I.

THE word Justification is taken ei­ther Actively, for the Act of God who justifieth (or the Act of God in justifying) or Passively, for the priviledge (or as it is a priviledge) of such who are Justified.

II.

The Active, and Passive Justification, or Ju­stification Actively, and Passively taken, are not two things, or two distinct species, or kinds of Justification, but one, and the same, diversly considered, or under distinct respects, and ha­bitudes. As the love wherewith I love another man, and the love wherewith he is belov'd of me, are one and the same, but may be conside­dered either as in me, as the Subject of that love, or as terminated upon him as the Object.

III.

Though Active and Passive Justification do admit of a distinct consideration, yet they can never be really separated, or apart, or one without the other. For God can never be said to justifie, but when some body is Justified by him, for every Action must have an Object, and every Agent, a Patient. Therefore that justi­fication from Eternity which some speak of, is only God's Decree to justifie such and such in time, viz. when they should come to believe in Christ, Gal. 3.8. And the Scripture fore-see­ing that God would justifie the Gentiles through Faith.

Yet notwithstanding Justification Active and Passive are the same thing (only considered the first as coming from God, and the latter as received or applyed by the Believer) neither can they be separated, yet this distinction hath it's use. For when we say Faith is an Instru­ment of our Justification it is not as Justification is Actively considered; for how can any Action of Man be an Instrument to God's Action? But as we are Passively justified we are justified by believing; it's not our faith that doth produce our Justification properly; Therefore when it is said, that only Faith justifieth, it is to be re­solved Passively. By Faith only we are justifi­ed.

IV.

The proper definition of Justification is such [Page 3] as doth take in both that which we call Active, and that which we call Passive: I say, both the Active, and Passive, Justification (as they are called) are involved, or included, in the usual definition of Justification, which shews that they are really the same thing, though there be some notional difference betwixt them.

V.

Justification (to give you the definition of it) is a gracious Act, or Sentence of God, where­by every true Believer is acquitted, discharged, and absolved, of, and from his sins, and is accounted, declared, and pronunced just, and righteous only for the Righteousness, or Obe­dience of Christ imputed to him, and received by Faith alone. Vide Ames. p. 115. Sect. 6. Rom. 3.22.24.

VI.

The fore-said Definition cannot be much, (if at all) amiss, for that it taketh in all, or almost all the causes of Justification, both Actively, and Passively considered.

VII.

For first, it assigneth the Efficient cause of Justification, namely, God. For he it is who justifieth, Rom. 4.5. I have therefore calld it an Act of God. Moreover, to shew what man­ner of Act, in, or of God the justifying of a sinner is, I call it a Sentence of God, the Su­preme Judge, thereby intimating it is a forin­sick, [Page 4] or Court-Act, an Act of Law, or Judicature (as when a Judge acquitteth a Man that hath satisfied the Law by himself, or Proxy, and dis­chargeth him by Proclamation, &c.) not a Phy­sical Act, as when a Physitian by proper Reme­dies maketh a sick man well, nor yet a moral Act, as when a Father by good Counsel, and Ex­ample is Instrumental to make a bad Son to be­come good. For the Act of a Judge when he acquitteth an accused Man is of a distinct Na­ture from both of these. To justifie is no where either in the Old, or New Testament, taken in any other than a forinsick sense, Deut. 25.1. 1 King. 8.32. 2 Chron. 6.23. Job. 9.20. Prov. 17.15. Isa. 50.8. Mat. 12.37. Rom. 2.13. Compared with 12, and 3, 16. & 8.32, 33. So Rom. 6.7. it signifies to be delivered a paena, as one that is acquitted at Law. So the Temple was justified, when freed from the Infamy which it was laid under by reason of the Image of Ju­piter Olympius set up there by Antiochus, Dan. 8.14. See also Job 9. v. 23.20. Psal. 143.2. Isa. 53.11. Luke 8.14. Acts 13.39. 1 Cor. 4.4.6.11. Titus 3.7. Also Dan. 12.3. when Men are said to justifie it may be understood in this sense of men as Instrumental. Also that in Rev. 22.11. [...], may be thus under­stood, Let him that is justified continue to apply the Righteousness of Christ to himself by Faith, in order to his being more and more Actually justified from his new sins, &c.

VIII.

The fore-said Definition containeth the Cau­sa [Page 5] Proegoumena of Justification, or that whereby God was inwardly (or from within) moved, and excited to justifie Believers in such a way and manner as hath been expressed, viz. the Free Grace, Mercy, and good will of God to­wards them. Therefore I have called it a gra­cious Act of God, or an Act of God's free-Grace. But by the way observe, that the Ju­stifying of a Sinner it's being an Act of Free-Grace do's not hinder but it may be an Act of Justice too, as it is, all things considered, particularly considering the Satisfaction given by Christ. If we respect the Notation or Ori­ginal of the word justifie, it should signifie to make just, as Sanctifie to make Holy. But if we regard the common use of it, it no more so im­ports than as Sanctifie used of God imports to make holy or magnifie in common use of speech to make great. And it is the ordinary use of words not their Original without it, that must carry it, and determine what they do import, and how they are to be understood. Excel­lent Mr. Gataker in his Treatise of Justification, p. 8. saith, of Dan. 12.3. Rev. 22.11. These I conceive are the only two places in Scripture where the term of justifying or those answering it are thus used, viz. To make a man inherently, or habi­tually just by a good quality infused, or wrought into him. And yet even those two places may ad­mit of the same Construction of the word Justifie, as hath been given of all the rest, vid. Thes. 7.

That the Free Grace of God was that which from within did move him to justifie a sinner is [Page 6] clearly held forth, Rom. 3.24. Being justified freely by his Grace. And Eph. 2.8. For by Grace are ye saved through Faith. And Titus 3.7.

IX.

Justification is rightly called an Act of God's Free Grace, and Mercy (or a gracious Act of God) (though there be full Satisfaction in the case) upon several accounts. As namely, 1. Because God accepteth of the obedience of one for another, of Christ for us, which he might have chosen whether he would have done, for he might have insisted upon Satisfaction from the Person offending. God might have said, that The very Soul which hath sinned it shall dye. Doubt­less the Superiors of Zaleucus (had he had any) might have chosen whether they would have ac­cepted of one of his Eyes, instead of one of his Sons, who had forfeited both. 2. God in strict­ness of Justice might have required the idem, the self-same satisfaction which the Law required, or penalty which the Law threatned, viz. the eternal destruction of Sinners: but he has been pleased to accept of the tantundem, or tanta­mount, from Christ, which is as if a Man were bound to pay me 1000 l. in Lawful money of England, and I should accept of a Jewel, one, or more, to that value, instead thereof, which every body knows I was not bound to do, or might refuse. But 3. It was yet a far greater Act of Grace than either of the former, for God to provide, and procure a Surety, and a Satisfaction, at his own Cost, and Charges (as [Page 7] Zaleucus redeemed one of his Son's forfeited Eyes with one of his own.) For God not only to find out a ransom, and Christ to give himself to be that, and the Holy Ghost, who was Essentially one with the Father and Son, to consent there­unto (for this was done by joynt consent of all the three Persons, who said in effect, Let us re­deem Man, as let us make Man) was an Act of infinite Grace, and Mercy. 4. For God to pitch upon Man as an object of justifying Love, and to Elect him thereunto from Eternity, whilst the fallen Angels were passed by, was an Act of meer Free Grace.

X.

The Final causes of our Justification, or of God's justifying us, were as follow, viz. the satisfying of the Love, and Grace of God in saving of Believers, for it is a Satisfaction to Love to do good to those that are beloved of us. So 'tis said of Christ, that he shall see of the travel of his Soul and shall be satisfied, and of God, that Mercy pleaseth him, and therein doth he de­light. I say, the giving content and satisfaction to Divine Love, in, and by the Salvation of Sin­ners; as also to magnifie, and glorifie the Rich­es of God's Grace, and Mercy, thereby, are the two great ends, or Final Causes of Ju­stification, or of God's justifying us (which may after a sort be reduced to the Proegumenal cause, as being causes inwardly moving God thereunto.)

XI.

The Final Causes of Justification, Passively ta­ken, or of our being justified, are (besides those fore-mentioned) that we should be to the praise of the glory of God's grace, in justi­fying us, by glorifying him by a holy conver­sation, that being delivered out of the hands of our Enemies, we should serve God in Righteousness and Holyness all our dayes, Luke 1.74, 75. Who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all Iniquity, and might purifie to himself a peculiar People zealous of good works, Titus 2.14. This last is the only cause of Justification that hath not been exprest in the definition thereof.

XII.

The definition of Justification which we have given, containeth also the Material Cause there­of, viz. the Righteousness, or Obedience of Christ: which may otherwise be called the me­ritorious cause, or the Procatarctical, or external moving cause thereof. For when a material cause is assigned of things that are immaterial, or spiritual, the word matter, or material, must needs be taken in a moral, or spiritual sense, and not in a strict sense, for matter properly so called.

So that there is no incongruity in terming the meritorious cause the material cause of our Justi­fication, or the Procatarctical, or procuring cause thereof, or vice versa. The material cause of a thing (say Logicians) is, ex qua res est, or that out of which, or of which, or by which [Page 9] any thing is. Now, the Obedience of Jesus Christ, is that out of which our Righteousness before God doth spring, or result, or by, and for which, we are justified, or, which was the only thing from without (ab extra) primarily moving God to justifie us.

But according to Mr. Sh. our sincere obedi­ence to the Gospel is the matter of our Righte­ousness before God, or that by which we are justified.

XIII.

Many several Persons, and things are said to justifie, in different wayes, and respects, ex gr. 1. God justifies as a Judge by his definitive Sen­tence, and so Christ who is the Judge of the World, will justifie all the Elect in that great day of distinction. 2. Christ justifies more ways than one, viz. 1. By his Blood, as the price of our justification, Rom. 5.9.18, 19. Acts 13.39. 2. Christ justifieth as an Advocate, 1 John 2.1, 2. alledging his own Obedience in our stead for our justification. 3. The Law is said to justifie, because it is the Rule by which the Judge proceeds in justification, John 7.51. 4. Witnesses are said to justifie, when their evidence helps to clear the party accused. In that sense Consci­ence is said to excuse, or justifie, 1 John 3.20, 21. 5. Whatsoever is pleaded as a sufficient ground, or motive, for which a Man may be cleared from the fault objected against him is said to justifie. So works justifie, Jam. 2.22.24. And words, Mat. 12.37. as evidences that are [Page 10] produced to manifest innocency, or integrity. 6. That which is a means to make a man par­taker of Christs Righteousness is also said to ju­stifie; so Faith justifies, &c. But when the que­stion is put whereby, or by what a sinner is justified in the sight of God? it is usually in­tended of the formal cause of our Justification; as if it had been put in these words, How comes it to pass that Believers are righteous in Gods account, as if they had (which they have not) a perfect Righteousness formally inherent in themselves? or whence is it that Believers are by God discharg'd from Hell, and accepted Righteous to eternal life, as if they were formal­ly Righteous by a perfect Righteousness of their own? To which the Answer is, It is by means of the Righteousness of Christ imputed to them, and by means of that imputation, made as bene­ficial to them, as if it were formally inherent in them. Now the Definition given doth also con­tain the formal cause of our Justification, viz. the imputation of Christs Righteousness, or Obedi­ence to us. For as a man is a man by being indu­ed with a reasonable soul; (or that is the form, or formalis ratio of a man) so a Believer is justi­fied by vertue of having the Righteousness of Christ imputed to him, or being invested with that Righteousness. But now according to Mr. Sh. the acceptation of our sincere Obedience to the Gospel is the formal cause of our Justificati­on, or that by vertue whereof we become Justi­fied.

XIV.

When we call the Imputation of Christ his Righteousness, or Obedience, the Formal Cause of Justification; we do not take the word Form, or Formal cause strictly, and Physically, as they do who thus define it, viz. Forma est interna causa per quam res est id quod est. For the Righteousness of Christ is not internal, nor inherent, in justified persons; but external, foraign, and imputed; (though as to Justification it self, it is intrinsical, and so is the imputing of it) but our meaning is this, that the manner of Gods justifying a sin­ner, is by imputing to him the Righteousness of Jesus Christ. A man doth not become justified, or is not constituted just by the Righteousness of Christ inhering in him, or dwelling in him, as the soul doth in the body; but the Righteoussness of Christ doth Ingredi Justificationem, though not Justificatum: i. e. entereth into the definition of Justification, though not into the Person Justified.

XV.

When we say that Cod imputeth Christ's Righteousness to us, our meaning is nothing else but this; that he graciously accepts for us, and in our behalf the Righteousness of Christ, as if we had in our own persons, satisfied his Law. Bishop Davenant saith, p. 359. de Justitia Actu­ali, &c. Imputare alicui idem est in hac questione, atque inter ea quae sunt ipsius, & ad cum pertinent, illud connumerare, & recensere.

Also B. Davenant, p. 313. Quando formalem causam quaerimus Justitiae nostrae, id quaerimus prop­ter quod peccator in gratiam Dei recipitur, per quod immediate Deo gratus, & ad vitam aeternam ac­ceptus stat, cujus beneficio damnatoriam legis sen­tentiam evadere, denique quo niti possit ac debeat ad Coelestis judicis savorem & approbationem con­sequenaam.

XVI.

The word Forme, or Formes, is usually ap­plyed not only to substantial Formes, which do give esse simpliciter, but also to accidental Forms, which do give esse tale: so we say learning is the form by which a man is learned, and heat the form by which the fire is hot. So here, the form of Justification, is that by which a justified man is not only reputed, and denominated such be­fore God, but is so made, and constituted. Now because by a passive denomination a man is said to be justified; it is not necessary that this deno­mination be taken from an inherent form, or should suppose an inherent form. Ex gr. when we say that a man is beloved, honored, con­demned, or acquitted, all these things may be said of him in whom there is no inherent form, which may found, or be the foundation of these denominations. Vasquez saith, Potest aliquid dici justum extrinsica & aliena justitia.

N. B. But yet the name Just, is not in Scrip­ture so usually taken from an extrinsick form, as is the name Justified; for men are called Righ­teous, or holy in Scripture, from an inherent [Page 13] Righteousness, begun in them, but justified only from the most perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed to them.

If therefore the name of a justified person, and the benefit of Justification, be not had by any form inherent in us, but by a respect had to something that is extrinsical, it is manifest that we are justified by way of Imputation, and that that extrinsick Righteousness, though it be not a Physical form within us; yet doth supply the room of such a thing, and in that sense is rightly called the formal cause of Justification. Vide Davenant, p. 346. Per formalem causam Justifi­cationis nihil aliud intelligimus quam illud per quod stamus in conspectu Dei, a damnatione libera­ti, innocentes, gratificati, & ad vitam aeternam acceptati, &c.

XVII.

That the Imputed Righteousness of Christ is the Formal cause of Justification, B. Davenant sheweth by the following Arguments, p. 362.

XVIII.

The benefit of Christ's imputed Righteousness doth not consist in this, that thereby we are in­dowed with an inherent Righteousness which may abide the strict judgment of God; but that apprehending Christ by Faith, with respect to his Merits, we may be absolved from the con­demning power of the Law, and accepted to life eternal. Ergo, For this he quotes Joh. 3.16. and [Page 14] 18. & Joh. 5.24. He that believeth on him that sent me shall not come into Judgment (or Condem­nation, &c. Here, saith he, I query what is the Judgment which they who believe on Christ shall not come into, or are exempted from for Christ's sake? Doubtless, saith he, it is that strict Judgment of God, when a Man is exa­mined according to the Rule of the Law, and is pronounced Righteous, or unrighteous, ac­cording as he is found exactly to answer, or not to answer thereunto, and is accordingly rewar­ded, or punished. Therefore the Justification, and Salvation of Believers, depends upon these, that by, and for the merits of Christ, they shall be so dealt with, as if they had a perfect Legal Righteousness in themselves, p. 362, 365.

XIX.

The disobedience of Adam is so imputed to his Posterity that with respect to that they stand guilty before God, and condemn'd to eternal punishment: Therefore the Obedience of Christ is so imputed to his Mystical Members, that with respect to that, they stand justified before God, and accepted to Eternal Life. The Consequence he proves from Rom. 5. [...]9. Bel­larmin himself, De Amiss. Gratiae, Lib. 5.17. saith, the Disobedience wilfully committed by Adam made his Posterity guilty of Death, and hateful to God, and that that very sin of his was communica­ted to us by imputation. For it was imputed (saith he) to all that are born of Adam (or that sprang from Adam) because we all being in the loins [Page 15] of Adam did sin in him, and by him when he sin­ned. See B. Davenant, p. 363. 364.

XX.

God with respect to the Obedience of Christ, even to the death of the Cross, hath freed us from the punishment due to the transgressors of the Law, by imputing to us that Satisfaction of another as if it had been ours. Ergo; Bellarmin himself, De Justit Lib. 2. Cap. 10. saith, Christ is said to be our Righteousness because he satisfied his Father for us, and doth so communicate that sa­tisfaction to us, when he justifieth us, that it may be called our satisfaction, and righteousness. It would not be absurd (saith he) if one should say that the Righteousness and merits of Christ are imputed to us for that they are given and applyed to us as if we had satisfied God our selves. B. Dave­nant, p. 364. How much more Orthodox is Bellarmin himself in this last passage (if not in the former also) than Mr. Sh.?

XXI.

Scripture acknowledgeth the Righteousness of Christ to be ours who believe, viz. in, 1 Cor. 1.30. 2 Cor. 5.21. & Phil. 3.9. Now, ours it cannot be otherwise than by Imputation. Now the making of that perfect Righteousness ours, wherefore is it but to supply the absence of that perfect Righteousness which ought to be in us, but is not? Therefore the Imputed Righteous­ness of Christ, doth in Justification supply the place of a Formal Cause. B. Davenant, p. 366.

XXII.

Again, B. Davenant useth this Argument. They who being cloathed with Christ, and his Righteousness are accepted to eternal Life, in them this imputed Righteousness (as to the benefit of Justification,) is in the Nature of a formal Cause. But all Believers are so cloath­ed with Christ, and his Righteousness, Gal. 6.26, 27 Eph. 1.6. Who hath made us accepted to himself in his beloved. Therefore our imper­fect Righteousness cannot render us accepted with God to Eternal Life, but it behoveth us to appear before him cloathed with the Garment of our Elder Brother, as Jacob did when he sought the Blessing. Which Similitude Mr. Sh. derideth, yet Bellarmin himself saith, Sano modo similitudinem indumenti Christi accommodari posse justitiae imputatae. B. Davenant adds, that we being cloathed with the Righteousness of Christ by God's donation, and the application of Faith, it doth no less conduce to our Justi­fication than it would do if it were formally in­herent, and in that sense we may call it the for­mal Cause of Justification.

XXIII.

Again, the Bishop aforesaid argueth thus, He who was made a Surety for us, and took upon him the payment of our whole Debt, his O­bedience is imputed to us, and being imputed availeth as much as if it were inherent in us. But so was Christ, Heb. 7.22. Now to be as [Page 17] advantagious, and available to us, as if it were inherent, is (saith he) supplere vicem causae formalis. Hence we are said to be compleat in Christ. Dr. Hammond, in his Catechism, p. 489. puts this Question, How was the pardon of sin purchased? His Answer is, By the satisfaction wrought by him in his sufferings taking upon him to be our Surety, and to suffer in our stead, that as many as are renewed by his Grace may be released by his sufferings, &c.

XXIV.

Another Argument of Bp. D. is this.

The Scriptures which do affirm that Faith is imputed to us for Righteousness do plainly shew that the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to Believers; for those Texts must needs be meant of Faith as it apprehendeth it's object, and ap­plyeth Christ and his saving Righteousness to believers. For nothing is more usual than to at­tribute that to the cause applying which proper­ly and immediately belongs to the thing apply­ed; whereas Bellarmin calleth Imputed Righ­teousness, Imaginatio Justitiae, cui veritas non re­spondet (or, with Mr. Sh. an imaginary Righte­ousness;) Bp. D. replyeth, When God reputes us Righteous by Faith, the Truth answering to this esti­mation is not the Righteousness of Christ formally inherent in us, but the Righteousness of Christ re­ally participated, and given to us by Divine appoint­ment: God does not think us to be inherently just, but for that imputation he esteems us freed from the damnation of Sin, and accepted to Eternal Life.

XXV.

The fore-said Excellent Bishop argueth fur­ther thus; either the Imputed Righteousness of Christ is the Formal Cause of our Justification, or it only interveneth to obtain for us some other Formal Cause of our Justification. But not the latter, saith he, Ergo the former.

He goes on to shew how our first [...], or entrance into the favour of Go [...], is by the Righ­teousness of Christ, apprehended by Faith, Rom 8.5. Being justified by Faith we have Peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. v. 2. By whom also we have access by Faith into this grace. Then that our standing, or abiding, and continuing in that favour of God, is not by own Righte­ousness he proveth from the following words, wherein we stand, viz. by the same Faith, and by the same Christ. Yea, further (saith he) our acceptation to Glory is not from inherent Righteousness, but from our Mediator and his Righteousness, for it followeth; And rejoyce (viz. by Faith) in hope of the glory of God: i. e. by the same Faith we expect glory, by the same Christ.

XXVI.

Another Argument which B. Davenant useth, is this; Imputed Righteousness is nothing else but the Righteousness of Christ applyed, and given to us, to produce some Spiritual effect. For when God with respect unto Christ his Righteousness vouchsafeth to deal with us as if [Page 19] it were our own (inherently) then he is said to impute it to us. But Righteousness so ap­plyed and given to us, though it be not in us after the manner of a Physical form, yet hath the efficacy of a Formal Cause by Divine Ordi­nation and Acceptation. One and the same Righteousness of Christ considered in its self, and its own worth is the Meritorious cause of our Justification, but considered as imputed, given, and applyed as their own to all Believers, sup­lyes the place of a Formal Cause.

XXVII.

The last Argument of the Excellent Bishop afore-said proving the Imputation of Christ his Righteousness to be the Formal Cause of our Justification, is as followeth.

If there be but one [...] or Righteousness that can avail to Justification of Life, and that be the Obedience of Christ alone, then certain it is that Justification doth belong to none but those that are partakers of that Righteousness. But this is in plain words Asserted by the Apo­stle, Rom. 5.18. For 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 to Justification of life. [...], per unam justitiam exactam. Therefore the Justifica­tion of life doth not redound from any quality inherent in us, but this compleat Righteousness of our Mediator, given, and imputed to us. Our inherent Righteousness hath not (saith he) [...], that is, (according to him) a compleat, and [Page 20] absolute perfection of Righteousness; therefore it cannot produce in us justification of life, which is a most perfect effect of a most perfect cause: Therefore the Righteousness of Christ is to us instead of a Formal cause constituting our Justification. In Rom. 5. [...]8. where 'tis said, By the Righteousness of one, [...], the true gift came upon all to the Justification of life [...], by the word [...] is meant not Justification, the effect, called [...]; but the one only Righteousness of Christ, wh [...]reby we are justified. And it seems mor [...] proper to translate it So by one Righteousness, [...] per unam rather than per unius justitiam; For the Apostle does not say [...] (as in the next, [...]) with an arti­cle, and the Adjective put after the Substantive. Moreover, to translate it by one Right [...]ousness, rather than by the Righteousness of one doth bet­ter accord and answer to [...], Rom. 5.18. As by one offence (and so it is in our Mar­gent) moreover the word [...] there seems to signifie more than Justitia, viz. Justificamen, or Justificamentem (if we may make such words) or as the French translate it, Justice Justifi­cante.

XXVIII.

We have put in the word, only, into the De­finition of Justification, that thereby we might exclude all falsely pretended Material, and Formal causes of our Justification, by saying we are accounted Righteous, only, for the Righ­teousness, [Page 21] and Obedience of Christ, &c. to shew, that the Righteousness of Christ is the only Matter, and the Imputation thereof the only Forme of our Justification.

XXIX.

To the Arguments which have been already brought, I would a [...]d, If Inherent Righteousness be not the Formal cause of our Justification, ei­ther we may be justified without any Righteous­ness at all, or we must be justified by Imputed Righteousness, as the Formal cause of our Justi­fication; But neither can we be justified without any real Righteousness on the one hand, nor yet by vertue of an Inherent Righteousness on the o­ther hand: Ergo, we must be justified by Righ­teousness Imputed.

XXX.

Common sense will tell us, that for a man to be, or to be made Righteous, (which is all one with Justified, for so are all that are Justified) without any Righteousness of his own inherent, or imputed, is against sense, and reason, as much as to say that a man can be truly rich, and yet neither have any estate of his own, nor the use of any other mans; or be very wise, and yet neither have any head-piece of his own, nor yet the advice and counsel of any other wiser than himself. The judgment of God is accor­ding to truth. If God did not make a Believer perfectly Righteous, as to guilt, and condem­nation, by vertue of Christ's Obedience imputed [Page 22] to him, he could not account him so, &c. Philo­sophers say Deus ipse non potest supplere defectum causae formalis. ex gr. God cannot make a man without a reasonable soul, or a wise man with­out wisdome, &c. For so to do doth implicare.

XXXI.

Inherent Righteousness cannot be the formael cause of our Justification: Therefore Imputed must, sith we cannot be justified without a Righ­teousness, and there are but these two sorts: For all Righteousness is either Inherent, or Im­puted.

XXXII.

To prove that we cannot be justified by Inhe­rent Righteousness, or that, that cannot be the Formal cause of our Justification Bp. D. brings seven following Arguments contained in several Paragraphs, or Sections, one in each &c. p. 346.

XXXIII.

If we are justified by Inherent Righteousness, as the Formal cause, than either by Habitual, or Actual, not by Habitual (according to the Papists) For many of them do say that it is not de fide, but a meer probable thing that there is any such thing as a habit, or habits of Grace in­infused into Believers. And as for Actual Righ­teousness, the Counsel of TRENT, denieth that any man is Justified thereby, Bellarmin de Justit. lib. 2. cap. 15. Neither can Actual Righ­teousness be counted Inherent, properly, because [Page 23] it consists not in permanent qualities, but in transient acts, which are said to flow from the soul, not to inhere in it, for they abide no where.

XXXIV.

If we are formally justified by Inherent Righ­teousness, then it must be by that Inherent per­fect Righteousness which is accompanied with Actual Righteousness that is perfect also: but there is no such Inherent Righteousness in this life; and if there were, and he that had it should not perfectly live, and act according to it, he would be so far from being justifi'd thereby, that it would aggravate his Condemnation. That our Justification must be by a perfect Righteousness, and no otherwise is evident, because the Scripture saith, cursed is he that cyntinueth not in all to do them, Gal 3.10. Also for that the Apostle ha­ving said, By the works of the Law is no flesh justi­fied in Gods sight, which he confirms in the remain­der of that, and in the next whole Chapter, viz. Rom. 4. also in Gal. 3. The Arguments which he brings to prove it are such as these, viz. Because we have all sinned, and come short of the glory of God Because we are justified [...], which implies a deficiency of Merit. Also because they are said to be Blessed whose sins are covered, which implies, that the works of Justified Persons are mixt with sin, and therefore cannot justifie them Also, If Justification were by works, Christ had died in vain, and Faith were vain we were yet under the Curse, &c. All which passages do shew that an imperfect Righteousness cannot justifie us, (for [Page 24] else they are not conclusive) and a perfect in­herent Righteousness we neither have, nor can have in this Life.

Whereas the Papists say, that the works by St. Paul excluded from Justification, are only the works of the Ʋnregenerate: that is manifestly false; for in the places quoted, he excludeth from Justification the Works of Abraham when Cir­cumcised, Regenerate, and a true Believer, Rom. 4. Gal. 3. So David acknowledgeth that the works of the Regenerate could not stand before the strict Judgment of God, Psal. 143.2. see Gal. 2.15, 16.

XXXVI.

The Formal Cause of Justification ought to have such efficacy, as after sin committed, to compensate, or satisfie for the injury done to the Divine Majesty: But by a Created quality (such as Inherent Righteousness is) God cannot be satisfied for the injury done to him. The of­fence given, and injury done to God by every wilful (or mortal) sin is infinite, as T. Aquinas part 3. qu. art. 2. saith, Peccatum contra Deum Commissum quandem infinitatam habet, infinitate Divinae Majestatis. That it is so is apparent by Gods threatning infinite punishment for every such sin, and by the common confession of the Schoolmen, &c.

Now 'tis impossible that by a quality of but a finite Virtue and Dignity, an offence of infinite Indignity should be blotted out, or compensated and satisfied for. Bp. D. p. 350.

XXXVI.

If Inherent Righteousness be the Formal cause of Justification; then it expelleth the contrary Forme, viz. Inherent Sin, at its first coming, and at the first informing of its subject. This Proposition is not only granted by the Papists, (Vasquez and others) but laid as a great Foun­dation. But Inherent Righteousness cannot do that. Witness Isa. 64.6. We are all as an unclean thing, and our Righteousness as filthy raggs, &c. Job 9.30, 31. Dan. 9.7. Ezek. 9.15. All these were indowed with with Inherent Grace, yet they all own themselves to be spotted with sin.

XXXVII.

He that is formally justified by Inherent Righ­teousness, from the time he he hath attained that quality is acceptable to God, and worthy of eternal life by vertue of that quality, without the supervening Grace of God, and Imputation of the Merits of Christ. For according to the Papists, the Formal cause of Justification, from the nature of the thing, doth absolutely make us acceptable to God, and worthy of Heaven. But certain it is, that we do stand accepted with God, and to eternal happiness, not by the effi­cacy, dignity, and vertue of this infused quality, but by the Merit of the Mediator. For if it be enquired, how we come to be received as the Children of God, the Scripture answereth, by, and for Christ: not by, and for the Sanctity that is bestowed upon us. Gal. 4.4. God sent his Son [Page 26] that he might Redeem those that are under the Law, that we might receive the Adoption of Sons. And because ye are Sons he hath sent the spirit of his Son into your hearts. He do's not say Ye are received for Sons, because the Spirit hath imprest Inhe­rent Holiness upon you; but e contra. So that Inherent Holiness is not the cause of Sonship, but the Consequent. Again, If it be enquired why we are accepted with God to eternal life; the Scripture answereth, not by our Inherent Righte­ousness, but by the favour of God in Christ our Mediator Rom. 5.9. Being justified by his bloud, we shall be delivered from wrath by him. Also, Rom. 6.32. The Gift of God is Eternal Life by Jesus Christ our Lord, (not by Inherent Righteousness, but by Christ, Bp. D. p. 352, 353.)

XXXVIII.

Christ resigneth to no Creature the proper Works of a Mediator: Therefore he doth not confer upon Inherent Righteousness, that that should take away our sins, should reconcile us to God, should render us accepted to eternal life, and consequently he hath not made that to be the Formal cause of our Justification.

XXXIX.

The Formal cause of Justification ought to be such, as to which a Believer may safely, and boldly commit himself in trouble of Conscience, and in the Agony of Death. But none of the Pa­pists have dared to trust to their own Righte­ousness, when under serious Temptations, when [Page 27] Conscience was struck with a true sense of sin, and of the Wrath of God, and snatcht, as it were, before the Tribunal of God. See B. Downam p. 202, 203. By which it appeareth that the Pa­pists themselves, when under the expectations of death, or trouble of Conscience, are more Orthodox, than Mr. Sh. now is, in the point of Justification.

XL.

He is not justified by his own Inherent Righ­teousness who stands justified by that that he re­ceiveth from God daily the pardon of his unrigh­teousness. But we do all sin daily, and daily ask the forgiveness of sin: Therefore we acknow­ledge that we do not stand justified, or worthy of Heaven, by a quality of Righteousness Inhe­rent in us; but that by the Remission of sins, and favor of God, life eternal is given to us, who are most unworthy, for Christs sake.

XLI.

If the Righteousness of Christ be the Matter, or Material cause of Justification, then the Imputation thereof is the Form, or Formal cause thereof. But the Righteousness of Christ is the Matter of our Justification. By the Mat­ter of our Justification, I mean that Righteous­ness by which we are justified; I say if it be so, then Imputation, or the Imputing of that Righte­ousness must be the Forme: For it is the way, and manner in which we are justified, or where­by the Righteousness of Christ comes to be as useful to us, for matter of Justification; as if it [Page 28] an internal, inherently formal Righteousness, which were in strictness of speaking, that form whereby we were made just, or Righteous. Now that the Righteousness of Christ is the Material Cause of our Justification, I prove by the ensuing Arguments

1. The Righteousness whereby we are justi­fied is God's Righteousness, not ours, Rom. 1.17. Rom. 3.21. The Righteousness of Christ which is out of us in him is God's Righteousness, 2 Cor. 5.21. 2 Pet. 1.2. that which is inherent in us is ours: therefore we are justified by the Righ­teousness of Christ, which is out of us in him, and not by that which is inherent in our selves. Now in Rom. 4.3. There is such an opposition made betwixt God's Righteousness and ours, in the point of Justification; that whosoever seek to be justified by their own Righteousness, can­not be justified by the Righteousness of God. Bp. D. p. 127, 128.

2. That is the matter of our Justification be­fore God, by which we being sinners in our selves do stand righteous before God, which we being sinners may oppose to the Judgment of God, why he should not condemn us, which we may plead as a full satisfaction to God for us: such is the Righteousness of Christ. For being sinners in our selves, yet believing in Christ, we are in him accepted, and constituted Righteous, 2 Cor. 5.21. Rom. 5.19.

3. By that Righteousness of man which only is perfect we are justified, and not by that which is imperfect. The Righteousness of Christ, which [Page 29] is out of us in him, is the only Righteousness of man which is perfect, and all our inherent Righ­terousness in this life is imperfect. Ergo. The Pro­position needeth no proof; for that Justice which is not perfect cannot stand in judgment before God, and is so far from justifying, that it self is sinful, every imperfection, and defect, being [...], a transgression of the Law, and conse­quently a sin. Augustin saith, Peccatum est cum charitas minor est quam debet.

4. By that Righteousness alone, and by no other we are justified, by which the Law is fully sati [...]fied, and not by any Righteousness inherent in us, or performed by us. Therefore we are ju­stified by the Righteousness of Christ alone, and not by any Righteousness inherent in us, or per­formed by us. Three things are here to be ac­knowledged. First, That whosoever is justified, is made just by some Righteousness; for to think a man should be justified without justice, is as ab­surd as to think a man is cloathed without ap­parel.

Secondly, That all true Righteousness is con­formity to the Law of God, which is that per­fect Rule of Righteousness.

Thirdly, That there can be no Justification without the Law be satisfied, either by our selves, or by another for us, Mat. 5.17. Rom. 3.31. Now by the Righteousness of Christ the Law is fully satisfied; but by any other Righteous­neess inherent in us, or performed by us, the Law neither is, nor can be fully satisfied.

5. By what Righteousness we are absolved, [Page 30] redeemed, Reconciled; and for which we shall be saved, by it we are justified. But by the Righ­teousness of Christ alone, we are absolved from our sins, redeemed from our iniquities, reconci­led to God, and shall be saved. Ergo, The Righteousness of Christ is the matter of our Righteousness before God, or the only Righte­ousness by which we are justified. To prove the Major, read Rom. 4.5, 6, 7, 8. where Justifica­tion and Remission, or Absolution are spoken of promiscuously.

Again the benefit of Redemption is explained by Remission of sin, Eph. 1.7. Col. 1.14. Titus 2.14. Psal. 133.8.

Again, Being reconciled to God, and being justified are used promiscuously, Rom. 5.9, 10. 2 Cor. 5.14.

Again, Salvation, and Justification, are put one for the other; for that which is the Matter of Justification, is the merit of Salvation: for by what we are justified, by that we are intituled to Salvation; and by what we receceive remissi­on of sins, by that also we receive our Inheri­tance. Justification may be compared to the In­stitution of a Minister to a Benefice, which giveth Jus ad rem Glorification to Induction, which gi­veth Jus in re, or possession, &c.

6. The Righteousness of God by which we are justified is not prescribed in the Law to Justi­fication, but without the Law is revealed in the Gospel, Rom. 3.21. Therefore not inherent Righteousness, but that is the matter of our Justification: for the Righteousness of God is [Page 31] not prescribed in the Law to justiefication, but Inherent Righteovsness is, this being the great difference betwixt the Law, and the Gospel, that the Law to Justification requireth perfect Obedi­ence to be performed in our own persons: The Gospel propoundeth the Obedience of Christ, which he performed for us to be accepted in their behalf who believe in him. Wherefore (saith Bp. D. p. 200. alluding to Gal. 1.8, 9.) Let him be h [...]ld accursed, though he were an Apo­stle, though an Angel from Heaven, who shall teach Justification by the Legal Righteousness, and not by the Evangelical.

7. The matter of our Righteousness before Cod, as it is not only our Inherent Righteousness, so neither is it that in part: For we are not justi­fied before God, both by Faith and by Works, by Gods Righteousness and our own, by that Righteousness which is out of Christ in us, and that which is inherent in our selves: For the Scripture maketh such an opposition betwixt these two, as that they cannot stand together, Rom. 3 28. Rom. 4.4, 5.9. 3, 31, 32. 11.5, 6. Phil. 3.9. Gal. 2.16.3.11. Eph. 2.8, 9. Ergo. The only matter of our Justification is the Righteousness, or Obedience of Christ, Rom. 5.9, 19.

8. An Imputative, not an Inherent righteous­ness is the matter of our Justification, and there­fore the righteousdess of Christ is it. For proof of that matter, see Rom. 5.19. where it is called the Righteousness of one, whereas if it were a Righ­teousness from him in us, it would be the Justice of so many as are justified, as the Councel of Trent speak­eth, [Page 32] Justitiam in nobis recipientes unusquisque suam.

9. That Justification which the Scripture teacheth taketh away all manner of boasting, Rom, 3.27. Eph. 2.9. But the owning of Christ his righteousness for the only matter of our Justi­fication, only taketh away boasting. Therefore that is, and ought to be so owned. They that make as if our sincere Obedience were the mat­ter of our Justification, do speak as if the Cove­nant of Grace, and the other of Works, did differ only gradu not Specie and both did yield matter of boasting, only the Covenant of Grace, the less of the two.

10. The Righteousness whereby Abraham, David, and Paul, were justified, was the righte­ousness of Christ: Therefore that is the only matter of our righteousness before God, or the only righteousness whereby we can be justified, Rom. 4.3, 4, 5, 23, 24. Psal. 143.2. Psal. 71.16. 1 Cor 4.4. Phil. 3.8, 9. To these we might add Job, Esay, and Daniel, Job 9.2, 3.15.20.10.15.42.6. Isa. 6.1, 5. Dan. 6.7, 18.

11. What righteousness God accepteth on our behalf by that we are justified: the righte­ousness of Christ which he performed for us in his flesh, God accepteth on our behalf. Ergo: By that we are Justified, or that is the matter of our Justification. This very Argument Bellarmin useth against Osiander, De Justif. lib. 2. cap. 5. Otherwise (saith he) Why did the Son of God take our flesh upon him, why became he obedient unto death? &c.

12. Only a righteousness of infinite value, can [Page 33] be a satisfaction for sin (so Bellarmin himself saith in the same place) Such is the Righteous­ness of Christ only in regard of the dignity of his Person, &c. Ergo. The Righteousness of Christ only can be the matter of our Righte­ousness before God.

13. The Scripture speaks of our Righteous­ness being in Christ, and of our being Righte­ous in him, or of Christ being our Righteous­ness. Ergo. Isa. 45.24, 25. 2 Cor. 5.21. Phil. 3.8, 9. Jer. 23.6. Jer. 33.16. 1 Cor. 1.30. These Texts Bp. Downam hath for imputed Righteousness, which Mr. Sherlock rejects as nothing to that purpose. See Bp. Downam, p. 224. Bellarmin himself confesseth, that Christ is called our Righteousness, because he satisfied his Father for us, which his Satisfaction he doth so give and communicate to us when he doth justifie us that it may be called our Satisfaction and our Righteousness. This Confession dissolveth the very frame of his whole Doctrine of Justification▪ whereunto he hath taught that nothing concur­reth but Deletion of sin, and Infusion of Righteousness, which they say expelleth sin, &c. As for Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, he, and his followers deride and scorn it. But here he confesseth, that in Justification the Satisfaction of Christ is imputed to us and accepted of God in our behalf, as if we our selves had satisfied God, and that for that cause he is truly called our Righteousness. How much more Orthodox is Bellarmin here than Air. She [...]lock?

14. We are justified by the Blood of Christ, [Page 34] Rom. 5.19. Therefore the Obedience of Christ, even to Death, is the matter of our Justifica­tion.

15. By the Righteousness of Christ our sins are covered as by a Garment, Ergo. That is the matter of our Justification, Psal. 32.1. For he is justified whose sins are covered. See Bp. Downam, p. 226. saith he, Bellarmin confesseth that the similitude, and the Example of Jacob may be accommodated to imputed Righte­ousness, which Similitude Mr. Sh. scoffs at, &c.

N. B. Bellarmin would perswade the world that we are so absurd, as to teach that we are formally made just by the Righteousness of ano­ther; but (saith Bp. Downam) we are well content that the Righteousness whereby we are Sanctified, or formally made Righteous should not be Imputative, so that they will confess that the Righteousness of Christ his whole Satisfact­ion, whereby we are justified before God is im­puted to us, which they must confess, or else they cannot be saved, p. 227. Thus far he, &c.

XLII.

Whereas it may be enquired whether the Active, or Passive Obedience of Christ, or both together, be the matter of our Justification, and the Imputation thereof the Form: I Answer, that the Active, and Passive Obedience of Christ, are both in a sense, and to a degree, imputed to Believers, though not in so large a sense, as some have said, viz. as if Believers were reck­oned [Page 35] by Christ their Surety to have done what­soever Christ himself did, viz. to have fulfilled all Righteousness, neither to have committed any thing which they ought not to have done, nor to have omitted any thing which they ought to have done: Or, as if Believers in Christ might have been said to have done whatsoever he did in the Flesh, or Christ to have done every thing that he did in their stead, room, and be­half, and as it were for them.

For whatsoever Jesus Christ was bound, as Man, by the Law of Creation, to do for him­self, Ex. gr. to love God with all his heart, &c. he could not be said to have done for others (so as he is said to have suffered for us) or Believers to have done, in, and by him: For as Christ could not have made atonement for our sins if he had any sin of his own, Heb. 7.27. Such a High Priest became us who needed not daily as those High-Priests to Offer up sacrifice first for his own sin, and then for the People's, &c. So what Duty and observance Christ had to pay for himself, he could not be said to have presented to God upon our account, or we to have fulfilled these things in him, Ex. gr. That we in Christ did love God, trust in God, delight to do the Will of God, or that forasmuch as he did it we may be said to have done it also. That I say is not true. Were that true, that Christ had done every thing that the Law of God requires that Believers should do, or should ever have done; and that upon their account, that they in, and by him might have been reckoned to have [Page 36] kept the whole Law of God perfectly, and God to have accepted of his Active Obedience, in­stead of theirs, two things would follow, viz

1. Then there were no need of the Passive Obedience or sufferings of Christ on our behalf, sith believers might plead not guilty to the whole Law of God, upon the account of having com­pleatly answered to every tittle thereof, by Christ their Surety, who was appointed of God to Officiate in their stead.

2. Neither then would it be needful for us to keep the Law of God, to our power in our own Persons sith it had been kept, and observed for us by way of proxy, allowed of God for that purpose. To be sure it would be unjust for God to punish us for not observing his Law our selves, so long as it was punctually observed by Christ, whom himself (according to that Opi­nion) did admit, and allow of, to keep, and observe it upon our account. He who hath his place excellently well Officiated and supplyed by an able Proxy, allowed, and admitted to Officiate for him, is no more to be blam'd, or kept from his reward, than if he had serv'd it in his own Person. But both these are great in­conveniencies and absurdities, viz. either to say that we are not bound, upon pain of damnati­on, unto obeying the Gospel of Christ, and keeping the Laws of God in our own Person, (which is the thing called Holiness, without which no Man shall see God:) Or else to say that Christ dyed in vain, or that the Passive [Page 37] obedience of our Saviour was needless, and s [...] ­perfluous, as it would have been, if Christ hi [...] active obedience had been so reckoned, and im­puted to us, that we should be accounted of God to have done whatsoever he did, i e. to have f [...]l­fill'd all righteousness actually, and actively, &c.

LXIII.

Yet nevertheless Jesus Christ his conformity to the whole Law of God, or being made un­der the Law, consider it as a part of his Humili­ation, and Exinanition, was certainly one part, and degree of the Satisfaction, which he made to the Justice of God for Believers. For though it behoved Christ when he became man, and dwelt amongst men, to have been conformable to the Law of his Creation, it doth not follow that by that his conformity to the Law he did no way satisfie for us. For if any man being free, and sui juris, do oblige himself not only to die, on the behalf of another, but to serve a hard Ap­prentiship first, may he not be said to make sa­tisfaction in part, as well by the hard service which he undergoes, as by dying for him at the expiration of such a time of servitude? For though he were bound upon pain of present death, to such acts of servitude, or slavery, af­ter that he had taken that condition upon him, yet forasmuch as he was not bound to have ta­ken upon him the condition of a slave, or ser­vant, but that it was his free will, and pleasure, so to do, in order to satisfying the debt, or of­fence [Page 38] of another person: I say, in that regard, his so doing could not be said to be the paying of one debt with another. A Surety when he has ta­ken upon him that relation is bound to pay the whole debt, if the Principal debtor faileth; do's it therefore follow, that because it belongs to him, in that case, as he is a Surety, to pay the debt, that therefore his payment is not satis­factory, or that it is but the paying of one debt with another? viz. the debt of his friend, with the debt of his suretiship, or of his relation as a Surety? Forasmuch as he was voluntarily a Surety, in order to freeing, or satisfying such a debt (which he needed not to have been) his paiment is good, for another, &c.

XLIV.

Christ did some things which did not belong to him to do meerly as he was a man, nor yet as he was of such a nation, viz. a Jew, but did belong only to sinful men, as such, to do, viz. he suffered himself to be Circumcised, and Obla­tions to be offered for him, Luke 2.21, 24. he was conformable to several other Ceremonial Laws, John 7.2, 10. Mat. 26.17. He was bap­tized, and he seems to have eaten the Lord's Supper with his Disciples. And he calls these works the fulfilling of Righteousness. Now these things were not absolutely necessary to consti­tute the Sanctity, Justice, and purity of Christ, or by the Law of his Creation. To those things therefore Christ seems to have been bound meer­ly by a peculiar compact with his Father, partly [Page 39] in order to his greater Humiliation, and partly in order to the better promoting of our Salvati­on. Moreover, those observances, though they were not absolutely necessary to the holyness of Christ, or of any man, antecedently to the com­mand of God injoyning, and imposing them, yet consequently upon that they were, as was the po­sitive Law of abstaining from the Tree of the know­ledg of good and and evil. And though those out­ward observances, separated from inward Sancti­ty, are but the bark or shell of Religion, which God makes nothing of, Isa. 1.12, &c. 66.3. yet as performed by him, who was God, and conse­quently a great branch, and sign of humiliation, and subjection, they cannot but be of great me­rit, and conduce much to promote that satisfact­ion which he undertoook for believers, &c. Yet forasmuch as Christians now a days are not bound to some of these observances, ex gr. to Circumcision, to Sacrifices, &c. and as for o­ther of them, they are bound to observe them in their own persons, as namely Baptism, and the Lords Supper, &c. that kind of Obedience cannot be said to have been, or to be imputed to believ­ers, in any such strict sense, as if Christ had per­formed it in their place, and steed: yet it must be said, that that part of Christs obedience was accepted of God as a part of that [...], or price of Redemption, which was due for our sins, and so far forth, or in that looser sense, imputed.

XLV.

Christ's submitting himself to a mean conditi­on, as taking upon him the form of a servant, and m [...]king himself of no reputation, were not Essenti­al to the purity of his nature, or necessary in or­der to his own Salvation (who being God could not miscarry) but were a part of God's Curse due for sin, and necessary to promote the Salvation of Believers. Therefore these things were a part of Christs Satisfaction, which is after a sort im­puted to us for righteousness; but not in such manner as if Christ had taken these things upon him in our place, and steed, for neither are we thereby made free from that kind of life, viz. from servitude, and meaness; nor are we bound to govern our own lives according to that pat­tern, and as many are tied to any such thing, are tied thereto, in their own person, I say to under­go it (say it be the condition of meer servants) in their own persons, and not by Christ their Surety.

XLVI.

It may be of great use to understand aright, & to bear in mind what is the true notion of Imputa­tion, or what the word Imputed meaneth. Imputa­tion (therefore) is the Acceptation of (Numb 18.26, 30.) one thing for another. He is righteous, or just by Imputation, who being in himself guilty of a fault, yet is accounted righteous, or guilt­less, for the sake of something else which is ad­mitted, or accepted, in the place, or [...]eed of that [Page 41] justice, or righteousness, which ought to have been inherent in himself. The thing so accepted is called Imputed Righteousness. And it is so called because it is a righteous thing, to give, and take satisfaction, or compensation, for sin committed, Him God hath held forth for a propitiation that God might be just, &c. If this justice, or righteousness be full and adequate to the fault committed, it removeth the desert of punishment from the guilty, and extinguisheth all obligation therun­to. The Justification of a person not inherently just, but guilty, is when the fault of which the party is accused is acknowledged; but some­thing else is tendered, or pleaded for it, by which he may be vindicated from the merit of condemnation. Nor can any other way be found out whereby a guilty person may be justified, &c. when the desert of condemnation is re­moved, the fault it self is after a sort extinguish­ed, as if it had never been committed, &c. Vide Bradshaw, de Justif. cap. 5.

XLVII.

After all that has been said touching the righ­teousness of Christ, its being the Material cause of our Justification, and the Imputation thereof, the Form or Formal cause of our Justification; I must needs own it for a truth, that Believers are in Scripture frequently denominated just, or righteous persons, from that righteousness, or holiness which is inherent in them: yea, it cannot be denied but by vertue thereof they are formally just, and righteous, though but with an [Page 42] imperfect righteousness, &c. Luke 1.6. 'Tis said of Zachary, and Elizabeth, They were both righ­teous before God, walking in all the command­ments of God blamelessly, Isa. 38.3. Remember, O Lord, said Hezekiah, &c. So we read of righte­ous Abel, Mat. 23.35. and that the righteous shall go into life eternal. 1 Joh. 3.7. He that doth righ­teousness is righteous. So it is said of Job, ch. 1.1. that he was an upright, i. e. a right, or righteous man, one that feared God, and eschewed evil. Nei­ther is this at all to the prejudice of the Doctrine of Justification, only by, and for the righteous­ness of Christ imputed to us. For it is one thing to be righteous with an inherent, habitual, im­perfect righteousness, which may serve for some other good uses, and purposes; as namely, to glorifie God, and adorn the Gospel, to do some good therewith to our selves, and others; and another thing to be righteous with a compleat, perfect righteousness, whereby we are free'd from the Curse, or Condemning power of the Law, and have right and title given us to eternal life; forasmuch as all our sins, as well of Omissi­on, as Commission, are satisfied for by Christ: and the believer thereupon is left no more liable to punishment either of Sense, or Loss, that is, ei­ther to Hell, or to the missing of Heaven; than if he had in his own person made God a plenary amends for all the injury which he had done him. From inherent righteousness, a man is reckoned by God, as righteous only to such a degree, (as we call School-boys Scholars, because they have some little learning, but not enough [Page 43] to fit them for the University, or whereby to claim a degree there.) So holy men from that imperfect righteousness which they have by Gods gracious condescention, are termed just, or righteous, but not with a righteousness which renders them altogether guiltless, and faultless in the sight of God, as doth that righteousness whereby they are justified. Therefore from their inherent righteousness, though good men are de­nominated just, yet they are not from thence or­dinarily denominated justified, nor at all but in a less strict, and proper sense.

XLVIII.

As for the danger of the Doctrine of Justifica­tion by the righteousness of Christ imputed to Believers in point of debauching the lives of men, they are worse scar'd than hurt, who dream of any such thing: For first, They who preach that Doctrine, do constantly teach, that whomsoever God justifieth, he sanctifies at the same time, and that that faith which is the in­strument of their justification, is always such as doth purifie their hearts, produce good works, work by love, and that which doth not is a dead faith, and consequently, that no unrighteous per­son (because every such person is void of true saith) shall inherit the Kingdome of God. They tell the people that they shall as certainly be damned if they live and die without holyness, and good works, as if men were to be saved by a righteousness inherent in themselves. Again, They tell them, that men who by patient continu­ance [Page 44] in well doing, do seek life and glory, shall a [...] certainly be saved, as if their so doing were trul [...] meritorious; yea a valuable price, or purchase, o [...] salvation; or as if they might claim, and chal­lenge heaven for so doing, though when all i [...] done, they must confess themselves to hav [...] been unprofitable servants, and that eternal lif [...] is the free gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Who then can say more, in effect, eithe [...] to deter men from the commission of sin by the danger of hell fire it self, or to encourage me [...] to the practice of true Religion: mean time pre­serving the honor of the free grace of God in Je­sus Christ? In this behalf the opposers of Impu­ted Righteousness, deal as disingeniously, and flan­derously, with those of the other perswasion, as the Papists do against the Protestants, in all whose accusations of that nature, as to the generality of Orthodox Protestants, there is not one word of truth. For neither do they who contend ear­nestly for Justification only by Christs righteous­ness imputed to us, set at naught holiness, as a needless thing, and that without which men may be saved by Christ: neither can any such infe­rence be with any colour of reason, drawn from their opinion, as touching the Righteousness of Christ being the only Material, and the Imputa­tion of that Righteousness, the only Formal cause of Justification.

Is it not enough that they do all own inherent righteousness, or Holiness, to be causa sine qu [...] non of Justification, and Salvation? As he that hath a great sum of money owing him (admit [Page 45] a thousand pounds) cannot receive it unless he will give him that is to pay it an Acquittance, no more than if it were not due to him, though his owing of the money is the only cause why he is content to pay it, not because he to whom he should pay it, will give him a Note to shew for so much received, for had he not owed it he would have cared for no such Note, nor have payed such a sum, to have received a Million of such Notes as those, &c.

What Creditor do's not hold himself as much concerned to give an Acquittance, when deman­ded, in order to receiving a great sum of mony, that is due to him, because without so doing he cannot receive it, as if he had no other right to it, or it were not due to him upon any other account?

XLIX.

Before I come to treat of the Instrumental Cause of Justification, which is Faith alone, it may be necessary to assign the reason, or causes why I have placed Justification not in the Remis­sion of sins, as some do; but in God's account­ing, esteeming, and pronouncing a Believing sin­ner righteous to Eternal Life; I say, There are sufficient reasons to be given why Justification should be placed not in Remission of sin, but in accounting, and declaring, the justified Person righteous.

L.

To pardon an Offence is, in strictness of speaking, nothing else but to remit the punish­ment of it, or not to punish it; as when a Ma­lefactor worthy of Death, or Banishment, and Sentenced thereunto, hath that Sentence rever­sed, or taken off, but is not intituled to any re­ward, or priviledge. But to justifie a sinner is not only to take off the Sentence of damnation that did lye against him (as the Scripture saith, He that believeth not is condemned already,) but by accounting and making him savingly righteous to give him right, and title to Eternal Life. Now, to reward (especially with so great a re­ward as Heaven, or to intitle a Man thereunto) is much more than not to punish him with Hell, and Eternal Death.

LI.

Yet I shall not lay very much stress upon that first Argument, because it may be said that the punishment due to sinners consists not only in the miseries, and torments of Hell, but also in the loss of Heaven; so that if the whole pu­nishment be taken away, (or which is all one, the sinner fully pardoned) he is by mean [...] thereof restored to a right and Title to Eternal Life. As if a Father who has declared that he will not only beat his Son, for some great Of­fence, but also disinherit him, shall pardon him, to all intents, and purposes; his so do­ing must extend not only to the not beating of [Page 47] him, but also unto the owning, and accepting of him for his Heir, or re-instating him into his In­heritance.

LII.

Therefore in Order to proving that Justifica­tion doth not consist in remission of sins, I shall ra­ther trust to these (and some following) Argu­ments. First, If wheresoever in the Scripture we find the word Justifie instead thereof we should put Pardon, where Justification, Par­doning, where Justified, Pardoned; the notion, or construction thence arising will be found sens­less, and absurd, then to Justifie in the Language of Scripture (which must be adhered to, and must decide this controversie) is one thing, and to Pardon is another, Justification one thing, and Pardon of sin another. But so it is, witness these Instances, besides many more which might be alledged, Deut. 25.1. They shall pardon (in­stead of justifie) the guiltless, and condemn the wicked. Psal. 51.4. That thou mayst be pardoned when thou judgest, Mat. 11.19. Wisdom is pardon­ed of her Children, 1 Tim. 4.16. Pardoned in the Spirit.

If a Man Examine all the places in Moses and the Prophets, where the term of Justification is used, he shall find none where pardon of sin is thereby signified. Vide Gataker, p. 13.

LIII.

A Man may be Pardoned, and yet not Justi­fied; o [...] Justified, amongst Men, and not [Page 48] Pardoned, Ergo. justification, and pardon are two distinct things. For it is an undoubted Axiom, Quae subjecto differunt inter se differunt. Those things that differ in subject, that is, the one where­of may be found in some Subject where the other is not, are distinct, and divers one from another. Now, remission may be where justifi­cation is not; and justification may be where re­mission is not. If a Man have wronged me, I may forgive him, as David did Shimei, and yet not justifie him in his dealings. And when a Man is falsly accused of wrong done to another, then he may be justified and yet nothing remit­ted, because no wrong at all done. So we are said to justifie God, Psal. 51.4.

Though in regard of a man's State, God ne­ver remits sin where he do's not justifie; yet in regard of some particular acts, he remits sin sometimes where he justifies not, Psal. 78.37, 38. Though their hearts were not upright with him, yet even of his compassion he forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not. So far forth remitted it as not instantly to destroy them for it. And sometimes God justifies when he remits not, as he did in approving Phineas his Act, as a just and righteous Act, Psal. 106.30, 31. And as he is said to justifie the Prophet Esay, in the discharge of his Ministry, Esay 50.8. If a Man that hath wronged another do obtain his Pardon without giving him real Satisfaction, in case he be que­stioned for it another time, he may plead his Pardon, but not stand upon his justification. But if he has given him full Satisfaction by himself, [Page 49] or Surety, he may stand upon his Justification, and plead not guilty, because he can plead sa­tisfaction made, and accepted. And this lat­ter, not the former, is the very case betwixt God, and Man in the justifying of a sinner: Sa­tisfaction is the main ground of the Justification of him, not made by him, but by Christ for him. To this point Bellarmin, de justif. l. 1. c. 2. Speaks as well as any Protestant, and far beyond the Socinian, vide Gataker, p. 14, 15, 16.

LIV.

Justification is the cause of Remission of sins, and Remission of sins is the proper effect of Ju­stification; therefore those two things must needs be different, and distinct. To pardon an Of­fender is not to punish him, or to exempt him from all manner of punishment due to him for such an Offence (whether it be punishment of sense, or of loss) And the reason why God doth forbear to punish a sinner, is, because he looks upon him as a guiltless Person, for as much as he hath satisfied for his Offences, by his Surety Jesus Christ. Guilt is our Obligati­on to punishment, but when full Satisfaction is rendered, and accepted, there remains no more Obligation to punishment. And therefore it is that God doth look upon a Believer as guiltless, with reference to eternal punishments (which are by Christ satisfied for) and thereupon for­beareth for ever to inflict any such punishment upon, or denounce it against him. Whence it ap­peareth that Pardon of sin is the effect of Justi­fication, [Page 50] and consequently, is after it, ordine na­turae, though not temporis, and so cannot be the same thing.

LV.

To pardon an Offender may be an Act of meer Favour, and Mercy, and doth most pro­perly signifie the forgiveness, which is without Satisfaction. But for God to justifie a Believ­ing Sinner is an Act of Justice. God's Justice doth as well appear in acquitting us for Christ, as in exacting a payment for us from Christ, Isa. 53.7. Justice in Civil Courts consists as well in acquitting the Guiltless, as in condemning the Guilty, Deut. 25.1. The Justification of a sinner is transacted not by a meer Sovereign, and absolute Power alone, but in a Legal way; whence it is the Apostle saith, that the Law is not thereby infringed, but established, Rom. 3.31. For Christ in the Scripture is termed not only [...], a Mediator, 1 Tim. 2.6. or one that by perswasion, and interest indeavours to compose the difference between them, but he is said to be also [...] a Surety, viz. as God's Surety to Man for the performance of his pro­mises which are all in Christ, yea and Amen, 2 Cor. 1.20. So Man's Surety to God for the dis­charge of the debt of all those that have interest in him, and making satisfaction to God by doing, and induring whatsoever was necessary for that purpose, Esay 53.6. We all had strayed, and the Lord had caused the iniquity of us all to remain on him. It was exacted (as Junius rightly ren­ders [Page] it) and he answered, that is, engag'd him­self for the Discharge of it, as Cappel well ren­ders the word, yea, he did really answer it, as we say of a party, or Surety that hath made payment, that he hath answered the Debt; vide Gataker, p. 27, 28.

LVI.

That God is said to pardon, or forgive those whom he justifieth, though he has received satis­faction for their Offences, is made a proper kind of speaking, and a true notion, for that he exempts them from punishment, as they do who pardon others, and not only so, but ex­erteth as much of Grace, and Mercy, towards the justified Person in the manner of doing it, as if he had remitted his Offences without any sa­tisfaction given, or demanded. Hence, saith Bernard, vide Gataker, p. 23, 24. Thou art sa­ved by nothing, but not saved with nothing, for no­thing laid down by thee, but not without a price pay'd by Christ.

LVII.

The justifying of a Sinner is not meerly the accepting of him as savingly just, and Righte­ous, but the making of him so, Rom. 5.18. 2 Cor. 5.21. It is not (as one calls it) the remit­ting of the penalty of the Law, and so discharging a guilty Person, as if he were innocent, and righ­teous, not according to Law and Justice, but out of a Sovereign and absolute Power. A Man who be­fore was not just cannot truly be justified unless he [Page 52] first be made, or constituted just, Gataker 33. The word Justifie doth not signifie in common use to make just, yet a Man that hath done wrong that he may be justified, must be first made just, not inherently just, for though he were so, yet that would not be sufficient to clear him from the guilt of his former unjust Act (as of theft, &c.) but he must be so made just, i. e. guiltless, and blameless, as that he may answer the rigor of Law and Justice, e're he can truly be justified, and this cannot be done but by a plenary satisfaction for the wrong done and the Offence formerly committed, exhibited, and accepted.

Now, that which is exhibited by doing, or suffering, or both, in way of Satisfaction, and so accepted, being such as makes a plenary satisfaction for an Offence formerly committed, because it utterly extinguisheth, and abolisheth the wrong, so taketh it away as if it had never been, it justly procures a guiltlesness, and blame­lesness, to the Delinquent, in whose behalf it is performed, and makes him therefore to be re­puted in the eye of the Law, and Justice, as therefore now no delinquent, but as guiltless, faultless, and just.

LVIII.

Mr. Gataker, p. 34. saith, that not the Sa­tisfaction it's self, but the Guiltlessness thereby procured is that which is so often in Scripture termed, Justice or Righteousness called the Righ­teousness of God, Rom. 1.17. & 3.21, 22. & [Page 53] 2 Cor. 5.21. because prepared propounded and appointed us by God (for God as the party wronged, and Christ as the party satisfying for this wrong, are in this Argument distinguished, Rom. 3.24, 25. 2 Cor. 5.19.21.)

LIX.

The Justification spoken of in the Scripture is such a Justification as wherein there is a spe­cial manifestation of God's Justice, Rom. 3.26. whereas in such case, which in plain terms is no other than meer pardon, there may be an am­ple declaration of Mercy, but no such demon­stration of Justice at all.

LX.

They are mistaken who say that the word [...] when applyed to Justification, doth sig­nifie moderation, equity, grace, and mercy, in par­don of sin; and that the word [...] imports only a merciful, charitable person, &c. Vide Gattaker, p. 24.

That the word [...], or Righteous is used in the New Testament with an eye to Retributive Justice consisting in acquitting the guiltless, and doing Justice upon the guilty, may appear from the ensuing Texts, viz. John. 7.24. John 5.30. Rev. 15.3. Rev. 16.5, 7. Rev. 19.11. 1 John 2.29. 2 Tim. 4.8. Let Grotius and Hammond consult their own Expositions on these Texts one of which doth Expresly so Interpret, 2 Tim. 4.8. though there not so necessarily, because the allusion is there to the Judges, or [Page 54] Triers at the Olympick Games: Again, Rom. 1.32. and Rom. 2.5. where 'tis apparent that Punitive Justice is meant also, Rom. 3.4, 5. ex­pounded by the next words, Is God unrighteous in taking vengeance? Rom. 9.28, 14. 2 Thes. 1.6. Gattaker 24, 25, 26, 27.

LXI.

Though as Justifying is sometimes taken for approving, or vindicating an innocent person that is wrongfully accused, or approving a just action, as that of Phineas; I say, though as the word is taken in that sense, God is said to justi­fie when he do's not pardon; yet so as the word justifie is taken when God is said to justifie the ungodly, Rom. 4.5. (which is the usual accep­tation of it, and that which we here enquire af­ter) God doth never justifie but he doth also pardon. Remission of Sins is a necessary conse­quent of efficacious Justification, grounded up­on satisfaction tendered, and accepted, made, and admitted. When satisfaction for an injury is made and accepted, and the party that did it in reguard thereof justified, that is, thereby there­of discharged, Reason and equity requires that the offence be remitted, that is, that the party wronged cease now to be offended with him whom he was justly offended with before. Vide Gattaker 23.

LXII.

Because when God doth justifie a sinner, he doth always pardon his sins (as hath been said) [Page 55] and Remission of sins, or exemption from punish­ment, or reversing the sentence of condemnati­on, are immediate effects, and consequents of Justification: therefore it is that some excellent Divines have put Remission of sins into their de­scripti [...]n of Justification, though certain it is, th [...]t th [...]y do differ as the cause, and the effect. For God doth therefore remit sin, or take off the the penalty due for sin, because he justifies the sinner, and do's own, and acknowledg him to be guiltl [...]ss; that is, justly liable to no such pe­nalty, forasmuch as the justice of God is by Christ satisfied for him, inasmuch as he is a true believer. God doth not justifie men, because he has pardoned them (as a Prince might do a man-slayer whom by his Prerogative he has par­doned) but because he Justifieth them, or ac­knowledges them just and righteous upon ac­count of the satisfaction which he has received from Christ on their behalf, therefore he par­doneth them, or exempteth them from punish­ment, &c.

LXIII.

Justification seemeth to wash a sinner cleaner, than bare pardon would have done; forasmuch as Justification taketh away not only the penalty that was incurr'd by sin, but the very desert of that penalty, which bare pardon seemeth not to do. He who hath made full satisfaction for an offence, after that is done, is not worthy, or do's not deserve to suffer for it, because the crime is thereby extinguished, and annihilated, but [Page 56] he who has received only a free pardon (as for murther, or the like) though that is sufficient to save his life, yet it cannot take away his de­merit, or desert to die, &c. Indeed every justi­fied person before satisfaction accepted, and taking place in him, i. e. before he did believe, did deserve to die eternally, till after the satis­faction of Christ applyed by faith, he can no longer be said to be under the guilt, or just de­merit of damnation, &c. Whereas Amesius saith in his Chap. de Justif. That Justification doth not so take away the guilt, as that it takes away the de­sert of punishment from the sin; which (the sin it self remaining) can in no so [...]t be taken way, but it so takes away the guilt, that it takes away the deadly effects of it. I say, those words of his are fairly consistent with what I have said: For though a desert of punishment be always insepa­rable from the nature of sin it self, yet he that was a sinner, may cease, so much as to deserve punishment, I say, a demerit of punishment is separable from a sinner, or one that was so, but not from sin, or from one in whom the sin it self is remaining; (as Amesius speaketh) but from one, in whom it is taken away, by the ap­plication of the blood of Christ.

LXIV.

Whereas some great Divines have put into their Definition, that Justification is an act of God wherein he accepteth us as righteous in his sight; which words may seem to imply that Be­lievers are not really righteous in the sight of [Page 57] God, but meerly accepted as such, or as if they were such (as he that pays but half a crown in the pound, may have, by the clemency of his Creditor s, a full discharge given him as if he had pay'd all) I conceive their meaning may be this; that Believers are, as to all the benefits and advantages of righteousness, or of being righteous, so accepted with God upon account of that righteousness of Christs, which is theirs by Imputation only, as if they had had a real in­herent righteousness of their own, whereby they had been formally righteous in the strictest sense; as a man is wise by his wisdome, and strong by his strength. They may put an as, (or a tanquam to it) because we do not hold that the righteousness, or obedience of Christ is the Form of Justification in that Formal sense as the rational Soul is the form of a man; but only that it do's supplero vicem, & locum causae forma­lis, that is, doth stand a Believer in as good stead, for matter of security from hell, and intitling him to heaven, as a compleat perfect righte­ousness inherent in himself could do. Even as the payment made by a Surety do's to all intents as much secure the principal debtor, as if he him­self had done it; yet can he not in a strict sense be said to be so good a paymaster as if he had made payment himself.

LXV.

How God when he justifieth can be said to justifie us from all our sins at once, or to pardon to us all our sins, as well those that are to come, [Page 58] as those that are past, is a thing me-thinks as difficult to explain, as any one thing belong­ing to the great Doctrine of Justification.

Amesius in his Chap. de Justif. sect. 24. saith this, Sins past are remitted by a formal application, but sins to come only virtually: Sins past are remit­ed in themselves, sin [...] to come in the subject or per­son sinning, &c.

LXVI.

'Tis hard to find a similitude that may suffici­ently illustrate that darksome saying of the Re­verend Amesius; yet I think some light may be given thereunto by such a similitude, or simili­tudes as follow.

Admit an Annuity of fourscore pounds a year settled upon any person for the time of his life, to be paid by quarterly portions, 20 l. every quarter, upon condition that he shall come to such a one to receive it, as oft as it becomes due, and shall give him an Acquittance, wherein he shall greatly acknowledg his thankful accept­ance of the Doner's bounty. In this case, I say, there is fourscore pound a year settled upon the foresaid party all at once, virtually, for by one deed he is made capable of challenging it in such equal proportions as oft as it shall become due, making good the forementioned proviso's, viz. that he come himself in person for it, to the party that is appointed to pay it, and do give him a thankful Acquittance, &c. Till the proviso's upon which the actual payment of each Sum of Money be complyed with, he can­not [Page 59] actually receive it, but yet it was all virtu­ally vested in him from the very first, and he from the first time he was instated in the Annui­ty, put into a capacity to receive it, from time, to time, as it should grow due. Or possibly the thing may be better explained by some such si­militude as this.

A rich Father sending his Son to travel beyond the Seas, desires a great Merchant of that coun­try, in which his Son is to reside, to defray all his expences, and to pay off all the bills which shall be brought in upon his account, provided he shall from time, to time bring the bills of his charges, and expences to him, and request him to see them fully discharged; and in case any of his bills appear to have been inflam'd by great prodigality, and extravagan­cy he shall confess, and bewail his fault, and promise amendment; and having so done, then, and not till then, the Merchant aforesaid, is, and shall be requested to make full payment to all his Creditors, and to see all, and every of his debts discharged. The Son whose case this is may be said to have all his debts virtually pay'd, from the time that his Father took order with such a Merchant for the payment of them, who undertook to see it done, because by this means, he can command his debts at any time, doing in order thereunto only some certain things which are in his power to do: yet the debts of this Son cannot be said to be actually pay'd, be­cause many of them are not yet contracted, as to others of them, he has not yet carried in his bill [Page 60] to the Merchant that undertook to pay whats [...] ever he should owe, or he hath not as yet co [...] fessed, and bewailed his fault, as to some deb [...] contracted by great Profuseness, which was t [...] precede the payment of them, and therefor [...] the actual payment of them is yet suspended notwithstanding it is in his power to procur [...] the actual payment of them, at no long war [...] ing, by doing such previous things as are in h [...] power to do, and therefore may all his debts b [...] said to be virtually paid, but not actually.

The accommodation of that similitude t [...] the purpose in hand is very easie. Or, suppos [...] a Prince has a Favourite, so great in his favou [...] that he hath resolved that he shall never be pu [...] to Death for any offence that he can pardon t [...] him, and yet the said Favourite falls time, af­ter time, into such misdemeanors, for which h [...] cannot but be arraigned by Law, and sentence [...] to Death according to the common course o [...] Justice; yet forasmuch as the Supreme Magistrate has given him assurance that he shall no [...] dye for any offence that he can pardon, an [...] consequently upon humble application for [...] particular pardon, so oft as he is condemne [...] afresh, he is sure to obtain it; this man may b [...] said to be pardoned virtually, though not actu­ally, &c.

LXVII.

An Elect, Believing, and therefore justified Sinner, may be said to have all his sins pardo­ned virtually, and in the Subject, or Person sin­ning, [Page 61] though not in themselves (as Amesius speaketh) because God hath resolved, yea, so ordered, and fore-laid the matter that such a one shall not be finally lost, and undone, con­demn'd, and damn'd: but that the satisfaction of Christ shall, from time, to time be so effectu­ally applyed by him, for, and in order unto ta­king away the guilt, or condemning power of sin, that eventually it shall never be his ruin.

LXVIII.

Though all the sins of such a one may be said to be pardoned in Subjecto, or in, and as to the Person sinning, meaning thereby forasmuch as 'tis certain he shall not be damned for his sins, he hath a pardon tantamount. Yet may some of his sins be said not to be actually pardoned, see­ing it is a real truth, that to suppose a Believer might live or dye without renewed Faith, and Repentance, after the commission of some great, and deliberate sin, were to suppose he might be damn'd. For such sins do deprive even Believ­ers, and justified Persons themselves, though not of jus ad rem, as to matter of Salvation, yet of jus in re. In which sense these words of St. John are to be understood, viz. No murtherer hath eternal Life abiding in him, i. e. hath an immediate, actual fitness, and capacity for Heaven, at the present, as those that were un­clean, or in a Journey had not for partaking of the Lord's Passeover, though they had a habitu­al right to it.

LXIX.

That Man cannot be said to be Actually an [...] compleatly pardoned, who has any block o [...] bar in his way to Heaven for the present, or wh [...] cannot enter into Life, or be saved under hi [...] present circumstances, which may be the cas [...] of a true Believer, and justified Person [...] (witness David, &c.) therefore every justif [...] ed Person is not compleatly and actually pardoned, all his sins, at all times, but some may ye [...] be after a sort, charged upon him: yet sith a [...] Elect Believer shall certainly have all thos [...] blocks taken out of his way, first, or last, o [...] before he dyes, all his sins may be said to be virtually pardoned, and in equivalency. A [...] that man might virtually, and in effect, be sai [...] to be secured from dying by the means of [...] Pleurifie, who hath a Physitian alwayes at hand, perfectly able (if there be any such) and a [...] willing to Cure him of it, because in that cas [...] his Life would be secured from that Diseas [...] virtually, yet could he not be said to be actually delivered from that Disease, or the danger o [...] it, in case he were apt ever, and anon to fall in­to it, to such a degree, that if great means, and remedies were not used it would be sure to be his death, &c. So would the greater, and deli­berate sins of justified Persons, certainly be the death of their Souls if Jesus Christ their great Physitian, did not from time to time, by re­newing Faith in them, whereby to take hold of the Satisfaction and expiation which he by his [Page 63] blood has made in such cases, relieve them a­gainst the same, which sheweth that though they be virtually pardoned, as to all their sins, yet not compleatly, actually, and to all intents, and purposes: for as Divines say, there can be no such pardon obtained for any great, and wil­ful sin, without particular renewing of Faith, and Repentance. In that sense it is that they do own these kind of sins to be mortal, and not to have a pardon of course, as lesser sins have upon a general Repentance, which therescore they call venial.

LXX.

Reverend Mr. Durham in his Book on the Re­velation, p. 259. puts the Question in these words (for I chuse to give you his own) How can a man at the first exercising of Faith be said to be ju­stified or pardoned of all his sins, seeing his sins af­ter Justification are not pardoned till they be com­mitted, and Repented of?

His Answer thereunto is in these words.

Both are true (saith he) for future sins are not actually pardoned till they be committed, and repent­ed of, yet is the man a justified person, and in a ju­stified estate, having a ground laid in his Justifica­tion for obtaining the pardon of those sins that fol­low, so that they shall not overturn his former Abso­lution, for Gods Covenant hath both fully in it, yet in due way to be applyed. And it is (saith he) as if a company of Rebels were subdued, and by Treaty they are pardoned, changed from the state of Ene­mies, to be natural Subjects, and priviledged with [Page 64] their priviledges, so that if they fall in after faults (as Subjects may fall in) yet are they never again counted Enemies, nor is their first Freedom Can­cel'd, but they are dealt with as native Subjects fal­ling into such offences, and have priviledges that Strangers have not, nor can plead in the same faults; one of which priviledges may be supposed to be, that they shall not be rigidly fallen upon, although their guilt deserve death, but that they shall have means used to reclaim them, (and these such as cannot but be effectual) and that upon recovery they shall be pardoned those faults, and be preserved from the de­served punishments, &c. It is so by the Treaty of Grace, and Justification; the believing Sinner is tra [...]sl [...]ted from the state of an Enemy, to the condi­tion of a Friend, this is unalterable, he cannot af­terwards but be a Friend; yet because a Friend may be ingrateful, and may fail to his Benefactor, therefore in this Treaty it is provided, that there shall be a way to forgiveness by vertue of the Cove­nant, yet so as there shall be a new exercise of Re­pentance and Faith, for the commending of the way of grace: And so a sinning Believer is a sinner, but not in the state of sin, nor is an Enemy as he was before Justificati [...]n, even as a faulty Subject is guil­ty, yet is no Enemy, nor Rebel, nor can be punish­ed by death when he becomes penitent, although he deserveth it, because the Law of Grace is such to the Subjects of that Kingdom, that the pleading of that former Treaty, and betaking themselves to the terms hereof, is ever to be accepted as a righteousness for them in reference to any particular sin following Justification, as well as what proceeded. And this no [Page 65] Stranger to God can plead, who hath no such ground for his recovery from sin, or that God will give him Repentance for it, much less that he will certainly pardon him. Yea it differeth from a Penitents case at first conversion, because a Covenanter may expect pardon by vertue of that same Covenant in which he is ingaged, and to which he hath already right, and he hath Jus ad rem: Another cannot do so, but must consider the Covenant as aforesaid only, and so expect pardon, not because God is actually ingaged to give it to him, as in the others case, but because God doth offer to accept of him on those terms, and then to pardon him. Thus far Mr. Durham, &c.

LXXI.

Besides the principal efficient cause of Justifica­tion, which is God, the inwardly moving or Proegumenal cause which is Free Grace, the Pro­catarctick cause which was Jesus Christ, the Ma­terial cause which was the Obedience of Christ, the Formal cause, viz. the Imputation of Christs Obedience, and the Final cause, all which have been spoken of already, and proved to be such: there is another cause of Justification, which might have been brought in under the efficient (for thereunto it belongs as efficiens minus princi­palis) viz. the Instrumental cause which is very necessary to be discoursed of by all those who treat of Justification, forasmuch as there are some considerable controversies which do de­pend upon it. Now the Instrumental cause or con­dition of Justification (for you may call it either [Page 66] in different respects) is Faith: I call Faith the Instrument of Justification, not that it is so im­mediately (for that might seem to ascribe unto man some kind of efficiency in point of justify­ing himself) but mediately, forasmuch as it is the hand whereby, or wherewith, a Believer receiveth the Righteousness of Christ, by the imputation of which Righteousness he is justifi­ed. So that as properly as the cause of a cause may be said to be the cause of that cause its effect, (as the Grandfather of the Granchild) may Faith be said to be the Instrument of Justi­fication, it being the instrument of applying, or receiving that Righteousness, by which Belie­vers are justified.

They must needs own Faith to be Instrument­al in, and towards Justification, who affirm it to be the condition thereof: For doubtless to per­form the condition of any promise made by a faithful person, must needs be instrumental for, and towards the performance and enjoyment of the promise it self, sith a faithful promiser when the condition of the promise which he hath made is performed, cannot but perform his pro­mise, if it be in his power. Yea forasmuch as Faith is the one onely condition upon which the promise of Justification is suspended, Faith, in strictness of speaking, is the only (to be sure the most principal) instrument of Justification: For what is, or can be so instrumental to obtain the benefit of a good man's promise, as to ful­fil the condition upon which he suspended it, when that's done, all is done, for that is all in all.

LXXII.

Though there be other more remote, and less principal Instruments of Justification, yet the most immediate, and most principal, and the only Internal Instrument thereof is Faith alone.

The Word of God, whereby as an instru­ment, Faith is ingendered: for Faith cometh by hearing, the Ministers of God who dispense that word, and the holy Sacraments which are a kind of visible Gospel, and Seals of the Righteous­ness of God which is by Faith, are remote instru­ments in the hand of God whereby to bring a­bout the Justification of a sinner, Dan. 22.3: But the most principal, and immediate instru­mental cause of Justification, is Faith: For that doth immediate attingere effectum. Hence such passages as these, Being Justified by Faith. By him all that belive are Justified.

LXXIII.

Mr. Gattaker p. 70. saith that Though to the full enjoyment of life eternal in Heaven are requi­red many conditions in the Covenant of the Gospel, as Faith, Repentance, Charity, Humility, Ho­liness, Mortification, Self-denyal, Obedience, Patience, and Perseverance in good works; yet unto Justification is required only Faith. For ex­cepting that one place of St. James, which assign [...] Justification to works, ye shall find the Justification of a sinner assigned to Faith constantly, in places al­most innumerable, and never attributed either to the Love, or Fear of God, or to Charity, or Patience, [Page 68] but to Faith in Christ's bloud, Romans 3.25.

LXXIV.

Mr. Perkins in his Catholick Reformed, Controvers. 4. cap. 1. saith, Faith is the alone and only Instrument wrought of God in the heart of a man, whereby he laieth hold on Christ, applying hi [...] Righ­teousness to himself, which neither Hope, nor Chari­ty, nor any other Grace can do.

And Learned Bp. Abbot saith, (writing in defence of Perkins) that Faith though not nega­tively considered excluding other Graces, yet priva­tively abstracted from the consideration of them is said to justifie. The wounded Israelites were cured by meer seeing, or looking at the Brazen Serpent without working, John 3.14. There believing in Christ is compared unto the beholding of the Brazen Serpent.

Chemnitius, in his Examen Concil Trident. de fide Justif. giving reasons why the Protestants use the word Sola of Faith in Justification, mak­eth one to be ut ostendatur organum se [...] medium applicationis. For not by works, but Faith alone is the Promise received.

Burges, Prop. 1. saith, They who are for Works and Faith, joyning these in our Justification, ought to leave out the word Sola or only, in Praying, and Preaching.

LXXV.

If som [...] had rather call Faith the Condition than the Instrumental cause of Justification, pro­vided that by Faith, and by Condition, they un­derstand [Page 69] what they ought to do, and will own Faith to be the only Condition of Justification, I see no cause to be offended at them.

LXXVI.

It may be safely said that we are justified by Faith, as it is a Condition, provided, the Con­ditionality of it be limited to the Receptive office of Faith, and Gods designment thereunto. B. Prop. 4. My meaning is, that Faith may be said to justifie as it is a Condition, provided you al­low it to be the condition of Justification, not as it is an excellent Grace, Quality, or Work; but as it has a peculiar property for the receiv­ing of Christ, and his Righteousness, even as [...]ating nourisheth us (or is as I may say the con­dition of our being nourished) not meerly as it is an action, for then walking, or speaking, might do the same thing; but as it is that action by which nourishment is received into our bodies. It seemeth indifferent whether we call Faith the Condition, or the Instrumental cause of Justification, and either is done upon the fol­lowing accounts.

LXXVII.

Faith is calllled the Condition of the Cove­nant, because it is upon that Condition that Ju­stification is offered unto us therein, and upon this Condition God becomes our God, and Christ our Righteousness. And it is also called the Instrumental cause of our Justification, be­cause it acteth by receiving Christ, as he is held [Page 70] forth in the Word: If that, viz. the Gospel be justly called the External Instrumental cause which doth offer Christ for our Righteousness, then may Faith well be called the Internal Instru­mental cause, because it doth receive him for the same end, and because by this receiving he be­cometh our Righteousness, upon which our ju­stification is founded, Durham, 234.

LXXVIII.

When we say that Faith is the only Internal Instrument (for there are several external ones) of our Justification, and that it is the condition thereof; our meaning is, that no other work, or grace, is so concern'd in, and with our Ju­stification, as Faith is, or that justifying of a sin­ner is not suspended upon any other than the one onely condition of believing, though justifying Faith, be not alone, yet Faith alone justifieth, in the quality of of a condition, and is the only Internal Instrument of Justification.

LXXIX.

To be yet more plain (if we can be so) God doth not impute the Righteousness of his Son to a sin­ner, and thereupon make, and account him Righ­teous to Eternal Life, or one that by his Surety hath satisfied his Law and Justice, with respect had to his Love, Humility, Repentance, and other Graces (which do accompany saving Faith) though upon the account of them also they are by God accounted formally, and inhe­rently, but imperfectly Righteous) but only with regard to his Faith considered in a priva­tive [Page 71] abstractiveness, or abstractive from all other graces, forasmuch as the promise of Justifica­tion is made to the Grace of Faith, and to that alone, or to a Believer only as such.

LXXX.

It is no contradiction to exclude other graces from a conditionality as to the act of Justification, and yet to affirm them requisite necessarily in the Subject justified, &c. This Protestant Di­vines do a thousand times over illustrate by di­vers similitudes. Because Repentance is requi­red as well as Faith must their Office, and work be confounded? Certainly it is not Repentance, but Faith that receiveth the Pardon.

LXXXI.

The distinction of Faith Justifying, quae viva, but not qua viva, which is lively, and working, but not as it is lively, and working, is very good, and sound; that is, Though only that Faith which is accompanied with Love to God and Man, godly sorrow for sin and other graces do justifie (because that is the only living and true Faith) yet this living Faith in the business of justifying, or as it justifieth Instrumentally, is not concurr'd with by any other grace, but is by it self alone.

As the Sun which giveth Light, giveth heat also, but it doth not give heat as it is Corpus lu­minosum, but as it is Corpus calidum. The heat of the Sun doth not enlighten, nor the light of the Sun heat, and warm. A King that goeth to his Parliament to sign Bills, and compleat [Page 72] Acts of Parliament, seldom goeth without a considerable Guard, and Retinue, but when all comes to all, 'tis he that signs all the Bills, and the rest of his Company have nothing to do in that affair. So Faith hath a large Retinue of Graces, useful for many other good purposes, but such as do not meddle or make more or less in that great business of Justification, but leave all that affair (as God hath left it) to Faith alone, &c.

LXXXII.

We may observe, saith Mr. Gataker p. 79. that God's pardon is often ascribed to Repentance as well as to Faith, (Acts 2.38. Mark 1.4. & alibi possim) both being conditions of our recon­ciliation to God, but Justification is only attribu­ted to Faith, but never to Repentance. The Rea­son (saith he, is evident) because sorrow for sin though serious and effectual in the conversion of a sinner to God, brings not an equivalent satisfaction to the Justice of God, but Faith brings with it the Righteousness of Christ, and tenders the obedience of Christ our Surety as our own unto God for Justification, B. Prop. 1.

LXXXIII.

Though Protestant writers in this controver­sie did chiefly militate against the merit, and cau­sality of works in Justification, then asserted by the Papists; yet it is plain that they did there­by exclude their Conditionality also as to the [Page 73] act of Justification, &c. We cannot, saith Gat­taker, 68. be too zealous in this because the conceit of Justification by Works is a slippe [...]y opinion, and we see by Experience how easily, though almost in­sensibly, the Papists stid and fell by rising in their own proud Imagination from Justification by Works into the presumption of merit, by good works. But the Apostle opposeth the former, and by consequence a Minori ad majus, excludes the latter.

LXXXIV.

Neither is this Justification by Faith alone, excluding the Conditionality of Works to be ap­plyed to our Justification, at first, only, but as continued: so that first, and last, we are justi­fied by Faith alone, Gal. 3.11. The just shall live by Faith, which belongs to the whole course of their Lives respectively to Justification. And when the Apostle saith, Rom. 5. Being justified by Faith we have peace with God; would it not be irrational to limit it only to our Justifica­tion at first? Is not the Righteousness of God revealed from Faith to Faith, not from Faith to Works? Rom. 1.17.

LXXXV.

That Faith is concerned in the business of Ju­stification only, as a condition, or Instrument, so far, and no farther, is evident, because though the Scripture doth often speak of our be­ing justified [...], & [...], yet never [...] by Faith, yet never for Faith.

LXXXVI.

If it be enquired what that Faith is which is the condition or Instrument of Justification; I shall answer no more at present but this, viz. Faith is that Grace whereby Jesus Christ is so received to all intents and purposes as he is of­fered to sinners in the Gospel.

LXXXVII.

The fore-said description of Faith furnish­eth us with one Argument for Faith's being the only Condition, or Instrumental cause of Justifi­cation, Ex. gr. It is the Righteousness, Obe­dience, or Satisfaction of Christ imputed, or put to our account which justifieth. That Righ­teousness is freely offered to sinners in the Gos­pel to be made theirs upon such terms. Being so offered, there is nothing more requisite to make it ours but our so accepting of it. Now, Faith is that our acceptance of it so as it is offered, &c.

When so accepted the Righteousness of Christ becomes ours, and when it is once actu­ally so, then are we actually justified without any more ado, and other Graces are servicable to us for other purposes, but not to justifie us. For frustra fit per plura, and when any thing is heartily off [...]red, there needs nothing but accep­ting it upon the terms specified.

LXXXVIII.

When Faith is spoken of in the Scripture as the Instrument, or Condition of Justification (call it whether you will) thereby is meant the Habit, Grace, or Act of Faith, such as was expressed, not the object, viz. The Gospel of Christ, or Covenant of Grace, as some would carry it, because the word Faith is sometimes so taken, Er. gr. Gal. 3.23. Before Faith came. For besides that words are to be taken in the most usual and famous sense, unless there be particu­lar, and special reason to the contrary (which cannot be shewed in those places where Faith is spoken of as the Instrument or Condition of Ju­stification; I say, besides that, it will be found that if you put the word Gospel, or Covenant of Grace, instead of the word Faith where Faith is spoken of as the Instrument of Justification; there will arise a very inconvenient sense.

LXXXIX.

The most usual and general s [...]gni [...]ication of the word Faith, is as it is [...]ken for the Grace of Faith, or the Actings t [...]ereof, and there is no inconvenient sense aris [...]th from ta­king it so when Faith is spoken of as the In­strument of our Justification, Ergo. It ought to be so taken. Possibly in fifty places of the New Testament Faith is taken for the Grace of Faith, and in very few in any other sense. To be sure it is so taken in Heb. 11. where Faith is so much spoken of and defined, v. 1. Faith is [Page 76] the substance of things hoped for, &c. v. 4. [...] Faith Abel offered to God, &c. Faith in that on Chapter is about sixteen or seventeen times ta­ken for the Grace or Faith, and not for th [...] Gospel of Christ. Neither would any incon­venient construction arise if we take it as mean [...] of the grace of Faith when we are said to be justified by Faith Instrumentally, Ex. gr. Rom [...] 3.25. To be a propitiation through Faith in hi [...] Blood. Now, though the blood of Christ be the Seal of the New Covenant, yet certainly the Apostle intended not here to speak of that, but of the meanes, on our part, whereby we are made partakers of Christ's Redemption, and propitiation, Gal. 7.3. So Rom. 5.1. when the Apostle saith, being justified by Faith, we hav [...] Peace with God; why should not Faith be taken for the Grace of Faith correlative to it's object Jesus Christ? So Gal. 2.16. Even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the Faith of Christ, &c. i. e. by the grace of Faith, or by believing in Jesus Christ.

XC.

Should we take Faith for the Gospel, or Co­venant of Grace, in the places last mentioned, as a more unusual, so a more inconvenient, less congruous, and less probable sense would arise from thence, if not untrue, and absurd. Ex. gr. when the Apostle saith, Being justified by Faith, Rom. 5.1. We should read being justified by the Gospel, or Covenant of Grace, against that might be objected that the Gospel justifieth no [Page 77] Man, unles [...] it be applyed by Faith, men may hear the Gospel, and yet never be justified, but they cannot believe the Gospel, with a true and lively Faith, and not be justified. So those words, Gal. 2.16. Knowing that a man is justified by the Faith of Jesus Christ, ought not to be understood of the Object of Faith, viz. the Gospel, but of the Grace of Faith, for could he have been justified by the Gospel only (or as the only Instrument of his justifica­tion) what need he have added, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified, &c. So 'tis most certain that Jesus Christ is not actually a propitiation for our sins, meerly through the Gospel, or Covenant of Grace, unless the Grace of Faith doth intervene actually to enteress us in his Sacrifice, and Satisfaction, and therefore it is inconvenient by Faith in his Blood, to understand the Gospel, or Covenant of Grace sealed with his Blood, &c.

There are two other Texts in Rom. 3. which would be very incommodiously applyed to the Gospel, where Faith is mentioned as the Instru­ment, or Condition of Justification, v. 22. Even the Righteousness of God which is by Faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe. Do not the latter words shew that the Grace of Faith, not the objectum quod of Faith, which is the Gos­pel, is there to be understood by Faith? To be sure in that latter clause Faith is spoken of as an Instrument, yea, as a condition of Justification. Now, the Gospel, though it is in external, re­mote Instrument of justifying a sinner, as it is [Page 78] the Instrument of Faith, or means of believing, yet Faith is the more immediate Instrument of the two, and a condition also, which the Gospe [...] cannot be said to be. Also from v. 26. we ar­gue, that by Faith in the 25 verse, not the Gos­pel, but the Grace of Faith is meant, because the words are, that he might be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

XCI.

Faith is such an Instrument of Justification as upon which Justification doth always insue: For whosoever truly believeth in Jesus Christ, is, and shall be justified, but so is not the Gospel, or the Covenant of Grace: For the Gospel has been, and may be preached to thousands, who never did, nor ever will come to believe, &c. Now is it not more proper to attribute an effect to the immediate, and effectual cause, than to a cause that is more remote, and often ineffectual? and consequently our Justification, to the Grace of Faith, than to the object of Faith, viz. the Gospel? 'Tis harsh to say that we are justified by that (as namely by the Gospel) which we may have, and enjoy, and never be justified, and much easier to conceive how we may be said to be justified by that, (as namely by Faith) upon the having (and using) of which, we cannot but be justified.

XCII.

When we are said to be Justified by Faith, as Rom. 5.1. the Faith there spoken of, is not [Page 79] to be taken Metonymically, viz. the cause put for the effect, and Faith which is the root of good works, put for good works, which are the fruit of saving Faith.

XCIII.

Neither is Faith there taken Synecdochically as a part for the whole, or as one Virtue for all her inseperable companions, for which a Be­liever is accepted of a gracious God. Faith is not there taken as a complexive word, that in­cludes Love, and Fear, and holy Obedience, and in Conjunction with all these doth produce Justification.

XCIV.

Thus some by giving the name of Faith to all sorts of Graces, yea and of good works, do hook, and hedge in the Popish Doctrine of Justificati­on by works, under the wing of something called Faith (as the Quakers do under the name of Christ; telling us first, that Christ is the Light within them, and secondly, that to follow the Light within them, whereby they mean nothing else but doing of good works, in conformity to natural Light, will bring us to Heaven.)

XCV.

Those that cannot brook Justification by Faith alone, as the only Internal Instrumental cause, but would concern the whole of Gospel Obe­dience in the business of Justification, go this way to work, viz. they tell us, that God hath a [Page 80] double Court, one may be compared to our Kings Bench (a strict Tribunal of Justice) wherein the Offender is tryed according to Law: So when God proceeds against a sinner accordiag to the Covenant of works by the Law, there is no hope of Justification by works, because all have sinned, and the Law is to all a Ministry of Con­demnation, and an instrument of death: For there is no mention of Repentance, or room for Reconciliation, in the first covenant of the Law. But God hath set up another Court, as it were of Chancery, where [...], or a temperament of equity is admitted, where God by a new Cove­nant of Mercy moderateth the strictness of the the Law, and requires not exact, but sincere O­bedience. And though St. Paul deny Justifica­tion to the works of the Law, yet he contradicts not St. James, who saith a man is justified by good works in Gods Court of Equity under the Gospel. And they observe, that though the Sts. do decline God's Judgment, where exact Just­ice keeps the Court, yet the Sts. often plead their own Righteousness before a Merciful God, who accepts their sincere endeavours, and acts of Obedience. The Socinians please themselves with this distinction who deny Ch ists Satisfaction, and consequently acknowledg no use of Faith in his bloud; for apprehending, or applying of Christs Righteousness for our Justification, and teach that a man is Justified by his operative Faith, and sincere Obedience, which God by the New Covenant of Grace, accepts unto righ­teousness, though it be not exactly conformable [Page 81] to the Rule of the Law. Others also who ac­knowledg the Righteousness of Christ purchas­ed by his propitiatory Sacrifice, yet imbrace this distinction, and do think that Gospel obedience concurs with Faith unto our Justification; be­cause God accepts even the defective services of his Children. And they imagin that St. Paul, and St. Peter may be accorded by taking Faith in a Figurative sense, when the former speaks of Ju­stification by Faith, &c. Gattaker 66, 67.

XCVI.

The grounds they go upon for taking Faith for all Graces, yea for all good works, for the sum total of all Gospel-obedience, are very in­sufficient; as namely this for one: Because the word [...] signifies both Incredulity, and dis­obedience, and [...] is opposed to [...] John 3.36. Therefore Faith (they suppose) imports not only Belief, but also Obedience.

The strength of that Argument is meer weak­ness. For, 1. Though a word have two several significations it do's not follow that it is always to be taken in both, or that those two come all to one. 2. It follows not because [...] sig­nifieth either unbelief, or disobedience, or both; that therefore the word [...] from which it comes, signifieth the two contrary things, be­ing without the privative particle, for though it doth signifie to obey, yet no where to believe. 3. The word [...] signifieth pertinaciam non credendi etiam visis, & auditis idoneis documen­tis, q. d. Impersuasibilitatem Aestius ad, Rom. [Page 82] 11.30. [...] signifies more than [...], viz. Qui non tantum non credit sed recta monentibus re­sistit. Therefore it will not follow that the word which is of a contrary signification, doth signifie Faith, and nothing else, but rather it should signifie an easiness of Believing, or of be­ing perswaded, to own the Truths of the Gos­pel, &c. 4. Neither is there any word as is directly contrary to [...] & [...] viz. any such word as [...], whereby Faith, or a Be­liever may be signified, &c. Therefore from the notation of these words, no Argument can be drawn that to believe, and to yield sincere Obedience to the whole Gospel are all one, or the same thing.

XCVII.

They who contend for Faith being a Com­plexive word, signifying all sorts of Graces, and the sum total of Gospel Obedience, and of all good works, do pretend that to the best of their understanding. St. Paul and St. James can­not be otherwise reconciled, and for that rea­son, they are induced to take Faith in so large a sense, as that it may include works, &c. Now, that Reason will easily fall to the ground if we can prove that St. Paul and St. James may be fairly accorded without it, as also that they two ought not to be so reconciled.

XCVIII.

The passages in which St. Paul and St. James seem to some to differ, toto Coelo are these. St. Paul saith, Rom. 3.28. We conclude that a man is justified by Faith without the deeds of the Law, and Rom. 4.2, 3. For if Abraham were justi­fied by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not be­fore God. For what saith the Scripture, Abra­ham believed God, and it was counted to him for Righteousness. v. 4. Now, to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of Grace, but of Debt, v. 5. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his Faith is counted for Righteousness, v. 6 Even as David also de­scribeth the blessedness of the man to whom God im­puteth Righteousness without works. Thus far St. Paul.

Then comes St. James, and saith, Jam. 2.20.24. But wilt thou know, O vain Man, that Faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our Father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his Son upon the Altar? Seest thou how Faith wrought with his Works, and by Works was his Faith made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for Righteousness, and he was called the Friend of God, v. 25. Ye see then, how that by Works, a Man is justified, and not by Faith on­ly. 25. Likewise also was not Rahab the Harlot justifi d by Works when she had received the Messen­gers, and had sent them another way? For as the Body without the Spirit is dead, so Faith without works is dead also.

XCIX.

We shall find there is no need to confound Faith and Works together, in order to reconci­ling these two Apostles. For though in words they seem to contradict each other, yet in very deed they do not, yea, cannot, because they do not speak ad idem, or circa idem, but of dif­ferent manners. For St. Paul discourseth how our Persons are justified before God, but St. James, how our Faith must be justified before Men. Now, our Persons are justified by Faith, but our Faith by good works. They who say these two things, do not thwart one another, more, or less. Zanchy saith, Fides justificat hominem, opera justificant fidem.

C.

St. James his business is to prove that a bare Profession, or boasting of Faith, not accompa­nied with good works, can justifie no man, nor assure the World that his Faith is such as will justifie him before God. This I make appear from Jam. 2.14. What doth it profit my Brethren, if a Man say he hath Faith, and hath not Works? 2. Because he compareth it with a vain Osten­tation of Charity, v. 15, 16, 17. If a Brother or Sister be naked and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, depart in peace, notwith­standing you give them not those things which are needful to the Body, what doth it profit? Even so Faith, if it have no Works, is dead being alone. 3. Because he compareth it with the Faith that [Page 85] Devils have, which being without Works is dead, v. 19. The Devils also believe, and tremble, v. 20. But wilt thou know, O vain Man, that Faith without Works is dead. 3. But that Faith accompanied with good works doth justifie both before God, and Men, he proveth by the Ex­ample of Abraham when he offered his Son, Gen. 22.12. who nevertheless was long before that time justified by Faith in the sight of God. Gen. 15.6. Therefore these words are not to be understood of his Justification to Eternal Life. Moreover, God saith to Abraham, Gen. 22.12. Now I know that thou fearest God. For by Faith, and good Works, both Internal, and External, we approve our selves, both to God, and Men. Then as for the following instance of Rahab, doubtless she is said to have been justi­fied by Works, in the same way and manner that Abraham was, to shew, that not only the Jews which sprung from Abraham, but the truly believing Gentiles also, were justified after the same manner that he was.

CI.

It is as true that the Reconciling of St. Paul, and St. James ought not to be attempted by making Faith, and good works one, and the same thing; as that it is possible to reconcile them otherwise: I say, it is most certain that we ought not to attempt the Reconciling of those two Apostles, by saying that we are justified both by Faith, and by good Works, or that Faith is the same with all Gospel Obedience, be­cause [Page 86] there is a very great strem, and torrent of Scripture running to the contrary, and ex­presly excluding good works from having any hand in our Justification. Read at large Rom. 3.20. Rom. 4.6. Eph. 2 8, 9. Titus 3.5. 2 Cor. 5.19. 2 Tim. 1.9. 2 Cor. 5.21. 1 Cor. 1.30. Jer. 23.6. Rom. 3.24, 25. Rom. 5.18, 19. Gal. 2.16. Rom. 4.5. Rom. 5.28.

CII.

No Man is, or can be justified either by works done before Regeneration, nor by works done by him after Regeneration, neither by the works of the Ceremonial Law, nor by the works of the Mo­ral Law, nor by Evangelical Obedience (as such) nor by Faith, or the [...] credere, as it is a work: I say, by none of all these, nor yet by all these together, can any Man be justified in the sight of God; no, not so much as Instrumentally, much less by these as the Material, or Formal Cause of his Justification, or as the matter of his Righteousness before God, &c. Because the Scripture excludes all sorts of works, considered as such, from our having any hand in the Justi­fication of a sinner, and puts that upon Faith alone, and upon that but as an Instrument, or hand whereby we receive that Righteousness of Christ which alone doth, and which only can ju­stifie us.

CIII.

That the works of the Ceremonial Law do not, or cannot concur to the justifying of a sin­ner, need not to be proved amongst Christians now adayes, sith that Law is well known to have been long since not only dead, but deadly. If ye now be circumcised Christ shall profit you no­thing. Whether tends the Epistle to the Gala­tians, but to encounter with those as would make a medley of Judaism, and Christianism, and urged a necessity of the Ceremonial Law upon the Gentile Converts? Against those he proves that neither Jews, nor Gentiles, are ju­stified by the Covenant made in Horeb, but by Faith in Christ, according to the Covenant made with Abraham 430 years before the Law, Gal. 3.8, 17. And therefore now to seek Righteous­ness by the works of the Law is to fall from the grace of Christ. Gattak. 74.

CIV.

Neither can Men be justified by works of what sort, or Law, soever done in an unregene­rate estate. The reason is plain, because such works cannot please God. They that are in the flesh cannot please God. Without faith it is impossi­ble to please God. Moreover, the Papists them­selves do grant that men are not justified by works done before, but only after their Regene­ration.

CV.

No man is or can be justified by the works of the Moral Law, or by works done in observance of the ten Commandments. For St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans deals with those who in­sisted more upon their obedience to the Moral Law, (though they did not exclude the obser­vance of the Ceremonial) and they would fain establish a righteousness upon their own works performed out of obedience to Gods Com­mands, Rom. 9.31, 32. & 10.3.

CVI.

That when Paul excludeth Works from any hand in our Justification, he intendeth as well those of the Moral, as the Ceremonial Law: I prove thus, yea that he argueth principally a­gainst works done in conformity to the Moral Law, that they have no power to justifie us. For 1. He treateth of the Law by which sinners shall be judged, which is the Moral Law, Rom. 2.12. 2 Of the Law that was written in the hearts of the Heathen, yea of all men, v. 14. and that the Ceremonial Law never was, but the Mo­ral. 3. Of that Law which forbad Adultery, and Sacriledge, and by the breaking of which, the Jews dishonored God▪ (who were strict in observing the Ceremonial Law) and was not that the Moral Law? v. 22, 23. 4. Of the Law by which is the knowledg of sin, Rom. 3.20. now do's not that Moral Law make the greatest discovery of sin? was it not by the Mo­ral [Page 89] Law that Paul knew Concupiscence to be sin, which otherwise he had not known? now the Apostle denies Justification to be by the works of that Law which discoverth sin. 5. He denies Ju­stification by the works of the Law, which he went about not to abolish, but to establish, Rom. 3.31. That must needs be the Moral Law, for the Cere­monial Law he labored to abolish, and to estab­lish only the Moral. 6. He treats of that Law which hath said, Thou shalt not Covet, Rom. 7.7. and is not that the purport of the tenth Com­mandment? 7. Of that Law which curseth eve­ry one that continueth not in all that is written there­in to do it, Gal. 3.10. and that was the Moral Law, witness Deut. 27.26. For there (whence these words Gal. 3. are quoted) Cursed be he that con­firmeth not all the words of this Law to do them, doth bring up the arrear of the Curses from Mount Ebal, beginning v. 15. Cursed be he that maketh any graven Image, &c. If the Law there­fore there mentioned be spoken of as a Covenant of Works to them that are under the Law, it must needs be meant of the Moral Law, for the Ce­remonial Law was never any part of the Covenant of Works made with Adam in Paradise; for it was not then extant, yea it was a kind of Typical Gospel. 8. Of that Law which is ful­filled in this, Thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thy self, Rom. 13.8, 9. By all these passages it ap­peareth, that it is the Moral Law of which St. Paul chiefly treateth, denying that it is possible for any man to be justified by the works thereof.

CVII.

Yea no man can be justified by Evangelical Works, or by sincere obedience to the Gospel. I do not well know how to distinguish betwixt o­bedience to the Moral Law, and obedience to the Gospel, sith the Moral Law, or ten Command­ments, are the Rule of a Gospel Conversation. And indeed the Moral Law was published from Mount Sinai, and written in Tables of Stone, some hundreds of yea s after the publication of the Gospel; and as it could not disanul the Gospel, so was it added as a clearer, and more legibly written Rule, to those that were under the Gospel, when the characters of the Innate Law were scarce to be read. Moreover, If the grace of God which bringeth Salvation (whereby is meant the Gospel) teacheth us to live Righteously, soberly and Godly in this world, do not the ten Commandments teach the same?

CVIII.

But whereas Faith and Repentance are com­monly called by the name of Gospel-duties (as Ʋnbelief, and Impenitency by the name of Sins a­gainst the Gospel) for this reason it may be, viz. because the Moral Law whilst it was in the na­ture, and quality of a meer Covenant of Works, as to Adam in Paradise, commanded no such thing as that which we call Faith, and Repent­ance, and by the New Covenant only these two great Duties are discovered, and imposed, I say admitting some distinction betwixt the Moral [Page 91] Law, and the Law of the Gospel, upon the ac­count aforesaid, no man is, or can be justified by obedience to the Gospel, or by Evangelical Works in that acceptation, that is, by his Repen­tance, nor yet by his Faith, or [...] credere, as it is a Work, but meerly as it is an Instrument whereby we receive Christ, and his Righte­ousness.

CIX.

We are not, nor cannot be justified by Evan­gelical Works, Evangelically performed, viz. from a principal of true Grace, and Spiritual life (and not meerly of nature, and free will) there­fore not by any works whatsoever, much less by those Evangelical works which are so only for the matter of them, as external Repentance, or sorrow for sin, that is short of Godly sorrow ne­ver more to be repented of, or Common Faith, short of the Faith of Gods Elect. Was not Abrahams Obedience in following God's call out of his Country in Circumcising himself, & his Family, and in offering his only Son Isaac, an evident fruit of his Faith? (as we are told, Heb. 11. By Faith Abraham did so, & so) therefore they must needs be Evangelical works, Evangelically per­formed, or good works, both for matter, and manner. And yet St. Paul teacheth (for all this) that Abraham was so justified by Faith, that his Obedience had no influence upon his Justifica­tion, Rom. 3.2. If Abraham were justified by works he hath whereof to glory, but not before God, which is an Elliptick speech amounting to thus much. But [Page 92] Abraham hath not whereof to glory before God, v. 3. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for Righ­teousness, &c. See also v. 4, & 5. See also Gal. 3.6, 7, 8, 9. If these Heroick Acts of Obedi­ence came not into account for absolving Abra­ham from the guilt of sin, but his Faith on him that justifieth the ungodly, was imputed to him for Righteousness, and indeed long before the Sa­crificing of his Son, then the works of Gospel Obedience ought not to he crowded with Faith into the means of our Justification. Gattak. 76. Who knows not that David was a R [...]generate Man, a Man after God's own heart, which ful­filled all his will, Acts 13.22? And yet David himself did not expect the blessedness of Justi­fication (or Salvation) upon account of his own works, or Gospel Obedience, Rom. 4.6. Even as David describeth the Blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth Righteousness without works. v. 7. Saying, Blessed are they whose Iniqui­ties are forgiven, &c. Plainly intimating that God is reconciled to the World of true Believ­ers, not imputing their transgressions to them, because he imputes unto them the Righteous­ness of Christ, which needs not our works to as­sist it, but requires our Faith to receive it.

Read further what David saith, Psal. 143.2. and what St. Paul saith, 1 Cor. 4.4.

CX.

That sincere Obedience to the Gospel, and Good works; the Companions and effects of Faith, are not intended by the word Faith, and involved therein, when we are said to be justi­fied by Faith, as an Instrument (or Instrumen­tally) is evident, because then the Apostle's conclusion would run thus, Rom. 3.27, 28. Boasting is excluded not by the Law of Works, but by the Law of Faith. Whereby we mean Obe­dience, and good Works. Therefore we conclude that a Man is justified by Faith, that is, by Obe­dience, and Good Works, without the works of the Law. Can we imagine that the Apostle who ex­cludes not only obedience to the Moral Law (of which he speaks principally, as hath been pro­ved at large) but also the Obedience of Abra­ham (which was an Evangelical self-denial) from the power, or ground of Justification, and opposes the way of Faith to the way of Works in order to Justification, did mean by Faith, good Works, and intended that we should expound Faith by Obedience? Who sees not a violence offered to the Apostle's words, when they are thus distorted from their genuine signification to a Figurative sense? And who sees not that such a way of Arguing appears to be very absurd and self-contradicting?

CXI.

To say that Works are excluded from Justi­fication not as Works, or pieces of Gospel O­bedience, but as supposed by some to be merito­rious, is a poor evasion that has no truth in it. Because Faith is affirm'd to be a cause of Justi­fication, or to concur to Justification, in that sense that Works are denied so to do; but Faith is not affirmed to be the meritorious cause of Ju­stification. Therefore Works are not in that sense denied to be the cause of Justification, when they are opposed to Faith. Works are plainly de­nyed to be the cause of Justification in that sense that Faith is asserted so to be. Rom. 3.28. There­fore we conclude a man is justified by Faith with­out the deeds of the Law. But a man is not there said, or intended, to be justified by Faith as a meritorious cause. Therefore works are not there excluded from Justification, as pretended to be meritorious causes thereof.

CXII.

To be justified by Works, and by Merits, seem in the Apostle's sense to be one, and the same thing. Therefore if we are not justified by me­rits, neither are we justified by works. The Apo­stle seems plainly to assert that if our Justificati­on were by works, we might plead merit, that it would not be of grace but of debt, Rom. 4.4. To him that worketh is the reward reckoned not of grace, but of debt. Therefore they that deny Justification by merit, ought to deny Justifica­tion by works also. For one, according to St. [Page 95] Paul, would necessarily follow upon the other.

CXIII.

To say that good works, if they were own­ed as one cause of Justification, could not pre­tend to any thing of merit, or meritoriousness, because they cannot be performed but by grace, and strength received from God, who must work all our works in us, and for us, is to say nothing to the purpose. For if that were true, Adam could not have merited at God's hand had he stood in the state of Innocency, because it was God made man righteous, even the first Man, and who in­dued him with that habitual Grace, and assisted him with that Divine concourse, which was suf­ficient to have continued him in that holy, and happy estate in which he was created, and to have advanced him to a better (as is generally held.) But do not the generality of our Divines grant that Adam by well using, or improving that stock of Grace which he had received from God, might have merited at God's hands, if not in the strictest sense, yet in a sense suffici­ently safe, proper, and allowable?

CXIV.

If God would have rewarded▪ Adam not of Grace, but of Debt, in case he had persisted in his innocency, then Adam, according to St. Paul, might have been said to have merited his reward, in as much as he should have had it upon the ac­count not of believing, but of working, Rom. 4.4. For said he, To him that worketh is the reward not [Page 96] reckoned of grace but of debt. Now to be reward­ed as of debt, and not of grace, is to be reward­ed upon the account of Merit; or of what God is pleased to own for such.

CXV.

When the Apostle excludeth Works from Ju­stifying us, so as Faith doth, or being the In­strument, or Condition of our Justification, he would no where be understood thereby to in­tend such works as are perfect and faultless. For 1. He should then exclude those works which are no where to be found, and therefore need not to be excluded: which seems to have been as needless, as a Question which some are said to have put, who disputed upon this problem, whether it were lawful for us to work Miracles? or whether they might lawfully work Miracles? who might have forborn to have queri'd about the lawfulness of using such a power, till they had first had such a power to use. And 2. If it be said that such works are to be found in the conceit and imagination of some men, I answer, it do's not appear that St. Paul was contending with that sort of men, or doth in all his Epistle to the Romans take notice of men of that opinion in his time. 3. Whereas there were in his time, many pretenders to Justification by Works, it seemeth most probable, that they were such who doubted not but God would take their good works as he found them, and for them gra­ciously accept, and justifie them, as being the best works they were able to do, though they [Page 97] knew they were attended with some sailings, and imperfections. Tho some have found it too easie to them to think that God will justifie them for their sincere, though imperfect obedience; yet it seems a very hard matter for any considerate man (or person worth confuting) to think that nothing of weakness, and imperfection doth cleave to his good works. St. Paul saith of the Gentiles, Rom. 1. that their Consciences did ac­cuse them (for some things) as well as excuse them in others. 5. When the Apostle saith what the Law cannot do in that it is weak through the flesh, &c. though he glanceth at the imper­fection of our works, yet he seems to bring it in as a thing that was known, or needed not to be proved, that our flesh was weak, that is, we in this corrupt state could not do works that are perfectly good, and to give that which he took pro concesso, as the reason why the Law could not justifie us, viz. because we cannot keep it perfectly, and it can justifie none but them that can. 6. The Apostle in that text seems to take two things for granted, or such as would easily be owned, viz. 1. That the Law (or Covenant of works) could not justifie one that could not keep it perfectly. 2. That man in his fleshly, or fallen state, or since his fall, could not do that. And by those two confessed Mediums, or Propo­sitions, he proves this conclusion, viz. That the Law could not justifie fallen man. 7. But nei­ther from this text, or any other, doth it appear that St. Paul was troubled with a sort of men who dream'd of their own works, being every [Page 98] way perfect, and did make it his business to op­pose them, but only such who dream'd of being saved by their own good works, which they thought God would mercifully accept, and ju­stifie them for, though they might need grains, or more than grains of allowance.

CXVIII.

Neither are we justified by Faith it self, singly, and solely considured, or by the act of believ­ing (or [...] credere) as it is a good work, grace, or quality, but meerly as it is that Instrument, whereby we receive Christs Righteousness, by which we are justified, or whereby we are united to Christ, and so become partakers of all his benefits. This is evident, 1. Because the Apostle opposeth Working, and Believing, each to other, or rather, Believing to Working, in the matter of Justification, Rom. 4.5. But to him that workeih not, but believeth on him that ju­stifieth the ungodly, his Faith is counted for Righte­ousness. In this case we may say, Fides quae opus est justificat, non qua opus est. That Faith which is a good work justifieth, but not as it is a good work, (as they say, quae viva, not qua viva.) It is by Christ and his Righteousness alone, as ours Imputatively, that we are justified, as by the matter, and form of our Righteousness, and therefore Faith is but the Instrument of Applicati­on, as laying on is to a Plaister. 'Tis the Plaister that cureth, the laying on is but the applying of it, or the bringing of the sore and the remedy together. If the Question be put, Who shall be [Page 99] Justified? I answer, Believers. But if it be put thus, Why is a Beliver Justified? or whence re­sults the Justification of a Believer? or by what is he justified? I answer, By the Righteousness of Christ applyed to him by Faith, Act. 13. By him (speaking of Christ) all that believe are ju­stified. And Isa. 53.11. By the knowledg of him shall my righteous Servant (that is Christ) justi­fie many. It is Christ that shall justifie (and by the Faith or knowledg of himself as only the instrumental cause) because of the words fol­lowing, for he shall bear their Iniquities. It is by bearing their iniquities, i. e. by suffering, and sa­tisfying for their iniquities, (for so Christ is said to have borne our sins in his body upon the the Cross when he died for them) that Christ shall justifie them who have knowledg of him, or who be­lieve in him. So then it is not their Believing, ac­cepted in the place of a perfect Righteousness, for, and by which Christ Justifieth them, but by bearing their iniquities, by his own obedience to the death of the Cross, on their behalf. It is not a poor mans acceptance of a great rich Match that doth enrich him, I say, the act of accepting, is not the the thing that doth it, or is the matter of his Estate, but the rich Match which is offered to him, and accepted by him.

There are Miracles in Scripture ascribed to Faith, to which Faith could no otherwise con­cur, than as an Instrument engaging the power of God to work such Miracles, or as a Condition to which the working of Miracles was promised, Mat. 16.17. These signs shall follow tham that [Page 100] believe in my name, they shall cast out Devils speak with new tongues. v. 18. They shall take up Ser­pents, and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt then. They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. We read Heb. 11.33. of those who through Faith stopped the mouths of Lions, quenched th [...] violence of Fire. v. 35. Received their Dead raised to life again, &. Faith it self could not do these things, unless it were omnipotent; therefore it could be but the Instrument, or Con­dition, by, or upon which the power of God was ingaged to do them, which may serve to illustrate what we have in hand. Look how Faith concurr'd to the curing of that Cripple spoken of, Acts 3.16. His name, through Faith in his name, hath made this man strong. In like manner doth it concur to the justifying of a sin­ner, viz. as a meer applying Instrument, or Condition; by means of which, and with re­spect to which, the Righteousness of Christ be­comes imputed to us, for our Justification. It was the Name, or Power of Christ, which cured that Cripplle; so 'tis Christ, and hi [...] Righ­teousness which justifieth a sinner, but then it is through Faith, as the Instrument receiving, and applying the same.

CXVII.

Faith is a Grace by it self, distinct from fear of God, Love, self denyal, &c. and as such, it acteth when it is instrumental in Justification, or doth concur thereto, either as an Instrument, or a Condition (call it either). When the Apostle [Page 101] defineth Faith, Acb. 11. 1. saying, Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen, he gives that description of that one grace, and not of all the rest. Faith and Charity are not the same grace; for the Apostle saith, now abideth Faith, Hope, and Charity, these three, but the greatest of these is Charity. If they be not distinct, how are they called three? or how could Charity be said to be the greatest, if Faith, Hope, and Charity be all one? Is the same thing greater than it self at the same time? Morever, Faith shall hereafter be done away, that is swal­lowed up in Vision, but Charity never faileth, as the Apostle speaketh, v. 8. Now that which fail­eth, and that which shall never fail, cannot be the same. Moreover, Faith is said to work by love, which implies, that they are two distinct things. Also, Faith is said to be made perfect by love, i. e. demonstrated to be perfect, which sheweth it is not the same thing. I might add Faith, and Re­pentance are not the same, witness that expressi­on, Repentance toward God, and Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Faith is causal to several other Gra­ces. They differ as causes, and effects, therefore they cannot be the same thing, ex gr. Faith is the cause of Christian Patience. He that believes maketh aot haste, 2 Cor. 4.16. For which cause we faint not, there was their Patience. Now that Faith was the cause of it may be proved by v. 18. While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. Now to be the evidence of things not seen, or to look at and to reallize unseen things, is the nature, and work [Page 102] of Faith. Faith is spoken of but as one fruit of the Spirit amongst many, Gal. 5.22. where St. Paul enumerates Love, Long suffering, Gentleness, Goodness, Meekness, Temperance, &c. were these one, and the same, surely they would not be presented to us under so many several names, and denominations, &c. Faith is not the name of a Christians whole Panoply, or spiritual Armor, but of one piece thereof. That indeed is called the Shield, Eph. 6.16. but Truth the Girdle. Righteousness the Brestplate, and the Helmet, the hope of Salvation. In 2 Thes. 1.4, are these words, We glory for your Patience and Faith. and v. 3. Your Faith groweth, and your Charity abound­eth. and in 1 Tim. 1.5. The end of the Command is Love, ovt of a pure heart and Faith, where Faith and Love are spoken of as two things, Faith as the cause, and Love as the effect, Love out of Eaith, &c. For fear of tiring you, I shall quote but one text more, to this purpose, 1 Tim. 1.11. Follow after Righteousness, Godliness, Faith, Love, Pacience, Meekness. Would the Apostle have given so many names to one and the same thing? or do's it not enough appear by their being so constantly spoken of in Scripture as di­stinct, that they are not the same? That Justify­ing Faith involves all other Graces, and is the name of all Graces in one, cannot at all be prov'd by the Apostle James his discourse of Justificati­on by works: For St. James doth not mention any prrticular Grace, but Works in general, as externally, and visibly practised. Had he said Abraham was justified not only by Faith, but also [Page 103] by Love, self denial, Obedience, &c. there had been some colour for such an Assertion. But now there is none.

CXVIII.

Seeing Faith is almost every where else in Scripture taken for a Grace by it's self, distinct from the rest, and other Graces spoken of as distinct one from another, it can at no hand be proved, that where Faith is mentioned with reference to Justification, or we said to be Justified by, or through Faith, by Faith is meant all sorts of Grace, or the whole Chain of Gra­ces, whereas indeed Faith is but one link of that Chain.

CXIX.

If Faith it's being the only Instrumental cause, or the only condition of Justification can­not be evaded, by saying that by Faith is meant the Gospel, or by Faith is meant Faith, and good works together; or by Faith is meant not one single Grace, but all comprized under that Name: Nor yet by saying that when works are excluded from Justification, we must alwayes understand it of works either as meritorious, or as Perfect, or as works before Regeneration, or as works of the Ceremonial Law only, or as works of the Law, not of the Gospel, or as works in­sincere, and only materially, and extrinsically good: I say, If works, as works be excluded from Justification, and none of the other eva­sions will hold water (as hath been shewed) [Page 104] then we are not justified by our real, inward holi­ness, or sincere Obedience to the Gospel, but by Faith alone, as the only Instrument whereby we receive, and apply to our selves the Righte­ousness of our Saviour, &c. And if our Obe­dience to the Gospel, though sincere, cannot be proved to be so much as the Instrument, or Con­dition of our Justification, much less the mat­ter of our Righteousness before God, or that which in God's Court of Chancery (as they call it) is accepted instead of a perfect Righteousness for our Justification, &c.

CXX.

As for the Popish Distinction of a first and se­cond Justification; to the latter of which they say good works doth concurr. I think there is nothing in it that will satisfie any good Prote­stant, or any rational man of an unprejudiced mind. For by our first Justification they do un­derstand our being made Holy, and Godly of unholy, and ungodly. Now, that Protestants do call not Justification, but Sanctification. By our second Justification, they understand our be­ing made of Holy, more Holy, and of Godly, more Godly. This Protestants deny to be tru­ly called Justification, and do call it our growth in Grace, or progress in Sanctification, and doubtless so it is. But for a Persons being really justified more than once, we have no ground or foot steps in Scripture. Therefore though it be a Truth that a Believer by abounding in good works, doth increase in Grace, and Holiness [Page 105] (for repeated Acts do strengthen their re­spective Habits) yet that by doing good works, they do acquire a second Justification, is a most ungrounded notion, and must suppose that ei­ther the first justification may be lost, and a se­cond obtained, and if so, why may there not be twenty justifications as well as two? or else that a Believer is not virtually justified from all his sins at once (which our Divines do general­ly affirm that he is) Now, if there be no se­cond justification, the concurrence of good works thereunto, is a notion that falls to the ground. For, non entis nulla est affectio.

CXXI.

The denying of Justification to be by our own inherent Righteousness, accepted as if it were perfect, or instead of the perfect Righteousness of the Law, and asserting of Justification to be by the only Righteousness of Jesus Christ ap­prehended by Faith alone, doth greatly tend to keep Sinners humble, and to exclude all boast­ing (which God aimeth to do) when they shall consider that that whereby they are justifi­ed is not in themselves, this being certain that we are more apt to be proud of what is suppo­sed to be in us, than of what is imputed to us. As a Debtor hath less to boast of when the pay­ment of his Surety is imputed to him for his dis­charge, than if by his industry he had procured something to pay for himself, although the stock had been freely bestowed on him by the Surety. 'Tis evident by the Apostles words, that that can [Page 106] be no true notion of the way of God's justifying a sinner which doth leave any room, or place, or pretence for boasting, Rom. 4.2. If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to boast (or glory) q. d. That is Argument enough to prove that Abraham was not Justified by works. He adds as a minor proposition or assumption, But not before God, meaning, But he had no cause to glory, or to boast before God. Ergo. He was not justified by works.

CXXII.

Our Graces and good works, though from henceforth they should be perfect, and intire, lacking nothing, would not be able to satisfie God for our Original sin, and our Actual sins that are past, and to discharge us from the guilt of them, for we cannot pay one debt with ano­ther, and our best Obedience is a daily debt; much less then can imperfect Obedience to the Gospel, though sincere, justifie us, or be the matter of our Righteousness before God.

CXXIII.

Our Justification is as free to us (though 'twere not so to Christ) as any Pardon ever was to a Traytor. Now, unto a Pardon freely given there is nothing required but the hearty acceptance of it upon the terms of promising to be a Faithful Subject for time to come, or so. Now, though such a Pardon cost a man nothing, and is abundantly sufficient for his discharge, yet must he come and plead this Pardon in open [Page 107] Court, he must produce it, and insist upon it, before his Judge, in arrest of Judgment, that the Sentence denounced against him may not be Executed. A Traytor that is so acquitted, cannot be said to be acquitted by his willing­ness to accept of a pardon, or to produce it in Court when obtained (for what Malefactor is not willing to do these two things?) But by the Pardon it's self it is that a Traytor is dis­charged, though he cannot have the benefit of his Pardon, if it be only tendered, unless it be also accepted, and pleaded by him. Now, to accept, and plead his Pardon, when nothing else but that is required of him, renders it no less free, than if he mjght have had it without accepting, or at leastwise, without pleading of it. But were he for his Pardon, and in order to the procurement thereof, to be a Servant all the dayes of his Life, that would alter the case, and make his pardon unfree.

Believing, or Faith is the Acceptance of our Pardon upon God's terms, but justification by works, resembleth the last instance, viz. of one who must work hard all the dayes of his Life, to pay his Debt, or else be cast into Prison, &c.

CXXIV.

In saying that Faith is the Instrumental cause, or Condition of Justification, we ascribe much more to it than if we had called it only causa sine qua non. For causa sine qua non do's nihil ponere in esse, it produceth nothing; no effect doth [Page 108] necessarily follow upon it. The poorest begger hath that in him without which no man can be a Prince, viz. Humane Nature. For to be a man is a causa sine qua non, of being a Prince, yet how far from being a Prince is a poor Beg­ger? Every Virgin that Liv'd in that time when Christ was look'd for, had a causa sine qua non, of being the Mother of Christ. For none but a Female, and a Virgin, could be that, yet re­spective to the decree of God none but the Virgin Mary could be that.

But a Condition is such a thing, as when it is performed, produceth a real effect, viz. inti­tleth to the performance of the promise, which was suspended upon it. Also an Instrumental Cause, which is such in Fact, or in facto esse, produceth the effect. For no man can be said to be the Instrument of doing such a thing untill the thing be done. A cause in facto esse suppo­seth it's effect to be so. For nothing is actually a cause that doth not actually effect something, &c. Faith is so an Instrument, and so a Condi­tion of Justification that whensoever a sinner be­lieveth he is thereupon justified immediately in the same Instant.

CXXV.

There is no danger in owning Holiness, and good works to be causae sine quibus non of Justi­fication, because a causa sine qua non is as remore a thing as can be thought of, and do's not at all intitle what in that sense is called a Cause to the effect. For the Law of God is a causa sine qua [Page 109] non of sin. For had there been no Law, there had been no transgression. Yea, God himself who can as soon cease to be God, as be the Author of sin, yet may be said to be a causa sine qua non of sin in e-ference to his making of men, and Angels. For had God Created no intelligent Creatures, there could have been no sin; for such Crea­tures only are capable of sinning. But shall we therefore make God the Author of sin? God forbid.

Privation is a causa sine qua non of Generation, yet Philosophers deny it to be a cause truly so called.

One calls causa sine qua non, causam stolidam, and well he may, for there is little reason to be given why it should be called a cause, sith the Definition of a cause doth not agree to it, Cau­sa est cujus vires est. A cause is that by virtue, or means whereof, some other thing is, or is produced. But nothing is produced by virtue of a causa sine qua non. There may be a hun­dred causae sine quibus non, that a man may have of his being a Lord Mayor of London, if he had not been ens, or had a being, he could not have been that, without he had a vegetative soul, or without he had had a sensitive soul, and a rational soul, and a Body that had not been mon­strous, the right shape of a man, without he had Lived in Europe, yea, Lived in England, yea, Lived in London, yea, had been a Free Man of Lon­don, yea, been possest of a visible good Estate, &c. (and twenty things more) he could ne­ver have been Lord Mayor of London. And yet [Page 110] will any man say that any of these things were the causes of his being Lord Mayor?

CXXVI.

Yet owning Holiness, and every grace to be (as they are) causes without which there is no Ju­stification, though it doth not advance other Graces to a parity with Faith, or to an equal in­fluence upon the Justification of a sinner, to that which Faith hath yet is an effectual bar (if right- by considered) against presuming to live un­righteously, and unholily, upon the account of our being justified by a righteousness without us. For what is any man the better, or what more encouragement hath he to sin, though it be so that we are not justified by every sort of Grace, but by Faith alone (as the only Instrument where by we apprehend the righteousness of Christ, and the only condition to which the Promise of Justification is made) sith they that say so, do acknowledge that Repentance, Love, Self-denyal, and all other Graces, must concur in the person Justified, though not to his Justification; or that we cannot be justified without the presence of those, though by these we are not justified, but by Faith alone: yea that the person justified cannot be saved without doing of good works, if he hath space of time for them (which the Thief on the Cross had not) no more than a Sum of Money that is due, can be received without giving an Acquittance for it, when it is demanded, and insisted on.

CXXVII.

They give the truest, and best account of the Doctrine of Justification, who so state it as nei­ther to deprive God of the glory of his free Grace, not to deter man from his duty, in point of sincere obedience; so as Justification may not be confounded with Sanctification (as by the Pa­pists it is, as if it were the same thing) as con­sisting in righteousness not imputed, but infused, nor yet Sanctificaiion be excluded, and render­ed needless by the Doctrine of Justification as it is stated, but Imputed Righteousness so confined to the use for which it is designed of God, that Righteousness inherent, or implanted may be own­ed as indispensably necessary, though not for the same with Imputed, yet for other great ends and uses, &c. By taking care of the latter, we shall arm our selves against Antinomians, and Liber­tines; of the former, against Papists, and Soci­nians, &c. The account we have given of Justi­fication by Faith alone, hath to the best of our knowledg, been so stated, and hath therefore a great character of Truth upon it.

CXXVIII.

The asserting of new Terms, Phrases, and Modes of speaking, in so great a Doctrine as that of Justification, though nothing but some more accuracy in stating the old Doctrine con­cerning it were intended, has been, and is, of dangerous consequence, especially when the old terms, and expressions, whereby it hath [Page 112] been competently understood formerly, are cri'd down, and exploded. I say it is of dangerous consequence, because men are thereby led to to think, that all that which they have heard concerning Justification formerly, was false, though the Inventors of these new expressions, they themselves do not think so, or whatsoever they think, by their new Phrases, they lead the people into Fundamental Errors, being deceiv­ed themselves, and deceiving others, I say de­ceiving, and being deceived.

CXXIX.

Mr. Durham, on the Revelation, hath a worthy passage to this purpose, p. 236. We are perswad­ed (saith he) that the reflecting on many worthy men, the obscuring of the troden path by new Que­stions, and Objections, the confounding of Rea­ders by proposing, as it were, of a different strain of the Covenant from what formerly hath been Preach­ed, the giving an open door to men to propose new draughts in all things, and that not in expressions only, but also in Fundamental things, shall be more prejudicial to edificatiom, than the bringing forth of this shall be useful: For if by this all the former Doctrines of Justification be enervated, where were we all till now? If it stand so that the followers there­of may attain Heaven, what is the use of this so full a new model, with so much professed danger in, and dissatisfaction with the former? Will it not be welcom to Papists (saith he) to have Prote­stants speaking in their terms, and homologating them in condemning the former language of the most eminent Reformers?

CXXX.

The opening of Faiths peculiar concurring for the Application of Christ his Righteousness in the Covenant of Grace, is a business of great use and concernment, &c. into which we may receive some light by considering how, and in what sense, Faith is and may be said to be a Condition of the Covenant of Grace, or of Justifi­cation.

CXXXI.

Covenants are either such as meer entering in­to them doth entitle to the benefits comprehend­ed in them, as in the Marriage-Covenant, en­try thereinto intitleth the Wife to the Husband, and all that is his: Sometimes again the Relati­on must not only be entered, but also the terms thereof actually performed, before there be a right to the thing promised. Thus if Jacob Co­venant with Laban to serve him seven years, that he may Marry his daughter, at the expira­tion thereof, he enters into the Relation of a Ser­vant presently, but his reward becomes not due till the end of his service: Or if a Master Cove­nants to make his Servant free at the end of eight years, in case he shall do him good and faithful service, though he be now his Cove­nant Servant, yet his Fredom, the reward of his Service, will not become due to him till he hath actually serv'd his Master, so many years, &c.

CXXXII.

As there are two sorts of Covenants (as hath been said) so there are two sorts of Condi­tions of a Covenant, or Covenants: For 1. The words Condition of a Covenant, are some­times taken more largely; for all the duties that are required of one in that Relation: And so a Wives dutifulness to her Husband after Marri­age, may be called Conditions of the Marriage Covenant. Sometimes a Condition is taken more strictly, and Formally; that is, for such a thing as makes up the Relation, and entitles one to, and enstates him in the Priviledges Covenanted. So Formal consenting in Marriage is the Condi­tion. And a Sons actual accepting of the assured Adoption, and engaging himself to be dutiful, do enstate him in the priviledge of a Son, al­though he hath not actually perform'd all that he is engaged to. And in this respect the actual performing of such duties, is rather the duty of one in such a Relation, than the Condition re­quired to the up-making of it.

CXXXIII.

There is difference betwixt the Priviledges, of a Covenant which flow from it; as such, and to all in such a Relation, (Thus all Wives, as such, have interest in their Husbands) and those Priviledges of a Covenant, which are but con­ditionally promised even to them that are with­in those Relations. So what a Husband promis­eth to give his Wife upon condition of her be­ing [Page 115] a Faithful Wife, depends not upon her Re­lation as a Wife, but upon the continuing faith­ful. An Adopted Son cannot plead actual pos­session of the Inheritance, though he be a Son, till that time come that was appointed by the Father, or till he perform something call'd for in the right of Adoption, (which is insinuated,) Gal. 4.1, 2.

CXXXIV.

What hath been said may help to shew us in what sense Works may be called the Condition of the Covenant of Grace, and in what sense Faith only. If we take Condition largely, and materially for whatsoerer is required of one in Covenant; so Works may be called the Condi­tion of the Covenant. Even as a Wife or Son, their performing Conjugal, or Filial Duties to a Husband, or Father, may he called Condi­tions of Marriage, and Adoption: Yet if we consider the Condition of the Covenant of grace strictly and formally, for that which doth actual­ly interess one in, or entitle him to Christ's Righteousness, and maketh him a son, that is Faith properly taken as it doth unite with Christ Joh. 1.12. because it is impossible to conceive one to believe in Christ but he must be conceiv­ed to have title to him, as a Wife to her Hus­band, or a Son to his Father. And so he cannot be conceived to be a true Believer but he must be justified; because to have interest in Christ, and his Righteousness, cannot be separated from Justification.

CXXXV.

The Covenant of Grace is not like the Cove­nant betwixt a Husbandman and his Labourer, for his hire, which presupposeth working, and so the performance of it must go before the Ser­vant, or Labourer can plead any thing upon the Agreement: But it is like a Marriage Covenant, or free Adoption, which doth indeed infer duties to follow in the respect aforesaid, and doth im­ply an ingagement to perform them, but doth not presuppose the actual performance thereof before any right can be pleaded by such Relati­ons, but only consenting and ingaging to the same. The Covenant of Works is in Scripture compared to that Covenant which is betwixt a Master and his hired Labourer; hence the re­ward is called Debt, or Hire; because the per­forming of the Conditions, of Holiness, and O­bedience was necessarily presupposed unto ha­ving right to the great priviledges of that Cove­nant. For though Adam was in covenant with God at first, yet could he not claim life by ver­tue thereof, till he had continued in obedience to the commands, and actually performed the same, as Servants must do before they can plead for their hire. Again, The Covenant of Grace is compared to Free Adoption, and to Marriage be­twixt Man, and Wife, not because the Cove­nant of Grace requires not Holiness, or Works, but because it doth not require them actually to precede a persons title to all the priviledges Co­venanted, and doth freely entitle him to the [Page 117] same upon his entery therein, as a Wife is enti­tled to what is her Husbands upon her Marriage with him, although afterwards she be to per­form the Duties of the Relation, rather as du­ties called for by it, than as Conditions of it, &c.

CXXXVI.

The difference betwixt the Covenant of Works, and Covenant of Grace lieth not in this, that the one requireth Works perfectly holy, as the Con­dition thereof, and the other Evangelical works, not perf [...]ctly holy: because so there were not the same Law for ordering holiness to us which they had, nor the same absolute pattern of Holiness for our Copy, viz. God's Holiness calling us to be holy as he is holy; nor were defects in reference to our perfect Holiness, sinful under the Cove­nant of Grace, if perfection were not required therein; all which are false, beside that so it were still of works. But the difference lieth in this, that our working is not to be the ground of our inheritance, nor actually to precede our Righteousness, (as in the Covenant of works was necessary) but believing, and consenting only.

CXXXVII.

The difference betwixt the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace, may be conceived thus: Suppose a Debter Sued for his own Debt should either plead no Debt, or that he had paid it, or would pay it; this is the Covenant of Works. Again, the Covenant of Grace, is as a [Page 118] Debtor, acknowledging Debts, but being un­able to pay, pleadeth only the Surety's pay­ment, and expecteth to be absolved on that ac­count; and not as if by a Surety's intervening he had had all the Debt forgiven him, to so much, or had a new bargain given him, for a penny yearly, or a Pepper-corn in the place of a thousand Talents; and in a word, so much down, and that for Gold, Oare of Gold should be accepted. For if so, It would be the same kind of Condition, and so the same Covenant in kind. For, Majus & minus non variant spe­ciem.

CXXXVIII.

Whereas the Gospel requireth perfect Obedi­ence (as hath been proved) as truly as the Co­venant of Works did, were that perfect Obedience, the Condition of it, without which the benefits thereof cannot be enjoyed, there would be no difference at all betwixt the Covenant of Grace, and the Covenant of Works, forasmuch as both did require works, yea and perfect works as the con­dition thereof.

CXXXIX.

It may be farther evidenced, that not sincere, though imperfect Obedience, is the Condition of the Covenant of Grace, and of our Justification, but Faith, because when the Apostle opposeth the Righteousness of Law and Gospel, he op­poseth [...]t as it were 1000 Talents to a penny, [...] of works to another; but the Righ­teousness [Page 119] of Christ, or to be found in him to all kind of Works whatsoever, Phil. 3.9. 2 Cor. 5.21. Gal. 3.12. And to have the Righteousness of Faith, and the Righteousness of Christ, and the Righteousness by Faith, are ever one and the same things, and are still opposed to Works.

CXL.

Moreover, the Sinners charge is not this, that he wants his penny, or pepper-corn, but that he hath broken the Law, his Righteousness therefore must be such as doth meet that charge, Rom. 8.34. And so it must be such a Righte­ousness as may be equivalent, at least to his own fulfilling the Law, or his having satisfied the penalty thereof.

CXLI.

When we say Faith is the Condition of the New Covenant, and of our Justification (which is one great priviledge thereof) we mean, that our having right to God's promises supplyeth that room which Conditions do in men's mutual bargains; wherein when one promiseth some­thing on such a Condition, the performance of that Condition doth turn the conditional pro­mise into an absolute right to him that hath per­formed it. And so Faith is the Condition upon which the Title to that great promise, viz. God's being our God doth depend. Faith hath obtain­ed that Name in respect of the place which God hath put it into in his Covenant, and so it flows from his extrinsick Ordination, Durham, 240.

CXLII.

But when Faith is called the Instrumental cause of our Justification the intrinsick manner of it's Acting is respected. For though it be from the Spirit, with other Graces, and they be not separated, yet hath it a peculiar aptitude to look to Christ, receive him, apprehend, and eat him, take hold, and rest on him, &c. That is, expect Salvation from him, for so the Jews were said to rest in the Law who expected Ju­stification by it, Rom. 2.

CXLIII.

It is a Truth greatly to be observed, that for attaining of Justification by Christ's Righteous­ness, Faith doth peculiarly concur in the ap­prehending thereof, and working thereon, other­wise than other Graces can be said to do, Dur­ham 240.

CXLIV.

The fore-going Proposition will not seem strange if we consider, That to be Justified by Christ, and by Faith, or by the Righteousness of Christ, and by the Righteousness of Faith, are still one in Scripture, even then where that concurrence which is allowed to Faith is deny'd to all other things, which sheweth, that Faith concurreth peculiarly, and that it justifieth by obtaining Justification through Christ. 2. As Faith of Miracles did concur for the obtaining of a particular benefit, so doth saving Faith for [Page 121] attaining of Justification. But Faith of Mira­cles did concur Instrumentally for health; for 'tis said, some had Faith to be healed. i. e. to receive virtue from Christ to heal them, which others had not. And accordingly the effects are attributed both to their Faith, and to Christ's power. Therefore it may be so here, viz. Ju­stification may flow from Faith, as the Instru­mental Cause, and from Christ's Righteousness as the Meritorious.

CXLV.

Works are not the Instrument, or Condition of our Justification, whether works before Conversion, for they were not acceptable, nor works after Conversion, for they are after Ju­stification; and so can be no cause thereof.

CXLVI.

If any shall object and say, that neither Faith before we are Sanctified can Justifie us Instru­mentally, nor Faith after we are Sanctified (for the reasons alleaged against Works) I answer, It is neither Faith before, nor after our being Sanctified, or Converted, that is the Instru­ment of our Justification, but that Faith which enters into us into a justified estate, and it can­not be conceived either before, or after, being an instantaneous Act, as solemn consenting in Marriage is not before, nor after, as it consti­tuteth Marriage, but instantly.

CXLVII.

Some to make way for Works being a Con­dition of Justification as well as Faith, do say that Justification is not an instantaneous, but a continued Act: but in the sense they do affirm it is false. For it cannot be said that Believ­ers do continue in being admitted into a justified Estate, or that by a continued Act the Lord is still admitting them, as it inferreth non-admissi­on, or an imperfect admission, which is the sense in which they affirm it: but all that can truly be said is, that God continueth to Justifie, or that the Act of their admission into that Estate is a continuing Act. As a Man is married but once, to one Woman, but though his con­sent to Marry be given at once, and the same instant they are Man and Wife; yet that an Instantareous Act of his in declaring his consent to Marry, abideth for ever, as long as they two shall Live.

CXLVIII.

That Justification is no continued Act, I prove thus. 1. A Sinner upon his Believing is instantly justified and freed from the curse, and instated into Friendship with God, Ergo. Justi­fication is no continued Act. 2. Our being ad­mitted into the Covenant of Grace as to a right to the saving Blessings promised therein is no continued, but an instantaneous Act. Ergo. Ju­stification is so. For they who are so in Cove­nant are Justified, &c. 3. A Believer is not [Page 123] partly under the Curse, and partly under Grace; partly saved, and partly damn'd; partly ab­solv'd, and partly condemn'd; therefore being certainly under Grace, and absolution in part, (for else he could not be said to be justified at all) he must be altogether so. 4. A Believer, for that he is such, or as, and as soon as he is such, hath a Righteousness that can abide the Trial in Justice. Therefore Justification can­not be a continued Act. For if the Justifi­cation of a Sinner were but a perfecting, it could not be said that he had an Actual, perfect Righteousness (as that of Christ imputed to him is) but only that it were a perfecting.

CXLIX.

To say that Works are a Condition of the Covenant, or of Justification, were to confound the Covenant of Grace, and the Covenant of Works. Now, the Apostle doth directly oppose these. The Righteousness of the Law saith on this wise, The man that doth these things shall live in them. And the Righteousness of Faith is holden forth as opposite to that, and so cannot be said to consist in doing of works, Rom. 10.5, 6. Gal. 3.12. The Covenant of works is so called, in respect of the formality of the Condition thereof, viz. Doing, that is, the Righteous­ness which we our selves do, Titus 3.5. Not by works of Righteousness which we have done, &c.

CL.

Faith is opposed to works as the Condition of the Covenant, or of Justification not as consi­dered in it's self, but with Respect to it's object Christ. Works inherent in us, and performed by us are call'd for in the Covenant of works, as the Righteousness thereof, and as the only ground upon which we can expect to be justi­fied by it. Again, by the Covenant of Grace Christ's Righteousness without us received by Faith is only admitted as a Right and ground of Justification. 'Tis evident that Faith is so to be understood, Rom. 10.5, 6. Gal. 3.10, 11, 12. For the Righteousness spoken of, Rom. 10.3, 4. (which is the Righteousness of Faith, and is opposed to our Righteousness) is Christ the end of the Law for Righteousness to all that be­lieve. So it is also, Gal. 3. And it is observa­ble that in both these Chapters the difference of the Condition of the Covenant of Works, and of Grace is insisted, on to plead the necessity of a Righteousness without us in opposition to our own: and so Faith must be the Condition of the Covenant of Grace as it acteth, or resteth on that.

CLI.

We cannot assent to the distinction which some give, viz. That Christ is our Legal Righ­teousness, that is, that by him we have satisfied the Covenant of Works, he having pay'd in our Name; but Faith and Obedience are our [Page 125] Evangelick Righteousness; that is, as he hath procur'd a new grant of Life upon these easie terms, in the Covenant of Grace, and so as by performing thereof we may come to have right to what he hath purchased in satisfying the first Covenant.

CLII.

I say, we cannot assent to the fore-said di­stinction. 1. Because it doth make two Righ­teousnesses in Justification, and one of them to be the means for attaining the other, whereas the Gospel Righteousness is but one in it's self, by Faith apprehended and made ours. Christ is our Legal Righteousness, as the Law's charge is satisfied by him: and he is our Evangelick Righteousness, as the mean of answering the Law is proposed to us in the Gospel, and for us, upon the condition of Faith, accepted by the same, without which Christ had never been our Legal Righteousness. But if we consider the Law righteousness strictly, as it requireth Satisfaction from the very Party, so Christ is not our Legal Righteousness, but our Evangelick Righteous­ness, seeing no other way but by the Gospel we have access to him.

CLIII.

To such as do affirm that Christ hath procu­red Faith (in that large sense as involving Gos­pel Obedience) to be accepted as our Righte­ousness, I would answer, 1. That were not to make Christ our immediate Righteousness, but [Page 126] only to procure that such works should be ac­cepted, and the former Covenant mitigated, but not in its Nature changed. 2. That over­turneth the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness as our immediate Righteousness, and so puts upon being found not in Christ's Righteousness, but in our own, contrary to Paul, Phil. 3.9.

CLIV.

Concerning Faith, it is modestly, and safely expressed, that Faith, at most, is but the con­dition on which Christ becomes our Righteous­ness; and so Faith it self properly cannot be our Righteousness. When Faith is called the condition of the Covenant, or our Righteous­ness, it doth not imply that it is properly impu­ted, but it shews to whom, and upon what terms Christ's Righteousness is imputed, or how a Sinner may have access to be justified by it.

CLV.

Faith when it is called a condition of the co­venant ought alwayes to be taken strictly, as it receiveth Christ, and by that manner of Act­ing is differenced from all other Graces, and Works.

CLVI.

Faith strictly taken cannot be rightly con­ceiv'd but as looking to Christ's Righteousness, the object thereof, even as we cannot conceive a consent which constituteth a Marriage, with­out [Page 127] respect to the party consented to: or as we cannot conceive looking to the brazen Serpent, as the condition, or mean, by which health was gotten, but with respect to the object thereof, the Serpent, and the ground preceding, viz. God's appointment; without which, a look simply considered was of no such virtue.

CLVII.

To them that shall say, If Faith properly ta­ken be the condition of the Covenant of Grace, and hath in that succeeded in the room that works had in the Covenant of Works, it there­fore must be our Evangelical Righteousness; as Works were our Legal Righteousness. I answer; That Faith is never to be taken with­out implying the Object, Christ, or without respect to it's proper aptitude for receiving him. And so Believe and thou shalt be saved, implyeth still this. Receive Christ and rest on his Righ­teousness, or submit to Christ's Righteousness, and accept of him for that end, that he may be Righteousness to thee, and thou shalt be saved. Our Evangelick Righteousness whereby we are absolved is in Christ, not in our selves, 2 Cor. 5.21. as the sin for which he was sentenced was in us, not in him.

CLVIII.

The disproving of Justification to be a con­tinued Act, plainly proveth Faith and Works joyned together not to be the Condition thereof. For if so, no man could be justified till the close [Page 128] of his life, or till he had persevered in Faith and Holiness to the end of his days. Now if Justifi­cation be an Instamaneous act (like that of a Judge giving sentence of Absolution) then good works cannot precede our Justification, and con­sequently not be the Instruments of it. True it is, God continueth to pronounce Believers Justi­fied to their dying day, and the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness unto them never ceaseth as to the virtue of it; but it cannot be said that God doth continue to change Believers from a state of Enmity to a state of Friendship, which is the true notion of Justification.

CLIX.

The way of Justification more clearly expres­sed under the Gospel by these expressions, Be­lieve in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved, may be somewhat illustrated by comparing it with the Typpical expressions under the Law. Now the expressions of the Old Testament run thus: When a man sinneth he shall bring an Offering, &c. and he shall put his hand upon the head of the Burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him, to make Atonement for him, &c. In those words God did propose something as a Righteousness for a sinner, which was to be accepted for him; yet none will say that it was the external Sacri­fice it self that was to be accepted for such, nor that it was the Faith of the Offerer alone, that was so accepted: For then there needed no Sa­crifice, but it behoved to be the thing Typefied by that Sacrifice, viz. the Sacrifice of Christ [Page 129] look'd to by the Faith of the Offerer, that was so accepted. Yet the external Sacrifices in the Old Testament, are as expressly said to be accepted for a sinners Justification, or an A­tonement for him, as Faith is said to be count­ed for Righteousness in the New. And as it can­not be said that by vertue of Christ's Satisfacti­on, and the Covenant with him, it was procur­ed that such Performances, and Sacrifices, should be accepted of themselves as the person's immediate Evangelical Righteousness: (though their Ceremonial Law was their Gospel) So it cannot be said that there is any such bargain concerning Faith in the New Testament, but that Christ apprehended by Faith is the Righte­ousness both in the Old, and New Testament, which is the thing that we intend, &c.

CLVI.

A right understanding of the matter of our Ju­stification, or of what is the matter of our Righ­teousness before God, will help us to under­stand both the Formal, and Instrumental cause therereof. The Matter, or Material Cause of our Justification, is that which answereth to this Que­stion, What is the very thing which causeth a man to stand righteous before God, and to be accepted to Life everlasting? We hold that the Satisfaction made by Christ in his Death, and Obedience to the Law, is imputed to us, and becomes our Righteous­ness. Perkins, p. 58. If then Christ's Satisfact­ion or Obedience, be the matter of our Righte­ousness before God, it will thence follow, that the [Page 130] Formal Cause of our Justification must needs be the Imputation of that Righteousness: for by means thereof it is that we are justifi'd from guilt, and accepted to life as effectually as if we were formaly just, by a perfect Righteousness inherent in us: that imputation with reference to the fruits, and effects thereof, is as it were a formal inherent Righteousness: i. e. as beneficial to us as if it were such. Hence also may the Instrumental cause of Justification be gathered, and found out; viz. Faith. Because that is the true In­strument of Justification, by means of which, or by, and upon which, the Righteousness of Christ becomes imputed to us, and that is Faith alone. Faith is all in all for matter of receiving the Righteousness of Christ; for that Grace which receiveth Christ, is that Grace which we call Faith: And when the Righteousness of Christ is once received, the sinner is Justified, there is no more go's to the justifying of him. As there go'es no more to the sealing, or stamping of Wax, than its receiving the Impression of the Seal that is put upon it, when that is done it is Sealed.

CLXI.

Nothing can justifie us Instrumentally, but what can instrumentally procure the acquitting of us from our sins, or the application of such a Righteousness to us as whereby we may be ac­quitted from all our sins. Works, as Works, can­not do that, but Faith can: Therefore not Works, but Faith are the Instrument of our Ju­stification. This is the great Argument which [Page 131] St. Paul insists upon in his three first Chapters to the Romans to make way for the Conclusion which he draws up, Rom. 3.20. viz. that we are justified by Faith, and not by the Deeds of the Law; viz. because all are sinners, both Jews, and Gentiles, and it is not their after-obedience to the Law of God that can satisfie for their for­mer sin, and disobedience: neither can any thing justifie us that cannot acquit us from our by-past sins, or satisfie for them, only Christ's Obedi­ence, and not ours, can do that, and that Obe­dience of our Saviour is apprehended by Faith alone; I say the Righteousness of Christ is re­ceived only by Faith, and not by Works: be­cause Works, or Gospel obedience, are not the Condition of our Justification, as not preceding, but following it: neither is it by them, but by Faith, that Christ and his Righteousness are re­ceived; forasmuch as whatsoever it is that re­ceives, or accepteth of Christ his Righteous­ness, as offered in the Gospel, that is called Faith, and intended by the word Faith, &c.

CLXII.

If men mistake themselves in the great point of Justification, they may not, yea cannot just­ly extenuate their fault by charging St. Paul's Discourses, and Arguments about it, with great obscurity, and that the strength, and force of them, is at lestwise very much concealed, and la­tent: Witness what that great man, Mr. Gattaker saith, (quoting also a greater man than himself, viz. Jo. Piçus, Count. of Mirandula.) His words [Page 132] are these: Nor do I conceive this (Epistle to the Romans) to have gained precedency (he means as being placed first) so much in regard of the preheminence of the place to which it was written, being at that time the head City of the Roman Em­pire, but principally rather in regard of the eminency, and excellency, yea deep profoundity of the Myste­ries of the Gospel, more fully, and largly therein de­livered, th [...]n in any other of them, I may boldly say, what if I should say in all the rest of them were they all put together? Add we may hereunto, that the points herein discoursed, and debated, are pursued, and prosecuted with that nervosity of Argument, and vivacity of Spirit, and the limbs and joints of the whole discourse so aptly knit together, and artificially riveted into one another, that that Noble Italian Earl, so much renowned for his variety of Learn­ing, sharpness of Insight, and soundness of Judg­ment, that he was deemed the Miracle of the Age he lived in, is reported to have said; That all the Hu­mane Writings of Learned Men, and great Scho­lars, that ever he had seen, or read, seemed to him in comparison of this one our Apostle's Master piece (as he esteem'd it) Tanquam scopae dissolutae (as it is in the Proverb) but as Besomes without hands. Gattaker 2.

CLXIII.

If what has been said and proved touching the great Doctrine of Justification as I have sta­ted it be true, there are many Errors in Mr. Sherlock's Book, relating to that excellent Doct­rine: and if such be the true causes of Justifica­tion [Page 133] as I have assigned, the causes assigned by Mr. Sherlock are not the true. I presume he did not foresee the many ill Consequences which would follow upon his denying Imputed-Righte­ousness, and myriads of absurdities, that would insue thereupon; but the Error it self is never­theless chargeable, as followeth.

CLXIV.

Whereas I have asserted, and prov'd, that God is the Principal efficient of Justification, or that it is God who justifieth; Mr. Sh. Tenet (I do not say he himself thinketh so) saith, that He who is justified, justifieth himself. He justifieth us, whose Righteousness justifieth us: but according to Mr. Sh. our own Righteousness, or sincere Obedience to the Gospel justifieth us, Ergo, we justifie our selves. Wherefore is God said to justifie sinners, but because he provides and im­putes a Righteousness whereby they are justi­fied? If then the Righteousness whereby we are justified be of our own providing, and pro­curing, as it is, if obedience to the Gospel be that Righteousness, then do we justifie our selves. As Adam in case he had stood might and would have been said to have preserv'd himself in a happy condition, though God gave him at the first the grace and power whereby to do it. So though that power whereby we are enabled to obey the Gospel do come from God, yet may we be said (as well as he in the other place) by the improvement thereof to justifie our selves, or to do that whereby we are justified.

CLXV.

Yea, in case we were justified by our obedi­ence to the Gospel, in opposition to any imput­ed Righteousness, then do we not only justifie our selves, but justifie our selves upon higher terms, and in a more noble way than others say that God himself doth justifie sinners; viz. by way of Inherency, or of Inherent Righteousness, which is more honorable to us, and denominates us (strictly speaking) more just, than that Righteousness for which we must be beholden to another.

CLXVI.

Mr. Sherlock's Tenet, or his denying of Im­puted Righteousness, overthroweth, in the next place, the Proegoumenal, or inward moving cause of Justification, viz. the free Love, Mercy, Grace, and good will of God, which we say did from within stir him up thereunto. But if Believers have a Righteousness Inherent in themselves that is able to justifie them, and God too in ac­cepting it as such, (as Mr. Sh. saith, we are justified by our sincere obedience to the Gospel) then not meer free Grace, [...], and good will, but the Justice, and Righteousness of God's na­ture, who did foresee that we would in due time obey the Gospel, did move him from Eternity to decree, and in time to effect our Justi­fication: For look what did move God to ac­complish our Justification in time, did move him to decree it from Eternity.

CLXVII.

Moreover, Mr. Sh. Tenet overthroweth the true Procatarctick or external moving cause of our Justification, or denieth it so to be. Now that cause say we is Christ; but Mr. Sh. or ra­ther his Tenet, saith, that foreseen good Works, or Obedience to the Gospel was that cause. For look by what we are Justified principally, by that it is that God was externally (or from without) moved to justifie us. But according to Mr. Sh. we are Justified by our own Inherent Holiness principally; viz. as by the matter, and form of our Righteousness before God: Er­gr. The contrary to this see in a former Thesis.

CLXVIII.

Again, Mr. Sherlock's Tenet overthroweth, and denieth that Instrumental Cause of Justifica­tion, which we have assigned, and proved, viz. Faith, and Faith alone. For if we are Justified by a Righteousness of our own, we need not Faith to lay hold upon that Righteousness: sure­ly we are not justified by believing in our selves, or in our own Righteousness. If we are Justified by Gospel Obedience principally, there needs no Faith to Justifie us Instrumentally: But if we say by Gospel Obedience only Instrumentally, then he advanceth every Grace, and all sorts of good Works to as great an interest in the Justifying of a Sinner, as Faith it self hath, which hath been disproved.

CLXIX.

Mr. Sherlock's Tenet assigneth that for the matter or material cause of our Justification, which I have clearly proved is not, viz. our own Righ­teousness, or Obedience to the Gospel. If a Righteousness that is Imputed be not the matter of our Righteousness before God, as he saith it is not, then our Inherent Righteousness must: for we must be justified by some Righteousness or other; and every Righteousness must consist of something, and that whereof it consists is cal­led the matter, or material cause of it: i. e. Gospel obedience is the very thing which caus­eth a man to stand righteous before God, and to be accepted to life everlasting. Now that it is not so (besides what hath been said already to the contrary) I prove thus; viz. To justifie a sinner, is to declare him guiltless, and faultless, as being really so, for that by his Surety he hath satisfied for all his Trespasses. But God cannot declare a sinner guiltless, and faultless, and one who has satisfied the Law, by, and upon the account of his own Inherent, and Imperfect O­bedience: For then should the Judgment of God not be according to Truth. Again, Where­as Justification doth involve Remission of sins as a necessary effect from that cause (for to re­mit sin is not to punish it eternally, and God cannot punish their sins, whom he hath declared to have satisfied his Justice by Christ, so as to ex­empt them from eternal punishment) only that Righteousness can be said to justifie us, [Page 137] which is sufficient to procure the Remission of our sins, or we can be justified only by that Righteousness, by, or by means whereof our s [...]ns are pardoned: but our sins are not pardon­ed by, or for our Inherent, but Christ's Impu­ted Righteousness. Ergo. I might add one Ar­gument more. We ar [...] justified by the Righ­teousness of but one, Rom. 5. But inherent Righ­teousness, or Gospel-Obedience is the Righte­ousness of many, yea, of every one who be­lieveth; I mean their own Righteousness: Sub­jective Ergo, we are not justified thereby.

CLXX.

Mr. Sherlock's Opinion destroyeth the For­mal Cause of Justification, which if the Righ­teousness, or Satisfaction of Christ, be the ma­terial cause of Justification (as hath been pro­ved) can be nothing else but the Imputation of that Righteousness. For as a man is formally wise by the wisdom that is inherent in him, so are all Believers as graciously treated by God in reference unto being accepted to eternal Life, upon account of the Righteousness of Christ imputed to them, as if they were formally, and inherently Righteous. To speak strictly, no man hath any Formal Righteousness in this Life, that is perfect, for what is formal is in­herent, but the Righteousness of Christ is as beneficial to Believers to save them from Hell, and bring them to Heaven, as if it were for­mally in them, and therefore it is called the For­mal Cause of their Justification, as supplying [Page 138] the room of such a cause. If by the Righteous­ness of Christ alone, I am justified, and if the Righteousness of Christ is, and can be made, as it were, formally mine (or as good for my purpose) by the Imputing of it, then the Im­putation of Christ's Righteousness is the Formal cause of my Justification; which Mr. Sh. de­nies, and needs he must, sith he denies that there is any such thing as Imputation of Righte­ousness, &c. But that there is hath been pro­ved at large.

CLXXI.

Yea, one of the chief Final Causes of God's Justifying a Sinner, will fall to the ground if we are Justified (as Mr. Sh. saith we are) by our own inherent Righteousness, or Gospel-Obedience; namely, the glorifying of the Riches, and Freeness of the Grace of God in the Justification and Salvation of Sinners.

Because to be justified by Works, and by Grace are inconsistent according to that Text, Rom. 11.6. If by Grace, then 'tis no more of works; otherwise Grace is no more Grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more works; other­wise work is no more work.

CLXXII.

That Opinion which overthroweth all, and every the causes of Justification commonly as­signed by the whole stream of Orthodox Di­vines (as Mr. Sherlock's Opinion denying Im­puted Righteousness hath been proved to do) [Page 139] must needs have a very suspicious and dange­rous aspect, and look like a thing to be hated, Cane & Angue pejus. (as they say.)

CLXXIII.

If by what has been said to weaken Mr. Sher­lock's Opinion against Imputed Righteousness, and to strengthen our own for it, it appeareth (as I hope it plainly doth) that there is such a thing as Imputed Righteousness (that hated name, that great Eye-sore of some Men) then two Corollaries will follow thereupon, viz.

CLXXIV.

I say, it will follow in the first place, that Justification and Sanctification are two distinct things; or that Sinners are not justified by a Righteousness infused, or implanted.

CLXXV.

Secondly, That it is Time and Labour mis­spent to go about to invalidate, and enervate all those places of Scripture which are common­ly brought to prove the Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness, as Mr. Sh. hath done. For if there be such a thing, surely the places which he would otherwise interpret, are as fair for it as any.

CLXXVI.

Yet it doth not follow, that because good works, Holiness, or Gospel-Obedience, are neither the Efficient, Instrumental, Material, or Formal Cause of our Justification, that there­fore they are not more, or less concerned with, and about the compleat Formal and Actual ju­stifying of a sinner, or application of his justi­fication to him, o [...] it with them. Certainly other Graces, and Holy Habits besides Faith are concerned as causae sine quibus non of Justificati­on. For no man can be justified that do's not love God, and fear God, and Obey God, &c. because the Justifying Faith is alwayes accom­panied with these things (as Life in the Body is with Breath, and inward motion of the heart and blood, &c. though Faith be the only Grace which receiveth that Righteousness of Christ by which we are justified.) Moreover, in order unto being formally and Actually pardo­ned, those great sins which we omit after Conversion, it is necessary for us to Repent, and to forgive others, their Trespasses against us, to make satisfaction to men for injuries done to them, &c. These are Conditions upon which Actual, Formal, compleat Pardon are suspended; yea, and to which it is promised. Moreover, whatsoever may be pleaded as a sufficient ground and motive, upon which a man may be cleared from his sins, may be said to justifie him (so works justifie, Jam. 2.22. and words, Mat. 12.37.) as evidences that are produced to [Page 141] manifest Innocency, Gattak. 80. Ministers in a remote sense may be said to justifie, Dan. 12.3. viz. As instruments to bring others to Faith, and so to Justification.

But when we say that we are not justified by good works, or Gospel-Obedience, we mean, as if they were so, and in such sense our Righ­teousness under the Covenant of Grace, as per­fect personal Obedience should have been un­der the Covenant of Works, and as if upon their account, and for their sakes, it were that we are delivered from Hell, and accepted to Eter­nal Life, which I say is only for Christ's sake, and upon his account, who hath purchased Eter­nal life for us, which as to us is a meer gift.

CLXXVII.

Admit of the Doctrine of Justification by Works as much as by Faith, or as being the same thing with Faith, and the Doctrine of Ju­stification by Merit cannot be excluded, but will first steal in insensibly, and afterwards come to be owned. For if we are not justified by Grace then by Merit; and if by Works, then not by Grace, Ergo. If by works, then by me­rit, or of Debt, which is all one, Rom. 4. To him that worketh is the reward of Debt; and Rom. 11.8. If it be of Works, 'tis no more of Grace.

CLXXVIII.

They do very ill Service to the Church of God in England, who at such a time when the Papists are conceived to be wrestling a fall with us for all (and therefore should have less grant­ed them than before, and no more than is just, and fit) do give to them more than ever was given them by Protestants, viz. the Doctrine of Justification by Works, and in effect by Me­rits, &c.

CXXIX.

The Persons with whom Mr. Sh. Symboli­lizeth in denying Imputed Righteousness, and pleading for Justification by our sincere, though imperfect, Obedience to the Gospel, are two bad sorts of Men, as most are, viz. Socinians, and Papists.

CLXXX.

It were easie to reckon up several other things wherein Mr. Sh. Socinianizeth, or con­senteth with the Socinians as such, Ex. gr. 1. In Deo non esse Essentialem Justitiam punientem ne­cessario peccata. Peltius, p. 12. 2. Nos non peccasse in Adamo. Pel. p. 45. 3. Homines non ita corruptos aut impotentes esse ad bonum vi lapsus Adae. Pelt. 48. 4. Posse aliquos ita a peccatis actualibus abstinere ut opera legis perfecte praestent Pelt. p. 77. 5. Patres V. Testam. non esse justi­ficatos & servatos per eandem viam qua nos nimi­rum per fidem in Christum, aut per Christum, &c. [Page 143] P. p. 114. 6. Deus potuit satisfieri alio modo quam per Christi Obedientiam. Pelt. p. 141. I say, it were easie to reckon up several things of great moment, as to which Mr. Sh. consent­eth with Socinians, but that which is to our pre­sent purpose is that he Symbolizeth with that dangerous sort of men in several points rela­ting to Justification. Ex. gr. 1. They hold that Christ his Righteousness is not ours, or is not imputed to us for our Righteousness before God: P. 148. 2. That [...] credere, or Faith it's self (as a Grace or Work) is imputed to us for Righteousness. P. p. 151. 3. That Obedience to the Commands is our Justificati­on, or that we are Justified by works. P. p. 156.

N. B. I do not say that Mr. Sh. hath vented the Second, Third, and Fourth Socinian errors above mentioned, (in Latine) in words at length, but the passages of a Sermon of his, quoted in my Prodromus bring him under vehe­ment suspition of all those three.

CLXXXI.

Mr. Sh. by denying the Imputation of Christ his Righteousness, doth (though it may be he sees it not) in effect deny the Satisfacti­on of Christ, and in so doing strike hands with the dangerous Socinians, in one of their most dangerous, and Characteristical Tenets, and cast in his Lot amongst them. For how can any man be the better for the payment, or Satisfaction which is made by another, unless it be reckoned [Page 144] to him, or put to his account, or done, and accepted on his behalf? Which is all one with being Imputed.

CLXXXII.

The Second sort of men with whom Mr. Sh. Symbolizeth in his Notions about Justification, are our good Friends the Papists, with whom Protestants formerly had wont to have the greatest and most frequent contests, and no greater about any point than the Doctrine of Justification.

CLXXXIII.

Whereas the Papists say, that Justification is not by Imputation, but by Infusion of Righteous­ness, Mr. Sh. saith both.

CLXXXIV.

That we are not Justified by imputed Righ­teousness; yea, that there is no such thing, Mr. Sh. hath said over, and over again as plainly as words can express it. Witness p. 234. where he saith, that Christ Righteousness was not an imaginary, imputed Righteousness, intimating that Imputed Righteousness is meerly Imaginary; and in p. 242. Mr. Sh. saith, that Imputed Righteousness doth plainly contradict the Doctrine of our Saviour, and if the Apostles had taught any such thing as that, it would very much have weakned their Credit with me, for this had been to Preach another Gospel than our Saviour did. And in p. 273. he saith, The Truth is the Righte­ousness [Page 145] of the Law, and of works in the New Te­stament signifies only an external Righteousness, which cannot please God; and that internal Holi­ness, which they call the Righteousness of the Law, is that very Righteousness of Faith which the Gospel commands, and which God approves, and rewards, and this Imputed Righteousness is no where to be found, as I know of, but in their own fancies. Sh: p. 273. Moreover, he laboureth to enervate, by giving a different sense thereof, all those texts both in the Old, and New Testament, which are commonly brought to prove Imputed righteousness, ex gr. Jer. 23.6. Isa. 45.24. Phil. 5.8, 9. Rom. 10.4. p. 271. 1 Cor. 1.20. p. 272. and in p. 276. he saith, Thus you see that there is no foundation in Scripture for all this talk of a Personal Righteousness of Christ inherent in him, and imputed to us.

CLXXXV.

Whereas Mr. Sh. laieth great stress upon this Argument, viz. that, In all the Histories of the Gospel which give us an account of our Saviour's Sermons, and Parables, whereby he instructed the People in all necessary Truths, he makes no mention at all of the Imputation of his Righteousness to them, but exacts from them a Righteousness of their own if they would find mercy with God. Sh. p. 239. &c. I say, whereas he laieth so much stress upon that Argument, that he intimateth, that if the Apo­stles, or if an Angel from Heaven had preached, and published Justification by Imputed Righteousness, he would scarce have believed it. p. 242. (an un­toward [Page 146] expression, sith there is nothing in it con­trary to any part of our Saviour's Doctrine.) for­asmuch as he meets not with it in any of Christ's Sermons.

CLXXXVI.

The strength of that Argument, viz. that be­cause the expression of Imputed Righteousness, or Imputation of Christ his Righteousness do's not oc­cur, in so many words, in all, or any of our Sa­viour's Sermons, or Parables, that there is no truth or reality in it, or that there is no such thing: I say the strength thereof is but weak­ness, (though it seem to be the first-born of Mr. Sherlock's strength, as to this matter.)

CLXXXVII.

That the strength of such an Argument as that is but weakness, I affirm, First upon this ground, Because there might be sufficient reason for our Saviour to omit the Preaching of some great, and considerable Truths, as namely because they were known, and believed before. As some things that are plain in the light of Nature, the Scripture saith little of, and the New Testament saith little or nothing, of those things which were plainly revealed before in the Old. Now that the Justification of a sinner should be by the Righteousness, Suffering, and Satisfaction of the Messias, was plainly revealed in the Old Testament, ex gr. Isa. 53.11. By his knowledg shall my Righteous Servant justifie many, for he shall bear their iniquities. And v. 5. He was [Page 147] wounded for our Transgressions, the chastisements of our peace were upon him, and by his stripes we are healed. v. 6. All we like sheep have gone astray, and God hath laid on him the iniquity of us all, &c. Dan. 12.24. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people to finish the transgressions, and to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting Righteousness, &c. The whole Ceremonial Law, or the greatest part of it (which was a kind of visible Gospel) did con­tinually preach this Truth, viz. that the deliver­ing of us from punishment, and accepting of us to life, and favor with God, was to be upon the account of another, the inocent suffering for the nocent, &c. What else was meant by all the bloudy Sacrifices offered for the sins of the people, in which God accepted the life of a harmless spotless Lamb, as a ransom for the life of a spotted, guilty sinner? all these things typi­fying, and pointing out, that without bloud there could be no Remission of sins. Dan. 9.26. The Messias shall be cut off, but not for himself. If then there were a sufficient Light shining in the Old Testament, in Moses, and the Prophets, to dis­cover that the Justification of a Sinner, or his being pardoned and accepted with God; was, and always should be by means of another: and particularly by the sufferings of another; and that a harmless, unspotted person; and that the Messias was ne that should suffer for our sins, Isa. 53.8. He was cut off out of the land of the living, for the Transgression of my people was he stricken. v. 10. When thou shalt make his soul an [Page 148] offering for sin, he shall see his seed, &c. and the pleasure of the Lord (which is the Salvation of Souls) shall prosper in his hands. v. 12, He bare the sins of many, and made intercession for trans­gressors, &c. What expressions can be plainer than these? These things considered, our Savi­our needed not to insist much upon Justification, and Salvation by the righteousness and sufferings of the Messias, sith so much had been said of that by the Prophets of the Old Testament. And if it be said that the Disciples of Christ, nevertheless were very ignorant of the intended death of Christ, witness Peter, who said, Ma­ster, these things shall not happen to thee, when Christ foretold his death, yet our Saviour might not think fit to enlarge much, and often upon that subject, lest his Disciples should not be able to bear the thoughts of it, like an indulgent ten­der Wife, that cannot bear to hear much said of her Husbands dying, before her self. See John 16.12.

CLXXXVIII.

If from a total silence concerning Imputed Righteousness in all the four Gospels we could not have gathered any such thing (because there might be good reason for saying nothing of it) much less can we safely conclude there is no such thing meerly from its not being mention­ed there in so many words, as long as we find other expressions, and passages in these texts; viz. in the Histories, Sermons, and Parables of Christ, which are Tantamount, or which do ne­cessarily [Page 149] imply our being Justified by the righte­ousness, or Obedience, by the Death and Suf­ferings of another. Do's not our Saviour say, John 6.5. If any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever, and the bread which I shall give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the whole world. Did not the Voice from Heaven say, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased? in­timating that we are made accepted to God by Christ, and upon his account. Do's not Christ say, This is my bloud of the New Testament which is shed for the Remission of sins? intimating that the pardon of our sins, upon which a title to eternal life necessarily insueth, (for what then can hinder us?) is upon the account of the bloud of Christ, shed for us, which is the thing that we chiefly mean by that righteousness of Christ which is imputed to Believers; viz. his Obedience to the death of the Cross, &c. (which was an act of righteousness in Christ for that he had promised it, and his so doing was in pursu­ance, and performance of his Promise, &c.) I come to do thy will, O God, as it is written of me in the volume of thy book. It was indeed both the effect of righteousness in Christ, and it is the cause of righteousness in Believers: for upon that account are they accepted of God righ­teous to eternal life, and therefore may well be call'd the righteousness of Christ. According as some excellent Divines expound that text, John 16.10. He (speaking of the Spirit,) shall con­vince the world of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you see me no more, It makes greatly [Page 150] for Imputed Righteousness. For say they, the meaning of these words is this, The world shall be convinced that Jesus Christ hath satisfied the Justice of God to the utmost, for that he should maintain his standing in Heaven, and they should see him upon earth no more: whereas, if he had left any part of the debt unpaid, or had not fulfilled all righteousness, he should have been sent back again to the earth whence he came, whereas contrary to that the Scripture saith, that as Christ died for our sins, viz. to pay our debt, so he rose again for our Justification; viz. to manifest he was fully acquitted from all that was imputed to him, and should appear the second time without sin, &c. Were the Israelites that had been stung with fiery Serpents, cured by a meer act of vision, or looking simply consider­ed, or were they not cured principally by the virtue that was in the Brazen Serpent? It was the Brazen Serpent that cured them, and not they themselves? Now Christ saith plainly, Joh. 3.16. As Moses lifted up the Serpent in the Wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: (viz. upon the Cross) That whosoever be­lieveth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. It was by Christ Crucified that Believers were to have eternal life: and if so, then the Obedience of Christ to the death of the Cross, was, and is imputed to Believers; else how come they to have such benefit thereby? If it were not reckoned that Christ suffered in their stead, to satisfie for their sins, or as their Surety, whose payment was, and is accepted of God [Page 151] for them, &c. What mean those words of Christ, John 10.15. I lay down my life for the sheep? if the laying down his life be not imputed, or reckoned to his sheep, or accepted on their be­half as a Propitiatio [...] for their sins? Do we not read in Luke 2.68, 74. of God's redeeming his people by Christ, and raising up a horn of Sal­vation for them in the house of David; As he spake by the mouth of his Prophets, which have been since the world began: That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear. Now could all this be done without satisfying Divine Justice for sins, since God did insist upon having satisfacti­on; for without bloud there is no remission of sins: and the High priest was inspir'd when he said, It was necessary that one should die for the people. Do we not read, John 1.29. these words applyed to Christ, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh a­way the sins of the world. How did he do that but by being slain for the sins of the world? Now if his death, and slaughter, be not imputed, or reckoned to us, we shall be never the better for it. So also, John 3.16. God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whosoever believeth on him might have eternal life. So then Christ as given, viz. to be crucified, and delivered up to death for us, is the principal cause of our esca­ping Hell, or attaining eternal life; to both which Justification entitleth us. Now how should our title to deliverance from Hell, and to the enjoyment of eternal life, result from thence, if Christ dying upon the Cross were not [Page 152] imputed, or reckoned by God so us, as if we had made satisfaction to his justice, since Christ our Surety hath done it to the full? To conclude with those Sacramental words of our Saviour, This is my body which was broken for you. If the breaking of Christ's body be not imputed, or reckoned to us as a satisfaction made for us, or in our behalf, and so accepted of the Father, I see not how his body was broken for us, &c. Sith then all the forementioned places (and it is like several others in the Gospels) do hold forth the sum, and substance of what we intend by Imputed Righteousness, though not assert it Syl­labically, or in so many words, it can be no just exception against that Doctrine its being a truth.

CLXXXIX.

Another thing in which Mr. Sh. symbolizeth with Papists is, in that he averreth Justification to be by Inherent, or by our own internal Righte­ousness, as they do, thereby confounding Justi­fication, and Sanctification, and turning the Co­venant of Grace into a Covenant of Works; or ma­king these two Covenants (which are specifi­cally distinct,) to differ only secundum magis & minus. For according to him, we are justified by our obedience to the Gospel; and what is that but the effect of Grace infused, or the act­ing, and putting forth of inherent Grace, or if you please, our own improvement of that Ta­lent of Grace which God hath bestowed upon us, and consequently, as I said before, we may [Page 153] be said to justifie our selves, upon as good reason as it is said, He that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, &c. 1 John 3.3. or as it is said, Seeing ye have purified your selves in obeying the Truth, 1 Pet. 1.

CXC.

Mr. Sh. so as he stateth the Doctrine of Justi­fication, asserteth that which doth infer Merit. I say, he contendeth for that from whence the abhorred Doctrine of Justification by our own Merits may be inferred; and would certainly follow to be true, if that which he saith were true. For he sticks not to own Justification to be by our own Evangelical Works; or that we are justified by our sincere obedience to the Laws of Christ Now to him that worketh is the reward imputed of debt, saith the Apostle, Rom. 4. Now to be rewarded of Debt, and that debt for our Work, is all one as to be rewarded of, or upon Merit.

CXCI.

Again, the Papists do say, that the Formal Cause of Justification is Inherent Righteousness; that is, that by our obedience to the Gospel of Christ we are made, or do become formally just, in the sight of God, and righteous to eternal life. Now Mr. Sh. saith no less in substance, if not in words. Now whether it be more safe to say (as all sound Protestants have done) that the imputation of our Saviour's Obedience, and Satisfaction, and Righteousness to Believers [Page 154] is that which justifieth them, that is, freeth them from guilt, and wrath; and entitleth them Righteous to Eternal Life, as effectually as if they were formally just by a perfect inherent Righteousness of their own; I say, whether it be safer to say so, or to say (as Papists do) that the only Righteousness whereby we can be said to be Righteous before God, and whereby we are freed from Hell, and accepted to Eter­nal Life, is the Righteousness of Grace, and Holiness implanted in us, and of good works, the Fruits and Effects thereof, &c. Let all Pro­testants, and impartial Christians judge. How dangerous it is to say, as Bellarmin doth on Rom. 3.24. Justificamur per gratiam, i. e. per justi­tiam ab illo donatam & infusam haec est causa for­malis Justificationis nostrae.

CXCII.

It were easie to charge Mr. Sherlock's Book with several other things, wherein it harmoni­eth with our Popish Adversaries in the Doctrine of Justification: as namely, in denying Faith to be the Instrumental Cause of Justification, &c. but I take no pleasure in making the very worst of what can be made of his expressions, and shall therefore say no more of that.

CXCIII.

Me-thinks it should put Mr. Sh. to the blush, and make him smite upon his Breast, if after all that hath been said, I should prove that the great Rabbies of the Popish Church, have now, [Page 155] and then written much more Orthodoxly, and Protes [...] like, touching Justification than he himself hath done. Bellarmin, De Justif. l. 1. Cap. 2. saith thus. T [...] is bri [...]fly to be here ob­served, that Christ [...] the meritorious cause of Justification, as if the Father in favour to his son did forgive us our sins; as Kings assoil guilty Persons out of favour to, and at the suit of Friends, but because he hath pay'd an exact price of ransom, and thereby in rigour of Justice made satisfaction for the wickedness of us all. What could any Pro­testant writer say in this point more? saith Mr. Gattaker, p. 15.

Hear Bellarmin again, Lib. 2. De Justif. cap. 10. Dicitur inquit Christus Justitia nostra quoni­am satisfecit Patri pro nobis, & eam satisfactionem ita nobis donat, & communicat, quum nos justifi­cat, ut nostra satisfactio, & justitia dici possit. Nam etsi per justitiam nobis inherentem vere justi nominemur, & simus, tamen non per eam satisfaci­mus Deo pro culpis nostris, & paena aeterna, &c. Non esset absurdum si quis diceret nobis imputari Christi Justitiam & merita, cum nobis donentur & applicentur ac si nos ipsi Deo satisfecissemus, &c.

Gabriel Vasquez, Tom. 2. in 1. 2. Disput. 222. cap. 1. saith thus. Verba ista Concilii Tridentini Quanquam nemo possit esse justus, nisi cui merita Passionis Domini nostri Jesu Christi communican­tur, dicit idem significare ac si diceret nisi cui meri­ta passionis Domini nostri Jesu Christi imputantur. Disput. vero 203. affirmat recte dici posse merita Christi nobis imputari quum agitur de causa meri­toria justificationis, quoniam imputari nobis Christi [Page 156] merita idem est, quod merita illa nobis applicari, & communicari. Upon which Expressions put to­gether, Le Blanc doth thus animadvert in his Discourse, De justitia Christi fidelibus imputata. Ʋnde patet Scholae Romanae Theologo immerito car­pere nostram de Imputatione justitiae Christi Doct­rinam quandoquidem nihil hac in portere vera sen­timus quod vis veritatis ipsos non cogat agnoscere. Thes. 36. That is, The Romish Divines do un­justly carp at our Doctrine concerning the Imputa­tion of Christ's Righteousness, sith there is nothing that we think in this matter, which the force of Truth doth not compel them to acknowledge.

CXCIV.

Not to give Mr. Sh. the odium of quoting all, or the greatest part, of those passages which do occur in Popish Writers, concerning the Im­putation of Christ's Righteousness, and other matters relating to Justification, in which di­vers of them have been more Orthodox than himself; I do in the next place aver, that the Homilies of the Church of England are as plain and positive for our Justification by the Imputa­tion of Christ's Righteousness, as Mr. Sherlock is, or can be against it, and do in some other matters referring to Justification, manifestly contradict him, or he them.

CXCV.

In the Homilie, or Sermon of Salvation, we find such passages as follow. Because all men be sinners, and Offenders against God, therefore can [Page 157] no man by his own Acts Works, and Deeds (seem they never so good) be justified, and made righte­ous before God: but every man of necessity is con­strained to seek for another righteousness, or justi­fication to be received at God's own hands, &c. Again, God sent his only son into the World to ful­fil the Law for us, and by shedding his most precious Blood to make a sacrifice and satisfaction, or (as it may be called) amends to his Father for our sins, &c. Again, The Grace of God doth not shut out the justice of God in our justification, but only shutteth out the justice of man, that is, the justice of our Works, &c. Again, Faith doth not shut out Repentance, Hope, Love, and the fear of God to be joyned with Faith in every man that is justified, but it shutteth them out from the effect of justifying. Yet more plainly in the same Homily. So that Christ is now the righteousness of them that do truly believe in him. He for them paid the ransom by his death. He for them fulfilled the Law in his Life. So that now in him, and by him every true Christian may be celled a fulfiller of the Law: for­asmuch as that which their infirmity lacketh, Christs justice hath supplyed. Again, in the second Ho­mily of Salvation, we meet with such passages as follow. Consider diligently these words without works, by Faith only, freely we receive remission of our sins; what can be spoken more plainly, than to say, That freely, without works, by Faith only, we obtain remission of our sins? This Doctrine (viz. That Faith only justifieth, as the margent shew­eth) advanceth the true Glory of Christ, and beat­eth down the vain glory of man: This whosoever [Page 158] denieth is not to be accounted for a Christian man, nor for a setter forth of Christ's Glory, but for an Adversary to Christ, and his Gospel, and for a setter forth of mans vain-glory. Let Mr. Sherlock weigh those words well. Again, Man cannot make himself righteous by his own works, neither in part, nor in the whole, for that were the greatest arrogancy, and presumption of man, that Anti-Christ could set up against God, to affirm that a man might by his own works take away and purge his own sins, and so justifie himself. Again, The true understanding of this Doctrine; we be justified freely by Faith without works, or that we be justi­fied by Faith in Christ only, is not that this our own act to believe in Christ doth justifie us, for that were to count our selves to be justified by some act, or vir­tue that is in our selves, &c. Towards the end of that Homily are these words, So that our Faith in Christ (as it were) saith unto us thus; It is not I that take away your sins, but it is Christ only I send you to for that purpose, forsaking there­in all your good virtues, words, thoughts, and works, and only putting your trust in Christ.

Again, in the third Homily of Salvation, are these expressions. Nevertheless because Faith doth directly send us to Christ for remission of our sins, and that by Faith given us of God we embrace the promise of God's Mercy, and of the remission of our sins (which thing none other of our virtues, or works properly doth) therefore Scripture useth to say, that Faith without works doth justifie.

CXCVI.

He that runs may read the fore said passages quoted out of the three Homilies of Salvation to be directly opposite to several notions deli­vered by Mr. Sh. in his Book, in reference to the Doctrine of Justification. For 1. Where­as Mr. Sh. confoundeth justifying Faith and all other Graces, Faith and Gospel-Obedience, Faith and sincere good works, and maketh as if they were one, and the same thing (witness what he saith in p. 273. of his Book) the Ho­milies fore-quoted do manifestly distinguish be­twixt Faith and other Graces, but more plain­ly betwixt Faith and good works. Witness that passage, Faith doth not shut out Hope, Love, Repentance, and the fear of God to be joyned with Faith in every man that is justified, but it shuts them out from the Office of justifying. Now, if Faith, and all these Graces were one, and the same Faith should shut out it self from the Office of justifying, according to them. Divers passa­ges fore-quoted do shew that the Homilies do frequently oppose Faith and works, Ex. gr. this for one. Consider diligently these words without works by Faith only freely we receive remission of our sins: what can be spoken more plainly, than to say, that freely, without works, by Faith only we obtain remission of our sins? 2. Whereas Mr. Sh. interesseth all Evangelick Obedience, internal Holiness, and sincere good works, in justificati­on, as truly, and as much, as Faith it self (as he must needs do who makes them the same with [Page 160] Faith, or to be Faith it self) divers passages alledged out of the Homilies in the fore-going Thesis do expresly deny and contradict that as­sertion of his; witness that terrible passage which I would wish Mr. Sh. to think of, name­ly, That Faith only (that is, without works concurring as to that, for that the Margent shew­eth to be the thing treated of) justifieth ad­vanceth the true glory of Christ, and beateth down the vain-glory of man: This whosoever denieth is not to be accounted for a Christian man, nor for a setter forth of Christ's glory; but for an adversary to Christ and his Gospel, and for a setter forth of man's vain-glory. 3. Whereas Mr. Sh. makes as if Faith it self, the very [...] credere, the habit, or act of believing (whatsoever he understands thereby) were the matter of our Righteous­ness, or our very Evangelical Righteousness be­fore God, the Homily is plain against him in these words. The true understanding of this Do­ctrine we be justified freely by Faith without Works, is not that this our act to believe in Christ doth justi­fie us, for that were to count our selves to be justified by some act, or virtue in our selves. 4. Whereas Mr. Sh. utterly denyeth, and derideth Imputed Righteousness, witness the passages which I have quoted out of his Book in Thesis 179. to which I shall add one or two more, viz. that in p. 276. of Mr. Sh's. book, where he concludes thus. Thus you see that there is no foundation in Scripture for all this talk of personal Rigteousness of Christ in­herent in him, and imputed to us Also, Sh. p. 273. Thus you see how the Apostle opposeth the Righte­ousness [Page 161] of the Law to the Righteousness of Faith, not as an inherent, and personal to an Imputed Righ­teousness; but as an external, and Ritual, to an inherent, real, and substantial Righteousness This is (saith Mr. Sh.) the [...], the Founda­tion of all other mistakes in this matter, that by the righteousness of the Law, and the righteousness of Works, most men understand an inherent holiness, the conformity of our hearts, and lives to all moral Precepts, and Rules of good life; and then conclude that if this righteousness will not please God, nothing but an imputed righteousness can, though I should have rather concluded that nothing can: but the truth is, the righteousness of the Law, and of Works in the New Testament signifies only an external righteousness, which cannot please God; and that internal holiness which they call the righteousness of the Law, is that very righteousness of Faith which the Gospel commands, and which God approves, and rewards, and this imputed righteousness is no where to be found, that I know of, but in their own fancies. If this long Paragraph be not quite contrary to what the Homily declareth, I am much deceived. The words of the Homily are these. Man cannot make himself righteous by his own works, neither in part, nor in the whole; for that were the greatest Arrogancy, and Presumption of man, that Anti­christ could set up against God, to affirm that a man might by his own works take away his own sins, and so justifie himself. But saith Mr. Sh. If internal holiness will not please God (that is, be accepted by him as that righteousness whereby a sinner is justified in his sight, for of that he was speaking) [Page 162] I should have concluded that nothing can. Who can reconcile that passage of hi [...] to [...] in the Homily, which followeth. Because all men be [...]in­ners, and offenders against God, therefore can no man by his own acts, words, and deeds, be justified, and made righteous before God; but every man is constrained to seek for another righteousness or justi­fication to be received at God's own hand, &c. And again, God sent his only Son into the world to fulfil the Law for us, and by shedding his most precious blood to make a sacrifice and satisfaction, and (as it may be called) amends to his Father for our sins, &c. Which passage in the Homily plainly tells us another way how God comes to be pleased with sinners, so far forth as to justifie them: then upon their inherent righteousness, or inter­nal holiness (which yet is very necessary for o­ther purposes) viz. upon the account of Christ his atonement, and satisfaction, which being not theirs subjectively, and inherently if it be not imputed to them, they can have no benefit by it. The Homily saith expressly, that every man is constrained to seek another righteousness (viz. than that of his own works and deeds) to be received at God's own hand. The Homily tells you that our very Faith, or believing is far from justifying us, or being the matter of our righteousness be­fore God, witness these words. So that our Faith in Christ (as it were) saith to us thus. It is not I that can take away your sins, but it is Christ only; I send you to him for that purpose, forsaking therein all your good virtue, thoughts, words, and works, and only putting your trust in Christ, &c. Again, The [Page 163] third Homily of Salvation saith, Faith doth direct­ly send us to Christ for remission of sins, and that by Faith we imbrace the promise of God's mercy (which thing no other of our virtues, or works properly doth) therefore scripture useth to say, that Faith without works doth justifie. which passage, forasmuch as it excludeth other graces, and works, besides Faith, from the justifying of a sinner upon this account; that they do not, like Faith, properly imbrace the promise of God's mercy, and re­mission of sin, plainly implieth, and intimateth, that Faith doth justifie only correlatively to its ob­ject Christ, and his righteousness, which can be made ours no otherwise than by imputation, or gracious accepting of us as if we were perfectly righteous with an inherent formal righteousness of our own, sith it is not ours internally. There­fore there is such a thing as imputed righteousness, and that Faith that lays hold upon it is a grace by it self, distinct from other graces, and other good works, and is the only instrument on mans part, whereby he is justified. All this I say is true if the Homilies of the Church of England may be credited. And now methinks I hear those men who find the Articles, and the Homilies of the Church of England to stand so much in their light, crying out concerning those that pen'd them, Ʋtinam nesciissent literas (as one concerning him­self) would to God they had been illiterate men, that had never learnd to write: and (pre­tending that the Doctrine of imputed righteous­ness, will destroy all good Ethiks) making bold to abuse the Homilies, and that text toge­ther, [Page 164] [...], 1 Cor. 15.33.

CXCVII.

The Church of England is not singular in the Do­ctrine declared in their Homilies (the Comment of their Articles) viz. that we are jastified by the Imputation of the righteousness of Christ apprehend­ed by Faith: for it were easie to produce a cloud of Witnesses consenting with them in this matter, and plainly affirming the same thing in their Writings, viz. Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, Brentius, Chytraeus, Hemingius, Zuinglius, Occo­lampadius, Grynaeus, Bullinger, Calvin, Gualter, Danaeus, Zanchy, Beza, Peter Martyr, Musculus, Pareus, Ʋrsinus, Marlorat, Junius, Tossanus, Sy­brandus, Bucanus, Pezelius, Aretius, Chamier, to omit the eminent Divines of our own Nation, such as Whittaker, Perkins, Pemble, &c. who have written to the like purpose. But oh how vastly doth one Mr. Sh. outweigh all these? &c.

CXCVIII.

Whereas in my Prodromus I undertook to produce nine eminent Bishops, (eight of them of the Church of England) all setting their faces against that notion of Justification which Mr. Sherlock hath delivered to us, viz. that we are not justified by the righteousness of Christ imput­ed to us, but by our own sincere obedience to the Gospel (which, saith he, is called the righ­teousness of Faith) having already produced two of the nine, viz. Bp. Davenant, and Bp. [Page 165] Dounam, in variety of instances; there remains but seven, the first whereof I shall now instance in is Bp. Hall, whom I find as opposite to Mr. Sherlock in this matter, as a man can be. His words are as follow. The Evangelical Justice (saith Bp. Hall) is not without the intervention of a Saviour; to which claim is laid in two kinds: ei­ther as imputative, or as inherent. The inherent wrought in us, the imputed wrought for us. It is the main care of our lives, and deaths, what shall give us peace, and acceptation before the dreadful Tribunal of God: What but righteousness? What righteousness, or whose? Ours, or Christ's? Ours in the inherent graces wrought in us, in the holy works wrought by us; or Christ's in his most perfect obedi­ence, and meritorious satisfaction wrought for us, and applyed to us? The Tridentine faction is for the former (and so we may say is Mr. Sh.) we for the latter. God is as direct on our side as his word can make him; every where blazening the defects of our our own righteousness, the imperfections of our best graces, the deadly nature of our least sins, the radical sinfulness rf our habitual concupiscence, the pollution of our best works: every where extolling the perfect obedience of our Redeemer, the gracious ap­pplication of that obedience, the sweet comfort of that application, the assurance and unfailableness of that comfort; and lastly, our happy rest in that assur­ance. We were to us if we were not more just in that, than sanctified in our selves. We are sanctified in part, according to the weakness of our receit, we are justified throughly according to the perfectness of thy acceptation. Were we throughly sanctified here, we [Page 166] should be more than men, were we not throughly ju­stified we should be no more than sinners before thee, while we stand before thee as sinners we can have no peace. Let others trust in the Chariots and Hor­ses of their own strength, we will remember the Lord our God. The work of thy Justice (or righ­teousness) shall be our Peace. Thus far that Ex­cellent and acute Bishop.

CXCIX.

The Learned Bishop Prideaux, sometimes professor of Divinity at Oxford, in his Book called Fasciculus Controversiarum (over and above what may be met with in his other works) giveth ample testimony to the Doct­rine of Believers their being justified by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to them, and received by Faith alone. That only Faith on man's part doth justifie, he proves by this Ar­gument, for one, p. 266. Per quod solummodo imputatur nobis Christi Justitia, &c. That by which alone, or by which only, the Righteous­ness of Christ is imputed to us which satisfieth God's Law, and for man's lapse, by that only on our part we are justified. But we are justified only by his grace through the redemption which is Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a pro­pitiation through Faith in his Blood to declare his Righteousness, Rom. 3.24. Whence Christ is made to us Wisdom, Righteousness, and Redemp­tion, 1 Cor. 1.30. In that Argument he plainly declares his Judgment for our being justified by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, for by [Page 167] that he proves we are justified by Faith alone on our part, for that alone receiveth, or layeth hold on that Righteousness whereby God justi­fieth a Sinner, or whereby, ex parte Dei, or with respect unto God, a Sinner is justified. Yea, one of his Arguments to prove that we are j [...]stified by Faith alone, is this, viz. That Doctrine (saith he) which distinguisheth saving Ch [...]istianity from Judaism, Turcism, and Hea­thenism▪ is to be received by all Christians: But such is thi [...] Doctrine (saith he) of Justification by Faith alone, because Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth, Rom. 10.4. But if the Doctrine of Imputed Righte­ousness be over-thrown, the Doctrine of Justi­fication by Faith alone, (as on Man's part) falls to the ground, as Bp. Prideaux intimates, for he builds this upon that, and consequently ac­cording to that Learned Prelate, the great thing whic [...] should distinguish us from Jews, Turks, and Heathens, is taken away; which assertion of his is a kind of calling them (by craft, as they say) either Jews, Turks, or Heathens, who deny the Doctrine of Christ's Imputed Righteousness, for in so doing they must needs deny the Doctrine of Justification by Faith alone, (ex parte hominis) for it is the Righteous­ness of Christ which Faith layeth hold upon, &c. Also in p. 298. having started this Objection. If the Imputed Righteousness of Christ appre­hended by Faith be that which alone doth justi­fie us, then should we be as Righteous as Christ himself; his Answer to it is this, Juxta verita­tem [Page 168] rei aeque sumus justi sed non aequaliter, nec eo­dem modo, cum isle justus sic subjective, nos impu­tative, ille de proprio nos illius la [...]gitate. It fol­lows not (saith he) that we are Righteous equally with Christ himself, because he is righ­teous subjectively (or in himself) we but Im­putatively (or by the acc [...]unting of his righ­teousness to us) and accepting his Righteous­ness for us, and on our behalf.) No more need to be said to prove that that Learned Bishop (whose Authority certainly may go as far as Mr. Sherlock's) was a hearty asserto [...] of the now despised Doctrine of Imputed Righteous­ness.

CC.

Edwinus London (as he writes himself) that is Edwin Sand [...], then Bishop of London, in an Epistle of his before Luther's Commentary on the Galatians (which I know not whether I should not call his solemn License for that Book) writes thus.

This Book being brought to me to peruse, and to consider of, I thought it my part not only to allow of it to the Print, but also to commend it to the Read­er, as a Treatise most comfortable to all afflicted Cons [...]iences exercises in the School of Christ This Author felt what he spake, and had experience of what he wrought, &c. Sathan is the Enemy; The Vict [...] is only by Faith in Christ. This most ne­cessary Doctrine the Author hath most substantially cleared in this his Commentary. Which being writ­ten in Latine certain godly learned men have tran­slated [Page 169] into our Language to the great benefit of all such, as with humbled hearts will read the same.

If this most Reverend Bishop had not been a hearty Friend to the Doctrine of Imputed Righ­teousness, he would never have given so high a Commendation of Luther's work upon the Epi­stle to the Galatians, which doubtless is full of that kind of Doctrine; yea, surely, had he been of Mr. Sherlock's mind, he would have been so far from Licensing that Book himself, with respect, and Honour, that by his good will, no body else should have Licensed it, but rather have told the World that it was idle talk, and meer tittle tattle.

CCI.

The Excellent Bishop of Norwich, that now is, in his Explication of the 110th. Psalm, p. 440. having in the fore-going page spoken of Christ his suffering for us, as our Head, and Surety (for so he speaks) saith, The fruit which redounds to us hereby is the Expiation of our sins, by the imputing of his Righteousness unto us. This is my Blood of the New Testament, which was shed for many for the remission of sin, Mat. 26.28. And in whom we have redemption through his Blood, the forgiveness of sins, Eph. 1.7. The manner whereby the satisfaction of Christ becomes profitable to us unto the remission of sin, and Righ­teousness is by Imputation, Rom. 4.3.5.8.5.19. Now, all the World is guilty before God, [...], it lyeth in mischief, and therefore must be justified by a forreign Righteousness, and that equal [Page 170] to the Justice offended, which is the Righteousness of God unto us graciously imputed. As there is a Personal and individual unity whereby a man is one, in, and by himself: So there is a common unity whereby a man is one with another. And this is the ground of righteousness imputed. Ʋnitas enim prae­stantis est fundamentum proprietatis ad officium prae­stitum, i. e. Onenes with the performer is the foun­dation of our prospriety to the good Office performed. So then betwixt Christ and us there must be an Ʋni­ty, or else there can be no Imputation. It is said, that Faith is Imputed for righteousness, Rom. 4.5. not the [...] credere, or the Act of Believing as it is a work proceeding from us by grace, but because it is the bond of Ʋnion betwixt us, and Christ, and by that means makes way to the Imputation of Christs righteousness to us. 'Tis generally consented to by them that have read his Works that Dr. Reynolds, now Bishop of Norwich, useth to write sense, and nothing but what is good sense, and yet I find all the passages fore-mentioned in that book of his, which I mentioned before, nor do I know how much time it would take up to tran­scribe all that that Excellent Person has said concerning Imputed righteousness, in his several most worthy Writings. These that I have quo­ted are enough to shew that he, and Mr. Sh. are not of a judgment about that grand affair.

CCII.

Bishop Andrews, who is universally owned to have been an excellent Scholar, and an able Divine, in his Sermon of Justification (towards [Page 171] the end of his Book of Sermons) writes thus. In the Scripture (saith he) there is a double righ­teousness set down both in the Old, and in the New Testament, in the Old Testament, and in the very first place that righteousness is mentioned in the Bi­ble, en. 18. 10. Abraham believed, and it was counted to him for righteousness. And again in the very next line it is mentioned, Abraham will teach his house to [...]o righteousness. A righteous­ness done. In the New likewise, the former, in one chapter (even the fourth to the Romans) no few­er than eleven times Reputatum est illi ad Justiti­am. A reputed righteousness. The latter in St. John 1.3, 7. He that doth righteousness is righ­teous. A righteousness done. The one is a quality of the party, the other an act of the Judge declaring, or pronouncing righteous. The one ours by influence, or infusion, the other by accompt, or imputation: when Christ is called Jehovah, our righteousness, that great Bishop expoundeth it of righteousness im­puted: For (saith he p. 76.) The tenour of the Scripture touching our Justification all along runs in judicial terms. When we shall once be brought and arraigned before the righteous judge sitting upon the throne (which he speaks alluding to Prov. 20.8.) we shall there see that righteousness in that sense (whereby he meaneth inherent righteousness) will not abide the trial. Bring them hither then (meaning to God's Tribunal) and ask them here of this name, and never a Saint, nor Father, no not the Schoolmen themselves, but will shew how to un­derstand it aright. In their Commentaries it may be in their Questions, and Debates they will hold hard [Page 172] the other: but remove them hither, they forsake it presently, and take the name in the right sense. Just and perfect Job standing here. Though I be just (saith he) I will not hold up my head (i. e.) will never plead it, or stand upon, but put up a supplica­tion to be relieved by Jehovah, Justitia nostra. Da­vid dareth not stand here, but desireth God not to enter into judgment with him, &c. But if we must come (viz. to the judgment of God, as thither we must come all) then he will never account his own righteousness, but make mention of this name, Jeho­vah justitia nostra. Daniel, that man so greatly be­loved, after he saw the Antient of days set down on his Throne, and the book open before him there: Not in our righteousness, Dan. 9.18. Yet was that righteousness a Jehovah, (from the Lord) but here it would not serve, he must wait for the Messi­as, and the everlasting righteousness which he bring­eth with him. Esay, at the Vision of God sitting up­on his Throne, crieth out. Woe is me, I am a man of polluted lips: Woe is me, for I have held my peace. There he seeth that the very sins of omission, and the uery sins of his lips would be enough to condemn him, though he had never in act committed any. St. Paul saith, Though I know nothing by my self, and so had Justification a Domino, I am not therefore justified: It is another righteousness, and not that, must acquit him. Yea, the very Schoolmen themselves (saith he) take them from their Questions, Quod­libets, &c. let them be in the Soliloquies, Meditati­ons, or Devotions, and specially in directing how to deal with men in their last agony, when the Judge stands before the door, then take Anselm, take Bo­neventure, [Page 173] take Gerson, you would not wish to find Jehovah our Rightehusness better, or more preg­nantly acknowledged, than in them you shall find it. And indeed, saith he, so far as concerneth satisfacti­on for sin, and our escaping from eternal death, the Church of Rome taketh this name aright, and now they find no such absurdity in it, that Christ his rightheousness, and merit, are imputed to us: but in the positive Justice, or that part thereof which is me­ritorious for reward, there fall they into a phansie that a righteousness inherent in themselves, without the righteousness that is in Christ, will serve them. The reason, saith Bellarmin, why in satisfaction for sin we need Crist's righteousness to be accounted ours is because the offence is infinite. We reason a pari. There must also be a an infinite merit, because the re­ward is no less infinite. Is there not as much required to purchase for us the Crown of Glory, as to redeem us from the torments of Hell? Bellarmin, after his long Disputation, taking upon him to answer a case of Conscience, whether a man might repose any trust in that which he had so long argued for, saith at last, that Propter incertitudinem propriae Justitiae, & periculum inanis gloriae, tutissimum est fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia reponere. That is, Considering the uncertainty of man's righteous­ness, and the dangerousness of vain-glory, it is most safe to repose all our confidence in the mercy of God alone. Thus far Bp. Andrews, besides several o­ther passages which might be gathered out of his Sermon of Justification, on Jer. 23.6. which he translates thus; This is the name whereby they shall call him, The Lord our Righteousness. Plainly de­claring [Page 174] his stedfast Judgment to have been for the Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness, and for the insufficiency of any Righteousness Inherent, as for the purpose of Justification. How much were it to be wisht that Mr. Sh. were but as Orthodox in that point, and that he had taken in his first seasoning from such sound Authors as was that renowned Bishop, rather than from Socinus, or any of his Complices.

CCIII.

The late Reverend Bishop of Gloucester in his Exposition of the Catechism of the Church of Eng­land, p. 71. hath these words. But yet full sa­tisfaction he may plead (speaking of a Believer) The Obedience of the Son of God both Active and Passive; Active, in keeping and fulfilling every tittle of the Law; and Passive, in suffering the wrath of God due for the breach of the Law: Out of which Obedience ariseth that actual justice in Christ, that being imputed to us, in respect of that Relation in which we stand unto Christ (he and all his Elect being taken for one Body) God doth re­lease, acquit, and discharge the guilty sinner. And p. 73. God imputing to all penitent, and believing sinners the Obedience of his own Son, and his righ­teousness accounts them just in his sight. No man that reads those passages can doubt that Learned Prelate (for so his works speak him) to have been positive and peremptory for the Imputa­tion of Christ's Righteousness to Believers, and their Justification thereby, which he lays down as a Catechistical, Fundamental Truth, for [Page 175] writing an Exposition upon the Church Cate­chism, his whole business lyes with such Truths as those; Therefore in his Epistle Dedicatory to the present Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, he [...] these words. I though it my Duty to invoke your Lordships Patronage, and that you would be my [...]kler, as you haven been hitherto, against any [...] [...]ould dare to oppose these solid, and funda­ [...]tal [...]raths, which none will be so impudent to contradict but branded Hereticks, and hot-brain'd Ph [...]naticks I suppose Mr. Sh. do's not take himself to be either of those two; but you see what that Learned Prelate saith of all them who contradict the Truths asserted in his Exposition of the Catechism, which he calls fundamental, (and I am sure Justification is one of the great­est points that can be handled in any Catechism; therefore the Truths that concern that must be great Fundamentals) I say, you see what he saith of such Persons, in Thesi and it is no hard thing to reduce it ad Hypothesis.

CCIV.

Bishop Abbot, in his Defence of Mr. Perkins his book, called The Reformed Catholick, against Dr. Bishop, doth highly assert and vindicate the Doctrine of Justification by Christ's Righteous­ness Imputed, witness the following passages. 1. In p. 381. That our Justification and Righte­ousness before God standeth not in any inward vir­tues, or graces poured into our Souls, but in the Imputation of Christ's Obedience, and Righteous­ness made ours by Faith shall be proved unto him, [Page 176] God willing, by better Arguments than he shall be able to disprove. 2. In p. 382. he saith,

It is truly said by Mr. Perkins, that the Church of Rome in teaching justification by Works doth raze the very Foundation of Christian Faith, and maketh Christ but a counterfeit and false Christ; because, as saith the Apostle, If Righteousness be by the Law, then Christ dyed in vain, Gal. 2.21. Therefore peremptorily he denounceth, Ye are abo­lished from Christ, ye are fallen from Grace who­soever are justified by the Law, Gal. 5.4. 3. In p. 384. In whom (speaking of Christ) and not in our selves, we are made the Righteousness of God; that is, just in the sight of God, in that his Obedience, and Righteousness performed and wrought in our Name, and for our behoof, is im­puted unto us, by Faith in his Blood. 4 In p. 388. Bp. Abbot vindicates Mr. Perkins his first reason for imputed Righteousness, viz. That which must be our Righteousness before God must satisfie the Justice of the Law, which saith, Do these things and thou shalt live. But there is nothing that can satisfie that justice of the Law but the Righteousness, and Obedience of Christ. Ergo. 5. In p. 400. he vindicates Mr. Perkins his se­cond reason for imputed Righteousness, viz. That, As Christ was made sin for us, so we are made the Righteousness of God in him. 2 Cor. 5.21. But Christ was made sin by the Imputation of our sins, he being most Holy: Therefore a sinner is made Righteous in that Christs Righteousness is Imputed to him. 6. In p. 404. the excellent Bp. afore-said vindicates Mr. Perkins his third [Page 177] Reason for imputed Righteousness, viz. from Rom. 5. As by one mans disobedience, &c. whence he argues thus. As by the disobedience of Adam men were made sinners, so by the Obedience of Christ they are made righteous: But men are made Sinners by Imputation of Adam's sin unto them, Ergo. By Imputation of Christ's Justice we are made righteous. 7. In p. 413. he vindicateth Mr. Perkins his fourth and last Reason for im­puted Righteousness, taken from the consent of the Ancient Church, &c. 8. In p. 422. Bp. Abbot takes upon him to defend the Answers which Mr. Perkins gave to all and every the Objections which the Papists bring against Impu­ted righteousness, and the Arguments for Justi­fication by a Righteousness Inherent. Thus you see that Mr. Perkins himself was not a greater asserter of the imputation of Christ's Righte­ousness to believers, and their Justification there­by, than was the Learned and Excellent Bishop Abbot, whose Judgment, and Authority will weigh in the balance, against twenty such young Gentlemen, with their shels upon their heads, as he that hath taken upon him to oppose and deride it.

CCV.

Bp. Morton, in his book called, The Prote­stants Appeal, p. 69. plainly declareth himself for Imputed righteousness, by his quoting for the confirmation of it the following passage out of venerable Bede. Nothing can be more for our Ju­stification by the imputed merits of our head Christ [Page 178] than that his Heavenly axiome, saying, the condem­nation of Christ is our justification. Nothing more opposite unto the Romish justifying by Inherent per­fection than (speaking of the regenerate) to say, no man shall be saved by the righteousness of Works, but by the only righteousness of Faith. Now, that by Faith there he would have us to understand the Object of Faith, viz. the righteousness of Christ which Faith takes hold of, and relatively to which Faith is said to justifie, may be gathered from a similitude which he useth, in p. 630. Yet understand, good Reader (saith he) that of as a ring of Gold wherein there is inclosed a precious Stone of some singular virtue to cure thy Disease, thou usest to say that the ring doth cure thy grief, yet not of it's own virtue, although it be of Gold, but by the power of the precious stone, which it contains; so say we, that Faith justifieth, but not by any merit, or worthiness in it self, although it be the gift of God, and a virtue Theological, but by the power and vi [...]tue of Christ his precious merit of redemption, the object which it claspeth, and apprehendeth.

CCVI.

The incomparable Primate of Armagh, Bp. Ʋsher, in his Body of Divinity, p. 193. and in several other parts thereof, declareth himself abundantly for the Doctrine of Justification by Christ's Righteousness Imputed.

Justification, saith he, is the Sentence of God, whereby he of his Grace for the righteousness of his Son, by him imputed to us, and through Faith ap­prehended by us, doth free us from sin and Death, [Page 793] and account us righteous unto Life. For hereby we both have a deliverance from the Guilt, and punish­ment of all our sins, and being accounted righteous in the sight of God by the righteousness of our Sa­viour Christ imputed to us, are restored to a better Righteousness than ever we had in Adam. p. 194. Thus God imputing the righteousness of Christ to a sinner doth not account his sins to him, but interests him in a state of as full, and perfect freedom, and acceptance, as if he had never sinned, or had him­self fully satisfied. The matter of Justification, or that righteousness whereby a sinner stands justi­fied in God's sight, is not any righteousness inhe­rent in his own Person, and performed by him, but a perfect righteousness inherent in Christ, and per­formed for him. The Form, or being Cause of our justification, and that which makes the Righte­ousness of Christ so really ours that it doth justifie us is the gracious Imputation of God the Father ac­counting his Son's righteousness unto the sinner, and by that allowing, making it his to all effects, as if he himself had performed it. Thus far Bp. Ʋsher. Then he puts the Question. But how can Christ's righteousness be accounted ours? Is it not as absurd to say that we are justified by Christ's righteousness, as that a man should be wise with the wisdom of ano­ther? &c. Answereth it thus; no doubtless, be­cause this righteousness is in Christ, not as in a per­son severed from us, but as in the Head of the Church, the second Adam, from whom therefore it is communicated to all, who being united as Mem­bers to him do lay claim thereunto, and apply it unto themselves, Rom. 5.19. Rom. 10.4. For if [Page 180] the sin of Adam were of force to condemn us all, be­cause we were in his Loins, he being the head of our common Nature; why then should it seem strange that the Righteousness of our Saviour Christ, both God, and Man, should be available to justi­fie those that are interessed in him especially conside­ring we have a more strict conjunction in the Spirit with him, than ever we had in Nature with Adam? And though it be not fit to measure Heavenly things by the Yard of reason, yet it is not unreasonable that a man owing a thousand pound [...], and not being able to pay it, his Creditor may be satisfied by one of his Friends. In p. 196. that Excellent Pre­late hath this passage So that Faith justifieth only relatively, in respect of the Object which it [...]ast­neth on; to wit, the righteousness of Christ, by which we are justified: Faith being only the In­strument to convey so great a benefit unto the Soul, as the hand of the Beggar receives the Almes.

CCVII.

The opposers of Christ's Imputed righteous­ness, and of Justification by Faith alone, on Man's part, are found Fighters not only against the Writings of the Generality of the most emi­nent Divines of the Reformed Churches (as I have instanced in above thirty) but also against many Renowned Bishops of the Church of Eng­land, whose Names and sayings have been men­tioned; and not against them only, but also a­gainst the Homilies, as hath been made appear by several passages alledged from thence, which are point blank against them; yea, over [Page 181] and above all that, they will appear to fight against the eleventh Article of the Church of Eng­land, stiled; Of the justification of man. For that Article runs thus; We are accounted righte­ous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by Faith, and not for our own Works, or deservings. Wherefore that we are justi­fied by Faith only is most wholsom Doctrine, and full of comfort. Those are the very words of the Article. By the merits of Christ doubtless are meant his Active, and Passive Obedience, or what he did and suffered for Believers, in or­der to meriting and purchasing Eternal Life for them, which Obedience of our Saviour we call his righteousness. Now, saith the Article, we are accounted Righteous before God (that is, we are justified only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. But, saith Mr. Sh. (and as many as are of his mind) we are ac­counted Righteous before God for our sincere Obedience to the Gospel, or for our internal Holiness. For, saith he, p. 273. having spoken just before of Internal Holiness, and the confor­mity of our hearts and Lives to all moral Precepts. If this righteousness will not please God, I should have concluded that nothing can. He goes on, and saith, That Internal Holiness, which they call the righteousness of the Law, is that very righte­ousness of Faith which the Gospel commands, and which God approves and rewards; and this Impu­ted righteousness is no where to be found but in their own fancies. From those words of his I Argue thus against him. A man is counted Righteous [Page 182] before God (or justified, which is the same thing) for that which is his Righteousness, espe­cially his only Righteousness in the sight of God. But according to Mr. Sh. our only E­vangelical Righteousness in the sight of God is our internal Holiness, and conformity of our hearts and lives to all moral Principles, and Rules of a good life. Ergo. By our internal Holiness we are counted righteous (savingly) or justified in the sight of God. Imputed Righ­teousness being no where to be found that Mr. Sh. knows of, but in mens own fancies, men must necessarily be justified by inherent Righte­ousness, according to Mr. Sh. or without any righteousness at all. The latter cannot be, that a man should be righteous without any righte­ousness; therefore he is so in the sight of God, and to salvation (for that we are speaking of) by, and for his inherent holiness, or Gospel obedi­ence. And if so, Then Believers are not account­ed righteous before God, only for the merit of Jesus Christ (as the Article saith) yea so far from that, that they are not counted righteous before God, so much as partly, or in part, for the merit of Christ, because their only righteous­ness (according to Mr. Sh.) is their internal holiness, and conformity to moral Precepts. Again, If we are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of Jesus Christ, as the Article saith, then we are so accounted by, and for, an imputed righteousness; yea by, and for an imputed righteousness only. For there are but two ways whereby any righteousness can be [Page 183] ours: viz. either by Inherency, or by Imputation. But the merits of Jesus Christ are not inherent in us; therefore if they be our righteousness in the sight of God, they must be imputed to us. No­thing can be more plain than that, if we are ju­stified by the righteousness of another, viz. of Christ, we are justified by a righteousness impu­ted, and not inherent; and consequently that there is such a thing as imputed righteousness, else­where than in the fancies of men. Sure I am, The merits of Christ can avail us nothing, unless they be imputed, or reckoned to us; or unless God, upon the account thereof (and not of our own internal holiness) do deal with us, as if we in, and of our selves had been worthy of eternal life, Christ's meriting had signified nothing to us, unless he had merited for us, or with an in­tention that his merits should be put to our ac­count; as Christ's giving up himself to death, had been of no use to us, unless he had loved us, and given himself for us. If Christ's merit be not imputed to us, for the accepting of us righte­ous before God, we have no advantage by it any more than a man can have had by a plaister that was never applyed. Now they that say we are justified only for the merit of Christ (or for the righteousness of Christ imputed, which hath been prov'd to come all to one,) as saith the Article of our Church, do vastly differ from Mr. Sh. that saith we are not justified, no not partly, by Imputed Righteousness; yea indeed, that there is no such thing. If his evasion should be that Christ hath merited that our sincere obe­dience, [Page 184] and God's acceptance thereof, instead of that which is compleat and perfect, should be the matter, and form of our justification, or righteousness before God (which is like the Pa­pists notion, viz. that works dyed in the blood of Christ do justifie) I say, such a notion as that is very unsound and unsafe. For that were to make as if Christ did give away the glory of Justification, and Salvation to another, viz. to our Gospel obedience; and died not to save us himself, but make us Saviours to our selves: or had said to Faith, and Good Works, as Joab did to David, 2 Sam. 12.27. I have fought against Rab­bab, and have taken the City of Waters. Now there­fore encamp thou against the City and take it, lest I take the City, and it be called after my name. i. e. he had as good as done the work, but he would have David have the honor of it. To say that Christ merited that we might merit; (or be counted worthy of eternal life upon account of our own inherent righteousness, which is all one) is to say that Christ who merited that we should be saved by his Grace, merited that we should be saved by our own works, which is a contradicti­on to reason, and a turning the Covenant of Grace into a Covenant of Works. To say that Christ hath merited that our sincere, though im­perfect obedience to the Gospel should be the righteousness whereby we are counted savingly righteous before God; is, 1. To attribute the Pardon of our sins to our own good works, (for by what we are justified, by that we are par­doned; or by that righteousness our sins are co­vered) [Page 185] now that cannot be, for our less than due obedience cannot satisfie God for our disobedi­ence. Or, 2. It were to make as if the imput­ing, or imputation of Christ's righteousness to Believers, would not have been sufficient for their Justification, unless that imputed Righte­ousness were caked out for that purpose by our good works, as our good works had not been sufficient if they had not been taked out with the righteousness of Christ. Now who dares to think that for God to have reckoned what Christ had done and suffered, as Mediator, to have been done and suffered for us, and in our behalf, had not been sufficient to have freed us from hell, and entitled us to eternal life? And if that alone be sufficient, why should we think that God hath added Gospel Obedience as a Part­ner with Christ in the justification of a sinner; or that we are justified partly by Christ's passive, and partly by our own active obedience? They that shall venture between those two stools will fall to the ground. Far be it from us to think that Christ hath died to make a Saviour of any thing, or of any body but himself. If God need do no more than reckon to us the satisfaction made to his Law, and Justice, by Christ our Surety, as if we had made it our selves, in order to his making us happy (with consistence to all his Attributes) why should we think that God doth call in the assistance of Inherent Righteous­ness, for, and towards the justifying of a sinner? Frustra fit per plura. He that saith, If there had been a Law that could have given Righteousness, [Page 186] verily Righteousness should have been by that Law. Would he not say that the Righteousness of Christ imputed being alone sufficient for the Ju­stification of a sinner, verily he shall be justified by that righteousness alone. Internal Righteous­ness is good for many other excellent purposes, though not to be the matter of our Justifying righteousness before God; as Gold and Silver are good for many things, though not to eat. Upon the whole matter I find Mr. Sh. (and as many more as are of his mind) highly peccant against the 11th Article of our Church, as to the first Proposition the ein contained; viz. that only for the merit of our Lord, and Saviour Christ, we are accepted righteous before God. Concerning which Mr. Rogers (the then Arch Bishops Chap­lain, and explainer of the Articles by Allow­ance) addeth, And this is the Faith, and Con­fession of all the Churches Reformed The 2d Pro­position contained in the 11th Article, according to Mr. Rogers his division of it, is this, Only by Faith are we accounted righteous before God. This branch of the Article seems to hold forth how, and by what means we become interessed in the merit of Christ, for which alone we are count­ed righteous before God, viz by Faith. But Mr. Sh. contradicteth that first Assertion two ways: 1. By saying in effect that we are justified as truly, and as much, by Repentance, Love, and e­very other Grace, as by Faith. For he makes Faith to be the Sum, and Substance of all Graces, as if every grace were Faith, and Faith were all graces in one. 2. By saying that we are [Page 187] justified or accounted righteous before God not only by Faith, but also by Good Works, which he calls Faith, or the Righteousness of Faith, witness, Sh. p. 273. where he saith, That in­ternal Holiness, which they call the Righteous­ness of the Law, is that very righteousness of Faith which the Gospel commands. Now that Internal Holiness, he calls a conformity of heart and life to the Moral Precepts, which making to be the same thing with Faith, he strongly confounds Faith and Good Works, and makes them both one. In so doing he contradicteth the third Proposition contained in the Article which I am speaking of; viz. that we are count­ed righteous before God not for our own works, or deservings. In which words there is a manifest opposition made betwixt Faith, and Good Works, which Mr. Sh would have us take for one and the same thing. He makes as if Faith, and Good Works are all one, and so brings in Works into Justification; whereas the Article not only di­stinguisheth, but opposeth them, and so ex­cludes Works from Justification. He that with reference to what hath been objected, can re­concile Mr. Sh's. Tenets of Justification to the 11th Article of our Church, erit mihi Magnus Apollo. Now that the World may be sure that I have not mistaken the sense and meaning of the Church in this their 11th Article, I appeal to the Homilies before cited; and who knows not that the Homilies are the most genuine, and au­thentick Comment upon the Articles? (as the Prophets of the Old Testament were upon the [Page 188] five Books of Moses.) and doubtless as the Homilies have stated the Doctrine of Justificati­on; so the Article intended it. And therefore whosoever contradicts the Homilies in the point of Justification (as Mr. Sh. has done abundant­ly) must contradict the Articles also. After all this, I can hardly forbear to put forth such a Que­gion to Mr. Sh. as Dalilah did to Sampson, Now tell me, I pray thee, wherewith thou mightest be bound? Judg. 15.10. If neither the general cur­rent of Orthodox, and Famous Divines of the Reformed Churches; nor the unanimous con­sent of many renowned Bishops of the Church of England; nor the Homilies; nor the Arti­cles of our Church; nor all together, can hold you; tell me, I pray thee, wherewith thou mayst be bound, and wherein thy great strength lieth.

CCVIII.

Considering how great, and manifold an inter­est the righteousness of Christ, which can be ours only by Imputation, has been proved to have in the business of justifying a sinner before God, their error, sin, and presumption must needs be great, who set themselves to oppose that righ­teousness, and the imputation of it. For it hath been proved that the Righteousness of Christ, is the material cause of our Justification, or the matter of our Righteousness before God; or that Righteousness by which, and with which, and upon the account of which believers are justified in God's sight. Also, that the Righteousness of Christ is the Meritorious cause of our Justificati­on, or that Righteousness for which, or for the [Page 189] sake of which, and by the merit and desert of which, Believers have their sins pardoned, and are accepted righteous to eternal life. It hath also been proved that the Righteousness of Christ is the Formal cause of Justification, if con­sidered as imputed, or that the imputation of Christ his Righteousness is so; not that Believ­ers are formally righteous with the righteousness of Christ, as a wise man is formally wise by his inherent wisdome; but for that they are as effect­ually saved from Hell, and accepted to eternal life upon account of what Christ hath done, and suffered for them, (which I call his Righteous­ness) as if they had a perfect compleat Righte­ousness inherent in themselves (whereby they were formally righteous to the strictest sense) with which to appear before God. I have also proved the Righteousness of Christ to be the great Object of that Faith which has been said to be the Instrumental cause of Justification, and that Faith is said to justifie us only correlatively unto Christ Crucified, Christ fulfilling all righ­teousness for us, whose righteousness is appre­hended, accepted, and applyed by Faith alone. That the righteousness of Christ is also the Pro­catarctical cause of our Justification, or the great cause which doth move God, ab extra (or from without himself) in opposition to the proegume­nal, or inwardly moving cause, viz. the Love, and good Will of God) to justifie sinners; For thereunto is God moved by what Jesus Christ hath done, and suffered for them. Forgiving one another (saith the Apostle) even as God for [Page 190] Christ's sake hath forgiven you, Eph. 4.32. Last­ly, From what hath been said may also be ga­thered that the exalting, or magnifying of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, or that the Infi­nite sufficiency, worth, and dignity of the Sa­crifice and Satisfaction of Christ, and that the infinite Love and Mercy of God in providing such a Sacrifice, and such a righteousness for sin­ners, might be made known to the World. I say, that is one of the great Ends, or Final causes of God's justifying a believing Sinner. Wit­ness Eph. 2.7. That in the Ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his Grace, in his kind­ness towards us through Christ Jesus.

The righteousness of Christ being thus upon the matter all in all, in the business of Justifi­cation, not only the material, but the formal, the Procatarctical, the meritorious, the Final cause of Justification (under several notions and con­siderations) it will follow that they who deny Imputed righteousness, and consequently the righteousness of Christ, which is thereby in­tended, do lay the Ax of their Error, to the very root of the Doctrine of Justification (al­most the greatest Doctrine in all Christianity) and do threaten to cut it down, both Root and Branch. For take away the Material, Formal, Meritorious, Procatarctical, Final, and Instru­mental causes of Justification (for if the object of Faith, viz. the righteousness of Christ be taken away, the Act must needs cease; and so Faith, the Instrument of Justification, must fall to the ground.) I say, take away all these causes [Page 191] of Justification, and what will remain? Scarce so much as were the remains of Jezebel, whom when they went to bury, 2 King. 9.35. they sound no more of her than the skul and the feet, and the palms of her hands, so that (as it was Prophe­sied by Elijah) they shall not say this is Jezebel; that is, they should not know her to be the same; or to allude to what is said of Dagon, in 1 Sam. 5.4. And the Head of Dagon, and both the palms of his Hands were cut off upon the Threshold, only the stump of Dagon was left to him. So the op­posers of Christ's imputed righteousness do leave scarce so much as a stump of the Doctrine of Justification.

And as it was said of Dagon, that he was fal­len upon his Face to the ground, so the Adver­saries of Imputed righteousness have laid the Doctrine of Justification flat upon its face, (as it were) so that according to them we cannot know it to be what it is, or say, This is justifi­cation. The righteousness whereby we are ju­stified, and wherewith we are sanctified are so confounded, and made one and the same, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace made so like each other, as to differ but in de­gree; one exacting a perfect, the other accep­ting an imperfect, sincere Obedience for our sa­ving righteousness before God, Protestant, and Popish Doctrine so blended, or rather Protestan­tism (or what is so called) so conform'd to Popery, so many of the main causes of Just fication destroy'd at once; Justification so dwindled a­way to almost nothing to what had wont to be [Page 192] made of it, that we are in no small danger of becoming more corrupt than the Papists them­selves in the great Doctrine of Justification: If the Enemies of Christ's imputed righteousness shall proceed at such a rate as Mr. Sh. has be­gun.

CCIX.

One good way to be established in the Doct­rine of Christ's imputed righteousness, and pre­served from the damnable errors aforesaid (for so I must call them) is to take heed how we deny the Imputation, or at leastwise the Infect­ion and Inherency of Original sin. Be establish­ed in the belief of imputed sin, and you will never stagger at the Doctrine of Imputed righ­teousness. For who ever did deny the latter who did not first doubt the former? Now, the In­fection or pollution of our Natures by Original Sin, me thinks is evident from this Argument, and Consideration amongst others. If we were not born in sin, and Conceived in Iniquity, we should have an indifferency to good or evil, no more propension to evil than to good, we should be as ductile, and pliable to what is good, as to what is evil, consequently, as we had more incentives from without, more inducements, more advantages, more helps and conduce­ments to one than to the other, we should close with that, whether good, or evil. As a man that walks abroad for his pleasure, being per­fectly indifferent which way he walks, East, or West; let a Friend come and desire him to go [Page 193] with him Eastward or Westward, that way that he desires him to go with him he will go, be­cause before he was perfectly indifferent which way he went. He was like a pair of Scales han­ging in aequilibrio, in an equipoise, if but a grain or two be cast into either of them presently that Scale is turned; I say, the Scale is presently turned on that side, because before they were just even. So would it be with Men were they like to two even Scales, as to good and evil, nei­ther of which did in the least preponderate (as they would Naturally be if their were no pollu­tion by Original Sin) the least grain, or mo­ment of reason, and of inducement cast in on either side would cause the Scale to turn on that side, had they ever so little more of Example, Counsel, Encouragement, Interest, or other Inducement to be, and to do good, than to be, and to do evil; they would certainly be, and do that which were good. But woful Experience tells us that it often proves quite otherwise. For how many Children have we seen and known, whose Parents from their very Child-hood have taken all possible care to ingage them in, and for the wayes of God, setting excellent Example before them, and suffering them to see no other, giving them the best Counsel they could, shew­ing them what was good, and what was not; the ugliness and danger of sin, the beauty and profitableness of Holiness, threatning and ter­rifying them in case they did amiss; yea, cor­recting of them now, and then, incouraging them by large promises if they did well, and by [Page 194] frequent great rewards as oft as they found them well doing, giving them the best books to read, the best Company to keep, watching over them continually; and yet after all this, those Chil­dren, or some of them, have betaken themselvs to ill courses, and run into all excess of riot, though Parents have done all that ever they could to keep down the Weeds of Sin, and to sow and cherish the Seeds of Virtue and good­ness in them from time to time. If such Chil­dren had not been Naturally propense to evil, and averse to good, or propense to evil, and not to good, upon all those helps and advantages un­to being good, they certainly have prov'd so: It was therefore doubtless the Corruption of their Natures (otherwise caller Original sin) which made them break all those bonds, and cast all those Cords from them, which would otherwise have held them to the performance of their Duty, and unto keeping Consciences void of offence towards God and Men. Never tell me that any man hath as much mind to do one thing as another, when a hundred times so much perswasion cannot prevail upon him to do the one, as will prevail upon him to do the o­ther. When Scales are even, a few grains ad­ded to either of them, will cause that side to turn, and to weigh down: but where it is so that many Ounces, and Pounds will not cause one of the Scales to out-weigh the other, 'tis most certain they are not even, but one Scale doth much preponderate the other. Where ground is plain and level, the way backward [Page 795] and forward are both alike easie, but when it is hard to go, and easie to come back, is a sign the ground is Hilly and uneven. Finding therefore that the doing of good is to men Naturally dif­ficult and uneasie like going up a steep Hill, and that to do evil is easie to men, like coming down the Hill; 'tis manifest that the Nature of man is not indifferent to good and evil, but averse to good, and propense to evil. When Men pre­sume to deny a thing so evident in the sight of Experience, as is the pollution of our Natures by Original sin, because they cannot satisfie themselves touching the way and manner how it it is conveyed (as if men should deny that the River Nilus ever had any streams, or that there was ever such a River, because they could ne­ver find out it's Head) no wonder if they make bold also to deny what they never saw, and felt (as they love done the other) viz. the Imputed Righteousness of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, whosoever is duly sensible of the great pollution of his Nature, as well as of his Life, and of Original depravation as well as of de­filement by actual sins, will cry out for the Robe of Christ's Imputed Righteousness to cover his manifold defects and deformities, and never dare to trust to such filthy rags as he finds his own Righteousness to be.

CCX.

There is so great a connection betwixt the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, and that of Imputed Righteousness, and so great a depend­ance [Page 196] of the latter upon the former, that who­soever is hearty and stedfast in the belief of Christ's Satisfaction, or having made attonement and expiation for the sins of Believers by his blood, must either not understand Consequences, or he hearty also in the belief of the Mediato­ry Righteousness of Christ it's being Imputed to Believers, and their being justified before God upon that account, God looking upon them as having satisfied his Justice though not in their own Persons, yet in, and by Christ their Sure­ty, and therefore pronouncing them discharged from guilt and righteous to Eternal Life. If Christ's Satisfaction be accepted of God for be­lievers, and they accepted with God upon ac­count thereof, then is his Satisfaction, or Righ­teousness Imputed to them, for that is the mean­ing of Imputed, as I have else-where explained. But if Christ's Satisfaction be not accepted of God for believers, or they accepted with God for it, then they are never the better for it, they have no real benefit and advantage by it. If a man pay a thousand pounds to another man's Creditor, to whom he owes as much as that comes to, but never tells him, that he pays that mony on behalf of that other man, or would have him look'd upon to be now out of Debt, and to have given Satisfaction by his hand, I say, if such a thing he not expressed, he to whose Creditor that thousand pounds was paid, shall be never the better for it. Let to man take the boldness to deny Imputed Righte­ousness, or the Imputation of Christ's Righ­teousness [Page 197] to Believers, till he hath first acquired the impudence to deny the satisfaction of Christ also. For he that denies the former, do's by consequence (that is, in a mask and vizard) de­ny the latter also, which visibly, and with open face he is ashamed, or afraid to do.

CCXI.

The apprehension of approaching Death o­pens almost every man's eyes that professeth himself a Christian, to see the necessity of an Im­puted Righteousness, even theirs who were ready to deride it whilst they lookt upon the evil day as far off. Bp. Dounam, in his book of Justifica­tion, p. 2003. tells us, Many who have lived Pa­pists, have in this most weighty point died Reformed Catholicks. And to this purpose (saith he) there is extant amongst them in divers Books, a Form of visiting the sick, wherein both the Pastor is direct­ed what to say, and the sick person what to answer. The Pastor therefore having demanded these Questi­ons. Brother, Dost thou rejoyce that thou shalt die in the Faith? Dost thou confess that thou hast not liv'd so well as thou oughtest? Doth it repent thee? Hast thou a will to repent if thou hadst space of life? Dost thou believe that our Lord Jesus Christ died for thee? Dost thou believe that thou canst not be saved but by his death? And having received af­firmative answers to every Question, he inforceth this Exhortation, that while his soul remaineth in him, he should place his whole affiance in the death of Christ, and in no other thing: and that if God will judge him, if he shall say unto him, Thou art a [Page 198] sinner, that thou hast deserved damnation, that he is angry with thee, he should say; O Lord, I inter­pose the death of thy Son between me and thy judg­ment, between my sins and thee, between me and my bad deserts, between me and thine anger. So Quae­stiones authore Anselmo morientibus proponi solitae per universum Christianum orbem. Bp. Ʋsher, de Success. p. 194. & Respensio ad Jesuitam, p. 513. Chemnitius his Examin, part. 1. p. 243. Card. Hosij Confess. Petricoviens. c. 74. fol. 143. &c. In the Edition Printed at Venice, there are these two Questions. Dost thou believe that thou shalt come to glory, not by thy own merits, but by the virtue, and merit of Christ's passion? And a little after, Dost thou believe that our Lord Jesus Christ died for our Salvation, and that no man can be saved by his own merits, or by any other means but by the merit of his passion? unto both which an Affirmative An­swer was made. Sic ordo baptizandi cum modo visi­tandi, Impress. Venete. Anno 1575. fol. 34. See Perkins his Reformed Catholick p. 276. Surely the truth of that Doctrine is much to be questi­oned, in which Papists themselves, though they instruct people the greatest part of their life time, yet dare not but teach them otherwise when they come to die.

CCXII.

Many have decry'd Imputed Righteousness, and professed to expect Salvation, or Justificati­on, only by that righteousness which in Inherent in themselves, who yet have really and in good earnest had no Inherent Righteousness to pre­tend [Page 199] to. In this number were the Pharises of old, who seemed to think themselves whole and not to stand to need of Christ for their Physitian, and yet God knows they were far from being so. For whilst they pai'd tithe of Mint, and Annise, and Cummin, they omitted the weigh­tier matters of the Law; Judgment, Mercy, and Faith: Whereupon Christ cryed out, Woe unto you Scribes, and Pharisees Hypocrites, &c. Mat. 23.23. & Luke 20.47. Christ speaks thus of them: Which devour Widdows houses, and for a pretense make long Prayers. The Scribes, and Pha­risees were great contemners of Christ's Righte­ousness, and pretendedly confident of their own, God I thank thee (said the Pharisee) that I am not as other men are, or as this Publican: I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. They boasted much of their own Righteousness; they were they who justified themselves before men, but in the mean time, bring such as they were, they could not chuse but know that they had in­deed, and in truth no Righteousness to boast of.

CCXIII.

'Tis vehemently to be suspected that some men have made so much the higher pretences unto being justified by their own Righteousness because they knew they had no Righteousness of their own whereby to be Justified; so that their so doing was but a meer cloak, colour, and covert for their unrighteousness: as who should say, No man will suspect us to be unrighteous, or ungodly (though we know our selves so to [Page 200] be) so long as we bear the world in hand that we have such confidence of our own Righteous­ness, that we expect, and desire no other Righ­teousness to Justifie us, that we need not fly for refuge (as others do) to that which they call Imputed Righteousness. As they who have no beauty, think themselves most concern'd to paint, thereby to conceal, and cover their de­formities; so they are most prone to pretend to a Righteousness of their own, who have not the shadow of such a Righteousness to pretend to. A worthy Divine was heard to say, in his time, That he would not for a thousand pounds have been ignorant of the Lives and Conversations of men whose manner it was to cry down the Righteousness of Christ Imputed, and to cry up their own Inherent Righteousness. For (saith he) I might possibly have been drawn into the same Error with them, if I had found their lives exactly good, but what I have known by them, or several of them, has perfectly de­livered me, saith he, from that temptation. He thought he had found the emptiest barrels in that respect, to give the greatest sound. It seems to be a maxime amongst some men, that The less they are what is good and excellent in truth and in reality, the more they ought to seem or to appear to be so.

CCXIV.

There is hardly any one thing represented in, and by the word of God, more dangerous and fatal, or destructive to the souls of men and wo­men, than to trust, or to have trusted to their [Page 201] own righteousness, and not to the righteousness of Jesus Christ, which put to a believers account is call'd Imputed Righteousness. I wish that a few texts to that purpose might be well weighed by Mr. Sherlock, and others, viz. Rom. 9.33. Rom. 10.3. Gal. 3.10. Gal. 5.2, 4. Rom. 11.6. But Israel, which followed after the Law of righteous­ness, hath not attained to the Law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by Faith, but as it were by the works of the Law; for they stumb­led at that stumbling stone, (viz. at Christ, and at the way of Justification, and Salvation by him.) For (Rom. 10.3.) They being ignorant of God's righ­teousness; and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. v. 4. For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believ­eth. See also Gal. 3.10. For as many as are of the works of the Law (i. e. as expect to be justified by the works of the Law) are under the Curse. Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the Law to do them. Now it is the Moral Law that is here spoken of, and of which he saith, v. 11. But that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God is evident, for the Just shall live by Faith. See also Gal. 5.4. Christ is become of none effect to you, whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace. That he cannot be justified by the grace of God, who expects to be justified by his own works (& if not by grace then not at all) seems evident as from the forementioned Texts, so likewise from Rom. 11.6. And if by Grace, then it is no [Page 202] more of Works: otherwise Grace is no more Grace: But if it be of Works, then it is no more Grace: Otherwise Work is no more Work.

CCXV.

The danger of going about to establish our own Righteousness in point of Justification being re­presented so very great, those Doctrines are vehemently to be suspected which look that way, as leading towards an Error: to which, what Solomon saith of a Harlot, may be allu­sively applyed, Proverbs 7.27. Her House is the way to Hell, going down to the Chambers of Death. As also what is said Proverbs 9.18. He knoweth not that the dead are there, and that her Guests are in the depth of Hell. I say, considering that, of this Error, as of the Strang Woman; it may be so said, the safest way will be to take that counsel concerning it, that Solomon gives concerning the path of the Wicked, and the way of Evil Men, Prov. 4.14, 15. Enter not into it, avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away.

Whilst we are all subject to Error (as we shall be in this life) it will be our wisdome, if we must Err at all, to be sure to Err on the safest side, where we shall not en­danger being burned our selves, for razing the Foundation; but only having our work burned, for building Hay, and Stubble up­on it. Now certainly it is better to ascribe too much to the Grace of God, and to the Righteousness of Christ, than too little; and [Page 203] to attributte too little to our own Works, and Righteousness, than too much. But I hope I have done neither.

'Tis safer venturing to Err with Puritans, such of them as have been great Assertors of Justification by the Righteousness of Christ Imputed, than to Err with Papists, who use to oppose it in their Health, though ma­ny of them have owned it upon their Death­beds.