CHAP. I. Q. Is there any kind of Righteousness ex­presly said in Scripture to be imputed to Believers? Answ. Yes, proved by Rom. 4.6. from which text together with the context it is also manifested, That for­giveness of sin is that righteousness, which for Christs sake is there said to be imputed to them. A distinction concern­ing a twofold Non-imputation of sin commended to observation. The matter cleared from an Objection, with the At­testation of several worthy Authors.

FOrasmuch as it doth not appear (as hath been said in the former part of this Discourse) that the Righteousness of Christ is in any text of Scripture ex­presly said to be imputed to Believers for Righteousness, or at all to be imputed to them; [Page 2] I therefore think it not amiss to enquire, whether there be any other Righteousness explicitly, or in the express terms of Scripture said to be imputed to them, or ought else there said to be imputed to them for righteousness. These two grand En­quiries, with the Resolution of very many material and useful Questions pertaining thereunto, shall be the Subject of this Second part of the Discourse in hand.

1. Q. Is there any kind of Righteousness expresly said in Scripture to be imputed to believing Sinners?

Answ. Yes, as doth appear by Rom. 4.6. where the words following are express, Even as David describeth the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth Righteousness. And to what manner of persons this Righteousness is imputed, the Apostle informs us v. 11. he there asserting, That Abraham received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righ­teousness of the faith, which he had being yet uncir­cumcised, that he might be the Father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised, that Righteousness might be imputed unto them also.

2. Q. What is that Righteousness, which in the forecited Scriptures is said to be imputed by God to be­lieving Sinners?

Answ. 1. Negatively, Not Christs personal Righ­teousness, or Christs Righteousness in its Essential nature, or as properly taken, as hath been abun­dantly manifested in the former part of this Trea­tise.

2. Affirmatively,Forgive­ness of sin, I say, is the self-same thing with that Justifica­tion, which by the Righ­teousness of Jesus Christ was pur­chased for, and in his Gospel of Salva­tion is promised unto sin­rers con­ditionally upon their re­turn to God by faith and repen­tance, or (to ex­press the matter in the words of St. Paul in his farewel-Sermon at Ephesus, Act. 20.21.) upon their repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, or (as he elsewhere ex­presseth it Gal. 5.16.) upon such a faith as works by love, Forgiveness of sin (which in­deed is all one with the Justification promised to Sinners) is that Righteousness, which is there said [Page 3] to be by God imputed to Believers; Gods impu­ting Righteousness unto them being the self same thing with Gods forgiving them their sins, his justi­fying or acquitting them from the guilt thereof. To the proof of the truth of this Answer, by way of Premisal be it considered, that pardon of sin, or Justification is in many places of Scripture styled Righteousness: among which at present I shall in­stance in a very few, reserving the rest for some other place. See Rom. 10.10. With the heart man believeth to righteousness, i. e. to Pardon of sin, or Justification; as is plain by the Apostles words, as elsewhere in many of his Epistles, so in those words of his Sermon preached in the Synagogue at An­tioch, and recorded Act. 13.38, 39. (Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified—) as also by those words of St. Peter, Act. 10.43. To him give all the Prophets witness, that whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sin. And this is that Righ­teousness, which the Apostle says, that himself with other true Believers hoped for by the faith of Jesus Christ, i. e. by embracing Christianity in opposition to any other Religion professed by Jews or Gen­tiles, Gal. 5.5. In this sense also the word Righ­teousness seems to be taken in Rom. 5. ult. where, as sin through the redundant guilt thereof is said to have reigned unto death: so the grace and mercy of God in Christ is said through Righteousness, i. e. through the forgiveness of sin, to reign to eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Having manifested, that Forgiveness of sin or Justification is styled by the name of Righteousness in other Scriptures, I shall now address my self to prove, that this is that Righteousness, which is said to be by God imputed to Believers, Rom. 4.6. [Page 4] and the matter seems apparent by the Context, i. e. by the words both foregoing and following the sixth verse of that Chapter: 1. The Apostle having as­serted v. 5. that God by faith justifieth an ungodly man, i. e. an undeserving man, a sinner, a man in the strict sense of the Law unjust, he proves it by that description, which David gives of the blessed­ness of that man, to whom the Lord imputeth im­puteth Righteouss without works. This plainly proves, that Gods justifying a Sinner, and Gods imputing Righteousness to him are all one; and that Gods justifying, or imputing Righteousness to a Believing sinner, are the same thing with Gods pardoning his sins, appears by the words following, quoted from the Psalmists saying, Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, and whose sins are covered: blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Whence be it it observed, 1. That that which St. Paul calls Gods imputing Righteous­ness, v. 6. is interpreted to be his forgiving iniqui­ties and covering sin. He makes forgiveness of sin a description or declaration of the righteousness, which is imputed to believers.

2. The Apostle by the Psalmist's saying (Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered) makes him constructively to have said, Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works: So that as he whose iniquities are forgiven, and to whom God impu­teth righteousness without works, is one and the same blessed person: so the forgiveness of sins, and the righteousness by God imputed to him is that very self same thing that doth constitute him bles­sed, or wherein his blessedness doth consist. And this is consonant to what he says in the following Chapter, where v. 16. he calls the gift of Righteous­ness [Page 5] the free gift of Offences; and what is the gi­ving of an offence, but the forgiving of it, we be­ing usually said to give a man that debt, which we forgive him?

3. If Gods forgiving Believers their iniquities and covering their sins were not tantamount, or in effect the self same thing with his imputing righ­teousness unto them, that allegation from the Psal­mist would not have proved the point undertaken to be proved by the Apostle, viz. Gods justifying believing sinners, or imputing righteousness unto them.

4. Observe, that the Apostle in his allegation from the Psalmist, saying (Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin) doth evidently make Gods not imputing sin, and his imputing righteousness to be phrases of the self-same impor­tance, they being indeed the self-same thing, and effected by one and the same act of God, only dif­ferently denominated from the Terminus à quo, & ad quem. And what is it for God not to impute sin, but for God to forgive it; his not imputing sin being one among those many Negative phrases, that are of frequent use in Scripture, whereby to express his forgiving the same? 2 Cor. 5.18. I grant indeed, that there is one kind of a Non-imputation of sin mentioned in Scripture, which is not all one with forgiveness of sin; for the better understanding whereof be it considered, That as the person is (whether guilty, or not guilty) who is accused of sin: so is the Non-imputation of sin unto him to be interpreted, whether of the par­doning, or not pardoning him. E. g. If the person be not guilty, by the not imputing sin to him, is not meant the pardoning of the person, but the direct contrary, viz. the justifying him as not guilty, [Page 6] in which sense the phrase is used 1 Sam. 22.15. where Abimelech clearing himself doth beseech Saul, who had him in suspicion, to hold him guilt­less, saying, Let not the King impute any thing to his Servant—. But if the person to whom sin is said not to be imputed, be indeed undeniably guilty, then by the Non-imputation of his sin is meant the forgiveness thereof. There be these two sensible and remarkable differences betwixt the non-im­putation of sin, as applied to the said different ob­jects or subjects thereof (the guilty and not guilty) 1. As applied to the guiltless, the phrase imports an acquitting or justifying from the guilt of fault; but as applied to the guilty, it imports an acquittance or justification from the guilt of punishment, this kind of Justification being it alone that a Sinner is a subject capable of, as hath been proved in the foregoing part of this discourse.

The former Non-imputation of sin is wholly of debt, and not at all of Grace; whereas the latter is directly contrary, viz. not of strict debt, but whol­ly (in respect of us) of grace: And this is that gracious Non-imputation of sin, which St. Paul doth in the Scripture forecited make to be all one with forgiveness of sin (the subject thereof there spoken of being a Sinner, though a Believer) and with the imputation of Righteousness, I mean that righteousness, to which faith is said to be im­puted.

Lastly, The meaning of the phrase (imputing righteousness) may be best interpreted by the con­trary expression of imputing sin. The old Logical saying is herein verified, Opposita juxta se posita magis elucescunt. Now what is it to impute sin to a sinner, but not to pardon him, to hold him guilty, and accordingly to punish him? And, if to [Page 7] impute sin be thus to do, to impute righteousness must needs imply the contrary, i. e. to pardon, and to deal with a delinquent as righteous. I conclude therefore, that that righteousness, which God is said to impute unto believing sinners, Rom. 4.6. is nothing else but the forgiveness of their sins, or acquitting them from that punishment, which for their unrighteousnesses was due unto them. And that the Imputation of Righteousness to a believing sinner doth not import more, than the plenary for­giveness of all his sins, hath already sufficiently (I hope) been manifested in the former part of this Discourse; wherein hath been declared, that forasmuch as there are sins of Omission as well as Commission, no Sinner therefore can be said to have his sins of the former kind as well as the lat­ter, not imputed to him, or pardoned, but he must be said for that reason to have righteousness impu­ted to him: for he who is judged, or dealt with in judgment as a person who hath omitted no good, must needs be dealt with as one who had perform­ed all good, and therefore as a person perfectly and positively righteous.

Object. Is not Faith it self that very righteousness, which God is said to impute to every blessed person in that forecited Scripture Rom. 4.6?

Answ. 1. I grant, that Faith it self is of its kind righteousness.

2. That Faith it self is imputed to believing sinners for righteousness, as is frequently said in this Chapter.

3. That Faith may in this sense be rationally styled a sinners imputed righteousness, because it is constituted and accepted by God as the sole condi­tion of a sinners righteousness, pardon, or justifica­tion through Gods mercy in Christ.

[Page 8]4. I grant, that the connotation of Faith its be­ing imputed to us for righteousness, or as the con­dition of our pardon is not to be excluded, but is implied in those words of the Apostle, Rom. 4.6. Blessed is the man to whom God imputeth righteous­ness without works: For it is by faith as the means or condition, by, or upon which God imputes righ­teousness to sinners, their faith being imputed to them to that end and purpose, as is oft said by the Apostle in this Chapter, and of which I shall take occasion to speak more at large in the sequel of this Discourse. Yea, it is the scope of the Apostle in this and the foregoing Chapter, to shew what is and is not necessary on our parts in order to our justifica­tion, or the imputation of righteousness unto us, which he asserts to be faith in opposition to the works there in question, the necessity whereof was taught and obtruded upon believers by the false Teachers in those times crept into the Churches of Christ newly planted. So that when it is said by the Apostle in Rom. 4.6. [Blessed is the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works] he meaneth no less, than if he sayd more fully and explicitly, even as he doth in the foregoing Chap­ter v. 28. [We conclude, that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law.] Blessed is the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness by faith, or by means of faith without works, the works of the Law.

But Fifthly, Although God imputeth a believers Faith for, or to righteousness; nevertheless it will not follow from thence, that the righteousness, which God is said to impute to believers in Rom. 4.6. is Faith it self.

6. The truth is, that though Faith be imputed to sinners as the condition qualifying, or capacita­ting [Page 9] them for righteousness; nevertheless that righ­teousness, for which, or to which it is said to be imputed, or which it doth qualifie them for, is forgiveness of sin, or Justification; and this is that Righteousness it self, which God is said to impute to believing sinners in that fore-alledged Text Rom. 4.6. As faith alone, i. e. faith in opposition to works of the Law obtruded by the false Apostles, is imputed as the Condition: so pardon of sin is im­puted to believing sinners, as the full and formal nature of their righteousness and justification. And it is of great concernment, that we preserve in our minds distinct notions of faith and righteousness in all such Scriptures, wherein both the one and the other are said to be imputed by God, faith be­ing to be conceived of in the nature of a Conditi­on imposed, and righteousness in the nature of a Reward in the Law of grace promised unto every penitent and believing Convert.

Lest I should seem to any Prejudicate person to be singular in the said interpretation of Rom. 4.6. which I have so industriously, and (I hope) effectu­ally both proved and cleared, I will close this Chapter with the allegation of the testimonies of several Authors famous in their generation, abet­ting me in the same.

Remisso peccatorum est Justitia imputata, Justifica­tio hominis coram Deo nihil aliud est, quam remissio peccato­rum. Pisc. on Act. 13.38, 39. Our imputed righteousness is forgiveness of sin, says Cha­mier, that incomparable confounder of all Popery, as Mr. Robert Bolton calls him, whom all the Je­suites in Christendom shall never be able to answer, whether in this world, or in the world to come, Cham. tom. 3. l. 21. c. 19.

Notandum primo, Remissionem peccatorum esse justitiam nostram, This is first to be noted (says Mus­culus on Rom. 4.6.) that Remission of sins is our [Page 10] Righteousness— and the righteousness of God, which is imputed to us, is that sin is not imputed.

Justitia imputata consistit—Imputed righteousness (says Pareus on Rom. 4.) consists in Gods gracious pardoning, covering, not imputing our sins; this is its both privative and positive form. Again, Impu­tata Justitia— Imputed righteousness is not legal conformity, or inherent perfection, but gratuitous par­don of sin.

Calvin on Rom. 3.21. calls this a definition of the Righteousness of faith [Blessed are those, whose ini­quities are forgiven them;] and St. Paul teacheth, that God justifieth men by not imputing their sin. The like description of this righteousness, says he, see 2 Cor. 5. that which v. 19. he calls in God the not imputing of sin, he calls in v. 21. a being made the righteousness of God in him. He says on Rom. 4.6, 7. His verbis docemur— by these words we are taught, that Righteousness with St. Paul is nothing else but Remis­sion of sin; and he calls Justification the imputation of righteousness, placing it in the pardon of sin: Surely, says he, the Apostle disputes not there of a part of Justification, but of the whole. And on Act. 13.38. says he, Haec est justitia fidei— This is the Righteousness of faith, while God reputes us for righteous by not imputing our sins. And in his Inst. l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 21. Justitia fidei est— The righteousness of faith is our reconciliation with God, which doth consist in the sole remission of sin. See Mr. Wott. De Reconc. Peccatoris, wherein he doth at large declare both his own judgment and Cal­vin's, with very many others, affirming, that the righteousness imputed without works is forgiveness of sins.

If we examine the doctrine of the Apostle St. Paul and other Scriptures (says that universally Learned [Page 11] and judicious Author Mr. George Lawson in his Theopol. p. 311.) we shall find, that remission and im­putation of righteousness are taken for the same— and p. 312. This imputation of righteousness is the forgiveness of sin. Thus he determines, and (as I conceive) most justly and truly, in opposition to those who hold, that a sinners justification doth con­sist of two integral parts, viz. Remission of sin, and the Imputation of Christs righteousness.

I will conclude this Chapter with the sweet say­ing of Bernard, that most affectionate Postiller, on Cant. Dei justitia est non peccare, hominis autem ju­stitia est Dei indulgentia, Not to sin is Gods righte­ousness, but mans Righteousness is Gods indulgent pardon: I mean the Homilies of our Church. And with the first words in the first Ho­mily of Salvation (which I had almost forgot to recite) they being as followeth:

Because all men be sinner's and offenders against God, and breakers of his Law and Commandments, therefore can no man by his own acts, words and deeds (seem they never so good) be justified and made righteous before God; but every man is of ne­cessity constrained to seek for another righteousness or justification to be received at Gods own hands, that is to say, the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses in such things as he hath offended: And this justifica­tion or righteousness (viz. the Forgiveness of sins) which we so receive of Gods Mercy and Christs Me­rits, embraced by faith, is taken, accepted and al­lowed by God for our perfect and full justification.

By these words it appears, what was the Judg­ment of our first Protestant Reformers concerning a sinners Righteousness, or Justification, viz. that the essence or nature thereof doth consist in For­giveness of sin; and that this is the Righteousness of sinners, which is upon their faith imputed to [Page 12] them by God, and allowed by him in mercy and for the Merits sake of Christ, for their perfect and full justification. Nor doth Justification put a sin­ner any more into a state of acceptation, or grace and favour with God, than doth Remission of sin: I do not say, than such a bare remission of sin, which we may by our understandings abstractedly conceive or fancy in our minds; but than such a plenary Remission of sin, as in the Gospel is pro­mised to penitent sinners. This hath been asserted and proved in the 22d. Chapter of the first part of this Discourse.

CHAP II. Q. What manner of Righteousness is for­giveness of sin? Answ. In order to the resolution of the Question a distinction concerning a twofold Righteousness is premised (the word Righteousness im­plying sometimes Officium, duty com­manded; and sometimes Beneficium, mercy promised:) which distinction be­ing also in other words apt for edifica­tion expressed, the Question it self is thereupon plainly determined.

Q. WHat manner of Righteousness is For­giveness of sin?

Answ. In order to the solution of this Question be it considered, that the word [Righteousness] is in Scripture taken in a twofold sense, either as importing Officium, or Beneficium, Mans duty, or [Page 13] Gods mercy; or as it may be not unfitly in two words expressed, Work or Wages: 1. It signifies certain duty, or duties commanded by God, and by man to be performed, in which sense it is all one with holiness of living. In this sense it is taken Luke 1.75. That we might serve him in holiness and righteousness before him all the daies of our life; where there is no necessity to confine the word [Righteousness] to the duties of th Second Table, and the word [Holiness] to the duties of the First; but both words may well and warrantably be ta­ken as Synonymous, the word [Holiness] being sometimes used in Scripture as expressive of the duties of the Second Table, 1 Thess. 4.3, 4, 7. and the word [Righteousness] as comprehensive of the offices belonging to both Tables, Hos. 10.12. Sow to your selves in Righteousness; the meaning of which phrase is commensurate with that of the Apostle, of Sowing to the Spirit, Gal. 6.8. And in this latitude the word Righteousness is used by St. Peter, 1. Pet. 2.24. That we being dead unto sin, might live unto Righteousness; this phrase of living unto Righteousness being of the same extent in sense and signification with that of the same Apostle else where, i. e. of living not to the lusts of men, but to the will of God, 1 Pet. 4.2. and of St. Pauls ex­pression, i. e. of living not to our selves, but to him that died for us, and rose again, 2 Cor. 5.15.

2. The word [Righteousness] is sometimes used in Scripture as importing certain Mercy by God promised to sinners, and according to the tenour of divine Promise conferr'd upon them. In this sense its taken Isa. 48.18. O that my people had hearkned to my Commandments (this had been their Righte­ousness in the former sense of the word, as appears by that express Scripture in Deut. 6.25.) then had [Page 14] thy peace been as a River, and thy righteousness as the waves of the Sea. In this sense the word [Righ­teousness] seems to be taken in Prov. 8.18. where Wisdom is commended from this, that there is with her durable riches and righteousness. And in one place (viz. Hos. 10.12.) the word being re­peated is used in both the said senses, Sow to your selves in Righteousness (there the word implies Duty commanded) till he come and rain Righte­ousness upon you (there it imports Mercy promised.) The former is styled the Doing of righteousness. 1 Joh. 3.7. (He that doth righteousness, is righteous;) the latter is styled the Receiving of righteousness, Psal. 24.5. (He shall receive the blessing from the Lord, and Righteousness from the God of his Salva­tion.) The former may not unfitly be styled The work of Righteousness; the latter The effect, or the fruit, or the reward of Righteousness.

2. Or to the same purpose, as hath been already said, I may express the matter in manner and form following, and say, Forasmuch as the word Righteousness is relative to the Law, and forasmuch as the divine Law doth consist of two parts, the Preceptive and Retributive part, commonly styled the Precept and the Sanction, Righteousness may be denominated from its relation to each part of the Law: 1. To the Precept, or preceptive part there­of, which is the Rule of mans living, and doth constitute debitum Officii, that which is due from man to God. 2. To the Sanction, or Retributive part of the Law (the Promises and Threatnings thereof) that doth constitute debitum Praemii & Supplicii, what shall be mans due from God in the way of reward and punishment.

Now (to apply the distinction) when I say, that Forgiveness of sin is a Righteousness of its [Page 15] kind, and oft-times meant by the word [Righte­ousness] in Scripture, particularly in Rom. 4.6. I must be understood, that it is a Righteousness of this latter kind, i. e. as it imports not mans Duty, but divine Mercy; not our Work, but Reward; not as denominated from the Preceptive, but from the Retributive part of the Law; in which sense pardon of sin is frequently in Scripture styled Righ­teousness, two or three places whereof have al­ready been made instance in, to which many more might be added: For in this sense it seems to be taken Rom. 6.16. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield your selves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death, or of obe­dience unto righteousness? Where, as sin and obedience, so death (the punishment of sin) and righteousness (a right to impunity, or deliverance from the punish­ment deserved by sin) are opposed; and therefore Righteousness must in all reason be taken in such a sense, as is directly opposite to death (the wages of sin;) and what can that be in effect, but the remit­ting, or remission of it? This is that which St. Paul doth elsewhere style The gift of Righteous­ness, Rom. 5.17. If by one mans offence death reign­ed by one, much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ. What he there styles The gift of Righteousness, he doth in the verse fore­going style The free gift of Offences, i. e. the free forgiveness of Offences: For as sins are styled Debts, and we thereupon are said to give men that Debt, which we do forgive them: so the forgive­ness of Offences is there styled The gift of Offences, he retaining the word gift, v. 17. and what he doth elsewhere oft-times style Righteousness, he doth there style The gift of Righteousness; [Page 16] and it seems worth the noting, that it is a thing not unusual with the Penmen of Scripture (as some Learned men have observed) to accommodate or suit their expressions one to another, of which a­mong many other which might be produced, are the instances following, viz. Jer. 33.17. where, upon mention of the word [Liberty] follows the ex­pression [liberty to the Sword;] and Rom. 14.13. where the Apostle having said, Let us no longer judge, i. e. censure one another, he suits thereunto his following expression, saying, But judge this rather; and Matth. 5.19. where our Saviour having spoken of them, who break the least of Gods Com­mandments, he accommodates his following words thereunto, saying, He shall be called least in the Kingdom of heaven; as also in Matth. 12.50. where, upon the mention of his Mother and Brethren seeking him, Christs reply thereunto is in a suitable phrase, saying, Whosoever doth the will of my Fa­ther, the same is my Brother, and Sister, and Mother. But to return: As Forgiveness of sin is styled Righ­teousness, so a person pardoned is upon that ac­count said to be Righteous, Rom. 5.19. As by one mans disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous; where, as by the word Sinners is meant guilty, or obnoxious to condemnation, so by the word Righ­teous (which is directly opposite thereunto) the plain contrary to it must necessarily be understood, i. e. not obnoxious to condemnation, pardoned or justified, as appears also by the context. And in this sense is the word Sinner, as opposed to Righ­teous in the said sense asserted, taken oft-times in other Scriptures, i. e. as importing subjection not to the power of sin, at least not it directly and im­mediately, but subjection to the guilt of sin; in [Page 17] which sense our Saviour Christ doth vindicate the Woman in Luke 7. from being a Sinner, as she was charged by one of the Pharisees, v. 39; this he doth by proving in his discourse (whether with Simon the Pharisee, or Simon the Apostle) the di­rect contrary, viz. that her sins were forgiven her: this he proves by her love to him, and therefore she was no longer a Sinner, but Righteous, i. e. not obnoxious to condemnation. And in the like sense the word seems to be taken in that saying of the Apostle Rom. 3.7. Why am I judged as a Sinner? that is, He in that saying personating our objecting against his doctrine concerning our own Righte­teousness commending the Righteousness of God, says, Why am I judged, complained of and dealt with as one obnoxious to punishment? Thus the word [Sinner] is also taken in 1 King. 1 21. where Bathsheba taking a course for the future security of her self and hers after Davids death, says thus un­to him, Otherwise it shall come to pass, when my Lord the King shall sleep with his Fathers, that I and my Son Solomon shall be counted sinners, i. e. shall be dealt with as obnoxious to suffering. Why Forgiveness of sin is styled Righteousness, will be declared in the following Chapter. I will only add, As righteousness and unrighteousness are measured by the Retributive part of the Law (the Promissory and Comminatory part thereof) he is unrighteous, who hath no right to impunity, but is obliged to the punishment threatned, both of loss and sense; and he is righteous, who is disobliged from this punishment threatned, or hath right to the contrary (both Privative and Positive) good promised. And in this respect, I say, Forgiveness of sin is styled Righteousness; and a person pardon­ed said to be Righteous.

CHAP III. Q. VVhy is Forgiveness of sin in Scripture styled Righteousness, or a person par­doned there said to be Righteous? Answ. The Question for the more clear­ness of understanding is answered both Negatively and Affirmatively. A Cau­tion to prevent the misconstruction of some places in Scripture, and two Rules suggested as conducing to a right inter­pretation thereof. A few brief Ani­madversions upon some passages in Mr. Will. Bradshawes Latin Dissertation concerning Justification.

Q. WHy is Forgiveness of sin styled Righte­ousness, or a person pardoned said to be Righteous?

Answ. 1. Negatively, The Reason is not, be­cause it doth make a sinner to be righteous in such a sense, or in that very sense as Righteousness is taken for Holiness, for a Non reatus culpae, i. e. for a conformity to the Preceptive part of Gods Law: for as he, who was alwaies thus perfectly Righ­teous, is not naturally capable of pardon; so it is impossible, that any unrighteous person should by any means whatsoever be made righteous, i. e. no sinner, or a person who never sinned.

2. Although an unrighteous person may cease the practice of his former unrighteousnes and be­come righteous, i. e. holy for the future; yea, al­though [Page 19] every pardoned sinner doth in that sense become righteous; nevertheless it is not the par­don of sin, that doth make or constitute him righ­teous in that sense: For in order of nature an un­righteous person doth thus become righteous, i. e. he breaks off his sins by righteousness before he is pardoned, or is in a proximate moral capacity for pardon.

3. It is by Sanctification, and not by Remission of sin (by that change, which is commonly by Divines styled Real, and not by this styled Rela­tive) that an unrighteous person is in this sense made righteous. These Answers, together with the foresaid distinction of Righteousness, are the rather to be minded, because the not heeding thereof seems to be the cause of some, errour in the Papists, who still taking the word Righteous for Holy, and Righteousness for Holiness, have wronged themselves and the truth in confounding Justification and Sanctification, and making Re­mission of sin to consist not only in taking away the guilt of it, but also in the change of our de­praved qualities and conversations, whereby of unrighteous we become inherently righteous. Whereas the truth is, that although this change be required in order to Forgiveness of sin (for that God may have mercy upon the wicked in his a­bundant pardon, the wicked must forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, Isa. 55.7, 8.) nevertheless it is not effected by a pardon; yea, because it is an external pre-requisite thereunto, therefore in reason it cannot be conceived to be effected by it, neither is it any ingredient into pardon as constituting the precise nature of if, I mean as this change is a duty imposed upon us, or a work to be done by us, Ezek. 18.31.

[Page 20]2. Affirmatively; 1. Because it is equivalent to that righteousness, which stands in a perfect confor­mity to Gods Law, or which consists in perfect In­nocency. It is a Righteousness by account, constru­ction, or interpretation, as having, although not the real substance, yet the legal priviledges and be­nefits of the said perfect innocency and conformi­ty: for he whose unrighteousness is forgiven, is in as blessed and comfortable a condition (as to free­dom from punishment) as he, who never did transgress the Law. And for this cause it may well be styled an Imputed righteousness (in that sense as the word Imputed is properly and commonly taken in the writings of St. Paul) that is, a Righ­teousness by Imputation, or account; because a sin­ner, whose unrighteousness is pardoned, shall be dealt with as if he were righteous, notwithstanding that he is not righteous as a fulfiller of the Law of Innocency, or as a person who never trans­gressed.

2. Because, as in respect of the Preceptive part of the Law Forgiveness of sin is a righteousness interpretatively, so in respect of the Retributive part it is only such. A person pardoned, although he cannot strictly and properly be denominated righ­teous respectively to the precept of the Law, ne­vertheless he may truly and properly (without any such terms of diminution as Quasi, or Tanquam) be so styled with respect to the sanction of the Law, the Law having no right to punish him, such an one being disobliged from its punishing power: The Law of God (as to its Condemnatory part) hath no more power over a sinner, when his sin is pardoned, than the Law of the Husband hath over the Wife, when he is dead, Rom. 7.1. for Pardon is the death of sin respectively to its guilt, it gives [Page 21] sin its deadly wound, it slays the enmity of the Law respectively to its sanction, and being thus slain, the sinner is loosed from if, as a Woman once obliged by the Law of her Husband while living, is loosed from it by his death. And upon this consideration a person, whose unrighteousness is forgiven, and whose sins are covered, may well be denominated Righteous.

Before I proceed to specifie any other reason, why Gods pardoning sinners is styled his imputing righteousness to them, be it observed by the way, and by occasion of what was last said, viz. that Forgiveness of sin being considered as a proper righteousness respectively to the sanction of the Law, so Gods imputing it is verily and indeed all one with his imparting it, and implies no more than his giving or bestowing it upon believing sin­ners, in which improper sense of the word [Im­puting] certain Learned men do conceive it to be taken in some places of Scripture. Any matter of profit, benefit, or advantage (says Mr. J. Goodwin) which any waies accrueth to a man, whether by way of due debt, or of free donation and grant, may be said to be imputed to him accordingly; in which sense he understands the word in Rom. 4.4. where the reward is said to be reckoned or im­puted to him that worketh, i. e. that by works deserves or earns it, of debt and not of grace. And so Pareus having distinguished of a threefold imputation of a good thing (jure, injuriâ, & gratiâ) says, That a thing, when it is said to be imputed of right and of debt, is then said to be imputed in an improper sense of the word, Imputari pro Dari, to be imputed being all one as to be given, or con­ferr'd, in which improper sense of the word we are said to impute glory to God, i. e. to give glory [Page 22] to him; and in this sense he interprets that saying of the Apostle, Operanti, to him that worketh is the reward imputed, i. e. is given not of grace, but of debt.

2. Be it observed, that that Righteousness, which in Rom. 4.6, 11. is styled Justitia imputata, imputed righteousness, is in the following Chapter in effect styled Justitia donata; he plainly styling it Donum, & Donum gratuitum, & Donum justitiae, the Gift, the free Gift, and the Gift of Righteousness, v. 16, 17. i. e. Righteousness freely given. So that whe­ther by Gods imputing this righteousness to be­lievers we are necessarily to understand more than his free giving it to them, or bestowing it upon them, I shall not take upon me peremptorily to determine, but will leave to consideration.

3. Forgiveness of sin is styled Righteousness, as some judge, for the same reason as they think it to be styled Justification, viz. because it is merited or procured by the satisfactory Righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. And this is the reason, which is rendred by the learned and pious Author Mr. W. Bradshaw: For the Law, says he, having two parts (the Injunction and the Commination,) there is a twofold Righteousness, viz. of Obedience in refe­rence to the former, and of Justification in reference to the latter; upon which Satisfaction therefore, as given and taken, a person though a sinner is deemed righteous. And the said Author addeth, saying, By satisfaction made Gods Law is fulfilled, forasmuch as his Will was, either that the Law should be obser­ved, or else the penalty suffered; if therefore the one or the other be done, the Will of the Lawgiver is satisfied, so that he for whose sins a full satisfaction hath been made (either by himself, or by some other for him) and hath been accepted by him, against [Page 23] whom the transgression was committed, is as just and righteous as he that never transgressed; there being as much justice and righteousness in repairing the wrongs and injuries done to any, as there is in ab­staining from doing any. E. g. He that by his Cattel hath trespassed against his Neighbour in his Grass, or Corn, and hath made him full satisfaction for the spoil done, or dammage sustained, is as honest and just a Neighbour, and deals as righteously with him, as he that never trespassed in that kind. Wherefore our pardon coming to us, or being derived upon us in the way, or by means of satisfaction made by Christ to the Justice of God for the breach of his Law, may fitly for that reason be styled Righteousness, and a sinner pardoned may be denominated Righteous upon that account.

Thus have I related the reason, as rendred by the fore-named Author, the force whereof I leave to the judgment of others; only saying, that for my own part I shall not much urge or insist up­on it for these two reasons: 1. B [...]cause the par­don of sin Quocunque modo, whether with, or without satisfaction given and taken, doth take away the guilt of punishment, and disoblige from suffering, and doth consequently so far forth make the Delinquent just and righteous. 2. Because I judge, that the two first reasons before speci [...]ied are sufficiently satisfactory to the Question in hand, Why Forgiveness of sin is styled Righteousness. I would thereupon now immediately close this Chapter, were it not, that I think it my part for the Truthes sake, and prevention of Errour, to Animadvert upon somewhat, that is cautiously to be understood in the forecited passage from the Author before named. E.g. Whereas the said Author speaks of a Righteousness resulting upon satisfaction given, and [Page 24] accepted, we must not so understand it, as if a sin­ner were actually pardoned, and made righteous immediately upon Christs satisfaction given, and accepted: for Christs satisfaction is only the meri­torious cause of a Sinners pardon and righteous­ness, and although God did accept it as such, or so far forth, so soon as given, yea, so soon as under­taken to be made, nevertheless it was not the in­tent of God, or Christ, that a Sinner should be actually pardoned, or for it immediately be made righteous; but that for the sake of it he should be pardoned, or constituted righteous in his appointed time and way, by or upon the intervention of a sinners sincere faith and repentance. Yea, this Caution, I think, is very expedient to be observed for the due interpretation of many places of Scrip­ture, where pardon of sin is spoken of, they being to be understood not of actual, but of virtual par­don, which some Authors style pardon inchoate, i. e. of pardon Quoad pretium, or Quantum ad Meritum, of pardon so far forth as purchased by a price paid and accepted. E.g. Rom. 5.9, 10. where it being said, That being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him; and if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.— We are not necessarily there to understand it of actual justification and recon­ciliation with God (for this belongs not to ene­mies, while they are such,) but of virtual justifi­cation and reconciliation, i. e. that we are, as far as belongs to Christs part as Satisfier, justified, par­doned, or reconciled, the price thereof being by him paid and accepted by his Father; all which may very well be, while a sinner doth remain as is said v. 6. [...], weak and deadly sick, or in a state of enmity, as is said v. 10. Yea, all which [Page 25] may be said to be before a sinner be a sinner, yea, before he have an existence in rerum naturâ, even as Creatures, before they do actually exist, are said to be in their existent causes; even so a sin­ners pardon, before the sinner himself be actually pardoned, may be said to be in Christ, or in the death of Christ as the meritorious cause thereof; in which respect all the Sinners in the world may in some sense be said to be now justified, or pardoned, i. e. conditionally pardoned, or justified by the blood of Christ, according to that of the Apostle Rom. 5.18. Therefore as by the offence of one judg­ment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. And for the right understanding of that in Rom. 5.9. with many other the like Scriptures, two things are moreover, as I think, remarkable:

1. That (as I have somewhere read in the most Learned Dr. Hammond) passive verbs and particles being used in Scripture, are sometimes to be construed as real passives, and sometimes only as nominal, i. e. as denoting sometimes the action with the reality of the passion, or effect thereof in the subject wrought upon, and sometimes importing only the action of the agent without the said effect.

2. It is the manner of Scripture oft-times to speak of the effect as wrought, when provision is made of a cause sufficient in suo genere, by which it shall or may be wrought. Thus St. Paul speaks of Death as already abolished by Christ, 2 Tim. 1.10. because Christ hath merited the abolition thereof, although Death is not as yet actually and fully abolished, nor shall be till the general Re­surrection, this being the last Enemy to be destroy­ed. Thus also Christ is said by one offering to have [Page 26] perfected for ever them that are sanctified, Heb. 10.14:

I have the rather thought meet to Animadvert as above, upon the passage forecited out of the said Author, because it seems to have been the mistake, as of certain others, so of that Learned Author himself, to conceive that a sinner is justi­fied, pardoned, or made righteous upon Christs satisfaction given, and taken, as is too too suspici­ous by certain of his mistakes in his Tractate of Justification, ch. 26. (Latin Copy) which it con­cerns young Students in the reading thereof to be­ware of: he there said (ch. 13.) That our effectual vocation doth follow our reconciliation with God: and (ch. 15. he says) that the reason, why Faith is called Justifying, is, because it doth then first de­clare us in our Consciences to be righteous in the sight of God for the satisfaction of Christ: and (ch. 24.) he positively asserts, That Faith is the effect of Justification, and therefore that Justifica­tion doth not depend upon it. The cause of these gross Mistakes in that Author was, as I think, his mis-conceiving a sinners Justification, or par­don, to exist immediately upon Christs satisfa­ction given and taken in his behalf, and his not distinguishing betwixt Reconciliation, Remission of sin, or Justification as barely merited, and as actu­ally conferr'd: And for that cause it is useful to observe, that albeit our effectual Vocation doth follow our Reconciliation quoad meritum, or as it is nudè parta, i. e. as barely purchased by the Blood of Christ; yet it goes before it quoad effi­caciam, or as it is actually conferr'd. And be it further observed, that the reason of Faiths being called Justifying, is not either primarily, or princi­pally, and much less only, because it doth manifest us in our Consciences to be justified, but because it doth [Page 27] suo modo, scilicet per modum conditionis praestitae, i. e. as the condition of our Justification actually per­formed, it doth introduce our Justification, or actually justifie us by, or in the virtue of Gods promise, Faith being therein constituted the con­dition thereof, and consequently our Justification depending upon our Faith, as Res conditionata doth depend, or is suspended upon that, which in any promise is constituted the condition of enjoy­ing it. But I acknowledge this a digression from the matter in hand.

CHAP. IV. Q. What peculiar Names have certain Modern Authors used to give to the said imputed, or imparted Righteous­ness (the Non-imputation of sin) where­by to distinguish it from that other kind of righteousness, which doth consist in a practical conformity to the Law of God? Answ. They have distinguished them by such Names, or Epithetes as these, viz. Active and Passive; Negative and Positive; Proper and Improper; Li­teral and Interpretative; Legal and Pro-legal; to which is added, Primary and Secondary, with the Authors Opi­nion concerning the fitness of the said diacritical, or distinguishing Titles.

Q. ARe there any peculiar Names, or Titles given to the said imputed Righteousness, i. e. to forgiveness of sin, whether by humane Au­thors, [Page 28] or in the Sacred Scriptures, whereby to distin­guish it from that other kind of Righteousness said to consist in a conformity to the Precept, or Precepts of the Law.

Answ. Yes: the truth of which Answer I shall exemplifie by instances of both kinds, the former whereof shall be the Subject of this Chapter. I have observed, That the righteousness of pardon is for distinctions sake by certain Modern Writers styled a Passive righteousness, and the other Active: And I do judge them very fitly so denominated, because respectively to the one we are Patients, or the Subjects recipient; and with respect to the other we are Agents. And thus is the matter ex­pressed in Scripture. Wrought righteousness, Heb. 11.33. Worketh righteousness, Psal. 15.2. Receive righteousness, Psal. 24.5. Receive forgiveness of sin, Act. 26.18.

2. It is styled a Negative, or Privative righteous­ness, and the other Positive. And I do judge the former word no less fit in its application than the latter, because forgiveness of sin is in Scripture expressed by a Not-imputing it, and said to be a righteousness without Works; as will be declared more at large in the following Chapter.

3. It is by some Author, or Authors styled an improper Righteousness; and this among others is the denomination given to it by the Learned Mr. J. Goodwin, who calls the other kind of Righte­ousness a Proper righteousness. But whether this de­nomination be so fit, I doubt: for seeing there are two parts of the Law, the Precept and the Sancti­on (as was said in the Chapter immediately fore­going) and forasmuch as a person may be deno­minated righteous respectively either to the one, or to the other; I therefore judge it to be justly [Page 29] questionable, whether a man may not properly be denominated righteous from the one, as well as from the other, or whether a dis-obligation from punishment be not in propriety of Speech a Righ­teousness of its kind, as Non-obligation to fault is a proper Righteousness of another kind If any Reader therefore be dissatisfied with those di­stinguishing terms (Proper and Improper,) he will, I presume, be better pleased with the terms, which I will here suggest instead thereof, viz. Primary and Secondary. Although I do not remember, that I have read the Terms thus used, and ap­plied in any other Authors; nevertheless as the Terms are obvious to be thought upon, so I think them in this case to be very fit, forasmuch as that Righteousness, which doth consist in a con­formity to the precept of the Law is primely in­tended, there being no place for the other, but upon the defect of this, for which cause that other may be said to be Secunda tabula post naufragium justitiae prioris.

4. It is by some called a Righteousness con­structively, or by interpretation, and the other a Lite­ral or Text-righteousness; and by these terms (to my remembrance) doth the said Learned Author Mr. J. Goodwin distinguish them. But this ex­pression of his doth (I think) need Explication, and must be warily understood: for although for­giveness of sin respectively to the preceptive part of the Law be a Righteousness only by interpre­tation, or imputation (in the strict and proper sense of the word imputed,) or in loco, i. e. a Righteousness instead of a Righteousness; never­theless respectively to the Retributive part of the Law (destroyed, abolished, or spoiled of its damn­ing power) it is truly, properly, and literally a Righteousness.

[Page 30]5. Forgiveness of sin is somewhere (to my re­membrance) in the Writings of Mr. Baxter styled our Justitia Pro-legalis, our Pro-legal righteousness; and (if I do not mis-remember) Christs satis­faction, or Satisfactory righteousness is by him so styled also: and, I think, that both of them may well and rationally be so called, because both of them do bestead us (Sinners) instead of that pri­mary Righteousness, which doth consist in a con­formity to the Precept of the Law; yet with some difference, each of them after their manner, in a diverse way, or upon an account peculiar to each, viz. our pardon it self as the matter, which doth constitute that our Righteousness, and Christs sa­tisfactory Righteousness as the Meritorius cause thereof. And be it observed, that I do not say, as Christs Righteousness is in it self immediately im­puted to us (for this is that Doctrine, which hath been professedly opposed, and at large refuted in the foregoing part of this Discourse) but as the Meritorious cause of it, Jesus Christ having by his Satisfaction procured our Pardon, and such a Pardon, as doth effectually bestead us instead of that other kind of Righteousness, which consists in a perfect conformity to the Law.

6. I have observed also, that as some Authors do call Pardon of sin a Legal righteousness; so O­thers, if not the same also, do style that other Righteousness, which consists in a perfect confor­mity to the Law, a Legal Righteousness: and for this cause it behoves us, in matters of Contro­versie specially, intently to observe the meaning of what is written, and the mind of the Writer, lest by mistaking his true sense we fall to strife a­bout words, a thing to be detested, and with much care to be avoided. But for the warrant­ing [Page 31] of the term [Legal] as applied to both the said Righteousnesses, be it known, That those, who call Pardon of sin a Legal Righteousness, do take the word [Legal] sensu forensi, in a judiciary or Court-sense, they meaning thereby, that a Sin­ner pardoned shall in Judgment, and before Gods Tribunal be discharged, or legally acquit­ted, i. e. by the Law of the Gospel; and there­fore do they call his Pardon a Legal righteousness, a person so discharged being Rectus in Curiâ, and in account of that Law righteous. On the other side it concerns us to know, that they who style our inherent qualitative Righteousness by the name of a Legal righteousness in way of con­tradiction to Pardon of sin, do take the word [Legal] in sensu morali, in an Ethical, or Moral sense; not in a Jural or Court-sense, and as Lawyers, but in a School-sense, and as Philo­sophers take the word, the word [Legal] being all one with them as Moral, and as corresponding to the Laws Precept in the Letter thereof: And thence it is sometimes styled by them a Literal, or Text-righteousness, the Text it self, or Let­ter of the Law, as the Rule of Duty, requiring it. Yet this I must needs say, That albeit Par­don of sin may in a well explained sense, as afore­said, be called a Legal righteousness; yet con­ceive, that they who call the other kind of Righteousness, which is contrary to Pardon, a Legal righteousness, do express themselves in language more agreeable both to reason and to the Scriptures, wherein we read conformity to the Precepts of the Law styled by the Apostle [...], a Righteousness which is in the Law, Phil. 3.6. or the Righteousness of the Law; and Pardon of sin is styled a Righteousness [Page 32] [...], without the Law, Rom. 3.21. as I shall have occasion to declare in one Chapter or another of this Discourse, and wherein I shall in­timate, by what distinguishing words or phrases this imputed Righteousness (Forgiveness of sin) is held forth, or expressed in the Sacred Scriptures, and this will, in part at least, be the Subject of the next Chapter.

Q. By what distinguishing words is the said Imputed Righteousness styled in Scripture? Answ. It is styled a Righ­ousness without works. Hereupon it being questioned, how, or in what sense it is, or can be so said to be (forasmuch as the expression, a Righteousness without Works, is in sound like the expression, a Righteousness without righteousness) the Question is answered more at large, 1. Negatively, 2. Affirmatively.

Q. BY what distinguishing Names, or phrases is Forgiveness of sin expressed in the Sa­cred Scriptures?

Answ. It is styled by the Apostle St. Paul, a Righteousness without Works, Rom. 4.6. Blessed is the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works. Now what he means by this Righteousness without works (for a Righteousness without works sounds like a contradiction) he doth plainly express in the verses immediately following, quoted from the Psalmist, saying, Blessed [Page 33] are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. I need not prove, that forgiveness of sin is the thing it self, or that very righteousness without works, which is there said to be imputed by God to believing sinners; for, besides that the Apostle doth presently, so soon as the expression had drop'd from his pen, interpret the matter (making forgiveness of sin, or a non-imputation thereof, a description of righteousness without works) I have already more at large made proof of the same in the first Chapter of this second Part of this Discourse. The onely thing therefore that is here needful to be done, is to manifest the reason why S. Paul doth style forgiveness of sin by a name so seem­ingly uncouth and strange, (a righteousness w [...]th­out works;) which words from the mouth of an ordinary Speaker would be thought to be of affi­nity with these, (a righteousness without righte­ousness.) The reason or reasons hereof I will endeavour to manifest in answer to the follow­ing Question.

Q. How or in what sense is it true to say, That forgiveness of sin is a righteousness without works? or upon what grounds or in what respects doth S. Paul so style it?

Answ. 1. Negatively: The reason is not be­cause no manner of work at all is to be done by sinners, (Gods helping Grace inclining and en­abling them thereunto) that this righteousness may by God be imputed to them, or for the righteousness sake of Christ conferred upon them: this cannot be the reason; for nothing is more plain and evident by the current of Scripture, than that the work of Faith, of Re­pentance [Page 34] and Conversion, is required of sinners, and by the Law of Christ made absolutely ne­cessary in order to the forgiveness of their sins. See Luke 13.3, 5. & 24.47. Acts 3.19. And it concerns us the rather to take heed of thinking, that pardon of sin is styled a righteousness with­out works, as if no good work were to be done by sinners, that they may be morally capa­ble of having it for Christs sake bestowed upon them by God, because such an imagination is an error of most dangerous consequence, yea so dangerous, as that should it be practically enter­tained, a sinner could not possibly be saved. As was said by the Comedian concerning the Fami­ly of a profuse Spend thrift, Ipsa si cupiat salus sor­vare hanc familiam, prorsus non potest: In like sort may it be said concerning such sinners, who ima­gining or presuming as aforesaid, do practise ac­cordingly. The Saviour of the world (all things considered) cannot save such sinners, i. e. during such. Onely I must say, that Gods Grace and Mercy is wonderful towards some Christians of better Hearts than Heads, in preserving them from living up to their unsound Opinions, which yet they are not contented to hold onely to themselves, (like that private Faith spoken of by the Apostle, Rom. 14.21.) but do also openly hold forth in Press and Pulpit, and do zealously con­tend for (under pretence of Christs Sceptre Ad­vanced) Christ alone Exalted, the Freedom of Grace, and Gratuitous Justification Vindicated; with the like specious pretences prefixed as glo­rious Titles to their Books.

2. Affirmatively. Forgiveness of sin may well and truly be styled a righteousness without works, because no works at all of ours did pur­chase [Page 35] or procure the grant thereof, according to the Terms expressed in the Covenant of Grace, being the sole Purchase of Christs own righte­ousness, without any work of ours, yea without so much as a request from our lips, Gods par­doning Covenant being granted without any Petition from Man, God in Christ having pre­vented Man with that blessing of his good­ness.

2. It may be truly styled a righteousness without works, because no work of ours doth ingredi naturam rei, i. e. is any ingredient into it, or any constituent cause of it, i. e. this kind of righteousness doth not lie in or consist of works done by us, it being wholly and solely the work of God done upon us, or a work of Divine Mer­cy exercised towards us; briefly, it being Gods blessing conferred upon us. I call this righ­teousness a blessing, because the Apostle not onely says, (Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven;) but he doth also style it [...], v. 9. (cometh this blessedness on the Circumcision onely—) and [...], a blessing, the blessing of Abraham, Gal. 3.14. because it is that where­with God blessed believing Abraham. And it seems worthy of Observation, that herein lies a notable and grand difference betwixt the righ­teousness of Sanctification and this of Justifica­tion, or remission of sin; in that the former is a righteousness of works, made up of Mans works constituting the same (I must here be under­stood to mean Sanctification Actual, and not meerly Habitual;) whereas this other kind of righteousness is of no such complexion or con­stitution. For although the work of Faith, Re­pentance, and new Obedience, (in full purpose [Page 36] of heart at least) be an external requisite unto it; nevertheless this righteousness it self is en­tirely the work of God, and consisteth in this acquitting or absolving a sinner from the guilt of his sins, or (as the Apostles expression is) it is Gods not imputing sin to a believing sinner; the said Absolution and Discharge, or non-im­putation of sin, being the very formalis ratio, the quiddity or essential nature of this imputed righteousness, and to which Faith it self is said to be imputed, as will be afterwards declared. But although pardon of sin may be truly styled a righteousness without works, for the reason in this Paragraph specified: nevertheless I have not alledged it as the genuine reason, upon which S. Paul doth in the Text so style it: for Faith it self doth not ingredi naturam rei, is no ingre­dient into remission of sin, or any constituent cause of it; and the Apostles intent in this Chapter is far from insinuating a sinners righte­ousness or justification to be without Faith; yea his scope is to prove the contrary, viz. that Faith is imputed to us for, or unto this righte­ousness. I will therefore alledge the following reason as that, which doth (I doubt not) direct­ly and plainly suit with the mind and meaning of the Apostle.

3. S. Paul styles pardon of sin, or Gospel ju­stification, a righteousness without works, in opposition to those works, the necessity where­of to the salvation of sinners was in those days taught by the false Apostles; against which as not necessary to the justification of believing sinners, he doth designedly argue in that and in other of his Epistles. So that the Apostle styles it a righteousness without works, because there [Page 37] are a certain sort or sorts of works, that are not at all by any standing Law of God now requi­red of sinners, in order to the imputation of this righteousness, viz. such works as are opposite to the Faith of Christ Incarnate, (these being the works excluded by the Apostle in the foregoing verses) and such works as do (really or reputa­tively) make the reward to be of Debt, and not of Grace, as is manifest by the preceding v. 4, 5. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt; but to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith — Now what these works so excluded by the Apo­stle are, I shall somewhat more distinctly specifie in some other Chapter. In the mean while be it observed what works are not excluded, viz. not Faith in Christ, the work of Faith, or the works of Faith; for by worketh not, v. 5. we may not, ought not, cannot (agreeably to the ana­logy of Faith) understand the Apostle to have excluded all and every Christian good work: as if he had said, To him that repenteth not, con­verteth not — For such a construction would make S. Pauls Doctrine not onely contrary to Christs and other his fellow Apostles, but would also set him at odds with himself, and that not onely in what he writes in other of his Epistles to other Churches, but also in this of his to the Romans, particularly chap. 8 13. If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye through the Spirit do mor­tifie the deeds of the body, ye shall live. And Chap. 2.10. Glory, honour, and peace to him that worketh good. And Chap. 6.16. where he expresly speaks of obedience unto righteousness, intimating thereby the necessity of a Christians sincere obedience, in order to the partaking of that righteous­ness [Page 38] which I am now speaking of.

Finally, forasmuch as that righteousness which God is said to impute to believing sin­ners, Rom. 4.6. is there styled a righteousness without works; I shall offer two things to the consideration of those, who do assert the impu­tation of Christs righteousness it self to Belie­vers; and that this is the imputed righteousness meant by the Apostle in that Scripture. I de­sire them to consider, how or in what sense Christs righteousness can be styled a righteous­ness without works: for is not Christs righte­ousness a perfect legal righteousness, made up of works, and consisting (his habitual righte­ousness being supposed) in his fulfilling all righ­teousness, to speak in his own words, Matth. 3.15.

2. How are those capable of pardon of sin, who have a perfect righteousness of works im­puted to them? or whether forgiveness of sin and imputation of the said perfect righteousness be not utterly inconsistent? For if we are per­fectly righteous with a righteousness of works, whether in our persons, or by imputation of that righteousness of works wherewith Christ was righteous, we have (as I think) no need of forgiveness; and if we need forgiveness, it from hence follows, that God doth not impute the said righteousness of works unto us, accounting us thereupon perfectly righteous, and upon that account, or as such, acquitting us; but that we are justified (for so indeed we are) as Malefactors by a Pardon purchased by the righteousness of Christ.

CHAP VI. Another distinguishing Phrase, whereby the said imparted or imputed righteous­ness (forgiveness of sin) expressed in the Writings of S. Paul, is a righte­ousness of God, and without the Law, the Reasons whereof are specified in the Chapters immediately following.

Q. BY what other distinguish'd Title or Titles is the said imputed righteousness (the non-impu­tation or remission of sin) styled in Scripture?

Answ. It is styled A righteousness of God with­out the Law, Rom. 3.21. But now the righteousness of God without the Law is manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets. By the righteousness of God is not there meant that righteousness of God wherewith he is righteous, or which de­nominates him righteous, (in which sense it is taken in other verses of this Chapter, ver. 5, 25, 26.) but a righteousness wherewith (as the gift of God) we are righteous; which righteousness here meant is that righteousness which I am now speaking of, and which doth consist in a sinners justification, or the remission of his sin, as doth appear by the following verses, ver. 22, 29, 25, 26. Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all that believe— Being justified freely by his grace, through the re­demption that is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set [Page 40] forth to be a propitiation through faith in his bloud, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins, that are past through the forbearance of God. To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus, [...], as it is in the Original, which word for word being rendred is, him who is of the faith of Jesus, i. e. of the Christian Faith. There is a kind of righteousness, which in ano­ther Epistle S. Paul styles a righteousness [...], in the Law, and [...], of the Law, ver. 9. and for distinctions sake, or in opposition thereun­to he calls the righteousness which I am here speaking of, the righteousness of God without the Law, and the righteousness of God which is by the faith of Jesus Christ; by which righteousness of God, though I do interpret justification or re­mission of sin, (the righteousness promised in the Law of Faith) to be meant thereby: ne­vertheless I would not be understood as exclu­ding, but as including that righteousness also, which in the Law of Faith is commanded; the said Phrases, (the righteousness of God without the Law, and the righteousness of God which is by the faith of Jesus Christ) being in my opinion com­prehensive of both the said righteousness, as well of that which is commanded, as of that which is promised in the Law of Faith. As for this later phrase (the righteousness of God, which is by the faith of Jesus Christ) it being one of those Phrases, whereby the righteousness which I am now speaking of (Justification or Remission of sin) is expressed in Scripture, I will speak of it distinctly and more at large in a peculiar Chap­ter. In the mean while I will answer two or three Questions referring to the title in hand, [Page 41] viz. Why is this imputed righteousness (forgive­ness of sin) styled the righteousness of God? and, Why without the Law? The Answer to which Questions shall be the subject of the Chapters next ensuing.

CHAP. VII. Q. Why is the said imputed righteousness styled the righteousness of God? Answer hereunto, It is answered both Negatively and Affirmatively, What is, and What is not, the Reason thereof.

Q. WHY is this imputed righteousness styled the righteousness of God?

Answ. Negatively, not because it may not in any commodious or fitting sense be truly sty­led Mans own righteousness: for this gift of Grace, or gift of righteousness, (as the Apo­stle styles it, Rom. 5.15, 17.) is verily a mans own, and so to be accounted, as any other gifts of God are, that are by God freely and graci­ously bestowed upon him. And in this righte­ousness of his own a sinner need not fear to appear before God, or at the judgment seat of Christ, no more than a Malefactor at the Bar with the Kings Pardon in his bosom: for though an ungodly or impenitent sinner shall not stand in the judgment; nevertheless a penitent belie­ver, being one of the congregation of the righ­teous, [Page 42] may assure himself that it shall then be well with him, and that he shall not come into condemnation, Isa. 3.10. Joh. 1.24. and this up­on account (under Gods mercy in Christ) of his own righteousness.

2. Affirmatively, it is styled the righteous­ness of God in opposition to one kind of righ­teousness, which the Apostle styles our own righteousness, Rom. 10.3. They being ignorant of Gods righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. And in a like opposition to our own righteousness doth S. Paul call it the righteousness which is of God, Phil. 3 9. Not ha­ving mine own righteousness, which is of the Law; but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. Where it is very considerable, what that righteousness is which S. Paul doth there style his own, and as such rejects even as loss and dung, that he might gain the righteousness of God, or that righteousness which is of God by Faith. Now that we may understand the Apostles meaning, he doth so far interpret himself, and the matter in hand, as to give a description of that his own righteousness, saying, [...], which is of the Law; and which he styles ver. 6. [...], which is in the Law; which what this righteous­ness is, because it doth greatly concern us to know; I will therefore endeavour to manifest in answer to another Question, which will be the subject of the next Chapter.

CHAP. VIII. Q. What Law doth the Apostle mean in sty­ling pardon of sin a righteousness with­out Law? Answ. In answer hereunto it is specified both what is and is not the reason thereof. A large explication of Phil. 3.9. wherein is manifested what righteousness that is, which he calls his own, and yet doth disown; and a vin­dication of the said Scripture from the misconstruction of divers Brethren.

Q. WHat Law doth the Apostle mean, where speaking of his own rejected righteousness, he defines it to be a righteousness, which is of and in the Law?

Answ. This is a Question (as hath been al­ready intimated) of great moment; and there­fore I will answer to it more punctually, and that both negatively and affirmatively.

1. Negatively, he doth not mean the Law of the Gospel, and consequently by his own righteousness he doth not mean a righteousness conform thereunto, either that kind of righte­ousness which is promised in it, or commanded by it; neither of which is meant by the Apostle 'tis easie to demonstrate.

1. Then be it considered, that under the phrase (his own righteousness, which is in or of the Law) he doth not mean a righteousness pro­mised [Page 44] in the Law of Christ, or Gospel, is evi­dent: for this righteousness so promised is ju­stification it self, or remission of sin for the righteousness sake of Christ: and to renounce this is in effect to have renounced his part in Paradise, and the Kingdom of Heaven, or the Crown of Life, as dung.

2. Nor was the renouncing of this his Evan­gelical righteousness the way to win Christ, make what construction we will or can of that phrase; which if construed (as well it may) of the favour of Christ, and those high privileges that come by Christ, it may be truly said, that the Apostle in renouncing his Evangelical righ­teousness promised in the Gospel, had renoun­ced pardon of sin, and justification by Christ; for even this is that high favour and privilege, (that favour of favours, that privilege of privi­leges, that mercy of mercies) that is promised by Christ in his Law of Grace to all penitent Believers.

2. That by his own righteousness, which is in or of the Law, the Apostle doth not mean that righteousness which is commanded by the Law of the Gospel, is no less evident than the former: for, 1. The righteousness there com­manded is believing in Christ, love to Christ, repentance for sin, in a word obedience to Christ. 2. This righteousness is not onely com­manded in the Gospel as matter of duty, but it is thereby constituted the condition of enjoy­ing that other kind of righteousness which is therein promised.

3. Consequently, to slight the having of this righteousness, or to renounce this, is interpre­tatively to renounce the other: (even as to de­spise [Page 45] the means, is constructively to despise the end;) for it is so far from being the way to win Christ, i. e. his favour, as that the neglect of that Evangelical righteousness is the direct way to miss or lose Christ and his favour; God having in his Word of Life (the Gospel of our Salvation) entailed the righteousness therein promised upon the peformance of the righteous­ness therein prescribed, as the Condition there­of.

4. Consider the words of that verse 10. That I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conform­able to his death. In which two things to my purpose in hand are considerable: 1. That by the knowledge of Christ, the power of his re­surrection, the fellowship of his sufferings, and conformity to his death, is meant that Evange­lical righteousness, consisting in a Christians both active and passive obedience, which is com­manded by Christ in the Gospel Law, in order to the enjoyment of the righteousness therein promised by him.

2. Consider that the Apostle was so far from renouncing that branch of his Evangelical righteousness as loss and dung, as that he doth highly value it, and so highly prize it, and the excellency thereof, as to suffer the loss of all things that stood in competition with it, and to account them as dung, ver. 8.

3. Yea thirdly, from the verse and verses immediately following it is considerable what the reason was, why S. Paul did not renounce, but incomparably prize, that his Evangelical righteousness, viz. Because he well knew,

[Page 46]1. That without this righteousness he could not be found in Christ, i. e. be a true member of Christs body. Where note, that S. Paul say; not, that I may be found in [...]s righteousness, much less in his righteousness imputed to him; but simply in him, in Christ himself, this being the description of the spiritual estate of a Belie­ver oft times in the New Testament, he there being said to be one in Christ, Rom. 8.1. & 16.7.

2. The Apostle knew full well, that there was no winning of Christ without that his Evange­lical righteousness, and that this was the mean [...] by God appointed for the winning of him: for, says he ver. 15. If by any means I might attain to the resurrection of the dead. To attain to the re­surrection of the dead, is in the language of the Apostle elsewhere to obtain a better, i. e. a most blessed resurrection at the last day, Heb. 11.35. or in the language used by him in the 14 ver. of this chapter, it is to obtain that, which in allu­sion to the Olympick Games (a thing frequent in the Writings of this Apostle) he styles the price of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus, i. e. of our Christian calling. Now to attain to this, or to obtain this, what is it in effect, or true con­struction of the Apostles meaning; but to win or gain Christ, whom we cannot be said in the most full and complete sense to have won, till we have so attained or obtained? And that the pursuing of the said Evangelical righteousness was the means of attaining the said price, ap­pears by his saying, [...], If by any means I may attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Which be­cause as yet to that time he had not (confessedly ver. 12.) attained, he acquaints us therefore with his present and constant pursuit of the means, [Page 47] saying ver. 12, 13. I follow after, if that I may ap­prehend— And this his practice in the con­stant pursuit of the means of winning Christ, of attaining or obtaining the prize at last, he ex­horts the Philippians, and in them all Christians, to imitate, saying, Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and ver. 17. Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which so walk as— The righteousness which S. Paul did there renounce, he doth express in one re­peated word (flesh, ver. 3, 4.) the meaning of which word he doth presently interpret, ver. 5, 6. he meaning thereby his Pedigree, as a perfect Jew by Descent, Pharisaism, Circumcision, and the Observation of all that Law, to which Cir­cumcision did oblige him, i. e. the Mosaical Law; for Gal. 5.3. by Circumcision a person became a debtor to that whole Law.

2. Having been so copious in the Negative branch of my Answer to the Question in hand, I shall now answer thereunto Affirmatively, viz. That by the Law in those words, (not having mine own righteousness, which is in or of the Law) the Apostle means the Mosaical or Ceremonial Law, that Law which was peculiar to the Jews, and therefore by us commonly styled the Judaical Law. In this sense the word Law is frequently taken in the Writings of this Apostle, especially in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, wherein he doth purposely argue against the ne­cessity of the works of that Law, and the obli­gingness thereof. See Rom. 3.21, 28. & 7.4. Gal. 4 5. & 3.23. & 4.21. And that the word Law is thus to be taken in the place under de­bate, doth manifestly appear by the precedent verses (ver. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.) and by the scope of the [Page 48] Apostle therein, which was to arm the Philippians against the insinuations of such dividing Tea­chers, who maintained Judaism, especially Cir­cumcision, to be necessary to the Salvation of a sinner. Now this righteousness of the Judai­cal Law S. Paul calls his own righteousness, be­cause it was not at that time a righteousness of God, or any branch of righteousness command­ed by him as then to continue in force, or in sta­tu quo prius. True, time was when it might have been styled a righteousness of God, because it was commanded by God in his Law, (styled the Law of commandments, Eph. 2.15.) and promises by God were made thereunto, Rom. 9.4. but that Law by the death of Christ being abolished, a righteousness conformable thereunto was no longer a righteousness of God, but purely their own: it was indeed [...], (to use the Apostles word, Col. 2.23.) Will-worship, not Gods worship.

2. If any one shall adde to that Answer, say­ing, That by Law may also possibly be meant the Law of works, or innocency as given to Adam in Paradise, the truth thereof is not to be denied: for,

1. A righteousness conformable to this Law no flesh living could be found in, all having sin­ned, and come short of the glory of God, the Scriptures having concluded all under sin, as says the Apostle, Rom. 3.19, 23.

2. Even the righteousness which is of or in this Law, although it cannot be denied (speak­ing simply) to be a righteousness of God; ne­vertheless it may in some respect be denied so to be, i. e. respectively to the justification or salvation of lapsed man as the end thereof: for [Page 49] perfect righteousness conformable to that Law is not now commanded of God as the conditi­on of a sinners justification and salvation, that Law as a covenant of works being now abolish­ed, repealed, abrogated, (as some use to express the matter; or as others) relaxed and dispen­sed with, or (as others chuse to express the thing) ceased. Where by the way be it observed, how most intolerably it is said by Mr. Ferguson, (of which I spake somewhat, but too too sparing­ly, and as some perhaps will say over mildly; for that saying of Mr. Fergusons doth in the conse­quence thereof subvert the Gospel of Christ, the saying being understood according to the sound and most obvious sense or meaning thereof; in the former part of this Discourse, chap. 8. p. 34.) that notwithstanding the introduction of the Law of Faith, the Law of Perfect Obedience doth remain still in force: for although this Law being now become the Law of lapsed Nature, doth in some respect remain in force, i. e. doth continue still as a Precept obliging to future per­fect obedience, and makes punishment due for all future disobedience; nevertheless upon the main, or to speak simply, it is utterly to be deni­ed, that this Law doth to lapsed Nature still re­main in force; for,

1. The promissory part with its condition is expired, cessante capacitate subjecti, as Casuists say of the Obligation of an Oath, that it ceaseth, cessante materiâ juramenti.

2. The preceptive part thereof is now cea­sed:

1. As it commanded absolute innocency, both actual and habitual, as well in habit as in act.

[Page 50]2. As it commanded the seeking of the re­ward (the justification of Life) on the conditi­on, and by the means of perfect personal inno­cency. I have suggested these things as an An­tidote, whereby to prevent the evil of Mr. Fer­gusons intolerable saying.

3. But to return, that by Law in the Text aforesaid may very well and truly be meant the Law of works, is manifest by this reason, viz. Because a righteousness conformable to the Law of works is incompossible and utterly inconsist­ent with that righteousness which S. Paul (a con­vinced sinner) and every man being a sinner, is by Jesus Christ, and through his bloudshed, to seek after, i. e. forgiveness of sin: for where there is no sin, there is no place for pardon: that which is not, cannot be pardoned. And forgiveness of sin may very well therefore be styled by the Apostle a righteousness without works, (as hath been said in the 5. chap. of this Discourse;) because it is a righteousness alto­gether without the works of this Law, i. e. works exactly thereunto conformable; for as much as such works are incompetible with re­mission of sin, there being in that case no sin to be remitted. And some of the Apostles Argu­ments against justification by works do directly and forcibly conclude against the works of this Law, these making the reward to be of debt, and not of grace; and also making a sinners blessed­ness to be another manner of blessedness than David spake of, i. e. a blessedness not consisting in remission of sin.

I have been the larger in answering the Que­stion touching the righteousness which S. Paul calls his own righteousness, which is in and of [Page 51] the Law; because what hath been said may serve to rectifie the common mistake of the true mind and meaning of the Apostle in that Scripture; the mistake particularly not onely of Dr. Owen and Dr. Grew mentioned in the foregoing part of this Treatise, but also of the Author, whom since the printing thereof I lately read, (styled Anti-sozzo, whom Mr. Baxter in the detection of several his Errors doth style a person of great wit and piety) who would persuade us, that by Law is there meant any Law indefinite; and that by the righteousness of Law is there meant that righteousness which any Law urges, presses, and prescribes, p. 547. and he pursues this his mis-interpretation in many pages, to which it were no difficult work punctually to make a sa­tisfactory Reply, and I would do it here, were it not actum agere, and that I have said already what is sufficient for the satisfaction of any of my Dissenting Brethren, as to the true sense and meaning of the Apostle in that Scrip­ture. I shall now proceed to intimate some fur­ther reason or reasons, why the said imputed righteousness is styled the righteousness of God: but having so amplified the first reason, (he so styling it in opposition to his own righte­ousness, which is in and of the Law) I will be so much briefer in the rest. Onely let me adde this to that which was before said, viz. That by his own righteousness, which is in the Law, the Apostle doth not onely mean that righteous­ness, which (when time was) was commanded by God in the Judaical Law, but also all those Privileges and Prerogatives, that therein were promised to the Observers thereof. This, I doubt not is one part of the Apostles mean­ing [Page 52] comprized in that his Expression, mine own righteousness which is of the Law.

CHAP. IX. Further Reasons added to those in Chap­ter VII. Why the said Righteousness is styled the Righteousness of God: where­in it is commended to observation, that there is a twofold righteousness mention­ed in Scripture, one which is so our own, as that it may and must be called the Righteousness of God; and another which is so our own, as that it may not, ought not, to be styled the Righteousness of God: and what these two kinds of Righteousness are, is plainly specified. Whence it is inferred, that Jesus Christ did not, in reference to the justifica­tion of a sinner, keep the Law in his stead.

THE said imputed righteousness (the non-imputation or forgiveness of sin) is styled the righteousness of God, because as God doth promise it to us, so it is he who doth actually impute it unto, or bestow it upon us; even as the Apostle says from the Psalmist, Rom. 4.6. (As David describes the blessedness of the man, unto whom [Page 53] God imputeth righteousness—) And Jesus Christ being the meritorious cause of this righ­teousness, he is said to be of God made unto us righteousness, i. e. made such unto us causally, i. e. made to us of God the cause of righteous­ness, 1 Cor. 1.30. And thence it is that this righteousness is styled justitia ex Deo, a righte­ousness which is of God, Phil. 3.9. and the gift of righteousness, Rom. 5.17. i. e. a gift of Gods free grace through Christ, ver. 16. And thence it is that those who are made righteous by Gods pardoning or not imputing their trespasses un­to them, are said to be made the righteousness of God in Christ, 2 Cor. 5.21. the abstract (righteousness) being put for the concrete (righ­teous) as is frequent in Scripture, circumcision for circumcised, Phil. 3.3. and uncircumcision for un­circumcised, Rom 2.26. Ye are made the righteous­ness of God in Christ, i. e. by God through Christ, he not imputing your trespasses unto you, ye are made very righteous.

1. Possibly it may be styled the righteousness of God, because it is that which God will own and countenance, and which will bear a man out before God, and bring a sinner off before Gods Tribunal as clear from guilt, i. e. guilt of pu­nishment, as if he were perfectly righteous, with a righteousness of his own wrought by himself in person, according to that celebrated saying of one of the Ancients, which oft times I have seen quoted in Authors, Omnia mandata Dei fa­cta deputantur, quando quicquid non sit, ignoscitur: It is in Gods account, as if all his commandments had been kept and done by us, when whatsoever hath not been done is forgiven us. At the close of my An­swer to the Question, (Why the s [...]id imputed [Page 54] righteousness is styled the righteousness of God?) and in answer whereunto it hath been declared, that it is so styled by the Apostle in opposition to that which he calls his own, and what that righteousness is which he styles his own, having been also amply declared, I desire the intelligent Reader to observe from the pre­misses, that there is a twofold righteousness mentioned in the Scriptures, viz. one that is so our own, as that it may and must be styled the righteousness of God; and of this sort is a sinners Evangelical righteousness, I mean, both that which was commanded by, and that also which is promised in the Law, or Gospel of Christ, viz. holiness of life and remission of sin. These truly are a mans own righteousness, and yet are the righteousness of God, and so styled in Sacred Writ.

2. There is another kind of righteousness, which is so our own, as that it may not, ought not, cannot be styled the righteousness of God, but must be denied to be such, either simply or respectively at least, e. g. a righteousness con­formed to the Judaical Law is simply to be de­nied to be a righteousness of God, the Law it self formerly requiring it being now expired; and a righteousness conformed to the Law or Covenant of works, being also respectively to be denied to be a righteousness of God, i. e. re­spectively to the justification or salvation of Man now in his lapsed estate: for although it once was a righteousness of God, with respect to the justification of Man innocent; yet now it is not so with respect to the justification of Man in his lapsed condition, it being now not com­manded of God for any such end or purpose, [Page 55] as hath been plainly declared in the foregoing Chapter. Whence by the way be it observed, how groundlesly it is said by too too many Brethren, that Jesus Christ in reference to our justification did keep the Law in our stead. It may be truly said I readily acknowledge, that Christ did keep the Law for us, that we might be justified, i. e. pardoned, or not condemned for our breaches thereof: but it is false to say, that he fulfilled the Law in our stead, that we might be justified as fulfillers thereof in or by him; for this sense of the word (instead) doth pregnantly import, that the fulfilling of the Law was pri­marily required of every man since the Fall for his justification, and that God in regard of the personal disability of mankind for the fulfilling thereof for such an end, did send his Son Jesus Christ to fulfill it in their room and place: which Supposition is a manifest and notorious untruth; for,

1. Man having once broken the Law, is be­come from thence forward a Subject naturally uncapable of being justified by any future obe­dience to it, although he should perfectly keep it to the worlds end.

2, God hath since the Fall of Man opened another way (a new and living way, to speak in the language of the Apostle, Heb. 10.19.) for the justification of sinners, yea for their justifi­cation of another kind, i. e. for their justificati­on from the guilt of punishment contracted by their sin, and this by Faith in Jesus Christ. So that to assert (as many do, who have gotten to themselves, whether designedly or by hap, the prime name of Gospel Preachers with the Vul­gar both in City and Country) that the fulfilling of the Law is required of any man now in his [Page 56] lapsed estate, whether by himself or by any other in his stead, is in the consequence thereof to subvert the Gospel of Christ, and in effect to preach another Gospel than we have received from him and his Apostles; the embracing whereof by too too many is yet the less to be marvelled at, seeing there were those, even in the primitive times, while the Apostles of our Saviour were alive, who were soon removed unto another Gospel, Gal. 1.6.

Again, be it considered whether this Asserti­on (that Christ hath fulfilled all the righteous­ness of the Law in our stead for our justificati­on) doth not overthrow their grand Gospel Doctrine, (as it is mis-called) of a sinners justi­fication by the imputation of Christs righteous­ness, which they usually affirm to be one inte­gral part of justification; for if he did it in our stead, it seems to become ours ipso facto without an imputation. If we suppose that Christ did undertake, and that God did accept of Christ to be our surety and Mediator to act in our stead, what needs any imputation to make it ours? Would not his righteousness become ours by his bare precise acting in our stead; even as whatsoever is done by our Proxy appointed and allowed to act for us, becomes ours imme­diately even in strictness of Law, and without any imputation of grace to make it so?

CHAP. X. Q. Why is the said imparted or imputed righteousness of God styled a righteous­ness without the Law? Answ. The Question is answered, 1. Negatively, What is not: 2. Affirmatively, What are the Reasons thereof.

Q. WHY is the said imputed righteousness (the non-imputation or remission of sin) styled a righteousness of God without Law, a Law, or the Law? For a righteousness without a Law sounds alike harshly as a righteousness without works.

Answ. The Question being of moment, I will therefore make answer to it as I have done to many others, both Negatively and Affirma­tively.

1. Negatively, not because it is universally without any manner of Law whatsoever: for,

1. Without all manner of Law whatsoever there can be no manner of righteousness at all; for all righteousness hath reference to one Law or other, as the rule thereof, the Law being the rule both of Duty and of Judgment. As, Where there is no Law, there is no transgression, Rom. 4.14. no unrighteousness, so nor righteousness. There is not any thing that can deserve the name of righteousness, much less the righteousness of God, which is absolutely and universally with­out any Law.

[Page 58]2. This imputed righteousness accrues, is conveyed to us, or comes upon us (as is the frequent language of the Apostle in his Epistle both to the Romans and Galatians) by Law, even that Law which for distinctions sake is called the Law of Faith, Rom. 3.27. As there are two sorts or integral parts of our Evangelical righ­teousness, which are so our own, as that withall they are in Scripture said to be the righteous­ness of God; so neither of them are simply with­out Law, but both of them are indeed accord­ing to Law, i. e. the Law of Faith, or of the Gospel, the one kind of righteousness, as a sin­ners duty being thereby commanded, and the other as Gods merciful favour and divine bles­sing being therein promised.

2. I answer Affirmatively:

1. It is called a righteousness without Law for the same reason as it is called a righteous­ness without works, these Phrases (without Law, without works, without the works of the Law) being equivalent and of promiscuous use with this Apostle in several places of his Wri­tings, wherein there are many things hard to be understood, and very dangerous being misun­derstood; so that the Apostle by (without the Law) doth mean without the works of the Law, there being an elegant Antanaclasis in the word Law repeated, Rom. 3.21. and there used in a different sense; for whereas in the later part of that verse it is taken for the Books of Moses, in the first part it is taken for the Works of the Law; S. Paul herein being his own In­terpreter, saying ver. 18. Therefore we conclude, that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law.

[Page 59]2. S. Paul styles it a righteousness without the Law, in opposition to that which in other places he styles a righteousness which is of the Law, Phil. 3.9. and a righteousness which is ex lege, by the Law, Gal. 3.21. If there had been a Law given, that could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the Law. See the same opposi­tion Rom. 10.3. with ver. 5. Moses describeth the righteousness which is [...], of, from, or by Law, or the Law. And if the question be de­manded, What Law is it that is meant in that forecited saying of the Apostle, Rom. 3.21. The righteousness of God without the Law. I answer, in the same restrained sense as the word Law is to be taken in those sayings of his, Phil. 3.9. wherein he speaks of a righteousness which is of the Law, i. e. it is truly to be understood, as hath been already said, chap. 8. of that Law which is opposite to the Law of faith, or belief of Christ incarnate, viz. concerning the Judaical Law, and the law of works, i. e. the law of innocency, this being most frequently in the Writings of modern Authors styled the law of works.

1. When S. Paul styles our imputed righte­ousness (the non-imputation of sin) a righte­ousness without law, by that law truly is exclu­ded the law or covenant of works: for,

1. This law hath no promise of pardon of sin, nor affords any ground of hope of pardon to sinners.

2. The works of this law are incompatible with forgiveness. He that is righteous accord­ing to this law, is not in a natural capacity of pardon, and he is justified by, or with another kind of righteousness than this imputed righte­ousness of forgiveness of sin.

[Page 60]3. His justification is of debt, and not of grace, as hath been before insinuated.

2. When S. Paul styles the said righteousness a righteousness without law, or the law, he doth directly mean the Judaical law, as hath been already said chap. 8. that law, for the con­tinued obligation or necessary observation whereof, not onely the unbelieving, but also thousands of the believing Jews, were blindly zealous, and not according to that knowledge, which by the light of the Gospel was afforded to them, as appears Acts 21.20. Rom. 10. beg. yea so zealous, as to think they did God service in persecuting the Apostles, and other orthodox Christians, for their non-compliance with them in adhering to the Mosaical law. I need not prove that this law is the law designedly and di­rectly excluded by the Apostle in those words of his (without the Law:) for,

1. The occasion and scope of several the Apo­stles Epistles to the Romans, Galatians, and the Hebrews, is so well known, as that it cannot ra­tionally be doubted of by any man, it being to take them off from adhering to that Law.

2. If we take Faith or believing in Christ in that sense, wherein the Apostle speaks of it, viz. for believing in the Messias as already come in the flesh; so faith in Christ is inconsistent with that Law and the Works thereof. For, to uphold or adhere to that Law and the Works thereof, is by consequence to deny that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, or to deny the Faith of Christ Incarnate; for as much as that Law, and the Works thereof, were but a shadow of good things to come, Coloss. 2.17. Hebr. 10.1, Whereupon the retaining of them was vir­tually [Page 61] or in Works to deny, that those good things (the Body) were already come.

I shall instance in another Scriptural Phrase, vvhereby the said imputed righteousness is ex­pressed, and this shall be the subject of the next Chapter.

CHAP. XI. Another Scriptural Title given to remissi­on of sin is, in its being styled the righ­teousness which is of, by, from, and thorough Faith; divers Reasons where­of are rendred. The Authors Opinion touching the pardonableness of sin, or placability of God in the question, Whe­ther this was any part of the [...], i. e. A thing discoverable by the light of Nature.

THE said imputed righteousness (the non-imputation or forgiveness of sin) is styled the righteousness which is of Faith. Thus in two places, Rom. 9.30. The Gentiles, which follow­ed not after righteousness, have attained to righteous­ness, even the righteousness which is of Faith. And Rom. 10.6. But the righteousness which is of faith saith on this wise— And Rom. 3.22. it is sty­led, the righteousness of God which is by faith of Je­sus Christ. And Phil 3.9. A righteousness which is thorough the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. In which places before cited the Apostle doth not use one and the same Greek Preposition, but various, saying, [...], Rom. 9.30. [...], and [...], of, from, by, or thorough faith, the faith of Christ. Whence observe by the way, that the righteousness which is by God imputed [Page 63] to sinners, is not Christs righteousness it self; for if so, the Apostle would have said so, even the righteousness of Jesus Christ himself, or Christs own righteousness; whereas he says once and again, yea four times over, the righ­teousness which is of, by, from, or through faith, the faith of Christ.

Q. Why is the said righteousness styled the righ­teousness which is of, by, from, or through faith, the faith of Jesus Christ?

Answ. 1. It is so styled in opposition unto that kind of righteousness which the Apostle doth oft times, and sometimes in the self same verse, style a righteousness of the Law, it not resulting from, or being obtained by the observation of the Law, but by faith in Christ. This oppositi­on we read expresly in several Scriptures, Phil. 3.9. Not having mine own righteousness, which is of the Law, but that which is through the faith of Christ. Thus also Rom. 3.21. with v. 22. and Rom. 9.30. where having asserted the Gentiles, who fol­lowed not after righteousness, to have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith, he doth in the verse following op­pose it to another kind of righteousness, saying, But Israel which followed after the Law of righteous­ness, hath not attained to the Law of righteousness. Where by the Law of righteousness, which Is­rael is said not to have attained to, is meant the righteousness of the Law, there being in that saying the Figure called by Rhetoricians Hypal­lage.

Now from the said opposition we may, as I think, unerringly conclude what manner of Works the Apostle doth mean in any of his Wri­tings, wherein he opposeth Faith and Works, [Page 64] viz. not all manner of Works whatsoever, but Works of Law, (for so it may be rendred out of the Original, the Article [...] therein being want­ing or not expressed, Rom. 3.28. and 9 31.) a law, the law, i. e. Works not consistent with, but opposite unto, the Faith of Christ Incar­nate, or Works of law (any law whatsoever) opposite to the law of Faith. Now what that law or laws are, and what those Works are, which are inconsistent with, or opposite there­unto, hath been at large declared in the forego­ing Chapter.

2. It is called the righteousness of God, which is by Faith of Jesus Christ, because God in his law hath constituted Faith in Christ to be the condition of a sinners enjoying this righteous­ness, which law is for this reason styled the law of Faith, Rom. 3.27. I need not bring Scrip­tures to prove the said legal Constitution. As S. Paul tells us, that this righteousness was wit­nessed by the Law and the Prophets, Rom. 3.21. so S. Peter tells us, that all the Prophets did wit­ness faith in Christ to be the condition of enjoy­ing it, Acts 10.43. To him give all the Prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sin. And thence it is that faith is said to be imputed to us to this righ­teousness, as hereafter will be said at large, be­cause it is the Condition of enjoying it.

3. Consequently because it is through the faith of Christ that we are to seek and follow af­ter this righteousness, if ever we mean to attain it. For the reason of attaining and not attain­ing it, the Apostle shews to be the seeking and following after it in a right and wrong way, i. e. by faith and not by faith, Rom. 9.30, 31, 32.

[Page 65]4. Because it is through faith to be expected, and as to the completion thereof waited for, Gal 5.5. We through the spirit wait for hope of righ­teousness, i. e. righteousness hoped for by faith.

5. Consequently because it comes upon us, or is actually derived to us upon our believing in Christ, or faith in him, according to that of the Apostle, with many other such sayings in Scrip­ture, Rom. 10.10. With the heart man believeth unto righteousness.

6. As for the foresaid Reasons it is styled the righteousness which is by faith, (faith being ta­ken for fides quâ, the grace of faith, whereby or wherewith we believe;) so if we take faith for fides quae creditur, the object of faith or thing be­lieved, I answer to the question so intended, that it is styled the righteousness which is by faith of Jesus Christ, because it is the Gospel of Christ, (the word of faith, as it is styled Rom. 10.8.) that doth reveal this righteousness to be through Christ, and through faith in him; ac­cording to that of the Apostle, Rom. 1. where ha­ving mentioned the Gospel, ver. 16. As the migh­ty power of God through faith to salvation; he adds saying ver. 17. Therein is revealed the righteous­ness of God, from faith to faith. I cannot deny that Gods placability or merciful nature, in his readiness to pardon penitent sinners, is a branch of the [...], one of those things which was revealed to the Heathen by the light of Na­ture, and experience of Gods Providential Dispensations, Gods patience and longsuffer­ing being of a native tendency, in it self apt to lead all sinners (the Gentiles as well as the Jews) to repentance, Rom. 2.4.

Again, if Gods placability had not been made known to the Heathen World, they would (as I think) undoubtedly never have sought by any means or sacrifices whatsoever, whether of the flesh of Beasts or Men, bad men or good men, the best or worst of men, to have appeased God, whom they were so sensible they had provoked. But although I cannot deny, as aforesaid, nevertheless that this righteousness of pardon was purchased, or to be purchased by Christ, or to come upon us through faith in him, whereupon justly to be styled a righteousness which is through faith in Christ; this they did not know by any light which they had, nor could it be known by any without supernatural reve­lation. Yea this is that which was but darkly, and not so clearly made known to the Jews them­selves by the Scriptures of the Old Testament, to which purpose the Apostle speaks in several of his Epistles, Rom. 16.25, 26. 2 Tim. 1.10. And for this cause I do concur with that which Dr. Owen doth frequently assert in his Book styled Communion with God, viz. that the Scripture re­veals no pardon of sin, but by and through Christ, and faith in him. And I do absolutely presume, that if we speak of Gospel pardon, and according to that description which the Doctor gives of it, saying p. 91. Pardoning mercy is Gods free gracious acceptance of a sinner upon satisfaction made to his justice in the blood of Jesus. Amyrald himself, yea every Christian, who confesseth sa­tisfaction made by the bloud of Christ to the justice of God, will acknowledge with the Do­ctor, that the discovery of this pardoning mer­cy is not in the least glimpse discovered by the light of Nature, but solely by the Scriptures. [Page 67] Yea the Socinians themselves, who although they deny pardon of sin to be upon satisfaction made to Divine Justice by the Blood of Jesus; yet forasmuch as they do not deny it to be in and through Christ, they also will concur in asserting, that pardon of sin in, by, and through Christ, is not discoverable by any other light, than that of Scripture. But if we speak of Gods pardoning mercy indefinitely, (not so and so circumstantiated as in the Doctors description) I must say again as before, viz. that I cannot deny, but that the Heathen World had some glimpse thereof, and that they did know, (how­ever imperfectly, and who can say but that they might have known it more perfectly?) viz. that there was pardoning mercy with God, that he might be feared.

CHAP. XII. Q. Whether doth a Sinner need ought more than the righteousness of Christ to justifie him in the sight of God? Answ. Yes. The Authors professed Dissent as from certain other Brethren, so in special from Dr. Grew, late of Coventry, wherein is manifested, that although a Sinner needs nothing of the same kind more than Christs righteousness to the said end, i. e. In genere causae meritoriae, as a meritorious cause; nevertheless (simpliciter loquendo, to speak the truth absolutely) he needs many things, and those of several kinds, to justifie him be­fore God; and what those things are is specified at large.

FOrasmuch as the said imputed righteous­ness is styled so often in Scripture the righ­teousness of God, which is of, by, from, or through the faith of Christ, I shall think it not amiss thereupon to propose two or three Que­stions, and answer thereunto.

Q. Doth a sinner need ought more than the righte­ousness it self of Christ to make him righteous, or to justifie him in the sight of God?

Answ. It is most apparently evident, that he doth, even from the said iterated description [Page 69] of a sinners justification, it being styled the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ. It is observable, that the Apostle doth not style it simply the righteousness of God which is by Jesus Christ, (although this is a truth worthy of all acceptation;) neither doth he always style it a righteousness which is by faith simply: but he styles it explicitly a righte­ousness which is through the faith of Christ, Phil. 3 9. and which is by faith of Jesus Christ, Rom. 3.22. I do the rather commend this to observation, because it may serve to prevent an evasion, or answer an objection, that some I well know are apt to make, saying, that where our imputed righteousness is styled a righteous­ness which is of, by, or through faith; there the word (Faith) is to be taken relatively or objectively, i. e. not for the grace of Faith, but for the object of it; not for Faith it self, but for Christ Jesus the object of it. Now be it observed, that the Apo [...]tle adds to the word (Faith Christ) Phil. 3.9. and (Jesus Christ) Rom. 9.22. the Apostle therein interpreting what he meant by Faith in those other sayings of his, where he styles it a righteousness which is of Faith, that is, that by faith he meant Faith, not Christ simply, or the object of Faith meerly, but faith in Christ. And to make the Apostle to have meant otherwise, is to make him to have spoken non-sense in saying (a righteousness which is by faith of Jesus Christ;) as if he had or meant to say, a righteousness which is through Christ of Christ, or which is of Jesus Christ of Jesus Christ; even as to make the like construction of the word (Faith) for the object of Faith, in that saying Rom. 3.25. Through faith [Page 70] in his blood, is to make the Apostle nonsensically to have said, Through his blood in his blood. And yet this is (not without shame and sadness of heart be it spoken) that work which some, to the reproach of Protestancy, and to the harden­ing of our common Adversaries, do make of the Scriptures, as if by faith it self, and the object of faith, one and the same thing were to be un­derstood: or as if in that saying of S. Peter (Acts 3.16. His name through faith in his name hath made this man strong) the name or person of Christ, a [...] faith in him, did mean the self same thing, faith being not to be construed as meaning the thing it self (Faith) but onely the object there­of, Christs name or person.

The premisses considered, it undeniably ap­pears, that faith in Jesus Christ is as well ne­cessary to justifie a sinner in the sight of God, as is the righteousness it self of Christ; even as faith in Christs name was as well necessary for the working of Miracles, as was his name or power it self. And I desire this the rather to be minded, because it may serve to detect and re­ctifie the mistake of Dr. Grew, who in his late Book styled the Lord our righteousness, (Ser­mons upon Jer. 23.6.) says p. 200. even as others have said before him, viz. That a sinner needs no more than Christs righteousness to justifie him in the sight of God. I grant indeed, that in some sense the saying is very true, forasmuch as Christs righteousness is in suo genere, i. e. in the sphere or series of a meritorious cause all sufficient to ju­stifie a sinner, even all and every sinner in the sight of God, and nothing more of that kind is needful for that purpose.

But forasmuch as, 1. A saying, which is one­ly true respectively, or in a certain limited sense, may be well said (speaking simply and absolutely) to be false.

2. Forasmuch as it is not fit and good for edification, but of native tendency to decepti­on, to affirm that concerning a thing in simple and absolute terms, and without due explica­tion, which is onely verified in some one li­mited sense or other, I cannot justifie the Do­ctors so saying.

3. Forasmuch as it doth not appear, that the Doctor did onely intend the said true meaning in that saying, but rather the contrary (it be­ing his intent, as it is indeed of too many, to insinuate, that no righteousness of our own, but onely the righteousness of Christ himself, is needful to justifie a sinner in the sight of God;) I am so far from justifying him, that I shall alto­gether leave him with the rest of the Brethren in that saying to their own defence. For I can say no less, than that there are many things needful to justifie a sinner in the sight of God, and each of which do suo modo, after their own manner, or in their own proper place and kind, justifie him, something ex parte Dei, something ex parte Christi, something ex parte Evangelii, something ex parte nostri; on Gods part, Christs part, the Gospels part, our part; Gods mer-mercy, Christs merit, the Gospel Law, a Sin­ners faith: all which do in their kind or rank, and after a way peculiar to each, justifie a sinner in the sight of God. Exempli gratiâ: Gods mercy as the inward moving, Christs merit as the external impulsive cause, the Gospel Law as the instrumental cause of conveyance, a sinners [Page 72] own faith in Christ as the condition thereof. I adde also, pardon it self, the imputed righte­ousness I am now speaking of, is intrinsecally needful to the justification of a sinner before God, it being the form or thing it self, which doth constitute a sinners justification, or where­in it doth consist: and as the form of a thing is absolutely necessary to its being, and without which it is not (forma dat esse;) so is pardon of sin absolutely necessary: and as the other (Gods mercy, Christs merit, the Gospel Law, and a sinners faith) are extrinsecally, so this is intrin­secally necessary to justifie a sinner in the sight of God. Hereupon it abundantly appears, that it is a saying too too loose and extravagant to say, That a sinner needs no more than the righ­teousness of Christ to justifie him in the sight of God.

CHAP. XIII. Q. In what sense is the word (Faith) to be taken in those Scriptures, wherein for­giveness af sin is insinuated to be the fruit or consequent of Faith, and where­in it is styled the righteousness of God which is by Faith? Answ. It is not taken strictly, as excluding all other E­vangelical graces in a Sinner, viz. Re­pentance and sincere Resolution for amendment of life; but in a large sense as comprizing them, these being of the very essence of Faith, as justifying, or as taken (though not in a strict Philosophi­cal, yet) in a Scriptural construction or importance of the word.

FOrasmuch as in that iterated saying of the Apostle, wherein he styles a sinners impu­ted righteousness the righteousness of God, which is by faith in Christ or through Christ, he doth unquestionably mean as he spake, by Faith meaning Faith, and by Christ Christ. I shall next propose the following Question.

Q. In what sense is the grace of Faith to be ta­ken in the said sayings, wherein a sinners imputed righteousness is insinuated to be the issue, product, or consequent of his believing in Christ? Whether is faith there to be taken in a strict sense, as excluding [Page 74] all other Evangelical graces? (Exempli gratiâ: Repentance for sin, an holy resolution to return to God in new obedience—) or else in a large sense, as including and comprehending them?

Answ. It it most evident by the current of plain Scripture as plain can be, that a sinners imputed righteousness (the non-imputation or remission of sin) is promised unto, and doth de­pend upon, his repentance and amendment, as well as upon his faith or believing: and for that cause we cannot in reason, or agreeably in any wise to the Analogy of Faith, construe the grace of Faith in the said sayings, in a strict but in a large sense, and as it is not unusual in many Scriptures, viz. not as excluding, but as in­ [...]luding, supposing or comprehending other E­vangelical duties, vertues, or graces. (It hath been already said in chap. 5. that remission of sin is not styled a righteousness without works, because it is without the works of repent­ance and amendment.) It is matter of sadness, that a Minister of the Gospel should (by any Protestant Professor) be put to prove, that re­pentance and amendment is one part of the condition of his pardon, or discharge from the guilt of his sin. Let this his discharge be ex­pressed by what Scriptural name soever, Re­demption, Reconcilianion, Justification, Non-condemnation—) as well as Faith in Christ strictly taken; and consequently that his par­don or discharge is by vertue of Gods gracious promise in Christ, the issue, fruit, or conse­quent of his repentance and amendment, and not of his faith alone, as strictly taken and ex­clusively to them, or in contradistinction from them. The Question in hand is, I confess, of [Page 75] exceeding great moment, and for that cause [...] it would be very expedient to make answer there­unto more at large, were it not of very easie re­solution. But because of the common preju­dices, which too too many Brethren have con­ceived against it, some perhaps will deem, that much more than I have as yet said, is very ne­cessary to be spoken in the matter, and of which necessity if I shall be convinced, I may not im­probably (God sparing my Life, and continu­ing Health to me in my old age) endeavour a more copious Discourse concerning that point. Mean while I will conclude this Chapter onely by asserting it as a most indubitable truth, viz. That in all such sayings as before cited faith is to be taken in such a large sense as in all those Scriptures, wherein th [...]y are said to be blessed who trust in God, (a saying frequent with those Sacred Writers David and Solomon;) by which trust such a trust in God is meant, as doth imply other graces or duties consequent thereunto, and virtually therein contained; even as the fruit is in the seed or root, faith being indeed a radical grace, or a principle of all religious actings. And in this large sense it is taken in those two Scriptures recorded in the Book of Daniel, where Nebuchadnezzar speaking con­cerning the miraculous preservation of the three Children says, That God did deliver his Ser­vants that trusted in him, chap. 3.28. and wherein Darius also speaking of a like miraculous deli­verance of the Prophet Daniel, says, That no hurt was found upon him, because he believed in his God, chap. 6.23. in both which places the Ante­cedent is put for the Consequent, (a manner of speaking usual in Scripture, as also the Conse­quent [Page 76] oft times for the Antecedent, things of useful observation;) I mean the Antecedent in those sayings is used as implying what was Consequent to their faith and trust in God, and upon which their preservations or deliverances did mainly and more immediately under God depend, viz. their renouncing of the Idol-wor­ship set up by Nebuchadnezzar, and the not re­nouncing of the true God, no not for a day, which was commanded by Darius; for such in effect I conceive to be the intent of Darius his command: and so would Daniels omitting to pray to God for the space of the time interdict­ed have been interpreted, viz. a renouncing pro tempore the true and living God. As to the sense wherein faith is to be taken in the said Scriptures, or in any other wherein Justificati­on, Remission of sin, Imputation of righteous­ness, or Salvation, is attributed unto it as the fruit or consequent thereof, there will be occa­sion to speak somewhat more of it in some other Chapter towards the later end of this Dis­course, whither I shall refer the Reader. See chap. 29. at large.

CHAP. XIV. Another Scriptural Title given to the said imputed righteousness is in its being sty­led, The righteousness of the faith of Abraham, which he had being yet un­circumcised, Rom. 4.11. the whole Verse being opened more at large, and vindi­cated from mis-interpretation too com­monly received. Caution given for a due understanding as well of the Au­thors full as true meaning, in his assert­ing Justification or Remission of sin (a righteousness promised in the Law of Faith) to be it which S. Paul doth style the righteousness of God, and which is by faith, the Author in that his asserti­on must not be understood as excluding, but as supposing and including that other branch or kind of righteousness, which in the Gospel or Law of Faith is com­manded.

I Shall instance onely in one other Scriptural Phrase, whereby the said imputed righteous­ness is expressed, although in effect it be but the same which was specified in chap. 11. See Rom. 4.11. wherein it is styled, The righteousness of the faith which Abraham had, yet being uncircum­cised. (And he received the sign of Circumcisi­on, [Page 78] that is, the sign Circumcision, a seal of the righ­teousness of the faith, which he had yet being uncir­cumcised, that he might be the father of all them th [...] believe, though they be not circumcised, that righte­ousness might be imputed to them also. By the righ­teousness of Abrahams faith I do conceive there to be meant the reward of his faith, viz. justifi­cation or imputed righteousness, which as it was promised to him not through the Law, but through Faith, ver. 13. so it did accrue to him upon his actual obediential faith, even as it shall likewise accrue unto all other sinners (both Jews and Gentiles) upon such a faith as his was be­fore Circumcision; for this righteousness, says the Apostle, shall be imputed to every Child of Abrahams faith, though he be not circumcised, i. e. to every one who walks in the steps of that faith which Abraham had, being yet uncircumci­sed, ver. 12. Whether S. Paul doth there speak of Circumcision (received by Abrahem primari­ly in its Institution, and secondarily in his Bo­dy) as mans seal is a question, but without all question he speaks of it as it was Gods seal, and God doth not seal, that any man believeth, he sealeth onely what himself saith, testifieth, or promiseth, viz. his own part of the Covenant, viz. that upon the performance of the righte­ousness (the righteousness of faith) therein commanded, sinners shall partake of the righte­ousness (the righteousness which is by, from, or through faith) therein promised. And it seems observable, that the Apostle there doth not say, that Circumcision received by Abraham was a seal of his faith, (as if God did thereby testifie that Abraham believed;) but of the righteousness of his faith, i. e. of the validity to righteousness [Page 79] of that kind of Faith, or specifical Faith, which he had being uncircumcised. In this sense the word (Faith) is taken in, 2 Tim. 1.5. S. Paul there saying, That that faith which was first in Timothies Mother and Grandmother, was also in process of time in Timothy himself: where he doth not mean the same personal individual faith which they had, (for Accidentia non migrant à subjecto in subjectum;) but a faith of the same sort or species, that is, and as the Apostle doth there specifie it by that differencing Character, a faith unfeigned. And in this sense also must that expression (the faith of Abraham, in ver. 16.) be understoo, as also in ver. 24. where in the expression (it shall be imputed) by the Rela­tive (it) is not meant Abrahams personal indi­vidual faith, for this was imputed to Abraham in person, to him alone, and to no Child of his;) but to such a kind of Faith as Abraham [...] was, i. e. to a working faith, albeit without such works as were there intended, and related unto by the Apostle. Briefly then, S. Paul in saying, that Circumcision was a seal of the righ­teousness of the faith, which Abraham had yet being uncircumcised, doth mean, that it was a seal of his righteousness, pardon, or justificati­on, upon condition of believing with such a kind of faith as he did, or had while uncircumci­sed, i. e. a faith without the deeds of the Law. It was a seal of the truth of this promise or co­venant, and of Gods faithfulness in performing it. He that believeth like a Child of Abraham, i. e. that so believeth as to walk uprightly be­fore God, although not circumcised, shall be made righteous, pardoned, justified, or (to speak in the very words of the Apostle in that [Page 80] verse) shall have righteousness imputed to him, even as it was to Abraham, even that righteous­ness which God is said (ver. 6.) to impute with­out works unto that man, whom David doth pronounce blessed.

I need not here move the question, why the said imputed righteousness is styled the righte­ousness of the faith of Abraham: for the reasons hereof are obvious; and if they were not so, yet may they be collected from what hath been at large answered to the question indefinitely proposed, chap. 11. why this imputed righte­ousness is styled the righteousness which is of faith. Onely I desire it may be observed, that the Apostle in styling the said imputed righte­ousness the righteousness of the faith which A­braham had yet being uncircumcised, doth plain­ly interpret his own meaning, in his having sty­led this righteousness a righteousness without works, i. e. without Circumcision, or any such legal works, without which he says in the close of this ver. 11. that righteousness shall also be imputed to all Abrahams Children, even as it was to Abraham their father.

Q. Is not Christs righteousness it self meant in that expression of the Apostle, wherein he asserts Cir­cumcision to have been the seal of the righteousness of Abrahams faith, faith being there to be taken for the object of faith, which object is Christs righteous­ness?

Answ. No. For, 1. I remember no place of Scripture, where Christs righteousness is styled the righteousness of faith. Yea, I remember onely one place, viz. Rom. 5.18. wherein by the word righteousness is meant the righteousness of Christ; and this onely according to our last [Page 81] English Translation of the Bible; for as the word is in the Original, not [...], but [...] (it being rendred by divers Latine Transla­tors not justitia, but justificatio;) so by the Genevah Translators it is rendred not by the righteous­ness of one, but by the justifying of one; or as agreeably to the Original, [...], it might be rendred, By one justifying, i. e. by one means, or meritorious cause of justifying, styled in the verse following [...], the obedience of one, i. e. of one Jesus Christ, ver. 17.

2. Although the righteousness of Christ be­ing a thing revealed in Scripture is to be belie­ved, and so may be called an object of faith (as whatsoever the Scriptures do reveal may be said to be an object of faith;) yet was it onely a partial object of Abrahams faith, the word of God being the full or complete object thereof: so that if we take faith here for the object of faith, we may as well, yea must (for ought I know) as necessarily take it for the whole ob­ject, or any other part of the object of Abrahams faith, as for this part of its object, the righte­ousness of Christ.

3. To construe the word (Faith) in the said figurative sense for the object of Faith (Christs righteousness) seems to be a sensless contradicti­on to the Apostle: for whereas the Apostle says plainly, that Abraham received circumcision a seal of the righteousness of faith, which he had being yet uncircumcised; This construction makes him to have said, Abraham received circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the righteousness, which he had yet being uncircumcised.

Having hitherto spoken of that righteous­ness, which is expresly said in Scripture to be imputed to believing sinners; I shall now pro­ceed to enquire, whether any thing be expresly said in Scripture to be imputed unto them for, or to righteousness: and touching this inquiry, together with the resolution of such material questions as are incident thereunto, the residue of this part will be taken up.

Onely at the close of this chapter, and indeed of all that I have to say at present concerning remission of sin as that righteousness, which is said in Scripture to be for Christs sake imputed to believing sinners, I shall think it necessary for the prevention of mistake, and for the due understanding as well of my full as true meaning in the premisses, to request the Reader to take no­tice, that whereas in certain of the foregoing Chapters I have spoken of a twofold branch of a sinners Evangelical righteousness, the one being officium, duty commanded; the other beneficium, mercy or benefit promised in the Gospel or Law of Faith: And whereas having proved, that neither of these two parts or kinds of righteous­ness are meant by that righteousness, which S. Paul styles his own, in opposition to that which he styles the righteousness of God, and which is of, from, by, or through faith; I have with­all asserted, that justification or remission of sin (this being the righteousness promised to sinners conditionally upon their faith) is it, which S. Paul doth style the righteousness of God, and which is by faith: whereas I say, this hath been asserted by me, I must not in that express asser­tion be understood as excluding, but as suppo­sing and including that other branch of righte­ousness [Page 83] which is commanded in the Gospel. For as I am perswaded, that by that righteous­ness which S. Paul calls his own, which is of the Law, in opposition to that by him styled the righteousness which is of God by faith, he doth not onely mean the righteousness which (when time was) was commanded in that Law, but also all those Privileges, Prerogatives, Emoluments, or Advantages, which were therein promised to the Observers thereof; so I do readily acknow­ledge, that both that righteousness which is promised, and that also which is commanded in the Gospel or Law of Faith, are to be under­stood as comprized in that righteousness which S. Paul styles in those various phrases, The righ­teousness of God, The righteousness of Faith, The righteousness of the faith which Abraham had being yet uncircumcised, with the like ex­pressions to this purpose. Yea, if any one that affirms, that the righteousness commanded in the Law of Faith is the prime thing, or that which is most immediately to be understood by the said expressions of the Apostle, I shall not gainsay; it being sufficient for my purpose, that the righteousness which is promised in the Law of Faith (viz. Justification or Remission of sin) be acknowledged to be one part of that righ­teousness, which S. Paul styles the righteousness of God which is by faith, and included there­fore in the said expressions of the Apostle, where he speaks of this righteousness in opposi­tion to that righteousness which he calls his own, which is of the Law. And I shall think it here not amiss, to commend to observation the difference betwixt the said two parts or kinds of righteousness, the one commanded, the other [Page 84] for Christs sake promised in the Gospel or Law of Faith; how that they differ as the way to an end, and the end it self of that way; righteous­ness promised in the Gospel being the end, or scope, the reward, the [...], or prize to be at­tained (so the Apostle styles it, Phil. 3.14.) and righteousness therein commanded as the condi­tion, being the means of attaining it, as is the A­postles expression, saying ver. 11. If by any means I may attain— Both these (the Means and the End) seem evidently to be comprized in that expression of the Apostle, Rom. 9.30. where speaking concerning the believing Gentiles he says, that they attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of Faith, i. e. they did take the right way, and they obtained thereby their desired end, viz. they followed the way of righ­teousness prescribed in the Gospel (the way of Faith without the works of the Law) and in the pursuit of that way they did attain to, or obtain, the righteousness therein promised: whereas the Jews by missing or avoiding the way, and ta­king another course, attained not the end, as is said in the following verses.

And as I have in the foregoing Chapters shewed several reasons, why the said righteous­ness promised in the Gospel (Justification or Remission of sin) is styled the righteousness of God, and which is by or through Faith; so it were easie to suggest several considerable rea­sons, why that other branch of Evangelical righteousness (commanded in the Gospel, and in the said expressions comprized) may very fit­ly be styled the righteousness of God, the righ­teousness of Faith, or which is by Faith. But it being not so pertinent to my purpose in hand, [Page 85] to insist upon those reasons, I will therefore for­bear here to specifie or suggest them; and the rather because I think it sufficient to have pro­ved, that whether by the said expressions of the Apostle (The righteousness of God, The righ­teousness of Faith, The righteousness which is by or from Faith —) we do understand pre­cisely the righteousness in the Law of Faith pro­mised, or the righteousness therein commanded, or both the one and the other to be therein com­prized (neither of them according to my per­swasion being to be excluded) I have manifest­ed, and I hope it is apparently manifest, that by that righteousness wherein S. Paul desired to be found (by him styled the righteousness which is of God by Faith, in opposition to that which he styles his own, which is of the Law) is not meant the personal righteousness of Christ, or the imputation thereof, in opposition to our E­vangelical righteousness, whether that righte­ousness of duty which is commanded, or that righteousness of reward and benefit, which is promised in the Law of Faith; it having been a mistake too too common, and for the common­ness of it the more to be privately lamented and openly opposed, in such sort to interpret that so much vexed Scripture. And therefore let that Note in the Assemblies (so called) Annotations upon the said Scripture, Phil. 3.9. be no other­wise noted, than as a mistake to be avoided: where by our being found not in our own righ­teousness, but in that which is through the faith of Christ, the Annotator would have us to un­derstand our being clothed with the righteous­ness of Christ imputed to us. As for that Meta­phorical expression of the said Annotator (our [Page 86] being clothed with the righteousness of Christ) I have at large declared my thoughts in Chap. 30. of the former part of this Discourse, by way of answer to the Question, Whether Believers may be truly or fitly said to be clothed with the righte­ousness of Christ? wherein hath been manifested the unfitness of that unscriptural and unedify­ing phrase, it being a phrase as purely of hu­mane invention, so also taken up or occasioned by the mis-understanding of the true sense of that other unscriptural phr [...]s [...], wherein Christs righteousness hath been ordinarily s [...]id to be imputed to us, and the asserting of a sense of that saying contrary to the Scriptures; it ha­ving been also the manner of some popular Preachers to direct and exhort their Hearers to live out of themselves, i. e. out of their own per­sonal graces, and gracious dispositions, upon a naked Christ, or the naked righteousness of Christ (imputed to them) for righteousness and salvation. This is that new mode of language of later times I have observed from the Mouths and Pens of some Preachers, particularly from Mr. Edward Pearse, in his late printed book, sty­led The Great Concernment, and said to be the last Sermons that he preached before his death: be­cause he hath miserably abused and mis-inter­preted every Text of the Sacred Scriptures al­ledged by him for his said purpose; I will there­fore relate his words, and make a short reply thereunto.

This living out of our own graces, says he, upon Christs naked (imputed) righteousness, is that which is called the readiness of the Lambs wife, Rev. 19.7, 8. and by the righteousness of the Saints is there meant the righteousness of Christ imputed to us— [Page 87] And he says also, That this is that robe mentioned Luke 15.22. and that this imputed righteousness of Christ is meant in Phil. 3.8, 9. and also in Isa. 61.10.

In all the said Scriptures he hath erred ex­ceedingly from the true sense and meaning of them, having expresly ut [...]er'd the dreams and imaginations of his own brain and fancy. One of the said Scriptures I have already copiously vindicated in this second part of my Discourse, having therein manifested, that by the Righte­ousness, wherein St. Paul desired to be found (in opposition to that styled his own, which is of the Law) is not meant Christs personal Righteous­ness, and much less Christs Righteousness as imputed to us; but that Righteousness, which is commanded and is prom sed to Sinners in the Gospel. As for those two Scriptures (Isa. 61.10. and Lev. 19.7, 8.) I have vindicated them from the same misconstruction made of them by o­thers in the thirtieth Chapter of the first part of this Discourse. And as for that other Scripture (Luke 15.22.) my Reply to this Author is, That he had no more reason, colour, or shadow of reason to say, that Christs Righteousness impu­ted is the thing meant by the Robe there men­tioned, than by the Ring, and Shoes, and fatted Calf, which together with the Robe were alike ordered by that glad Father for the welcoming home of his lost Son.

CHAP. XV. Q. Is there any thing expresly said in Scripture to be imputed to us for righ­teousnes? Answ. Yes, viz. Faith, it be­ing thus recorded in the Old Testament, Gen. 15.6. and the record thereof pro­duced in the New Testament once by S. James, chap. 2.23. and twice by S. Paul, Gal. 3.6. and Rom. 4.3. in which chap­ter he doth assert little less than ten times over, that Abrahams faith was imputed to him, and that the like or same specifical faith shall be imputed to us for righteousness, ver. 3, 5, 9, 20, 22, 23, 24.

Q. IS there any thing expresly said in Scripture to be imputed to believing sinners for righteous­ness?

Answ. Yes: their saith is said both in the Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament to be so imputed. For thus it is reported con­cerning Abrahams faith, Gen. 15.6. And he belie­ved in the Lord, and he counted it unto him for righ­teousness. This saying is once quoted by Saint James, chap. 2.23. and once by Saint Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians, chap. 3.6. Even as A­braham believed God, and it was accounted (or im­puted) to him for righteousness. And more than [Page 89] once by the same Apostle the same is asserted, chap. 4.3, & 5, 9, 10, 22, 23. in which verses Abrahams faith is five times over asserted to have been imputed to him for righteousness. And lest it might be thought to have been the pecu­liar privilege of Abrahams personal faith, to have been accounted to him for righteousness; for as the Jews said to our Saviour, Art thou greater than our father Abraham? so possibly may it be objected by a Christian, specially of the weaker sort. Is my faith as strong as was Abra­hams, or comparable in degree to his? The A­postle therefore doth not content himself to have s [...]id, ver. 11, 12. And he received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised; that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also: And the father of Circumcision to them, who are not of the Circumcision onely, but also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised: but he doth also plainly and explicitly again assert the same imputation touching the faith of every one to the worlds end, that shall be a true Believer, saying ver. 23, 24. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him, but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him, who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.

'Tis true indeed, that circumcision spoken of ver. 11. did seal the righteousness of Abrahams personal faith, faith subjectively and individu­ally taken, yet not as his faith, i. e. not simply, and precisely as his (for if so, it would seal righ­teousness, blessedness, justification, or remissi­on of sin to none else;) but exemplariter, for ex­amples [Page 90] sake, as his faith without circumcision, and the deeds of the law was to be a pattern of the way of justifying sinners (both Jews and Gentiles) under the Gospel, Abraham being the Father, i. e. the exemplar of the Gospel-way of justifying sinners (for so father is taken ver. 12.) that so, as the Apostle expresses it, Gal. 3.14. The blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. Briefly, it did not seal the said righteousness to his faith as his individual­ly, but as it was such a faith, as the promise, which was sealed was made unto, i. e. a true, lively, operative, and working faith. Although circumcision did seal his justification, he having that sort of faith, which the general promise was made unto; yet it did not seal his justifica­tion primarily, but consequentially, i. e. by sealing the general promise. It sealed the righ­teousness of his faith as he was the designed Fa­rher, or pattern (for in this sense the word Fa­ther is taken, ver. 12.) as his faith was to be a pattern to believing sinners, respectively both to the nature, as also to the privilege of his ju­stification, or righteousness consequent there­unto; which righteousness, justification, or re­mission of sin, even as Abraham is called the Fa­ther of the Faithful, so is it styled their Fathers blessing, common now to believing Jews and Gentiles.

The premisses considered, let it be observed, how much a late learned Author was out of the way of truth in saying, That the sound of the im­putation of Christs righteousness to believers is as loud in the Scriptures, as was that of the trumpet upon Mount Sinai, it being sounded forth almost ten times in that forecited Chapter, Rom. 4. Whereas in [Page 91] truth, it is the imputation of Faith, for righte­ousness that is there spoken of; but of the impu­tation of Christs righteousness there is not the least whisper in all that Chapter.

CHAP. XVI. Q. What is meant by faith in those Scri­ptures both of the Old and New Testa­ment, wherein it is said to be imputed to Believers for righteousness? Is it to be taken properly for faith it self, or fi­guratively, i. e. objectively, for Christs righteousness the object of faith? Answ. Properly for the thing faith, or faith it self, the truth of which answer is pro­ved by many reasons, and cleared from certain objections, with the suffrage of the very learned and most industrious Mr R. Baxter, and reflection upon a pas­sage of Dr Grew in his Sermons upon Jer. 23.6.

Q. WHat is meant by faith in the said itera­ted saying of the Apostle [Faith is, was, and shall be imputed to Believers for righ­teousness?]

Answ. It is famously known, that there are some learned Authors, and of those no small sum, who would have us to believe, that by [Page 92] faith [so expresly and frequently there said to be imputed] is not meant faith, i. e. the grace of faith, or any act thereof, but the obedience, sa­tisfaction, or righteousness of Christ believed on, or apprehended by faith. And because it is a thing, that having discovered it self to the world, cannot be hid, it must be therefore ac­knowledged, that this construction is formed in­to an Article of the faith of two Assemblies in time of the long Parliament and reign of the late Protector (so called) the one sitting at Westminster, the other at the Savoy, that con­sisting for the greatest part of Presbyteriall, and these altogether (for ought I ever heard) of Di­vines styled Congregational and Independent, who however differing each from other in other things, did too too unhappily accord in the misconstruction of the word [Faith] in the said celebrated saying of the Apostle, which they would have to be taken not properly and for­mally for faith it self, but figuratively, or ob­jectively for the righteousness of Christ belie­ved, or rested upon, which appears not onely by the Printed Confessions of their faith, but also by that Catechism styled The Larger Cate­chism agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster. But blessed be God▪ that this is none of the Articles of the Church of England, to which subscription is required; and therefore as for those confessions, how good and wholsom in other things they may be, as I am not requi­red, so neither am I able to assent to them in this matter, although owned by them as an Article of their private faith, yet was not in their pow­er, nor in the power of any man, or Assemblies of men to make it any Article of the Common [Page 93] faith of Christians; Faith therefore in that known, and common saying of the Apostle (faith is imputed to believers for righteousness) is to be taken properly and formally for faith it self, or believing, not figuratively or objective­ly, i. e. for the object of faith, the righteous­ness of Christ believed on, even in the like pro­priety of construction, as indeed it is to be ta­ken in any other Scriptures, wherein any pri­vilege whether pertaining to this life or the life to come is (under Christ) attributed to faith, as in that wherein our Saviour says to the diseased woman, Mat. 9.22. Thy saith hath made thee whole (it being in very deed faith in his name, that did it even no less, when it was done by Christ in person, than when a like miracle was done by him through the Ministery of St. Peter Acts 3.16.) and in those Scriptures wherein we are said to be saved through faith, justified by faith, and the like. I do the rather instance in the phrase of our being justified by faith (an ex­pression frequent with our Apostle) because these his phrases [Faith is imputed to us for righteousness, and we are justified by, through, or from faith] are perfectly equipollent, so that look in what con­struction the word [Faith] is taken in the one, it is to be taken in the other, and in very deed it is in all the said phrases to be taken properly, it being the scope of the Apostle by that word to give us to understand, that faith it self (the grace of faith) hath a certain interest, place, or office, in the justification of a sinner; and un­der what notion, and upon what account it doth operate, or prove effectual to that end, will be declared in answer to certain Questions in the sequel of this Discourse, which in that behalf [Page 94] will be proposed. I will only say here, that it was the scope of the Apostle in all the said phrases to intimate the necessity and the effectualness of faith as a means (of one kind, or other) to the righteousness, or justification of a sinner.

Obj. Is not Christs righteousness the merit [...]rious cause of a Believers righteousness?

Answ. Yes: For he was made our substitute so far forth as to be made sin for us, or to bear the punishment of our sins, whereby to purchase righteousness for us, or that we might be made righteous; but it will not follow from thence, that his righteousness it self is imputed to us for righteousness.

Obj. Hath not faith an object, and is not Christs righteousness the object of that faith, which is imputed to us for our justification?

Answ. 1. In the way of concession, I grant, 1. That as every act doth imply one object, or another, about which it is conversant; so doth faith: and as a man cannot be said to see, ex­cept he see something; so not to believe, except he believe something: and it is altogether a thing unreasonable to conceive, that those, who do affirm, that faith properly taken doth justifie us, or is imputed to us for righteousness, do thereby mean faith as divided, or severed from its object.

2. I grant, that the righteousness of Christ is a main thing to be believed, as well as other things revealed in the Scriptures, and that it is of far greater concernment to believe it, than ma­ny other things therein written and made known unto us.

2. Nevertheless in the way of opposition I answer, 1. The righteousness of Christ is but a [Page 95] partial, not the adequate, or ultimate object of that faith, which was imputed to Abraham, and which shall be imputed to us for righteous­ness; for it is said of Abraham, that he believed God, and it was counted to him for righteous­ness, Rom. 4.3. so that God, or the promise of God was the object of that his faith; and that faith, which the Apostle says shall be imputed to us, is said to have for its object Him that rais­ed up Jesus our Lord from the dead, i. e. God the Father, Eph. 1.17, 20.

2. We may believe the righteousness of Christ, even as well as other Articles of the Christian faith, and yet not be thereby justified, or have that faith imputed to us for righteousness.

3. For which reason possibly it comes to pass, that (as some have observed) whereas the object of faith as saving is expressed with great variety of phrase in Scripture, there is not to be found in all that variety any express mention of the righteousness of Christ, e. g. Sometimes Christs person is made the object of this faith, John 3.16. So God loved the world, that he gave—that whosoever believeth in him— Sometime Christ in his word, or doctrine, John 5.46. Had ye be­lieved Moses, ye would have believed me. Some­times Christ in the relation of his person; some­times as he stands related to God as his only be­gotten Son, John 20.31. These things are written that ye might believe, that Jesus is the Christ the son of God, and that — Sometimes as he stands related to those ancient promises of God, re­corded in the Old Testament, concerning the Messias as the off-spring of the Jewish nation, John 8.24. Except ye believe, that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. Sometimes the raising of Christ [Page 96] from the dead is made the object of this faith, Rom. 10.9. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart, that God raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Some­times God himself is solely specified as the ob­ject of this faith, Rom. 4.3. Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. Sometimes God through Christ, 1 Pet. 1.21. Who by him do do believe in God, who raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory, that our faith and hope might be in God. Sometimes the record or testimony of God concerning his Son is made the object of this faith, 1 John 5.10. Sometimes no object at all of this faith is expresly mentioned, where yet the Gospel is to be understood as the object thereof, Mark 16.16. with ver. 15. He that believeth, i. e. that Gospel, which the A­postles had in commission to preach to every creature, ver. 15. shall be saved— The pre­misses considered, it may seem strange, why those, who do assert, that by faith is meant Christs righteousness (an object thereof as justi­fying never expresly mentioned in Scripture) should not as well, or rather assert, that by it is meant God, or Christ, or some object of faith in express terms specified in Scripture.

4. Although the righteousness of Christ be one part of the object of faith, nevertheless it will not follow, that in the said assertion of the Apostle (faith is imputed to believers, and was imputed to Abraham for righteousness) the word faith is to be taken not formally for faith it self, but objectively for the righteousness of Christ, no more than it will from thence follow, that it is to be taken for God himself, or Christ in per­son the objects thereof. But that by faith is [Page 97] meant faith it self (the grace of faith) seems manifest by the consideration of these two things, viz. by the scope of the Apostle in that chapter, as also by the description of Abra­hams faith, which was imputed to him, and of that faith which the Apostle says shall be impu­ted to others for righteousness.

1. The thing, which was imputed to Abra­ham for righteousness, is said by the Apostle to be that, which Abraham had being yet uncir­cumcised. Now that, which the Apostle said, that Abraham had being yet uncircumcised, is not the righteousness of Christ, but faith; for which see Rom. 4.11. And he received the sign of circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the Faith, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

Obj. The antecedent to that relative, is not the word faith, but righteousness, and so the meaning is, which righteousness i. e. of Christ Abraham had being yet uncircumcised?

Answ. In the way of concession; forasmuch as the words [ [...] and [...]] are bath of them of the feminine gender, I grant that the pronoun relative [ [...],] which may in true con­struction of Grammar indifferently refer either to the word Righteousness, or to the word Faith as its antecedent.

2, In way of exception, 1. Although in Gram­matical construction it may possibly refer to either of them, nevertheless it doth truly refer to the word faith, as appears by the Apostles inter­pretation, or construction thereof in the verse immediately following, where speaking of the believing Gentiles, he d [...]s [...]ribes them to be such, as do walk in the steps of that Faith of our Fa­ther Abraham, which he had being yet uncir­cumcised. [Page 98] So that if we will believe the Apo­stle, the Relative which in verse 11. doth not refer to the word righteousness (as if he had meant, which righteousness Abraham had being yet uncircumcised) but to the word faith: Hence it follows unavoidably, That if the thing said to be imputed to Abraham for righteousness be that, which he is said to have had being yet un­circumcised, i. e. faith, hence I say it follows ne­cessarily, that the thing imputed to Abraham for righteousness was his faith, and not the righ­teousness of Christ.

2 I answer Ex abundanti, By the righteous­ness of faith in Rom. 4.11. is not meant the righteousness of Christ, but that righteousness which is the fruit of faith, or doth acc [...]ue to sin­ners by faith in Christ, as hath at large been ma­nifested in the 14th Chapter of this Dis­course.

2. That faith, which was imputed to Abra­ham for righteousness, is that, by which he be­lieved in God, who quickneth the dead, and verse 17. But Christs righteousness cannot in a­ny tolerable construction be called that faith, by which Abraham believed in God, who quick­neth the dead, and calleth the things that are not as though they were.

3. It is said to be that faith, wherein Abra­ham was not weak, verse 19. But the righteous­ness of Christ cannot in reason be conceived to be that, wherein Abraham was not weak.

4. It is opposed unto doubting of the pro­mise of God through unbelief, verse 20. to which doubting the righteousness of Christ car­ries no opposition, it being a thing predica­mentally differing, or of a different kind from it.

It was that faith, by which he was fully assu­red, that he, which had promised, was able to perform. Thus it is described verse 21. and the imputation thereof so described, is affirmed verse 22. But no such thing can be affirmed con­cerning the righteousness of Christ, viz. That by it Abraham was assured, that he, who had promised, was able to perform it.

2. Consider what the Apostle says concerning that faith of other believers, which, as he asserts, shall be imputed to them for righteousness, e. g. 1. He says verse 5. That to him, that worketh not, but believeth on him, who justifieth the ungodly, His faith is imputed to him for righteousness. Hence it is evident, that that faith (whatsoever we un­derstand by it) which is imputed to a believer for righteousness, is somewhat, that may be tru­ly and properly called His, before such imputa­tion of it be made unto him. Now it cannot be said of the righteousness of Christ, that that is any mans (even our adversaries in this contro­versie being judges) before the imputation of it be made unto him; but faith properly taken is the believers (at least in order of nature) before it be imputed.

2. That, which shall be imputed to others for righteousness, is said to be our believing on him, that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead. ver. 24. But the righteousness of Christ is not our be­lieving on him, who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead. Therefore it cannot be the Apostles meaning, that Christs righteousness is the very thing, which is there said to be imputed to us for righteousness.

Lastly, That the word faith here is to be ta­ken properly for faith, and not figuratively for [Page 100] Christs righteousness is sufficiently apparent by the drift of the Apostle in his whole discourse concerning justification, which evidently was to direct unto and assert the true way of being justified, in opposition to that wrong way (through works and legal performances and not by faith, Rom. 9.32.) which was embraced by many in those times, according to the doctrine of their false Teachers. We may well suppose the Question to be the same with that of the Jaylors. What shall I do to be saved, or justi­fied? Must we be circumcised and keep the law of Moses of necessity to justification, and sal­vation, or is it enough for that end to believe in Christ without such works? Thus is the Questi­on stated Acts 15, beginning. This Question the Apostle determines in this Chapter, as in the Chapter foregoing, affirming constantly, That that which God now requires at our hands in order to our justification, or salvation, is not legal performances, works of the Judaical law, but faith in Christ. As for the righteousness of Christ, this is not the thing required at our hands (as Dr Owen says) for our justification; this is it, which God required of Christ, and Christ did perform to the uttermost of what was required, and this righteousness of Christ so required, and performed, the Apostle in his discourse concerning justification always sup­poseth, and sometimes intimateth in such places where he mentions the blood of Christ, Rom. 3.25. and justification by his blood. Chap. 5.9. and his being delivered for our offences, Chap. 4.25. But the thing required of us, is our faith in Christ himself, or in God through Christ, as the Apostle most agreably to the occasion and [Page 101] drift of his discourse doth determine. And ve­rily for the Apostle to have certified them, that the righteousness of Christ should be im­puted to them for righteousness, or barely to have informed them, what Christ hath done for the procuring of righteousness for them, had been, if not quite beside, yet marvellously short of the thing designed by him, which was plainly and directly this, viz. to make known unto them what was required of them, or to be performed by themselves (through Gods gr [...]ce assisting and enabling them) for their being justified, or made righteous by Christ, which he affirms to be by their faith, or believing without the said works of the Law. And thence it is, that speak­ing concerning justification, redemption, and salvation by Christ, he doth so expresly and fre­quently mention faith as the duty, or means re­quired by God of us, or on our parts for the enjoyment thereof, Rom. 3.25. and 5.1, 2. Eph. 2.8.

If my one shall desire to hear, what more can be said in th [...]s point, I shall refer him to what he may read, as in other Authors, so especially in Mr Baxters late great Volume, styled his Cath. Theology, Par. 3. p. 252, wherein he hath purposely and to very good purpose answered this Questi­on, Whether faith it self be imputed to us for righteousness? I will only transcribe the follow­ing words of his, and leave them to the Rea­ders impartial consideration.

If good men, and wise men (says he, p. 253, 254) and men, that cry down the Papists and others for add­ing to Gods word, and corrupting it and calling it a nose of wax, and introducing new Articles of faith, will yet own such expositions as these (they saying, that by [Page 102] faith is not meant faith at all, but Christs righteousness in all those Scriptures, where faith is said to be imputed to believers for righteousness, Rom. 4.3, 4, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24) and accuse those, that own them not, they are as great instances as most I remember, except the defenders of Transubstantion, how far education, or custome, or humane dependance, or faction, or partiality, and prejudice may blind the reason of professed Christians, and godly men. And that man, that dare lay his comforts and hopes of justifica­tion, and life upon such expositions of Gods word, should be modest in crying down the false hopes of others, and reproving them that build upon the sand.

Quest. Are there any such as Mr Baxter here speaks of, who do lay their comfort and hopes of justification and life upon the righteousness of Christ alone, and not at all upon faith, or ought else in man, or done by man?

Answ. This is (for ought I know) ordinary with those, who deny faith properly taken to be imputed for righteousness, among whom I shall instance in Dr Grew for one of the said daring Adventurers, as doth evidently appear by many passages in his late Printed Sermons on Jer. 23.6. Some whereof I shall recite, as followeth.

Holiness and holy duties (says he, p. 86.) in the point of justification are but as Cyphers, here we must deny our best as well as our worst. Our eyes fixed on Christs righteousness made ours (he means by imputa­tion of the thing it self) settles us on a firmer rock, than mount Sion, but fixed on our selves and our own righteousness within doors, as in a leaking vessel— and therefore (says he, p. 88.) count all your own righteousness (he means, all our holiness and holy du­ties) loss and dung. And p. 90. (says he) many would be in commission with Christs righteousness (he means, [Page 103] Christs righteousness imputed in his own anti-gospel sense) and Gods free grace for their peace and comfort, but this is to have one foot on the firm ground, and ano­ther in a boat; but here is no standing. And p. 72. he makes a sinners being made righteous with the righteousness of Christ imputed to him to be Articulus stantis, & cadentis ecclesia, for which he quotes the authority of Luther, mentioning the same also (if I do not misremember) in the Epistle prefixed to his book. And he doth so en­hance the comfort of Christs righteousness in his own heterodox sense imputed, as to say (p. 204.) That upon account thereof the obedience of one Believer is more acceptable with God, than the obe­dience of all mankind in the first covenant. And in p. 120. he m [...]kes as if nothing will quiet our consci­ences, but the imputation of Christs righteous­ness in his sense as aforesaid.

Mr Baxter needs not to go far in seeking to find those bold Adventurers, who dare lay their comforts and hopes of justification and life up­on such misexpositions of Gods word as afore­said, for here is one who dare (as it seems) do it with open face, and with superlative confidence.

CHAP. XVII. Q. Whence comes it to pass, that so many very learned and most pious men have so much and miserably mistaken the true meaning of the word [Faith] in its being said to be imputed to Believers for righte­ousness, they interpreting by faith not to be meant faith, but the righteousness of Christ? Answ. Four things are as­signed as the causes of it, wherein much is spoken for the removing of them out of the way of truth, whereby they may no longer obstruct the free current thereof.

Q WHence comes it to pass, that so many godly and learned men have so mistaken the true meaning of the word Faith in its being said to be imputed to us for righteousness?

A. Not to mention the common infirmities of our degenerate nature (though regenerate) nor the hand of Satan our common Enemy, who is still sowing tares among the good seed in Gods field, I humbly conceive, that such things as these may be main causes or occasions there­of.

1. As the misexposition of one Scripture doth oft times occasion the misconstruction of ano­ther: so I do humbly conceive, that their mis­exposition of all such Scriptures, wherein we [Page 105] are said to be justified by faith, hath occasioned their misinterpretation of that word in other Scriptures, wherein faith is said to be imputed to us for righteousness: for these two things are apparent.

1. To be justified by faith, and to have faith im­puted to us for righteousness are phrases synony­mous, signifying the self same thing as hath been already said, and as is proveable from Gal. 3.6. compared with ver. 8. where having said ver. 6. That Abraham believed God and it was ac­counted to him for righteousness, he interprets the saying to be all one, as Gods justifying A­braham by faith, ver. 8. And the Scriptures fore­seeing, i. e. God foreseeing, as the Scripture testifies, that he would justifie the Heathen through faith preach­ed before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations (believing Gentiles as well as Jews) be blessed.

2. Consequently hereupon it sufficiently ap­pears by those Synonymous expressions, that the word faith is to be taken in the same sense in both the said phrases. And indeed, would the adverse party grant, that it is faith it self pro­perly taken by which we are justified, they would not stick to yield, that our faith it self is the thing, which is imputed to us for righte­ousness. But forasmuch as they do professedly maintain, that in the former sayings (we are justified by faith, and saved through faith and the like) the word faith is to be taken relative­ly, or objectively (not for faith it self, but for Christs righteousness the object of faith;) they have thereupon obliged themselves to make the like misconstruction of the word in all those ma­ny Scriptures, wherein faith is said to be impu­ted [Page 106] to us for righteousness. But it is commonly objected, that the habit or act of faith is some­times taken for the object of faith.

Adsw. 1. Though that he supposed, or grant­ed, yet it will not follow from thence, that it is so to be taken in those Scriptures, wherein we are said to be justified by faith.

2. As in some Scriptures we are said to be ju­stified simply by faith, so in other Scriptures, where that saying is interpreted, We are said to be justified by faith in Christ (Gal. 2.16. knowing, that a man is not justified by the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ.) Whence observe, that the grace or act of faith are both of them there expresly mentioned. Now when the act and object are named together, and the act expressed and specified by an object suitable to it, and somewhat moreover immediately as­cribed to this act, in this case to make a meer cy­pher of the act, and to ascribe the thing solely to the object, or as the onely thing to be under­stood by the act, is altogether against reason and without parallel in the Scripture.

I shall onely commend here these two things to observation, viz.

1. That the Scriptures speaking concerning a sinners justification, do sometimes express onely the grace of faith, ascribing it thereunto, as in Rom. 5.11. Being justified by faith.—Some­times they do express onely the object, So Gal. 3.16. That the blessing of Abraham, i. e. justifica­tion, might come upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. Sometimes there is made express mention both of the grace, or act of faith, as also of its object. So in the Scripture occasionally forecited, Gal 2.16. [Page 107] Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justi­fied by the faith of Christ.

2. From the said Scriptures compared toge­ther▪ I shall commend it to observation as a ve­ry safe rule, and very necessary for the deciding and preventing of needless contests, viz. That where the act of justifying faith is onely menti­oned, there the object thereof is not to be ex­cluded, but implyed. And on the other side, where the object of that faith is onely expressed, there faith it self is not to be excluded, but un­derstood. And where both are expresly men­tioned, we are there to preserve distinct notions of them, neither construing the object of faith for faith it self, nor faith it self simply or pre­cisely for its object. This rule well observed, is, I humbly conceive, a special means for the due interpretation of many Scriptures, which treat of the matters I am now speaking of, and for the ending of needless controversies.

2. Another thing which I conceive to be a cause of these misinterpretations of the word faith, is (as I am perswaded) a certain jealousy of derogating from Christ, and arrogating to our selves; which jealousy being causless is of a most mischievous nature, and hath done much hurt in the Churches of Christ, as we have sadly experienced in those called Antinomians, who have entertained many false doctrines, because of that [...], or [...] (as are the words of Scripture in like cases, Col. 2.23. Acts 17.30.) I mean, that shew, which they have of humility and self-denial, and honouring Gods free grace and the merits of Christs. The causlesness of [Page 108] this jealousy I shall take occasion to discover, in answer to one Question or other, which for that end shall be proposed in the sequel of this Dis­course. In the mean time for the preventing, or removing of such causless jealousies in the case before us, it may be sufficient to commend to observation that 22d Canon of the most ex­cellent Glassius in his Philologia Sacra de verbo, p. 586. Activa verba tribuuntur illis, quae non propriis­sime, & influxu proximo id agunt, quod verba signi­ficant, sed certâ tantum ratione concurrunt. Some­times matters, or effects are in Scripture ascribed to those things, which are no principal causes thereof, but onely instruments under God, yea which are no causes at all thereof [strictly so called,] but onely in means or conditions in one sort or other, concurring to the matter. It were easie to multiply instances of this kind, besides those which are specified by the said expert Linguist and learned Author. Thus is Timothy by his life and doctrine said to save Himself and his Hearers, 1 Tim. 4.16. And sin­ners are said to make themselves new hearts and new spirits, Ezek. 18. lat. Thus is baptisme i. e. the answer of a good conscience towards God, said to save us, 1 Pet. 3.21. Not that this Reno­vation [the thing meant by the answer of a good conscience towards God] is so much as a cause (in propriety of speech) thereof, but because it doth suo modo, or quadam ratione, in some sort morally concur thereunto, i. e. as a certain means, or condition of a sinners salvation, at least by divine order and appointment extrinsecal thereunto. Where by the way be it observed,

1. That S. Peter thought it no derogating from the grace of God, or merits of Christ, to attribute our salvation to the answer of a good [Page 109] conscience toward God, i. e. to real holiness. In like sort there is no just cause to think, that the adscription of a sinners righteousness, justifica­tion, or remission of sin to his faith properly taken, is any sinful arrogating to our selves, or derogating from God, and Christ.

2. Be it observed, that this same jealousy, being given way unto, must necessarily cause us to make some such strange construction of that expression of S. Peter (the answer of a good conscience towards God) how that by it is not meant the answer of a good conscience towards God, but God himself, who alone doth save us, and by whose free grace sinners are saved.

3 Another cause of the said mis-interpretati­on, as I judge, is, because it is in appearance full of comfort, and as such by too too many swal­lowed down even as the marrow and fatness of the Gospel, as if this were that feast of fat things, that feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full marrow foretold by the Prophet Isaiah chap. 25.6. This indeed is a most woful calamity, that the true comforts of Scripture are with the most of sinners, so small, as that they are not at all affected therewith, and that when the Mini­sters of God do mourn to them i. e. do denounce the threatnings of God against them, they will not lament, nor when they pipe, i. e. proclaim to them the comfortable doctrines of the Gos­pel, they will not dance. But if we pipe and preach such doctrines as these [in shew and ap­pearance to a fleshly eye most comfortable] That Jesus Christ hath done all for our salvation, and we have nothing to do for that end, That it is the righteousness of Christ himself, that is im­puted to us for righteousness, nothing that is [Page 110] done by our selves is capable of any imputation in order to that end: this is the piping and preaching, which makes sinners dance; but a­las they dance to the musick of a Syren, a Do­ctrine that charms them onely to destroy them; for although while they live it may bear them up in their sins, against the natural temper of their own consciences, yet for certain in the end it will leave them desperate and miserable.

4. Another cause of the said mis interpreta­tion of the word (faith) is, as I am perswaded, the not understanding the nature of Gospel ju­stification, they misconceiving,

1. That by it a sinner is freed, not onely from guilt of punishment, but also from guilt of fault; which errour hath been at large refuted in the first part of this discourse.

2. They falsly supposing, That justification doth consist of two integral parts, whereof, say they, Remission of sin is one, and the imputati­on of Christs righteousness, or Christs righte­ousness it self imputed (for so some do express the matter) is the other; and they do usually say (as doth Dr Owen and Dr Grews Sermons up­on Jer. 23.6. p. 55.) that we have the one from Christs passive, and the other from his active o­bedience, upon which latter account onely (as to me seemeth) Dr Grew would have him to be called, The Lord our righteousness. Whereas the truth is, that Christs righteousness however it be the meritorious cause, yet it is no part at all of a sinners justification; yea because it is the meritorious cause, and a thing for that rea­son wholly extrinsecal to it (for so are all effi­cient causes to their effects) it cannot therefore be any part of justification it self, remission of [Page 111] sin being it, that doth Totam naturam justificationis Evangelicae absorbere, i. e, doth wholly constitute justification (I mean, that justification, which was merited by Christ, and promised by God to believing sinners, or to sinners conditionally, upon their sincere believing) and that it self is Ipsa justitia imputata, ceu donata, that very righ­teousness, which is said in Scripture to be impu­ted, or imparted to believing sinners, and that faith it self is the very thing, which is imputed to them in hanc, or ad hanc justitiam, to, or for this righteousness. Nor do I think it a thing more to be doubted, that by faith is meant faith in that so oft repeated saying of the Apostle (Faith is imputed to us for righteousness) than that by Believing is meant Believing in that his saying, With the heart man believeth unto righteous­ness, Rom. 10.10.

There be other causes, or occasions at least of the said mis-interpretation of the word (Faith) useful to be known; but because I have enlarg­ed my self beyond my first intention upon those already intimated, I shall forbear to lengthen this Chapter by the addition of any other, but shall proceed to the Answer of some other Que­stion pertaining to the matter in hand, which will be the Subject of the next Chapter.

CHAP. XVIII. Q. What is it for Faith [the thing it self Faith] to be imputed to Believers for Righteousness? Answ. There being a twofold righteousness, viz. Legal [com­manded in the law of works, or inno­cency,] and evangelical (promised in the law of faith;) and there being also a difference betwixt these two sayings (Faith, is imputed to us [...], in­stead of righteousness, and [...], To righteousness, this being the Apostles literal expression of the matter;) it is thereupon declared, How faith may be truly conceived and asserted to be impu­ted to believing sinners, both To Righ­teousness and instead of Righteousness. The Authors humble opinion touching the genuine sense of the phrase, and the reasons thereof rendred.

HAving manifested in the foregoing Chap­ters, that faith is expresly said to be impu­ted to us for righteousness, and that by faith so said to be imputed, is meant faith it self in the propriety of the word, and having withall de­clared the main causes, or occasions of the contrary misconstruction, as if by faith were [Page 113] meant the righteousness of Christ [the object of faith,] I shall next put it to the Question (the matter being now ripe for it.)

Quest. What is it for faith to be imputed to a Be­liever for righteousness?

Answ. According to a twofold sense of the word (righteousness,) so a twofold constructi­on may possibly and agreeably both to reason and to the truth of Scripture, be made of the said phrase, e. g. There is a twofold righteous­ness, which in modern Authors is usually for di­stinction sake expressed by the name of Legal and Evangelical; by the former is meant obe­dience absolutely perfect, such as that, which was made the condition of the covenant of works or innocency, and by the latter is here meant not that righteousness, which is com­manded in the Gospel (although this must be ac­knowledged to be one kind, or branch of a sinners Gospel righteousness and therefore fitly called Evangelical) but that righteousness, which is promised in the Gospel upon condition of the righteousness therein commanded, these two branches of a sinners Evangelical righteousness differing the one from the other (as hath by oc­casion been before said) as Officium, & Benefici­um, as Mans duty, and Gods mercy, mans duty consisting in the former, and his felicity in the latter; that having the nature, and to be there­fore conceived under the notion of a means, and this of an end, to which that means doth (I do not say efficiently, but) effectually conduce.

Now (to apply the said distinction of a two­fold righteousness to the matter in hand) if we take the word Righteousness for Legal righte­ousness, [Page 114] it may be well and truly said, That faith it self is imputed to believing sinners, Vice, or in Loco, instead of the said Legal righteous­ness, i. e. faith doth stand a believing sinner in a like saving stead, or is available to a like sa­ving purpose unto him, as the said Legal righ­teousness would have done, or been, if man had never become a sinner. This being a safe and true construction, I shall for the clearing there­of, and for the prevention of mistake commend to consideration, how the phrase of accounting, imputing, or reckoning is taken in certain other Scriptures (apt for the purpose in hand) it be­ing there used to manifest the accepting of one thing for another, or to the like purpose as if it were another, for which see Num. 18.27. where the Levites heave-offering is promised to be rec­koned, counted, or imputed to them, as though it were the corn of the threshing floor, and as the fulness of the winepress; and ver. 30. Where God speaks to the same purpose concerning their gifts, as was said of the heave-offering of their tithes (When you have heaved the best thereof from it, then it shall be counted unto the Levites as the increase of the threshing floor and as the increase of the wine-press.)

Quest. How, or in what sense was it thus account­ed, or promised to be so accounted?

Answ. Not that the said heave-offering was judged, esteemed, or simply thought to be the very corn of the threshing floor, or the very full fruit of the vine. Not so: for as the Papists by making use of any of their three senses (tasting, feeling, seeing) may unerringly know, that the consecrated bread in the Lords supper (by them commonly called the Host) is not Ipsum Corpus, [Page 115] the very body of Christ, so might the Levites by their eye-sight have perceived the contrary, viz. That the heave-offering of both those kinds of tithes, which by divine law were made due from them to the Priests, wa not the very corn of the threshing floor, and the very fruit of the vine: But the meaning is (as the learned do interpret it, and which indeed is an interpretation obvi­ous) it shall be alike acceptable to God and avail­able to the like purpose, as if it had been of their own proper fields, or vineyards. In like sort may the imputation of faith to Believers for Righteousness (the said Legal righteousness) be truly and safely understood,

1. Negatively, not that God doth account, or reckon faith to be that, which in it self it is not, or to be any other thing, than in its true nature and in very deed it is, e. g. (To speak more punctually)

1. Not that God doth account, or repute it to be our very fulfilling the law of innocency, whe­ther in our own persons, or in Chr [...]st: for as Christ by fulfilling the law did satisfie for our sin, so by fulfilling it himself (I mean the whole law of Mediatorship, whereof the law, that obli­ged us, was one material part, and which he did fulfill not in our persons, but in his own as Me­diator for us) he did merit, that no such fulfill­ing of the law should be required of us in order to the attaining of righteousness. Thence that saying of the Apostle, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, 2 Cor. 5.19. Where it is observable that St. Paul says not, We were in Christ reconciling our s [...]lves to God; which yet he might have said, yea and more might he have said, viz. We were in Christ reconciling the [Page 116] world to God, if it were one, That we in Christ fulfil the law. I conclude therefore, that as by faith is not meant Christ, or his righteousness, so neither by Gods imputing faith to us for righ­teousness is it meant, that our faith is reputed by God to be ipsa legis impletio, our legal righ­teousness, i. e. our fulfilling of the law of inno­cency, whether in our own persons, or in and by Christ.

2. Not, that God doth reckon, or account our faith it self to be absolutely perfect, or with­out any the least sinful defect: for such is not the faith of any Believer, the best of all, though being able to say with him in the Gospel (Lord I believe) yet having need with him also to pray, Lord help, yea and the Lord pardon my unbe­lief. If such a perfection of faith had been made the condition of a sinners righteousness or justi­fication in the sight of God, what man living had been justified? But our Christian comfort is, That the promise of righteousness by faith is made to the reality, or sincerity, not to the per­fection thereof. So that as God cannot account our imperfect faith to be perfect (for this is re­pugnant to his nature, and his judgment is never otherwise than according to truth:) so we have no need, that he should do so, because the law of faith requires no such perfection of faith to the foresaid end, or as the condition of our justifi­cation.

3. Not, that God doth repute faith to be of that intrinsecal value, worth or merit, as the perfect fulfilling of the law of innocen­cy would have been, or as if it would serve to the self same end and purpose, I mean, to the self same kind of righteousness, or justification. [Page 117] Not so I say: for if man had continued in inno­cency, he should and would have been justified for that his innocency, or perfect obedience, and this would have been the meritorious cause of that; so that this his justification would not have been,

1. Gratuitous, and for the righteousness sake of Christ.

2. It would have been a justification of ano­ther kind, than that of sinners by faith in Christ, i. e. It would have been a justification, A reatu culpae, from guilt of fault, whereas the justifica­tion of a sinner onely is, yea can be A reatu poe­na, from guilt of punishment, not from the guilt of fault simply and absolutely, i. e. from the guilt of all, or all manner of faults.

2. Affirmatively I make answer, That faith may be truly said to be imputed to us for Legal righteousness, because it is promised by God, in some certain sense to be reckoned to them, as though it were; even as the heave-offering of the tithe was promised by him to be reckoned to the Levite, as though it were the corn of the thresh­ing floor and the increase of the winepress (that is) that it shall be accepted with God, and prove alike available to the salvation of a sinner, as a Legal righteousness consisting in perfect obedi­ence would have been to the salvation of an in­nocent man; That as a Legal righteousness should, and would have availed a person inno­cent to justification from guilt of fault, so faith in Christ shall avail a believing sinner to justifi­cation from guilt of punishment, this being ful­ly answerable to a sinners necessity and hearts desire.

Briefly, Gods reckoning faith unto us instead of a Legal righteousness is in plain sense and construction Gods looking upon a sinner, who truly believeth, with as much grace and favour, and his dealing with him as graciously and bountifully (so far as concerns his eternal salva­tion) as if he were a man of perfect righteous­ness, and had entirely fulfilled the whole law.

I shall somewhat further exemplifie the truth of what hath been here asserted by this familiar instance, As a Creditor upon a promise made to accept from a Debtor a p [...]nny in a shilling, or twelve pence instead of a pound legally due to him, may be said to reckon it (being paid) to the Debtor, as if it were the full payment of the whole sum due by law, or to count that as paid, which in strict construction according to law was not paid, but of courtesie according to pro­mise is remitted; even so I can perceive no rea­son, why it may not be with safety of truth and with fitness of expression said, that God imputeth faith to believing sinners for legal righteous­ness, in that he doth accept it in its stead, i. e. doth deal with them as if they were perfectly righteous, pardoning all their unrighteousnes­ses, and acquitting them from all that punish­ment, whereunto upon that account they were obnoxious. The Apostle oft times saying [We are justifyed by faith] doth give us to understand, that we are some way or other justified by it, and the way of its justifying he says, is by imputation, or account from God for righteousnes [...], which im­putation of faith may well and truly be asserted, because it is all that God requires of men to th [...]ir justification instead of the perfect righte­ous ess of the law. Hitherto I have spoken of [Page 119] the meaning of the phrase (Gods imputing faith to us for righteousness) upon a rational suppo­sition, that by righteousness is meant legal righteousness, and supposing that by [for] is meant (instead) in which sense the word (for) seems to be taken in Exod. 13.9. where it is said, That the paschal solemnity should be for a sign to them upon the [...]r hand, and for a memorial be­tween their eyes, i. e. it should be in [...]tead of such signs and memorials, as men use to carry about them to preserve, or renew the remembrance of any thing.

I shall now proceed to specifie another safe construction of the phrase on supposition, that by righteousnes [...] is meant Evangelical righteous­ness.

2. By that righteousness, for which faith is said to be imputed, most probably is meant that Evangelical righteousness, which is promised in the Gospel to believing sinners, and which is sty­led in Scripture (as hath been already said and proved) the righteousness of faith, and which is of God by faith. My reasons for this constru­ction are such as these,

1. Because his words in the original are not [...], instead of righteousness (this par­ticle properly signifying Vicem, instead) but [...], unto, or into righteousness. And thus it is literally rendred by several Authors; In justitiam, into righteousness (s [...]ys Calvin) Ad justitiam, unto righteousness, says Piscator. I grant indeed, that St. Paul in his expression ( [...]) doth follow the Septuagint, as was usual with him and the rest of the Apostles, to­gether with our blessed Saviour, in their quotati­ons from the old Testament: for in the Hebrew, [Page 120] Gen. 15.6. (Whence that sentence is quoted by the Apostle) it is not said explicitly, that Abra­hams faith was accounted to him, either for, or to, or into righteousness, but simply without any preposition particle, Righteousness. Never­theless the Apostle did warrantably follow the Septuagints Translation of the said Text in Gen. 15.16.

1. Because the particle, or letter (Lamed) is in some other Scriptures wanting, where neces­sarily it is to be understood, an instance of which defect that great Rabbi, Mr H. Ainsworth doth specifie, viz. Lebeith in the house, Jer. 52.17. is written onely Beith, 2 King. 25.13.

2. Because the said letter (Lamed) is in ano­ther Scripture (viz. Psal. 106.31.) prefixed to the word Righteousness, where the act of Phi­xeas is said to be counted to him for righteous­ness.

Now although our Translators (together with Beza and others in their Latine Translation of the New Testament) do render the particle [ [...]] not to, but for, as also doth the Genevah tran­slation, nevertheless we may not necessarily conclude from thence, that they would have the particle (Pro, or For) to be understood in the same sense as [...], instead, as if it had been said, Instead of righteousness: for it is ordinary with our Translators to render the said particle ( [...]) by the word (for) in many Scriptures, where the word (for) cannot in reason be understood in such a construction as is evident by the follow­ing Texts Acts 3.38. (Repent and be baptized [...] for the remission of your sins) And Heb. 11.7. Where Noah is said to have prepared an Ark [...] for the saving of his house, So Luke 3.3. [Page 121] Where John the Baptist is said to have come into all the countrey about Jordan, preaching the ba­ptism of repentance [...], for the re­mission of sins.

2. I am much assured; that by righteousness in the said sentence of the Apostle concerning Gods imputing faith to, or for righteousness is not meant Legal, but Evangelical righteousness, because for a sinner to be justified by faith and for his faith to be imputed to him to, or for righteousness, are phrases equivalent and of the self same importance, they being promiscuously used by the Apostle, as was before said: for he proves the justification of a sinner to be by faith without legal works from the witness of Scrip­ture touching the manner or means of Abrahams justification, wherein it is testified That Abra­ham believed God, i. e. without the said works of the law, and that his faith was accounted, or imputed to him for righteousness.

3. Because there is no other kind of justifica­tion, or righteousness promised in the Gospel to sinners upon their faith in Christ, or in God through Christ, than the said Evangelical righ­teousness, which consists in the pardon of their sins, they being not in a natural capacity of that other legal righteousness, as hath been already said upon occasion more than once.

The premisses considered, I am perswaded, that the genuine sense of the Apostles saying, That God imputeth faith to a believer for, or to righ­teousness is this, viz. That God doth accept of faith as the only requisite condition of a sinner being made righteous, i. e. of his being justified or pardoned for the sake of Christ. Briefly, To say, that a sinners faith is imputed to him for [Page 122] righteous­ness is the self same thing as to say in those other words of the Apostle else where, That sin­ners are justified by faith, or, That with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, So that, he who understandeth rightly what is meant by faith or believing, and what by righteousness in the said assertions, and what it is to believe un­to righteousness, cannot but rightly know the meaning of every simple term in this propositi­on (faith is imputed to us to righteousness) and the true sense of the proposition it self.

But because various ways of expressing the same thing may not be altogether needless, but in many cases, and as to many persons useful ra­ther, I shall, although still to the same purpose, add,

Forasmuch as there is a twofold righteousness, the one commanded in the Gospel, or law of faith (faith it self being this Righteousness and the Ipsum Quod, the thing it self said to be im­puted by God) and the other in that law promi­sed thereupon (justification, or remission of sin being this righteousness, the Ipsum ad Quod, the thing to which it is imputed:) and forasmuch as the righteousness, which is commanded in the law of faith is that, which doth by Gods desig­nation qualifie us for enjoying the righteous­ness therein promised, it is faith, which by vertue of the promise doth intitle a sinner to this pro­mised righteousness, which to say is all one as to say, A sinners faith is imputed to him for, or un­to righteousness. Hereupon it is true also to say, That in the Gospel of Christ the Righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, i. e. from the righteousness of faith therein commanded to the righteousness, which is of faith, and is there­in [Page 123] promised. This I say is a truth, and a com­modious construction of that saying, Rom. 1.17. Let the genuine sense of it prove, or be proved to be otherwise what it will, or can.

Having declared the true sense and meaning of that saying (Faith is imputed to us for, or un­to righteousness) both of the simple terms, and of the entire propositions, I shall in the next place address my discourse to the clearing and disen­tangling the true construction thereof as afore­said, from such objections as usually are, or possi­bly may be made against it: And this I will do by the resolution of several Questions, which will be the subject of certain Chapters next fol­lowing.

CHAP. XIX. Quest. Ʋpon what account, or from what cause, or causes is it, that faith (pro­perly taken) is counted to Believers for righteousness, or proves to them effectu­ally available unto righteousness? Ans. The Question is answered, 1. Negative­ly, Not ab intrinseco, from ought, which is in the intrinsecal nature of faith, or the value and merit thereof. 2. Af­firmatively, The causes assigned being wholly ab extrinseco, viz. Gods mercy, Christs merit and the Gospel-covenant. Hereupon it is made apparent, that those Protestant Writers, who do assert faith it self to be imputed to Believers for or to righteousness, do not dethrone the righteousness of Christ, or set up any branch of mans own righteousness in its stead.

Q. UPon what account is it, that faith is account­ed to us for righteousness, or proves to us ef­fectually available for, or unto righteousness?

Answ. 1. Negatively, The cause is not Ab intrinseco, e. g. 1. Not from any meritorious worth, that is in the grace of faith, or in any act, or work of ours therein comprized, name, or thing.

[Page 125]2. Not meerly from any thing that is natural, or essential to it, or its peculiar actings, viz. the apprehending of Christ, the laying hold upon Christ and his righteousness and the like: for were there not some other cause of the thing here in Question, our believing, or laying hold on Christs righteousness (although his righte­ousness be a most enriching treasure, sufficient in it self and kind to enrich the whole world of sinners) would do us no good, or turn to any profit unto us, no more than a poor mans bare laying hands upon the gold and silver, which is in a rich mans bag, or chest, would enrich him.

2. Affirmatively, The cause, or causes there­of are wholly ab extrinseco, taken from what is extrinsecal to the essence, or nature of faith, viz. from God and Christ, and the Co­venant of grace, and 1. The inward moving cause is Gods gracious good will and love and pleasure. This is the will of him that sent me (says our Saviour Joh. 6.40) that every one that seeth the son, and believeth on him may have everlasting life, See Joh. 3.16.

2. Christs merit, or meritorious righteous­ness is the external impelling cause thereof. It is Christ, who died and by his bloodshed hath pro­cured righteousness, or the justification of life for sinners upon their sincere faith, Rom. 5.19. As by the disobedience of one many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. See both these causes (God free grace and Christs merit) expressed together, Rom. 3.24, 25. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption, that is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood—

3. The Covenant of God and his fidelity [Page 126] thereupon engaged to perform the same, is the cause why a sinners faith is available unto righ­teousness. God was pleased for Christs sake to put his gracious purpose to pardon and justifie believing sinners into a faithful promise, or co­venant so to do, which promise, or covenant of God with sinners concerning faith, is called the law of faith, Rom. 3.27. And this law is that, which gives that force, efficacy, or power, which faith hath to our righteousness, or justification. As sin hath its strength to condemn from one law (the law of works) 1 Cor. 5.56. So faith hath its strength to justifie and save from another, The law of faith, or covenant of grace. To this purpose are we taught (by those words in the e­leventh Article of our Church, saying, We are accounted righteous before God, for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith. Where ob­serve, that it is not said, We are accounted righ­teous with his righteousness, or merit, but for it by faith, i. e. the merit of Christ, or of his righteousness hath so far prevailed with God, that by, or upon our faith we shall be accounted righteous before him; which is all one indeed as to s [...]y, That God for Christs merits sake doth impute our fai [...]h to us for, or unto righteous­ness, requiring no more at our hands for our just fication in his sight.

These are the true causes (all of them extrin­secal to the precise nature of faith) of faith its being imputed to us for, or unto righteousness, God thus effectually imputing it for his mercy and faithfulness sake, and for his Christs sake.

I have purposely proposed, and answered this Question, and reserved a peculiar Chap. for it, for the more abundant satisfaction of many my dis­senting [Page 127] Brethren, who will by no means allow faith in that saying (Faith is imputed to us for righteousness) to be taken properly, i. e. for be­lieving, but figuratively for the object of faith [Christs righteousness,] they pretending, that the said propriety of construction doth dero­gate from the honour of Gods free grace and mercy, and from the merit of Christs righteous­ness. But the foresaid answers to the Question in hand, do sufficiently manifest the vanity of such pretences: for what just cause of suspicion can there be, that we derogate from God and Christ, and arrogate to our selves and our own acts, in our asserting, That God doth impute our faith it self to us unto righteousness, we withal openly declaring, that it is for his mercies sake and his son Christs sake, that he doth so? I desire therefore, that the foregoing Answers to the Question in hand may be the rather taken into consideration and remembred, because they may serve to discover, how causlesly those Prote­stant Writers, who maintain faith it self to be the thing imputed to sinners for righteousness, are accused by their disse [...]ting brethren, as if they did dethrone the righteousness of Christ, and in the place thereof set up mans own righte­ousness: for they do professedly and constantly maintain, that it is for the sake of Christs righ­teousnes [...], that this priviledge is indulged unto, and by divine promise entailed upon faith; And therefore be it known, That the brethren here impleaded do not thrust Christs righteousness out of its due place, nor do they place mans righteousness in its stead, although God hath de­signed (they still say) a proper place fo [...] it. The peculiar seat for Christs righteousness is under [Page 128] the head or title of a meritorious cause, and so long as we do reserve this honourable and emi­nent place for it, and it alone, we do preserve it sartam tectam in its throne of glory.

The matter by Gods gracious covenant for Christs sake being ordered, as aforesaid, What remains, but that upon consideration of this his divine and merciful disposition, we do make ac­clamation, saying (as of old in another case, Zech. 4.7.) Grace, Grace unto it? What re­remains, but that we utter forth the high praises of God and Christ in words like those of David, 2 Sam. 7.20, 21. And what can we poor sinners say more? for thy words sake, and according to thine own heart hast thou done this great thing, this wonder of goodness, and free favour? What remains, but that we breath forth our thanksgiving to God in the words of our Savi­our, Mat. 11.25. We thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that whereas the Devil and his Angels can have righteousness imputed to them upon no terms, being left hopeless in their unrighteousness, thou hast graciously promised for Christs sake to impute to sinful men their faith for righteousness, Even so, O Father, be­cause it seemed good in thine eyes? What re­mains, but that as Scipio Africanus being arraign­ed before the Roman Senators, as having done dis-service to the Commonwealth, did call them away from the Senate-house (the place of judi­cature) to the Temple, there to sacrifice to the Gods for the victories obtained by his conduct, In like sort that I bespeak, and beseech my dis­senting brethren, that they would cease all that quarrelling, which they have taken up against faith it self, its being imputed to sinners for [Page 129] righteousness, and that they would let fall that suit, which they have causlesly commenced a­gainst their Brethren upon the score aforesaid, charging them as back-friends to the merits of Christ and freedom of divine grace, and that instead of farther contendings in this needless quarrel, we all would unanimously hasten to build an altar and there sacrifice the sacrifices of thanksgiving, saying as did the multitude of that heavenly Chorus, Glory be to God on high, on earth peace, good will towards men, Luke 2.14.

CHAP. XX. Q. Can ought, that is imperfect, possibly be by God imputed to a sinner for, or to righteousness? Answ. Yes. The Au­thors professed dissent herein from cer­tain other Brethren, whereof two only by name are instanced in, whose words are recited, and a reply made there­unto.

Q. CAn ought, that is imperfect, possibly be by God imputed to a sinner for righteousness?

Answ. Yes. God forbid, that it should be o­therwise. There be many indeed, who do assert the impossibility of this thing, and upon that mistake they have perverted, as is before expres­sed, the meaning of the Apostle in that saying of his so oft inculcated by him (Faith is imputed to us for righteousness:) among whom I shall onely in this Chapter instance in two, Dr An­drew Ryvet, and Dr Obadiah Grew, and having recited their words shall reply thereunto.

Nov [...]mus (says Dr Andrew Ryvet in his Exer­citations upon Genesis, p. 400) nihil adeo nobis im­putari ad justitiam, quod vere, & perfecte justitia non sit — We know, that nothing is imputed by God to righteousness, which is not truly and perfect­ly a righteousness, therefore if faith be not a perfect r [...]ghteousness, it cannot Adeo haberi, be by God ac­c [...]unted or imputed for righteousness.

But (pace tanti viri) 1. Why may not a sincere faith be made by God the condition of Gods im­puting, or imparting righteousness to sinners, i. e. of justifying them, or constituting them righteous for Christs righteousness sake, and thereupon so reputing them as well as faith in perfection? Why may not God make a sincere faith available, and count it as available to all saving purposes, as a perfect faith? I mean, Why may not God reward the one, as well as the o­ther with righteousness? Is the Lords hand shortned, that he cannot? or are his bowels straitned, that he will not save, justifie, or make righteous a sinner without a faith absolutely perfect? With God, says the Archangel to the blessed Virgin, nothing is unpossible, Luke 1.37. and to say that this is (to my seeming) a constructive denial of Gods power to pardon the sinful imperfection of our good duties, or (to speak in the language of Scripture) to take away the iniquity of our Holy things: for if God doth pardon the imperfection of our faith, or of any other our graces, surely it ought not to be denied, that God doth Eodem loco habere, ac­count, or reckon them to the sinner, as if they were perfect. Yea, God having in his law of grace, or act of oblivion (as will be said in ano­ther Chapter) constituted a sincere faith, how­ever otherwise imperfect, the condition of our attaining Righteousness, how can it be other­wise, but that God (who cannot deny himself) should according to his promise Eodem loco habe­re, account it to the sinner as perfect, i. e. re­ward it with righteousness?

2. I answer Ex abundanti, That true faith, i. e. such as S. James says, is made perfect by works, [Page 132] although as a moral vertue, or a grace of Gods spirit it be imperfect, and although the works, whereby it is said by S. James to be made perfect, be in themselves imperfect, nevertheless is in a­nother sense (very fit to the purpose in hand) most perfect, viz. In sensu Legali, civili, or In genere medii, i. e. as it is the constituted condi­tion of a sinners justification, it is Vere, & per­fecte justitia (to speak in our Authors own words) both truly and perfectly a righteousness, and ac­counted by God no otherwise, than in truth it is: for it is Tota conditio, the whole condition, Yea I will say (the word, Faith, being rightly, and in its due latitude understood according to the full importance thereof as frequently used in Scripture) it is the whole of that condition, which God doth now require of sinners by the law of Faith, in order to the obtaining of that righteousness, which is said to be by Faith with­out Works. Now be it impartially considered, what hinders, that a thing imperfect in it self, yet being perfectly the full of all that God re­quires for such and such ends and purposes, should by God be esteemed, reckoned, or impu­ted, as if it were in it self perfect? Whereas therefore it is the saying of this learned Author, that faith properly taken Nec est justitia, nec justi­tia loco habetur, I cannot but upon account of the premisses think, and say the contrary, viz. That faith is truly of its kind a righteousness (it be­ing commanded in the law of Faith and styled therefore by our Saviour the work of God, John 6.19.) and that it is imputed for, or to that righ­teousness, which is therein promised, so that we may not onely with safety, but we must also of necessity say, if we mean to speak the truth, That [Page 133] fides & est justitia, & justitia loco habetur, and this with a non Obstante to any imperfection of faith, provided it be sincere.

Thus I have endeavoured to remove that great stumbling block out of the way of truth, which occasioned this Author to turn aside from it in his mis-exposition of that saying of the Apo­stle.

I shall in the next place reply to a few passa­ges out of Dr. Grew, in his Sermons on Jer. 23.6.

In p. 51. as he reasons against the imputation of the [...] credere, because it is imperfect, so his words are p. 38. The righteousness which justifies a sinner, is not in, or of himself in any gracious dispo­sitions in him, or acts done by him, because being im­perfect they are unable to justifie, but it is the righte­ousness of another, yet by grace and favour accounted his.

Answ. 1. It is falsly supposed by this Doctor, that there is any righteousness, which a sinner hath of himself: for although it be truly presu­med, that there is a righteousness, which a sin­ner hath in himself, nevertheless it is not assert­ed by any Authors (for ought I know, or ever heard of) that this righteousness is of himself. And it is uncharitably here insinuated by the Doctor, that there are some, who do maintain, that there is a righteousness, which a sinner hath of himself, and that this righteousness will justi­fie him, for none are so sensless, as to assert, that ought, which is not, can justifie.

2. Though the righteousness, which doth ju­stifie a sinner per modum meriti, i. e. doth merit his justification, be the righteousness of another, nevertheless a personal righteousness, which [Page 134] consisteth in certain gracious dispositions in a sinner, and acts done by him, may be made of God the condition of a sinners justification for the merits sake of Christs righteousness.

3. Although these gracious dispositions and acts done by a sinner are not able because of their imperfections to justifie him from guilt of fault, or as one legally righteous, i. e. as no sin­ner, nevertheless their imperfection hinders not, but that through the mercy of God in Christ promised in the Gospel, a sinner may thereupon be justified, or absolved from guilt of punish­ment, th [...]s being by God required of every sin­ner in order thereunto.

4 Gods grace and favour doth not consist (as this Author and other much mistaken Brethren would have it) in reputing, or accepting Christs righteousness to be ours, but in accepting it as a valuable consideration, whereupon to pardon, or justifie us through faith in him, and in his conferring upon us those saving effects, and be­nefits, which were purchased by that his righte­ousness.

And whereas the Doctor says, p. 45. Mens repentings makes them not righteous before God. O take heed of setting sorrow for sin in Christs room.

I answer, 1. Mens repentings and sorrow for their sins are a part of that Evangelical righte­ousness, which in the law of grace is required of sinners in order to their being made righteous, or justified, i. e. this being that righteousness, which for the righteousness sake of Christ God hath promised in the Gospel to penitent sinners, which for that cause in the name of Christ is by [Page 135] the Ministers of Chrst to be preached to all and every sinner.

2. To maintain repentance and godly sor­row for sin to be a requisite condition in order as aforesaid, is not to set it in Christs room (as this Doctor here in several places of his Sermons doth odiously and erroneously insinuate) nor in any other room, or place, than where Christ himself by his law of grace hath set, and settled it.

3. Hereupon I shall in the way of caution and admonition to the Doctor himself, and all those who are taught by him, and to all such Teachers, say, O take heed, Sirs, of setting Christ in the room of repentance, as Saltmarsh, and divers others have done to the destruction of souls, it being alike hazardous to set Christ in the room of repentance, as to set repentance in the room of Christ: for as repentance will not supply Christs room, so nor will Christ supply the vacant room of repentance, it being as well impossible for a sinner to be saved without re­pentance, as for a penitent sinner to be saved without Christ: As repentance without Christ cannot; so Christ without repentance will not save a sinner. This we may and ought to believe; for he hath told us over and over. That except we repent, we shall all perish, his righteousness not­withstanding, Luke 13.3, 5.

Of any Author almost that ever I read, this Dr seems to me to have need of the said Cauti­on (O take heed) This I say seems to me by ma­ny dangerously seducing passages dispersed in his Book▪ he saying (p. 173.) Some will not venture their souls on Christ alone, they will have two strings to their bow, something of their own, at least for a re­serve, [Page 136] and dead lift. These he resembles (in the fol­lowing page) to that harlot, who would have had the the living child divided, saying, They would have their justification before God to be parted betwixt Christs righteousness and their own. And says he p. 200. A sinner needs no more than Christs righteousness to ju­stifie him in the sight of God. Many other passages there be in his Sermons to this purpose, which forbearing here to relate, I shall in few words reply to these forecited.

1. No wise adventurers will adventure their souls on Christ alone without repentance for their sins: for if they do, they will be sure to lose their venture: for Christ will save no impe­nitent sinner, who although he may hope in Christ, and after a fashion put his trust in Christ, yet he and his hope shall perish; Nor would Christ have any sinner to make a fool of himself by thinking otherwise, he having told us all, what we are to trust unto in that forecited text, Luke 13.3, 5. And yet alas! how many fool­hardy Adventurers are there in the world, who will adventure their all in all (I mean) their souls salvation upon Christ alone without repentance? Such foolish adventurers were those, whom Christ speaks of in Mat. 7.22. who in their im­penitency venturing their souls upon Christ a­lone, or upon naked Christ, according to the late devised phrase in the Books of certain popu­lar Preachers, our Saviour there resembles to that foolish man, who built his house upon the sand, which when the floods came and the winds blew, and did beat upon it, fell with a venge­ance.

2. Although sinners are to venture their souls upon Christ alone as one that hath done his own [Page 137] part, i. e. hath finished the work, which God gave him to do, whereby to merit their salvati­on, conditionally upon their return to God by Faith and Repentance to be confered upon them, nevertheless they are not to venture their souls upon Christ for the doing of their own work, i. e. which God hath imposed upon them in or­der to the saving of their own souls. It is mad venturing further than Christ would have us to venture.

3. Forasmuch as Christ would have no sinner to adventure his soul upon him without repen­tance for his sins, it did ill become this Author in a kind of a gibing fashion (as is obvious to be construed) to say of those, who dare not be so fool-hardy as to run such a desperate venture, That they would have two strings to their bow.

4. Although a sinner needs no more than Christs righteousness for the satisfaction of Gods justice, for the expiation of his sin, or for meriting his justification upon terms revealed in the Gos­pel, nevertheless that a sinner may be actually justified in the sight of God, there is more need­full than Christs righteousness: for to this end he needs that righteousness, of which our Savi­our Christ says, Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall i [...] no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. Although a sinner needs nothing in co-ordination with Christs righteousness to justifie him before God, yet in subordination thereunto he doth need a personal, or evangelical righteousness, which consisteth summarily in repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, of which see more at large in Chap. 12. p. 39.40— If the Publican had not repented, he had not de­parted [Page 138] to his house justified. So that if the Dr. be minded to make others, or himself merry by calling Christs righteousness and a sinners re­pentance two strings, I shall endeavour to spoil the sport by retorting the common Proverb, which as to the purpose in hand is very conside­rable and applicable, [It is wisdome to have two strings to ones bow:] He will prove himself at last to be no wise Bowman, who shall trust to the single string of Christs righteousness with­out the said personal righteousness, which con­sists in a sinners repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ; which if he doth, he will be sure to miss the Mark he aims at, I mean, justification, or remission of sin, or (to speak in the language of the Apostle) the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

But I do assuredly hope, that the Citizens of Coventry are much wiser men, than Dr Grew took them, and taught them to be; at least I cannot but take notice what great need some people have to pray, that God would make them wise as David, i. e. wiser than their Teachers.

5. To assert the necessity of the said personal righteousness in order to a sinners justification in the sight of God, is not to part our justifica­tion betwixt Christs righteousness and our own (as this Author doth ignorantly and odiously word the matter) that is, It is not to ascribe one part of our justification to Christs righteous­ness, and another part thereof to our own, nor is it either in whole, or in the least part to ascribe our justification to our own righteousness un­der any such notion, or respect as to the righte­ousness of Christ, but it is in truth to ascribe the whole of our Justification to Christs righteous­ness [Page 139] as the meritorious cause, whereby alone it was purchased, and to our own evangelical righ­teousness as the condition, upon which accord­ing to Gods gracious promise in Christ, it is to be actually enjoyed, and without which it cannot be had. He, that says, That Christ by his righ­teousness doth deliver the souls of sinners, yet says withall (as doth the Prophet Ezekiel, ch. 14.14.) that sinners do deliver their souls by their own righteousness, cannot be justly charged for parting their souls salvation betwixt Christs righteousness and mans own: for in so saying he doth attribute his whole salvation to both, yet [...]nder such different notions, habitudes, or re­spects (rationally to be understood) as are pe­culiar to each, i. e. to Christs righteousness as the meritorious cause, and to a sinners own righteousness, only as to the condition, but no cause at all thereof, as partly hath been already said, and will be more at large declared by way of answer to a Question, which will be the sub­ject of the following Chapter.

CHAP. XXI. Q. Ʋnder what notion, specifical con­ceptus, or formal consideration is faith (properly taken) imputed to sinners for, or to righteousness? Answ. The Questi­on is answered at large clearly and distinctly i. e. both Negatively and Affirmatively. An objection answer­ed.

Q. UNder what notion, specifical conceptus, or consideration is faith it self imputed to sin­ners for, or to Righteousness?

Answ. 1. Negatively (besides what hath been by occasion already said chap. 18. and 19. I add) That faith is not so imputed to us as it is a moral vertue, or grace of Gods holy Spirit, or as it acts in a peculiar manner in relying, laying hold upon, apprehending, or applying to our selves the righteousness of Christ, the object of this faith: for, 1. Christs righteousness is not propo­sed to our faith in order to our justification meerly as an object to be apprehended, or rely­ed upon, nor is righteousness, or justification promised to faith precisely as it acts by way of apprehending, or laying hold upon Christs righ­teousness: for nothing is more apparent both by Scripture, and sad experience, than that many wicked persons going on in a wilful course of sin do act faith so far forth as to apprehend, lay [Page 141] hold upon, or lean themselves on the righteous- of Christ; nor otherwise is it easily, if at all conceivable, how a professed Christian should be guilty of that sin, which we call Pre­sumption, did he not lean upon Christs righte­ousness to be saved by it, or him.

2. The object of justifying Faith as justify­ing, is not simply the righteousness of Christ by Faith to be rested, and relied upon, but Christ himself in person to be by our faith accep­ted, or received as our Saviour and Governour, or (as we do usually express the matter) to be received in all his offices, both as Prophet, Priest and King, this being that reception, or accep­tation of Christs to which the saving benefits of justification, remission of sin, and adoption are promised in the Gospel, John. 1.11, 12.

3. As for that unscriptural phrase in great vogue (applying Christs righteousness to our selves) I humbly conceive,

1. That Christs righteousness is not in it self at all imputed, imparted, or applyed to us, o­therwise than in the saving effects and benefits procured by it.

2. The application of Christs righteousness to us in this true construction of the phrase, is not any act of Faith, but it is the act of God conse­quent to, or upon our Faith: for this applica­tion of Christs righteousness to us in the saving effects thereof being all one with the collation of them upon us, it is God himself, I say, who according to the tenour of his promise conse­quently upon our Faith applies them to us, or confers them upon us, it is not we sinners, that do apply them to, or confer them upon our selves.

[Page 142]2. Affirmatively, Faith is imputed to us for righteousness under the same notion, or formal consideration, as we are said to be justified by it; for as to be justified by faith, and to have faith imputed to us for righteousness are but varied expressions of the self same thing (as was aforesaid,) So I do conceive, that under what considerations of the word [Faith] we are said to be justified by faith, un­der the same conception must faith be under­stood to be imputed to us for righteousness; and this is, As it is the performance of that du­ty, which in the law of Faith is made the con­dition of our being made righteous, or our be­ing justified for the righteousness sake of Christ. Though faith be in propriety of speech no cause of a sinners righteousness, or justification (ha­ving no natural, or meritorious, or any pro­per efficiency to that effect, as which is indeed aliundè, or from other causes;) nevertheless it is by law constituted of God a Cause sine qua non, a thing without which it shall not be obtained; which divine constitution doth intitle it to the nature of a Condition, and as such a condition of divine appointment it is imputed to us by God for righteousness, and we are justified by it under that notion, or consideration.

Hereupon to prevent all misconstruction, I desire, it may be still remembred, That in assert­ing a sinners Faith [properly taken] to be im­puted to him for righteousness, we do not say, That Faith is instead of perfect obedience Quo­ad meritum, as to the merit or value of it (for so we do assert Christs righteousness to be in­stead thereof;) All that we say (I speak for my self and other my Brethren) in effect amounts to [Page 143] this, That whereas perfect obedience was in the Covenant of Works made the onely con­dition of life, it is now quite otherwise in the Covenant of Grace (God having since the fall a new modeled the government of mankind by new laws) wherein for Christs righteous­ness sake Faith in him is constituted the condi­tion of attaining righteousness, the perfor­mance of which condition God hath promis­ed shall be imputed to us for, or unto righ­teousness, i. e. shall be available unto us for that righteousness, or justification of life, which is spoken of by the Apostle, Rom. 5.18.19. And therefore I can perceive no just cause, why it may not be truly said (although I know that Doctor Andrew Ryvet with seve­ral other dissenting Brethren, will not allow the saying) Quod fides habetur pro justitiâ perfectâ, quae lege continetur, ex gratuitâ acceptatione, i. e. That Faith is accounted for that per­fect righteousness, which is contained in the law, through Gods gracious acceptation: for Gods mercy, Christs merit, and the law of Faith thereupon enacted, being considered, what hinders it from being so accounted? specially it being withal considered, that ac­cording to the tenour of the new law God doth for Christs sake pardon the imperfection of our Faith and of all our sincere evangeli­cal obedience; the imperfections whereof be­ing covered with a gracious pardon, Why may it not be said, Quod fides habetur pro ju­stitiâ perfectâ— That Faith through Gods gracious acceptation in Christ is accounted for the righteousness of the law, or instead of it? The true meanining of such sayings [Page 144] being no more than this, viz. That in point of Conditionality (not in value, or merit) Faith is instead thereof, and that it will there­upon stand a sinner in a like saving stead, or prove is sure a title of life unto him, as the perfect righteousness of the law would have been to man continuing innocent.

CHAP. XXII. Q. Is there any personal righteousness, which God sees in a sinner himself, upon the intuition whereof God is, or may be said to be moved to justifie him? Answ. Yes, in maintenance of the truth of which answer a copious reply is made to a contrariant passage in Doctor Grews Sermons upon Jer. 23.6.

Q. IS there any thing, that God beholds in a sinner, upon the sight whereof he justifies him, or upon intuition of which he accounts him righteous?

Answ. Yea, though many, I confess, will say, No; among whom I shall onely instance in Dr Grew, who says in his forecited Sermons, p. 76. God is not moved by any thing out of himself in our ju­stification; for proof whereof he quotes Deu. 7.6. and Mat, 11.26. and says, So God justifies a sinner by the righteousness of another made his, because it is his good pleasure so to do: for we are justified when ungodly, Rom. 4.5. and loved when in our blood, Ezek. 16.8.

Answ. 1. There are several external requisites to justification, I mean, external to God, and external to justification it self▪ and also exter­nal, both on Christs part and ours, e. g. On Christs part his righteousness is requisite as the meritorious cause thereof, and on our part e­vangelical [Page 146] righteousness (styled faith, the rightteousness of faith, obedience to the faith, obey­ing the Gospel, with the like Scriptural expres­sions) is requisite thereunto as the condition thereof.

2. The al seeing God in the justification of a sinner doth not Ad unum, but Ad omnia re­spicere, he casts an eye of intuition upon all the requisites thereunto, and as they are, whe­ther themselves by his appointment, or are made of him, he beholds and regards them, even according to their several natures and for­malities: exempli gratia, He beholds and re­gards Christs righteousness as the meritorious cause, and the sinners own righteousness as the condition of his being justified.

3. Although this Doctor affirms (as afore­said) that God is not moved by any thing out of h [...]mself in our justification, nevertheless he doth not exclude Christs obedience (Page 78) from being the motive of our justification; Whereupon I reply, that, As God in the ju­stification of a sinner may be said to be moved by the righteousness of Christ (we speaking of God after the manner of men, as it is necessa­ry we should;) so he may be said to be moved also by a sinners own righteousness, moved I mean according to the different nature of those motives, i e. by the one as the cause, and by the other (although not as any cause, yet) as the appointed condition of his justifica­tion.

4. As for the Scriptures alledged by this [Page 147] Author to prove, that God is not moved by a­ny thing out of himself in our justification (he means by any thing in us) they do indeed prove no such matter, the justification of sin­ners being not so much as spoken of in two of the said Scriptures, Deut. 7.6. and Mat. 11.26.

5. Although God justifies a sinner for the merits sake of the righteousness of another, nevertheless he doth not justifie him by the righteousness of that other made His in this Authors meaning, i. e. in it self or essential na­ture made his.

6. Although it be a Gospel-truth to say, That God doth justifie a sinner upon his faith,Although God doth justifie us freely by his grace in Christ, nevertheless it is through Faith as the means thereof, or motive thereunto (Rom. 3.24, 25.) els [...] God would alike ju­stifie all sinners, and not any one sinner more, or rather than another. because it was his good pleasure to constitue this his faith the condition thereof, to pro­mise it thereunto: neverthe­less it is notoriously false to say simply, That God justi­fies a sinner, because it is his good pleasure so to do, and that he is not at all moved thereunto by a sinners per­formance of that duty, which was of his own good will and pleasure made the condition of obtaining that saving mercy. And this Doctor in saying as here he doth, hath spoken most strangely of God and for God, as if God were moved by nothing out of himself in justifying, and saving sinners: for if he doth justifie sinners meerly, because it [Page 148] is his good pleasure to justifie them, it will, I think, follow, that he damns sinners, because it is his pleasure to damn them, whereas he says and swears the contrary, Ezek 33.11. and withal tells the righteous,Ezek. 18.28. saying, Because he considereth and turneth away from all his transgressions, that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. The Doctors words do to my savour relish of that, which some Authors style Turcismus, and God forbid, that it should be owned by any of our Protestant Writers, of what denomination soever, whether Lutheran, or Calvinist.

7. Although it is said, that God justifieth the ungodly, Rom. 4.5. yet it is not there said, or meant in the Doctors sense, that we are justifi­ed when ungodly; as if nothing but ungodliness, or an emptiness of all godliness were antece­dently requisite to our justification: for though sin, or ungodliness be naturally necessary to ren­der a person capable of Gospel-justification, i. e. of remission of sin (forasmuch as where there is no sin, there can be no place or possibility for remission:) nevertheless holy faith, or obedience to the faith is legally necessary to make a person morally capable thereof. So that (to speak the true sense of the Apostle) although God doth justifie the ungodly Sensu diviso, i. e. those, who once were ungodly, yet in sensu composito, i. e. he doth not justifie them in their ungodliness, or when ungodly, but when they become believers, or when godly and not before: Whereupon I can say no less, than that this Authors Exposi­tion of this Scripture (oft times inculcated in his Sermons) is an ungodly exposition, it being both in it self a falshood, and of a native tendency to ungodliness.

[Page 149]8. Whatever be the importance of that love of God to his Israel of old there mentioned in that expression (thy time was the time of love,) most undoubtedly by it cannot be meant Gods love of reconciliation, his pardoning, or justi­fying them in their blood, i. e. when they were, or while they were in their blood, i. e. in their sin and ungodliness, as the Doctor would have it understood: for till sinners repent and are converted, God will not justifie, or pardon them, or actually be reconciled to them, as ap­pears by the current of Scripture, particularly by Isa. 1.16, 17, 18. and 55.6, 7, 8.

CHAP. XXIII. Q. By whom is faith imputed to believing sinners for, or unto righteousness? Ans. In answer hereunto that text in Gen. 15.6. is vindicated from the misconstruction of some of the more ancient Rabbins, it being withal asserted, That it is God himself, who doth so impute it: But whe­ther it was imputed to Abraham by God as Benefactor, or else as estimator, or Judge, is left to consideration upon what is said in answer to a Question, which is the subject of the Chapter ensuing.

Q. BY whom is faith imputed to us for, or to righ­teousness?

Answ. Although faith is in the New Testa­ment frequently said to be imputed to us for righteousness; nevertheless I do not remember, that it is in any place expresly there said, By whom it is imputed; and therefore for the reso­lution of this Question we are to have recourse to other Scriptures, and to consult with right reason.

1. We may in reason conclude, who it is, that doth impute our faith to righteousness. for for­asmuch as to be justified by faith, and to have our faith imputed to us for righteousness are the self same thing (as by occasion hath been before said once and again,) we may thence conclude, [Page 151] that he, who imputes faith to a sinner for righ­teousness, is the same, who doth justifie him; Now says the Apostle, It is God, that justifieth, Rom. 8.33. and 3.30. It is one God, which shall justifie the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. We may in reason hereupon un­questionably conclude, that it is God, who im­puteth to sinners their faith for righteousness.

2. Let us for the purpose in hand have re­course to the original Text, Gen. 15.6. which is so oft quoted in the New Testament and ren­dred [And he believed in the Lord, and he counted it unto him for righteousness.] Whence (to intimate this by the way) it is again observable, that the Apostle doth quote that text (as was usual with our Saviour and other the sacred Writers of the New Testament) out of the Septuagint, who ren­der that passively, which stands upon the origi­nal record actively expressed. But they did it not without warrant: for it is observed by some expert Linguists, that words of the praeterperfect tense, and active voice in the Hebrew language are of passive construction, instances whereof they furnish us with, such as that in Mic. 1.7. Ezek. 23.47. Esa. 22.8. where the Septuagint do take the same liberty to vary, although from the Grammar, or Letter, yet not from the sense of the Hebrew Text. But still the Question in hand is not as yet expresly resolved from that Text, and therefore it must still be demanded, Who is that He (the Antecedent to that Rela­tive) who must be understood to have imputed Abrahams believing in the Lord for righteous­ness? Answ. 1. Negatively, by He is not meant Abraham himself, as if it had been said, That A­braham believed in the Lord, and Abraham did [Page 152] impute it to the Lord for righteousness, i. e. Abraham ascribed the promise unto the righte­ousness, or goodness of God. This is the expo­sition of certain Jewish Doctors, notwithstand­ing which there are of their own in later times, who do justly recede from it, so that there needs nothing to be said for the refutation there­of, but to assert and prove the true meaning of the words, as will next be declared in the affirma­tive branch of my Answer to the Question be­fore us.

2. Affirmatively, By He is meant the Lord, and by Him Abraham, as if it had been said by the Historian, Abraham believed in the Lord and the Lord imputed it unto Abraham for righ­teousness. This appears to be the meaning, as otherwise, so by the words following, verse 7. [And he said unto him, I am the Lord, that brought thee out of Ur of the Caldees to give thee the land to inherit it—] He then, that brought Abra­ham out of Ʋr of the Caldees, and by promise gave him the land of Canaan to inherit it, did impute Abrahams faith unto him for righteous­ness. Briefly, He, who is said to impute righte­ousness to believers, truly is He, who doth im­pute their believing in him for righteousness; and who this He is, that imputes righteousness unto believers, The Apostle doth explicitly acquaint us, saying (Rom. 4.6. David describeth the blessed­ness of the man, to whom GOD imputeth righteousness-

The Question in hand, you perceive, is of ea­sie resolution, and there being no controversie about it, or depending upon it (for ought I know) there needs not much to be said concern­ing it.

But forasmuch as God is considerable under [Page 153] divers capacities, or relations, viz. as Benefactor, and as Judge, the Question may therefore be de­manded, under what capacity, or consideration did God impute Abrahams faith to him for righ­teousness? Answ. Although this Question may seem too too curious and needless (which if indeed it were, I would not have proposed it;) nevertheless forasmuch as in some respect it may be useful, I will therefore make some brief ans­wer to it; but because the due answer thereun­to doth necessarily depend upon the refolution of another Question, which will be the subject of the next Chapter, I will therefore refer the decision of it and the Reader for satisfaction in that behalf to what will be there said.

CHAP. XXIV. Quest. Was not Abraham a Believer and his Faith thereupon actually imputed to him for Righteousness before he be­lieved the promise recorded in Gen. 15.5. and that testimony given to his Faith ver. 6? Answ. Yes: long before, his de­parture out of his native countrey (Ur of the Caldees) implying not onely a lo­cal, but also a moral departure.

Quest. WAs not Abraham a Believer, and his Faith actually imputed to him by God for Righteousness before the Vision recorded in Gen. 15. beg. where in the word of the Lord both in the way of command and promise came to him, as are there (together with his Faith therein) distinctly related?

Answ. Yes Verily; He was justified cer­tain years before, viz. at his departure out of his native country in obedience to the com­mand of God, and upon his believing the pro­mise of God made to him at that time (it being the same promise for substance which was occa­sionally afterwards oft times renewed by God) the story of all which (Gods command and pro­mise and Abrahams faithful obedience) is re­corded in the beginning of the 12th Chapter of this book of Genesis, and to which those words of the Author to the Hebrews do refer, he say­ing (Chap. 11.8. that by faith Abraham, when he was called to go into a place, which he should after [Page 155] receive for an inheritance obeyed, and he went out not knowing whither he went. Abraham saw full war­rant from the command of God to do what he did, i. e. to leave his native country, onely at first though he knew the place from which, yet not knowing for some time the place, to which he was to depart, nor the way to it, till God did afterwards make them known to him. Now by this command of God to Abraham touching the leaving of his country, kindred and his fa­thers house, there is great reason (as I think) to understand, that therein is implyed, that God did not command him barrly to leave his native soil, but also the sinful fashions of that his coun­try, i. e. to renounce the idols and false Gods, the worship of which his forefathers had been accustomed unto, and wherein as is most like­ly, himself was at first educated under his I­dolatrous Ancestors, Josh. 24.2. And if so, then are we by those words expressive of his obedi­ence (He went out) to understand not simply his parting from his native country and kin­dred, but also the renouncing of his former sin­ful course of life which among them he had lived, though together with it he did renounce his nearest and dearest relations, even as every Christian for Christs sake should so far deny himself, as to do the like upon a call from God, this being to walk in the steps of that Faith of our Father Abraham, which he had being yet un­circumcised (Rom. 4.12.) and in this constructi­on (as aforesaid) the like phrase of leaving kindred seems to be taken in Psal. 45.10. Heark­en O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ears: for­get also thine own people and thy fathers house.

If it be said, That Abraham had left his Ido­latry and was become a worshipper of the true God before he had that call from God to leave his country and kindred: I answer, if so, then are we rationally to conceive, That in Gods commanding him to leave his country and kin­dred there is implyed a command to him from God to persist in his renouncing of the idolatry received from his forefathers, which for some­time he had already renounced, and to conti­nue in that Godly course of life and worship of the true God, which he had entred upon; so that still I think, That it was not onely a lo­cal, but also a moral departure (whether then to be begun, or from that time to be continu­ed) which was by God commanded Abraham by the full importance of those words, [Get thee out of thy country and from thy kindred—] Neither do I think, that God did command A­braham to depart from his native soil simply as such, but as a place over-run with idolatry, an infectious place, a place of constant temptati­on to lewd and idolatrous living.

Briefly, I think, that God in mercy to Abra­ham, did command him to get him out of his na­tive country and from his kindred as a snare, and a dangerous temptation, lest he should con­tinue to be infected with that Idolatry, or re­turn to that idolatry, which then did reign throughout Caldea. Yet in this conjecture (having no absolute grounds of certainty) I shall not be peremptory, freely leaving the judgment thereof to others, and the rather, because I cannot at present call to mind any Question of moment, the decision whereof doth [Page 157] depend upon it, this onely excepted, viz. Whe­ther Abrahams obedience to the said command of God (Get thee out of thy country) is, or may be alledged, as a fit instance of doing, or for­bearing of a thing in its own nature purely indifferent upon the command of God? In the decision of which question I can easily suffer every one to abound in his own sense.

CHAP. XXV. Quest. Forasmuch as Abraham was a Be­liever, and his Faith imputed to him for Righteousness long before that Testimony given to his Faith in Gen. 15.6. How was it true to say, that his believing in the Lord was then, or at that time im­puted to him for righteousness? Answ. The Question is answered several ways. A parallel Scripture concerning Noah (Heb. 11.7.) opened, by occasion where­of 4 Questions, with reference to that clause (And he became heir of the righ­teousness, which is by faith) are pro­posed and answered, 1. What kind of righteousness is there meant? 2. What is it to be an heir of that kind of righ­teousness? 3. What was that righteous­ness, which Noah is there said to have been heir of? or, Wherein did it consist? 4. Why is the said righteousness styled the righteousness, which is by Faith?

Quest. FOrasmuch as Abraham was a Believer, and his Faith was thereupon imputed to him for righteousness long before, how was it true to say as in the Text (Gen. 15.6.) that his believing in the Lord, or his faith in that word of his, that came to him in a vision afterwards, was imputed to him for righteousness?

Answ. The Question, or Objection may se­veral ways be truly answered, and (as I judge) to satisfaction, e. g. 1. The words of the Text in Gen. 15.6. may be referred to Abrahams first be­lieving and to his being justified thereupon, al­though they are here brought in by the occasi­on of a relation of another act of his faith in this Chapter; and so the sense may well be, A­braham believed God with that Faith (the same specifical, unfeigned, operative faith) which was from the beginning, even from the com­mand of God given to him touching his depar­ture from his native soil and Gods promise then made unto him (which promise was now renew­ed) imputed to him for righteousness. There is no necessity to conceive, that this testimony should be precisely limited to, or understood onely of that particular act of his believing, whereunto it is subjoyned, but it may indiffe­rently relate as well to the first act of his belie­ving: for it is not said in the forecited Text, that Abraham believed the Lord in this particu­lar promise now made, or renewed unto him, but indefinitly, or in the general, that Abraham be­lieved, or had believed in the Lord and it was imputed to him for righteousness. This answer is the rather considerable, because it seems not to have been the intent of God in this Testimony concerning Abraham to shew punctually, or ex­actly the time when Abraham was first justified, but the manner how, or means by which; I say, to shew the time exactly and precisely when he first believed and was justified; for I grant, that Gods intent was to manifest the time in general i. e. not when Abraham was circumcised, but when and while he was uncircumcised.

Obj, This construction cannot possibly stand; for it is plain by Rom. 4.18. that Abrahams be­lieving in hope, that he should be the Father of many Nations (although against hope and all visible reasons to the contrary) was imputed to him for righteousness? Answ. The interpretati­on before rendred may well stand this Objecti­on notwithstanding: for that promise in Gen. 15. was no new promise, but a promise renewed to Abraham and the self same in substance with that in Gen. 12.2, 3. (I will make of thee a great nati­on: And in thee shall all families of the earth be bles­sed:) so that that Testimony concerning Abra­hams faith as imputed to him for righteousness may as well (if not rather) relate to the act of his faith exercised upon Gods promise at first made, as well I say, as upon his promise after­wards renewed.

2. If we refer the Testimony (as aforesaid) to his first justification, or at first, we must con­ceive the meaning to be, That God as Benefa­ctor did then impute his faith to him for righ­teousness, or did then actually justifie him.

3. Supposing Gods donation of righteous­ntss to, or upon Abraham to have been a thing antecedent (as truly it was) to the story in Gen. 15.6. We may well and truly say, That God did impute the renewed act of Abrahams faith unto him for righteousness as Judge, or Estimator, i. e. he did still account, repute, or had him in esti­mation as righteous, or in a state of justifica­tion.

4. Upon the said supposition of Abrahams faith its being long before imputed to him for righteousness, we may well and warrantably un­derstand this Text to be meant of Abrahams con­tinued [Page 161] believing and of Gods continued act of imputing that his continued believing for the continuance of his righteousness, or to the con­tinuing of him in a state of justification thereup­on. And this interpretation as it is agreable to the analogy of faith, so I do judge it to be the more rational, because it is agreable to the language of Scripture, I mean to the manner of Scripture expression of matters, concerning which that rule of the most excellent Glassius among many others in his Philologia Sacra (p. 551) is very observable, Verbum quandoque de con­tinuatione rei significatae intelligendum est, or, Vide­tur actio aliquando nova, cum sit veteris continuatio, i. e. Things are somtimes in Scripture said to be, when the scope of the place, or speaker is to give us to understand their continuance; Apt instances where­of are divers there rendred by that Learned Au­thor, as Jer. 7.3. Amend your ways and your do­ings, that ye may dwel, i. e. continue to dwel in this place, John 2.11. And his disciples believed on him, i. e. persisted and were confirmed in the faith of him; for they believed on him before, as ap­pears by the foregoing Chapter, ver. 41, 42. and John 14 1. Ye believe in God, believe also in me, i. e. continue to believe in me; So also Chapter 16.30. According to the measure of this Rule, or Canon may that in Gen. 15.6. very well and aptly be construed, q. d. Abraham persisted to believe in the Lord, and this his faith was conti­nued to be imputed to him for righteousness: for as of one and the same specifical faith there are divers individual acts, so there may be still one and the same substantial consequent, issue, or fruit of them all, which in sufficient proprie­ty of speech may accordingly be ascribed both to [Page 162] the one, and to the other, i. e. as well to after acts, as to the first act of faith. As for the ans­wer, that is usually made by the Papists to the objection, or question in hand (they distinguish­ing of justification into first and second) I need not here specifie; and to avoid prolixity, I shall not at all in this place take it into consideration, and thereupon declare, what may with safety to the truth be granted, and what must be denied in the matter. I will onely specifie what is record­ed concerning Noah, Heb. 11.7. (this being an instance to my seeming parallel with what is wit­nessed of Abraham, Gen. 15.6.) where it is said of him, That by faith being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear prepared an Ark to the saving of his house, by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness, which is by faith. That Noah had faith and was righteous before God warned him to prepare the Ark, is most apparent by Gen. 6.7, 8, 9.—So that the same difficulty, or question occurs concerning him as concerning Abraham, viz. Forasmuch as Noah had faith and was justified before his said warning from God to prepare the Ark, how can it be said, that by any after act, or acts of faith in preparing the Ark he became heir of the righ­teousness, which is by faith? I will make way to the solving of this grand Question by pro­posing and answering three or four others.

• 1. What kind of righteousness is there meant?
• 2. What is it to be an heir of that kind of righ­teousness?
• 3. What was that righteousness, which Noah is there said to have been an heir of? or, where­in did it consist?
• [Page 163]4. Why is it styled a righteousness which is by Faith?

1. Q. What is there meant by righteousness? Answ. The word righteousness is taken in a two­fold sense, in a moral, or in a jural sense.

1. In a moral construction it implies duty commanded, this kind of righteousness [actual] consisting in good works, in which sense its ta­ken in that Scripture, wherein Noah (who in all probability was a great Prince) is said to have been a Preacher of righteousness (2 Pet. 2.5.) that is of repentance, and amendment of life.

2. It is taken in a jural, or law sense, viz. for that right, or title, which any one hath to have, hold, or enjoy certain benefits and blessings, which God hath promised to sinners, and the be­nefits themselves so promised and enjoyed. In­stances of this twofold acceptation of the word righteousness, have been more at large specified in the second Chapter of this Discourse. Now the word is here to be taken not in the former, but in the latter sense, as appears by the conse­quence of it to the word Heir: for men are not heirs to moral righteousness, because such righ­teousness is not a thing transient, or capable of conveyance from one person to another, and consequently is not inheritable; but men are heirs of jural rights to those persons who have the property, or power to dispose, convey, or grant such rights to others. In this sense the word righteousness is oft times taken in Scri­pture, specially in the Epistles of S. Paul, viz. for a right of liberty, or exemption from such pu­nishments, [Page 164] or grievous things, which others are liable unto, and in this sense the word is to be taken in the Text before us, Heb. 11.7.

2. Q. What is it to be an heir of the said righ­teousness? Answ. To be an Heir of this righte­ousness is to have, or possess a right, or title thereunto: for heir being a jural word, or Law term, signifies one, who hath a right or ti­tle to this, or that priviledge, benefit, estate, or the like.

3. Q. What was that righteousness, which Noah is there said to have been an heir of, or to have been intitled unto? Wherein did it consist? Answ. This is a different question from the first in order, that was proposed, and therefore must receive a different answer: for that question did onely enquire concerning the kind of this righ­teousness, of what sort it was, and accordingly it was resolved, that it was not of that kind, which we commonly style Moral, but Jural. But this question doth enquire concerning the mat­ter of this Jural righteousness, what it was, or wherein it did consist? to which I answer, it did import something literally, and something my­stically,

1. This righteousness in the literal sense did consist in that right, which God by promise granted to him and his house, to be saved from theIn this sense the word [righte­ousness] is some­times ta­ken in Scripture, viz. for outward prosperity, temporal deliverances and pre­servations, Hos. 10.12. Isa. 48.18. although not as excluding Gods saving love and favour. flood, to which the impenitent world was actually condemned; and from which right these were (as I may so say, meaning the word in a negative, not in a privative sense) dis-inherit­ed.

[Page 165]2. In the mystical sense it did consist in Noahs deliverance from the deluge of Gods eternal wrath: for the saving of Noah by the Ark from the flood was a kind of type, or shadow of eternal salvation by Christ. Destruction by the flood was but part of that punishment, which the im­penitent world did suffer, and deliverance from that flood was but a part of the great reward, eternal salvation being that, which is obtained by faith in Christ. All this seems to be signified by that Doctrine of St. Peter 1.3.21, 22. where there is mention of salvation, together with the causes or means of it, as the water of baptism, the answer of a good conscience towards God (which in effect is true faith and repentance) as also the resurrection of Christ.

4. Q. Why is the said righteousness styled the righteousness which is by faith?

Answ. Because the right, which he had to be saved, as aforesaid, did proceed from Gods spe­cial grace and free promise, conditionally upon his faith: for as faith and works are opposed, so is a right by faith opposed to that right, which accrues by strict desert, merit of works, or va­luable service. The Author therefore by that expression would intimate to us, that Noah had no right to the said benefits by the merit of his works, but all the right he had came from Gods gracious grant in a free promise, which Noah accepting with an operative faith, whereby at Gods command he prepared the Ark, the said right was actually invested in him, or settled up­on him.

These things being thus premised, to the said question (How can it be said, that Noah, being a believer and justified before Gods warning him to prepare the Ark, by an after act, or acts of Faith in preparing the Ark did become or was made heir of the righteousness, which is by faith?) I do now make answer, That Noah being justifi­ed before may upon the after acts of his faith be said to be made heir of the righteousness, which is by faith, because as upon these after acts or actings of his faith he had a right conferred up­on him to temporal salvation from the deluge, so thereupon he had also his former right to eter­nal salvation from the wrath of God continued to him. Noahs preparing of the Ark was one spe­cial act of that faith, which was from former days habitual in his soul, which if he had not at that time and therein exercised, he had incur­red the danger not onely of a temporal deluge, but the deluge also of Gods eternal wrath: so that by this after acting of his faith he escaped the danger of both, and thereupon as he came to Have a right to a temporal salvation; so to Hold his right to eternal salvation, so that as upon it he became an heir of temporal happiness in this world, so he continued to be an heir of eternal happiness in the world to come.

And this was a fit argument to perswade to perseverance in faith (this being the scope of the Apostle both in this and in the latter end of the Chapter foregoing) perseverance wherein after the example of Noah and the rest named in this Chapter, of whom it is testified, that they all died in faith, perseverance, I say, wherein was the onely way to escape the deluge of Gods eternal wrath, and perdition, which the Apostle [Page 167] in the last verse of the foregoing Chapter tells them would prove the fate of all such as did draw back, and did not continue in faith, in which sense the word (believe) is taken in that verse, viz. for continuance in the faith, it being opposed to a drawing back (We are not of them that draw back to perdition (says the Apostle) but of them who do believe, i. e. who without drawing back do persist to believe, to the salvation of the soul.

CHAP. XXVI. Q. What was the object of that faith of Abrahams, which is said to have been imputed to him for righteousness? Answ. Generally those revelations, which God had imparted to him concerning his di­vine will, i. e. both Mandati and bene­placiti: both what God himself had promised to do, and also what he had commanded Abraham to do, the prime whereof (both the things commanded and promised) are made instances in; Hereupon six things as observable are commended to consideration, with a re­flection upon a passage in that very learned forein Writer, Doctor And. Ryvet.

Quest. WHat was the object of Abrahams faith, that was imputed to him for, or to righteousness?

Answ. Without controversie it was Divinum testimonium, certain the Oracles of God, some su­pernatural revelation, or revelations, that were made known unto him by God, which what they were, will be the subject of the present enquiry; wherein I shall not think it necessary to search, whether that [...], that divine revela­tion touching the promised seed (Gen. 3, 15.) [Page 169] came to his knowledge [antecedently to his ex­traordinary call out of Ʋr of the Caldees] by tra­dition, as it did to the Patriarchs before the flood: for whether this can be demonstrably pro­ved, or no, it is fully sufficient to my purpose in hand to manifest, what those supernatural reve­lations were, which being personally made known to Abraham, were the objects of that faith of his, which was imputed to him for righteous­ness. The matter of these revelations may up­on the main (as I conceive) be reduced to these two heads (divine Commands and divine Pro­mises) as will instantly be made manifest by three special Revelations from God unto him, that are recorded in three several Chapters in the Book of Genesis, viz. Chap. 12. begin. Where God is said to have commanded him to leave his contrey (by which in probability was meant not onely a local, but a moral departure, as was aforesaid Chapter 24.) and to have promised to make him a great nation, and to bless him, to make him an exemplar of blessing, and that in him, i. e. in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed; herein God having revealed to him more particularly that, which was onely indefinitly revealed to the former ages: for whereas God had onely made known to them, that in the seed of the woman the world should be blessed, he acquaints Abraham, that it should be in his seed. Now in Gen. 15. begin. God doth partly renew the same promise to him, giving him also a command to persevere (for this I am perswaded, is comprized in that inhibition, Fear not) animating him thereunto with these words (I am thy shield and exceeding great reward,) and partly he makes certain new revelations to him, [Page 170] which are recorded, ver. 13, 14, 15, 16. and may be read at leisure. In Gen. 22. begin, there is recorded another revelation (besides the renew­ing of the former promise and the institution of circumcision as a seal thereof, chap. 17. and a­gain the renewing thereof, chap. 18.) where God imposeth a new command upon him for the of­fering up his son to him as a sacrifice, upon his faithful performance whereof (for so it is inter­preted Heb. 11.17.) God doth again renew his former promises, both general and special, yea with the addition of an oath for Abrahams more abundant confirmation, and consolation ver. 16, 17, 18.

Now be it considered, that although these words (Abraham believed in the Lord, and he impu­ted it to him for righteousness) are recorded onely by occasion of the second revelation in Gen. 15. nevertheless all the said revelations were the ob­jects of Abrahams justifying faith, and by the same reason as it is said respectively to the se­cond, it may be truly said, That respectively to them all, Abraham believed in the Lord, and he imputed it to him for righteousness. And there is the more reason thus to conclude, because that testimony of Scripture recorded as imme­diately referring to the second divine Revelati­on made to Abraham, St James doth apply to the third, saying, That upon Abrahams offering Isaac his son upon the altar the Scripture was fulfil­led, which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness, Chap. 2.21.22, 23.

The premisses considered, I humbly desire, that the following remarks may be duely observed, and minded.

[Page 171]1. That the object of Abrahams justifying faith was not only divine promises, but also di­vine commands, Get thee out of thy countrey chap. 12.1. Fear not, i. e. be constant, fear not them, that can kill the body and after that have no more, that they can do. Gen. 15.1. Walk before me, and be upright, chap. 17.1. Take thy son, thy onely son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah, and offer him there for a burnt offering—Gen. 22. beg. All these are express commands.

2. Observe, That Abraham did not onely believe the promises, but also perform the commands of God, one command of God, as well as another, seemingly never so harsh and contrary to flesh and blood, yea although the performance of Gods com­mand in the sacrificing of his son did seem utter­ly to make against the accomplishing of his pro­mise.

Briefly, Abraham did not onely believe, that God is, and is a rewarder of them that diligent­ly seek him, but by vertue of that his faith, him­self was according to the divine command a di­ligent seeker of God. He did all Gods commands without murmurings, and disputings.

3, Be it observed, that the things promised to Abraham were not onely things temporal, viz. a legitimate issue (a seed of God, or a God­ly seed as is the Prophets expression, Mal. 2.15.) and this by his old wife, and the Land of Canaan to be his in present right & to be his prosterities in future possession, but things of spiritual and eternal concernment, viz. pardon of sin and e­verlasting salvation by Christ. This is it, which is implyed in that pro [...]ise of God expressed in those words to Abraham (I am thy shield and ex­ceeding [Page 172] great reward, or as the Septuagint render them, as well they may, I am thy shield, and thy re­ward shall be exceeding great,) wherein is compri­sed (say the Dutch Annotations upon the place) Omnis beatitudo, quae hic incipit, & in futurâ vitâ completur, All that felicity, which is begun in this life, and perfected in that which is to come. And though it be said, that Socinus did confine the promise of God to Abraham unto matters of temporal concernment, yet Crellius, I am sure, doth not so: for in his comment on Hebrews 11.10. He yields, That Abraham hoped to have from God some life and happiness after his death, in regard he knew the great goodness of God toward his Servitors, and the great power of God, that he is able to raise even the dead, and can give his servants a blessing, or reward after their death; and he says expresly, That the promises of God made to Abraham and his seed do in the mystical sense contain this spiritual and heavenly inhe­ritance. And in the same sense the seed of Abraham doth signifie the seed of all the faithful, who follow the faith of Abraham: for both these senses are taught us by the Apostle, Rom. 4, 11, 12, 13. and Gal. 3.7. and 4.22.

Thus that Socinian Author. He doth indeed peremptorily deny, that Abraham understood more than a temporal felicity to be comprized in those bare words of Gods promise to be his exceeding great reward, or that his reward should be exceeding great; and Ryvet also up­on the place seems to be of the same opinion with him therein, and upon the same ground, viz. because of Abrahams reply to God in the words following (Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and —) which he would not have made, say they, if he had apprehended [Page 173] heavenly happiness to be intimated in the words aforesaid. But for my own part, I do not per­ceive any cogency in the said reason alledged for their purpose: for as for the words of Abrahams reply, though they have in short the form of a Question, or Expostulation, nevertheless they seem to me to have the force of an holy com­plaint, and fervent supplication (I may war­rantably call the complaint Holy, notwithstand­ing some mixture of humane infirmity therein perhaps not to be denied) which may not unfit­ly be thus more at large paraphrased,

Lord God, I do well understand that temporal fe­licity, which thou dost promise me in being my exceeding great reward, but to what great purpose is this, seeing I am like to depart the world childless? I am rich e­nough already in cattel, in silver and in gold (Gen. 13.2.) and how insignificant a thing would it be for thee to give me more, so long as I have no child of my own bo­dy to inherit it after me, the steward of my house this Eliezer of Damascus being in expectation to inherit my estate, when I (now a man so old) am gone? Lord God, I do well understand also that heavenly felicity intimated to me in thy promise of being my exceeding great reward, but how can this be effected and brought about, so long as I do not experience thy promise to be fulfilled in giving me a child, from whose loyns the Messias is to issue, in whom my self and all the fami­lies of the earth shall be eternally blessed? Except thou hasten the performance of thy promise in giving me a child (I being already so stricken in years) how shall the said promised blessedness to me and them ever come to pass? Thou, who art Jehovah Adonai, hasten O Lord God the performance of thy gracious word and free promise.

Briefly, as the blessed Virgin having heard that message from God by the mouth of the Arch-angel concerning her bringing forth a son (the Messias) replyed, saying, How shall this be, see­ing I know not a man? to the like sense and pur­pose may Abrahams reply to God be interpreted, without any imputation to Abrahams not appre­hending of any more than temporal felicity to have been promised to him in those words, I am thy shield and exceeding great reward. And as upon that reply in the way of question by the blessed Virgin, the Arch-angel did immediately satis­fie her saying (The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall over shadow thee—) Even so upon that reply of Abraham to God question-wise, doth God (who being the search­er of hearts, did know the mind of the Spirit in those words of Abraham, Lord God, what wilt thou give me?) instantly satisfie that his aged servant, saying, This shall not be thine heir—

But whatever be the due construction of those words (I am thy exceeding great reward) or what­ever the present construction that Abraham did make of them was, it is a thing not to be questi­oned, but that the things promised by God to Abraham were not onely of temporal, but also of eternal concernment: for

1. By Abrahams seed in those words (In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed) St. Peter doth interpret to be meant Jesus Christ, as ap­pears by Act. 3.25. compared with ver. 26. and so also doth St. Paul (as that Text is usually expoun­ded, Gal. 3.16.) He saith not to seeds as of many, but as of one: And to thy seed, which is Christ. Thence it is, that Jesus Christ (the true Isaac) is justly as usually styled by us ( [...]) the promised [Page 175] seed. Abraham had in the said promise a pro­spect of Christ, whereupon Christ says, Abra­ham saw my day and rejoyced Joh. 8.56.

2. God is said by the Apostle in that promise to have preached the Gospel to Abraham, Gal. 3.8. which Gospel is of soul-concernment (for were it onely of temporal concernment, it were not worthy in a signal sense to be so called) and thence it is styled the Gospel of salvation, Eph. 1.13. and the word of salvation, Act. 13.26. and The grace of God which bringeth salvation, Tit. 2.11.

3. That Gospel, or good news, which was in the said promise preached to Abraham, was re­mission of sin, or justification through faith in Christ to be enjoyed by all the kindreds of the earth, as the Apostle doth plainly interpret the matter, saying, (Gal. 3.8, 9.) And the Scripture foreseeing, that God would justifie the Heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, say­ing, In thee shall all nations be blessed (that is, By Faith in thee, as the Apostle expounds it in the words immediately following.) so then, they which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham. And this is that blessedness, which Abraham is said to have expected, or which (as Crellius construes it) ex­pected Abraham, and which the Apostle sets forth in that Metaphorical expression, Heb. 11.10. He looked for a City, which hath foundations, whose buil­der and maker is God.

4. Observe, That although justification, re­mission of sin and everlasting salvation through faith in Christ, or his righteousness were the main part of the blessedness therein promised, nevertheless the imputation of Christs righte­ousness appears not at all promised unto, or ex­pected [Page 176] by either him or his; and therefore was no object of the faith of Abraham, or any of his posterity. And for my own part I am perswa­ded, that the groundless asserting of such an imputation hath been one great occasion of har­dening Socinus with his partakers against the Pro­testant Churches (not to mention also our ad­versaries of the Romish Church;) nor do I perceive any more reason, why any Protestant Preacher, or Writer should be had in suspicion as less friends to Christ, for their denying the impu­tation of Christs righteousness in the sense here opposed, because his enemies the Socinians do de­ny it, than for their maintaining Jesus Christ to be the Son, or Holy One of God, because the Devil himself did make that confession of him.

5. Be it observed, that the promise of justifi­cation, remission of sin, and everlasting blessed­ness through Abrahams seed (the true Messias) to all the Nations of the Earth, was no more absolute to them, than it was to Abraham himself. The truth is, that blessedness was not absolutely promised to either, but conditionally to both: to Abraham upon his operative faith, and to all other sinners upon condition of the same specifi­cal faith, such as Abrahams was.

And thus doth St. Paul himself interpret that promise (In thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;) I mean, he doth interpret it to have the foresaid condition implyed therein, and there­fore constructively to be a conditional promise: for which see Gal. 3. Where having mentioned that promise, verse 8. he adds, saying, ver. 9. So then, they, which be of faith, are blessed (he says not simply with Abraham, but) with FAITHFUL [Page 177] Abraham, intimating thereby, That faith (an operative faith, such a faith, as Abrahams was) is the condition of the promised blessedness in and through the promised seed unto all the nations of the earth. This is the faith, which doth speak a person to be like to Abraham, or doth denomi­nate us Abrahams children, as is the Apostles language, saying ver. 7. Know ye therefore (a con­siderable thing indeed, and therefore to be well known, although to this day many seem to take no due knowledge of it) that they which are of faith (that is of a faith like that of Abraham) the same are the children of Abraham. The inheriting of our father Abrahams blessing (as is the Apostles expression, ver. 14. depends upon our inheriting his faith, I mean, our imitating his faith, as the condition thereof.

6. Be it observed, that the object of Abra­hams faith was not this, or the like revelation, or proposition, Thou Abraham art a person in Christ, Art actually justified, Reconciled to God, Art in his special love and favour—I say, no such proposition, or revelation was the object of his faith, except upon supposition of his faith antecedently thereunto. I put in this exception for the preventing of an objection easie to be foreseen: for may some object, saying, Doth not God in those very words (I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward) assert Abraham to be a person justified, Reconciled, blessed with his spe­cial love and favour? and was not Abraham (fide divinâ) to believe this report, it being uttered by the mouth of God himself?

Answ. The words in the original are defective, the Verb being wanting, and being word for word rendred, are [I thy shield and thy exceed­ing [Page 178] great reward] and they may be supplied indif­ferently with a verb substantive, whether of the present tense (I am) or of the future (I will be.)

2. If we supply them with a verb of the pre­sent tense, as we find them supplied by our Eng­lish Translators, then the words must be under­stood upon supposition of Abrahams faith as an­tecedent, or of Abraham his being a true belie­ver before this revelation, or affirmation; which we may well suppose, forasmuch as he was truly a believer before this vision, or revelation re­corded in this Chapter, as hath been already proved from Gen. 12. beg.

3. If we supply the words with a verb of the future tense, as do the Septuagint (thy reward shall be exceeding great) or I will be thy exceed­ing great reward, then are they to be conceived of under the notion of a promise from God to Abraham, wherein God doth promise to him the continuance of his fatherly protection, favour and benediction, he continuing not to fear, or fall back, but still to walk before him and to be faithful unto death. I grant indeed, that God may be said to be the reward of the faithful both in an active and in a passive sense, i. e. he will reward them, and he will be their reward, (he will be their rewarder, and their reward) and it may indifferently be rendred in either sense. Yet I am apt to think, that the words are constructively a promise, rather than an assertion, or affirmation, and that they are to be supplied rather with a verb of the future tense (I will be) than of the present (I am.) My reason is, not simply, because the Septuagint (as was afore­said) do so render them (thy reward shall be exceeding great;) but because Abraham himself did understand [Page 179] them under the notion of a promise, as appears by his reply thereunto, saying, Lord God, what wilt thou give me— Hereby it is manifest, that the said words of God did bode somewhat, that was coming towards him, and which God did therein promise at one time or other to bestow upon him, acccording to Abrahams construction thereof.

Having thus cleared this sixth particular com­mended to observation, I shall now recommend it; and much the rather do I desire it to be taken into impartial consideration, because there are some, who would have this, or the like propo­sition (Thou art a person reconciled to God, Art one in his special love, and fatherly favour-) to be the object of justifying faith, a faith like that of Abrahams; and this is it, which some Pro­testant Writers do seem to maintain to have been the object of Abrahams faith, and to maintain it both against Papists, Socinians and Arminians, I shall instance only in one, the forecited eminent Author (Dr And. Ryvet in one of his exercitati­ons upon Genesis, p. 403.) and having recited his words with my reply thereunto, I shal freely and friendly leave the judgment thereof to every intelligent, and unprejudicate Reader.

The said Author having said, that Abraham in the promise did embrace God as a father, he adds immediately, saying, Quâ ratione nos justificat fi­des, nosque deo reconciliat, non suo quidem merito, sed dum gratiam nobis in promissionibus divinis oblatam re­cipientes, certo persuasi sumus, nos amari à deo tan­quam filios, i. e. After the same fashion (or manner) faith justifies us, and reconciles us to God, truly not by its own merit, but while we receiving (or embracing) the grace offered to us in the divine promises, are assu­redly, or certainly, perswaded that we are beloved of God as children.

The truth is, and we all confess it, that faith doth not justifie us by its own merit, nor do Ar­minians or Socinians (for ought I know, or e­ver heard) say otherwise, but faith doth justifie us, as it is the performed condition of the new covenant, or law of faith, which performance materially is such an embracing of the grace and favour of God promised and offered therein, as doth effectually encline us sincerely to do the duty, which in the said law or covenant is re­quired in order to the enjoyment thereof; But it is not true to say with this learned, but herein mistaken Author (with too many other Brethren, specially of forein Churches) that faith is such an embracing, or receiving of the grace of God offered in his promises, as that we are assuredly, or certainly perswaded, that we are beloved of God as children, and that this is the faith, that doth justifie us and reconcile us to God, even as it did Abraham in the same manner. Is it not strange that learned men should not even of themselves discern the inconsistency of such say­ings with the truth of Scripture, and right rea­son, yea how inconsistent they are with them­selves? for how can that be said to reconcile a person to God, which doth assuredly perswade him, that he is already, or was antecedently to his believing reconciled to God and beloved of him? Is not this plainly to make a sinner recon­ciled to God before he be reconciled, making the perswasion of his reconciliation to God the means of his reconciliation? The scandal, that in such assertions as these by some Protestant Writers in extremes hath been given to the com­mon Adversary, is much to be lamented.

I shall caution the Reader against another of [Page 181] his mistakes in the same Lecture, p 406 Non gau­det aliquis (says he) ob justificationem, cujus se par­ticipem esse non sentit, i. e. No man rejoyceth for that justification, whereof he perceives not himself to be a partaker. This saying is far from truth: for a man may and ought to rejoyce in a probability, yea a possibility of having that, which at present he hath not. And Gods conditional promises of justifying the ungodly, are just matter of joy to all sinners, and wherein they ought greatly to re­joyce, although at present they are not justified, they being yet in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity, or in their ungodliness.

Having declared more at large in this Chap­ter what was the object of Abrahams faith, that was imputed to him for righteousness, I will in the next Chap. propose it to enquiry, what was the object of the faith of the Patriarchs before the flood, that was imputed to them for righte­ousness.

CHAP. XXVII. Q. VVhat was the object of the faith of Abel, Enoch, Noah, and other the faith­full Patriarchs of the old world before Abraham was? Answ. Such things as were made known to them by superna­tural revelation, which things are sum­marily said to be Gods Existence and his Beneficence, proved by Heb. 11.6. Here­upon two Questions are proposed and answered, 1. VVhether Gods Existence and Beneficence were not things of na­tural revelation, or made known by the light of nature? 2. Q. VVhether was it made known to the said Patriarchs be­fore the flood, that God [in Christ, or for Christs sake] was, or would be the Rewarder of them who diligently seek him?

Q. WHat was the object of the faith of Abel, Enoch, Noah, and other the Patriarchs before the flood, that was imputed to them for righ­teousness?

Answ. This Question doth suppose, that those Ancient Fathers had faith, and that their faith was imputed to them for righteousness; and this may securely be presumed to the enquiry in hand: for the Author to the Hebrews, (chap. 11. [Page 183] beg.) doth testifie of several of them by name, that they had faith, and that thereupon they be­came heirs of the righteousness, which is by faith, i. e. of right, or title to life eternal: for this being expresly testified concerning one of them (Noah by name verse 7.) by the same reason we may safely conclude it to be verified concerning the rest, and so much (for ought I know) is im­ported in that witness, which Abel is said upon his faith to have obtained, viz. That he was righ­teous; for upon believing to be made righteous, and thereupon to be made, or to become an heir of the righteousness, which is by faith, I take to be phrases synonymous, and of the self-same importance. Consequently hereupon with like security of truth I may presume, that they were under a covenant of grace made to them, and indeed to all men in Adam; and that this covenant was in force to all mankind, before it was renewed to Abraham with the addition of certain great priviledges peculiar to him and his natural posterity above the rest of the world up­on his extraordinary and most exemplary faith; I say, the covenant of grace was in force to all mankind, before it was renewed to Abraham; for it is most evident, that Cain himself [one of the Serpents seed] was not excepted, God saying to him, If thou do well, shalt not thou be accepted? If Cain, as Abel, had done well, he as well as his younger brother, had obtained witness, that he was righteous. These things being presupposed as things undubitable, I answer to the Question, 1. More generally, Some divine, or supernatu­ral revelation was the object of their faith. This doth necessarily follow from the premisses, That if those Patriarchs had faith, then some superna­tural [Page 184] revelation was the object of it: for this is the difference betwixt faith and knowledge, or betwixt that kind of assent, which is called Assen­sus fidei, and Assensus scientificus, the assent of faith and knowledge, that being a superna­tural assent, or an assent to some truth made known by divine witness, or supernatural reve­lation, but this being a natural assent to such truths as are made known, or revealed to us by the light of nature. Onely it concerns us right­ly to understand the reason of the said expressi­ons, why the said object of faith is said to be cer­tain truths testified by supernatural revelation; the reason whereof is not, because it is always so ex parte rei, i. e. because we cannot be said to believe any truth made known unto us by natural demonstration, but the said assent is called super­natural ex parte medii, because the ground, rea­son, or motive thereof is evermore divine testi­mony, the witness of God, or supernatural re­velation; so that although faith and knowledge may, and do frequently agree ex parte rei cognita, i. e. Although they may and often have the same material object, or objective matter, to which we do yield our assent, nevertheless they do always differ ex parte modi, ceu medii, i. e. in the ground or motive of that assent, natural demonstration being the ground of the one, and supernatural revelation or divine witness being always the ground of the other.

2. I answer more particularly, The Existence and Beneficence of God were the objects of the faith of those Patriarchs; as is most evident by what the Author to the Hebrews asserts in the sixth verse of that Chapter, saying (For without faith it is impossible to please God: for he that cometh [Page 185] to God, must believe, that he is, and that he is a re­warder of them, that diligently seek him.) In those words are considerable the subject and the ob­ject of saving faith,

1. The Subject of this faith is one, that comes to God, every one who comes to God. Now to come to God is for sinful man to turn to him, to seek and serve, and please God. This coming (as the Apostle there gives us to understand) al­ways presupposeth faith, and follows it as an effect upon its cause, faith being the principle, or master-wheel of this divine motion, styled Coming to God.

2. Observe there the object, or objects of sa­ving faith, viz. 1. The Existence of God. God is. As God himself is Prima veritas incomplexa, the first simple truth, so (God is) prima veritas com­plexa, the first categorical, or affirmative pro­position. As Gods being, or Existence is first and before all other things and Existences, so that God is, or doth exist, must needs be the first truth, and first to be believed in order to our coming to him: for if a man believes not, that God is, or that there is a God, he can never come to him.

2. The other object of their faith is said to be Gods Munificence, in his being a Rewarder of them, that do diligently seek him, or seek him out (as the word signifies) that is, who do seek him in good earnest, seriously, throughly and constantly. This rewarding of them who are diligent seekers of God, doth comprize his ac­cepting their persons, his pardoning their sins, and finally his bestowing upon them life ever­lasting. Now as the belief of a God is the first ground of all religiou [...] service, and first there­fore [Page 186] to be believed, so the belief of Gods being a Rewarder of piety, is a second, and therefore in the second place is to be believed; for if sin­ners believe, that there is a God, and yet are not perswaded, that he will reward them, who diligently seek him, they will have little, or no heart to his service, their religion will be very cold, or rather none at all. Thence that of the Psalmist (130.4.) There is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayst be feared. We use to say, that the end is the principle of motion in morals. It is the belief of the final reward of blessedness, which is a prime principle of this moral motion, i. e. of diligent seeking of God. As our Saviour says concerning those two great commandments of the law (the love of God and our Neighbour Mat. 22.34, 40.) they are like one another, and on them two do hang all the law and the Pro­phets, in like sort may it truly be said concern­ing those two objects of faith (Gods Existence and Beneficence) they are of a like necessity to be believed in order to salvation, and upon the belief of them hangs all the worship and service of the true, and living God. It being apparent by the premisses, that the Existence and Benefi­cence of God were the objects of the Patriarchs faith, witnessed, or made known unto them by supernatural revelation. I shall think it expedi­ent thereupon to propose two useful Questions,

1. Whether Gods existence and beneficence were not known to them by natural demonstra­tions, or were not revealed to them by the light of nature? to which I answer affirmatively, I doubt not, but that they were some way made known to them, and indeed so they were also some way made known to the Heathen world: [Page 187] for the Heathen by the light of nature knew, That God is, whom their Philosophers styled [...], the first being, and [...], a certain cause and beginning of all things. And the Apostle puts the matter out of doubt, affirming of the Heathen and of the book of nature, That that which may be known of God, was manifest to them, God having shewed it unto them: for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, and verse 20. he says, that they knew God although they did not glorifie him as God. That the Heathen did not onely know God, but moreover that they in some sort knew him to be a Remunerator of them, that diligent­ly seek him, and that they knew this so far forth at least as to leave them [...], without excuse, seems to be evident, from that Scripture; nor can I perceive, how any sinner should be left of God altogether without excuse, if God had not, by one means or other, revealed unto him both his Existence and Beneficence, both that he is and is a rewarder of them, who dili­gently seek him. It is true indeed, that God (in Christ, or for Christs sake) will reward them, who diligently seek him, is not a thing disco­verable by the light of nature, nor can it be known without supernatural revelation, and whether God did thus far forth make it known to the Patriarchs, is a Question, which before the close of this Chapter I will propose and make answer to. In the mean while let it be observed, that these two Articles (That God is and that he is a rewarder of them, that diligently seek him) were Articles, or objects both of the knowledge [Page 188] and faith of the Patriarchs, they were things to which they did yield a twofold kind of assent, that which in the Schools is called Assensus scien­tificus, or Scientiae, and Assensus fidei, God having made these things known unto them both by na­tural and supernatural revelation. Briefly, These were Articles, both known and believed; yea as for the first Article touching the Existence of God, it is true to say, It is in order of nature first to be known, and afterwards to be believed. That faith and knowledge may have one and the same material object hath been already said and manifested, though the assent of the one and the other being of different kinds their formal ob­jects do always differ; by their formal objects I mean, the formal motive, medium, or ground, upon which our assent is founded, the one be­ing founded upon natural demonstration and the other upon supernatural revelation or divine testimony.

Q. Was it made known to the Patriarchs before the flood, by supernatural revelation, that God in Christ, or for Christs sake is a rewarder of them, who diligently seek him, and consequently was this any ob­ject of their faith?

Answ. I think it was: for I am perswaded, that as it is said of Abraham, That the Gospel was preached to him, Gal. 3.8. so also, that it was preached to them; and that as it was preached to him in that saying mentioned there by S. Paul (In thee shall all nations be blessed) so it was preach­ed to them in that saying recorded concerning the seed of the woman its bruising the Serpents head; as the Gospel was preached to Abraham under the notion of His seed [signanter,] so I am perswaded, that it was preached to those Patri­archs [Page 189] under the notion of Semen mulieris, the seed of a woman [indefinitly.] And the grounds of this my perswasion are these two, 1. Because, as this is the most received opinion of almost all Protestant, that I may not say also, almost all Christian Writers (for ought I know and from whom I would not willingly recede without evi­dent and cogent reason) so I never hitherto have perceived the cogency of what hath been object­ed to the contrary. I will not here relate what is objected against the said interpretation by the Socinian, or any other Writers, all of them be­ing (to reasonable satisfaction as I think) answer­ed by several Authors, one of the last whereof, that I have read some years ago, is that Elegant Latinist and very learned man Dr. Arrowsmith, (Tactica Sacra, p. 4, 5.) to whom among many others I shall refer the Reader, who scruples the matter here in Question.

2. Christs second coming (his coming to judg­ment) was revealed to some of the Patriarchs before the flood;) and therefore it is (to speak the least) most highly probable, that his first coming (his coming in flesh) was also revealed to them by God. See Jude 14, 15, wherein he affirms, That Enoch the seventh from Adam pro­phesied saying, The Lord cometh with ten thousands of his Saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly of all their ungodly deeds, which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches, which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. It is not material to enquire, how this prophesie came to the cognizance of the Apostle St. Jude. It may be sufficient to say, that in all probability he did receive it from common and undoubted tradition transmitted from the Patri­archs [Page 190] (whom I am now speaking of) and so hand­ed from generation to generation, till such time as it seemed good to the Holy Ghost by this A­postle to make it a part of canonical Scripture, even as certain other matters of ancient traditi­on are now made a part of Scripture by the A­postle St. Paul, such as that passage about Jannes and Jambres, 2 Tim. 3.8. and that about Moses his saying, I exceedingly fear and quake, Heb. 12.21. with several others, which might be named. We have heard of the prophecy of Enoch, and what any of Gods Prophets have spoken, God is said by them to have spoken (Luke 1.70. As he spake by the mouth of all his holy Prophets since the world began, saith Zachary in his Benedictus;) and that it was the Lord Christ (though not as alto­gether excluding the Father and the Holy Ghost) of whose coming to judgement Enoch did pro­phesie, is that, which is beyond all question and not in the least doubted of by any Christian, he who is here styled The Lord, being elsewhere, where his coming to judgment is spoken of, cal­led the Son of man, Mat. 16.27. and the Great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ, Tit. 2.13.

I shall submit these things to consideration, o­mitting (for brevity sake) to speak concerning the Patriarchs offering sacrifices to God, their bloody sacrifices being (as is generally concei­ved, and as I still do think) typical Gospel insti­tuted by God to typifie the bloodshed of the Messias.

To conclude this Chapter, from what hath been said concerning the object of the faith of the Patriarchs before the flood expressed in those words of the Author to the Hebrews chap. 11.6. I shall commend this to observation, viz. That [Page 191] the object of their faith was not onely blessed­ness promised, and expected, but also duty com­manded, it being in those words plainly implyed, that they did believe the diligent seeking of God to be a duty incumbent upon every sinner in or­der to their being made blessed by God as Remu­nerator of all those, who do faithfully serve him.

I shall now proceed to another Question, wherein we all under the New Testament are more nearly concerned, and therefore have the greater need to be rightly and duly informed.

CHAP. XXVIII. Q. What is the object of that Christian faith, which in the New Testament is promised by God to be imputed to sinners for righteousness? Answ. Two remark­able differences in the object of their, and our Christian faith specified, the one styled Modal, the other Material, the object of our Christian faith being of larger extent, than that of the said Pa­triarchs. A refutation of those who do assert ens incomplexum, i. e. the person of Christ to be the adequate object of ju­stifying faith as justifying, as also of those, who will not extend the object of justifying faith [as justifying] so far as to whole Christ in person, i. e. to Christ as considered in all his Offices, but do re­strain it to the formal consideration of him onely as a Priest. Three causes of this mistake in a late learned Latine Author. The suffrage of that most ju­dicious and impartial Author Le-Banch one of the very learned Professors of Divinity in Sedan.

Q WHat is the object of that Christian faith, which in the New Testament is promised by God to be imputed to sinners for righteousness?

Ans. The whole word of God is the adequate [Page 193] object of faith: and as the word of God, for so much as was in former ages made known to the Patriarchs before the flood & unto Abraham in his days, was the object of their faith, so is the same word of God together with such other revelations as God hath since those times made known unto us, the object of ours, 1 Tim. 1.15. But the more especial object of our Christian faith is the Gos­pel of Christ incarnate, this was the special ob­ject of that faith, which John the Baptist preach­ed, saying, Repent ye, and believe the Gospel, Mar. 1.15. and which our Saviour gave in commission to his Apostles after his resurrection to be preached to all the world, saying, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every Creature. He that believeth, shall be saved (Mark 16.15, 16.) Believeth what? Answ. Believeth that Gospel, which was in his name to be preached to every creature.

By this Gospel life and immortality is said to be brought into light, 2 Tim. 1.10. that is, into much more, and clearer light than by that, which was preached to Abraham and the Patri­archs before the flood. This Gospel to be preach­ed to all the world, reveals to us the accomplish­ment of the prophesies and promises of the old Testament concerning our Saviours incarnati­on, death, resurrection— Hereby two remarka­ble differences appear to be betwixt our Christi­an faith and the faith of Abraham with the Pa­triarchs before the flood, e. g. 1. The object of their faith was the word of God unwritten; for it appears not, that any part of Gods word was in their days committed to writing, nor till the days of Moses, which was certain hundred years after Abrahams time, as appears by Gen. 15.13, 14. [Page 194] But the object of our faith is the written word of God, it having since those days been commit­ed to writing, styled The Scripture. Whence that saying of our Saviour to the Jews, Joh. 5, 39. Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think, ye have eternal life, and they are they, which testifie of me: And that of St John the Evangelist, saying, Joh. 20. ult. These things are written, that ye might be­lieve, that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and that be­lieving, ye might have life through his name. This difference ex parte objecti, respectively to the ob­ject, is onely Modal, the next following is Ma­terial.

2. The object of their faith was of narrower extent, than that of ours. As the object of Abra­hams faith was of larger extent, than that of the Patriarchs (for Abraham was to believe, that in his seed all nations should be blessed, which is more than to believe simply, or indefinitly, that it should be through the seed of a woman) so the object of our Christian faith is of larger com­pass, than was that of Abrahams: for besides the Scriptures of the Old Testament written by Mo­ses, and the Prophets, the Scriptures of the New Testament are the objects of that faith, which is, or is to be imputed to believing Christians for righteousness, there being therein new Articles of faith added to the old, upon the belief where­of the salvation of sinners doth depend. It is not enough now to believe, that God is gracious and mercifull and will not turn his face from us, if we turn to him, but we must believe also, that Jesus Christ (the son of the blessed Virgin) is the true Messias, is He, by, and through whom we must turn to God, and for whose sake God in mercy will turn to us, according to that of [Page 195] our Saviour, If ye believe not, that I am he, ye shall die in your sins, Joh. 8.24. It is not enough for a sinner now to believe, that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them, that diligently seek hm, but he must believe also, that the said Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, if he will have life through his name. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus (says St. Paul Rom. 10.9.) and shalt believe in thine heart, that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. And Rom. 4.24. he concludes what he had at large in that Chapter spoken concerning Abrahams operative faith, saying, That as Abrahams obediential faith was imputed to him for righteousness, so it was re­corded for our sakes, to whom the like obedi­ential faith shall be imputed, if we believe the additional Articles of the Christian faith, where­of he makes instance in a prime one, viz. The resurrection of Christ, which Article as it sup­poseth his death, or delivery for our offences, so upon it the belief of other Articles of the Chri­stian faith doth depend; If we believe (says he Rom. 4.24.) on him, who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.

As for the object of saving faith, as also the acts, or actings of faith conversant thereabout (which will be spoken of in the next Chapter) I shall commend to observation the words of the late Assembly of Divines sitting at Westminster in the Confession of their faith, they saying Chap. 14. By this saving faith a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the word for the autho­rity of God himself speaking therein, and acteth diffe­rently upon that, which each particular passage there­of containeth, yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatnings, and embracing the pro­mises [Page 196] of God for this life and for that, which is to come.

Be it observed, That those Reverend Divines do make the whole word of God to be the ob­ject of saving faith, not onely promises, but commands and threatnings also, the threatnings of the word being a part of that Gospel, which was commanded by Christ to be preached to e­very creature, as was proved in the foregoing Chapter from those words of his to his Apostles, Mark 16.15, 16. The premisses considered, it seems to me, that those Authors are mistaken, who do assert the person of Christ to be the ade­quate object of our Christian faith, as it justi­fies. This is the assertion of that learned Au­thor and great Schoolman Doctor Ames in his Med. Theol. lib. 1. chap. 27. th. 17. Christus est adaequatum objectum fidei, quatenus fides justificat. Christ, says he, is the adequate object of faith as it justifies; Which he therefore doth assert to be not Ens complexum [Not this, or that axiom, or proposition] but Ens incomplexum, the person of Christ, or Christ in person. Whereas the truth to my seeming is this, viz. That as Ens complexum (God is, and is a Rewarder of them, who dili­gently seek him) was the object of the faith of the Patriarchs, as justifying, and as those reve­lations, which God made to Abraham (consisting as aforesaid in commands and promises) were the objects of his justifying faith, as justifying, so it is Ens complexum, the Gospel of Christ, or the promise of salvation to sinners upon their sincere believing in Christ as crucified, dead, risen again and ascended, that is the object of justifying faith, as justifying. As this seems to be apparent by what hath been already said in [Page 197] this Chapter, so it may further appear by what will be said in the next concerning those actings of faith, that are made of God the condition of our being justified. In the mean time let it be observed, that those are mistaken, who would not have the object of justifying faith (as justify­ing) extended so far as to the person of Christ, i e. to whole Christ as considered in all his Offices, but do restrain it to the formal consideration of his person onely as a Priest. I remember this to have been the mistake of Mr Thomas Blake of Thamworth, To whom Mr Richard Baxter did make a reply (I think truly satisfactory) and which I read many years ago. And I do per­ceive by my late reading, that that learned Au­thor is followed with another pious, learned, and reverend Thomas, who although he declares himself to be so far satisfied with Mr Baxters de­finition of justifying faith (it being, as Mr Bax­ter well says, A receiving of Jesus Christ in all his Offices, as Prophet, Priest and King) as not to deny, that it receives a whole Christ, ne­vertheless he will not yield, that Christ is the formal object of faith as justifying, being con­sidered in all his Offices, but only as in his priest­ly function.

I will relate his mind in his own words, and I will then reply thereunto.

Christus, says that Reverend and learned Au­thor, est objectum justificationis ut quod, sive mate­riale; ut servator tantum formale, sive ut Quo, i. e. etsi idem Christus sit Dominus, & sacerdos, totus­que in justificatione recipiatur, Totus tamen omni sensu, i. e. omnium promiscuè munerum intuitu ad justificationem formaliter non requiritur, sed tantum qua sacerdos, & legi satisfaciens, i. e. Christ is the [Page 198] material object of justification, the formal onely as Sa­viour, i. e. although the same Christ be both Lord, and Priest, and whole Christ be received in justification, yet the intuition, or consideration of him as such re­spectively to all his Offices is not required formally to justification, but onely as a Priest and satisfying the law. The reason hereof (says he page 113.) is, because to be justified is nothing else, but to be freed from the curse of the law, and how are we so freed, but by the satisfaction of Christ? and how did Christ satis­fie for us, but as that great Priest and Sacrifice, who died for us? as a Prophet he teaches, as he a King he commands, as a Priest onely he reconciles us to God.

To these forecited words I reply, 1. It is strange to me, that such an acute Dis­putant and learned School­man as this Reverend Au­thor,Memorandum, that these reflections up­on this Reverend and learned Author were written before his death, and before Mr Baxters reply to him came forth in Print. should affirm Jesus Christ to be in any sense the object of justification whe­ther the material or formal: for it is with me an undoubt­ed truth, that it is not Christ under any consideration, who is any kind of ob­ject of justification, but it is the sinner himself, who is the material object of justification, and it is the same sinner as Penitent, or believing in Christ, who is the formal object thereof. Christ indeed is most truly and fitly said to be the me­ritorious efficient cause, which doth procure a sinners justification, and his bloodshed as Priest, or sacrifice may be truly and aptly said to be the thing, whereby he did meritoriously procure the same: But it is neither fitly nor tru­ly said of Christ under any consideration, that [Page 199] he is the object of justification, whether ut Quod, or ut Quo, material, or formal.

Object. The said Author by Objectum justifi­cationis doth not mean the object of justification, but Objectum fidei justificantis, the object of justi­fying faith as it justifies?

Answ. 1. If this was his meaning, it was his oversight, and he did not well not to speak as he meant.

2. Whatever his meaning was, it is intole­rably said, That Christ is the object of our ju­stification, or of any ones justification, but his own, or that of his own person, himself being said in Scripture [in a peculiar sense] to be ju­stified.

3. I am verily perswaded, that this Author ac­cording as is here pretended in the objection, by objectum justificationis did not mean the object of justification, but of justifying faith, and I doubt not, but that (the occasion of his words being duly considered) this ought to be his meaning, it being Lapsus pennae, not error mentis. And be­cause I conceive this to be his true meaning, I have therefore thought meet in the handling of the present Question, to take the said passage into consideration; and thereupon to his sup­posed true intent and meaning therein, I shall now reply, that it will not follow, that because Christ did merit our justification formally onely as a Priest, we are therefore Intueri, to behold, consider, or receive him onely as such in order to our actual justification; for it is evident, that [Page 200] God in his Gospel, or law of grace doth to this end require of sinners not onely the intuition, but also the acceptation of Jesus Christ in all his offices, both as Lord and Saviour.

The main grounds of this Authors mistake in this matter seem to be such as these,

1. That he doth not mind to distinguish be­twixt justification barely as merited and as actu­ally confer'd: For though it be granted, that Christ hath merited our justification formally as a Priest, yet he doth not confer it precisely, or onely as such, but as Lord, and Legislator, and this also he doth upon such terms as in his law of grace (the instrument of conveyance) he hath constituted in order to the collation or enjoy­ment thereof.

2. In that he doth not duly consider, that it is not Christs satisfaction alone, that doth actu­ally entitle sinners to pardon of sin, or justifi­cation: for if the expiation of sin (the thing indeed, which hath been done on Christs part) were the onely requisite to the actual pardoning thereof, it would follow from thence, that all and every sinner had a title to pardon, or that all sinners were ipso facto actually thereby par­doned, and that no sinner is thereby entitled to pardon of sin more than another, forasmuch as Christ by the sacrifice of himself was a ransome for all, even a propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

3. In that he doth not mind to distinguish betwixt two sorts of benefits, which sinne [...]s do [Page 201] enjoy by Christ, some whereof are by, or from Christ as Absolutely considered, and some from him onely as received, or accepted of by faith, e. g. Some benefit sinners do enjoy by Christ as absolutely considered, i. e. as considered barely upon account of what himself hath done as a Priest in offering himself an expiatory sacrifice for sin, and the benefit, which all sinners do here­upon immediately enjoy is a general Act of O­blivion, or a conditional grant of pardon for all their sins. This benefit they do enjoy antece­dently to their faith, yea whether ever they be­lieve it, or no. But some benefit (e. g. actual par­don, justification, and reconciliation with God) sinners do not enjoy by Christ barely as so consi­dered, but as received or accepted by faith (for these benefits a sinner doth not enjoy antece­dently to, but consequently upon his sincere be­lieving) accepted I mean in all his Offices, both as Lord and Saviour, as our Redeemer and our Ruler. Nothing seems to me more apparent by the Scriptures, than that a sinners actual pardon doth depend upon his acceptance of whole Christ i. e. in one Office as well as in another. See for this purpose, Act. 3.23. where excision is threat­ned to every soul, that will not hear Christ as the great Prophet of his Church; and Luke 19.27. where sinners are doom'd to destructi­on for rejecting Christ in his kingly function, or because they will not suffer him as their rightful Lord and Redeemer to rule over them.

Hitherunto I have expressed my dissent or dis­satisfaction as to the forecited words of this Re­verend Author; nevertheless there are two things in them, wherein I am better satisfied.

[Page 202]1. In that he doth plainly insinuate the justi­fication of a sinner to be in effect the same thing with his reconciliation to God.

2. In that he doth expresly assert a sinners ju­stification to be his freedom from the curse of the Law. And I do thereupon crave leave hear­tily to commend them, specially the last of these true sayings to the remembrance of himself and all my dissenting Brethren: for I do humbly conceive, that a due recognition thereof is e­nough to cause them to dissent from that Author in his Justificatio Paulina, the design of which is to prove, That God requires no other Evange­lical grace, but onely faith in order to the justi­fication of a sinner: for what is more ma­nifest by the current of Scripture, than that Repentance towards God, as well as faith to­wards our Lord Jesus Christ is required of sin­ners, that they may be delivered from the wrath of God and from the curse of the law? They, who will acknowledge (as all ought to do) that it is a sinners duty to repent of his sins, that he may be delivered from the wrath of God and from the curse of the law, and do withall ac­knowledge, that to be justified is to be deliver­ed from that curse, cannot without extream for­getfulness, and self contradiction deny, that it is the duty of sinners to repent of their sins, that they may be justified from them, and conse­quently, that it is not by faith alone in way of contradistinction from, or in opposition unto all other Evangelical graces, or duties that sinners are justified, but by faith taken in a large, or comprehensive sense as including them.

I think it not amiss in the close of this Chap­ter to inform the Reader, that since the writing thereof the Theological Theses of that most impar­tial and judicious Author [Ludovicus Le Blanc Professor of Divinity in Sedan] came to my hands, wherein having read his Lecture concerning the nature and essence of justifying faith, I am con­firmed in the truth of what I have said in this Chapter concerning the object of justifying faith, and for that cause I shall transcribe the following passage in his said Lecture (Chap. 91.) wherein having denied the promises of the Gos­pel to be the sole object of justifying faith as ju­stifying, and having asserted (most truly) that faith justifies us, as it is the condition of the new covenant, he adds,

Fides autem illa— But that faith, which the Gospel requires as the condition, under which it offers salvation to us, doth not onely respect the promises of the Gospel, but also the precepts and doctrines thereof, such as that concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord, as is manifest by those words of St. Paul, Rom. 10.9. And therefore that faith, which is the condition upon which God for Christs sake absolves us from our sins and accounts us as righteous (pro justis habet) is not onely that act of the mind and will, where­with we embrace the promises of grace, but that where­by we assent to the mysteries of the Gospel as true. And therefore we approve not those, who seem to restrain the object of faith as justifying to the promise of grace, al­though this promise be the chief object.

I shall conclude this Chapter by minding the Reader, that those Authors, who do confine the object of justifying faith as justifying to the pro­mises of salvation by Christ, (however many of them seem not to intend, but rather to gainsay it) [Page 204] must, whether they will or no, extend it to the precepts of the Gospel: for all the promises of justification, remission of sin, and salvation by Christ are conditional, i. e. they are made upon condition of our obedience to the precepts of Christ, styled obedience to the Gospel, this o­bedience being styled obedience somtimes to the Gospel of God, 1 Pet 4.17. and somtimes to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 Thes. 1.8. and somtimes the obedience of faith, Rom. 16.26.

CHAP. XXIX. Q. Is it onely one act, or one kind of acts of faith, or else various acts thereof, and of divers kinds, respectively whereunto it is said, That Abrahams faith was im­puted to him for righteousness? Ans. The most noted distinction of two kinds of the acts of faith, styled Elicite and Imperate, being premised, exemplified and ex­plained, the Question it self is perspicu­ously answered; and this in way of dis­sent from those Brethren, who instruct sinners to believe, that they are to be justified onely by one act of faith, which act various Authors do use to express by various phrases, some whereof are in­deed Scriptural expressions, and some of their own invention. Certain of these Authors are instanced in, and their words being recited, a reply is made thereunto, together with a passage in the larger Catechism of the late Assembly of Divines.

FOrasmuch as it hath been made apparent, that faith not as figuratively taken, i. e. for the object of faith [Christs righteousness,] but in proper construction for faith it self is imputed to sinners for righteousness, and forasmuch as the [Page 206] whole word of God, specially the Gospel of Christ styled the word of faith, Rom. 10.9. hath been declared to be the object of faith, the next & last Question shall be concerning the act, or acts of faith, that is, or are imputed to believers for righteousness.

Q. Is it onely one act of faith, or certain acts of faith onely of one kind, or else various acts of faith, and of various kinds, respectively whereunto it is said, that Abrahams faith was imputed to him, and that ours shall be imputed to us for righteousness?

Answ. This Question doth suppose, or take it for granted (as the very truth is) that there are divers acts of faith, yea acts of a divers kind, and specificated from the divers objects thereof. The most notable distinction of the acts of faith in the usual terms of the School, is into Acts E­licite, & Imperate, i. e. Immediate, and Mediate, i. e. such as are immediately exerted by the ha­bit of faith in the soul, and from thence bubbling (as I may so say) as water from the fountain, or else such as faith dictates to be done through the intervention of other graces, or actings of them.

An act of Faith of the former kind styled E­licite, is an assenting to the truth of what God says, a believing, that such, and such things are promised, or commanded by God, are (to speak in the language of Scripture, 1 Pet. 4.11. and Rom. 3.2.) [...], the Oracles of God.

An act, or acting of Faith of the latter kind styled Imperate, is by vertue of the former act to do the thing, or things by God commanded, so as that we may enjoy the good by him promised, e. g. An assenting to this truth, or truths, That God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him, is an Elicite act of Faith, [Page 207] and our diligent seeking of God thereupon Is an imperated act of Faith; or rather (to speak the full truth, it is a complication of many im­perated acts: for such a constellation, or com­plication of duty doth the phrase (seeking of God) import both in that Scripture, and in ma­ny other texts, it imports, I say, many acts of the soul, yea of the whole man. If the matter be not by this instance made sufficiently obvious to common understanding, I will endeavour to make it more plain (if possible) so that the most illiterate person may perceive the meaning, and this I will attempt by the most familiar instance, that at present I can think upon, e. g. To assent to the truth of this revelation in Gods word (That he, who hideth his sins, shall not prosper, but whosoever confesseth and forsaketh them, shall have mercy) is an Elicite, or an immediate act of Faith, and so is our trusting to, or fidu­cial recumbency upon God, and his faithfulness, that so it shall be both with the one, and with the other; but by vertue of this, or these acts of Faith to discover, confess and forsake our sins, are imperated, or mediate acts of Faith. Now the Question is, Whether God doth impute to us the former onely, or those and the later also for righteousness? To which I do now make answer roundly, and plainly, that both the said kinds of acts of Faith are imputed by God unto sinners for righteousness.

The truth of this answer is apparent by what hath been already said two ways, 1. In decla­ring by the most familiar instances, what are the several acts of Faith (styled Elicite and Impe­rate, Mediate and Immediate) for is it rational, or is it not rather most absurd, and senseless to [Page 208] imagine, that God should impute to us for righ­teousness our bare crediting, or believing bare­ly, that he is a rewarder of them that diligent­ly seek him, or that such shall have mercy, and not at all impute to us for righteousness the things, or duties, which by vertue of that Faith we do, i. e. our actual seeking of God, our not hiding, but confessing, and forsaking our sins? Yea, if comparison were fit to be made, is it not more agreable to common reason and plain Scri­pture to imagine the imputation of the latter kind of the acts of Faith to us for righteousness rather than the former? If one of them must be excluded, which in reason do we think should, or ought to be exempted from the priviledg, or promise of the said imputation? But we need not to answer, or propose any such Question, it be­ing enough to say, That Scripture excludes nei­ther, but includes both in the word [Faith] in all such Texts, where it is said to be by God im­puted to us for, or to righteousness.

2. The truth of the said answer hath been al­ready made evident in what hath been said con­cerning the object of Abrahams Faith, that was imputed to him for righteousness, and of our Christian faith, which shall to the same purpose be imputed to us. The object of both, as hath been manifested, are not onely divine promises, but also divine commands, a practical Faith of which commands by vertue of Faith in the pro­mises was that thing, which was imputed to A­braham, and which shall be imputed to us for righ­teousness.

I desire, that the answer to this Question may be observed as matter of my professed dis­sent from those mistaken Brethren, who have in [Page 209] their Sermons, or Writings divulged the contra­ry doctrine, teaching people to believe, that a sinner is justifyed by one act, or one onely kind of acts of Faith, those styled Elicite, which by various Preachers and Authors, are in various words expressed, viz. A leaning upon Christ, rol­ling our selves upon him, laying down [...]ur sins at his cross, or upon his shoulders, taking from him his righ­teousness, an apprehending, or laying hold upon Christ, a recumbency of the soul upon him, an embracing of his righteousness, an accepting his righteousness alone and nothing else for our justification, a renouncing of all our own personal righteousness in order to our justifica­tion in the sight of God, a cleaving to his merits alone, and resting upon nothing else for salvation, an hiding of our selves in his wounds, as Doves in the clefts of the rocks, an applying of Christ and his righteousness to our selves—Which last phrase (the applica­tion of Christs righteousness to our selves) being an ex­pression full of ambiguity (some Writers understand­ing one thing by it,Of this ambiguity see Lt Blanc in his Theological Theses page 207. th. 74, 75, 76, 77, 78. and some another.) I am truly sorry as well for that, as for other reasons, that it ever came into the description of justifying faith as justifying, it being a phrase more fit (as I ever did and still do think, submissively be it said) to amuse, perplex and entangle poor Christian [...], than to edifie them in the nature of saving faith, as saving.

As for the refutation of the said mistaken Brethren, besides what hath been already said, I desire the Reader to consider what is written by two Apostles, S. Paul and S James. 1. That of S. Paul, Rom. 4.20, 21. wherein commend­ing [Page 210] Abrahams faith, he says, He staggered not at the promise of God, being fully perswaded, that what he had promised he was able to perform. Was not this in Ab [...]aham a distinct act of faith from the accepting of Christs righteous [...]ess to justifie him, or a recumbing upon it alone for that purpose? And yet doth the Apostle immedi [...]tely say upon Abrahams thu [...] a [...]ting faith (ver. 22.) And there­fore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

Again, it is considerable what he says in ver. 24. It was written for us, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him, who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead. Is the belief of Christs resurrection from the dead no distinct act of Faith from lea [...]i [...]g upon Christ, accept­ing his righteousness—And yet doth the Apostle affirm, that faith thus acted is imputed to us for righteousness, or that thus cordially believing (which is to be understood Caeteris paribus, other necessaries corresponding, as I may not unfitly expres the Apostles meaning) we be­lieve to righteousness, Rom. 10.9, 10

2. As it appears by the forecited words of St. Paul, so it seems no less demonstrable from that of [...]t. James, chap. 2.21, 22, 23. where, 1. He asserts Abraham to have been justified by works, and he doth exemplifie the matter by one emi­nent work, or Imperated act of his faith, viz. the offering of his son Isaac upon the altar.

2. He bids us take notice of it, saying, Seest thou? or thou seest, How faith wrought with his works and by works was Faith made perfect, i. e. made perfectly available to its appointed end, i. e. to justifie Abraham. As Abrahams Faith, so that Imperated act, or work of his Faith did cooperate (it wrought) towards the self same issue.

[Page 211]3. He tells us, that thereupon the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now how can it be truly said, that the said Scripture was therupon fulfilled, if we confine the meaning of the word (faith, or believing God, or believing in the Lord) onely to one Elicite act of Faith, or to acts onely of that kind, and do not extend it to that Imperated act, or work of Faith in Abra­hams offering his son upon the altar?

I do the rather desire, that the premisses may be taken into impartial consideration, bec [...]use they are subservient to rectifie what we read to the contrary in several Authors, among whom I shall instance in some, and having recited their words, I will shape a reply thereunto.

In the first place I will recite a passage of Dr. Ames in his Med. Theol. l. 1. c. 27. th. 17. Where­in having justly rejected a bare general assent to the truth of Gods word as not justifying Faith (th. 16.) he adds, saying, (th. 17) Fides illa pro­prie dicitur justificans, qua—That Faith is pro­perly said to be justifying, whereby we do rest on Christ for the pardon of our sins and salvation: for Christ is the adequate object of faith (Quatenus) as it justifies: faith also doth not justifie (aliâ ratione) for any other reason, or upon any other account, but as it apprehends that righteousness, for which we are justified; and that righteousness doth not consist in the truth of any propo­sition, to which we do assent, but onely in Christ, who was made sin for us, that we might be made the righ­teousness of God in him, 2 Cor. 5.21.

But the truth is, 1. Although Jesus Christ be a chief object, yet he is not the sole, or adequate object of justifying Faith as it justifies, as hath been already manifested in the foregoing Chap­ter. [Page 212] Christ indeed is but the mediate, not the ultimate, and therefore not the adequate object of our faith as justifying; for as it is God, who justifies, so it is through Christ, that sinners are to believe in God, according to that descripti­on, which St. Peter gives of those believers, to whom he directs his Epistle, saying, Christ was manifest in these last times for you, who by him do be­lieve in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory, that our faith and hope might be in God, 1 Pet 1.20, 25.

2. Although a sinner by faith doth apprehend the righteousness of Christ, i. e. doth believe Christs righteousness to be the meritorious cause of pardon of sin, and doth rest, or lean upon it as such, nevertheless that Faith doth not justifie him Illâ ratione, as it is such a leaning, or appre­hension: for it is not this or that act of faith that justifies us, but all of both kinds as well Elicite as Imperate that are in the covenant of grace promised by God to be imputed to us for righ­teousness, or as they are therein constituted by God the condition of our justification, and ac­cordingly performed.

2. God in his Gospel of Grace hath not con­stituted the said apprehension of Christs righte­ousness, or leaning upon it, or him for pardon the sole condition of a sinners justification, or of their being made the righteousness of God in him, but it is such a belief of Gods word, speci­ally of the conditional promises of salvation through Christ, as doth effectually induce sin­ners to perform the conditions thereof, i. e. to repent and convert from their sins, and in so doing absolutely to rest, or lean upon Christ for pardon and salvation.

[Page 213]3. Upon the same reason as this learned Author doth reject a bare general assent to the truth of Gods word from being that faith, whereby we are justified; he ought to have rejected the ap­prehension of Christs righteousness, and a sinners recumbency thereon from being that faith, whereby they are justified: for as that general assent, so this apprehension of Christs righte­ousness, or recumbency upon Christ may be in men continuing wicked, as is most manifest by the Scriptures, and by sad experience. Those, whose neck was as an iron sinew, and the [...]r brow as brass, did notwithstanding stay themselves up­on the God of Israel, and lean upon the Lord, saying, None evil can come upon us, as the Prophets Isaiah (ch. 48.2, 4.) and Micah (ch. 3.11.) have testified; and the l [...]ke is witnessed by our Saviour concerning those, who persisting to be workers of iniquity, will nevertheless lean up­on him for salvation, Mat. 7.12, 13. Hence it appears,

1. That it is not true to say, that a bare ap­prehension of Christs righteousness, or a lean­ing upon Christ will justifie sinners, or is justify­ing Faith, or is that faith, which in the Gospel of Christ is made the condition of their justifi­cation.

2. That it is much less true to say with that forenamed Author, that faith doth illâ ratione, therefore justifie sinners, as it doth so appre­hend, and lean upon Christ and his righteous­ness.

I have the rather thought meet to reply to that passage in this Author, because I guess, that by his means (he being a person so famed for piety and School-divinity) divers have been led [Page 214] into the same, or the like mistakes, among whom I shall instance in two particular persons, by name Dr. Grew and Mr. Thomas Shepheard of New England. As for Dr. Grew, in his Sermons upon Jeremy, ch. 23.6. (p. 147, 148.) he asserts, That the act of faith, which justifies us, is an act of recumbence and reliance upon Christ as he is made sin for us and righteousness to us, and thus offered in Scri­pture to our faith— This and this onely act of faith justifies us — and 149. Thus we see (says he) the Gospel hath brought the justifying act of faith into a lit­tle room and within compass. And p. 152, 153. All (says he) even the best of all in man, or which is done by a man, is hereby excluded from his justification, yea every act of faith besides this of recumbence on Christ for righteousness is excluded—

I need not say much more for the refutation of these most dangerous mistakes, than hath been already said. I shall onely add, That the Doctor doth palpably and shamefully pervert the Gos­pel of Christ in asserting, that it hath brought the justifying act of Faith into a little room: for it is he himself, who by the hammering of his own brain, or working fancy, not the Gos­pel of Christ, that hath so reduced it; for the Gospel of Christ makes justifying Faith to be of the same latitude, as obeying Christ, or obedi­ence to his Gospel, these phrases being in the Gospel of promiscuous use, as any one, who will make use of his eyes, may see, and wherein al­so is plainly to be seen, that Jesus Christ is offer­ed to our Faith, not onely as he was made sin for us, or as our great High-priest, who by his once offering of himself hath expiated our sins, but also as our Teacher, Master, Leader and Ru­ler, and that our acceptation of him as thus both [Page 215] offered for us and to us is the condition of our being actually justified.

Yet this Anti evangelical Author proceeds to say further, p. 182. Its a dangerous thing to set up our own righteousness, and graces, and duties and works as a qualification for our faith in Christ; this is but clarified poyson. As God hangs the earth upon nothing, Job 26.7. So must we the righteousness of Christ upon our own nothingness —

Such sayings as these by this Doctor, with ma­ny other the like, I do judge to be a great scan­dal to the Protest [...]nt Churches, and to Christi­an Religion, they being more gross and shame­full, than (to my present remembrance) I have read in any Author, except in those, who are most notorious for Antinomian Doctrine, such as Salt­marsh, Paul Hobson with their Peers. But blessed be God, that (so f [...]r as I know) I am able to say, that all the Protest [...]nt Churches do (even as the Gospel of Christ it self doth) make operative­ness to be a Qualification for s [...]ving faith in Christ; whence it is, th [...]t they do usually style justifying faith a lively faith, an effectual Faith (this being the language of Scripture) an obe­diential, or working faith (in opposition to that Faith, which St. James styles a dead Faith) with­out which qualification they do professedly teach, that the righteousness of Christ will not justifie us, nor any Faith in his righteousness. Nor ought sinners to hang their hopes of Christs righteousness, i. e. of their partaking in the sa­ving benefi [...]s of Christs righteousness upon any Faith, but a Faith so qualified, i. e. a penitential, obediential, lively, effectual, working Faith; & he, that hangs his hope upon any other, doth indeed hang it upon nothing, that will profit him [Page 216] in the day of wrath. So that to instruct sinners to hang the righteousness of Christ (he means, I presume, their hopes of righteousness by Christ) upon their own nothingness, is indeed to ten­der to them a sweet and gilded poyson, which yet because of its sweetness to the taste, and spe­ciousness to the eye is not a jot the less, but much the more dangerous, I mean, in its being apt to be swallowed, and in its being absolutely mortal by being digested.

The next Author I shall name is Mr. Thomas Shepheard (a man of great name in New Eng­land) who in his Sincere Convert, page 151. says, That by the first act of Faith a man glori­fies God by obeying all the law at an instant in Christ: that is, as he apparently means, upon this first act of Faith a man so intitles himself to Christs perfect obedience, as that by vertue of that, he obeys all the law at an instant; but this is notoriously false to say, That Belie­vers do by any act of their Faith (first, second, or third, yea from first to last) obey all the law, or any p [...]rt of the law in, or by Christ, in the sense here intended by this Author with many o­ther Brethren, as hath been already demonstra­ted in the first part of this Discourse concern­ing imputed Righteousness, to which I shall now add, That although Jesus Christ did obey all that law, which God gave him in the person of a Mediator to do, nevertheless it is false to say, That believers do obey that law, or any part of that law in Christ (whether in an instant, or in tract of time:) for although Christ did many things, which we sinners are bound to do by the law of God, yet he did them not by vertue of that obligation, that bound us to do them, but [Page 217] by force of an obligation peculiar to himself, i. e. of his fathers command, and of his own volun­tary consent, or undertaking: So that the law which he obeyed, or fulfilled, was peculiar al­together to himself, as to the formal obligati­on, although there were some things as to the matter of it, which we by Gods law imposed upon us are bound to do; I say some things: for as we are not bound by the law imposed upon us to do all, that Christ did, so neither was he bound by the law imposed upon him to do all, that we are bound to do; although the expres­sion here of this Author doth imply, that he was; this also being it, which is frequently asserted by Dr. Owen, and by several other Brethren, the falshood whereof is of easie discovery, for if Christ did obey, or was obliged to obey all the law, which we are bound to obey, then was he obliged to repent and convert from sin, and to believe in himself for remission of sin: Where­upon Saltmarsh and other his Complices will be found to have been true witnesses of Christ in their dogmatizings concerning him, That he re­pented for us, converted for us and believed for us, these being duties imposed upon us by the law of God, and which we are to obey. There are many other erroneous and dangerous pas­sages in this Authors book styled (The Sincere Convert) very fit to be brought to the touchstone with animadversions thereupon; but I shall for­bear to lengthen this Discourse by mentioning them at this time.

Onely forasmuch as I have since the writing of the premisses received the Theological Theses of that most impartial and judicious Author Le-Blanc (the learned Professor of Divinity in Se­dan) [Page 218] I will, to close this Chapter, transcribe out of that book several passages for the confirma­tion of what I have said in way of resolution of both the Questions which are the subject of this and the foregoing Chapter.

In his Lecture, Quomodo fides justificat, his words are (p. 255, 256.) Imo, cum cum solam fi­dem justificare dicimus— Yea, Christian Reader, Observe well the words here of this Author, whereby you may perceive the true meaning, as of other Protestant Churches, so also of the Church of England, in that clause of the 11th Ar­ticle, concerning the Justification of man, expressed in these words (That we are justified by faith one­ly, is most wholsome doctrine, and very full of comfort.) And thus is this Article ex­pounded in the Ho­milies of our Church. when we say, that faith a­lone doth justifie, we do not sig­nifie, that the sole act of faith precisely taken, as it is opposed to the acts of love and hope, and is distinguished from amendment, or repentance is the condition, which the new Covenant or Gos­pel requireth, that we may ob­tain the forgiveness of our sins, and for Christs sake be absolved from them. For hope of pardon and the love of God, and also sorrow for sin and a purpose of a new life, and in one word, all the acts requisite to true and se­rious conversion, are also a cer­tain thing necessary and altoge­ther prae-required, that a man may be received into the favour of God, and may from thenceforth be by him had for a justified person, Yea, that lively faith, and working by love, which we do affirm alone to justifie, doth include and involve all those things. And as the Scripture doth frequently assert, that we have re­mission of sin through faith: so no less frequently and expresly doth it teach, that repentance and the whole conversion of a sinner to God, is the condition, without which pardon of sin cannot be obtained from God, and [Page 219] which is prae-required thereunto no less than faith, al­though it doth not effect, nor merit it, Prov. 28.13. Act. 2.38. and 3.14. But when the Scripture says, that a man is justified by faith and not by works, or without works, which we call being justified by faith a­lone, the meaning is simply this, That no man can be justified by performing the works, which the law re­quireth, that by it he may be justified, but onely by believing in Christ with a lively and effectual faith, which thing the Gospel requires, that we may with God be accounted as righteous. And by works, which the law properly taken and as it is opposed to grace, or the Gospel, doth exact to the Justification of a man, is understood that perfect and by no sin interrupted obedi­ence, which doth exclude every transgression and eve­ry sin—

And (Th. 35. he says) As often as the Apostle affirms, that we are not Justified by works, but by faith, he intends to teach The Apostle doth intend to teach one other thing more, than is here mentioned by this Author, viz. That no man is justified by the works of the Mo­saical law. no other thing, than that none can be Justified by such an observati­on of the law, which the legal co­venant requires, that we may have life through it and may e­scape the curse of God; but that God doth account them as righte­ous, and doth of his meer grace bestow the pardon of all their sins upon all those, who receive the Gospel with a sincere heart, and do from faith perform true obedience thereunto.

And according to this sense of the word (works) doth he reconcile the two Apostles, St. Paul and St. James (seemingly opposite) saying Th. 39. St. Paul will deny, that a man is Justified by doing the works, which the law, as it is opposed to the covenant of grace, doth exact to the Justification [Page 220] of a person, which thing St. James doth in no sort affirm; but St. James intends to assert, that a man is Justified not by that bare and naked assent, which is given to the word of the Gospel, but by such a faith as works by love, and which many good works do accom­pany, which thing St. Paul himself hath expresly taught, so far he is from denying it. And therefore, when St. James says, Ye see, that a man is Justified by works and not by faith onely, it is the same as if he should say, Ye see, that God doth not account him as righteous, who doth simply and nakedly give credit and assent to the word of God, but he, who with his faith doth joyn good works, and who hath faith efficacious in good works.

I might for this purpose cite much more, were it needful, out of that learned and very judici­ous Protestant Writer; but I shall alledge his testimony for the countenance and confirma­tion of what I have asserted concerning faith its being imputed to us for righteousness, and un­der what formal consideration it is so imputed, for which purpose I shall transcribe and trans­late his words Thes. 22, 23.

It seems to us (simplicissimum) most simple, or plain, if we say, that Faith doth justifie, because to a man be­lieving, his faith is imputed to righteousness: for so the Apostle explicates his own meaning, professedly treating concerning Justification by faith, Rom. 4.5. To him, who believeth on him, that Justifieth the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness; and to this end he cites that of Moses (Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.) Faith also is said to be be imputed to us for righteous­ness, because God doth, hath and reputes him as righ­teous, freeing him from the punishment of his sin, and accepting him to life eternal for the sake of Christs [Page 221] death and obedience, who doth with a lively faith be­lieve in Christ: To the same sense or purpose (eodem redit) is the judgment of those, who teach, that Faith Justifies us, as it is the condition of the covenant of grace: for in that their meaning is no other, but that God, that he may account us as, or for righteous (pro justis) and may accept us to eternal glory, doth in the Gospel require no other thing of us, but that we ad­here to Christ by a lively faith and working by love; and that salvation and remission of sin is offered and promised to us in the word of the Gospel, upon, or un­der this condition, and no other; and that this is the reason, why in the Scripture we are said to be justified by faith.

Now forasmuch as the doctrine held forth in this Treatise concerning imputed righteousness, is so attested by such a most judicious Writer of the Protestant French Church; and forasmuch also as in these latter years it hath been much contended for by that indefatigable Writer, Mr R. Baxter, Dr Henry More, Mr Edward Fowler, Mr Joseph Truman, with other learned men of our own Church as Protestant, I shall leave it to consideration, how causless the clamors of those are, who in the bitterness of their zeal do cry out against it, as a contradiction to the Do­ctrine of the Church of England, even in the highest point of Divinity, and as a piece of Po­pery, even the worst of Popery. It is upon this account, that a late Author is accused by one of those zealous Brethren, saying, You have given away the better half of the Protestant Religion by con­tending for Justification by our own works. I had as lieve yield to all things else, which the Papist say, or do, as to this one damnable Doctrine, which is the very rats-bane of Popery, viz. That it is not (as Prote­stant [Page 222] Divines assert it to be) by the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to us, and applyed by faith, but by our own works in conformity to the moral law; (and again says he) They, who say, that men are not Justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed to them upon their believing, but their own works, or sincere (though imperfect) obedience to the Gospel, do say that the Church of England erreth in the great Doctrine of Justification.

Deus bone! Such accusations, or declamations as these, I look upon as just matter of great sad­ness, considering how the Protestant Churches generally, and the Church of England in special is thereby wronged, as if the one half of our Pro­testant Religion (as distinguished from Popery) did consist in what this Author would make us believe, whereas the foresaid learned Protestant Author Le-Blanc in his Lecture (Quomodo fides Justificat) among those nine things, wherein he asserts the agreement of Protestants and Papists, doth name this as the third head of their accord, (p. 260.) viz.

Non solum credendi actum praecise sumptum — That it is not the act of faith precisely taken, but that many other acts also which do concur to true repentance and serious conversion to God, are conditions by God pre-required, that a man may obtain of God the par­don of his sins, which is indeed (and as this Author also doth oft times assert) the self thing in effect with Justification. So that whatsoever the opinion of this fervent Author, or of other single less know­ing Protestants is, the doctrine contended for by him is so far from being the one half, as that it is not to be accounted any part, or scruple of the true Protestant Religion: For the true Pro­testant Doctrine is not, That believers are ju­stified [Page 223] by Christs righteousness in it self imputed & in that sense (the sense of this Author) applyed to themselves, or by themselves, but that they are justified for the merits sake of Christs righteous­ness, which righteousness of his is in the saving fruit or effects thereof (justification, or rem [...]ssi­on of sin thereby purchased) imputed, imparted, communicated, or (as modern Authors use to speak) applyed to believers (not by themselves, but) by God as Donour thereof; and this ac­cording to the tenour of his gracious promise upon their sincere faith, this being the conditi­on of the grant; in which promise, or conditi­onal grant, the word Faith is not to be taken strictly in opposition to repentance and all other Evangelical graces, or duties, but as including them. And yet the late Assembly of Divines in their larger Catechize in answer to that questi­on, How doth Faith Justifie a sinner, return this positive answer.

Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not be­cause of those other graces, which do always accompa­ny it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification, but onely as it is an instru­ment, by which he receiveth, and applyeth Christ, and his righteousness.

But to demonstrate the falsness of this Ans­wer, I will more particularly consider, 1. What Justifying Faith is. 2. How it Justifies.

First, What is Justifying faith? To which Question I will make answer, first in my own words, and then in theirs:

1. I will express my sense briefly in my own words, saying, Justifying faith is a practical as­sent to the truth of Gods word. If any shall de­sire [Page 224] a larger Description, I will say, Justifying Faith is a Practical assent to the truth of Gods word, but more especially (I do not say proper­ly) to that part of Gods word, which in a signal sense, or for a peculiar reason, is styled the word of Faith, Rom. 10.8. that is, to the Gospel of Christ, or promise of salvation through him unto the world of sinners conditionally upon their return to him by repentance and faith, or as S. Pauls expressions are, Act 20.23. Upon con­dition of their repentance towards God, and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, or as Pe­ter expresseth the condition, Act. 3.19. Repen­tance and Conversion, or as our Saviour in one word expresseth it, Luke 24.47. Repentance. He that believes this word of God, with a practical faith, is justified, for this is justifying Faith.

2. I shall answer to the said Question in their own words, yet not in those of their Catechism, but of their confession touching saving Faith, Chap. 14. and say, Justifying, or saving faith is that, by which a Christian believeth to be true, whatsoever is revealed in the word for the authority of God speak­ing therein, and acteth differently upon that, which each particular passage thereof containeth, yielding obedi­ence to the commands, trembling at the threatnings, and imbracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving and resting upon Christ alone for justificrtion, sanctification and eternal life, by vertue of the covenant of grace.

This to my seeming is a true and memorable description of justifying Faith, and doubtless he, that doth so believe Gods word as to act su­tably to the different passes thereof (divine com­mands, threatnings and promises) shall be justi­fied; [Page 225] and this I do affirm, Although such a be­liever never heard, or understood that (for ought I remember) unscriptural or apocryphal expression of applying Christ and his righteous­ness to himself. It is time now to make answer to the other Question.

Q. How doth Faith justifie a sinner in the sight of God? Answ. I need not at this time of day make answer to this Question, because it hath been so plainly and fully already answered in this Discourse, as well in my own as in the words of Le-Blanc: But if it must be answered again, I will still say as before, viz. That faith doth justifie a sinner in the sight of God, not for any merit, that is in it, or in any grace accom­panying, or good works proceeding from it, but onely for the righteousness sake of Christ, and for Christs righteousness sake it becomes avail­able to our justification in the sight of God, as the imputation of it to, or for righteousness is entailed upon it by the free promise of God in Christ, which is all one as to say, Faith justifies us in the sight of God as it is Conditio novi foederis praestita, i. e. as it is the performance of the con­dition of life promised in the new covenant.

CHAP. XXX. A brief reply to a passage in Doctor Owen, he saying, That in the doctrine by him asserted touching the Imputation of Christs righteousness he hath as good company as the Prelacy and the whole Church of England can afford.

HAving concluded the former long Chapter, I shall be very much briefer in this, my in­tent therein being to take into consideration a passage (of less moment indeed) in Doctor Owens Book, styled his Vindication against Mr. Sher­locke, forasmuch as it doth refer to the subject of this Discourse, wherein he doth excuse him­self by the company, with whom he errs, if it be an errour to maintain the Imputation of Christs righteousness in the sense oppugned in this Treatise, he saying, p. 117. Herein I have as good company as the Prelacy and whole Church of England can afford, sundry from among them having written large Discourses in its confirmation, and the rest ha­ving till of late approved of it in others.

The Doctor doth here make mention of com­pany both Good, and Great, wherein although I allow him to have spoken truth as to the quality of them, Yet as to their quantity, I cannot; to both which distinctly I will speak a few words, Allowing the truth of the former, I do further say, 1. It is matter of good hearing, that the Prelates are in reputation with the Doctor as [Page 227] good company, this being more than many now adays will acknowledge, it being their manner to declaim against that whole Tribe, saying, There is none of them good, no not one, Yea to say of Prelacy it self, as was prejudicatly said of Galilee, Can any good come out of Prelacy? But forasmuch as such things are spoken not in corners, but upon the house top, and cannot therefore be hid from the Prelates, it is there­fore in reason to be presumed, that they will be the more circumspect so to act in their several capacities (both as Christians, Presbyters and Prelates) as to put to silence the ignorance of clamorous and foolish zeal.

2. As the Prelates are never the better com­pany with some because of their Prelacy, so nei­ther is their, or the Doctors company to boot, ever the better with me, because of their con­currence in a popular mistake, it being my re­solution to keep company with the truth, al­though it happen, that I find it like a Sparrow upon the house top, sitting alone, or like a Pel­licane in the Wilderness, mourning for want of friends and followers.

3. If the Doctor here say true concerning the Prelates, I am truly sorry in the Doctors be­half, but in my own I do rejoyce: I am indeed sorry for the Doctor, in that differing from the Prelates in many things, wherein to my seeming they have the truth on their side, and being no companion with them in their Prelacy (as I hear­tily wish he were) he should be so unfortunate as to light into their company in a certain path, wherein like men (for Humanum est errare) they have gone astray, having reason to make the like acknowledgment with the Church of old, say­ing, [Page 228] Erravimus cum patribus. But I am glad in my own behalf, forasmuch as I do now perceive, that the Doctor himself cannot but advocate for me, if he happen to hear me accounted as a Time-server, or as one, who wrote this Discourse out of design to please the Prelates, to curry favour with them, or to get Preferment from them: for to detect errours, in the guilt whereof the Prelates are involved, is not (one would think) the way to gain their friendship, or favour. Of a truth I now perceive, that the Doctor is con­vinced in conscience, that it was not the design of the Author of this Discourse to make him o­dious more than his good company the Prelates, and much less to make odious the whole party of dissenting Brethren.

4. I do firmly believe, that the Prelates may be good company, notwithstanding their associ­ation in errour, as aforesaid: for it is very pos­sible, and I am verily hopeful, that it is a thing ordinary with not a few to hold false doctrines speculatively, but not practically; and I do cordially bear witness with Mr Joseph Truman (in his excellent Book styled The Great Propi­tiation, p. 137.) That many of the worthiest men, both Prelates and others, that ever England had, held such things (the imputation of Christs righteousness, and certain errors depending thereupon) notionally, yet so as to deny the consequence, but never any good man (says that learned and pious Author) did hold them pra­ctically.

2. I cannot allow the Doctors words as to the numerosity of his companions in those words of his (The whole Church of England,) in which saying he hath out-gone the truth: for (pre­suming that by the Church of England he mean­eth [Page 229] it as Protestant) I cannot but say, That as some Worthies of the Church of Eng. wrote for it, so others of our own (not to mention any of Forein Churches) wrote against it: As I could easily shew, had it not been largely done already by other hands, particularly by Mr Bull in his late learned Answer to his Adversaries, and this Mr Joseph Truman takes notice of in his Great Propitiation (p. 95.) Wherein after with several reasons he had refuted the Imputation of Christs righteousness in the sense maintained by the Do­ctor, and in this Discourse oppugned, he clo­seth his Arguments with this saying, I am almost ashamed to lay open the weakness of them, that hold these things, after such multitudes of learned Prote­stants have shewn their absurdity.

But if the good company, with whom the Do­ctor doth erre in this matter, be just ground of ease to his mind, I shall grant it as a thing, that cannot be denied, and (as the said Mr Truman says) is much to be lamented, that many impor­tant Doctrines of the Protestant Churches are frequently by too many grosly explained, and that by more than those (says Mr Baxter) who are down right Antinomians, so as to have wofully ill consequences attending them, to the scandal of the Protestant Religion, the heartning and hardning of our common adversaries (both Pa­pists and Socinians) against us, and to the pre­judice of the power and practice of Christiani­ty: I mean more especially such Doctrines as do concern faith, and works, justification, and Im­puted Righteousness, for a redress whereof, were I able to do any thing more than hath been abun­dantly already done by others my betters, I could say with the Apostle, I would gladly spend, [Page 230] and be spent; spend I mean, not onely of my time, but my reputation also (as the Apostles meaning there is.) Though the more abundant­ly I loved, the less I should hap to be beloved of my dissenting brethren, for whose satisfaction I shall now in the closing of this Chapter com­mend to their consideration the saying of that learned, and most judicious Author B. Davenant De grat. hab. ch. 27. De facto imputantur (extrinseca) quando illorum intuitus, & respectus valent nobis ad aliquem effectum aque ac si à nobis vel in nobis essent. Then those things, which are without us, i. e. which are not ours in the propriety of the very things, or being properly taken do not belong unto us, are said to be im­puted to us, when with respect to them we are equally intitled to their effects, or dealt with upon account of them, as if they had been done by us, or were inherent in us. According to this sense of the word (Impu­ted) is the true and truly Protestant Doctrine concerning the imputation of Christs righteous­ness to be expounded, as I have (I hope) made apparent more at large according to my design in this Discourse.