, it well stands with Gods method both to Command it as a du­ty, and to make it a Condition of his Promise, and to give his Word and Spirit to cause us to per­form it. It is a fiction that these may not consist, and he subverteth the Gospel that saith they do not consist. 2. As to the Promise, God indeed hath promised to Christ, to give him a seed, and to draw them to him, &c. But the Covenant made with particular men, and sealed and solemni­zed in baptism doth not promise Faith and Repen­tance, which are first given, but prerequire them as the necessary qualification of the adult. And this is the Covenant that we speak of. 3. It is a Con­dition of Pardon, Justification and Acceptance, that [Page 19] we enquire of. Therefore it is the Promise of these that we must mean: Now I ask whether the Pro­mise of Pardon and Justification be a Promise of Faith, or whether it be not a Promise to pardon and justi­fie Believers only and their Seed, and so prerequi­reth Faith.

Obj. But you call the many parts of one Covenant by the name of many Covenants. Ans. I hope we shall not be called in matters of Catechism to Me­taphysical or Logical quibbles de Ʋnitate & Indivi­duatione. Which is too hard for mens wits about things natural or moral. That is one in some re­spect which is many in others. There is some sort of Unity of all the Universe, even of all Creatures: And so there is of all Gods Laws and Covenants: either the Objectiors speak de nomine or de re: If but of the Name [ One,] they shall call it One if that will please them, and let them only distinguish the Parts of that One: If they [...]ill say that the Covenant made by the Father with the Mediator, and the Law made for him, are one and the same with the Covenant made by the Fat [...] and Son and Holy Spirit with us, and that our Baptismal Cove­nant is no Covenant, but only a part of the Cove­nant of which that with Christ aforesaid is another part, I will not use their phrase, but let me under­stand them that it is only the Name of [ One or Two] that they contend about, and we will fit our words accordingly: I think on several ac­counts they are to be called Divers Covenants: If they dislike it, let us enquire whether the various Precepts of one Covenant make not various du­ties to Christ and to us; and whether the various Promises of it have not various Conditions, some to be performed by Christ and some by us. Our present Question is, Whether that part of the [Page 20] Covenant which promiseth and giveth Pardon of sin, Justification▪ Adoption, and right to Glory; have any Condition, as the Modus of the gift? We will rather follow them in unmeet terms than leave them thence a pretence to confound names and things, and hide their errour by the confusion.

All Divines, ancient and modern, reformed and and unreformed, that I know of, agreed with us in the conditionality of the said Promise, and by the form of Baptism shewed the Churches consent till Maccovius in Holland, and Dr. Crispe and other Antinomians in England began to subvert the Gospel on pretence of magnifying the freeness of Grace; and yet they durst never attempt to alter the Form of Baptism; as this Opinion will re­quire.

Contr. 4. By what hath been said, the fourth Controversie is already resolved; viz. Whether our performance of the Condition of Justification doth effi­ciently justifie us? Some say, because we say that Christ doth not justifie us till we perform the con­dition by believing, that therefore we make our own Faith or performance to justifie proximately, and Christ but remotely, and so to do more than Christ to our Justification.

Ans. 1. As to the phrase, Scripture saith, that we are justified by Faith, that word not signifying an e [...]ciency, but a receptive qualifying condition; but it never saith, that Faith doth jus [...]ifie us, much less th [...]t we by it justifie our selves: Our performance or Faith is no efficient cause; but as to two parts of our Justification it hath a twofold Office: 1. As to our Justification by the Merits of Christs Righ­teousness against this charge [ that damnation is due [Page 21] to us for sin] our Faith is the Condition of our Par­don and Justification; that is, the moral qualifica­tion which God hath made necessary to make us capable receivers of it: As laying down Arms, and taking his Pardon thankfully, may make a Rebel capable of Pardon (but doth not pardon him) if the pardoning Act say [ This shall be the Condition:] And by his Pardon he is justifiable against the charge of being liable to death.

2. But as to the subordinate part of Justification, against the fal [...]e charge that we are no believers, nor repent, and so have no part in Christ; here our own Faith is the very Matter of Righteousness by which we must be in tantum so far [...] justified: As truth and innocency is against every false accusation: And to say that because Christs Merits justifie us not before and without our Faith and performance of the Condition, therefore our Act justifieth us more than Christ, or efficiently at all, is a thing unworthy of an answer, being below the thoughts of an intelligent Disputer. How much the capa­city or incapacity of the Receiver doth as to all the various changes in the world, both physical and moral, when yet efficiently it doth nothing, is not wholly unknown to any sober thinking man. As the same sun-shine maketh a Weed stink, and a Rose sweet; so the same Act of Oblivion, or conditional Justifying Law or Covenant, doth ju­stifie the capable, and not the uncapable, though no mans Faith doth effect any part of his own Justi­fication. Mr. Troughton, and such others denying Faith to be the Condition of our Justification by the Promise, hath drawn me to speak the largelier of this.

[Page 22]Contr. 5. Whether we are justified by Christs Righ­teousness imputed to us: and whether the Scripture say so.

Ans. The Scripture oft saith, that Faith is impu­ted to us for Righteousness; and that is, Faith in Christ: And it saith, that Righteousness is imputed, or reckoned to us, that is, we are reckoned or re­puted righteous, Rom. 4.11, 22.6. And that sin is not imputed, that is not charged on us to punish­ment, or damnation, Rom. 5.13. & 4.8. Psal. 32. v. 2. 2 Cor. 5.10. The words of Imputing Christs Righteousness to us, I find not in Gods Word, and there­fore think them not necessary to the Churches peace or safety. But as for the sense of those words▪ no doubt but it may be good, & the Papists themselves own them in the same sense as many Protestant Divines profess to use them, as I have proved.

Contr. 6. In what sense is Christs Righteousness im­puted to us?

Answ. It is accounted of God the valuable con­sideration, satisfaction and merit (attaining Gods ends) for which we are (when we consent to the Covenant of Grace,) forgiven and justified against the condemning Sentence of the Law of Innocen­cy, and reconciled and accepted of God to Grace and Glory.

Q. But did not Christ represent our persons in his Righteousness, so that it is imputed to us as ours, as if we our selves had been and done what he was and did as righteous?

Ans. This being the very heart of all the Con­troversie, should be decided only by Scripture, and nothing added or diminished. That Christ is the second Adam, and called [...] a Sponsor, Surety [Page 23] or Interposer, and a Mediator between God and Man, that suffered for us, the just for the unjust, a price, and a sacrifice, is all found in scripture. Wise and peaceable men here will be as fearful of humane Inventions and Additions as in Disci­pline or Ceremonies at least. But because all are not such, we must speak to men as they are. There are several sorts of Sureties or Sponsors.

Few represent the very person, at least not all: If men will needs impose on us their own word of Representation, for peace sake we accept it, in a sound sense. In a limited sense it is true that Christ represented us; that is, he suffered in our stead, that we might not suffer: He obeyed, and was per­fectly righteous as Mediator in our Natures, and so far in our stead, as that such perfect Righteous­ness should not in our selves be necessary to our Justification. But he did not absolutely represent us; he was not our Delegate: Our persons did not in a Law-sense do in and by Christ what he did, or possess the habits which he possessed, or suffered what he suffered: Nor doth God account us so to have done, for that were to mistake. I have rendred a multitude of reasons to prove this in my Treatise of Justifying Righteousness: The contradiction is enough that we are accounted ne­ver to have sinned, because Christ never sinned; and yet we are accounted to have suffered or satis­fied for sin, because Christ did so; or at least that we need a pardon by his blood, and must ask for pardon, and must suffer correcting punishments, and long be without necessary grace and glory, when yet we are accounted never to have sinned, but from birth to death to have fulfilled all Gods Law in Christ. I have fully proved that this Doctrine subverteth the sum of all the Gospel and Religion, to which I refer you.

[Page 24]Contr. 7. What Righteousness of Christ is it that is ours, and imputed to us; the Passive, the Active, the Habitual, or the Divine, or all?

Answ. Divines are here fallen into four Opi­nions.

I. Many of our most famous Divines say, that it is only Christs sufferings that are imputed to us as our Righteousness to Justification; being Justitia Merit [...], the rest being Justitia Personae, to qualifie Christ to merit for us. Thus Paraeus, Scul­tetus, Wendeline, Beckman, Ʋrsine, Piscator, Olevian, Camero with his followers, and many more: These are far from thinking that we fulfilled all the Law in Christ, or are righteous because he fulfilled it.

II. The second sort think that the Active and Passive Righteousness are imputed to us as our Righteousness.

III. The third sort are for the Passive, Active and Habitual imputed.

IV. The fourth think so also of the Divine, (which is the Deity it self; for there is nothing in God but God) Andrew Osiander is for our Justifi­cation by the Divine Essence, but I think rather by Communication than Imputation. Thus hath our weakness distracted and disgraced us. But Mr. Bradshaw truly noted, that if the sense of Im­putation were well agreed of, the rest might well be reconciled; viz. that no Righteousness of Christ is imputed to us in the strict sense of Repre­sentation, as if we our selves were legally ac­counted to have been done or suffered, what Christ did, was and [...]uffered. But in the just sense of Im­putation all is imputed to us, that is, Christs Ha­bitual, Active and Passive Righteousness, ful­filling his own part of the Covenant, advanced in [Page 25] dignity by the Union of the Divine nature and perfection was the true meritorious cause of our Justification, and not any one of these a­lone.

Cont. 8. Whether Christs righteousness be the effici­ent, material or formal cause of our Righteousness and Justification.

Ans. Its pity that poor people must be thus tempted with Controversies of Logick. But what remedy? Christs righteousness as materially and formally his, merited our Justification: But for the accidental relation of righteousness in Christ, to be the accidental relation of righteousness to every believer, is impossible unless the Subject be the same: If Christ be the believing sinner, and as many persons as there be such, or all these be the same person with Christ, then his individual righte­ousness is formally theirs, else not. For as noxa ca­put sequitur, so no accident is the same numerically in various Subjects. They that deny this wanted but the same advantages to have believed Tran­substantiation, and renounce the common princi­ples.

But that Christs righteousness is the meritorious cause of ours, is past doubt. And therefore they that affirm and they that deny it to be the material cause (which is the common Doctrine of Pro­testant disputers) do but differ about a name. For if Adam had merited his own glorification had not his works been both the meritorious cause, and the material? that is, the matter of that meritorious righteousness: And why may we not say so of Christ? It is therefore the material because it is the meritorious, that is, the meriting matter. For righteousness being a Relation hath strictly no [Page 26] matter, but a Subject. And Christs Acts and habits were the first Subject of that righteousness of his person whose merit justifieth us: But the believer is the Subject of his own personal righteousness thus merited by Christ. It's pity that holy things should be brought down to such Logical trifling; but more pity that Church teachers that will do so, should abuse them by their ignorance in their own way. The matter of the righteousness which me­riteth our Justification from the Laws damnation of us, is Christs own righteousness; (unless by the matter you mean the Subject person.) But the mat­ter of our subordinate righteousness is in and of our selves, of which anon.

Cont. 9. Whether the Ʋnion between Christ and believers be not so near, as maketh them the same Subject, and so the accident of Christs righteousness to be ours?

Ans. So some think, but this tremendous myste­ry must not be rashly and profanely handled. In a Union Specifick of humanity, all mankind is one with Christ that is, of one Species of humane na­ture: And so that which is predicated of one as such, is predicated of the other.

In a Political Ʋnion Christ as the head, and the Church as the body make one Society as parts con­stituting the whole. And so whatever is predi­cated of a part meerly as a part, is predicable of both: But that which is predicated of the whole as a whole is properly predicable of neither alone: And that which is predicated of the Head as a head, is not predicable of the body, nor that of the head, which is proper to the body, nor that of one member which is proper to another. But some things by way of Communication may be predi­cated [Page 27] of the whole, for the sake of a part. So the Church is called sinful and imperfect for our sake, though Christ be not so: And it is eminent­ly holy and glorious, because Christ is so; that is, se­cundum quid.

But no Ʋnion will make us righteous and perso­nally happy by anothers righteousness and happi­ness, unless it were a personal Union, (natural or Legal at least as to Relative rights.) The question then is whether every believer be one person with Christ? And if so, whether one natural person, or one Legal (as a lawful vicarius is.) They that hold the first plead that the same Spirit that is in Christ, is the same divine nature, and maketh us one natu­ral person. But where doth the Scripture say so? The Sun is not one Individual with every Plant that it quickeneth, nor every plant with it. A net­tle or rose is not the Sun, nor is it the illuminater of the World▪ that maketh day, &c. But they have so much from the Sun as it communicateth, and no more. So we are not Christ, nor the Eternal and Natural Son of God, nor infinite in Wisdom and Goodness, nor perfectly just and glorified, as Christ is: But we have from Christ so much of the Spirit as he communicateth; And nothing is ours meerly because it is his, and we one person with him; but because he Communicateth it to us: What further real Union there will be in our glorious perfection we cannot well know till we are there. But in this imperfection our Union is not such as far as I understand it, as maketh us one natural person with Christ; And surely it doth not make his proper accidents to be our acci­dents.

And as to that which some call a Legal or Repu­tative personal Union, it must be proved before it [Page 28] is asserted. And as I know no word of God that speaketh such a thing, as that Christ and we are im­putatively one person; so I know that they that will assent it of their own heads, presume far in a tender point; and if they should say that we are simply and ad omnia one person, it were not by Christian ears to be endured: If they will say that it is but in some respects and to some certain uses, (as a Servant that payeth his Masters creditor by order in some sense representeth him in that one action) they must limit it carefully and shew to what uses we are one person, lest they do they know not what: And they must shew what sort of person they mean? Whether Christ be made the same person with each believing sinner, and so take our bad denominations; or each sinner be made the person of Christ; and have his glorious deno­minations, or a third sort of person is made of both, and what that is? If meer personal Unity make us righteous by imputation, because Christ is so, either it must be as Christ is righteous, in full perfection (reputatively) or else but according to the measure of our receptivity: The first none will affirm that understand what they say: And the second brings the effect no higher than we grant; The foot doth not understand as the head doth, though it be a part of the same natural body, and may have its peculiar Ulcers and Diseases: A crab and a sweet apple may grow on the same Tree: Certainly we have a person proper to our selves, which hath its own defects and evils, and hath no more from Christ than he communicateth.

Cont. 10. Are we not righteous by being one with Christ, as we are sinners by Ʋnion with Adam?

Ans. 1. We were but seminally and virtually [Page 29] in Adam, and not personally (as I have opened in my disput. Of Original sin:) And so we were but virtually in Christ when he suffered and obey­ed, and we were unborn.

2. Nay our derivation from Adam was by na­ture, but from Christ by his voluntary Gift and Con­tract.

3. Had we not sinned in Adam, and yet had sinned our selves we had been unrighteous: And so it is, though we sinned not in Christ, and yet are sinners our selves against him.

Our radical righteousness in Adam would have happily disposed us to personal obedience; as A­dam himself was who yet fell: And our radical righteousness in Christ, is yet a more happy prepa­rative to our necessary duty to him, which is righte­ousness also, which he that hath not shall be con­demned. I know that many say that if Adam had conquered that temptation, or at least had never sinned, all his posterity should have been confirm­ed against all future sin and danger as the Angels be in Heaven: But I dare not add to the Word of God; and I find no such thing there, though I hear what others say: And if that were true, the first Covenant would have ceased upon Adams obedi­ence, as it did upon his disobedience, and all the World would have been under either no Law, or some Law to us unknown. The first Adam was a living Soul, indeed, and the second is a quickning Spi­rit. And as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive, but every man in his own order. And as we are not raised, nor yet delivered from all our sin or misery by our Union with Christ as soon as we believe, so neither from all guilt and unrighte­ousness; but must daily pray, forgive us our tres­passes, and deliver us from the evil. If our Union [Page 30] presently made all ours that is Christs, and that as it is his, yea or as much as we need it, we were then highly dignified indeed. Marriage giveth the Wife her self no further propriety in the Husbands E­state nor use of it, than he communicateth by the contract: And neither that nor generation itself, give Wife or Child the Husbands or Fathers learn­ing, innocence or health.

Cont. 11. Is not Christs righteousness ours, as our sins were his, by im [...]utation?

Ans. Yes, As much at least▪ or more. But take heed of making Christs Gospel by your mending it, and of making him no Christ while you would make him more merciful according to your own conceits. I know it is said once that he was made sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righte­ousness of God in him. But as we are not properly righte­ousness, much less Gods righteousness, but are made righteous, and so the instances or demonstrations of the righteousness of God; so expositors common­ly agree that by sin is meant a Sacrifice for sin. Or by being [ made sin] is meant being used as if he had been a sinner. Undoubtedly if God imputed or accounted Christ a sinner, and if he were truly so by any means, practice or translation, he must be by sin hateful to the most holy God, (even to him­self) and would have in him so great a part of Hell, and Divine desertion, as is not consistent with his personal perfection, or the hypostatical Union, as far as we can conceive: And if indeed God im­puted to him the sins of all the elect, so as first to make the very sins themselves to become Christs own sins by imputation, then Christ suffered for his own sins, and must be more odious to God than any ordinary sinner; and all good men that knew [Page 31] it by him must have judged accordingly: For sin, & especially the sins of so many millions & so great, must needs render him whose own they are, really sinful, hateful and miserable. Any of which to say of Christ is blasphemy.

Christ undertook that guilt of our sin which is nothing but the obligation to punishment, and that such punishment as beseemed him to undergo. There is a [...]uilt of Fact, and a guilt of crime, and a guilt of punishment. Christ undertook the last, but neither of the former as in themselves consi­dered, unless as by connotation relatively he may be said to be guilty of the sin meerly because he un­dertook to suffer for it; which is improper speech. Christ condescended to the admiration of Angels in taking on him our nature, and our punishment, and suffering for our sins; but his holiness would not suffer him to undertake our sin it self, or take it to be his own sin. Nay considering the commu­nication of attributes which Divines assert from the hypostatical Union, men should tremble to think of laying a ground of calling it The Sin of God, by the same reason as, Acts 20. it's said, [ The blood of God.] Its a sad case that partiality can so much prevail, as that they that cry out of some doubtful words as damnable heresies, do yet think it tolera­ble language to say, that by Imputation of the very sin itself to Christ as his sin, he was the greatest sin­ner, the greatest Murderer, Lyer, Adulterer, &c. in the world. I beseech you abstain from such words till you find them in the Scripture. Christ never was reputed of God a sinner, who did so much to shew his hatred of it. Nor ever took our sin unto him, any further than to suffer for it to ex­piate it: And if this be the similitude by which we must understand how his Holiness and Righteousness [Page 32] is made ours, it will make all very plain. It is ours, or imputed to us, so far as to be reputed the true cause of our Justification, Adoption, Sanctification and Glory, as our sin was the cause of his suffering and death.

Cont. 12. Doth not Christs righteousness cause our Sanctification in the same sort of causality as it caus­eth our Justification?

Ans. The effects are divers, but both from the same meritorious cause. But it is more unapt to say that it is the material cause of our Sanctification than that it is the material cause of our righteous­ness; Though it merit both; Because our habitual and actual holiness hath a nearer material cause in itself which our pardon and meer adoption have not.

Cont. 13. When it is said that faith is imputed to us for righteousness is it faith indeed that is meant or Christs Righteousness believed on?

Ans. A strange and bold question. What occasi­on hath the Holy Ghost given us to raise such a suspicion, that when it is so often said by him that Faith is imputed or accounted for righteousness, men should make a doubt whether it be Faith indeed that he meaneth? If it be not, the context is so far from relieving our understandings, that it con­tributeth to our unavoidable deceit or ignorance. Read over the Texts and put but [ Christs Righte­ousness] every where instead of the word [ Faith;] and see what a scandalous Paraphrase you will make. The Scripture is not so audaciously to be Corrected: It's wiser to believe Gods Word than to contradict it on pretence of expounding it.

Obj. But it is said also that Righteousness is imputed: And that must be either Christs Righteous­ness [Page 33] or our own: But not our own; therefore Christs.

Ans. We are not now questioning whether Christs Righteousness be imputed to us: Though it be not the Phrase of the Scripture, I have shewed you that it is true, in a sound sence, But the question is, Whether Faith be imputed for righteousness. And what is the meaning of all such Texts? To have righteousness imputed to us, plainly signifieth to be Reckoned, Accounted, Reputed or Judged righte­ous. And it's strange that it must not be our own righteousness, that is imputed or reckoned to us as our own: If it were never so well proved, that the very Habits and Acts of Christ are by Gift or Union made our own in themselves, and not only as the causes of their effects, yet still our own they would be, and the righteousness given by them our own, in order of nature before they are im­puted, accounted or reckoned to us as our own. Some way that righteousness which is reckon­ed to constitute us righteous is surely made our own.

Psal 106.30, 31. Phinehas's executing Judgment, it is said to be accounted to him for righteousness. And of Abrahams Justification God saith, Because thou hast done this, &c. What man that ever read the Bible can doubt, but that every man that will be saved must have a personal faith, repentance and holiness, which is called righteousness many hundred times in the Scripture, besides the righteousness that was or is in Christ? And will not God reckon him righteous that is righteous? He that doth righteousness is righteous? And shall it not be imputed to him? if God account not a man a be­liever, can he be justified and saved? Christs Righteousness hath made Satisfaction for all our sins, and for our unrighteousness as to the Law that doth condemn us: But he made us not lawless, [Page 34] but put us under a Law of Grace, which saith [ He that believeth shall be saved, and he that belie­veth not shall be damned.] And must we not be judged by this Law? and be justified or condemn­ed as we keep or break it? wonderful is the pow­er of prejudice that any good men that read the Scripture can doubt whether Christ himself hath made us a Law of Grace, according to which as performers or non-performers we must be justified as righteous in subordination to Christs Righte­ousness or else be condemned, as neglecters of so great Salvation? Is any thing plainer in all the Go­spel?

Obj. But it is the Object, and not the Act; Christs Righteousness and not our Faith; the Gold and not the Hand that taketh it, that is our Riches and Righte­ousness.

Ans. 1. No question but the Faith that we talk of, is Faith in Christ, even the Believing Recei­ving of a Saviour and his Grace freely given us. And therefore Christs Righteousness is ever con­noted when we talk of Faith: For what is the very Specification of the Act but the Object? But it is not the essence of Christ or his Righteousness, that constituteth Faith; but Christ in esse co [...]nito & objectivo, even as it is not the essence of Sin that constituteth Repentance, but the notion of Sin in esse cognito as an O [...]ject. And there is no doubt but Christ is the Souls Riches which Faith recei­veth. But if the King by Law should restore all the Rebels in Ireland to their Estates, and give them their Lives, that lay down Arms, and ask Mercy and accept it, if it come to the Tryal whe­ther they are Accepters or Refusers, their Accep­tance must be so far their justifying Righteousness, though their Lives and Estates be their Treasure, [Page 35] and the Kings Act be their Title to it.

Faith is reckoned or imputed to be that which by the Redeemer himself is required of the Sinner to make him partaker of Christ and his Benefits, Reconciliation and Salvation; and it is no other Righteousness.

Christs Righteousness is not imputed to us in­stead of our Faith and Repentance and sincere ho­liness, which is made by himself the condition of Life. As he died not for the Sins which we were never guilty of, and are no sins, so his Righteous­ness is not instead of that Righteousness which by his Grace we have, but instead of that which we have not: Not instead of our being penitent Belie­vers and sanctified before we die, but instead of that perfect innocency which we want: Not that we are reputed perfect innocent obeyers▪ because he was such; but that our want of it shall not hinder our Justification or Adoption, Grace or Glory. Christ hath done all his part, but he hath appointed us a necessary part which must be done by our selves; and though without him we can do nothing, yet by him we must believe and be new Creatures, and by him that strengtheneth us we can do some­thing; and must work out our Salvation, while he worketh in us to will and to do.

The purchase then and Donation is by Christ, but the voluntary acceptance is by us, by the opera­tion of his Grace; which is not to make up any deficiency in Christs part, or to be a supplement to his Righteousness, nor to bear any part of the same office in our Justification; but it's that which subordinately is required of us as the Condition of Pardon and Life, by his own Law or Covenant of Grace. And so far it is imputed to us for Righ­teousness.

[Page 36]Contr. 14. Whether Grace be Grace, or Free, if it have any Condition?

Ans. As free and great as God will have it, but not such as the wicked man would have it, who would be saved from pain, but not from Sin, or without any Condition required of him. The Covenant is made conditional, for the use that the commands are made; to bring man to his Duty, and to convey the Benefit in a sapiential congruous way; but not as requiring a price for the Bene­fits: He that pardoneth a Traytor on condition that he thankfully accept it, and will not spit in the Princes face, and rebel again, doth pardon freely without a price. And as our Duty and Act denieth not that it's Grace by which we do it; so the necessity of Grace thereto denieth it not to be our Duty or our Act when we believe. The Co­venant giveth some Mercies absolutely, but not all. He that would be from under all Conditions of Gods Promises, would be from under all Law, and all threatnings: For what kind of Law is that which hath no Conditions of Reward and Punishment.

Obj. But when the Condition it self is promised, it is equal to absolute.

Ans. 1. If that be true, still it is conditional. Why do you not say so then, not that it hath no Conditions, but that it is a conditional Promise equal to an absolute? 2. But stay a little: Is the condition promised to all that the conditional pro­mise is made to? even to all that hear the Gospel, or that are baptized. If you say that the conditi­onal Promise is made to none but the Elect, you deny the Gospel, which is to be preached to all the World. 3. Will you cast out Baptism by this Argument? and so visible Christianity? Or [Page 37] will you new mold it into an absolute Form? Or▪ will you say that it is no Covenant? If you suppose not God the Father, Son [...] and Holy Ghost to be there given to us with pardon and right to Life upon condition of our believing acceptance, and that we there profess that acceptance which is the Condition, you suppose not that it is Baptism in­deed: And when your little notions shall lead you to deny Gods Law and Covenant Gospel, Baptism, and so Christianity as visible, they are scarce fit notions to make you pass for Orthodox, and to be turned against others as erroneous. 4. But how is it that God promiseth the Conditi­on it self? and to whom? I find, Prov. 1. 23. Turn you at my reproof; behold I will pour out my Spirit to you; I will make known my Words unto you? Is it [ if you do first turn.] Then there is some degree of turning necessary as a condition to the promi­sed special gift of the Spirit? Or is it [ that you may turn?] Then God promiseth his Spirit and Word to help even those to turn, that yet turn not; which must suppose some Condition of con­sent or non-resistance required which they could perform. I find, that it's all mens duty to pray, and I read; [ Ask and ye shall have, seek and ye shall find, &c.] And so that to ask and seek saving Faith, is a Duty to him that hath but common Faith. And God commandeth no man to ask or seek in vain: A meer command to use means im­plieth that▪ they are not vain. God then giveth (as Dr. Twisse oft saith as out of Augustine) the posse credere where yet the act of Faith doth not follow: and it is not a meer Passive, but an A­ctive Power. And where he giveth Grace which causeth the Act it self, did God Promise, it be­fore hand to that man any more than to others? [Page 38] He promiseth Christ to call all his Elect: But this giveth no right to any individual Person be­fore he is born, or before he believeth: There­fore not to the first Faith. For God to tell men, what he will do with his Elect is one thing; and to enter into Covenant with a man, and give a right thereby is another. This Covenant hath it's Co [...]ditions.

Contr. 15. Here comes in also the Controversie whe­ther Repentance be any Condition of Pardon, or Justi­fication? And whether to affirm it be not to equal it with Faith?

Ans. Read these Texts of Scripture and judge, Ezek. 14.6. & 18.30. Luk. 13 3, 5. Act. 2.38. & 8.22. & 17.30, 31. & 26.18, 20. Mar. 1.4▪ Lu. 24.47. Act. 5.31. & 11.18. & 13.24. & 20.21. Luk. 15.7. &c.

2. Faith in Christ as it is the remedying Grace ever [...]supposeth Faith in God as God, and Repen­tance towards God, Act. 20.21. as it's end, and is connoted when it is not exprest. He that saith, [ Take me and trust me as your Physician and I will cure you] implieth, 1. If you desire to be cured. 2 If you will take my Medicines. To believe in Christ, is to trust that through his Mediation a pe­nitent returning Sinner shall be pardoned and ac­cepted of God and saved. Holiness is the Souls health, and Christ believed in is the remedy: Re­pentance and Holiness are necessary as the end for themselves, and Faith in the Mediator is necessary as the use of the Remedy. The Office or Nature of these is not the same, though both be Conditi­ons. Yet as Repentance is the change of the Mind, so repenting of unbelief is Faith it self, de­nominated with respect to the terminus à quo. Un­happy [Page 39] wits set things as opposite, which God hath connexed and made coordinate.

Contr. 16. Whether Faith justifie us as a merito­rious Cause, or as a dispositive Cause of receiving Justi­fication, or as a meer Condition, or as an Instrumental Cause?

Ans. If these Logical names had never been used, plain Christians would have understood what is necessary without them.

1. That the Promise maketh Faith a Condition, making unbelief a stop to the benefit, and Faith the removal of that stop, is past all doubt. And the Promise being the Donative Instrument, and its Condition being its Mode, the interest of a Condition is most certainly the formal Law-interest that Faith hath as to our Justification.

2. And Dr. T [...]ss [...]'s forementioned name of Causa dispositiva, i, e. recipiendi, is undoubtedly also [...]pt, and signifieth both the Nature of the Act, and the Off [...]ce [...] as a Condition: For in both respects it is the n [...]ssary qualification of the Patient or Re­ [...]iver, i. e. naturally and legally necessary; such as dispositio materiae is said to be in Physicks.

3. And as for the notion of an Instrumental Cause of Justification, it is past doubt that properly taken neither Faith, nor any act of ours is any such▪ nor doth justifie us efficiently at all: But if any be so fond of the invented notion of an Instrument, as that they will use it, though unaptly, they must say, 1. That it is not an Efficient, but a Recipient Instrument. Dr. Kendall calls it like Boys catching the Ball in their Hats, or as a Spoon is in eating: But it is not an Instrument of Physical Reception, but Moral. To Trust is no more a Reception, than to Love. The active Acceptance of a Saviour given [Page 40] with his benefits, is a Moral Receiving of him, which disposeth us as the Condition of the Covenant to re­ceive Justification, that is, to be justified. And in this lax sense, you may call it all these if you please; viz. a Condition, a Dispositive Cause, and a Receiving Instrument.

4. A Meritorious Cause it is not in a Commuta­tive or strict sense. But if you will call that me­ritorious which is pleasing to God as congruous to his free gift and design of grace, whence some are called Worthy in the Gospel, so the thing is not to be de­nied; and so all are reconciled.

Contr. 17. Is justifying Faith an act of the under­standing or will?

Ans. Both, and therefore it is no one Physical act only, nor Instrumental in a strict Physical sense.

Contr. 18. What act of Faith is it that justifieth as to the Object? whether only the belief of the truth of the Promise, or of the whole Gospel also, or the affiance on Christs Righteousness, or on his Truth, or on his Inter­cession, or taking him wholly for our Saviour, Prophet, Priest and King? And whether Faith in God the Fa­ther, and the Holy Ghost, do justifie? or all these? And if but one, which is it? and whe [...]her all the rest are the works which Paul excludeth from Justification?

Ans. To say that only one Physical act of Faith is it that we are justified by, and all the rest are those works, is a perverse corrupting of Christiani­ty, and not to be heard without detestation. For it will utterly confound all persons, to find out which that one act is, which they indeed can ne­ver do. And it will contradict the substance of all the Gospel: There is no such thing as Faith in [Page 41] Christ, which containeth not, or includeth not Faith in God as God, both as he is our Creator, and as reconciled by Christ, and as the Giver of Christ to us, John 3.16. and as the end of all the work of Redemption. Nor is there any such thing as Faith in Christ which is true and saving, that in­cludeth not, or connoteth not the Knowledge of Christ, and Love, and Desire, and Thankfulness, and Consent: Nor did ever God tell us of a Faith in Christs Imputed Righteousness only that must justifie us, which is not also a Faith in his Person, Doctrine, Law, Promise and Example; and his Intercession in the Heavens. And to say that only the Act of Recumbency on Christs Righteousness as imputed to our Justification, is that act of Faith by which we are justified, and that Believing in God, his Majesty, Truth, Wisdom, Goodness, and the believing in Christ as he is the Prophet, Teacher, King of the Church, and the Resurre­ction, Life, and Judge of all; and believing in the Holy Ghost, as the Sanctifier, Comforter, and Witness and Advocate of Christ, and believing and trusting the Promise of God for Life Eternal, or for any grace except Christs Righteousness impu­ted, that all this Faith in God, in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, and all our Love to Christ, and desire after him▪ and prayer for his grace, and thankfulness for it, &c. are all none of the Faith which Justification is promised to, but are the Works by which no man is justified, and that he is faln from grace, that seeketh to be justified by such works, that is, by true Faith in God as God, and in Christ as Christ: This is a new Gospel sub­verting Christs Gospel, and making Christianity another thing; and this without any countenance from the Scripture, and contrary to its very scope.

[Page 42]The Faith by which we are justified, is one Moral act containing many Physical acts, even our fiducial Consent to the Baptismal Covenant, and dedication of our selves to God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, to be our Reconciled God, our Saviour, and our Sanctifier, to give us Pardon, Adoption▪ Holiness and Glory, which is our Chri­stianity it self as such.

Contr. 18. But though this be the Faith quae ju­stificat, which justifieth us, is it not only Recumbency on Christs Imputed Righteousness, qu [...] talis, which hath the Office of Instrumentality, and is [...]ides qu [...] justi­ficans.

Ans. Such quibbling and jingling of a meer sound of words is usual in ludicrous Disputations of Lads: But it's pity it should pass as the last re­medy against plain truth in so great a matter. First it must be remembred that no Faith justifieth effi­ciently, and therefore neither quae nor quâ justifi­cans is to signifie any such thing, but a meer Moral qualification of the recipient subject; so that to be justified by Faith, is but to be justified by it as that which God hath promised Justification on as the qualifying Condition: But if it be not the same thing that is here called Fides quae and quâ, but in the first part they speak of the Habit, and in the second of the Act, had it not been plainer to say, [ The same Habit of Faith hath several Acts, as be­lieving in God, in Christs Intercession, Kingdom, &c. but none of these Acts do justifie us, but one only; viz. trusting to the Imputation of his Righteousness?] And so both the quae and quâ is [...]denied to all Acts save that one. This is their plain meaning, which is denied to be truth, and is a human dangerous in­vention. Yet it's granted them, that it is not every [Page 43] Act of Faith that is made the Condition of Justifi­cation or Salvation: It is necessary that the formal Object, Gods Veracit [...], be believed to make it true Faith; and that the Gospel or Covenant of Grace be believed with Consent, as aforesaid, to make it to be the true Christian Faith, in essence▪ and it's of necessity that every thing be believed which we know that God revealeth. But it is the Christian Faith that hath the Promise of Justifica­tion, and that not any one single Act of it, but▪ all that is essential to it, and that which belongeth but to its Integrity ad bene esse, when it existeth, is also so far conducible to our Justification, (as Abrahams believing that Isaac should live and have seed, when he went to sacrifice him) yet Justification may be without some Acts, as Salvation may without many due Acts of Obedience, when yet sincerity of Obedience is necessary, and those Acts, if done, have their place with the rest as means of Salvation; so here▪ But Saving Faith is denomi­nated from the essential part: The nature of Faith is in order of nature antecedent to its Office: The nature of it in genere is to believe all that God saith: The nature of it in specie is to believe in Christ, and consent to his Covenant: The integrity of it is to believe all that we find revealed. The Office of it as the Means of Justification, is to be the condition of the Justifying Covenant or Law. That which some call the Instrumentality, is the very nature of the Act, the [...] credere in specie: Believing in Christ is the [...] credere, and that's it that they call an Instrument of receiving him as such. But the [...] credere even in specie, Faith in Christ, doth not justifie quâ talis, as that Faith, but as it is that qualifying Condition which the Pro­mise annexeth Justification to; without which it [Page 44] would not have done it. Had the Promise been absolute, it had pardoned us before, and without Faith. The nature of the Act is like the metal of Gold or Silver, and the tenor of the Justifying Co­venant is as the Kings Stamp, that maketh it cur­rant Coin. It is Faith in order of nature before it is the Justifying Condition.

The quâ justificans therefore should speak, not a distinct Act from the other Acts of the Christian Faith as such, but the relation of the same Acts to the benefit. Omnis fidei actus qui justificat, conside­rari potest quatenus justificat.

Contr. 19. Whether we are justified by the Law of Innocency saying, Obey perfectly and live?

Ans. This is one of the chief points of all our difference: Some say, that because Christ fulfilled it for us, we are justified by that Law as fulfillers of it: This is it that Mr. Anthony Wotton hath be­stowed most of his Learned Treatise de Reconci­liatione to confute. The Law justified Christ, but not us, for it never said, Thou, or another for thee shalt obey.] Nor doth it know a Vicarius obedientiae aut poenae; nor take Christs Person and ours for the same: Therefore we are not justified by that Law, but condemned by it: And it cannot condemn and justifie the same man. But we are justified by another Law, Covenant or Promise by Christs fulfilling the Law of Innocency, and making over to us the benefits.

Contr. 20. Whether by Works be meant Acts in ge­neral, or [...]nly such Acts as are adverse to Faith in Christ, and make the reward to be of debt, and not of grace?

[Page 45] Ans. The last is the Apostles Exposition of them. Christ saith, we are justified by our words; James, by our works; and all the Scripture that speaketh of Justification, ascribeth it to some Acts: It is [ according to our works:] And Faith is an Act, yea many Acts.

Obj. But it justifieth not as an Act, but as an In­strument.

Ans. That is, not as an Act or good Act in ge­nere, but as this Act in specie; viz. Believing on Christs Righteousness: But that is the [...] credere; that is, As this Act: But it is not so, unless you add [ As it is this congruous Act, or Acts authorized by Gods Co­venant to this Office.] So we will grant, that no Act justifieth as an Act, or as a good Act; but as a con­gruous good Act appointed thereto.

As is said before, To believe in God, and in Christ as Christ, and in the Promise of Salvation, and to believe the evil of sin, and the need of a Saviour, and to desire him, and be thankful for him, and pray for pardon, are not the works that Paul speaketh against, but some belong to the Es­sence, and some to the Integrity and Accidents of that Faith by which we are justified. Yet a foolish person may contradict himself, and hold his own Faith, as well as his Love, or Desire, or Prayer, to be meritorious, as making the reward not of grace: Such mad contradiction may suppose Faith to be the works which it denieth.

Cont. 21. Are any works of man meritorious?

Ans. Not in point of Commutative Justice, that giveth one thing for another to the commodity of each; as in buying and selling.

2. Nor yet in distributive Governing Justice as making any good due to us by the Law of Inno­cency or Works.

[Page 46]3. But as God hath freely given us Christ and Life by a Law of Grace, on condition of suitable acceptance and use so he that performeth this con­dition, is called worthy, and the contrary unworthy in the Gospel; and did not men abuse it, they might with all the ancient Chu [...]ches use the word merit in the same sense [...]s [...]. As a good natured Child that humbly and th [...]nkfully taketh money or meat when his Father gi [...]eth it him, is said to deserve it of him, better than he that scorneth it and him. So [...]ur merit is but of [...]aternal [...]overning Justice in the Kingdom of Love, according to Gods Law of Grace in Christ▪

Cont. 12. [...]h [...]ther, o [...]edience be a part of Faith, or we a [...]e justifi [...]d by obedience.

Ans. 1. To beli [...]ve in Christ at first is an act of obedience to God, who commandeth us so to do: But it is but Subjecti [...]n to Christ which that act in­cludeth, that is, taking him for our Lord and Savi­our to be obeyed▪ which i [...] virtually all future obe­dience as its root, but not actually.

2. Actual obedience to Christ is not faith, but the fruit of faith and part of our perform [...]nce of the Covenant which we made with him, and necessary to the c [...]ntinuance of our [...]ustification and to our Salvation, as all the Scripture fully sheweth.

Cont. 23. Whether any [...] b [...] [...]cess [...]ry t [...] [...] continuance or not losi [...]g our jus [...]if [...]catio [...], than to [...] b [...]ginning of it.

Ans. Yes, 1. More acts of the same faith. 2. Praying for pardon. 3 Forgiving others, as Christ expresly tells us. 4. Sincere Love and Obe­dience to Christ unto the end.

[Page 47]Cont. 24. Is Pardon and Justification perfect the first moment?

Ans. No. 1. All the punishment is not yet ta­ken off: We have yet much penal want of Grace, and the Spirits Operations, and Communion with God. 2. We have not right to the present remo­val of all the punishment. 3. Many more sins hereafter must be pardoned. 4. Much means is yet to be used for final Justification. 5. That final Jus­tification only is perfect.

Cont. 25▪ [...] nolle punire or non punire a pardoning of sin? It's Dr. T [...]isses Controversy.

Ans. Yes, In some degree, to a capable person that i [...], to a sinner; But not to one that is no sin­ner, [...] before one hath a being.

Cont. 26. Is future sin pardoned before hand.

Ans. Fu [...]ure sin is not sin, and therefore not ca­pab [...]e of pardon, nor the person for it: But it may be pardoned virtually, though not actually: A ge­neral grant of pardon may be given, which is condi­tional and virtual, and shall actually pardon it when it is.

Cont. 27. Is any one punished for sin that is par­doned?

Ans. Not in the same thing and degree that he is pardoned: But every man that is pardoned in this life▪ is yet correctively punished in that de­gree that he is unpardoned▪ For pardon is yet im­perfect here.

Cont. 28. Is it not unjust to punish him that Christ died for, even one sin twice?

[Page 48] Ans. No, Unless it were the same person that suffered, or the very same punishment that was due (and all that was due) were expected again; and unless it were against our mediators will. But all is contrary in this case. 1. The Law bound no one to suffer but the offender. 2. Therefore Christs suf­fering was not the same punishment which the Law did threaten, but it was Satisfaction instead of it; which is the Tantundem, not the idem quod debitum suit, but redditio aequivalentis aliàs indebiti, as the Schoolmen call it. For noxa caput sequitur; the Law threateneth not a surety, but only the sinner, and ubi ali [...] solvit, simul aliud solvitur. 3. And Christ himself never satisfied with any other intent; and therefore it is according to his will, that they that tread under foot the blood of the Covenant where­with they were Sanctified, as an unholy thing, and do despight to the Spirit of Grace, should suffer the far sorer punishment, Heb. 10. Yea it is Christ him­self that will have it so, and that doth so judge, them, and inflict this punishment for the contempt of grace.

And it is his will that his own members be pu­nished by correction, notwithstanding his suffer­ings: As many as he loveth he doth rebuke and chasten: And Christ doth not wrong himself: The end of his suffering never was to excuse the redeem­ed from all suffering, nor to make believers lawless.

Cont. 29. Is a man after his regeneration and Faith, ever obliged to any but temporal punishments, or need to ask pardon of any other?

Ans. Obliged is a word that needeth explicati­on: The very Law of nature yet in force maketh everlasting punishment due to a believers sins, till God forgive them: But they are forgiven, (and [Page 49] the obligation dissolved) through Christ by the Covenant of Grace to a true believer as soon as com­mitted (at least if they be meer sins of infirmity) because of his general repentance and continued faith: But yet in order of nature the Guilt and due­ness of punishment is before the remission of them. And believers must ask pardon while they live. 1. Because every sin thus needeth it; and asking is part of the expression of that faith and repen­tance which is our condition of pardon. 2. They must ask the continuance of that pardon which they have. 3. And they must ask still for executive remission; which is, not to punish, poena d [...]mni vel sensus; Body or Soul, and so for more of Gods for­feited Grace and Spirit, and the sense of his Love, and Communion with him.

Cont. 30. What is it to be judged according to our works, or what we have done in the body?

Ans. To be Judged is the genus: To be Justified or Condemned are the Species. This openeth all the Controversy. It is not according to our works as they are congruous to the Law of Innocency or works; But as judged by the Law of Grace; Therefore it is not the same works which Paul excluded from Justification, for we shall not be judged according to them. 2. And according to them, is as much as James meaneth, when he saith, we are justified by them: It's all one, that is, the Law of Christ our Redeemer requireth sincere obedience of all that shall be saved, by his blood and merits from the con­demnation of the Law of Innocency; and according­ly mens right to Christ & Salvation shall be judged of: Their right to life through Christs merits and free gift, shall be justified who were sincerely pe­nitent believing obeyers to the end, and no others.

[Page 50]Cont. 31. What Law is it that Paul callet [...] the law of works, and labor [...]ously proveth that its works do not justify us.

Ans. It is the Mosaical Jewish Law, as is all a­long evident; and not the Law of Innocency, as made to Adam; though consequently à fortiore, it's certain that we have no works by which that will justify us (either personal or imputed.) The words [ He that doth them shall live in them] do not mean, He that is no sinner, according to the Law of per­fection: For 1. All men were sinners before, and so this Law should have been only a condemnation in the form of a promise. 2. And this Law prescribeth Sacrifices and Prayers for pardon of sin; which the first Law of Innocency knew not.

Cont. 32. How and why then is this called a Law of works? Which justify no man?

Ans. Because it imposeth strictness in a multi­tude of laborious Tasks and Ceremonies and rigo­rously punisheth the breakers of it. 2. The hereti­cal teachers had falsly separated the Law from the promise of Christs justifying righteousness and grace, which was the sence and end of the Law: And Paul proveth that without the Promise and Christ, the Law is but a carkass of fruitless works without a Soul▪ and cannot justify. 3. But yet a be­lieving Jew being justified by faith in the promised seed, was to obey Moses Law sincerely as his mate­rial obedience to God his Redeemer; as we are now to observe the Sacraments instituted by Christ as part of our sincere obedience, necessary to Sal­vation.

[Page 51]Cont. 33. What i [...] Pauls drift in all his disputes a­bout [...]u [...]tification?

Ans. 1. Primarily, to prove the necessity of a Saviours Sacrifice, Righteousness and Intercession to save and justify us, and that the doing of Moses Law, how excellent soever esteemed by the Jews, would not justify without him. 2. To prove that the Gentiles may be saved by faith without the Law, as w [...]ll as the Jews by [...]aith with it: And that it bindeth not the Gentiles, and is a [...]rogate to the Jews, and that the Law of Christ succeedeth it. He confuteth their trusting to the keeping of their Law instead of Christs Righteousness, and the promise of Grace and their ob [...]ruding their Law upon the Gentiles as necessary to Salva­tion.

Cont. 34. What is [...] drift of St. James?

Ans. That bare believing the Gospel to be true, will not serve to any mans Salvation without obey­ing Chri [...]ts Commands; Nor will justify any mans Title t [...] [...]alvation, prove him acceptable to God. It i [...] the same Justification before God [...]and not only in con [...]cience or before men (that Paul and James speak [...], and the same instance of Abra­ham they bring, [...], by Work,] they mean not the [...]me [...] ▪ as is [...] explained.

Cont. 35. Must [...] ever trust at all to his faith, repentance, or holiness, or p [...]ead it any way to his justi­fication?

Ans. It must be trusted or pleaded instead of nothing that is Christs part, nor for any thing but its own part. B [...]t a part it hath, as is confessed, and for that part it must be trusted and pleaded; and [Page 52] no man must trust to be saved without faith re­pentance and obedience. Heb. 12.14. Mar. 16.16. Luk. 13.3, 5. I conclude all in Dr. Prestons words, Treatise of Faith. p. 44, 45. And of the Attributes, p. 71. [...] ‘Justifying Faith; (defined) is a Grace or habit infused into the Soul whereby we are enabled to believe, not only that the Messiah is offered to us, but also to take and receive him as a Lord and Saviour that is, both to be saved by him and obey him.’

‘ No man believeth Justification by Christ but his faith is mainly grounded on this Word of God▪ In Scripture we find that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, and that he is the Lamb slain for the for­giveness of sins: That he is offered to every crea­ture: That a man must thirst after him, and then take up his Cross and follow him: Now come to a believer going out of the World, and ask him, what hope he hath to be saved, he will be ready to say, I know that Christ is come into the World, and offered up, and I know that I am one of them that have a part in him: I know that I have fulfilled the conditions, as that I should not continue willingly in any known sin, that I should love the Lord Jesus, & desire to serve him above all: I know that I have fulfilled these conditions, and for all this I have the word for my ground, &c. So far Dr. [...]reston.’

Cont. 36. Hath Justification and Salvation the same conditions, and do works save us, which do not justi­fie us.

Ans. 1. The works which Paul excludeth from Justification he excludeth from saving us, Eph. 2.5. 8, 9. Tit. 3.5. so Jam. 2.14, &c. 2. Justification begun and our right given to Salvation have the [Page 53] same condition. 3. Justification in the last Judg­ment, is the justifying of our right to Glory, and hath the same condition with our glorification, Mat. 25. Come ye blessed, &c. But more is necessary to fi­nal Justification and Salvation, than to our first right, as is before shewed.

Cont. 37. Is there any such thing as a Justifying us against Satans false accusations: As that a believer is no believer, impenitent, an hypocrite, &c. Some say the Devil will not be so foolish, knowing that God knoweth all.

Ans. If Justification relate not to Accusation, Divines have hitherto much wronged the Church in maintaining it so commonly as they have done. If it do, 1. It is either to a true or a false accusati­on. Against a true accusation no man can be justifi­ed, but must confess the charge. If it be said that we sinned, and that this sin deserved death, it must [...]e confessed, and we cannot be justified directly a­gainst this charge: For Guilt and Righteousness can­n [...]t consist as to the same particular cause. But if it be said 1. That we are unbelievers, impenitent, hypocrites, &c. 2. Or that we have no part in Christ, 3. Or that we are not pardoned, accepted, reconciled and adopted for his meritorious righte­ousness and intercession, and were not thus consti­tuted just; 4. And that therefore we have no right to life, but ought to be condemned: All these are false accusations against which we may and must be justified.

2. And Satan is a Lyar and a Murderer and the accuser of the brethren: And his knowledge hin­dred not his malice from falsly accusing Job to God himself, nor from tempting Christ himself to the most odious sin.

[Page 54]3. But it sufficeth us that Justification relateth not only to Actual Accusation, but to [...]tual, yea to Possible: And if [...]od declare the Righteousness of his Servants by his [...]ight, Sentence or Execu­tion, though none accuse them, either Satan or Conscience, it sti [...]l relateth to possible Accusation.

They that deny all this, must needs say that at Judgment (and before as to any Sentence) there will be no Ju [...]t [...]fi [...]ation at a [...]l, because no Accusa­tion true or fa [...]se: And if no Justification (nor Condemnation) then no Judgment, which is all contrary to an Arti [...]le of Faith.

Contr. 38. But though all this prove that we are justified by Faith, y [...] not as a Right [...]ousness; so that it is questioned whether any personal Righteousness con­sisting in our performance of the Condition of the Co­venant, be th [...]t which we are justified by here or at last, in subo [...]nation to Christs [...]ighteousness [which needs no supplement from us?]

Ans. 1. This Question is either of the Thing, or of the bare Name of [...]ighteousness (whether it should so be called.)

1. A [...] to the Thing, it is fu [...]ly proved already, that Faith, Repentance and Obedience are of flat necessity to our Salvation▪ and therefore to the Jus [...]ying of our Claim of Right to that Salvation: And therefor [...] to Justi [...]e the Person as to that Right and Claim (that he is one that truly hath such right:) For the Person is justified by the justifying of his Cause: I suppose none of this will be denied.

2. And as to the Nam [...], 1. The definition will prove it apt: That which is Righteous, denomina­teth the subject accordingly. Every Cause in Judgment is Righteous or Unrighteous: And the Person is Righteous so far as his Cause is so: If it [Page 55] be said against a Believer, that [ he hath no right to Ch [...]ist, and [...]] his Right is his Righteousness as against thi [...] [...]: This Right is no natural be­ing at [...]ll, bu [...] ▪ Moral Relation, called D [...]ness Yet this is hi [...] [...]u [...]ifying Righteousness. But the funda­men [...] of that Right is quid absolutum.

It is an a [...]surd contradiction to say that a man hath any Righteousness that doth not so far constitute [...]; as it is to say that a man hath Learn­ing W [...]t, Honesty, Goodness, which do not so far make him Learned, Wise Honest or Good: Or the Paper hath whiteness that maketh it not white.

3. But we ever distinguish between Total Righ­teousness and Partial, in tantum or secundum quid: And betw [...]en that Righteousness in tantum which Salvation is laid on, and that which is of small con­cern: And also between Christs part and mans. And so we still say, 1. That Christs part needeth no supplement from ours; nor do we perform the least t [...]at belongs to him. 2. But his own Law, Will and Covenant, hath laid a necessary part on us. 3. That by this we are no further justified than in tantum, as it is a Righteousness of ours; that is, Faith in it self as such, justifieth us only against the false Charge of Infidelity; Repentance only against the false Charge of Impenitency; Holiness and Sincerity against the false Charge of unholi­ness and hypocrisie, &c. But, as the Condition of the Covenant, they prove our right to Christ and Life: And so as the Donation in the Gospel is the Titulus [...] fundamentum iuri [...]; so Faith and Repentance are the Conditio tituli.

There is a Partial Righteousness which every wicked man may have, which enti [...]leth no one to Salvation. The Devil himself may be falsly ac­cused, and be justifiable against that accusation: [Page 56] But the tenor of Gods Covenant maketh this in question to be a Righteousness on which Salvation lieth.

Yet we say that nothing of ours, or in us, is a Righteousness that would do any thing to our Sal­vation, without the Righteousness of Christ.

Obj. This is like the Papists, who say, That Christ merited to make our actions meritorious: So you say, That Christs Righteousness purchased a personal Evan­gelical Righteousness for us, by which we are jus [...]ied.

Ans. Yes: by which we are justified, 1. Against the Charge of Infidelity, Impenitency, and Insince­rity, and final Ʋngodliness: And 2. By which our title to Christ and his Righteousness, and purchased be­nefits must be justified, as by the Condition of the free gift. And to deny this, is to deny or subvert the whole Gospel. As to the talk of Popish Me­rits, I will not be so vain as to divert on that oc­casion. He is no true Christian that really denieth that Christs Righteousness hath procured a perso­nal Righteousness in and of us, consisting in our conformity to the Conditional Mode of the Pro­mise of Christ and Life. We may differ in words, while we mean the same thing: But as for him that denieth the thing, I know that he can be no better than prophane.

Righteousness is denominated as related, 1. To the Precept and Condition of the Law of Innocency: so the erroneous say, We are so righteous by Christs Righteousness imputed: And the orthodox say, We have no such Righteousness.

2. As related to the bare Precept of the Law of Christ since the Fall; which requiring perfe­ction, (that is, making it a duty) we have no such Righteousness, and therefore daily ask for par­don.

[Page 57]3. To the Tenor or Mode of the Promising and pe­nal part of the L [...]w of Christ; which giveth pardon and Life on Condition of penitent believing accep­tance and [...]; and continueth it on Condition also of sinc [...]re obedience to Christ our Redeemer, and God in him: and so we shall be judged, and either justified or damned, as we have or have not this personal Righteousness: Christ in Judgment is not to try his own part, but ours: He that is not thus justified shall be damned.

And as to the Libertine or Antinomian errour (that this performing of the Condition of the Pro­mise is no righteousness, but only Christs imputed is Righteousness, because it answereth not the perfect Precept, though it answer the imposed Condition of the Promise, and that it is not to be called Righte­ousness, nor we so far as is aforesaid to be justified by it; I appeal to Scripture and the reason of the thing.

The Words Just, Justice, Righteous and Righte­teousness, Justifie and Justification, being viewed in the Concordance, and examined will shew you, that God in Scripture many score or hundred times giveth such Names to our Personal Qualities and Acts: And what is that man that dare deny this constant language of the Scripture? Doth he take Gods Word for his rule; or will he shame himself by saying that in all these God speaketh unfitly, and that he can mend his Language? See but Gen. 6.9. Prov. 17.15, 26. & 20.7▪ & 24.16. Isa. 26.7. Ezek. 18.5, 9. Mat. 1.19. & 13.49. Luk. 2.25. & 20.20. & 23.50. Act. 10.22. Rom. 2.13. Jam. 5.6. 2 Pet. 2.7. Exo. 23.7. Deu. 25.1. Jer. 3.11. Mat. 12.37. Luk. 18.14. 1 Cor. 6.11. Jam. 2.21, 24, 25. Rom. 3.26. Ezek. 33.13. &c. Ezek. 48.18. Psal. 35.24. Eph. 4.24. [Page 58] 2 Cor. 9.9. Mat. 6.33. & 5.20. Ezek. 3.20. 1 Sam. 26.23. 1 Pet. 3.14. Gal. 3 6. Rom. 4 5, 9, 22. Jam. 2.23. Gal. 3.6. Mat. 5.20 Gen 15.6. Rev. 19.8. 1 Joh. 2.19. & 3.7, 10. 2 Pet. 2. [...], 21. & 3.13. 1 [...]t. 2.24. Jam. 3.18. He [...] [...] 9 & 7.2. & 11.33. & 12.11. 2 Tim. 2.22 & 4.8 1 Tim. 6.11. Phil. 1.11 Eph. 5.9. & 6. 14 1 Cor. 15.34. 2 Cor. 6.7, 14. & 9.10. Rom. 6.1 [...], 16 18, 19, 20 & 8.4, 10. & 10.5, 6, 1 [...]. & 14.17. Act. 10.35. & 13.10. Luk. 1.75. Mat. [...] 6. & 21.32. Zeph. 2.3. Dan. 12.3. & 4 27. [...]zek. 18.20. & 33.12. [...]sa. 1.27 & 5.23 & 26.9, 10 & 32.17. & 64.5. & 61.3. Prov. 10 2. & 11.4.5, 6, 18, 19, & 12.28 & 13.6 & 15.9. & 21.21. Psal. 106.3. D [...]u. 6.25. Psal. 11.7. & 15▪2. & 23.3. Mat. 10.41 Rom. 5.7. 2 Pet. 2.8. Jam. 5.16. 1 Tim. 1.9. Rev. 22.12. 1 Pet. 3.12. & 4.18. Heb. 11.4. 2 Tim. 4.8. Rom. 2.5, 6. &c. Luk. 1.6. Mar. 2.17. Mat. 25.37, 46. & 13.43. Mal. 3.18. Hab 1.4, 13. Am [...]s 2.6. Isa. 3.10. & 57.1. & 60.21. [...]ccl. 8.14. Prov. 24.24 & 15.29, 28, 19.6. & 14 32. & 12.26. Psal. 146.8. & 1.5, 6. & 5.12. & 32.11. 33.1. & 34.15.17, 19, 21. & 58.11. & 97. 11, 12. Num. 23.10. Gen. 18.23, 24▪25, 26, 28. & 7.1. Mat. 6.14, 15. & 18.35. Mar. 11.25, 26. [...]k. 6.37. 1 Joh. 1.9. Mar. 4.12. Act. 26.18. Mar. 1.4. & 16.16. [...]. 24.47. Act. 2.38. & 10.43. 2 Cor. 7.10. Heb. 5.9 Rom. 10.9, 13. Act. 1 [...].31. & 11.14, 2, 21. Mat. 10.22. Prov. 28.18 [...] 2 8. 1 C [...]r. 15.2. Rom. 8.24. Jer. 4.14. 1 [...]et. 3.21. Jam. 1 21 & 2.14. & 5.20, Jud. 23. 1 Cor. 1 21. & 7.16. 1 Tim. 4.16. Act. 2.40. Rev. 22.14. [...]sal. 37.40. Gen. 22.16. & 26.5. 1 K [...]n. 11.34. Luk. 19.17. Joh. 16.27. Luk. 13.3, [...]. Joh. 1.11, 12, & 3.16, 18, 19. 1 Tim. 4.8. Heb. 4.1. Rev. 20.12, 13. [Page 59] 1 Pet. 1.17. Eccl. 12.14. Rom. 14.10. 2 2 Cor. 5.10.

I set light by their Judgment, that set light by all these plain Words of God, and can distort them to their humane or self-chosen opinions.

I had thought here to have ended, but since the writing of this, Objectors have raised some new made Controversies.

Qu. 39. Whether the Acceptation of Christs Righ­teousness be the Imputation of it?

Ans. Language is so ambiguous, and some men do so (unskilfully) abuse it to vain Controver­sie, as if they had been hired to serve the design of our late Bruitists, who make Reason and Speech to be our Misery, proving man more unhappy than the beasts. 1. Either you mean [the Imputation of it to Christ,] or [ to us.] 2. And that either to faln man in general, or to this or that individual Person in particular.

1. To Accept and to Impute are not Words of the same sence. But when Christ had performed all that he had undertaken, as the Condition of his Mediatorial Covenant, or the Law of Mediation imposed on him, it was at once both accepted to the ends of that Covenant and his performance, and also imputed to him, that is, He was truly reckon­ed to have fulfilled all Righteousness.

2. Faln man was then reckoned to be (as to price and merit; Redeemed, God so far pardoning them, or not imputing their sin to them, as to make them a general Pardon on Condition of a believing [...]ue acceptance, & committing to his Ministers the Word of Reconciliation, beseeching them in Christs stead to be personally and actually reconciled to God, 2 Cor. 5.19, 20.

[Page 60]3. Christs Righteousness was thus accepted of God as soon as performed: but it was not then as so performed imputed to any singular Person, to his personal actual Justification. For it was accepted be­fore we were born, or believed: But it▪ was not so imputed to our actual Justification before we were born or believed.

Righteousness is imputed to us, if we believe, Rom. 4.24. And Faith is imputed to us for Righteousness: And he that believeth not is condemned already, and under the curse, when yet Christs Righteousness was accepted long before: If they say that there is a new Acceptation of it for every Sinner just when he believeth, and that it is this that they mean; I an­swer, that as long as men take liberty to make new phrases about supernatural mysteries, which are not in Scripture, and to use these to the form­ing of new Creeds or Articles of Faith, they will be so long in acquainting the World with their meaning, that we shall never come to an end of Controversies, nor to the true understanding of one another: for few▪such men understand them­selves; but when they confound the matter and the readers with their new ambiguous phrases, they cry out against those that would search out their meaning, as if they did but Cavil with their Words, and distinction and understanding were the way of Confusion and not theirs.

We grant that the Justification of every Belie­ver is a new Effect of Christs Righteousness: And if they will call this a new Acceptation by God of Christs Righteousness, or use any other new made unmeet or gibberish Words, if they will but ex­pound them as they go, we shall the better bear them.

[Page 61]Qu. 40. Whether it follow that Christs sufferings (or Passive Obedience) did not merit Eternal Life at all for us, because it was only Active Obedience which the Law of Innocency so rewarded [ Do this and live] not [ Suffer and live?]

Ans. 1. Their foundation-errour animateth the affirmative. They falsly think that it is that Law of Innocency which justifieth us, which doth curse and condemn us, and not justifie us at all; but it is the Gospel, or Law of Faith and Grace that justifieth us.

2. The Merit of Christs Righteousness is to be reckoned principally as justifying us, according to the tenor of the Law or Covenant made only to him as Mediator: That Covenant laid on Christ such duty as was made the Condition of the Promise, and made him a special Promise upon that Condition or Duty: He performed the latter for the former. The mat­ter of his undertaken Condition or Duty was threefold. 1. To fulfil the Law of Innocency; 2. And the Law of Moses; 3. And divers Media­torial acts proper to himself; (as to satisfie Justice by his sufferings, conquer Satan and Death, work his Miracles, &c.) To perform this whole Condition of his Covenant, was to merit of God-Man Justifica­tion and Salvation: The part of this was but part of his Merit materially considered, justifying him­self against any charge from that Law which he fulfilled: But his Mediatorial Acts, and so his Suf­ferings were another part, by which he was justified, and merited Righteousness and Life for us: And therefore the Objection falsly supposeth that it is only Adams Law that justified Christ, and accord­ing to which he merited for us; whereas it was the Mediatorial Covenant or Law which made his Suf­fering part of the Condition of the Promise made to him for himself and us.

[Page 62]His own Glory was merited by death on the Cross, Phil. 2.7, 8 9. Therefore also ours. By his blood he en­tered into the Ho [...]i [...]st, having obtained eternal Redemp­tion f [...]r us. His b [...]od not only purgeth our Conscience [...] from dead works, to serve the living God, but for this cause he is the Mediat [...]r of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgression [...] under the first Testament, they which are called might receive the Promise of Eternal Inheritance, Heb. 12.14, 15. Heb. 10.10, 14. By one offering he hath per­fected for ever th [...]m that are sanctified. He hath [...] us in the body o [...] his flesh through death, to pre­sent us holy, and unblameable and unreprovable in hi [...] si [...]ht, Col. 1.22. To [...]at Christs flesh▪ and drink in blood, is to beli [...]ve his Sacrifice, which yet is that which hath the Promise of Life.

Indeed the reason of this Objection would deny also Christs Active Obedience to merit our Salva­tion: For by the Law of Innocency Christ merited for none but himself: For that Law promiseth Life to none but them that personally obey, and ne­ver mentioned ob [...]y [...]ng by another, nor knows any Vicar [...]um aut [...]b [...]aiertiae aut poenae. It is only God▪ Covenant with the Medi [...]t [...]r as such, that gave him right to make us righteous, to pardon and to save us: An [...] th [...]t Covenant giveth it (as is said on the who [...]e [...]ond [...]ti [...]n. It is true, that Life i [...] oft especial [...]y ascribed to Christs Resurrection an [...] Life, and deliverance from guilt to his Death▪ But that is not because hi [...] Death is no part of th [...] Me [...]it [...]rious Cause of our Life, or Holiness an [...] Glory, nor his Life a Meritorious Cause of our Pardon by fulfilling all Righteousness; but because Guilt was it that was to be expiated by his Death as a Sacrifice, and so it did but purchase by plea­si [...]g God, the gift of our life: But his Resurrection [Page 63] and heavenly Intercession did more than purchase, even further communicate and perfect our Life. Christs Death was in order of Nature first satis­factory for sin, and then meritorious of Life; and his perfect Active Obedience was first and direct­ly meritorious both of Pardon and Glory.

I pass by the Controversie which Mr. Gataker most insisteth on, Whether to deliver from Death, and to give Life, be not all one? And whether according to the Law of Innocency, he that had no sin or guilt of Commission or Omission, had not right to the Life there given?

Qu. 41. Whether Christs being the End of the Law [...]or Righteousness, doth signifie that he so fulfilled Adams Law in our stead, as that it justifieth us by Fac hoc & vives.

Ans. 1. The affirmers quite mistake Moses and Paul, in thinking that it is the Law of Innocency, which the words cited by Paul describe; when indeed it was Moses Law of Works, which had Sa­crifices and Promises of Pardon, which the other had not (of which before.) 2. Christ is there said to be the End of all the Law as to its shadows, types, and conjunct Promises. The Law was given by Moses, but Grace and Truth (that is, the things promised and typified) came by Jesus Christ. The confounding of these Laws confoundeth many in these Controversies.

Qu. 42. Whether the sufferings of Christ merit our freedom from nothing but what he suffered in our [...]tead?

Qu. 43. And whether hence it follow that his suf­ferings merit not our deliverance from death spiritual and habitual, or actual pravity, because Christ suffered t [...]em not?

[Page 64] Ans. To the 42d. The affirmation of the first is a corrupting addition to the Word of God. 1. He suffered not many temptations, which yet by the merit of his sufferings we are freed from. 2. He suffered not many relative evils, as bad Parents, bad Teachers, a bad Wife, and all the attendant crosses in buying and selling, crosses from bad Te­nants, or Landlords, &c. which the merit of his suffering delivereth many from. 3. He suffered not the torment of an accusing Conscience. 4. Nor Gods hatred or displeasure. 5. Nor the many mi­series which sin in its own nature bringeth to the Soul (as painful cares, fears, frustrations, deceits, &c.) 6. Nor corruption in the grave. 7. Nor the final Sentence [ Go ye cursed into everlasting fire.] 8. Nor the proper Execution of that Sentence.

Yet he delivereth some Believers from all these, and all from some, by the merits of his sufferings. For it was not the just same punishment that was due to all Believers that he suffered, but that which was fit to make him a meet Sacrifice, which was the tantundem vel aequivalens, consideratis conside­randis.

Ad 43. The affirmative subverteth our Faith. Christs Death merited the full pardon of all par­doned sin: But the pardon of sin is the pardon of the deserved punishment of sin (and of the sin as related to that punishment.) But certainly the pri­vation of Gods illuminating, sanctifying Spirit, and its helps and fruits, is a great part of the punishment of sin, Psal. 81.11, 12. Rom. 1.28. 2 Thes. 2.10, 12. To be given up to mens own counsels, wills, lusts, vile affections, to a reprobate mind; to have eyes and see not, hard hearts to believe lies, &c. Sin is no farther pardoned than this punishment is by sanctifying grace remitted, and removed.

[Page 65]The Scripture doth not ascribe to Christs Sacri­fice, some part only of our pardon of sin, but the whole, Rev. 1.5. He washed us from our sins in his blood; and so he is the propitiation for them, 1 John 2.2. & 4.3. He made purgation of them on the Cross, Heb. 1.3. He died for them, and gave himself for them, 1 Cor. 15.3. Gal. 1.4. 1 Pet. 3.18. Heb. 10.12. & 9.28. Rom. 3.25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood, for the remission of sins that are past, Acts 22.16. & 13.38, &c. And the poena damm is part of the punishment to be forgiven: Therefore, Rom. 4.7. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, &c. But no man is blessed that is un­holy, and separated from God. As we all sinned and came short of the Glory of God, and spiritual Death is by the objecter confessed to be part of our punishment; so pardon containeth the remission of that punishment.

And it is falsly supposed that Christs Death is not secondarily meritorious of more than pardon, even of all that his Active Obedience meriteth; of which before.

Pardon is, 1. In jure, a Remission of the Obli­gation to punishment; giving us Jus impunitatis; and this giveth us Right to a [...]l that grace and bles­sedness, which by sin we lost a Right to.

2. Declarative by Sentence, which giveth us a Jus judicatum.

3. Executive, which actually freeth us from the poena d [...]mm & sensus. And so Sanctification is a part of Executive Pardon, so far as it giveth what so: sin we were penally deprived of. This is all plain and sure.

[Page 66]Qu. 44. Seein [...] we our selves bear that p [...]rt of the Curse which lieth in Death spiritual, doth it follow that Christs Suf [...]erings were not to free us from it, when we b [...]re it, and not he?

Ans. It is not denied that part of the punish­ment of sin is born by the Elect themselves, which the former Objecters deny:) And therefore that Pardon is not absolutely perfect at first: Death and Divine denials of the Spirit and Grace, are such penalties▪ And Christ died not (nor obeyed) to save us from that which we are not to be saved from, but was excepted from Pardon. But the Ob [...]ecter can never prove that the Merit of Christs Sufferings (though he [...]uffered not spiritual death, or privation of Gods Image) doth not free us, 1. From so much of spiritual death or pravity as we are freed from: 2. And from the duration of it for ever: Or else it merited not one half our pardon. To be washed from our sins in his blood, can be no less than to be freed from the guilt which is the obligation to punishment first, and consequently from the punishment it self.

Qu. 45. Is this the reason of our deliverance from the Law, and being dead t [...] it, because we suffered ever­lasting Hell fire equival [...]ntly in Christs sufferings.

Ans. When men once depart from the Scrip­ture, t [...]ei [...] corrupt additions hardly keep bounds.

1. It's well that this Objecter implieth, that it was not the Ide [...], but the A [...]quivalens that Christ suffered, as to our debt.

2. That which made Christs Sacrifice to be aequival [...]nt to our endless damnation, was not that it wa [...] as [...]at a proportion of suffering (poenae sensus & [...]) [...]s all ours [...]ogether would have been: [Page 67] But because the dignity and perfection of the per­son made it an apt means for God that would par­don us, to accept as a Sacrifice, and so as sit a means to the ends of Government, as our damna­tion would have been (and sitter.) This is the aequivalency.

3. We suffered not damnation at all in Christ; nor doth God or his Law take or reckon us to have done so; but only to receive the pardon and other benefits freely given us, which he in the person of a Mediator, and not in our person me­rited.

4. We are dead to the Law, both as a Covenant of Perfection, and as the Law of Moses to the Jews, because Christ nailed the latter to his Cross, or did abrogate it as such to the Jews, and to those Gentiles that needed to be Proselytes; and the former ceased by the Fall and Promise; (But it is the Jewish Law that Paul speaketh of.) And also in our believing acceptance of this liberation, and of the Law of Christ.

Qu. 46. Is it true that Christs Active Obedience only meriteth Heaven for us; and therefore it only m [...] ­ [...]it [...]th the Spi [...]it or Holiness which is but Heaven b [...]gun?

Ans. Both are false: His Active and Passive Rig [...]teousness merit Pardon, Holiness and Glory. And their proof from [Fac hoc & vives] is upon a great mist [...]ke, and no proof.

Qu. 47. I [...] i [...] true, that because Reg [...]nerati [...]n is the b [...]gin [...]ing of Heaven, and Christs Obedience imputed [...]eth a ri [...]ht to t [...]e whole, therefore it giveth a right to the beg [...]nning, and therefore Repentance which fol­l [...]weth Justification can be no Condition of it?

[Page 68] Ans. It is a fancy spun by a a mistaken mind, to oppose the plain Word of God.

1. If it would hold, it would exclude Faith as well as Repentance, from being a Condition or An­tecedent to Justification, contrary to the Gospel: For Faith is as much a grace of the Spirit as Re­pentance is. And it is not true that impenitent In­fidels are justified, though they may be predesti­nate to be first called, and then justified, and then glorified, Rom. 8.30.

2. That which goeth before Pardon (and that as a Condition) goeth before Justification: But Repentance goeth before Pardon, Acts 5.31. Luke 24.47. & 3.3. Acts 2.38. & 3.19. & 8.22. 1 John 1.9. Mark 4.12. But of this I have given large proof elsewhere.

3. All the grace of the Spirit is a preparation for Heaven: But that eminent gift of the Spirit, which in Scripture is called the Seal, Earnest, and first Fruit, is promised upon repenting and believing, and therefore followeth them, and is, 1. The Habit of Divine Love, which is the New Nature, and more than the first seed of grace: 2. And the Spi­rit related to us as an in-dwelling, possessing Agent of Christ to sanctifie us to the end. 3. And in those times to many, the extraordinary gifts of Mi­racles, Tongues, &c.

1. Faith and Repentance went before Baptism in the Adult, even as a Condition of it and its be­nefits, Mark 1.4. Acts 13.34. & 19.4. Matt. 3.11. John 1.26. Mark 16.16. John 4.1. Acts 2.38, 41 & 8.12, 13, 36, 37, 38. & 9.18. & 22.16. But that gift of the Spirit which is called the Farnes [...], Seal, and first Fruit, was either given in, or after Bap­tism ordinarily (though to Cornelius before) but not before Faith and Repentance. It is called there­fore, [Page 69] [ Baptizing with the Holy Ghost.] See Mat. 3.11. Acts 1.5, & 2.33.38, & 8.15.17, & 10.2. Rom. 5.5. Tit. 3.5.

2. And the Spirit is said to be promised and given to believers, after faith, and because they were adopted sons: Eph. 1.13. Prov. 1.23. Gal. 4.6. & 3.14. Rom. 8.15, 16.30. 2 Cor. 1.22. & 5.5. Therefore our Divines commonly put Voca­tion as giving the first acts of Faith and Repentance before Sanctification, as Rom. 8.30. doth before Justification and Glorification. And yet Faith and Repentance are gifts of the Spirit too, and so are ma­ny commoner gifts in unsanctified men: But as the daylight is seen before the Sun rising, and as Satan is not said to possess all that he tempteth; So some gifts of the Spirit, and some motions and operations of it, go before the proper giving of the Spirit itself, and his possessing us.

3. It is no absurdity, but the wise order of God, that one gift of the Spirit shall be antecedent to another, and the reception and exercise of it by us, be a condition of that other. For God will morally induce us to our duty by suitable motives. He that denieth this subverteth the Gospel.

4. I have elsewhere at large proved the falshood of this Doctrine, that Impenitent Infidels are justi­fied by the imputation of Christs Righteousness. It is enough that Christs righteousness is reputed by God to be the meritorious cause of all our grace even of justification before we are justified.

Qu. 48. How can faith or repentance entitle us to that righteousness of Christ which must first give us a right to themselves and all Grace?

Ans. 1. Faith and Repentance give us not a Ti­tle [Page 70] in strict sence, but the Covenant or Promise, that is, the Gospel Donation is our Title, and Faith and Repentance are but Conditions of our Title, which on several accounts make us morally capable re­ceivers of Right.

2. Christs Righteousness did merit all grace of God, before it justifieth us, and we are reputed righteous by it. It is a great error to say that we must be reputed righteous by Christs Righteous­ness given and imputed to us to that use, before we can have any fruits of the merits of his righte­ousness. Even the outward call of the Gospel is a fruit of it.

Qu. 49. Is it true that we must be practical Anti­nomians unless we hold that only Christs active righte­ousness merited grace and glory for us?

Qu. 50. Is this proved by Rom. 7.4.

Ans. 1. Some mens words are used to hide the sense, and not to open it. What is the meaning of Practical Antinomianism? Is it to be the opposers of all Gods Laws? or only some and which? And doth he not mean that the judgment must be first against them.

How far are we under the Law; and how far not? 1. The Law of Innocency as a Covenant re­quiring perfect, personal obedience as the necessa­ry condition of life, we are not under. It ceased by the first sin, cessante subditi capacitate: We must not suppose that God saith to all sinners: You shall be saved if you be not sinners. Conditi [...]n [...] prate [...] [...] transit in sententiam.

We are not under the Law of M [...]s as such; even that which was written in stone is done away, 2 Cor. 3.7, &c.

If this be Antinomianism, I am an Antinomian that [...]ve written so much against them.

[Page 71]3. We are only under the Law of Christ, into whose hand all power is given: And that is 1. The Law of reprieved and redeemed nature: 2. All his supernatural revelation, and so much of Moses Law as he hath assumed. If the objecter think that we are under any other, so do not I, ex­cept the subordinate Laws of men.

2. That Law of Grace which we have, and that freedom from the Law of Works, are me­rited both by Christs Active and Passive righteous­ness.

Ad. Qu. 50. Rom. 7.4. hath no such thing, but only that Christ hath delivered men from the bon­dage of the Law of works which did neither justify nor sanctify, and hath subjected and engrafted us unto himself, that we might by him be made holy unto God.

An Answer to some Animadversions of a Friend, tending to the further expli­cation of some passages which through brevity were not understood.

§. 1. SIR, Your notes have so much Judgment and moderation and so little, if any thing contrary to what I assert, that they require nothing from me, but a repeated explication of that which you observed not as before explained: But when it is enough for me to explain my own Words and Doctrine, you put me on another task to seek after the ex­plication of another mans; which I am not oblig­ed to on any account, but for your Satisfaction. It is enough for me to speak true Doctrine in the most intelligible manner that I can without exa­mining whether other mens expressions be sound or apt.

§. 2. I begin with your own Notes: And 1. I hope that few are so ignorant (that meddle in these matters) as to doubt of what you say, that no one term much less one Metaphor or similitude can adequately express any of the Mysteries of Grace, and no one Metaphor must be carried too far; Omne simile est etiam dissimile: And all set to­gether so far as they are thereto intended must in­struct us.

§. 3. I know none but the Socinians that think a Mediator and a Sponsor inconsistent; or deny Christ to be a Sponsor. And methinks your words [Page 76] for their consistency, import a greater difference between them than there is. It is part of Christs Mediation to be a Sponsor: These terms there­fore express no difference but between the whole and the part.

But what a Sponsor Christ is, is all the doubt which I a little opened, and you pass by. It is not agreed by expositors what the word [...] mean­eth in that one only place of Scripture where it is used. Very learned expositors think that as Moses was called Gods Mediator or Sponsor to the people as being his Spokesman and in his name assuring them that this was Gods Covenant which he would perform, and returning the peoples answer to God, and praying for them but not undertaking for them, and personating them; so Christ is here likened to him, and called the Mediator and Sponsor of the new and better Covenant, not as he personateth or un­dertaketh for Covenanting Subjects, but only as he representeth God the Father to man, and is his Sponsor to us.

But as Paul saith he is not a Mediator of one, so I see not but (though chiefly he be Gods Sponsor to man) yet withal he be there called a Sponsor also as well as a Mediator for man to God: But all the doubt is what a Sponsor for man he is.

And first we must enquire what Covenant he is a Sponsor of? No doubt but Gods Covenant with the Mediator as such, is one, and Gods and the Me­diators Covenant with man solemnized in baptism is another: And yet no doubt but these two have such relation as that in some sort or respect they may be called one. He that saith they are not two is plainly confuted by the constitutive defining parts, the Divers Parties, Matter, Terms and Ends.

It was not said to Christ, but by Christ, [Repent [Page 77] and believe in Christ, or be damned.] Pardon and Salvation are not offered to Christ to be received by Faith in himself. Yet as the Laws of the Land though several, are One Instrumentum Regiminis: So we call all the Laws of Nature usually singularly. The Law of Nature, (and so we say, The Civil Law, the Canon Law, Gods Law, &c.) Now the question is, what Covenant Christ was the Spon­sor of? 1. In his own proper Covenant he did Spondere & praestare, to suffer for us, and to obey for us, (in the just sence in due place explained,) to rise and ascend for us, to intercede for us, to Teach us, Guide us, give out his Spirit, and to Justifie and Sanctifie and Glorifie his chosen: So that it was part of his Undertaking and Performance to do all this for us; and this may well be called his becoming a Sponsor for us, and to be made to us, Wis­dom, Righteousness, Sanctification and Redemption.

In our Covenant with Christ, he is the Imposer and Stipulator, and we are to Promise for our part, to be done by his promised help. But on Gods part, it is in this that he is the Sponsor, and not in the former, where God the Father is the Promiser to Christ, and not Christ to himself as a Covenan­ter: So that it is in one Covenant that he promi­seth to God for Man, and in another that he promi­seth for God to Man: And the question is which of these Covenants it is that the Apostle calleth him the Surety of? If you say that the Apostle taketh both here as parts of One, and so meaneth both; I find no proof of this in the Text: And if it were so, it is all one; for it were then spoken of the whole, but respectively to what Christ did in the two which are the parts: Indeed it is [...], and not [...], that is the Covenant mentioned in the Text: and as Grotius in praesat. ad notas in N.T. [Page 78] hath copiously shewed, it is a Divine Disposal, Law, Imposition, or Statute containing the terms of Life, that is meant by [...]: And cap. 7.22. as it is said, yet Je [...]us was made a surety of a better Testament. And c. 8.6. He hath obtained a more excellent Ministry, by how much he is the Mediator of a better Covenant [which was stablished on better Pro­mises.] It is the same thing which our Translators call a Testament in one Chapter and a Covenant in the other, and it seems that a Surety and a Medi­ator here do mean the same thing in Christ: And the whole context sheweth that it is Gods Pro­mise or Covenant and Law of Grace made to man that is here meant, and that Christs Office and Undertaking and Performance is presupposed. And so it is the Fathers Sponsor and Mediator to man that is meant here directly, and mans Sponsor and Mediator towards God by Connotation; but so as in other Texts, as Cap. 9.15. that part also is di­rectly expressed, and Christs death made a part of his Mediation.

§ 4. The Question being not then whether Christ be Mediator, or Sponsor, or the Second A­dam, but what these words signifie, that which is to be noted by the Reader is, 1. What it is here­on that we assert; and whether that be enough. 2. And what it is that we deny as too much, and false.

§ 5.1. And for the first I explained it here, and more fully in my Treat. of Ju [...]tifying Righte­ousness: And to repeat as oft as any one will call for it that hath not leisure to read it already done is tedious. In short [ ‘Christ in the Common Nature of man made under the Law of Innocen­cy, of Moses and that proper to the Mediator, did in the undertaken Person of a Mediator, Spon­sor [Page 79] for, interposing Friend and Saviour, perfectly ful­fil all these, and give up himself to suffering as a Sacrifice for Mans Sin, that by the Merit and Satisfaction of him that was God and Man, and Mans undertaking Mediator and Sponsor, doing and suffering because we had sinned, and deser­ved suffering, and that for our sakes, and partly [...]n our stead, the ends of God as Governour by the Law of Innocency, and Mos [...]s might be ob­tained to his Glory, without our fulfilling of those Laws or Suffering the deserved Penalty, and God in consistency with his Wisdom, Holi­ness and Justice, might for these Merits and Sa­tisfaction of Christ give all things into his Hands as the Redeemer, even all Power in Heaven and Earth, and make him Lord of the Dead and Living, and Head over all things to the Church, and give him the Keys, and commit all Judg­ment to him; that by the will of the Father he might make with faln redeemed Man a Law and Covenant of [...]race, giving them Himself in incomprehensible Union, and with himself his indwelling sanctifying comforting Spirit of A­doption, with a Covenant Right to Pardon, [...]u­stification, Adoption and Glory, if they will pe­nitently accept it, by a siducial practical belief: And calling Sinners, to this Faith and Re­pentance, and effectually drawing his Elect, might by this Covenant give them as soon as they so believe, an actual right to that impuni­ty, Grace and Glory which was antecedently given conditionally to all. And might finally perform all this to them.’

In plain and full words, this is that we assert, [...]nd the Office which by the Word Sponsor, Medi­ [...]or and Second Adam we mean.

[Page 80]§. 5. I have elsewhere told you that there are many sorts of Sponsors. 1. There is one that An­tecedently maketh himself a Party in the Covenant and Bond: As when my Friend is bound with me in the same bond for a Debt or Duty: If the Law to Adam had been such as this, took in Christ also into the same bond, and had meant [ Ore of you shall perfectly obey or suffer;] Then that Law would have had nothing against Adam at all, because all was fulfi [...]led by Christ: And it bound but dis­junctively, one or the other. Then Christs Obe­dience or Suffering would not have been sati [...]fa­ctio, which is solutio aequivalentis alias indebiti, & solutio re [...]usabtits; but it would have been solutio ejusdem & non recusabilis according to the bond.

2. There is a subsequent Sponsor that was not before bound, but as a Friend after interposeth, and offereth (not in the Person of the debtor, but yet in his stead) to pay the debt: and this upon such terms as to the Debtors deliverance as he thinks best; and so may take him as Debtor to himself, and put various limits, and Condi­tions upon his Discharge: And such a Sponsor is Christ for Man. Many more distinctions of Sureties are here considerable.

3. But some men take a Surety here to be the same Persona civilis, quamvis non naturalis, wit [...] the Offender and Debtor; as if we did Legally▪ Morally or Civilly that which Christ did naturally ▪ As indeed an allowed Representative, Servant or Agent and Attourney is: If I be bound to pay an hundred pound, the Law and Bond mean [...] not that I must needs do it with my own hands▪ but if I send my Servant or Friend with the Money, it is Civilly, Legally and Morally done by me, because he was my lawfull Instrument: I di [...] it by him.

[Page 81]II. The Doctrine then, which I deny as sub­verting the Christian Religion is especially these three errours following.

I. That the true meaning of Adams Law or Covenant was to bind him or his surety disjunctive­ly; viz. Thou shalt obey thy self or another (Christ) for thee, or else thou shalt die, or Christ for thee.] 1. Gods Word saith no such thing. 2. Then Christ had been an Antecedent Sponsor. 3. Yea and a party equally bound. 4. Then a Saviour and Grace had been by that Law: which is false. 5. Then Adam had been no Sin­ner; for it was but He or Christ and not He and Christ that were bound to keep the Law, by this Doctrine. 6. Then no Death had been due to Adam. 7. Then that Law was not broken at all: for it bound but disjunctively. 8. Then the Law condemneth no man. 9. Then our Death and the Curse of the Earth were injuries, for we kept the Law by Christ. 10. Then the Law of Innocen­cy is it by which we are justified (which is false.) 11. Then there is no place for pardon. 12. Nor for a new Law to give us pardon upon terms or new Conditions: This is to subvert the Gospel.

Yet this is commonly said by the adversaries, that Adam after his fall was justified by that same Law, as saying, Do this and Live, because he kept it by Christ, or Christ in his Name and stead, so that it justifie [...]h Adam: (which Mr. Wotton de Re­co [...]. hath at large confuted.) If they say that the same Law or Covenant commanded Adam to obey perfectly and his surety also in his stead conjunctly, and condemned both Adam for Sin and his Sure­ty for the same, then both must suffer as both must obey, and each beareth his own part. It is a fundamental fiction leading on many other [Page 82] errours, to say that the Law of Innocency as it commanded Adam Obedi [...]nce, or as it threatned Death to him was fulfilled by Christ for him▪ That Law commanded Adam only Personal perfect perpe­tual Obedience: It mentioned or meant no [...]cari­us obed [...]ae aut poenae: Dum altus solvit, aliud solvi­tur. Anothers obeying or suffering was no fulfil­ling of the Law as it commanded Adam: The Law commandeth each subject distinctly and personal­ly: Christ fulfilled all the Law as it obliged him­self, and tha [...] f [...]r Adams Redemptio [...] who had bro­ken it: But the same Law a [...] it ob [...]d Adam was broken by Adam, and not kept by him or any for him: It is not that Law that gave man a Saviour, but the Mercy of the Offended Lawgiver. To say the Hoc fac, & vives, in that Law giveth us right to Life, and justifieth us as perfect obeyers, and so no Sinners, is to deny the Gospel.

Many say, indeed that Christ [...]atisfied the Law for us: but 1. That proveth that the Obligation of it on us was not fulfilled: For sati [...]faction is solutio recu­sabilis tantidem, loco solutionis e [...]usdem. 2. But it is an improper speech to say that [the Law is satisfied] And it meaneth no more but that [the end of Go­vernment by that Law is obtained.] And it is pro­perly satisfaction only to the Lawgiver, and not to the Law: For the Law in it's sence admits not of satisfaction, (though it hath nothing against it:) It is only the subjects Obedience that it command­eth, and his death as satisfaction for sin that it de­mandeth. It is the Lawgiver as he is above his own Law and hath power to pardon, that is satisfied: Though as tropically some say, that Finis Legis est Lex, so we will not contend with them that tro­pically say, Christ satisfied the Law, while they mean but that he satisfied the Lawgiver in obtain­ing [Page 83] the End of the Law. But Christ perfectly ful­filled the Law as it obliged himself, upon his Spon­sion. And that Law justified him, but no man else. It is only the New Covenant that justifieth us.

II. The second Errour to the same purpose, is, that though Christ and Adam were two Natural Persons, yet they were One [...]erson in a Civil, Legal or Reputative sense, in Christs obeying and suffer­ing; and so that what Christ did and suffered in his own Natural Person, he did and suffered in Adams, and every Elect mans Civil, Legal, or Reputative Person. This is but the consequent of the former Errour. He may be called our R [...]pr [...]nter in a li­mited sense, in [...]antum & ad hoc (for there is no hope of holding our opposers to Scriptures phrase:) But such a strict full personating Representation as is here described, denieth the substance of the Gospel. There are indeed several Cases in which one in Law or Civil sense doth personate another: When the Law alloweth one to do the thing by another, that thing is morally done by himself; e. g. by my Servant, Proxie, Attorney, Agent, in Cases [...]o allowed by the Law. It is I that pay the debt which my Servant, or any Vicarius allowed by Law payeth for me in my name. Christ did not thus pay or suffer in our names as our Legal Person; but for us and in our stead as a s [...]t Sponsor in the person of a Mediator; so that it cannot be said th [...]t we did it Legally by him; else all the fore­named absurdities would follow; and specially that Legall [...] we never sinn [...]d, and never deserved punish [...]ent, nor need either Pardon, or the Sa­crifice of Christ for Pardon. It's certain that Christ never sinned, but obeyed perfectly from first to last: And if we did this Lega [...]ly by him, we sinned not in Law sense, that is, not truly at all. When [Page 84] we shew that it is a palpable contradiction to say, that we were perfectly obedient in and by Christ, from birth to death, and yet that Christ must suf­fer for our sins; it's strange to see how some men satisfie themselves with wriggling, or huddling out a few insignificant words, unfit to satisfie any other.

And if Christs Habitual Perfection be also so imputed to us, in a Legal sense, we were habitually perfect from birth to death. Whence it is that some assert an equality of such Perfection in all Chri­stians: The consequents I will not trouble you with reciting; nor stay to enquire whether also his Divine [...]ighteousness be ours in such a Law sense, and so Man be deified.

Either Christ was our Legal Person before we were born, or from the time of our being, or from the time of our believing only. 1. Before we had a Being we were no sinners, nor bound to obey; and therefore needed not to obey or suffer by ano­ther. 2. When we were born, we were not in Christ, and perhaps not Believers till old Age: And so the Elect should Legally be just while they are Infidels, and never sin even in their state of Enmity. 3. If only since believing we were so personated by Christ, then his Righteousness is not imputed to us for all the time of our unrege­neracy, and then we never sinned in Law sense af­ter our believing. If they say that in suffering he represented us as unregenerate, and in his obedience as Believers only, then he suffered not for our sins after believing, nor obeyed to merit pardon of our sins before. If they say that so far as we are sinners, we Legally suffered in him, and as Believers further to merit glor [...] we obeyed by him, the con­tradiction of this is shewed before. If we obeyed [Page 85] so far as to merit glory by the Law of Works, then we never sinned: And if we suffered in him, for all sins of Omission and Commission, we me­rited glory without any other obedience: For the Law requireth nothing but Innocency as necessary to life. He that hath no sin, doth perfectly obey. And pardon of all sin of Omission and Commission, is the pardon of all punishment of Sense and Loss, and so of the loss of promised Life.

Besides that, one that is reputed to have Legal­ly fulfilled the Law, must be unjustly corrected by the punishment of temporal afflictions or death, or loss of the Spirit and Grace, and hath present right to the reward of that Covenant, or delive­rance from all penal evil at least; so that this Doctrine of strict Legal personating Representa­tion, overthroweth the New Covenant and Law of Christ, and all his Kingdom of Grace, and all Religion.

III. The third fundamental Errour which we deny and oppose, is, that the Ʋnion between Christ and (the Elect, say some, or) Believers (say others) is so near, as that his very personal Holiness, Righte­ousness and Sufferings, are in Law sense truly our Ho­liness, Righteousness and Sufferings as the accidents of our persons: As if Christ and Adam, and every Christian, were one and the same subject of Holi­ness, Righteousness, Suffering, Merit or Satisfa­ction. Yet they dare not say that the Union (like the hypostatical) warranteth such a community of Properties or Attributes, as that we may be said to be Divinely Righteous, perfectly Holy, never to have sinned, to have satisfied for our selves, to have merited our own Salvation, and many such like; as seeing the evil of the consequents, though not of the premises.

[Page 86]And here sometime they abuse the similitude of a Husband and Wife; whereas they are distinct persons, and one is not wise, just or guiltless, be­cause the other is so; nor hath the Wife any pro­priety so much as in extrinsick goods, but by con­tract in the proportion granted by the Husband.

Some abuse the similitude of a Head and Mem­bers; whereas Natural Head and Members make one Natural Body; but so do not Christ and Be­lievers: And a Political Head and Members are distinct persons, and one is not guiltless, righteous, wise or good, because the other is so. But of this more before, and elsewhere. Some here abuse the similitude of Christs being the second Adam, which you here (though not to this Errour) insist upon. And then they feign us, 1. To have bee [...] otherwise in Adam than we were; 2. And his sin to be otherwise imputed to us than it was; And 3. The similitude to extend further than it doth.

I. They feign us to have been Personally in Adam, whenas we were but seminally in him, and personally from him. 2. They feign us to have been in him by a certain Covenant, more than we were by Natural In-existence: And that his sin was arbitrarily by God through that Covenant, imputed to us further than we were guilty of it by any na­tural In-being or derivation: As if God made all men sinners by his arbitrary imputation of that to them, which in their natures they were not really guilty of: And as if our guilt of Adams sin, were just of the same sort as his; yea, and our guilt and his guilt were individual accidents of the same indi­vidual persons. But this (which Dr. Twisse oft con­futeth in most of his Books) I have so largely and lately cleared in my published Disputations of Original sin, that you shall excuse me for not reci­ting it here.

[Page 87]3. The guilt of Adams sin being ours by Natu­ral Derivation, cometh to all alike, entirely (accord­ing to the subjects capacity▪ and necessarily, with­out the consent of Parent or Child: Were Adam and all Parents unwilling to communicate it in ge­neration, it would nevertheless be done: But Christ being not a Natural, but a contracting vo­luntary Root and Cause, doth communicate the fruits of his Righteousness only voluntarily by gift of Contract, at the time, in the [...]anner, and mea­sure, and on the terms that he seeth meet.

Here it is observable, 1. That both Generation and Regeneration have much unsearchable: How Souls generate Souls, and how the Spirit of Christ communicateth Grace to Souls, will never here be clearly apprehended, [...]ohn 3.8.

2. But it's certain that the Soul of the Parent is not the Soul of the Child, but some cause of it; and so that they are not one person.

3. We were not persons in Adams person, ei­ther the same or distinct.

4. But Adam caused us, not as a man maketh a garment, house, &c. but as one Candle doth light another, by some mysterious communication of its essence: so formae se multiplicant, by the Divine be­nediction [Increase and multiply,] and primary cau­sation.

5. Though we were not pers [...]nally, but virtually and seminally in Adam, yet when that seed becometh a person, that person is from Adam, and so must pro­portionably be guilty: For who can bring a clean thing out of the essence of an unclean?

6. Adam had the common Nature of all men spe­cifically, and radically, and causally, though as their nature individually constitute their persons, they existed not in him (as extra causam.)

[Page 88]7. So Jesus Christ did more assume the common Nature of faln Man, than the persons of any, or the Nature as extra causas, constituting the individual person.

8. Ponum est ex causis integris; malum ex partiali: Any defe [...]t maketh sin, but good must have entire causes. Adams sin causeth Original sin in all, ex pri­vatione causationis boni: But if Adam had not sinned, every sin of their own would have made his Chil­dren unrighteous.

9. Christ having suffered in the common nature of man so far did it in their stead, and if you will needs so call it, so far represented fallen mankind, as that if they will personally receive him by faith, in the New Covenant, they shall not perish for A­dams sin (or their own) (supposing that the parent is the accepter for the Infant) none perish for Origi­nal sin alone, without the addition of neglected and refused grace and remedy.

10. It is not only the Spiritual off-spring that Christ was a second Adam to, but partly to all man­kind: For by a resurrection (though not to glo­ry) all men are made alive by Christ, Joh. 5.22, 23, 29. 1 Cor. 15. And all have a general conditi­onal reconciliation and pardon, 2 Cor. 5.19, 20. Joh. 3.16. So that actual Justification resulteth to no man from Christs meer representation of him, but from his free donation by the New Cove­nant.

11. It's doubtless that all and only the holy seed, or faithful, are justified actually by Christs Righte­ousness: But in what sence it is imputed to them is all the doubt.

12. It's also doubtless that Christ suffered in our stead: But in what sense & how far is all the doubt: Because we deserved it, he voluntarily assumed it, to [Page 89] demonstrate Gods Justice, Mercy and Wisdom, and deliver us. You say before that, [ It was strictest Justice that was shewed on Christ.] I would not strive about the word: It was strictest Justice as upon Christ: It was perfect Justice as to the ends of Government: But it was not strictest Justice as to us, nor as strictest signifieth the strict fulfilling or executing of the threatning of the Law: For it was not so executed, but the sinner mercifully pardoned.

§. 6. You note that Christ must take our guilt on him or else he could not take our punish­ment.

Ans. 1. He took not the Reatum facti, or the Reatum [...]ulpae: For, 1. Our guilt was the accident of one Subject, and that which Christ took of ano­ther: Therefore the accidents were not the same. 2. Else sin however taken in its reatus culpae would have made him culpable, and formally a sin­ner, and hateful to God, and like to Satan: Which he was not.

2. He took upon him the Reatum poena seu obli­gationem ad [...]oenam: But not ours individually the same; but one of his own instead of ours: Christs guilt and ours were divers accidents of divers per­sons. The obligations nor the Subjects were not the same. Our obligation to punishment was an act of the Law which we broke: So was not Christs: That Law never bound him to punishment: But his own voluntary undertaking and his Fathers im­position. Our guilt was the occasion and reason of Christs assumed guilt: As our punishment indi­vidually was not it that he suffered, but his own punishment to prevent ours. He suffered the just for the unjust, to redeem us to God. God tells us plainly that Christ suffered for our sins, and was [Page 90] made sin, that is, a Curse or Sacrifice for sin for us, that we might not suffer. And cannot we receive this plain Gospel, without spinning so many addi­tional webs of our own? Christs taking our guilt and puni [...]hment is no more, but his voluntary suf­fering in our stead, that we might be pardoned, not by that suffering immediately, but by his free do­nation in the Law of Grace, in his time and on his terms.

§. 7. ‘You note that though we are justified by our own Faith, Repentance, and Obedience to the Gospel against the false charge of being un­believers, impenitent and ungodly; Yet to be free from the curse of the Law, and obtaining right to life, it is Christs Righteousness that we must plead▪’

Ans. Very true thus, 1. It is only Christs Righteousness that we must plead as the Satisfying and meriting cause: 2. It is only the free Donati­on of the New Covenant which we must plead as our Title or Fundamentum juris, and conveying cause of right. 3. It is our Faith and Repentance (in vari­ous respects) which we must plead as the conditio tituli praes [...]i [...]a which is the necessary moral recep­tive disposition of the Subject receiving. These things are all very plain and sure.

§. 8. You seem to doubt whether by the Law of Works▪ Paul meant not the Law of Innocency: And first you seem to mistake me as if I had said that he meant only the Ceremonial Law: I say no such thing. But the whole Law of Moses, considered meerly as a law, and by the Jews ill separated from Faith, and Grace was an operous Yoak, and of se­vere penalties to the transgressours; and though it gave pardon for some faults, it was not meerly for the task of sacrificing but for the great Sacri­fice [Page 91] typified: The Law as a Law doth only Com­mand, and threaten and promise life to them that do all things written, but gave not grace to do it. The Jews left out the true sence of the types and promise which intended the Messiah, in whom it was that the promissory part of the Law was made; and thought the very task of duty or works would procure their acceptance and pardon when they failed. If you are not satisfied with this reason why Paul calleth it the Law of Works, find out a better if you can: But most certainly that is a great mistake that Moses and Paul describe the Law of Innocen­cy? It's tedious to recite the proof.

1. It's enough that the Law of Innocency as a Covenant was before ceased, cessante capacitate sub­ditorum: When all men had 2000 years been Ori­ginally and Actually sinners, will you feign God with all that solemnity to make such a Law as this, [ I know and you must know that no Son of A­dam is Innocent: And I make now a Law that if you [...]re, and will continue innocent you shall live: Else you shall die? This is too gross to be feigned of God.

2. It is enough that when the Law was made they were all under actual mercy which was the grace of the new pardoned Covenant.

3. Yea that the Covenant of Grace had so long before been made with all fallen mankind in Adam [...]nd Noah, and renewed to Abraham with spe­ [...]ial promises: And doth God now repeal or hide it.

4. What need we more proof than so many Laws about Sacrificing and Confessing for forgive­ness? Which the Law of Innocency knew not.

And why else did God deliver the Law as a God of Redeeming mercy, I am the Lord thy God that [Page 92] brought thee out of Egypt, proclaiming his name, Exod. 34.6, 7. The Lord, the Lord God Merciful and Gracious, forgiving Iniquity, Transgression and Sin.

6. Peruse all the Contexts in Pau [...], and you will be satisfied. See Camero de triplice faedere (which Dr. Bolton (of Liberty) was so taken with and magnifieth, and Anthony Burges of the Law, proving Moses Law to belong to a Covenant of Grace. But I have more fully opened all thi [...] in my Methodus Theologiae. No doubt but Pauls d [...]sputes have great difficulty; but this much is very plain.

§ 9. Your next question is about the nature of Faith, whether if it be placed in the will, and include consent, it be not confounded with Love, whose object is goodness.

I have answered this oft and largely in divers Books, and therefore must here be excused from saying any more than this, viz. 1. You must distinguish between Faith Physically taken, and Faith morally taken. 2. Between its formal act and its material.

I. Physically some one natural act, constituted by one Object is called Faith: But morally taken it comprehendeth divers Physical Acts, both of the Intellect and Will: And as it is Justifying and Saving it is so taken: Yea morally it is sometime in Scripture taken largelier, for our Christian Faith, as God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost the Promise, Grace and Glory are all the constituting Objects of it in their truth and goodness; and some­time more narrowly as altogether distinct from Hope and Love; It is taken in the first sense when it is said to be the condition of Justification and Salvation.

And here what you said of the necessity of con­joyning the many similitudes which express Christs [Page 93] Office to us, when but one of them in a Text is na­med, the same must be said of Faith in Christ. A Moral act which hath many Physical acts, must be named by some one, the rest being connoted or im­plied; for it would be uncomely to name them all in every mention of it.

Note also, that the name is varied according to what is specially noted in the Object, sometime Truth, sometime Goodness: So Christ saith, [ The Father hath loved you, because ye have loved me. And Paul, Grace be to all them that love the Lord Jesus in sincerity. If any man love not the Lord Jesus, let him be Anathema Maranatha. And Christ, Luke 14.26. and Mat. 10. He that loveth any better than Christ, cannot be his Disciple. And to be a Disciple, a Chri­stian and a Believer, are all one in Scripture. But when it is the Goodness of another Object that is mentioned, the Act is another thing.

I suppose you will confess that no Faith in Christ and the Promise justifieth us, which doth not in that same instant include, 1. A belief of the Good­ness, as well as the Truth of both. 2. A willing­ness to receive Christ and Grace as good; and a consent to the offer. And if these must concur in the same instant as necessary Conditions of our Ju­stification or Reception of Christ and Grace, call them how you will, and say, Consent is an Effect of Faith▪ or a part of it, all's one to me: But I will say, that Consent is an Effect of one Act of Faith strict­ly taken; viz. Assent; but a part of it taken for Justifying, Saving Faith.

II. After many and long thoughts of this matter, I think they that will pretend to exactness, must say, that Trust is the Formal Act of Faith, as Trustiness or Fidelity is the Formal Object: And that the Mate­rial [Page 94] Act is threefold, Assent, Consent and Practice; and none of these, no not Assent is the Formal Act. Both [...] and Fides signifie Trust; yea and Credere too. And so Fides, as it signifieth Fidelity, and Fides, as it signifieth Faith or Trust, are the Formal Object and Act. I Assent to the Truth of the Gospel, be­cause I Trust the Veracity or Fidelity of the Author. I Co [...]nt to the Covenant, because I Trust the Re­vealer, Offerer and Promiser. I actually give up my self to Christ, because I Trust him. Mr. Pemble Vindicat. Grat. hath accurately opened this.

I have in my Aphorisms, and oft said, that a Christian should rather try his Faith by the Con­senting act, than the Trusting act; because many a one cannot find that they can Trust Christ▪ that yet find Consent. But I explain this, or recall it, as not well spoken: For indeed, though it be Consent by which we may surely know our Interest in the Justifying Covenant (specially when practically exprest,) yet Ass [...]ance or Trust is the Formal Act of Faith, and that Consent is but the Material. For if we Trust not Christs Fidelity, we can neither Assent, Consent or Practi [...]e. But when I spake as aforesaid, I fol­lowed the sense of most complaining Christians who say, They cannot Trust Christ, meaning by Trust, that Quieting of the mind, which is but an ef­fect of Trust: Whereas at that time they take Christ to be Trusty, and a su [...]cient Saviour, but are hindered from the applying and quieting Effect, by Ignorance, or doubting of their own Trustiness, and not of the Trus [...]iness of Christ.

If I be tedious in repeating again my old simili­tudes, you must blame your self that are the c [...]use.

Only one Physician can cure the Plague: S [...]me slander him as a deceiver: He promiseth to c [...]re [Page 95] all that will take him for their Physician, and trust him: Trusting or believing him here in [...]ludeth materially, Believing his Word, Consenting to be his Patien [...]s, and coming to him for Physick.

A Prince in India buyeth the Irish Rebels that had forfeited their lives, of the King, that they may la [...] down Arms, and go with him, and be­come his Subjects: He promiseth to every one of them a Lordship in India, a safe Ship thither, and pardon here; some call him a Deceiver, and distrust him: He tells them, if they Trust him, he will perform all this. Here Trust, the Formal Act, includeth as the Material Acts; 1. Assenting to his Word as True; 2. Consenting to his Off [...]r and Terms; 3. Practically venturing to lay down Arms, and go with him in the Ship, and forsake their own Countrey.

Such is Faith in Christ, when it is made the Con­dition of Justification and Life. The Formal and Materi [...]l Acts together constitute Faith, and not the Formal, or one of the Material (Assent) alone. (Nor hath Bishop Downame well confuted Mr. Pemble about the Formal Act.) In a word (true and pl [...]in) Baptism, our [...]hristening, best tells us the Essence of Justi [...]yin [...] Faith: For that is the Sealing to us the [...]u [...]fying Covenant, that it may actually and solemnly deliver to us our part in Christ, and ri [...]ht to Pardon and Life, which is gi­ven us on no lower terms, than the Fiducial Assent, Consent and Dedication professed by us essentially in Baptism.

§ 10. Your next doubt is about the various Ob­jects of Faith in exercise (Gods Omnipotency, (Truth, &c.) and the various uses of Faith ac­cordingly. [Page 96] This is the point which Mr. Lawson and I seemed somewhat to differ about: And I have in my Treatise of Justification said so much of it, that you shall now excuse me from any more than telling you, that in Sanctification, where one act really produceth one effect on our hearts, and another act another effect, each effect must be ascribed to its proper act. But you must not think it is so in our Justification or Adoption, where that which we receive is a RIGHT, Jus impunitatis & vitae, which is not the Immediate Effect of our Act, no nor any Effect of it at all, but of Gods Donative Covenant, of which our Faith is but a Condition, and no Efficient Cause of our Right. And therefore I doubt not still to say, that we are thus justified as much by a Consenting to Christs Teaching and Sanctifying Grace, as by Consenting to be justifi­ed by his Righteousness; or by fiducial taking him for our Teacher, Intercessor and King, as taking him for a Satisfier and Meriter for us: Indeed it is undivided Taking Christ as Christ, that is the Justifying Condition, John 1.10, 11, 12. 1 John 5.10, 11, 12.

§ 11. In the end you desire me to answer. What Right [...]ousness is meant, Rom. 5. By the obe­dience of one many are made righteous.

Ans. The meaning is, By the Merit of Christs Active and Passive (yea Habitual) Righteousness (also) exalted in dignity by his Divine Perfection, all faln Mankind is Conditionally pardoned, and hath the gift of Life, enacted in the Law or Covenant of Grace, and all true Believers have by that Co­venant actually given them a Right of Ʋnion with Christ, and with him Pardon and Adoption, or Right to Grace and Glory, and have the Spirit of Holiness [Page 97] as the first fruits. All this is included in that Righteousness.

§ 12. Lastly, you ask, What Righteousness Faith is imputed to? Whether that which is by Christs obe­dience, and by Faith, be the same? and perfect or un­perfect?

Ans. Here also you may take the blame that I say things long ago so oft said. By Righteous is meant Justifiable in general: And the plain meaning is, Christ having merited, and freely given Pardon and Life to all sinners that will fiducially accept his purchased Gift, it is not now keeping the Law of Innocency or Works, but only the said fiducial Acceptance of Christ and his free Grace that is required on their part to their Right or Justification. If by Imputed we meant, Reputing it the MATTER of our total Righteous­ness, then it were an unsound sense. But (brief­ly and plainly)▪ Faith in Christ is reckoned to us as the Matter of our imperfect personal subordi­nate Righteousness, and as the Instituted Medium of our Reception of our Ʋnion with Christ, and our Right to Pardon and Life for the Merit of his Righteousness. And I think this is plain and full. For Righteousness to be imputed, is meant no more, but that G [...]d accounteth the person Righte­ous: But the imputing Faith to this, is but to reckon it to be what it is, 1. As the Mat­ [...]er of one; 2. As the Medium or Condition of the other.

§ 13. You here give me an Epitome of Dr. John Owens Book of Justification, which you judge the best that you have seen, and say it is faithfully [Page 98] collected, to save me the labour of reading it, to shew me how nearly we agree.

Ans. I have perused the Book, but being now absent from it, cannot judge whether you have rightly epitomized or recited it, and therefore shall speak to it as yours, and not as his: Thank­ing you for endeavouring to spare my labour, but not for calling me to judge of other mens Writings. Only I must say, I am glad of so much Moderation as is in it; but I [...]etter un­derstand many other Books of Justification; e [...]pecially Mr. [...]ruman, Sir Charles Wols [...]ey, Mr. Gibb [...]ns Sermon, Mr. Wotton, Mr. Gataker ▪ a Ma­nuscript of Dr. Twisses (though I agree not with him in his exclusion of Christs Active Righte­ous [...]ss as justifying us,) Le Bl [...]nk, Placaeus, yea [...]ohn Go [...]dwin, Mr. Hote [...]kis, and many others.

§ 14. Y [...]u take Imputing Righteou [...]ness to be the foundation of Reputing us righteous, and not the same thing.

Ans. The Controversie is de re, or de nomine. De re we agree that a man must be made Righteous be­fore he is Reputed so. De nomine I deny that St. Paul by imputing doth mean making us Righteous. [...] is by all confessed to signifie Accounting, Reckoning or Reputing: Making us Righteous goeth before Reckoning it to us on account. John Goodwin will tell you of many more senses of Imputation than you recite, and more considerable.

§ 15. II. You suppose an Imputation of Righte­ousness to us, which was not ours before that Imputati­on. Ans. Again de re there is a Donation of such: But de nomine I deny that this is it that the Scrip­ture calleth Imputing.

[Page 99]You make this to contain two Acts, and you Name three, 1. A grant or Donation of the thing it self to be ours. 2. A will of dealing with us accord­ingly. 3. An actual so dealing with us.

Ans. 1. De nomine, I deny that [...] doth in Scripture signifie the giving of Righteousness to him that had it not: but the reckoning it on account to him that by gift first had it. 2. Nor doth it pri­marily signifie willing to use, and using as righteous, but only by consequence inferreth it.

But 2. De re here is no Explication how Impu­ting is giving, or how Righteousness is given us: There is no question but all the Righteousness that we have is given us by God: But the very heart of the Controversie is, How the Righteousness of Christ is given us and made ours: In that Righteousness is found, 1. The Matter. 2. The Form. 1. The matter is, 1. The Habits. 2. The Acts of Christ in the Divine and Humane Nature: Are these gi­ven us, and do we possess them in themselves? The Acts are past, and so are nothing now: and nothing is no bodies actual possession. The Acts and Habits were Accidents which sine interitu can­not pass from Subject to Subject: Divers Subjects prove diversity of Accidents. 2. The Form is a Relation, and so an Accident also: And they must needs be two Accidents, that are Formal Righ­teousness in Christ and us, unless we are the same Subject Person. Therefore neither matter nor Relative form in Christ and Man is the same individual Accident. How then is it ours! What is there in it besides matter (the subject and fundamentum) and form? it's plain that, 1. The Benefits are given us, and are our own by that Gift: All that consist in jure, in right, (as [Page 100] to Christ, to the Love of the reconciled Fa­ther, the Communion of the Spirit, to further Grace, Pardon, Glory) are all given us instru­mentally by the new Covenants donative Act: The inherent habits, and the Acts are given us by the Holy Ghost. And 2. These Benefits be­ing given us for the Sacrifice, and Merits of Christ, the price is said by a Metonymy of the cause for the Effect, to be given us, because it is given for us: It was God the Father to whom Christ paid the price of our Redemption, and gave his Active and Passive Righteousness for us: But Morally and Reputatively it is no unmeet phrase to say that is given to us which is given for us in our necessity and to purchase us all this.

If the King would ransom all his Subjects that are Slaves to the Turks, and paid a million for their Freedom, he may well be said to give them a million, though it be but a Metonymi­cal Speech, seeing he gave it for them: Though it was the Freedom or Benefits and not the Money which indeed they received: And so it is here: So God giveth us Christs Righteousness, Merits and Satisfaction; but not properly the things themselves. If there be any more to be said as given us, I should have been glad to know what it is: but your Words shew it not.

Were it the very same Individual Righteous­ness that Christ hath, Acts, Habits and Formal Relation made in themselves our own accidents, it would follow that we are really perfect in Acts, Habits and Relation, and need neither more Pardon nor increase of Grace, nor should pray for any, nor use means for any, nor are we li­able [Page 101] to any corrective Penalty, nor to any want of the Spirits help, but have present right to all that is due to a perfect righteous man; with much more such, which is all false.

Yet is it truly and fitly said that Christ is our Righteousness, that is, the purchaser and giver of it; and that he is made of God to us Wisdom, Righteousness, Sanctification and Redemption, on the same account: Yea though some deny it, his Righteousness may be called the material cause of our Righteousness, as ours is our Jus ad impunt­tatem & vitam, because it is the matter of it's meritorious cause. For if Adam had merited Life himself, his meritorious Acts and Habits would have been fitly called, the matter of his Righte­ousness, that is, of the fundamentum Relationis. Yet this is the difference: Adams Right or Re­lation of Just, would have resulted immediate­ly from his own Acts and Habits c [...]pared with the Law; whereas ours resulteth from Christs Merits or Righteousness, not immediate­ly as ours in it self, but mediately as paid for us to God, and the Benefit (of Right and Righ­teousness) given us by the Covenant, for the said Merit of our Mediator.

§ 16. Next you say, that this Imputation sup­poseth not the Person to have done and suf­fered himself what is imputed to him, and note their mistake that suppose the Doctrine of Im­putation to imply that Christ did commit our Sins, and we perform his Righteousness.

Ans. This granteth much towards Concord: But I hope you understand that the Question is not whether we did Physically do and suffer [Page 102] what Christ did, even in our Natural Persons? but whether we did it Morally, Legally, Civilly, Reputatively, as a Man acteth by an Instrument, Attorney, Vicar, or Personating Representer, [...]o that the Law reputeth it his Act. Why did you not note this, and tell us whether you de­ny this also, as well as our Physical perfor­mance? If you deny not this our Legal or Mo­ral doing and suffering in and by Christ, you did not fairly in your Description of the Mind of your opposers, as far as ever I could understand them. But if you deny this, our agreement seem­eth very feasible. But then you must go over the Explication of Imputation and Donation of Christs own Righteousness again, and better tell us what you mean by them, than these describ­ed words do.

§ 1 [...] Next you tell us of Imputation, 1. ‘ Ex justitia. 2. Ex Voluntaria Sponsione. 3. Ex injuria. 4. Ex gratia.’

1. ‘Things imputed ex justitia you say are, 1. For F [...]deral Relation, as Adams sin. 2. For Natural Relation, and that only as to some temporal Effects.’

Ans. Here we must suppose by your former ex­plication, that by Imputation you mean not Estima­tive reckoning or accounting that to a man which he be­fore hath, but, 1. Donation. 2. Ʋsage congruously an [...] will so to use one. But Adams sin was no gi [...] to us, and came not by donation; Nor is Donation, Imputation.

2. What you say of Adams sin being ours by Covenant Relation, as distinct from Natural Relati­on, is unsound, and the matter needeth fuller ex­plication, [Page 103] which as aforesaid I have attempted in my Disputation of Original Sin. And as unsound is it that Natural Relation brings none but Tempo­ral Evil. It cannot be proved, nor is to be affirm­ed, that without natural derivation, we derive by meer Covenant the guilt of Adams sin; no nor that Covenant derivation is before the natural, nor yet that it goeth any further, or that we contract any more guilt by Covenant, than we do by na­ture; but the Law of nature it self and Gods congruous Covenant is that which virtually judgeth us guilty, when natural derivation hath made us guilty (as Dr. Twisse oft as aforesaid.)

Do you mean that guilt resulteth from Gods part of the Covenant, or from Adams, or from his Posterities? Not from ours, for we exis [...]ed not, and made no such Covenant. Not from Adams part (antecedent to Natural Derivation.) For 1. No man can prove that ever Adam made such a Covenant. 2. Or that God gave him any such power, (much less Command) to bring sin and death on his Posterity by his Consent, or Will, or Contract, further than by the Law of Nature they must derive it from him if he sin­ned. 3. Not by Gods Covenant act: For, 1. No such Covenant of God can be shewn, that made men sinners further than Natural Deri­vation did. 2. Else God should be the Author of sin, even of all mens Original sin, if his Ar­bitrary Covenant made them sinners, where nature did not.

Nay more, it is not meer Natural Relation, much less such Covenant Relation that doth it, (for Relation doth not so operate of itself) but it is that Generation which causeth Fundamen­tally [Page 104] at once both the Relation of Sons and the ad­herent guilt.

And in my foresaid second Disputation I have proved that Natural derivation (even from nearer Parents) deserveth more than Temporal hurt.

§ 18. II. Your second ex voluntaria Sponsione you exemplify in Onesimus and Judah to Jacob, Gen. 43.9.

Ans. 1. There is no talk of Imputation in either of the Texts, as to the receiver: Much less of an Imputation which is Donation. In­deed Paul undertaketh to pay Onesimus's debt to Philemon; and so bids him set the debt on his account; that is, take him for the pay-mas­ter; If this be Imputing the debt to Paul, we are agreed that so (not our reatus culpae, but poenae) our [...] of punishment was imputed to Christ, that is, he undertook to bear it for us: Paul gave not the money to Onesimus, but for him (by promise.) He was not an antecedent surety, but a consequent? He did not promise to pay it in Onesimus Legal person; Nor is the payment pro­perly imputed to Onesimus as any way done by him, but only the Effected benefit given him.

And Judah only undertaketh to bring Benja­min again, or else to bear the blame for ever. No doubt but Christ undertook our ransom, and also to effect our actual deliverance. If you will call this [ Giving or Imputing his own Righteousness to us, so as that in se it is made the same accident of every believer besides giv­ing them the benefits of that which he [Page 105] gave to God for them, I will not imitate you.

III. That of Bathsheba, 1 Kin. 1.21. taketh Imputation as the Scripture doth. For account­ing and reckoning them to be sinners, and using them accordingly, and not as you do for mak­ing them such by making anothers Fact or guilt to become theirs. All these instances are for what I assert. None of them mention any such thing as imputing one mans Acts or Ha­bits to another so as to make them or repute them to be really his.

IV. Your fourth sort of Imputation ex merâ gratiá you say is the imputing of that which be­fore that act we had no right to: And you do well to say there is no other instance of it in Scrip­ture: But you do not well to say without proof that this is it that's meant, Rom. 4. God maketh us Righteous by donation before he imput­ [...]th it to us: Imputation there is Reckoning, Ac­counting, and Judging a man to be what he is. Abraham had Faith before God imputed Faith to him for Righteousness: And that Faith was such a Righteousness as God imputed it to be. To say, it was an imperfect one, is no wonder: A­ [...]aham had none personally or properly in se but what was imperfect.

The sum of all our Controversie is, what Righteousness believers have? You before noted that Righteousness as it is a conformity to the [...]eceptive part of the Law, is one thing, and as it relateth to the retributive part, and is our Jus impunitatis & vitae it is another. The Do­ctrine which I bend all these words against is, that we must have, or have, as our own any such [Page 107] righteousness as is a conformity to the precep [...]ive part of the Law of innocency, whether done by us or Christ. Prove that we have any such Righte­ousness, and I yield all the cause to them that plead for the Imputation which I deny. If we have such a Righteousness we have no sin▪ nor ever had, in the sense of the Law: And have no need of Christs Sacrifice, or are capa­ble of pardon or punishment. I dare plead no Righteousness as mine but [ subordinately as a condition and medium, my faith [...]r performance of the conditions of the Covenant and its gifts, and principally my right to impunity and life for the sake of the Merits, Sacrifice and Intercession of Christ, freely given by him in the New Covenant.] It was Christs perfect Righteousness which merit­eth mine, but I have no perfect Righteousness of my own, either in me, or done by me, by my self or by my Instrument or Vicar, nor given to me, saving as metonymically, that is said to be given to me which was given for me, and the Effects or fruits of it given to me: Besides my imperfect Faith and sincere de­votion to Christ, I know of no Righteousness that I have, but that which saveth me from the Laws Condemnation, and giveth me right to life, which is not perfect obedience to the precept made mine, but pardon of dis­obedience, and a freely-given Adoption, me­rited by another whose merits were never mine so much as by proper gift or imputation▪ though figuratively they may be so called mine. I tire my self and you with tedious repetitions be­cause I find that without the [...] I am not understood▪

Therefore your next inference that Paul spea [...] ­eth [Page 108] of that which was not ours before Imputation, is not true, as is proved.

And your second that the imputation of Faith as a work, is not of Grace, is cloudy, or untrue, or both. If by a work, you mean a work in Commuta­tion obliging God, or any work which maketh the reward to be of debt and not of Grace, it's true that if faith were such a work it would be an act of Justice so to judge it. But Faith is no such work; and therefore it would be errour so to judge it. But if by a work you mean but a Moral act, as made by the Law of Grace the condition of par­don and life, then to Impute, Repute or Judge it to be what it is so made, is an act of Truth and Justice, but such Truth and Justice as is Evangelical, and consistent with Grace, and is founded on Grace: It is Grace, that we have a Saviour to purchase and give all: It is grace that we are not under the Law of Innocency which justifi­eth none but the innocent and perfect that ne­ver sinned: It is Grace that we have a Cove­nant and Law of Grace, which maketh sincere faith a Mediate or Subordinate Righteousness, requiring no more at our own hands instead of what the Law of innocency required: It is of Grace that as this faith is the matter of this subordinate Evangelical Righteousness, so it is the receptive medium of our right to Christ, pardon and life which is our full saving righte­ousness. It being therefore of Grace that it is made so, and also that we are made believers, it must be of Grace, though of Truth and gra­cious Justice, that it is reckoned or imputed to us, for Righteousness.

By debt opposed to Grace, Paul meaneth not, [Page 108] Debitum, D [...]ness, by free gifts thankfully accepted, but quod debetur ex operis propria dignitate, as a workman earneth his wages.

§. 19. Your Description of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness, is either to be understood as spoken in proper words, or as figurative. If the latter, it's unintelligible still till explained: If the first, it is that same Doctrine which I take to subvert all the Gospel; viz. ‘ That [God maketh an effectual Grant and Donation of a true, real, perfect Righteousness, even that of Christ himself, to all that believe, accounting it as theirs.]’

God accounteth not Christs Divine Righteous­ness to be our Righteousness, nor yet his Humane Habitual Righteousness, nor his Obedience to the Law proper to the Mediator, nor his Obe­dience to the Law of Moses (which as such bound not you or me,) nor his perfect fulfilling the Law of Innocency, nor his satisfactory Sacrifice for sin, nor his Resurrection, Ascension, Inter­cession, &c. But he only accounteth these to be the Causes of our Righteousness, and not our Righ­ [...]eousness it self. Though the Meritorious Cause may be called the Meritorious Matter in a re­mote sense, as purchasing the free Gift of our Formal Righteousness.

Though this also is but an unnecessary Logi­cal name, the thing being without it plainlier opened, Relations having properly no Material Cause, and the Subject being it that is usually so called; and our Jus being our Formal Righ­teousness, and the Covenant Donation the Fun­damentum Juris, and Christs Meritorious Righ­teousness [Page 109] being but the cause of that Fundamen­tum or Titulus, it can be called the Matter of our Right but in a remote sense, and such a Mat­ter as is without us, paid for us, but not ours in it self, but the CAƲSE of that Relation which is ours.

The plain inconsistency of a Perfect Confor­mity to the Law made our own, with Christs dying for sin, and our need of pardon, constrained a great part of the famousest Divines of the last Age, to go too far, in my Judgment, in exclud­ing Christs Active, and Habitual Righteousness, to our Justification, and confining it to the Pas­sive only: Such as Olevian, Ʋrsine, Piscator, Pa­raeus, Scultetus, Wendeline, Beckman, and others in Germany; and Camero, with his most Judicious and Learned followers in France; and Dr. Twisse (whose M.S. I before mentioned) Mr. Wotton, Mr. Gataker and others in England: And yet the two last, I think, go not so far as the rest. But Mr. Bradshaw truly told them, that it is not the excluding the Active from Imputation that must untie the knot, but the taking Impu­tation it self in a sound sense, and forsaking the unsound rigid notion of it, both as to the Active and Passive Righteousness. Grotius de Satisfactione hath gone the middle way, and if that Book had been more studied, fewer would have made us a new Gospel in terms, who, I hope, in sense do mean better than they speak.

§. 20. In your explication you further own the subverting sense; viz. ‘ That Christs perfect Righteousness is made the Righteousness of Belie­vers (forma dat nomen) and is accordingly [Page 110] judged, esteemed and reputed theirs, being by free Gift made theirs to all ends and purposes, where­to it would have served, if it had been their own, without any such Imputation, Donation or Com­munication, and God dealeth with them accord­ingly.]’

Ans. This is plainer dealing than we had be­fore. If this were true,

• 1. We are as righteous as Christ.
• 2. We may deny that ever we were sinners; for had we done all this our selves, that is, kept the Law perfectly from first to last, we had ne­ver sinned.
• 3. We had never deserved punishment;
• 4. Nor needed a Sacrifice;
• 5. Or a Pardon;
• 6. Nor should we, during the time of our un­regeneracy, have been left under spiritual death, or at least, after believing, be left under remain­ing sin, and a body of death;
• 7. Nor have been penally deprived of any help of the Spirit;
• 8. Nor of any Communion with God;
• 9. Nor so long be kept out of Heaven, or the Reward;
• 10. Nor ever have been corrected;
• 11. Nor ever had need of Word, Prayer or Sacraments for the helping us to renewed Par­don;
• 12. Nor ever have died and rotted in a grave;
• 13. Nor would the Magistrates Execution of Justice on us for our crimes be owned as Gods Justice.
• 14. All men wou [...]d have the same degree of Innocency and Holiness.
• [Page 111]15. It would have been a wrong to us, when we had perfectly kept the Law of Innocency, to suspend our right to Pardon and Salvation upon new Conditions in a new Covenant.
• 16. We having perfectly kept the Law of Inno­cency as to the death, as soon as we believe, can­not be under another Law of the Redeemer that hath the true uses of a Law.
• 17. Our own actions besides Christs) are not capable of Reward or Punishment.
• 18. All the Texts of Scripture that mention in­herent or practical personal Righteousness, would contradict our imputed Righteousness, or make us supererogate, and be more than perfectly righte­ous.
• 19. We need not fear that any new crime should diminish our Righteousness which is perfect, and can neither increase or decrease.
• 20. Whether we should not be as righteous on Earth (even under Davids or Peters sin) as in Hea­ven? and whether we should be Deified by being divinely righteous, and justified by Gods Essential Righteousness, as Andr. Osiand [...]r taught, I leave to be considered, as you further explain your self.

So much to your Epitome, which if I wrong you by judging it all your own, it is long of your self that own it as aforesaid in the gross: If the Dr. be wronged, it is by you, and not by me.

§. 21. In the conclusion you do no more peace­ably than provedly pronounce us in a manner agreed, enumerating the particulars in which we consent: But I have told you wherein we are not agreed in words, nor in sense, if those words be not mis-used, whatever we are in latent sense.

[Page 112]I still grant that Christ suffered, yea and obeyed, in some sort, in our stead, though not in our person, Civil, or Legal, so as that we are Legally reputed the doers of it by or in him: And that his assu­ming our Nature, and being the second Adam, a voluntary Sponsor and Mediator, was a necessary reason of the application of the fruits to us; and that we are as certainly and happily justified and glorified, as if we had been the doers and satisfiers our selves (so many as are saved;) But not on the same reasons, nor in the same method or manner of conveyance: Nor when in judgment we are ac­cused as having sinned and deserved death, can we deny it, & plead that we were innocent by another, or by imputation, as we should have been, had we been innocent our selves: But we must plead par­don, and a free gift of life, through the merits, satisfaction and intercession of a Saviour.

§ 21. And to all before said, I may add, That they who account all the Laws obligations on each person to be fulfilled by Christ, (and not only satis­faction given for our not fulfilling them, 1. Must suppose that one person of Christ to have been Le­gally as many persons as he died for (or justifieth:) For the Law laid as many distinct obligations on them, as they were persons, and laid them only on their per­sons. It said, Thou Adam, Thou Eve, shalt personally obey perfectly, or die: And the Law of Nature, and of Moses said in sense, Thou Solomon, Thou Manasses, (and so of all others) shalt do all things commanded, and not sin. Now that in all Christs Obedience he was Legally and imputatively so ma­ny several persons, Adam, Eve, Solomon, Manasseh, and so that none of these broke Gods Law, I find [Page 113] not in the Scripture. If you say, Adam was Legally as many persons as are born of him in sin, I deny it: He was the Root of all his Posterity, and they were in him seminally and virtually, but not perso­nally, actually, or imputatively: But by one mans disobedience, as their Root and Cause, many are made sinners: And by one mans obedience, as the Root and Cause, all Believers are made righteous. It is enough that one Saviour and Mediator in a third person of his own did and suffered that which by its merits and value (as attaining the Ends of the Law and Government) procured our deliverance from a necessity of perfect obeying as the Condi­tion of Life, and from guilt and misery, and is be­come the Root, Head and Donor of Grace and Glory.

2. And if (as you say) it be the very thing that is imputed to us as ours, to all intents, as if we had done it, why have you not told us, whether it be all that Christ did, or but some? and what? and how from Scripture you prove the distribution? and whether we have not thus, a Righteousness, which is both too much, and too little.

I. Too much: For we were not obliged by the Law to be born of a Virgin, by the Holy Ghost, to fast forty days, to turn Water into Wine, to cast out Devils, to heal all diseases, and raise the dead, to in­aite the Gospel, and send out Apostles. &c. If you say that so much only of Christs Obedience is in it self our own, as we must else have done our selves, I ask the proof of the limitation.

And II. Is it not then too little, if it must be the Idem, and not the Aequivalens? For some of us are bound to the Offices of Parents, and some of Hus­bands and Wives, some of Servants, some of Magi­strates, [Page 114] some of Souldiers, some to actions proper to the sick, to the old, and other conditions which Christ was never in: We are bound to mortifie our sinful lusts, to pray for pardon and grace, to re­ceive a pardon offered, to yield to the mortifying mo­tions of the Spirit, &c. which Christ was not capable of. It was enough that he undertook all that was fit for him, and necessary by equivalency to satis­fie, and merit a free gift of grace and glory for us, and that he performed the undertaken conditions and duties of all that Law which was laid on him; without doing all the same things which were laid on us.

§. 22. And one thing more I desire you to note, which Grotius de satisf. hath minded us of, viz. The great difference that there is be­tween the case of a Rector and a Creditor, and between a Subject and a Debtor, or a Debt of Obedience or Punishment and a Debt of Money: For the name of Debt occasioneth some men to run the similitude of a Creditor and Debtor beyond the bounds. The Law requireth not a Debitor pe­cuniae, 1. To pay the very same individual money which he borrowed, but the same sum. 2. Nor to pay it by his own hands. But the Law of God ob­ligeth every Subject to every individual act which it commandeth. 2. And obligeth every man to do it all in his own person and not disjunctively by him­self or a Vicar. That Christ is limitedly and only to certain ends and uses a Vicarius poenae in the person of a Mediator, is not because the Law as made to Adam required or accepted it, but the Lawgiver as above his Law. The Law that bound Christ is ful­filled; but the Law that bound Adam and every [Page 115] man is not fulfilled unless that same man do himself all the same things which it commanded him.

§ 23. I conclude all with these professions of my opinion of all these Controversies.

I. I believe that the Libertines (commonly called Antinomians) whose Doctrines I have in many Books opposed, do use those ill Notions, and Me­thods which on pretence of magnifying Christ and free grace, do by plain consequence wrong Christ and Grace, and Subvert the Gospel, and should rather be thence denominated, than from their denying the Law. (The Law of Innocency as a Covenant, and of Moses as Jewish being truly ceased.)

II. I believe that yet most of those that thus err in notions, are not so bad in their Judgment of the matter it self as their words import; but that want of Skill in Terms and Method hath seduced men of dull wits, slight popular studies, and undigested thoughts, to speak worse than they think, and had they more exact distinguishing and expressive Skill, they would shew that they mean mostly as others do.

III. I believe that unskilful contending with the Papists hath occasioned all this, while in the heats of Controversy men bend all their wits to dis­grace the Doctrine of their adversaries, not fear­ing enough unsafe expressions and contrary ex­treams while they seem to serve their present turn: And then departing from Scripture terms as neces­sary to set their hearers far enough from their ad­versaries, are next carried into a multitude of new made articles or notions, contrary also to Scripture sense, when they have once thus left the words.

IV. I believe that most honest, plain, less learned Christians, and the throughly studied and learned [Page 116] Teachers, agree in the true sence of the Doctrine of Justification which the half studied contenders make to seem more difficult than it is, and muddy it by their unlearned questions and words. That is, all plain Christians hold, that [ Christ God and Man is our only Saviour who obeyed, suffered and in­terceedeth for us, as a Mediator, and is become as re­deemer the Lord of all, even of Nature, Grace and Glory, and hath merited, purchased and made a Covenant and Law of Grace, that whoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life; offering his Grace to all, and effectually giving it to some; And that as our King and Lord Redeemer he governeth us by this Law, and requireth Faith and Repentance of all that will be pardoned, and sincere obedience to the end, of all that will be glorified; and as he pardoneth all past sin at our Conversion, so to those that believe and sincerely obey him, he pardoneth all their follow­ing sins; and as he maketh them righteous by giving them his Spirit to perform the conditions of pardon, a­doption and Salvation, and by forgiving all their sins, and freely giving them right to life Eternal, for the sake of his Sacrifice and Merits, so he accordingly virtually justifieth them by his Covenant, and so esteemeth them, and will so use them, and will so judge them finally by his Sentence hereafter, and will receive them as so justified and adopted to his Glory.]

This all agree in till wranglers trouble them; and this much is enough.

A Defence of Christ, AND Free Grace, &c.