SECT. I. The Subject Matter proposed .

SEeing the apprehensions of Persons are so different about the Doctrine and Nature of Justification , and so much depends upon the having a right notion hereof : At the intreaty of some of my Friends , for their satisfaction , and for the benefit of others , I shall ( God assisting ) with all possible plainness declare my Sentiments in this particular .

1. I do believe that by and through the satisfactory and meritorious Righteousness of our Redeemer the Lord Jesus Christ , a Covenant of Grace hath been purchased for , and granted by God unto sinners , after they by their sin had violated or broken that Law which injoined perfect sinless works , and thereby made themselves incapable of performing obedience to that Law , which at the first it required as a condition of life , and so of having Justification thereby . Heb. 12. 24. Christ is called the Mediatour of the new Covenant , and that because he hath purchased by his death a grant of pardon and life by promise for sinners upon their sincere repentance and faith . There are promises of pardon and everlasting life to sinners that repent and believe , Acts 3. 19. John 3. 16. Now for any to affirm that these promises are made , and the grace promised granted to sinners who repent and believe , without regard had by God unto Christ , as the purchaser of them by his meritorious satisfactory righteousness ; is for them to affirm , that God grants and gives saving grace to penitent sinners which Christ never purchased nor merited , and this is for none but the Socinian to hold .

2. This Law or Covenant of Grace thus purchased and granted , injoins sinners faith in Christ , which faith is never without repentance nor sincere obedience , if the believer be continued after the gift of faith ; for undoubtedly if the believer live in this World after the gift of faith , so long as he doth live , through the grace of God he continues obedient , 1 John 3. 23. Matt. 21. 30. Heb. 5. 9.

3. Christ by his righteousness hath purchased and merited the Holy Spirit to work faith in the hearts of all those sinners who thereby are brought to believe , John 14. 26. John 15. 26. The Spirit is sent by the Father in Christ's name ; and sent by Christ from the Father . Let any one now prove , that what the Father gives in Christ's name , and what Christ sends from the Father is not purchased and merited by him . And the Spirit is called the Spirit of Faith , i. e. the principal Efficient , or Author of it , 2 Corinth 4. 13.

4. I believe that all those who by the Grace and Spirit of Christ do sincerely believe , shall for and upon the account of Christ's satisfaction and meritorious righteousness be saved : but as for such as live and die in infidelity they shall be ●amned , notwithstanding Christ's merits ; and that because they have rejected the remedy through their unbelief ; I speak of the Adult , John 3. 16. 18. 36.

5. I do believe that as the first Covenant did require sinless , perfect constant obedience , Galat. 3. 10 : so this obedience performed by innocent Adam , would have been his justifying righteousness , or that righteousness upon which this Law or Covenant would have justified him , or given him a right to Life promised , which is all one with Justification , if confusion can but be removed , and this without any regard had to the righteousness of another , Rom. 10. 5.

6. I believe that as the second Covenant , i. e. the Covenant of Grace doth require true Faith ; so where there is this true Faith , which is the righteousness this Covenant calls for on the Sinner's part ; this Covenant doth as certainly justifie the sinner thereupon ; i. e. give him a right to Pardon and Life , as the Covenant of works would have justified Adam , and given him a right to life , had he continued in the state of integrity . Though observe , That it is with regard had to the righteousness and satisfaction of Christ , that this Faith is accepted and accounted by God in the Covenant of Grace for a sinner's personal justifying righteousness , instead of that sinless perfect righteousness which the Covenant of Works injoined ; And is not this wonderful Grace ? I add , it is Faith in the sense of the Gospel giveth Sinners interest in Christ , and a right to all saving benefits he hath purchased and so merited ; which right given by the Covenant of Grace is its justifying the Soul as God's moral Instrument . Though still I most firmly hold , that it is for the sake of Christ alone and his righteousness that the believing sinner hath this right ; and that this his Faith , which is the gift of God , is accepted as a personal righteousness , instead of sinless perfect obedience I do not say by the same Law ; i. e. the Law of innocency or perfect works no , but by the Covenant of Grace which accepts of sincerity instead of strict legal perfection . I deny then with abhorrence , that Faith is any such thing , as a satisfactory and meritorious righteousness in whole or in part , such a righteousness being proper to our blessed Mediatour the Lord 〈◊〉 : But then I do not deny , but affirm that a true and living Faith is by God in the Gospel constituted , that righteousness which giveth sinners right both to Christ and all the blessings of the Covenant of Grace . And grant me but according to Scripture , Rom. 3. 21 , 22. Rom. 4. 13. Philipp. 3 9. that Faith is a righteousness , and such a righteousness as the Gospel calls for , and that it giveth right according to the Gospel promise to Christ and his purchased benefits , and see then what ground there is to deny it the place of a justifying righteousness . I ask doth it give any interest in Christ , and right to the blessings he hath purchased ? if not , then an Infidel must have as great an interest in Christ , and as much right to Pardon and Life as a believer . If you say , that Faith doth give interest in Christ and right to these blessings , then you say the same with me ; i. e. that for the sake of Christ God by the Gospel hath constituted Faith to be our personal justifying righteousness , or that which gives us interest in Christ , and an actual right to the blessings purchased by , and promised through him , and this is the justification by Faith I intend , and all that I know of in and by the Gospel .

Justification by all is acknowledged to be a Law term , if so then , the matter of Justification is jus secundum legem , a right in Law , and this right in Law results immediately from a conformity to that Law , and the conformity to that Law is the righteousness which that Law requires : And the Legislator or Law-maker justifying a person , is his judging , asserting , or accounting by this his Law a person upon his conformity thereunto , to have right to the priviledges contained in the premiant or rewarding ●art thereof .

If the matter stand thus then in the nature of Justification , as is clear , none can be justified by the Law of Innocency , or that Law which injoins sinless perfect works , for we can have no right in or by that Law to Pardon and Life ; and that because tha●●●w relates to Man considered in the state of sinless ●ntegrity , who as such having no need of Pardon , it makes no provision for it ; And , 2 We cannot have right in or by that Law to Life , seeing none of the fallen race of Adam can yield conformity thereunto , and so cannot have that righteousness which answers this Law . And if so , as is plain , then God the Legislator or Author of this Law doth not , cannot judge , assert , or account that any have a right in or by this Law to Pardon and Life , and so doth not , nor cannot justifie us by it , and if not , doth not , nor cannot account a perfect legal righteousnes● , such as Christ's is , to be our personal justifying righteousness , for if so , then we should be personally righteous in the sense of the Law of Innocency .

But are we ? If it be said , not in our selves , but in Christ we are , I answer , if not in our selves , then we are not , nor cannot be personally righteous , or righteous in our own persons by a perfect legal righteousness , and so according to your grant , the righteousness of Christ is not nor cannot be our formal personal righteousness , seeing that , that is a perfect legal righteousness . If it be said we are personally righteous in the sense of the Law of Innocency in Christ ; then we must be righteous in our selves , and this contradicts the former , that we are not thus righteous in our selves ; for how can a Man be righteous in his person , but he must be righteous in himself ? Find me who can , the person of a Man without the nature of a Man ? and further , to say we are perfectly legally righteous in another , suppose by imputation , or in God's account in our own Persons , is to say that God accounts us to he perfectly legally righteous in our selves ● for so he must , if he account us thus righteous in our own Persons , and not to be perfectly legally righteous in our selves , because only so in another , and not in our selves , and does this become the infini●● wise God of Truth ?

Now then if Justification be a Law act , or the act of God as Legislator by his Law , and it is not , nor cannot be the act of God by the Law of Innocency : then we must either have another Law , and such a righteousness as is a conformity to that Law , or else we must have no Justification . And look what Law it is , conformity to which gives us for the sake of Christ a right to Pardon and Life , that conformity must be our justifying righteousness , and God by this Law doth judge , assert , or account ( which is all one with ●mp●tation ) that we have a right for Christ's Merits sake to the priviledges above mentioned ; what Law now can this be , but the Law of Grace the Gosp●● called the Law , of Faith ; because it commands Faith , and threatens damnation in case of unbelief , and promises ●or Christ's sake Pardon and Life upon believing : Joh● ● . 16. This Faith is a practical Faith , and so includes the whole of what the Gospel commands and consequently repentance and sincere obedience to 〈…〉 of the Moral Law , ( Isa. 55. 3. ) for I am for from thinking that a notional Faith is a 〈…〉 ●●ne , manifest it is , that God by his Law 〈…〉 justifies us for the ●●isfaction and merits of Christ upon conformity hereunto , and this conformity in our personal righteousness , or that which gives us right by this Law to the benefits , respecting eternal Salvation which Christ hath purchased , and thus it must be , unless Persons will say and prove , that to justifie is not to have a right in Law ; and then Justification must not be a Law act , if it be granted it is , then this right must be a righteousness , and the righteousness of our persons , as we through God's Grace in our own persons do yield conformity to it .

But some may say , it must 〈◊〉 sinless perfect righteousness which must justifie us ; but Faith is no such righteousness . This Objection speaks great Ignorance in the Objectors ; 1. Of the nature of the two Covenants , i. e. the Covenant of Works , and the Covenant of Grace ; and , 2. Of the nature of Justification , or justifying righteousness as it is jus secundum legem , a right in Law : But to the Objection I Answer , If you speak of Justification by the Law of Works , I grant it must be such a righteousness ; but what do you hope to be justified by that Law ? if so , you must not be offended if I tell you in the words of the Apostle , you are fallen from grace , Galat. 5. 4. But if you speak of Justification by the Gospel , which is the Justification I plead for , and I hope shall ever stand by , then such a righteousness is not required , but faith is that righteousness , as hath been proved ; though still this faith is neither accounted nor accepted for a justifying righteousness , but for the sake of a sinless perfect righteousness ; that is to say , the righteousness of Christ God man Mediatour , Rom. 3. 24 , 25 , 26.

But it may be further said , faith is our own righteousness , and if we be justified by faith , we must be justified by our own righteousness .

I Answer , that we are justified by faith relatively , or as it respects Christ as the Object , the Scripture is express and full for it , Rom. 3. 30. Gal. 3. 8. Rom. 3. 28. Rom. 5. 1. Galat. 2. 16. Acts 13. 39. let any Man prove that in these Scriptures faith is not intended , but only its object . But further for Answer , if by our own righteousness be meant such a righteousness , of which we are the Efficient Causes or Authors , or the purchasing meritorious Cause ; I deny that faith is our own righteousness , but if by our own righteousness be meant such a righteousness as is the gift of God , and the fruit of Christ's Merits , and of which we as qualified Subjects are the performers , so I grant faith is our own righteousness , and though we are justified by it , yet we are justified freely by Grace . Rom. 4. 16. Ephes. 2. 8. But the Objection may be retorted , when it is said Christ's righteousness in its self , or in its own nature in our Justification is by God accounted our very ●ormal personal righteousness ; doth not God so far as he accounts it make it ours ? if not , then we have no propriety at all in it , and if not , how can it then be our very formal personal justifying righteousness ? if he do make it ours in this imputation , then it must be ours by gift , and what is ours by gift , must be our own . So that those who are for this strict imputation of Christ's righteousness , must hold also Justification by their own righteousness , or by a righteousness which by God is accounted their own .

But again it may be said , if we be justified by faith we must be justified by an inherent righteousness and we are not . I Answer , if God's imputing or accounting by his Law or Covenant of Grace , faith for righteousness , which is the form of Justification , be Justification by inherent righteousness , then God's imputing Christ's righteousness unto us for Justification , must be justifying us also by an inherent righteousness , for the form is the same in both ; and if it be the form that makes the justifying righteousness inherent , then justifying righteousness must be inherent in the one as well as the other . But the form speaks that Justification is not by Faith absolutely inhering .

But if it be said further , that Christ is the subject of that righteousness , which is our formal personal justifying righteousness , but we are the subjects of Faith ; I Answer , if the righteousness of Christ be our formal personal righteousness , then whatever Christ be , we must however be the subjects of this righteousness ; and if so , it must be our inherent , as well as our imputed righteousness . Thus then for the making this good , I proceed . To constitute Christ's satisfactory and meritorious righteousness according to Scripture , we must suppose ,

1. That he was sinless , and perfectly Holy in his very Nature , Luke 1 35.

2. He must be sinless , and perfectly Holy in the whole tract of his Life , 1 Peter 2. 22.

3. That he was perfectly Holy in his suffering● Hebr. 9. 14.

4. That his righteousness might be a satisfactory and meritorious righteousness , the conjunction of his Divine righteousness was necessary , and this did result from the personal union of both natures , John 1. 14. I will grant then upon the matter , that this righteousness , the whole of it is the satisfactory and meritorious righteousness relating to my Person ; i. e. that which satisfied offended Justice , removed the punishment due ( mark my explication ) for the violation of the Law of innocent Nature , and hath m●erited all good , and for which I and others have a right to , and interest in all saving good promised , upon true Repentance and unfeigned Faith , which Repentance and Faith , I and others have wrought in us ( if we have it ) for and upon the account of the merits of his righteousness : But then that this righteousness of Christ is the formal righteousness of mine or anothers Person , here is my stick , for ( to me ) if this righteousness of Christ ( above described ) be the sole formal righteousness of my Person then it is only this that must constitute my Person righteous , and by which I am denominated righteous ; and if so , it must be my inherent as well as my imputed righteousness ; for if it be the righteousness of the Person , it must be the righteousness of the Nature , and if it be the righteousness of the Nature than it must be inherent , seeing it is that which makes the very Nature righteous , and from whence it is so accounted . And can any Man that is well in his Wits think , that Christ's perfectly Holy habits , acts , spotless sufferings all in conjunction with his righteousness as God , is the righteousness , and the sole righteousness of every individual Believer and so inherent ? if so , then every individual Believer must either be the proper subject of this righteousness , and so it must not be Christ's at all , or else the common , and so it must be attributed to Christ and them as a generical , or specifical Nature , let what part will be taken it is gross and irrational : therefore we must ( until further light ) stick to this , that if God do account the righteousness of Christ to be the very righteousness of our Persons , he must also account it to be the righteousness of our Nature ; for to say that Thomas is personally righteous by such a righteousness , and yet not righteous by it in his Nature , is to say that Thomas is a Person without the specifical and individual Nature of Man , than which nothing can be more absurd , seeing that the Nature goes to the constituting of the Person . There may indeed ( as in Christ ) be the individual Nature without the personality ; but there cannot be the Person without the Nature . So that if Persons will have the righteousness of Christ ( above described ) to be the only formal righteousness of their Persons , it must also be the righteousness of their Natures , and so inherent . And thus that which is called sanctifying Grace , is taken away as needless ; for if Persons be righteous in their very Natures subjectively by the righteousness of Christ , which ( it is evident ) they must be , if it be the formal righteousness of their Persons , it cannot be avoided , but in God's account , and so really and indeed they must be sinless and perfectly Holy , unless they imagin the righteousness of Christ to be imperfect : so that I have cleared this , that such as hold the righteousness of Christ in their Justification , is made by God , or accounted by him to be the very formal righteousness of their Persons , must also hold it to be the righteousnss of their Nature , and so inherent , and as such themselves to be the subjects of it .

But to advance a little further upon this , thus then , agreeable to the righteousness of the Nature , such must be the acts which proceed from that Nature , so or after such a sort righteous : If therefore the righteousness of Christ be the righteousness of our Nature , which it must be if it be the formal righteousness of our Persons , ( as hath been proved ) then they ●ust not only be sinless , but satisfactory and m●●●toriou● acts , of which that righteousness is the principle , which we in our own persons exert and put forth ; yea such as do answer the infinite Justice of God , they being acts of which not only an Humane , but a Divine righteousness in conjunction is the principle , for such was Christ's righteousness .

Now it is no small matter of wonder that Men should be charging me and others with holding merit , and setting up our selves , and making Saviours of our own Duties , all which we deny : while they themselves must hold merit and satisfaction in the strictest sense in their own persons , they expresly affirming , they have a righteousness to be the formal righteousness of their persons , which hath this efficacy ; and if this be not more gross than ever any merit was that the Papists held , I will leave to any thinking unprejudiced Person to determine . One would think Men professing the Knowledge of Christ above many , bearing the name of Christians , above all about them , should know and acknowledge the righteousness of Christ ( above described ) to be essential , and so proper to him as Mediatour ; and how or after what manner then this same righteousness must be the personal righteousness , and that only , of every particular Believer , I profess is strange . But if it be said , they affirm it to be the personal righteousness of a Believer by God's Imputation . I Answer , God in this Imputation they speak of , either communicates after some sort the righteousness of Christ , or he doth not , if he do , then it cannot be essential and proper to Christ ; if he do not after any sort communicate it , then how can it be the formal righteousness of any Man's Person ? Can a Man's Person be righteous , with a righteousness that is altogether incommunicable , except in its fruits and effects ? Will God impute that same righteousness to me , so as to account me to be only righteous formally in my Person by it , which he knows ● neither have nor can have in whole , or in part it self , it being essential and proper to his Son as Mediatour ? Men that shall endeavour to perswade me this is so , or that it may be so , must deprive me of the free exercise of my Reason first .

I have made it appear , that if Christ's righteousness be the formal righteousness of our Persons , then it must be the righteousness of our Nature ; if any contradict it they must know , they have this to prove ; i. e. that God in justifying Peter , or any other doth account them to be formally righteous by Christ's righteousness as Persons , but not as they are Men , and if so , then they must prove the Person is justified , but not the Man ; or the Person is formally righteous with Christ's righteousness , but not the Man : how this will be performed , if the proof of it be undertaken , I cannot tell .

But before I pass this , I further urge , if Christ's righteousness be the righteousness of our Nature , which it must be if it be our formal personal righteousness ; then it must be a quality inhering , and if it be a quality inhering , then we are made the Subjects ; and so we must have that which is proper unto , and inseparable from such a Subject ; i. e. Christ , removed , and existing seperate from its own proper Subject , in this and the other Believer , which cannot be the Subjects thereof , no more than Christ's Body can be the Subject of the accidents of Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper : Alas ! alas , that Men should be accounting the Popish Transubstantiation such a Monster , and yet cannot nor will not see what they themselves are forming . And upon the matter , I would desire it might be considered , whether there be any such thing as a personal justifying righteousness , the matter of which is not inherent .

But it may be further objected , if Faith be our formal personal justifying righteousness , is not the difference betwixt Justification and Sanctification hereby taken away , and so these two great priviledge which in Scripture are spoken of as really distinct confounded , and jumbled into one ?

By what hath been said above , the Objectors if they will but consider , are strangely intanged in the briers of this Objection themselves ; asserting Christ's righteousness to be their formal personal righteousness , and so the righteousness of their Natures , and so make the sanctifying Grace of the Spirit of no use . But however for Answer to the Objection , I shall ( I hope ) make it appear , that although I affirm that Faith is our personal justifying Gospel Righteousness , and also own it to be a sanctifying Grace ; that Justification and Sanctification are yet distinct , and by this Doctrine not con●ounded , but still keep the difference assigned unto them by God in his Word .

Faith then as sanctifying is that which purifies the Heart , Acts 15 9. it is a renewing by the Spirit of the moral Image of God , consisting in Knowledge , Righteousness and Holiness ; Coloss. 3. 10. Ephes. 4. 24. so that the Soul which was only carnally disposed and inclined before , is having Spiritual Illumination , disposed and inclined principally to embrace Spiritual Objects ; and here we consider Faith absolutely as a change of the Nature . Faith as justifying gives a right to Christ , and for his Merits sake to Pardon and Life , by virtue of God's gracious appointment in his Covenant of Grace , in his Imputation of it to give this right ; and here I consider Faith relatively as a change of the state ; i. e. the Sinner that before was a Child of Wrath , and an Heir of Hell , upon a sincere Faith hath that relation changed , and is accounted by God for Christ's Righteousness his Child by Adoption , and an Heir of Heaven and Eternal Life , John 1. 12. Galat. 3. 26. Faith as sanctifying relates to Christ , as Physitian healing by his Spirit of Grace the sinful distempered Soul : Faith as justifying relates to Christ as Rector and Judge , who by his Law of Grace hereu●●● doth declare that Soul who was as a Criminal , was condemned in Law before , now to be pardoned , and to have right to everlasting Life . There is as much difference betwixt Faith as it Sanctifies , and as it Justifies , as betwixt an healing Medicine , and a Title and Right in Law to Pardon and an Inheritance : So that as the same Person may have divers Offices , and may be distinguished according to his Offices ; so is the same Faith distinguished as sanctifying and justifying : The same Man may be both a Physitian , and a Judge ; Now will any Man that is right in his Head say , that the administring of Physick , and the dispensing and executing of Law are both one , because both performed by the same Person ? Those who accuse me and others of confounding Justification and Sanctification , when we say that Faith is our personal justifying Righteousness , according to God's gracious Constitution or Law , they themselves say , that Faith doth not only Sanctifie , but that it is the Instrument of Justification . Now give me leave upon the Point to ask these Men , whether they themselves do not make a difference betwixt Faith as it Sanctifies , and as it is an Instrument of Justification ? if they say , yea they do ; do not they then themselves according to their own notion , distinguish of the same Faith as sanctifying and as justifying in their Sense ; and seeing they will not call this a confounding of Justification and Sanctification , What reason have they to call our Notion so ? when we consider Faith as absolute in Sanctification , and relative in Justification , as hath been cleared .

If this be so , then it may be said , Sanctification must be before Justification ; I Answer , They that make the Objection , say this as much as we , in case they will have Faith to be the Instrument of Justification ; for surely Faith must be had before it can be an Instrument , unless they can prove a Man may use Hands that hath none . But however , since this is cast in our way , we shall a little essay to clea●● . If we take Sanctification then for the very first Seeds of Grace , which in their own Nature have a virtue to dispose and incline the Soul to a thankful acceptance of Christ ; so that the real consent of the Will is gained , thus Sanctification is before Justification : But if we take it for a more fixed and rooted habit of Grace , so it is after Justification . The Heart must be first disposed and inclined to open to Christ , that so he may have it for his habitation before it will actually open . Hence so soon as ever the Soul upon this disposition doth give its consent to accept of the Lord Jesus to be its only Propitiation , Head and Teacher ; the Sinner hath interest in him , and by virtue of the Gospel promise hath an actual right unto the blessed benefits of Pardon and Life purchased by him . 'T is said of Lydia , the Lord opened her Heart , and so , Revel. 3. 20. But it may be said , are not the first Seeds of Grace saving ? I Answer , The Seeds of Grace considered as such , they have an healing or saving virtue in their own Nature ; but they are not actually healing or saving to me , until they prevail against the corrupt sinful disposition and inclination of my Will . I know in what Soul so ever God Sows the Seeds of true Grace , those Seeds shall prove healing and saving through Christ ; they shall prevail against the sinful corrupt disposition of the Will , 1 Peter 1. 23. but they are not thus healing and saving to any Soul until they do so : Such a Medicine appointed for the recovering of Health , it hath an healing quality , but though it be taken , 't is not actually healing to the Sick , until it prevail against the Distemper , and it is so with Grace . And thus it may be known in what Sense Sanctification is before Justification .

Touching the gift of the first Grace , know there is much good purchased by Christ , and given without respect to any condition on Man's part , and thus the gift of the first Grace , God ordinarily by his Word 〈◊〉 Spirit , concurring doth convince , humble , and incline the Sinner to accept of Christ in all his Offices ; i. e. to be Propitiation , Head and Teacher ; and when the consent is gained , then hath the Soul an actual interest in , and right unto the Lord Jesus to be his Propitiation , &c. to the sanctifying Spirit , to Reconciliation , Adoption , and Glorification . The former work was to prevail with the Soul for its consent , but when prevailed with , then hath it an actual interest in and right unto Christ , and the saving blessings of the Covenant promised upon consent . A Man that Courts a Woman for her Consent to be his Wife , untill this be given by her , and she actually give up her self unto him to be his Wife ; she hath no interest in him as her Husband , nor interest in nor right unto any of his Goods as one in that relation , and thus it is in the Case before us . If any Man , saith Christ , hear my voice , and open the door , I will come in to him , and sup with him , and he with me , Revel. 3. 20.