THE Righteousness of God Revealed in the GOSPEL.  
OR, An IMPARTIAL ENQUIRY into the Genuine Doctrine of St. PAUL, In the Great, but much Controverted ARTICLE of JUSTIFICATION.  
By Mr. JOHN HUMPHREY.  
Of making Books there is no End; and much Study is a Weariness to the Flesh. Let us hear the Conclusion of the Matter, Fear God and keep his Commandments for this is the whole of Man,  Ec. 12.13, 14. 
LONDON, Printed for T. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside, 1697.   

TO THE READER.  
HAVING seriously read this Treatise concerning the Justification of a Sinner, I sound so clear and distinct an Account given of it, that, as it gave me no small Satisfaction, so I could not but think it worthy to be perused by others. For though the Learned Author departs, in some things, from the common Opinion, yet he doth it so modestly, that candid Persons, though contrary minded, will not blame him for it: And his Reasons are such, that it is possible they may be convinced by them, and persuaded to embrace his Explication of this weighty Doctrine.  
However, his Drift and Intention is so evidently Holy, [viz. to prevent men's falling into the most dangerous Errors] that he may hope for their Pardon, who think him not to be altogether in the Right himself. For as to the main Business, no Man more strenuously asserts the Doctrine of our Church, of Justification by Faith only; accorto the Explication which is made of it in our Homilies (in the Second Part of the Sermon of Salvation) in these Words.  
This Saying, That we be justified by Faith only, freely and without Works, is spoken for to take away clearly all Merit of our Works; as being unable to deserve our Justification at God's Hands: And thereby most plainly to express the Weakness of Man, and the Goodness of God; the great Infirmity of ourselves and the Might and Power of God; the Imperfectness of our own Works, and the most abundant Grace of our Saviour Christ; and therefore wholly to ascribe the Merit and deserving of our Justification, unto Christ only, and his most precious Bloodshedding.  
But although this Doctrine be never so true (as it there follows) that we be justified freely, without all Merit of our own Good Works (as St. Paul doth express it) and freely by this lively and perfect Faith in Christ only (as the ancient Authors use to speak it) yet this true Doctrine must be also truly understood, and most plainly declared; lest carnal Men should take unjustly occasion thereby to live carnally, after the appetite and will of the World, the Flesh and the Devil.  
Now this being the very Scope of this Author, to declare the right Understanding of this Doctrine, so plainly that no Man may thereby take any Occasion of Carnal Liberty; he hopes his Endeavour will be acceptable to all those that love the Lord Jesus in Sincerity. Amen.  
Nou. 24. 1696. SY. aliens.   

Worcester, Apr. 7. 1697. SIR,  
THE Papers you were pleased to send me I have carefully perused; and I am not without Hopes, that through the Blessing of God, they may allay those unreasonable Heats, which have made so great a Noise, about the Point of Justification: and yet we are told, that they all agree in the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, and the Covenant of Grace, as founded upon it. But we find by too common Experience, that it is possible for Men upon their own Mistakes to grow as warm in this Matter, as if they were disputing with the Jews, as St. Paul did in his Epistle to the Romans. But if such Persons would lay aside Prejudices, and Impartially consider the State of the Case at that Time, they would far better understand this Controversy, and not think so hardly of their Brethren.  
For, nothing can be plainer to me, than that St. Paul opposes that which he calls, The Righteousness of God by Faith, 
Rom. 1.17.3.21.10.3.  to their own Righteousness, which was by the Law: And which made the Reward not of Grace, but of Debt. And Faith is taken by him as a Term opposite to the Law, and importing the Grace of the Gospel; Therefore it is of Faith that it might be of Grace. 
Phil. 3.5.  So that Justification by Faith is in other Words, being justified by the Grace of the Gospel, 
Rom. 3.27, 28.4.15.  manifested by the Doctrine of Christ, and procured by his Sufferings: which are granted, both by them and us, to be the only meritorious Cause of our Justification. The remaining Dispute then, can only be concerning those Terms on which we may be made Partakers of this Grace of the Gospel, which is communicated to Mankind, as the Effect of Christ's Satisfaction. Which is very different from that which St. Paul managed, against all such as set up their own Works (whether according to the Law of Nature, or of Moses) against the Gospel of Christ, and thought there was no necessity of any such Propitiation by Christ, as St. Paul asserted, in order to the Remission of Sins and the Favour of God. For, the Jews believed, that the Righteousness of the Law, as it was performed by them, was sufficient in order to their Acceptance with God; and that there was such a Proportion between their Works and the Favour of God, as made it a Debt of Justice. Which Opinion remains among them to this Day, as appears by this Saying of Manasseh Ben-Israel, Hinc meritis Gratiam Dei acquiri non est Dubitandam. By which it seems, that the Jews have not altered their Opinions since the Apostles Days; but all that understand Christianity aright, do agree, that there is no other meritorious Cause of our Acceptance with God, but the Propitiation which Christ hath made. 
Colos. 1.14.  In whom we have Redemption through his Blood, even the Forgiveness of Sins. 
Titus 3.5, 6.  And not by Works of Righteousness which we have done, but according to his Mercy he saved us; that being justified by his Grace, we should be made Heirs according to the Hope of Eternal Life.  
But here comes the material Question to be resolved; How we come to receive the Benefits of Christ's Sufferings?  
To answer this Distinctly, we must consider them Two Ways:  

1. As they respect Mankind, or those in General for whom Christ died.  
2. As they belong to Particular Persons.   
The former are those Benefits which result from God's Acceptance of Christ's Sacrifice on behalf of Mankind; which the Apostle calls, God's being in Christ, 
2 〈◊〉. 5.19.  reconciling the World to himself, not imputing their Trespasses unto them: If this be meant of actual Pardon, than all the Sins of the World are not imputed upon Christ's Death, without any Act on their Parts; and so the Ministry of Reconciliation would be to no purpose; which the Apostle immediately adds, was committed to them. To what End, if the Sins of the World were already forgiven? But the Apostle saith, v. 20. That it was to persuade Men to be reconciled to God: i. e. to believe and repent and obey the Gospel. For what Reason? If not, that thereby they might actually partake of these general Benefits which arise from that Reconciliation Christ hath made by his Death? Which can suppose no Conditions in us, being the immediate Effects of Christ's Propitiation, and must be distinguished from what follows, Reconciliation on our Parts.  
But as to the Particular Effects, belonging to some Persons, as distinguished from others, the Question arises, Whether God out of his infinite Goodness, do bestow them on those whom he designs for Happiness without regard to any Act of theirs? Or whether by the Gospel, be hath limited the Conveyance of them to the Performance of certain Conditions? There is no Question, but that if nothing but Freeness of Grace be to be looked at, that is much freer, which requires no Conditions, nor expects any: But if they be expected, whether out of Gratitude, or otherwise, they are real Conditions as to the End. But we are to look not only to the Freeness of God's Grace, (which no doubt was the Foundation of the Covenant of Grace) but to the Author, and to the Terms of it.  
The Author of it is God himself, who out of his Infinite Goodness hath sent his Son to be a Propitiation for our Sins; and we cannot suppose any Covenant made by him to be repugnant to the Perfections of the Divine Nature. Now, Holiness and Righteousness are essential Attributes of God; and any such Covenant, which in the Consequence of it, overthrows the Rules of Righteousness and Holiness, must be looks on, as contrary to the Pure and Holy Nature of God. But such a Covenant as consists only in absolute Promises (if it can be called a Covenant) must supersede any Obligation on Man's Part to any Duty, as a Condition of enjoying the Benefit of those Promises; and consequently overthrow the Rules of Righteousness. 
Psal. 11.7.  But the Righteous Lord loveth Righteousness. And he that doth Righteousness is Righteous, 
1 John 3.7.  even as he is Righteous. How is it then possible to conceive, that God should make such a Covenant of Grace with Mankind, as should have no regard to the Practice of real Righteousness? And this Supposition must lessen our esteem of the Divine Nature and Perfections, overthrew the Design of Religion, and make God a Respecter of Persons, by taking no Notice of their inward Qualities and Dispositions.  
Which are things of such dangerous Consequence, that I can hardly believe that any who pretend to love the Lord Jesus Christ in Sincerity should entertain such Principles, from whence they do too naturally follow. For, if any Person should make it his Business to render Christianity suspected, as a Design to Promote Libertinism, under a Pretence of advancing Free Grace, he could not make use of any Hypothesis more effectual than this; That God requires no Conditions in order to the Benefit of his Promises. But to suppose that God is so Gracious, as to forgive the Sins of truly humble and penitent Sinners, who resolve by the Grace of God to departed from Iniquity, and to live as becomes the Gospel, is so far from any Incongruity to the Divine Nature, that it tends more to advance our Apprehensions of God's Goodness joined with his Wisdom and Holiness; and so brings Mankind to a due Love of God, and a Hatred of Sin.  
As to the Terms of this Covenant, I think it not possible for any unprejudiced Person to read the New Testament, and not to see, that it still supposes Conditions on our parts, to make us Partakers of the Benefit of Christ's Sufferings. But it is possible for Men to be so fond of a particular Opinion, which they have before taken up, that they may accommodate all places to that darling Notion; I mean as to the absolute freeness of God's Grace. Which, if it be pursued, must everthrow as well the Satisfaction of Christ, as the Conditions on our Part.  
But here lies the great Difficulty; How can we be justified without a perfect righteousness? And our own Performances at the best make but an imperfect Righteousness; and therefore the perfect Righteousness of Christ must be imputed to us: And if a perfect Righteousness to be joined for our Justification?  
This is the Force of all the Reasoning I have met with about this Matter, to which I shall give a plain and dictinct Answer:  
1. I am far from disowning the Righteousness of Christ to have been a perfect Righteousness; or that it is the only meritorious Cause of our Justification. Or, to speak plainer, I do freely own the Satisfaction of Christ to be the Foundation of the Covenant of Grace, by Virtue whereof we are justified.  
2. That to be justified is to be put into a State of Grace and Favour with God. I do not mean, that we are justified by Inherent Righteousness; i. e. that God justifies when he gives Grace; but that upon our sincere performance of the Conditions on our part, God receives us into a State of Favour or Grace. And so deals with us as with righteous Persons; and not merely declares us to be such. For although the Word Justifying be often used as a Forensick Word, or a Law Term, and so is opposed to Condemning; yet that Use is not to be pressed too far: because it will enclose us in many Difficulties about the Tribunal, the Law, the Plea, the judicial Act, and the several Causes, Material and Formal, etc. all which, I think, tend more to darken than to clear this Point of Justification, which ought to be kept out of School Terms and Logical Niceties, as much as possible; since St. Paul did not speak according to them in this Matter. For so Adoption is Originally a Law Term used likewise by St. Paul, and it would be hard straining to bring Adoption to all the Formalities of the Roman Law.  
If we look into the Design of St. Paul, we shall find it was to state the true Ground of our Acceptance with God; which he shows could not be from any thing Mankind were able of themselves to perform in obedience to the Law, because they were under guilt, and could never clear themselves from it. But God hath set forth his Son to be a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood, 
Rom. 325, 26.  to declare his Righteousness for the Remission of Sins, etc. To declare at this time his Righteousness, that he might be Just and the Justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.  
So that here we have the Foundation or Meritorious Cause, the Propitiation of Christ; the Goodness of God in accepting this Propitiation in order to Remission and Justification; and the way we come to partake of it by Faith in Christ; as it embraces these Offers, and carries along with it those sincere Endeavours obeying the Gospel, which God accepts as our Evangelical Righteousness. But to be Justified in St. Paul's Sense, is to be admitted into the Grace and Favour of God on those Terms; and so it doth not lie barely in Remission of Sins, which is rather the Consequence of this Acceptance with God. 
Rom. 3.28.  Therefore we conclude, that a Man is justified by Faith, without the Deeds of the Law; i. e. A man is received into the Favour of God, not by his own Works, but according to the Grace of the Gospel, and the Terms contained therein. And this I take to be St. Paul's meaning.  
3. The Righteousness of Christ may be said to be imputed two ways.  

1. So as it becomes our Personal Righteousness, which is called Formal Imputation.  
2. So as the Benefit of Christ's Righteousness and Satisfaction, redounds to our Advantage.   
If the former Sense be allowed, these Consequences follow:  

1. That we must be as Righteous as Christ was; for, if Personal Righteousness can be transferred, the Person on whom it is transferred, must have that very Righteousness which was in Christ himself; and so must be as Holy and Innocent as he was; which I hardly think any will pretend to.  
2. That there can be no Remission of Sin, as to such who have this perfect Righteousness, no more than there could be to Christ himself; Imputation for Remission of Sin, and of Personal Righteousness are inconsistent: For the one must suppose Gild, and the other cannot; when the Personal Righteousness is actually imputed. There may be antecedent Gild before the Imputation; but where there is perfect Righteousness actually imputed, there can be no personal Gild; for if there be, it can be no perfect Righteousness as to him.  
3. That there can be no Conditions required, where a perfect Righteousness is imputed. For a Condition is in order to something to be obtained; but here the full Benefit is already received by the Imputation of a perfect Righteousness; and it is absurd to suppose Conditions for the obtaining of what is past. It cannot then be denied, that those speak consonantly enough to this Hypothesis, who exclude all Conditions from the new Covenant; but very dangerously as to the Design of Charity; since our Saviour himself bids us to pray to God to forgive our Trespasses, as we forgive others; which I think supposes a Condition on our Parts in order to Remission. But if no more be meant by Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, but that the Sufferings of Christ were in our stead, and for our Advantage as to Remission and Justification, I do most hearty and freely own it.  
4. The Apostles Argument against Merit and Boasting, do by no means hold against such an Evangelical Righteousness as comes from the Grace of God, and tends wholly to the Honour of it: which is so clear that I need not to prove it.   
This is a short Account of my Thoughts in this Matter; and I think we do not differ in the Substance, however we may in the manner of Explication. I am  
Your Friend and Servant, ED. WIGORN.   

Mr. Humphrey, Chester, Apr. 12. 1997.  
I Received by Piece-meal, as it came from the Press all your Book entitled, Of the Righteousness of God in the Matter of Justification (except the Title Page and the Epistle) which I read over, as it came to my Hands, with Pleasure and Profit. The great Doctrine of Justification, is by you stated more agreeably to the Scriptures, than I have met with it, in any other Author. You do, I confess, in some Places express your Sense obscurely, so that it may perhaps be mistaken by unwary Readers: but if in those Places I rightly apprehend your Meaning, I do not at present remember any thing I have to object against it. However, I intent the next Week to read over the whole together, and if any Objections shall then occur to my Thoughts, you shall hear further from me. It will, I doubt not, be a good Antidote against the Antinomian Doctrines, which some Persons who decry, do implicitly and by necessary Consequence assert, by the false Notion they have entertained of Christ's imputed Righteousness. I am SIR,  
Your Affectionate Brother, N. CESTRIENS.   

An ADVERTISEMENT from the Author.  
READER,  
TO make a stay to camulate more Testimony to this Book, though of the like Right Reverend Persons, to no other end but to signify their Consent or Approbation of it, might give thee Occasion to censure me for a seeker of vain Glory (which does little become such a one as I) rather than thy Edification. I will use this spare Leaf therefore to another Purpose.  
When I reprinted my Middle way of Justification which I printed at first about 25 Years ago, I thought of writing no more on that Point: But afer a while, there being something I conceived needful for Finishing my Work, I took occasion from the Difference among our United Brethren, in a single Sheet, called, my [One Sheet] to draw up a Conclusion of the whole Matter, so thoroughly (as I could) to my own Mind, intending it for my last, that I cannot think fit this Book, being now later, and like to be canvased more than the other, should come abroad without it, as the Substance of this, as well as that Book before, and that I have wrote between, or any else I can write on this Subject. Having therefore this little room to fill, I cannot consult my Own Content and Thy Profit better than to do it with this Citation from thence, as follows:  
To understand aright St. Paul's Justification by Faith, we must consider with whom it is he contends. The Jews (as the best skilled in Rabbinical Learning, does tell us) did generally maintain the Doctrine of Freewill, not doubting but every one could do as God commanded if he would himself 
* This is the meaning of that Jewish saying, All things are in the Power and disposal of Heaven, except the Fear of God; for that they believed was in their own.  they having no Notion (as Pelagius at first) of Grace [All that God hath spoken we will do]: And having received the Law from God's Mouth, (the Excellency whereof was their Glory) they supposed in the observation of the Outside, that they kept it, accounting the Reward promised therein due to them thereupon from God, as what in Justice they merited for their Deeds: Insomuch that some thought themselves so righteous as not to sin at all, or need Pardon [Touching the Law, blameless. All these have I kept from my youth up]; and others that sinned, being licked whole by Sacrifice, they thought all well, boasting themselves as the Only People, the Only Righteous in the Earth. Not to mention what we all know out of the Acts, that some of them were Converts to Christianity did yet remain of the Opinion, that their Law was to be kept. The Apostle now sets himself against 
† Not that this great I 〈◊〉 was for 〈◊〉 of the Jews that is a 〈◊〉 and un●●…thy 〈…〉 the Life and ●●●●…tion of, Man 〈…〉 that Justification by Faith in Opposition to the Law must not be understood as to that of Moses only, but to the whole Law of Works.  these Jews, and lets them know that no Man, neither Jew nor Gentile is righteous in God's sight (whatsoever they were in their own) but that all have sinned, and need that Messiah they expected, to make Reconciliation for their Sins; that our Lord Jesus Christ being that true Messiah, by his Death answering their Legal Sacrifices, hath born the Curse of the Law, and so redeemed us from it. That, God's undeserved Goodness here, in accepting of Sinners, through this meritorious Sacrifice of his, to Pardon and Life, upon Condition, which he gives the Grace also to perform, presupposed, and by me acknowledged, it is another Righteousness, and not that of the Jews (Not that Paul calls his own, as a Jew), or not a Righteousness of Works [Perfect Works], but a Righteousness of Faith, which makes the Reward only of Grace [Of Faith, that it may be of Grace]; a Righteousness of Faith, but a true Faith working by Love, (which is an Internal Righteousness though imperfect, and not as the External Works of the Jews was) is that Righteousness of God in opposition to the Terms of the Law, whereby we are justified and saved.  
The Apostle (I observe) in one place speaking of Faith, calls it the Obedience of Faith; the same Word, if you compare that Text [Rom. 11.30, 31.] with the Margin, signifying both to Believe and Obey. And the People believed God and his Servant Moses. I will conclude hereupon, that Christ's Redemption in the immediate fruit thereof, which is the Grant of a General Pardon through his Satisfaction to all the World on Condition, being laid as a foundation, To be justified by Faith is to be justified by performing that Condition. To be justified by Faith (Believe me at parting) is in St. Paul's Mind to be justified by the Obedience of Faith, in opposition to the task of the Law; that is (in St. Paul's Mind I say, opposing the Jew) by embracing the Christian Religion, and living according to it.  
Reader, In p. 14. l. 34. correct the Word [its] and make it [it] with a Full Point after. Other Erratas you may find at the end of the Book, or mend yourself.   

OF THE Righteousness of GOD In the Matter of JUSTIFICATION.  

The First PART.  
BEcause upon the right Understanding of what the Apostle means, by the Righteousness of God without the Law, revealed now in the Gospel, (which indeed is dark, and hardly understood (I think) by Papist, or Protestant, in their Disputes, and much less by our Brethren in their present Differences) does depend the Elucidation of the Great Article of Justification; whereof I wrote some Sheets formerly, called, The Middle Way; and more lately, six Sheets, called, Pacification; I have thought good yet to write a few more, upon some further increase of my own Knowledge about this Subject: And under this Title. I beseech God for his Light and Truth, and for Integrity of Heart, and Pardon of my Weakness and Failings for myself; and for the removal of Prejudice from, and the establishing the Judgement of, others, who shall read what is written.  
The Search after Truth is indeed hard Work, it is digging in a Mine: It was so to me, in writing on this Point at first, and it is still. What I dig up, is but rude, it is the Ore, as it comes naturally; and that is best to edify those that would improve it. I am one whose Genius is averse from any Notion imposed, and receives none, without distrust, that does not arise first out of my own Mind, or that I see something new to cultivate it. I do not only bear with others, but do like them often better that they differ from me, because I know I differ from the most. Where the Mine though is Gold, (as the Scripture is) there is no Dust of it but must be saved. The least Dust of Gold is Gold; and if any other, who hath better Words and Parts, will be at the pains to sift and order what I have digged, I doubt not, but they may make Gold of that, which I have brought to be but the Dust of Gold. When a Book is so Methodised, as it does exhaust its Subject, there is no coming after it: But when there is only some Ore turned up, something of Notion for others to refine, a riper Wit will be encouraged to an Endeavour of bringing that Something to more perfection. It is so with my Middle-Way Books, I am content to be but the Digger, I expect some others should be the Refiners of what I have digged.  
The Trent Doctrine, (which is the perfect papists) I must confess, is lead them b● St. Austin. They say, Justification is the making a Man just (Ex impio Christianum) by Infusion of Grace inherent, or Charity: Being justified freely by his Grace. Augustine being immersed in his Dispute with Pelagius, could think of Grace in no Sense but this; and by Freely, Gratis, justified, he understood only, that Works preparatory did not merit this infusion, which the Trent-Doctors also say after him. The Efficient Cause (quae efficit) is the Spirit; the Instrumental Cause (qua efficitur) Baptism; the Meritorious Cause (propter quam) Christ's Death; the Formal Cause (per quam) of Justification, is this Grace infused; Gratia Habitualis, Habitual Righteousness, making the Man before ungodly, now righteous in God's sight. This habitual Righteousness then being infused by Baptism, (they say) does abolish Sin, so that there remains in the Baptised, after the Opus Operatum, nothing that is Peccatum, (but Foams Peccati only) and upon that Account is perfect, so by the Law justifies, and the Works proceeding from it, meritorious of Salvation. This is their Opinion, and they fall foul on us for holding Justification by Pardon only, or by Christ without inherent Grace, as if Good Works were laid aside by us altogether.  
Our Protestant's therefore renouncing this Charge, do grant an habitual Righteousness, or Grace infused, as necessary in the justified Person, but deny this Righteousness to be that which justifies him, they deny Justification to be Regeneration, and distinguish these as two things. It is not this inherent Righteousness, (say they) that can be opposed between the Wrath of God, and our Conscience of Sin, to be the Cause, Propter quam, we are not condemned. No, there is a Righteousness (they add) without us, that is the Righteousness of Christ performed for us, and by our Faith made ours, that we rely upon to do this for us. Our inherent Grace is inchoate, imperfect, and cannot standing in Judgement before God.  
This being now partly well on both sides, there is a Middle Way appears, which we must take between them. It is true against the Papists, that there is no such Righteousness inherent, though infused by the Holy Spirit, as does abolish Sin, and make us so just that we can oppose it to God's Wrath, so as to render him appeased with the Sinner, or that the Conscience can rest on it, as that Proper quod, he is forgiven or saved: It is true likewise, against the common Protestant that there is not any Righteousness without us, that can be made ours, so as we should be accounted righteous in another's Righteousness, and to be that thing, Per quod, we are justified. There is no such Matter in reality, but in notion only. When one Man is justified, and not another, something there must be in the one, that is not in the other. This Righteousness now, whatsoever it be, as imperfect as it is (confessedly yet, wrought by the Spirit of God) is that, and must be that, which is the Form, per quam, he is accepted, or justified, when the Satisfaction, and the Righteousness of Christ, we all (at least Protestants) do grant to be the Ground, or Reason of that Acceptation; that is, the Meritorious Cause, propter quam, we are pardoned and saved.  
It is not therefore the Papists infused perfect Righteousness, (for there is no such;) nor the Protestants imputed Righteousness (for that is not ours) both of which answer the Law, if we could plead them, and would make the Reward of Debt: But it is a Third Thing, The Righteousness of God without the Law, as the Apostle calls it, a Righteousness now revealed in the Gospel, in opposition to Works (that is meritorious, perfect Works) which we have and must have, and yet answer not the Law, but makes our Justification therefore of Mercy, or Grace, which is the Righteousness (as yet quite out of sight of the most) we must advance (Paulo Deuce) in the Doctrine of Justification.  
In one Verse of David's Psalms, we have him praying thus: Hear my Prayer, O Lord, answer me in thy Righteousness. Where we see a Righteousness of God, according to which he is accepted: And yet in the next Verse do these Words follow: And enter not into Judgement with thy Servant: for in thy sight shall no Man living be justified. Where we see a Righteousness, according to which no Man can be heard, no Man can be accepted, no Man can stand in his sight, Psal 143.1, 2. Thus much then is plain, that here is a Righteousness, and a Righteousness. A Righteousness (I may say) of strict Justice, or a Righteousness of gracious Acceptation. A Righteousness which is Severe Justice, or Paternal Justice. The Righteousness of a condescending Father, or of a rigid Judge: David does, as it were, appeal from the one to the other. Any one may express themselves in other Terms, as please them best: But such a Distinction than is to be made in reality, according to the Scriptures. I will therefore offer yet these other words: There is a Righteousness, (as to us) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: A Righteousness (to be most plain and full) according to the Law, or Covenant of Works, whereby God might deal with us if he would, and so no Man could Live: Or a Righteousness according to the Covenant of Grace, which is this Righteousness the Apostle means now revealed, (as that by which he does deal with us) in the Gospel. God is not unrighteous (says one Apostle) to forget your Labour of Love, Heb. 11.10. If we confess our Sins, he is faithful and just (says another) to forgive us our Sins, and to cleanse us from our Unrighteousness, 1 Joh. 1.9. It is a righteous thing with God, to render to you rest, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed, 2 Thes. 1.7. I have fought a good Fight, and kept the Faith, henceforth is laid up for me a Crown of Righteousness, which the righteous Judge shall give me, and all that love his appearing, 2 Tim. 4.8. He shall pray unto God, and he will be favourable to him, for he will render to Man his Righteousness, Job 33.26. Judge me, Lord, according to my Righteousness, and according to my Integrity, Psal. 7.8. The Lord rewarded me according to my Righteousness: for I have kept the ways of the Lord, Psal. 18.20, 21. Remember me, O Lord, I beseech thee, how I have walked before thee in truth, and with a perfect Heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight, Isa. 38.3. Remember me, O God, concerning this, and wipe not out my good Deeds I have done for the House of my God, and the Offices thereof, Neh. 13.14. Remember me, O God, for good, ch. ult. v. ult. By these and the like places, the Righteousness of God, (this Righteousness the Apostle speaks of) may be taken Subjective, or Terminative, in regard to himself, or in regard to us; Or to wave School-Terms, and speak surer, on His part, or on Our part. On God's part, this Righteousness is his Grace, or Condescension towards us, in pardoning the Failings, and accepting the Endeavours of all penitent believing Men and Women (so long as they be sincere, notwithstanding those Failings) unto Life, according to the New Covenant: And on Our part, it is these Endeavours thus accepted, or that which we do (our believing, or repenting) how frail soever (if sincere), being the Condition required of us in that Covenant, to our Justification and Salvation.  
Now the Righteousness of God without the Law (without the performance thereof) is manifest, says the Apostle. It was always in the World, but occult (as Austin, I have said in my first Sheets, does speak) till the Preaching of the Gospel. How is that? Why, in regard to the Foundation (I count) on which it stands. For other Foundation can no Man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. 3.11. This Righteousness of God, which is, I say, on God's part, his Grace, or Condescension toward us, in passing by our Failings, and accepting our sincere Endeavour unto Life, notwithstanding all our Imperfections, is procured for, and vouchsafed to us, upon the Account of Christ's Satisfaction and Righteousness, the meritorious Cause of the Acceptance and Salvation of all that were saved under the Old Testament, as well as of us now; but that this Grace stood, and was vouchsafed then upon this Account (upon Christ's Account) was dark to them, and they saw it not as we now do, and therefore is this Righteousness of God said to be revealed now, tho' always afoot, so as they had the benefit then, or else none before now could have been saved.  
I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for therein (the Apostle goes on) is the Righteousness of God revealed from Faith to Faith. From Faith to Faith: And what means that? Why this is the meaning, 
* There is one Religion, Law, or Rule for all Mankind to obtain Life by, which being the Law of our Lapsed Nature, or Remedying Law, containing God's Grace administered to all the Earth, in a Threefold State, of such as were, or are without the Law, (or before it) and under the Law, and under the Gospel: As this Administration is Threefold, so hath the Faith, which is the Condition thereof, been diversified: But now is the Righteousness of God revealed from Faith to Faith. The Righteousness of God, is the Righteousness of this Law, which hath ever been afoot in the World, and tho' a Heathen hath not that Faith, as is required of the Christian in the Third Edition of it, or that which was required of the Jew in the Second; yet hath he such a Faith as belongs to the first, such as the Ancients before Abraham had, and so long as that Faith he hath does work by Love, or by sincere Obedience to God, according to his Light, it will justify him as well as that which is now farther required of us under the Gospel. So my Book called, The Axe laid to the Root of Separation, p. 4.  From Faith, or Trust in God ' Goodness, Grace, or Mercy, which any in every Nation that feared God, and wrought Righteousness had, thus to be accepted and pardoned, before they knew this Ground or Foundation, upon which the Righteousness thereof does stand, to that Faith we have now who do know it. From that Faith they had in God to save them of his Free Grace, before the knowledge (or our clearer knowledge) of Christ, and our Redemption by him, to that Faith we have now to save us, by the same Free Grace, through the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Ye believe in God (says Christ) believe also in me: where is a Faith, and a Faith. Consequently from Faith, that is, a believing in God, to a Faith which is a believing in him, through Christ, (the Foundation of our Faith) upon the Revelation of the Gospel.  
Even the Righteousness of God, which is by Faith of Jesus Christ; to wit, since he is revealed. Upon these words Mr. Rutherford supposing the Righteousness of Christ to be the formal Righteousness that justifies us, thus opposes: If our Righteousness and inherent Obedience may be of Grace esteemed formal Righteousness before God, by a free Evangelic Paction, and an Act of God's Free Will, there is no need of Christ's Satisfaction. Cou. Op. p. 172, 173. I answer: This Learned Man hath, I account, here, understandingly expressed the very thing as it is; and that he gives for the Reason of his denial, is the very Ground upon which this Righteousness, as I have explained it, is made good. If it were not for this Satisfaction of Christ, there could be no such Righteousness on God's part, or on Ours. God should deal with us in his strict Justice, and no Man be found righteous (accounted or dealt with as so) in the Earth: But seeing upon this Satisfaction of Christ God may be righteous, and abate the Terms, as they were in one Covenant, and impute them however for Righteousness by another, we see how our Evangelic Obedience is indeed the Formal, when Christ's Righteousness is the Meritorious Cause of our Justification. Our Justification, I must say, passively taken; that is, the Formal Cause, or Formal Reason, or Form itself of that Righteousness whereby we are justified. That which we do ourselves, through Grace, or the Spirit acting us, is this our Formal Righteousness, and that is the Condition of our Justification actively taken, and so of the Impunity and Life, that follow as the Fruits of it.  
That we may not stray here, but keep our Middle-Way, between the Extremes of Papist and Protestant, we must distinguish Remission and Justification. The Papists say, Justification is Remission and Regeneration; the Protestants say, it is Remission, and the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness. When both then make Remission to be but part of Justification, and Totum and Pars may be distinguished, these may. But I go farther: That which goes before, and that which comes after Justification, must be distinguished from it: but such is Remission. Remission therefore is Twofold, Universal and Conditional (the one): Particular and Absolute (the other). Universal Conditional Remission goes before Justification, Particular Absolute, follows as its Effect, and so Neither must be made the Formal Reason of it. He hath given us the World of Reconciliation, to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself, not imputing their Trespasses.— And we are his Ambassadors, beseeching you in Christ's stead to be reconciled unto God, 2 Cor 5.18, 19, 20. Here we see a Reconciliation of God to us, obtained for the World; so that a Non-imputation of Trespasses belongs to all, which yet precedes our being Reconciled to him, and consequently our actual Believing and Justification. The Reconciliation of the World to God by the Non-imputation of Sin in this Text, is indeed no other but what the Apostle otherwhere calls Redemption: In whom we have Redemption through his Blood, even the Forgiveness of Sins, Eph. 1.7. Col. 1.14. Now that Redemption does precede Justification, both in the Nature of the Thing, and Intent of the Apostle, is manifest, Rom. 3.24. Being justified freely by his Grace, through the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Redemption is the Ground (we see) of our Justification, and the Ground is necessarily first to be supposed, before that which is built upon it. And what is Redemption? Redemption is Christ's procuring (or purchase) of Man's delivery from Wrath due to us, according to the Law for Sin, (or of our discharge from the Penalty, called sometimes Freedom from the Law, sometimes Forgiveness of Sins) by the Price of his Blood, or Satisfaction in our behalf, but to be given out to us no otherwise than as God and Christ please; and that is upon the Terms of the Gospel. Of this Remission, which preceding Justification must be Universal (for where it is Particular, the Man is justified) and Conditional (for if it were Absolute, all must be saved) no Man must conceive me to imagine our Righteousness the Formal Cause, or any Cause, nay, or Condition: Nevertheless, this General Remission being given out (I say) to particular Persons, by a new Law or Covenant, which requires of us to the participating thereof, that we believe, repent, and walk sincerely before God, this Evangelical Righteousness, upon that Account, is the Thing that Formally justifies us. Upon our Faith God does account us Believers, or Performers of this Law or Covenant, that is righteous by the Righteousness of Faith (the Forma per quam, we are made so), and then this Remission before Conditional, becomes Absolute, (or Actual Remission, so commonly called) as the Effect (together with a Right to Heaven) of this Justification. Now when the Protestants ordinarily, that distinguish not Remission from Justification, are vehement here, (in reference to Grace and Works) and say, that no Man does, or can do any thing in order to the Remission of his Sin: That there is nothing, and can be nothing in the whole World interposed between our Sins and God's Wrath, to stave that off us, but Christ's Satisfaction, which was made by him, and accepted of God for us, while we are Sinners, Enemies, and have no other Qualification, so that therefore our Righteousness is so far from being any Cause (Efficient, Material, or Formal) that it is not so much as a Condition of it, I say, it is all true, it is all granted. The Absolute Free Grace of God, and our Redeemer, is to be received with the utmost Humility of our Hearts, and Thankfulness. Only one thing is necessary, which is, that it be understood aright. It must be understood of the Remission which precedes Justification: It must be understood of this Universal Conditional Remission, Reconciliation, Redemption, when that Remission which comes after Justification as its Effect; that is, Particular Absolute, or Actual Remission, is made so, or obtained only, upon the Terms of the Gospel.  
As in our Laws, when a Law that is good, proves inconvenient, we make a New one, that does not Repeal that Law, but brings a Remedy against that Inconvenience: So is it here. The Law of Innocency, or Nature, is good, and such as stands, and must stand, in all respects Unrepealed for ever; but upon Man's Fall there being this Inconvenience, that no Man being able to perform it perfectly we must all perish, a New Law is obtained by Christ, and granted by God, or an Act of Grace passed, by way of Remedy, (a Remedying Law) which Enacts thus: That tho' a Man does not fulfil this Law of Works, as all aught, yet if he Believes and Reputes only, he shall be pardoned and saved. Every Man that does not, is condemned already; but if he does, as soon as he does, he is justified by this New Law from that Condemnation.  
When I see Men denominated Righteous, through the Old and New Testament, only from their upright Walking with God, and yet the most Upright to have their Failings, and to place their Comfort and Hopes in God's Mercy and Grace, to pardon their Failings, and accept their Endeavours to please him, notwithstanding their Imperfections, as we may observe more especially in the Psalms: When those Christians that have gone before us, holy Men, and Fathers, have signified the like Temper in such like Expressions [Tota justitia mea Domine, est tui indulgentia. Vae hominum vitae quantumvis laudabili si remota misericordia judicetur. Inhaerens justitia sanctorum in hac Vita magis remissione p●ccatorum constat quam perfectione Virtutum. Ego fidenter quod ex me mihi deest usurpo mihi ex visceribus Domini, quoniam miserecordia affluunt, nec desunt foramina per quae effluunt. Omnia facta deputantur cum quod non fit ignoscitur]: And when in their Prayers after Confession of Sin, they have been wont, as they used to express themselves, to fly from God's Tribunal of Justice, to his Throne of Grace, from his Severity to his Mercy through Christ, Which through Christ must be for his Merits sake, not through his imputed Righteousness; for than they should stay at the Bar of his Justice still, and by the Law be justified: When, I say, I let these Reflections enter my Soul, I cannot but be persuaded, that the Righteousness of God, whereof I am speaking, and the Gospel hath Revealed to be that Righteousness whereby we are justified in opposition to Works, must receive between Protestant and Papist, a Middle Exposition.  
And what now is said hitherto, may be confirmed by the Light it brings, for the understanding several Scriptures, which are otherwise very hard of Interpretation. I will begin with that in Romans the First, where we find a Free Gift mentioned in several places, which, by the Righteousness of One, came upon All Men (the Apostle speaks) unto Justification. What is that Free Gift? In one Verse we are told, it is the Gift of Righteousness. But what Righteousness? Is it the Righteousness of Christ? Our Protestant's (even the judicious Davenant) against the Papists, say so; but it cannot be: For that which comes by the Righteousness of One, cannot be that Righteousness of One itsself, nor Justification itself that follows it. What is it then? Why, very probably, this Righteousness of God we are speaking of, that runs so much in the Apostle's Mind; which is on God's part the Grace of the Gospel, that gives Pardon and Life, upon Condition of Faith (and so brings Salvation to all Men) procured by this Righteousness of One, and that as the Medium to Man's Justification. By this Key, let him that will, and has a better Faculty of Words than I, open for me the rest of the Chapter.  
I proceed to another Text, Rom. 3.31. Do we then make void the Law by Faith! God forbidden: Yea, we establish the Law. How is that? The Law is established, I remember Austin tells us, Implendo, and Faith does establish it by fetching Grace from God to fulfil it. So he. I add, by fetching, not only this Grace which is Inherent and Operative, but that Grace which is Favour and Mercy, in pardoning all that is defective, and accepting what is done (how weak soever, if sincere, notwithstanding those Failings) unto Life, through the Merits of Christ Jesus. Or thus: It is done by Faith; because Faith, which is sound and works by Love, is this very Righteousness of God (on our part) we speak of, which he accepts of unto Life, instead of that of the Law, upon Christ's Account. And here are there certain Words I meet with in Melancthon and Chemnitius, which (tho' not in their perfect Sense) may be used and approved. Faith establishes the Law (say they) Dupliciter, by Inchoation, and by Imputation. By Inchoation in the New Obedience, whereof Faith is the Principle, or Faith receives the Spirit (as they speak) to work in us that Obedience: And then by Imputation, in that our inchoate Obedience being imperfect, and not answering the Law, Faith doth apply the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ (already intimated) for the pardoning all its Defects, and rendering it acceptable to God for his sake. This I take to be agreeable to the Father before quoted, Tunc tota lex impletur, quando id quod non fit ignoscitur: Only I must add, Et quando id quod fit imputatur ad justitiam propter Christum. I know these worthy Followers of Luther, and also, most of Calvin's Followers, do understand by their Imputation more than thus; even, no less, than that Christ's Righteousness is made ours by Faith; so as God does reckon the Believer to have satisfied, and obeyed the Law in him: Upon supposition of which Notion, here were so easy a Construction to be made of these Texts, and others that are chief stood upon, that no wonder, if after one or two such Leaders, there were so many embraced it. If Christ's Righteousness (which is perfect) be in a Law-sence the Believer's, then in a Law-sence the Believer performs it; and so the Law is established according to this place. In a Law-sence he is made Righteous by the Obedience of One (and so becomes as Righteous as that One) according to another Text, Rom. 5.19. He is made the Righteousness of God in him (Endued with the Righteousness of him, who is God) according to 2 Cor. 5.21. But the words Of and In, Of God, and In Him, do plainly show, that God and Him are two; and consequently, that serious Man, Mr. Mather, (with such other Divines) must be out, when they understand by the Righteousness of God, the Righteousness of Christ, who is God; seeing this Construction makes them one. 
* Justitia Dei est finis sive effectum ex co quod Christus peccatum pro nobis factus est. Hoc autem ipsum est Christi Obedientia. Ergo Justitia Dei non est Christi Obedientia. Wotton.  Besides, That we might be made the Righteousness of God in him, is expressed by the Apostle, as the End, or Effect, of his being made Sin for us. He was made Sin for us, not Formaliter, but Effective, in suffering for our Sins. His Sufferings was his Obedience, and that, his Righteousness. By the Righteousness of God therefore, we must not understand the Righteousness of Christ, because that which is the End, or Effect of a Thing, cannot be the very same Thing, but another differing from it. There is yet that Text more, which will receive the like easy Interpretation on that Supposition, Christ is the End of the Law for Righteousness, to him that believeth, the Believer being righteous In and With (and not only meritory By) his Righteousness, according to Rom. 10.4. But the Supposition really is too gross, the Notion too hard to be digested, as well as dangerous, in regard to the Antinomian Consequences of it. If in a Law-sence we are righteous, and have fulfilled the Law in Christ, then in a Law-sence God sees no Sin in us, we need no Pardon, God cannot in Justice punish for any thing we do, with the Lerna of the like Doctrines which follow upon it. If in a Law-sence Christ's Righteousness is ours, and we have fulfilled the Law in him, then are we in a Law-sence justified by Works, when by the Works of the Law (the Scripture says) no Flesh living shall be justified. It the Notion of Faith being imputed for Righteousness (which is Scripture) must be so framed, as by Faith we must understand its Object, Christ's Righteousness so imputed, but first received by Faith, or made ours by Faith, as the Instrument of that Reception, How then shall those many Fathers, and Holy Men before Luther, who never had any such Notion in their Minds, Nay, how shall the Patriarches, and all the Holy People from Adam to Christ, have been justified (as we), which is to be Righteous with this Righteousness, when they never had the Instrument to receive it? An Instrument is that the Efficient works by; And when there is not the working Cause, how can there be the Effect? It is not credible to me, that ever any one before Christ, or any of his Disciples before his Death, did, or could believe themselves Righteous, by the Satisfaction and Obedience of the Messiah, in this sense, that his Righteousness should, or could be their Formal Righteousness, when, As St. John tells us, He that doth Righteousness is righteous, so is this Righteousness done, the Formal Righteousness, and Christ's Obedience and Satisfaction, the Meritorious Cause (and the Account we give) of its acceptance, in the Sinners Justification.  
A Third Text, and parallel Place, we have in Rom. 8.3, 4. What the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the Flesh, etc. That is, I suppose, when through the Fall, no Man could perform the Condition of the Law of Works, God sent his Son, as it follows, to be a Sacrifice for Sin, to procure a Law of Grace, That the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the Flesh, but after the Spirit. How is that? when none can fulfil the Law through the Weakness of the Flesh, do we fulfil it? Yes: It is not said fulfilled in Christ, but in Us, and it is fulfilled by this Righteousness of God; which being on our part all one with the Obedience of Faith, God upon Christ's Account, imputes that to us for Righteousness, or reckons it, instead of fulfilling it, making it as good to us, and rewarding us alike, as if we had perfectly performed it. It is an Obedience or Righteousness indeed, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as I have it before) according to the Rigour of the Law, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the Equity of the Gospel. It is not in its own Nature a Righousness (falling short of the Law) that would justify us, but it does it by Divine Institution, and therefore called the Righteousness of God. It is an Ordination of Grace, through Jesus Christ, and therefore is God righteous in what he does: But on our part it is called the Righteousness of Faith. I do observe therefore, how that Religiously Learned Gentleman, Sir Charles Wolesley, having wrote his Book of Justification after I had wrote, and he had read my Sheets on the same Subject, hath these Words upon that forementioned Critical Place, 2 Cor. 5.21. The meaning is this, says he, Christ that was without all Sin, was ordained of God to be a Sacrifice for Sin, that we might thereby be made righteous with the Gospel Righteousness, for that is the general meaning every where of the Righteousness of God, Sir C. W. p. 64. This, I know, I delivered as my Judgement in those Sheets; and his saying the same after, is as much as if he had said, I have considered what you say, and am convinced, that this is the meaning of that Text, and that you are right in your Sense, of the Righteousness of God. It is a walking after the Spirit, not after the Flesh, though not perfectly up to our Duty: And the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus, (after which we walk in our measure) does set us free from the Law of Sin and Death.  
I will proceed to some Consequences, like to be good or ill, as they follow, upon a right or mistaken understanding of this Righteousness. If by it, the Righteousness of Christ imputed be understood, By the exercise of Faith, in apprehending the same to be made ours, so as to bring it before the Tribunal of God's Justice for our Justification thereby, according to the Law of Works, the very Life of that Faith, or Comfort of that Life, which consists in trusting, resting, relying, on God's Mercy and Goodness, for pardoning all the Failings of our Performances, and accepting them (even our very Desires, and weakest Endeavours) through the Merits of Christ, unto Life, so as by that Faith we have access to the Throne of Grace, and are justified according to the Gospel, is stopped, perverted, if not quite contradicted, and lost. Nay, if the End of Christ's Obeying and Satisfying the Law was that his Satisfaction and Obedience should be made ours upon Condition, (for our Divines here, are cautious, and do generally take heed to put in that) to wit, upon Performance of the Terms the Gospel requires of us, in order to it, and not otherwise, then cannot the Merits of Christ be (so rationally, I think) applied thus as I speak, to the Performance of the Condition. Our Divines indeed do say, that Christ hath not only procured this Imputation on Condition, but Grace also for the Performance of the Condition (some say, General Grace for all that will, some Special that makes some to will), but this Condition must be performed (by our , or Grace) so as the full Tale be brought in, or no Righteousness of Christ imputed, no Merits of Christ otherwise to be applied: Whereas, if the End of Christ's doing and suffering what he did in our behalf, was that what we do ourselves (by his Spirits preventing and assisting Grace) shall be imputed to us for Righteousness, which is the very Truth, seeing the Scripture says it, that it is our Faith (to wit, a sound Faith working by Love) is, and shall be so imputed (that is, our Faith, Repentance, New Obedience, is accepted, in regard to the Reward, instead of that Righteousness the Law required to our Justification), than we see what Line we have given us, for the actuating our Faith, and reliance on God's Grace, Goodness, Mercy, and Christ's Merits for Pardoning our Failings (as I am saying), and taking what is done in such good part, as to reward it with Life, seeing it is for Christ's sake altogether, for his Merits sake only (not for its value), that it finds acceptation; which is the greatest Encouragement to our Endeavours, and consequently to a Holy Life, that can be in the World. I will add, that God our Judge, who is gracious and wise, does consider the divers Natures, Tempers, Natural Infirmities, Temptations of Men and Women, and hath his Grains of Allowance for all, according to these Circumstances, so as that shall be accepted for the Condition performed in one, that falls exceeding short of what is done by another. Alas! there are such divers Sizes of God's Children, so vast a disproportion (I mean) as to the Degrees of their Grace, that one would hardly think them the Children of the same Father. What a Difference is there between a Seth and a Samson, Rahab and Elizabeth; Who would think that one Heaven should hold them both? He knoweth our Frame, and remembreth we are but Dust: Upon which Account we read so often, of his Compassions toward the Weak and Fainting, which gives us this Ground for our trust in him, to bear with our Frailty, in mollifying to some the Condition (Not but all must be Sincere, but that this Sincerity is of divers Degrees, in the Sense I speak), in regard to God's Acceptance, and Grace, which hath no Bounds to be set by any.  
And now, if any pious Brother, shall go to take away this Doctrine from us, and the Fruit of it, I will wish him to take heed to his own, and consider whither it leads. If Christ hath died for the Sinner, so that God looks on the Sinner to have satisfied the Law in Christ, then should he preach this Gospel. He should declare to all, and every of his Hearers, that God is in Christ reconciled to him, and that he is to believe its Christ hath died for Sinners, thou art a Sinner; All are Sinners, Christ hath died for all, and thou art to believe thy Sins forgiven. Thou art not to believe only, that there is Forgiveness of Sins, and Everlasting Life, but that these Articles through Christ are thy Possession. Who loved Me, and gave himself for Me. In Christ's Obedience and Sufferings thou hast obeyed the Law, and satisfied the Penalty, and therefore art justified, and in a State of Salvation. As for Good Works, they are indeed to be done out of Gratitude afterward. God commands them, and they please him, and they do good to Men, and therefore thou must do them, but nothing is to be done for thyself, but believe only, in order to thy Justification and Salvation. Let a Man but believe once in good earnest that it is so, he cannot choose but love God and Jesus Christ, and that Love will constrain him to Obedience. If you hold the Doctrine of Election, he must not stick at that, but he must believe also he is Elect; and indeed, that none but the Elect can believe; that is, thus believe: Or that there can be this Fiducia specialis misericordiae in none ever but the Elect only, and therefore is it called, The Faith of God's Elect. And what says any of my sober Brethren, to this Doctrine? Can he find in his Heart to preach it, when Christ, when John, when Peter (Acts 2.38.), when they began to preach, did preach, Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand? I confess, that Luther (as I apprehend) did at first preach at this rate; which was the way to fetch in so many by the Shoals, as he did from Popery, when the World was groaning under the Burden of their Priests Impositions, their Penances, Satisfactions, Fast, Scourge, praying to Saints, worshipping Images, Pilgrimages, Indulgences, besides the Vows of Chastity, Poverty, and Monastical Obedience, as to the more Religious, whereby they were made to believe they merited Salvation for themselves, and others. It was glad Tidings now, and a welcome Gospel to the World at this time, to tell them, that it is Faith alone, in opposition to these Works, that justifies and saves Men. Nevertheless, when that excellent Man saw the Effect of his own Doctrine, that such as he had turned from Popery, began to run as fast to Antinomianism, and Libertinism, he saw occasion to change his Preaching, to press the Law, and Repentance, as much as others. Nor was the Doctrine of Preparatory Works (Man's lying at the Pool) Refused, but Sated, and Approved by his Followers. A Convinced Sinner is the only Subjectum capax Justificationis, even with Dr. Owen. Of Just. p. 133.   

The Second PART.  
I Know that several of our chiefest Divines, have been so far from imbibing the Sense of this Righteousness, which is my Theme, The Righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel, that their Doctrine, in opposition to the Papists, is extreme, in the thwarting (without being truly ware,) of it: When those Prudential Catholics, who understand, that Qualitas Gratiae infusa non Natura sua, sed ex Dei acceptatione & ordinatione habet ut Hominem Deo gratum reddat, are to be heard rather than them. Nay, the deep and acute Mr. Baxter (so far as I remember any thing he has) never came to lay this Righteousness of God enough to his Thoughts, when nothing almost else escapes him, as it appears by his frequent approbation (or mention) of the Learned, Sober, Logically Judicious Mr. Anthony Wotton, and sometimes Mr. Hotchkis his Follower. I will examine therefore a little into Mr. Wotton's Opinion. Justification by him is thus defined: It is, Reconciliationis pars, qua Deus in Christum credentibus fidem reputans ad justitiam, omnia illis peccata condonat. Reconciliation is God's Return into Grace and Favour with Sinners (as he says) whom Sin had made his Enemies, through Satisfaction given him by Christ. God is said to be angry with Sin and Sinners, and upon Christ's Satisfaction and their Repentance, to be appeased, or reconciled; Not that Man's Repentance, or Christ's Satisfaction works any change in God, but Ex Connotatione Objecti, God is denominated. Man's Repentance changes himself, and Christ's Satisfaction makes a change in the Order of Things; but God is unchangeable, while yet the Scripture speaks, Lingua Filiorum hominum, as the Jews say, Or as the Schools, Secundum nostrum concipiendi modum, in many Matters incomprehensible. To leave Mr. Wotton's Genus Definitionis therefore to himself, without farther concern, he hath defined Justification by Remission of Sin, in opposition to those that define it by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness; and he hath elaborately proved this to be the Sense of the Church of England, and Calvin's, with many others. I do now agree with Mr. Wotton herein, in excluding the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness (in his Sense intended, that is as our Formal Righteousness) out of the Definition, because there is no such thing as the Imputation thereof, In se, tho' the Merit of it be imputed to Believers, as to the Effects. But I do not agree with him, in making Remission of Sin to be (that he want let the other be) the Form, or Formal Reason of our Justification: Because I hold, with Mr. Bradshaw, our Actual Pardon to be the Effect, or Benefit of it. The Righteousness of God, which is not yet throughly understood by Protestant or Papist, and I have made the Subject of this Dissertation, is indeed that Formal Righteousness we are seeking; and I do not think, that any Man in his first natural reading Paul's Epistle to the Romans, who brought not his Understanding from without to the place, did ever apprehend by that Righteousness of God now Revealed (when Remission of Sin was a thing never Hid) that Pardon only is to be understood. I will advise every Judicious Man therefore, when any material Point is concerned in a Text, to ponder it in the Original several times, till he come to some Resolution about it in his own Mind, because when he hath sucked in the Sense of another, his own Judgement is worth nothing. Mr. Wotton hath said enough to turn a Man to his Opinion, he is so rational a Man; but having been myself otherwise inclined, as to the Sense of this Righteousness, and finding the Scripture calling no Man righteous, but upon the Account of doing righteously, I cannot comply with Mr. Wotton in his Notion, nor with the contrary in such, as the hitherto prevailing Dr. Owen, in theirs. The Ministry of the Gospel, is called the Ministration of Righteousness, upon the Account of this Righteousness, as also the Ministration of the Spirit, in regard of the Grace the Spirit brings to perform it; which Austin (I remember) in his Book, De Spiritu & Littera, hath told us: It can by no means be called the Ministration Thereof, in regard to Remission of Sins. There are many the like Arguments, I think, I could find out against Mr. Wotton's Opinion, but that my Discourse is rather to be Demonstrative, than Elenctical; and therefore I must not omit that place in Daniel, where it is prophesied, that Christ shall bring in Righteousness; that is, a Righteousness procured by his Death and Merits, and called an Everlasting Righteousness, being that by which they that ever were, are, or shall be so, are justified, and saved; and it is said, brought in, and at such a time, when the Messiah shall be slain, as it is said Now Manifested, or Revealed by the Gospel, which is (I said but now) the Ministration of it. To which purpose it is to be understood and observed farther, that Righteousness as well as Reconciliation, and the making an End of Sins, is one End of our Redemption; which I have explained more 
* That the End of Christ's coming in the World, of our Redemption, and the Covenant of Grace, was, that we should be holy and righteous, is said ordinarily by Divines, according to the Scriptures; but the right and plain Understanding, or Reason, of what they say, is not said by them. He hath chosen us in Christ, that we should be Holy. He hath redeemed us from Iniquity, that we should be a peculiar People. We are his Workmanship, created unto Good Works, in (or through) Christ Jesus. Well! when God made Man at first, and gave him a Law, was it not that he should live holy? And when Righteousness, than was the End of his Creation, and the Law thereof; how is this said to be the End of his Redemption? I answer therefore, Righteousness (or Holiness, as they are one) we must know, does lie in a Conformity to the Law which God gives us. There is nothing less than this (the full Performance of a Law given) that is Righteousness. Upon this Account, as soon as Man once fell, and broke the Law of his Creation, it is impossible he should be righteous any more, unless there were a New Law brought in, in the Performance whereof he might attain to that again which he had lost. Now to this End was it, that Christ came and died; This was the very main Business (I count) of his Redemption, (as to free us from Condemnation by the Old, so) even the procuring this New Law, or another Law, with lower Terms, which some Men performing, they do thereby become righteous, and so have Righteousness, according to that Law, imputed to them, for Remission, and Life Eternal. Here you see what that Righteousness indeed is, which Christ is said to bring in, and in what Sense he hath brought it in, or how such Texts (as these before) does attribute our Holiness to him. It is called an Everlasting Righteousness, as the Gospel is called the Everlasting Gospel, because it is the Righteousness, in opposition to that of the Law, or of Works, that all Men from the Beginning of the World, to the End of it, do obtain Everlasting Salvation. Mid. Way of Justif. p. 43.  otherwhere. Daniel 9.24. Titus 2.14.  
Well! you will say then, if the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness be not the Form of our Justification, nor Remission of Sins, when some Protestants say the one, and some the other, and some both, what then is the Form of it? I answer, Mr. Wotton hath told us truly, in the rest of his Words: It is God's imputing to a Man his Faith for Righteousness. This is Scripture express, and the Righteousness of God I am treating of, is otherwhere called the Righteousness of God by Faith, and the Righteousness of Faith; for that is express Scripture also. Justification supposes a Man just. Justificationis formam justitia constare certum est. God cannot account a Man righteous, without a Righteousness. The Papists therefore, are hot here with Calvin, that will have a Man be justified only by Remission of Sins, without an inherent Righteousness; and the Protestants as hot with the Papists, that will have any inherent Grace, or Righteousness of ours, to be such as answers the Law, that it should justify us; for by Righteousness both understand a Conformity to the Law of Works. Both therefore are out. There is no such inherent Grace, as answers the Law, nor any Grace from without either Remission of Sins or Christ's Righteousness imputed, that is, or can be our Formal Righteousness; but it is Faith which is Grace and Righteousness inherent, that justifies us in opposition to both. There is a Righteousness of God, I say, that is neither of these, unknown to the Disputants on both sides, that is the Formal Righteousness for which they strive. St. Austin (I remember) does often tell us, that by this Righteousness of God, we must not understand that whereby himself is righteous, but that whereby we are so: As the Love of God is taken sometimes, not for that whereby he loves us, but that whereby we love him. Justitia Dei, non qua justus est, sed qua justos nos facit. I cannot forget these words, because I find them used by the Council of Trent in their defining Justification. Austin believed a Righteousness infused, a Righteousness that makes a Man, Ex impio justum, and to be that which justifies him. He believed not this Righteousness to be Remission of Sins, because he still speaks of it as Grace inherent, and sometimes calls it Charity: But he seemed not to speak of it as any such perfect Righteousness that a Man may bring to the Bar to justify him, seeing you will ever and anon have such sensible Expressions, that the best of Righteousness that Man has, does consist rather in God's being merciful to his Unrighteousness, than in the Perfection of his Virtues. The truth is, I found not in Reading Austin, that he did fully understand himself, or made me to understand, what this Righteousness of God does mean, when the Apostle speaks of something Mysterious in it (he counts) but now Revealed. That there should be a Righteousness, and not answer the Law, a Righteousness without a Conformity thereunto, this is something mysterious, when there is no such indeed in Nature: Or that Faith without Works should yet be made or constituted such a Righteousness as Formally to justify us, this is the Matter Revealed, and called the Righteousness of God, because of this Ordination.  
That we may not mistake the word Formally, A Man may be Formaliter just two ways (says Mr. Wotton) Qualitate & Lege. Qualitate, no Man is formally just (he counts) but he that is perfectly conformable to the Law, which no Man is: But Lege, a Man is just (he says) Formaliter, by Pardon, Cùm omnis imputatio culpae sublata est. Let me give this a Turn. Qualitate Faith is not Righteousness (to wit, Tali qualitate, and such a Righteousness), but Liege, Lege Evangelii, Faith is. It is not Ex rei Natura, but Ex Dei Constitutione, that Faith is made the Righteousness that justifies. The Foundation-mistake of Protestant and Papist lies in this, that they dispute as if it were by the Law we are to measure this Righteousness, and be judged: When it is to be measured, and God will judge us according to the Gospel. A Conformity to the Law of Works, Fac hoc & Vives, is the Righteousness these Disputants still thought on, but it is a Conformity to the New Law, the Law of Grace, Crede & saluaberis, that St. Paul means by the Righteousness of God that justifies Sinners. Our Divines here, since Mr. Baxter wrote, understand the Point better. Justification (says Mr. Williams) is a Judicial Act of God, by a Gospel. Rule, supposing Christ's Satisfaction, Goseling. Truth, p. 108. There is more of Light in one such Line now, than heretofore in a Volume of Disputation. Fides est conditio (says Mr. Wotton) & quidem talis condition ad Justificationem per Christum in foedere gratuito, qualis erant Opera ad Justificationem ex operibus Legis. Hence I argue. But Works were the Formal Righteousness of Justification by the Law. Ergo, Faith is the Formal Righteousness of our Justification by the Gospel.  
To come more home (than I have already from the same Notion before in Melancthon, and Chemnitius) to the Conscience (especially the Tender one) of every Christian, here are two things that go into this Formal Righteousness, Faith, and the Imputation of it for Righteousness. Here is Faith which is our Gospel-Righteousness, and this being short, it is through Christ's Merits that it is imputed to us in the stead of one that is perfect. Faith indeed (says Luther, upon Gal. 3, v. 6.) is a Formal Righteousness, and yet this Righteousness is not enough, for after Faith there remains certain Remnants of Sin in our Flesh, wherefore the other part of Righteousness must be added to finish the same in us, that is to say, God's Imputation. Here Luther acknowledges Faith is a Formal Righteousness, which I note to remove Prejudice, but in regard to its Imperfection, there must be God's Imputation, or it would never justify us. I say thus likewise, our Faith and Duty being imperfect, it is through Christ's Merits, and his Merits only, that God does accept it, or impute it for Righteousness. Christian Righteousness (says Luther again) consisteth in two things, Faith in the Heart, and God's Imputation. It is lively true as to my meaning. The holiest Men have Concupiscence, Passions, remains of Infidelity, but such Faults (says he) are not laid to their Charge, because of their Faith in Christ. That is, because of Christ's Merits, our Faith relying or trusting on those Merits, God forgives the Failings, and accepts of it forgiven. Deus imputat istam imperfectam fidem ad justitiam perfectam propter Christum. This is full indeed to my purpose, as nothing can be fuller. But the Lutheran Imputation and Mine, I confess, are not the same. Theirs is an Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in itself, which cannot be ours but in Imagination: Mine is of the Merit only of his Righteousness, which is made ours indeed in the Effects. Theirs is an Imputation of that Righteousness In se, to the Person, which cannot be: Mine, is an Imputation of this Merit to our Performances, which does verily render them acceptable, for all their Imperfection, to Life Eternal. 
* There is the Duty, and the Condition (I am saying there) of the Law of Grace, or the Gospel. No Man we must know, does perform the Duty, but every Man must perform the Condition (our Divines will say), or he cannot be saved. This Condition (as obtained for the World) is the Grand Benefit of Christ's Purchase, or Main Fruit of his Death, and is accepted when performed only through him. It is not for my Works, or Merit, sayest thou, that my Person is accepted, but for Christ's Righteousness, and in this alone is thy Comfort. And I say, it is not for the Works sake, or Merit of any thing, or all we do, but for Christ's sake, that the Condition is accepted, and in this is my Comfort. In this it is (I account) that we have, or can have, any grounded Sustentation. To say thou art justified by Christ's Righteousness, when yet thou must acknowledge his Righteousness is none of thine, unless thou hast performed the Condition, what empty Comfort is that? But to say that through Christ's Merits and Righteousness, this itself, which I do, is the Condition, here is Comfort indeed. That, what we are enabled by his Grace (I say) to do, how little soever, if sincerely done (if it be but the Grain of Mustardseed, in a hungering and thirsting after Righteousness) shall be accepted unto Life (that is, be that Condition) upon the Account of what Christ hath done for us, this, I say, is solid Consolation. Thou sayest, when I look on my Works my Heart sinks, I am not sure I am sincere, but in the Righteousness of Christ I am safe. I say, this is certain, if thou art not sincere, thou art not safe: And when I doubt whether I am or not, I can have no Support but in this, that I hope I am, I trust I am; and that it is upon the Satisfaction and Merit of Christ, that Faith, that Hope does depend. For that there is any Condition at all, that the Condition is such, that what I do shall be accepted as the Condition performed, it must be all put upon Christ's Performance and Merit in our behalf; and his Merit is sufficient however imperfect be our Duty, for its acceptance with God. When then upon a Sense of my Deficiency, instead of sinking I grow bolder in my reliance on Christ's Merits, and God's Mercy, I do not presume on myself, but I magnify his Grace, and the higher I raise my Faith thereupon (provided I live not willingly in any Conscience-wasting Sin) the more Glory (am I humbly persuaded) do I give my gracious Saviour, and good God. Thou Man, hast the Comfort to apply to thyself Christ's Merits, if thou hast performed the Condition: But I have the Comfort to apply Christ's Merits to the Condition, which makes his Yoke easy, and his Burden light, as to the Performance, and my Desires and weakest Endeavours to find Acceptance. 
When I read such Prayers of David, That God would not enter into Judgement with him, that he would not be extreme to mark what he had done amiss, for than he could not abide it, and that yet he will have God to search him, and try his Reins and Heart, and the like, I cannot but be convinced, that in the Acceptance of such an imperfect Righteousness, as he accounted his was, through God's mere gracious Condescension, Mercy, and Forgiveness to him he placed his Justification; in which Sense also he calls him the God of his Righteousness: When as for any Acceptance of him through the Righteousness of the Messiah to come, a Righteousness without him made his by Faith, which could abide God's district Justice, I find not the Footstep of one such Thought. To rely therefore (I will say) on Christ's Righteousness as ours, without regard to any thing within, or without regard to the Condition, is Self-deceiving: But to rely on God's Mercy, and on Christ's Merits for Acceptance of what we do, and Pardon for the Failings, is substantial Religion; and of Justification by Faith in Christ's Blood, a good Exposition.   I will fetch here one Leaf out of my late Book, Pacification, and put it into the Margin, for the Use and Comfort of this Explication.  
I return to Mr. Wotton, who indeed does sweat with stir to prove that Remission of Sin is Righteousness, for wiping off that blame the Papists lay on his Opinion, that a Man is justified without a Righteousness, if it be by Pardon only. But this I stick upon, that though pardon in some Sense is, or may be called Righteousness, yet is it not this Righteousness, it is not the Righteousness of God I am concerned about that the Apostle means, and which is (by Mr. Wotton's own acknowledgement) that which justifies the Believer. It did (I must needs say) at first, and still does move me, that I find not one Scripture from Genesis to the Revelation, that denominates any one to be a just or righteous Person from Pardon, but from his righteous living [He that doth Righteousness is righteous]: Yet that which does convince me is, that by Mr. Wotton's leave, it is not Remission of Sin, in opposition to Works, but this Righteousness of God in opposition to Works (and that is our Evangelical Righteousness) which the Apostle means, while he contends that it is by Faith, and not Works, that we are justified, or that is Faith and not Works is our Formal Righteousness in Justification. See a peculiar Argument I offer in my Mid. Way of Just. p. 48. I am (I say) convinced that the Notion the Apostle had of Justification could not be Pardon, because in his Dispute whether it be by Faith or Works we are justified, he does suppose, that if a Man had Works, they would justify him, and make the Reward of Debt, but that Abraham, and none had, or have them: And consequently while he supposes that if a Man could keep the Law (as if Adam in Innoceny had kept it) he should be justified, it is plain he cannot understand Pardon by Justification, seeing where such Works are, that is perfect Works (which he certainly means) there were no Sin, to Pardon. This Argument may be more pungently framed than it is here or there, but the Medium of Probation arose to me in my Mind as perfect Conviction. I will now define Justification.  
Justification is an Act of Free Grace, whereby God imputes to every Sound Believer his Faith for Righteousness, upon the Account of Christ's Satisfaction and Merits, giving him Pardon and Life as the Benefits of it. I need say nothing of the Genus Definiti, [an Act of Free Grace] it is the Assemblies. By a Sound Believer I mean one, whose Faith works by Love, including Repentance and New Obedience, which together makes our Evangelical Righteousness: And this Sound Faith is imputed for Righteousness, I account, in this Sense, that God does accept it in the room of a perfect Righteousness, not accounting it as perfect, but accepting it (I say) in the room of that Perfection required unto Life by the Law, and consequently rewarding it for Christ's Merit sake, as much, if not more, than if it were that. I add then, giving Pardon and Life, as the Effects or Benefits, distinguished from the Form of Justification. A Right to Impunity and Life Christ hath purchased, and gives by his Covenant; they that are justified by this Covenant, are adjudged to these Benefits, so that Pardon and Salvation flow to us (I say) as the Benefits, and are not the Form of Justification. One of them is never accounted to be the Form, and by the same Reason neither may be the other. The Gospel-Law, or Covenant, does both make and declare all Believers righteous (as having a Right to the Benefits of it, by Performance of the Condition): But as for this or that particular Person that is a Believer, or Performer, it is God must be Judge. This Judgement is to be supposed preceding, and the Benefits to be actually conferred by it. When I say this Righteousness (or Faith) is the Form, I understand it in that Sense as these Divines do, who say, Christ's Righteousness is the Form, or Remission is the Form (the Word therefore is not to be scrupled), not the Form of that Imputation, but of Justification passively taken. I add at last, upon the Account of Christ's Merits, or through Christ, or for Christ's sake, because this Faith of ours, or Evangelick Righteousness, hath so many Defects in the best of Christians, that if through the Sacrifice of Christ they were not pardoned, and through his Merits that imperfect Duty which is done accepted, it could not be imputed to us for Righteousness. And I do more especially signify thereby, that Christ's Righteousness, which cannot be imputed to us as the Formal Cause of our Justification, is, and must be very carefully brought to our Account (and granted to be imputed) as the Meritorious Cause of that Acceptation. And in making it the Meritorious, I have learned of Mr. Baxter, to allow it to be the Material also (which he says is nothing else but to be the Matter of that Merit) because I make our Faith the Formal, in our Justification. After this I distinguish between this pardoning, and bearing with the Defects of our Faith, Repentance, New Obedience, which are the Conditions of the Gospel Covenant, and so our Gospel. Righteousness, or that which is imputed for Righteousness; and that General or Total Pardon which the Covenant promises, and becomes Absolute upon performing the Condition. The one of these is that very Grace, or Act of Grace itself, as goes into that Act of Imputation, or Act, that imputes our Faith for Righteousness, when the other I say still, is the Effect or Benefit following Justification.  
Justification being thus defined by God's imputing a Man's Faith to him for Righteousness, it may be understood what Mr. Baxter still tell us, that Justification is the making us righteous, as well as the accounting us righteous, and dealing with us as righteous. I have been shy hitherto of admitting the first of these, because of the Papists, but I will now distinguish. There is a making a Man just or righteous by Infusion, or by Imputation. God's making a Man just by Infusion is Regeneration, which the Papists hold, and we distinguish from Justification. I suppose Mr. Baxter once intended no other. Those that will have Justification nothing but Forgiveness do readily grant this, that Justification makes one just, for when Sin is forgiven, so that there is not the Gild of any Omission or Commission imputed to a Person, he is made Righteous by Non-imputation. But I am for neither of these. Justification is not making a Man righteous by Infusion, nor by Non imputation, but by Imputation, God imputing our Faith to us for Righteousness. Per formalem Justificationis causam justi constituimur. Our Faith and Evangelick Obedience is imperfect and sinful, and we are unrighteous in the Eye of the Law for all that, but God in his judging us according to the Law of Grace, does allow of that for Christ's sake, instead of all which the Law requires to our Justification. By this may that Expression of the Apostle, that God justifies the Ungodly, be rightly understood. Not in the Sense or either of the former, that take it only in Sensu diviso, so that he who before his Justification was ungodly, is no longer so after, but In sensu composito. Our Faith, I say, or Evangelical Obedience, in regard to the Law, or in regard to those Works that are required by the Law to our Justification, are no Righteousness, no Righteousness which in its own Nature would justify us, but God constitutes it such by the Law of the Gospel, and according to that Law imputes it to us for Righteousness. A Man believes; Let us suppose that Sound Faith; The Spirit must have been given to work it in him; Where the Spirit is given to work inherent Grace in a Person, he is Regenerate; But this Regeneration is not Justification. For suppose a Regenerate Man should live all his Life as righteously as he is able, yet if God should deal with him according to the Law of Works, he is still ungodly in that regard, and he could not be justified, and God's dealing with him otherwise according to his Law of Grace, and accounting or adjudging him righteous by that Law, notwithstanding all his Failings for Christ's sake, is this imputing Faith to him for Righteousness, which is the Formal Reason of Justification.  
I must take leave to rake this again a little over, for I see some need, and I must confess Mr. Baxter hath perplexed me often as to this particular. In some of his Books he speaks of Justification, making us just by Pardon, which freeing us from the Gild of all Sin, Omission, and Commission, does make us (he accounts) righteous as we can be made. In others he seems to understand with Augustine, that Justification makes us just by Grace inherent. A Man must believe and repent before he is justified; He cannot do that without God's Grace; God does therefore first make him righteous by this inherent Grace, before he accounts him just, or deals with him as such. Mr. Baxter was induced to this (I think) by the Judicious Le Blanc, who apprehends that there are three or four places (for which he quotes some of our chief Protestants) that make Justification the same with Sanctification. Unto which Texts I should choose rather to give Answer according to others, than to consent to this, because it comes so near the Papists, as to leave us almost no difference from them. I will therefore advance here a Distinction to the same purpose as but now, which among the many Mr. Baxter hath, he yet has not, and it is this. There is a threefold making a Man just. By Conversion, or Regeneration, and this is Austine's, and the Papists Justification. By Pardon, and this is Mr. Wotton's Justification. Or by the Righteousness of God, which I made the Subject of these Sheets, as something between Protestant and Papist, and this is God's imputing our Faith for Righteousness, which is my Justification, and I will call it mine, because I take it to be the Scriptures, where it is expressly delivered, as cannot be gainsaid. The Papists Opinion (to make things clear) is that the Grace of God infused is the Formal Righteousness that justifies us, or makes us just in God's sight, according to the Law of Works. Justitia Habitualis à Deo infusa satis est ut homo illa indutus possit in Divino judicio sisti & vere justus haberi. In this Sense the Protestants lay down this contrary Position, that a Sinner is justified, not by any Formal Righteousness in himself, but by the Mercy of God, through the Satisfaction of Christ. The Protestants I own here against the Papist, according to the Papists Sense. Our Faith, or Evangelick Righteousness, or inherent Grace (I must say this over) is imperfect, and cannot be our Formal Righteousness according to the Law, it is no Conformity to the Law of Works, and they of Trent thought of no other: but our imperfect Faith, Repentance, New Obedience, is a Conformity to that which God hath made the Condition of Life by his Law of Grace, or the Gospel, and is our Formal Righteousness according to that Law, being made so by that Act of Imputation, which may be attributed to God, or his Law, when he imputes it to us for Righteousness, as I have had it already. By the Evangelical Law this is our Righteousness, we are made righteous, that is, not guilty of the Non-performance of the Condition, according to Mr. Baxter. To this purpose aforesaid I will note, that when in that remarkable Text (Rom. 3.30.) Predestination, Calling, Justification, and Glorification, are linked without mentioning Sanctification, we must suppose that intended, either in Calling, or Justification, and I have always received it under Calling, that is Effectual Calling, or Conversion. Now a Man is converted, and he believes, and reputes; but this being no Righteousness according to the Law, there comes after Calling, Justification, and it is that makes this imperfect Believing, Repenting, New Obedience, to become our Righteousness by Imputation. God's imputing it to us for Righteousness, making it by that Act, Et Juris & Judicis, to serve us in the room of such a Righteousness as is perfect, rewarding it for Christ's sake, as he would the other. The having Faith, Repentance, New Obedience, is one thing, the having it accepted for Righteousness is another. The one is Regeneration, or Sanctification, the other Justification, and without the one, there cannot be the other. Fides inquiunt justitia nostra formalis esse non potest: Concedo (upon his Opinion he must say so, not I, tho' in the Popish Sense I say Concedo too), At potest à Deo justitiae loco haberi, ut preater ipsam nihil amplius à nobis flagitet ad justitiam consequendum, says Mr. Wotton.  
As for this Righteousness of God now in his imputing to the Believer his Faith, or the Performance of the Evangelic Condition for Righteousness, we must not conceive as Dr. Owen objects, that here is an Imputation only of that which is ours, so that accounting it an imperfect Righteousness, God cannot deal with us, but only according to an imperfect one: When he does certainly deal with us according to a perfect one, and we understand so by this Imputation. Dr. Owen (who never gave the Matter its due Consideration, not perhaps Mr. Baxter neither) Philosophizes thus. There is an Imputation to us of a thing that is Ours, and that is judging it Ours, and dealing with us accordingly: Or of a thing which is not Ours, and that is by a Donation of it on some just Ground, and dealing with us according to it made Ours. Of this he makes the Application, that our Righteousness cannot, but Christ's must, be that which is imputed to our Justification. But I will Philosophise otherwise, and so may any that 
* When ever we read of Imputing or Accounting to a Man a thing that is good, it is an Act of Grace, and Law-acceptilation, and signifies something which is not. Truman's Endeavour, p. 222.  please. As there is therefore an imputing to a Person that which is His, or that which is not His: So is there an imputing also to a Person that which is partly His, and partly not His, but that which in the Effect may become His too by the Imputation. Such is the Case here, but never sunk in the Doctor's Mind. There are two things in the matter I have said before from Luther, Our Faith, and God's Imputation. Our Faith, or the Evangelic Condition performed which is Ours, and God's Imputation which brings with it (in the Effect I say) that which was not Ours, that is the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ (his Satisfaction for Pardoning the Failings, and his Merit for accepting that which is done though imperfect) to the accounting us righteous, and dealing with us no otherwise than if we were perfect. A Man that has not a legal sinless Perfection (for that is meant by the Ungodly, Rom. 4.5.) his Faith is accounted for Righteousness, that is, his Faith shall avail him as much to all intents, and stand him in as much stead as a perfect sinless Righteousness would do, says Sir Charles Wolesley in his Book of Evangelical Justification. This is most certain, that there is no Grace vouchsafed to a Sinner from God, in order to Life, but upon the Account of Christ's Satisfaction and Merit, against the Socinian: When this exceeding Grace and Favour therefore that an imperfect Righteousness is accepted in the room of a perfect one (as is intended in this express Scripture, that says, Our Faith is imputed for Righteousness), the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ must be supposed as its Foundation: And consequently they are imputed to our Faith for its Acceptation, as we say they are imputed to us for Ours. That Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us, we assume without Scripture, but this is express that Righteousness is imputed, and that our Faith is imputed for Righteousness; and it will be strange if any shall question an Imputation of Christ's Merit to our Duty when it is accepted, and accepted only through him. Our Dissenting Brethren in their Printed Agreement (Dec. 1692.) have these Words. God looking on the Good Works of Believers in his Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, though accompanied with many Weaknesses and Imperfections. I quote these Words not as rare, but as the common Judgement, to show, that an Imputation of Christ's Merit to our Duty, is undeniable. Here are the Believers Works, and that is our imperfect inchoate Obedience, and this accepted, and it is accepted in Christ, that must be through his Satisfaction and Merit, and is rewarded too upon his Account. What is there more in the accepting our Persons in Justification? Our maimed Righteousness is accepted to Salvation as if it were perfect (says one Dr. Owen citys) for that it should be so, Christ hath merited by his most perfect Righteousness. When this unnamed Author says, As if it were perfect, he accounts it, it is not so Legally, or In se, but Evangelically, or quoad Effectum; that is, it stands us in the stead of a perfect one, through the Merits of Christ. And unto this saying of his (whosoever he be) does that Elder in the Revelations well accord, who tells St. John, that the Robes of the Saints, which are their inherent Grace, their Good Works or Holy Life, are made white (that is rewardable with Glory) by their washing them in the Blood of the Lamb. We are accepted in the Beloved, that is, in Christ. We are accepted in Christ no otherwise than our Duty is accepted, that is, as the Meritorious Cause of that Acceptance. The Satisfaction and Merit of Christ, is that upon the Account whereof God does justify us: But if Christ's Righteousness itself be imputed to us, it is not Meritoriè upon the Account thereof, but Formaliter, that we are justified by it.  
Before I yet quite leave Mr. Wotton, there are two Texts most commonly urged by those that define Justification only by Remission, which I must speak to, not stopping at Human Argument unbacked with Authority of Scripture.  
The one is, Acts 13.38. Be it known unto you Men and Brethren, that through this Man is preached to you Forgiveness of Sins. And by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses. For this Text I have forelaid a Distinction with some Reference in my Mind to it. There is a double Remission I have said, a Remission that precedes Justification, and a Remission that comes after it. That which goes before Justification belongs to All but upon Condition, and that is this Remission, which in the former Verse of the two is Preached by the Apostle, A Universal Conditional Remission, and all one with Redemption. This now being Preached to all, some believe, and perform the Condition, and as it follows in the other Verse, are accordingly justified, and then this General Conditional Pardon before Preached becomes Absolute, or Actual to such Particular Persons, and they are thereby free from the Gild and Punishment of all their Sins whatsoever, even such as there was no Atonement allowed to be made by the Law of Moses. The Law, or Covenant of the Gospel promises Pardon and Life upon Condition. He that performs the Condition hath Right to the one and the other, but a Man must be Justified before he is Glorified, and therefore before pardoned also. There is a Pardon procured by Christ, granted and passed by God (we must suppose as an Act of Grace passing in Parliament). This Pardon is given out orderly. The Condition must be performed, the Judge find it, and then the Man hath the Benefit. This aforesaid Distinction therefore is exemplified in this Text, and seeing there is no Particular Actual Pardon, till Man's Believing, and God's Justification (which is his accounting or declaring him a Believer) do orderly intervene, as to the Course of the Nature of the Thing, it is plain, that Remission (this Remission as well as the other) is not Justification itself, but a Benefit of the Covenant, that as Conditional goes before, but as Actual, or Absolute (which is that a Particular Man enjoys) does follow Justification (I must say still) as the Effect of it.  
The other Text is in Rom. 4. where Paul showing that it is not by Works, but by Faith that we are justified after Abraham's Example, he lays down this Position, That not to him that worketh, but believeth, his Faith is accounted for Righteousness: And then in the next Verse coming to bring Proof from David, he ushers it in these Words, Even as David also described the Blessedness of that Man unto whom God imputeth Righteousness without Works, whereby it is plain indeed, that he intends the same thing by God's counting to a Man his Faith for Righteousness, and imputing to him Righteousness without Works (that is, such Works, Meritorious Works, Perfect Works, which Paul in the Verses before undoubtedly intends): But it is not so in the Quotation itself, which thus follows, Blessed are they whose Iniquities are forgiven, and Sins covered. Blessed is the Man to whom the Lord will not impute Sin. It is a mistake here in those many, who think this Non-imputation of Sin in this Verse, is the same with the imputing Righteousness without Works, and Faith for Righteousness in the former. St. Paul does intent indeed those two before for one, but this he intends only for a Probation. He proves that God imputes Righteousness to a Man without Works, or Faith for Righteousness, by this Medium that they are blessed who are forgiven. Now however these Words are construed, this is no Definition of Justification by Faith without Works, but I say a Probation. The Man is blessed whose Sin is pardoned; The Man therefore hath Sin to be forgiven; He that hath Sin, hath not Works (such as Paul speaks of) to justify him; If the blessed Man then be a justified Man, it is evident thereupon, that it is not by Works one is justified. However, from a Probation, this Identity cannot be argued. They are blessed, in one Verse, to whom Righteousness is imputed without Works. They are blessed, in another, to whom God imputeth not Sin. Ergo, Non-imputation of Sin, and imputing Righteousness without Works are the same. I deny the Argument. Blessed are they that hear the Word, and keep it. Blessed are they whose Sins are forgiven. Ergo, Hearing and obeying the Word is Forgiveness of Sin. But leaving such Push-pin of Pro and Con, I will take up with this. That which is made a Medium, or the Medius Terminus, to prove another thing, cannot be that thing (or intended for the same thing) that it proves: And seeing the Quotation out of the Psalmist [The Man is blessed whose Sins are forgiven] is brought by the Disputant for a Probation of his Point in hand that a Man is justified by Faith, and not by Works, I am sufficiently persuaded, that Non-imputation of Sin, or Pardon is not intended by him to be the same thing with Justification. If any require more Consideration in regard to these two Texts, let him read a Book called, The Christian Justification stated. I need say no more but thus much, which is not said there, or throughly comprehended by that Author.  
I know indeed, and will not pass it, that Mr. Truman, a Man of a bright Judgement, defines Justification as Mr. Wotton, by Pardon only, and says that Justification is no more, or hath no more in it than Pardon, and therefore is all one with it. This, in regard to the common Opinion, which says it is more (defining it by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, as well as Forgiveness of Sin) is to the purpose. But what if I say Pardon is more than Justification, then is it nothing to me. For whether Justification be more than Pardon, or Pardon more than Justification, if one be more than the other, they are not the same. Now Pardon is a Fruit or Benefit of Justification, and a Thing alone is not so much as the Thing and its Benefit. Pardon and Life makes up Salvation, for Salvation from Wrath is Pardon, and to Glory is Life, but Salvation coming after, is a farther Blessing, and more indeed than Justification only. Pardon, Mr. Truman says farther (of all Sins, he means, both of Omission and Commission) puts a Man in that State as if he had offended the Law in nothing, and that is all one with a State as if he had performed the Law in every thing, and therefore Pardon and Justification are the same. Our Divines he opposes deny these States to be one. Though they be consequentially one, they are in their Nature different. Pardon is of the Guilty: Justification of him that pleads Not Guilty. But I will suppose Mr. Truman in the right, and that Pardon puts a Man in a State as if he had trespassed in nothing (which Quoad rearum poenae is true), and consequently as if he had obeyed in all things, And therefore do I deny Justification to be Pardon, because the Formal Righteousness of our Justification, which is the Righteousness of Faith only imputed to us for Righteousness, is not a Righteousness that hath offended in nothing, and obeyed in every thing, as Mr. Truman describes Pardon, but is an inchoate imperfect Righteousness, that hath Failings covered with Christ's Satisfaction, and its Work done (I may say still) accepted only through his Merit, so that the more acute this Man is, and the further he does go, the more he is out, and must be, so long as he hath not once the Sense upon his Mind (through his whole Book called, The Great Propitiation, nor in his other two) of the Righteousness of God, which the Apostle himself gives us as the Handle, and the only Handle to understand his Doctrine of Justification by.  
This one thing yet is to be noted, that these worthy Men that define Justification by Pardon only, and say it is impossible that a Sinner can be justified, or made, and accounted righteous, any otherwise, do yet plead for a Personal Evangelical Righteousness as necessary to Justification, as much, or more than others. Witness Sir Charles Wolesley. This now to me is a Contradiction, unless it be understood à parte post only. For, if Pardon only can make a Sinner righteous, how can there be any Personal Righteousness preceding it? The Matter is thus. Before a Man believes and reputes, he is not pardoned or made righteous by Pardon, that is certain. When a Man performs the Evangelic Condition, it is the Evangelic Law, (or God by it as his Instrument) makes him, or constitutes him righteous, and being thereby so made, God must account him so, which is all one with imputing that Condition performed for Righteousness, or justifying him. This Constitutive Justification then proceeding in Order of Nature, though not in Time, Pardon, and Life do follow as the Fruit or Benefits of it. Note here, that when the Evangelic Law does constitute the Performer of the Condition righteous, it is righteous quoad hoc only, for he is ungodly, that is, Not righteous still (as I say before) in regard to the Law, but righteous as not guilty of the Accusation of his Non-performance of the Condition of the Gospel: So that after this Righteousness Quoad hoc, a Universal Righteousness of Not Guilty of any Omission, or Commission that brings a Man into a State as if he had offended in nothing, and fulfilled the Law in every thing, as Mr. Truman describes Pardon, does manifestly appear to be a farther Benefit or Blessing than Justification strictly taken. What may be understood by it largely taken, may be considered hereafter before I have done.   

The Third PART.  
BEfore I come to any Close of my Discourse, there is a matter of Four Things to be proposed (whether by way of Question, or Objection, it is indifferent), as necessary for the Satisfaction of such as have the Reason, Candor, and Christian Humility to seek it.  
The First is this. The Scripture, and those therefore that duly preach it, does call upon all Men to believe and repent, in order to their Justification and Salvation, and when Faith and Repentance are required as Conditions of being justified, how can that which is pre-requisite as a Condition, be made, or become the Form, Formal Cause, or Formal Reason of Justification? This I put first, because I believe here, that nothing almost that a Scholar (who hath got Aristotelian Terms in his Head, putting his Physical Constructions on Divinity Points) is like to be more graveled at than at this. But it is nothing (let Terms or Words be once looked through), for it is this is the very thing I affirm and stand upon, that what God hath made the Condition of his Covenant, and the Blessings thereof, and so of our Justification, before it is performed, when performed does become the Formal Righteousness that justifies us. God does by that Act of Imputation (Instrumentally done by his Word) make our Faith which is not in itself a Righteousness, to become our Righteousness, and as it becomes a Righteousness, it is made the Formal Reason of our Justification. There is the Carpenter's Work, the Bricklayer's Work, the Smith's Work, goes to the Building a House: There must be therefore Timber, Bricks, and Iron prepared, and the preparing these are Conditions of the Building, or Materials, before, but when the House is built, they all put together are the House itself, and as a House, the Formal Cause, Formal Reason, or Form of it.  
A Second Thing to be proposed is this. Our Divines we know, do ordinarily bring together Remission of Sin, and the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness into the Matter of our justification, and when the Assembly have given us a Definition comprising the same Things I do in mine, why should I offer another? Unto this I will make that Answer as aught to content any honest Man, that would have but such a one as he would be allowed himself to give, and I say, that I do readily give my Suffrage to the Assembly's Catechism to be learned and used above any I know, and am not concerned though a Learner of it be not so accurate in his Understanding as to see any Difference between my Definition and theirs, when what is in mine, is in theirs, and what in theirs, is in mine. I am persuaded that a believed grosser Knowledge of the Principles of Religion, is better for ordinary People, than that which is more exact, and I receive all that is in their Definition, only with liberty of Explication. In Justification I acknowledge a Forgiveness, and an Imputation of Christ's Obedience, but I do not acknowledge either as our Formal Righteousness. I say, Forgiveness is a Benefit we receive by it, but it is not the Formal Reason of it: and I acknowledge Christ's Righteousness imputed, Sub genere causae efficientis per modum meriti, and so received by Faith not in itself, but in the Merit of it only. And I give Notice that he who thinking more does say, that Christ's Righteousness In fe, is made ours Legally (tho' Physically and Morally he disowns it) that Man must make it to justify us, Sub ratione causae formalis, when perhaps he does not know it, which is an unadvised Position, I look upon, as that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of our former great Divines which gave the Rise to Antimonianism.  
A Third Thing to be proposed is. Our Protestants have their Mouths full of Christ's Righteousness imputed, when the Scripture hath no such Expression, and what hath not Authority from Scripture, may be again refused, Eadem facilitate (says Hierom) as it hath been received. It is sit therefore this be a little examined into, and there may be two Questions asked. The one, What is there in the thing at bottom, as to the reality and truth of it? The other, And what then shall we say to it? For the First, That which is in reality in this Matter, The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, is, that Christ by the Appointment of his Father, and his own Good Will, did undertake in our behalf to do and suffer what was required of us to suffer by the Law, so far, that the Honour of God, in regard to his Law, being saved, and the Ends thereof secured, we that were liable to Damnation, might be delivered from it, in the Way or Manner the Father and Son designed, which is by that Act of Grace promulgated in the Gospel, that upon our believing and repenting we shall be justified, and so pardoned, and have Life Everlasting. And what then shall we say thereupon, but that the very Righteousness of Christ In se, did go into, or may be said imputed unto the Impetration of this great Benefit for us, but the Benefit only, and not his Righteousness can be ours in the Application. That we should be justified by Faith, was obtained by Christ's Righteousness or Performance, but it is our Faith, not Christ's Performance, is imputed to us for Righteousness in our Justification. Christ's Righteousness is that for which, not by which, Causa propter quam, not Per quam, we have this Benefit, that upon on believing we are justified. The Application is our Work, the Impetration Christ's; the Imputation of what he did to us God's; And there is no such thing can be, as the making that formally ours by the Application. 
* As for the Commutation of Persons (which while some Divines, as Dr. Owen, do found in the Mystical Union, instead of the Hypostatical, between Christ and Believers, they make I know not what of it) I acknowledge such a one, as is necessary to the Impetration of our Redemption, but I understand none so as to go into the Applicacation. Christ took on him our Flesh, made Satisfaction in our stead, and procured an Act of Grace, or Pardon for all: But there is no Commutation I know, as to Particular Persons in the Point of Justification. If Christ made an Exchange of his Righteousness with Peter for his Sins, any otherwise than as to the Impetration of Pardon on Condition that concerns all alike, than Christ's Righteousness must now be Peter's, and James, and John could never have it. In Christ's uniting himself to us, by his taking our Nature, obeying, suffering, satisfying God's Justice, I acknowledge a Commutation, even such, to wit, that our Sins were so imputed to him, as that he died for them, and in our stead, (understanding the Phrases aright) and his Righteousness so imputed as to be the Cause, that upon our believing we enjoy the Benefit: But in Christ's uniting us to him, by giving his Spirit to work in us that Condition, whereby we have our Right to the Benefit, there is nothing done by him in Our stead, nothing by us in His, no new, no other, no farther Imputation. The Fruit of his Purchase (Pardon and Salvation by a Law of Grace) cannot be His, and if that that he communicates to us be not his, how is there a Commutation? Of this Sacrifice and Righteousness itself we are uncapable: Of the Effects and Fruits (as Pardon of Sin) he is uncapable. What he hath not, he cannot communicate: What he hath, we cannot receive. There is, there can be no substitution of Person, in our partaking the Benefits purchased, as there was, there must be, in the purchasing them for us. Pacif. p. 16. Then Pacif. p. 30, 31, 32. What I have said before about the Commutation of Persons, that it is to be held in regard to the Impetration, not Application of our Redemption, I would offer over again likewise, in regard to the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness. I have said, and said it over, that this Phrase is not found in Scripture, but I will acknowledge the thing in the true Sense of it, which is this. Christ Jesus did really obey the Law, and suffer its Penalty for us in the Sense of, in our place of stead. To do a thing now in my stead, is for another to do it so, as to save me the doing it. Christ's suffering and obeying was to save us that suffering and obeying. In what respect I show there— And in the next Page I go on. God looks not on us, as if we ourselves had obeyed or suffered, either in his Person, or he to have done it strictly in Ours, but that he obeyed and suffered Loco nostro, to free us from so Obeying (there shown) and suffering as he himself did, which is the making his Death and Obedience Ours only as to this Benefit. Thus much being right, and the Righteousness of, Christ consisting in this Obedience, and suffering thus in our room, what now at last is the Imputation of it? Why certainly the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness is, and must be nothing else, but God's accounting the Matter to be thus as it is. Here is the Point, that what Christ hath done, is looked upon, is accepted as done in our behalf, or the granting it to be so; that, upon this obeying and suffering of his in our place, as the Meritorious Cause, we shall be freed from the same, as the Effect of it. This is the only Fundamental Truth in the Phrase, and this Imputation then of Christ's Righteousness (which Man hath so phrased) going into this Grant on God's part, or Obtaining the Grant on Christ's part, which precedes the Application, it cannot go into the Application itself (that follows after upon Performance of the Gospel-Terms) so as to make Christ's Righteousness Ours, any otherwise than in this Benefit only. Besides this, the fancying such Acts in God, as the imputing Christ's Righteousness to every single Person upon his believing, any otherwise than by that one Act of Grace now promulgated in the Gospel, is not becoming the Divine Being. There is, there can be no new Act in God. He is Actus purus, his Will one. I must not grow too subtle here, only I must say, there is his Will, and the Effects of his Will, and in those Effects there is an Order. In that Order the Righteousness of Christ precedes the Impetration of all the Benefits we have by him, as the Meritorious Cause of them. The Impetration precedes the Application, and the Application can be therefore but of the Effects thereof. Not of this Righteousness (I say) itself (In see) but of the Benefits themselves we have by it. To be more short. That Commutation of Persons, and Imputation of Christ's Righteousness (which comes both in earnest to this one thing, Man's Benefit upon the Account of Christ's Satisfaction) howsoever the Thoughts thereof have amused so many Good Men, when you have throughly considered them, and made as much of them as ever you can, it must all of it, every Drop of it you can make, go into that Act of Grace (Salvation upon Gospel-Conditions) which is already procured and passed. Unto the Impetration then of our Redemption Christ's Righteousness was indeed imputed In se: In the Application it can be imputed only in the Effect.  I have delivered my Conceptions more fully in my late Book, (Pacif. p. 30, 31, 32.), not without Care, but without Reservation. There are none as yet have wrote upon it, but when Mr. Williams, or some other shall, those that attend this Dispute, shall be the better able to judge of it. For my part, I have put no Life or Vigour into my Notion by my Words, which are there very poor, but the plain dull Sense I am persuaded does carry that Truth in it, as when it comes into a more Authoritative Pen may be received. This is a common thing by Experience, that let a Notion be offered by an ordinary Body, it is like to lie, but if some Person of Credit takes it up, it goes currant. I never read in any before myself said it in my first Impression (about 25 Years since) of my Mid. Way of Just (tho' many perhaps I know not, might have said it, it being now ordinary in Pulpit and Press) that Paul by the Righteousness of his Own, which he renounces (Rom. 10.2. Phil. 3.9.) must be understood of his Righteousness as a Jew, and not of his Christian Righteousness (that is His own, not Another's own,) which if he be not found in, he could not be saved: But after Sir Charles Wolesley in his Book, said the same, I cannot but note, how that grave, learned, holy, humble, worthy, and the more worthy because humble, Mr. Samuel Cradock, in his Supplement to Knowledge and Practice, upon a deeper Reflection on the Point than he seems to have had in his former most Industrious, Thanks-deserving Books (his Harmony of the Evangelists, his Apostolic History, and his History of the Old Testament, all Methodised) falls in with Sir Charles, and acquiescently receives the same Notion from him, which if he had read in me (from whom I know Sir Charles took it) it is ten to one, but he had passed it unregarded. There was Mr. Hotchkis, since that Paper of mine, and others that I could name, with Mr. Williams, have consented to that Apprehension, but there is that Book beforenamed, The Christian Justification stated, Printed 1678, hath so exceeding well improved it (a sober Writer, but no University-Man) that he hath, I think, carried the Bell in it. But Mr. Cradock I have named more purposely, because if any shall be willing to write against my Books, I would have him read those three Pages, (p. 184, 185, 186.) of his Book mentioned, and when he shall be first seasoned with the gracious Spirit, and modest Judgement of that Orthodox Author, and then find there the Doctrine of Imputation so throughly corrected, and an Interpretation of these Texts (2 Cor. 5.21. Phil. 3.9. Rom. 5.19.) so perfectly concordant with what I have wrote, it may be enough to calm him if furious, if but contrary minded to satisfy him. And nevertheless Mr. Cradock is out as to one thing by following Sir Charles, which is in his making Justification to be all one with Remission of Sin, as Mr. Hotchkis, after Mr. Wotton hath done, who made it (I have shown) the Formal Righteousness of our Justification. Mr. Bradshaw, who wrote after Mr. Wotton, and saw what he had wrote (as I believe by his Epistle to his excellent little Treatise) tells us on the contrary, that Pardon and Justification are two things, and so divers in their Nature, that he who hath committed a Fault, if he be pardoned without making amends, he cannot be justified.  
I have therefore a Last Thing to be proposed, which will take up more room, and it is this. Our Divines, myself, and all agree against the Socinian about Christ's Satisfaction, that it is upon Acc●●●t thereof we are justified, and how then can it be by our Faith, and the Imputation thereof for Righteousness, as I have defined Justification? Here the Business I have now left me to do, is to show the concurrence of Faith, which is our Evangelical Righteousness, and Christ's Satisfaction which was his (but not our) Legal Righteousness, without any inconsistency as to both in our Justification. And this I must say is no hard Matter to do, seeing the true Conception lies in the Thoughts of most considerate Men, only for want of a more fixed and resolved Judgement the Vacillation remains. To proceed in it, I must return to Mr. Bradshaw where I left. He hath told us, That if a Fault be charged on a Person, that Man cannot be justified but by the Plea, either that the thing was not done by him, or if done, it was no fault, which is pleading Not Guilty, as David was justified by Saul; or by pleading that Amends is made for the Fault. Now Amends may be made either by one's self, or by another: And by another, either as one whom he hath got to do it, or one that does it of his own accord: Where Satisfaction is made by a Man's Self, or by one he hath got to do it (which we must conceive done to the same End as himself would have done it) a Man is to be accounted to be restored into the same State, in regard to the Party offended, as he was before the Fault was committed, that is, to be immediately justified, made righteous, or clear of the Fault: But it is not so, where Satisfaction is neither made by a Man's self, nor by any means of his Procurement (only another out of Pity and Compassion to him, hath agreed with the offended Party, and by a valuable Consideration for the Fault hath satisfied him), for here the Person for whom Satisfaction is made, is not justifiable any otherwise, but as the Person that made the Satisfaction for him did intent, together with the offended Party, who might have refused that Satisfaction, so that they may agree both upon Terms to be imposed on the Party offending for reaping the benefit of that Satisfaction. This is the Case between God, Christ, and Us. We finned, Ourselves could make no Amends, nor did any thing to procure Christ to do it. Christ hath done it voluntarily, but with the Intent, and by his Father's Agreement, that we shall repent and believe, and be judged true penitent Believers (which is justifying us) before we are Partakers of the Benefit intended. We are not to conceive of this Matter any otherwise, for this is the Tenor of the New Covenant procured by our Redeemer hereby. On our part, Faith, Repentance, is required as the Condition: On God's part the Benefits of Christ's Satisfaction are promised: Upon our sincere believing God judges us Performers: That Performance he imputes to us for Righteousness: Upon the Account of Christ's Merits it is done, and the Benefits are conferred, which are freedom from Punishment, and Eternal Salvation.  
As for the Imputation now of Christ's Satisfaction to the Believer, which must be allowed so far as our being justifiable thereupon does import, we are to understand farther, that it is not necessary that what is imputed to the Justification of another, should be reputed as done by him that is justified, tho' what is imputed is accepted for that he should have done, that is accepted in the room or place of it, which I have been careful to keep to, in my last Sheets; Nay, tho' I say farther, that when the Satisfaction of another is imputed to the Justification of a Man, the Trespasses of that other, after a sort must be said imputed to him, and yet neither is that Satisfaction Formaliter made his that is justified, nor that Trespass Formaliter made his that makes the Satisfaction, but Effective or Meritory only, in the one's bearing the Punishment, and the other obtaining the Benefit of it. This being understood, when our Divines do account that we are justified by Christ's Satisfaction so as to be made just by it, and accordingly to be made righteous by the Righteousness of another, which is being made just by Imputation: Such Words (I count) ought to be a little changed, and the Sense verified. It should not be said by, but through Christ's Satisfaction, through his Righteousness, through the Imputation of it, and then that Truth which is in it is this, that through Christ's Satisfaction or Righteousness, or Imputation of it as the Meritorious Cause (which we know is an external Cause moving the Efficient to act) we are indeed justified, but by no means must we understand them so, as that it is the Formal Cause of our Justification.  
But the truth is here, that our former Polemical Divines (even the chief) in opposition to a Man's being justified by any Works, Merits, or Righteousness of his own, maintained against the Papists, that it is by Christ's Righteousness, Sub genere causae formalis, that we are justified, or that Christ's Righteousness is so made ours by Faith, as to be the Formal Reason of our Justification. Our excellent Dr. Davenant undertook this Task (whosoever in those times did not), but where the Scripture is for us, we are to trust no Mortal against it. The Question as he proposes it is, Quae & qualis illa justitia sit quae coram Deo hominem justificat, hoc est, cujus intuitu ipse Deus hominem à peccato & poena peccati liberum pronunciet, atque favore suo & vita aeterna dignum reputet. Let us define the Thing by its Form, and speak this Hoc est in short, Cujus intuitu hominem credentem justum reputat. Now Cujus intuitu, all know is all one with Id propter quod, that is the Meritorious Cause only, when he would maintain that Christ's Righteousness is the Causa formalis, that is Causa per quam, we are justified. He therefore being put to it is forced to affirm thus, In Justificatione talis formalis causa ponenda est quae simul & meritoria esse possit. His Reason for it is out of the same Quiver, that is, more Words for the bearing out an absurd Affirmation, by putting some Face upon it. I am sufficiently assured he hath shot beyond the Mark, and I will not go after his Arrow. By the way, there are two places I remember, where we are said to be justified by Christ's Blood, but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and should be translated, through his Blood, and must be interpreted no otherwise than Cujus intuitu, that is, as the Meritorious Cause, I say, not as by Faith in his Blood, which is the Formal Cause of our Justification. When we speak therefore and allow our Divines to speak of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness as they ordinarily do, we must understand them so as never to make ourselves the Proprietors of that righteousness (Legally, or any way else impossible), or that Faith so makes it ours as to be our Formal Righteousness (which when we see such great Divines have held, no wonder if the lesser Fry do swallow), but that it is the Cause for which (as I have said before) not the Cause by which we are justified. And here I will give Mr. William's Notice, that this is the Reason why the very Righteousness of Christ cannot be imputed to us but in the Effects, because I say that if it were imputed to us In se, it must (according to our opposite Brethren) be then our Formal Righteousness, which he and I are to deny. I must confess, I think Mr. Williams might not have so fully digested this before, (as likewise myself) as he may now, and that the Expression of his which I have exagitated in my Book, with that which follows in his, that Christ's Righteousness is pleadable by the Believer, as if himself had done and suffered what Christ did; as also, To impute to one what is suffered by another, is to esteem the one undertaken for in the Sufferings of the other, and to deal with him as if himself had suffered, are shot too high. For if a Man had made Satisfaction himself, or God did impute Christ's Satisfaction to him, so as if himself had made it, than were this his Formal Righteousness, and there were no need of that of Faith, this alone being that which must immediately justify him. If therefore there be such a thing to be expected ever from Mr. Williams, as any Vestigia retrorsum, I will be ready to look for the Prints thereof made in the Words I have quoted, as well as his Brethren may in any others.  
But the Difficulty concerning the Point of the Concurrence of Christ's Righteousness and Ours in the matter of Justification is not yet off our hands: For there is a Sermon of Mr. Gibbons, that Mr. Baxter often commended, which I think fit to mention. This Gentleman hath treated the Doctrine of Justification as I. Righteousness (says he) is a Conformity to the Law: A Man is actually justified, when he is constituted righteous. The New Law runs thus, He that believes shall not perish: The Believer keeps or fulfils this Law: Faith therefore is imputed to him for Righteousness: The Lawgiver by his very making the Law constitutes him righteous, and the Judge must pronounce him so. The Gospel than justifies Qua lex Lata, Faith justifies Vi Legis latae: As the King's Stamp gives the Value to the Money. I set this together, and quote it for the clearness of it, and my approbation to it. Nevertheless he tells us also, That it is Christ's Satisfaction in respect to the Law of Works that is our proper Legal Righteousness, and I call it (says he) Our Righteousness, because it becomes imputed to us upon believing. These are Words that in appearance are Ambidextrous, holding with the Hound, and running with the Hare, as the Proverb is, unless we put an Understanding upon them, which I am not sure that very ingenuous (but young) Man did. As likewise such Words (or Sense) as Mr. Williams hath somewhere concerning this double Righteousness, Christ's and Ours, accounting the one the Principal, and the other Subordinate to it. Now, if Mr. Gibbons, or Mr. Williams, hitherto should have conceived our Righteousness we call Evangelical, to be Subordinate to Christ's, which was His (but not Our) Legal Righteousness, Sub ratione ejusdem causae, they are Mired: But when thus much is forelaid, that Christ's Righteousness does concur to our Justification only, Sub genere, sub ratione, or Per modum causae efficientis Meritoriae, and not Per modam causae formalis, it is but understanding that the Meritorious Cause in our Justification it preferred before, or valued above the Formal (which without the Virtue of that were none) by such Expressions, and if any be in the Mire, they may come out. Mr. Gibbons for explaining himself; supposes us as if we stood at a double Bar, the Bar of the Law, and the Bar of the Gospel. At the one it is Ratione Objecti, that Faith justifies: At the other it justifies Formaliter. As to the one Faith, (says he) lays hold on Christ's Satisfaction, which is our Legal Righteousness: As to the other, Faith itself is keeping Covenant (understand Quoad faederis Conditionem) or fulfilling the Gospel. Very fine, I must profess all, if Faith indeed made Christ's Legal Righteousness to be Formaliter Ours (as it is Formaliter, our Evangelical itself) which formerly our great Divines apprehended, but were exceedingly out, and wounded our Cause. It cannot be that this Righteousness should any otherwise be ours than Per modum Meriti, that is only in the Effects. And in this Sense (Non formaliter, but Effective) must that Expression be understood, The Lord our Righteousness, if by the Lord, Christ personally be intended: If not, Hominis Justitia est Dei indulgentia, does give the true and full Sense of it.  
I must confess I am at a stand about this Gentleman's two Bars. That all Men who hear the Gospel shall be judged by it, I hold for certain, upon the Account (if we had no more for it) that Christ sent out his Apostles to declare to the World in his Name, That He that believes shall be saved, and He that believes not shall be damned. The Believer is one freed from the Law, and cannot be brought therefore to its Bar. He that believes shall not come into Judgement. If we walk after the Spirit, we are not under the Law. There is no Condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. We are not under the Law, but under Grace. These are plain Texts as to the Believer, and as for the Unbeliever we know he is condemned already, and there needs no bringing him afresh to the same Bar. One Bar will serve both, where the Grand Inquest will be this only, whether or no we have performed the Condition of the Gospel. They that have, are acquitted: they that have not, are left under that Condemnation. To wave this therefore any farther than it is of Concern, let me recur to the Legal Righteonsness Mr. Gibbons speaks of (and Mr. Williams accordingly) which he counts we must have together with our Evangelical to justify us, and therefore I will show, that if he mean it in the common Sense, and Sense of others, that he is out, and that he is in a mistake. I will show that those that speak thus according to the common Apprehensions of the Protestants, that they are first out, and then I will show their Mistake, and set them right.  
That they are out I show first. By this Legal Righteousness what they understand we sufficiently know, that is the Righteousness of Christ made theirs in a Legal Sense, to wit, though the Righteousness of one cannot become fewer Naturally, or Morally, yet Legally the common Opinion is, that Christ's Righteousness is every true Believers. Here then let us distinguish of this Legal Righteousness, in respect to the Preceptive or Retributive part of the Law. As to the Preceptive part of it, I do avouch with Mr. Baxter, that no Man or Woman is, or ever hath (except Christ himself) been justified by the Performance thereof, either by himself, or by another in his Civil Person, as fully representing him. For if we are reputed such (says Mr. Baxter) as have fulfilled the Law, there is no room for Christ's Sufferings, for Repentance, for Faith in his Blood, for Pardon, or Prayer for it, or for any Duty which supposeth Sin, as Sacraments, and other Ordinances, and so the Gospel is subverted, as he still tells us. And as for the Retributive part of the Law I must say no less, that if we are reputed in Christ to have born the Penalty, or his bearing it be indeed our Legal Righteousness, then must our Evangelical be made needless, for when we are free from all Gild, both of Omission and Commission; so that we are as righteous as we can be made already, there is no more to be imposed, or can be, in order to our being justified or saved, and so the Gospel is subverted also. Not that Mr. Baxter, or I, deny the Righteousness of Christ, as to the Retributive part of the Law to be imputed, no, nor that of his as to the Perceptive part (seeing his Satisfaction consists in both) but that neither are otherways imputed than as I say before, Per modum meriti, as to the Effects, and to give it in Mr. Baxter's own Words, Imputed so as that we have it in the relation of a Meritorious Cause, to the End, or Use which God accepts it for, and hath assigned in the Gospel.  
That they mistake, and how they mistake (to make it out, and make it up) I must show next. That Christ obeyed the Law and suffered the Penalty for us, so as what he did and suffered was in our behalf, in our stead, room, or place, is by us all acknowledged. What is done or suffered in another's stead (we are then to understand) is done or suffered to free the other from doing or suffering the same, which else he should, as I have stood upon it in my other Sheets. Thus the Beast died, instead of the Sacrificer of it. Whereas then this Legal Righteousness which the common Opinion supposes, must be Ours to justify us, was performed by Christ in our room or stead, that we might not ourselves perform it, how manifestly are they of that Opinion mistaken, in that Supposition? Christ did perfectly fulfil the Precept of the Law, that such a perfect fulfilling of it might not be required of us as the Condition of Life, as by the Law it was: Christ did undergo the Penalty that we might not ourselves suffer it, and be damned. The Satisfaction then of Christ (which contains both) cannot In see be imputed to us, or reputed as Our Satisfaction, because than it must not be in our room, or place, that he satisfied, nor God accounted that he did. God does impute to us his Sufferings that we might not suffer, and therefore does not look on us as having suffered: He does impute to us his fulfilling the Law that we might not be put to it to fulfil it ourselves (and yet have the Reward as much as if we had, where is Imputation still we see only Quoad fructus & effectus), and therefore looks not on us as if we had performed it. Here is the Mercy of God, and happy Mistake of these Men. A Legal Righteousness is imposed on his Son, that an Evangelical only, may be accepted from Man. A perfect one offered for us to God, that our inchoate and imperfect one may be imputed to us for Righteousness through him; and that is to make it serve the turn, as that a perfect one would have done, if we could have performed it. Faith is really (says Mr. Baxter) the Condition of the Covenant of Grace, which who so performeth, he is righteous against the Charge of Non-performance of that Condition: And supposing Christ's Merits, and our Redemption by him, this Gospel Righteousness is all that is required of us on our parts, instead of all that perfect Obedience which the Law of Innocency required. Let Mr. Williams therefore be here persuaded that there is no making Christ's Righteousness Ours, any otherwise than in the Effects: Yet let him believe too, that Christ's Righteousness is made Ours in the Effects (for the Effects are Ours): And this is one Effect wherein it is made Ours, that our Faith is imputed to us for Righteousness; and also, that consequently there needs no perfect one In se, to be imputed, because this imperfect one is instead of one, or as good to us as one, by that Imputation. But if Christ's Righteousness was Legally Ours, or imputed to us otherwise than in the Effects than could not our Faith be imputed to us for Righteousness, that is instead of a perfect one, because a perfect one were imputed to us already in Christ.  
That there are two Righteousnesses concur in our Justification I am satisfied with Mr. Baxter, but when he speaks of one to be subordinate to the other, or subservient, I cannot but hear Dr. Owen objecting, That upon this Supposition Christ's Righteousness is made to serve Ours (which else could not be imputed for Righteousness), and therefore Ours is not subservient to That. It is necessary therefore for us to keep in our Minds, that our Righteousness, and Christ's, concur in our Justification, but not on the same Account, not under the reason of the same, but divers Causes, and therefore if they be held , I see no hurt, so long as they are not Coequal, the one being of infinite Value, and giving Virtue to the other. If as there are two Righteousnesses, we conceive with Mr. Gibbons, two Bars, two Justifications, that is, that Christ's Righteousness is our Legal Righteousness, and the Formal Cause of our Legal Justification, and our Faith, or Evangelick Righteousness, the Formal Cause of our Evangelical Justification, there were no question in making one Righteousness and Justification subordinate, or subservient to the other Righteousness and Justification: But if Mr. Williams when he says, The very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to a Believer besides the Effects; and Mr. Gibbons apprehended the Matter so, we are to know Mr. Baxter must not apprehend with them; who teaches, that the Righteousness of Christ is not imputed In se, and consequently is never to be allowed our Formal Righteousness in regard to the Law, or Gospel. It is something hard therefore for me to set this right, only thus much we know and say with Mr. Baxter, that Christ by his Obedience and Sufferings hath obtained a Grant of Impunity and Life for Sinners, which he gives upon Terms; we performing those Terms, have a Right to those Benefits; And so a Righteousness by that Right; Hereof Christ's Righteousness being the meritorious procuring Cause, his Righteousness is said to be Ours, in regard to that Effect: But there being other Effects of Christ's Righteousness besides these, and this one more especially, that Our Faith, or the Evangelic Condition, is upon that Account imputed for Righteousness, which else were none, how is it, that our Evangelical Personal Righteousness can be said subordinate, subservient to, or required in order for the obtaining of the Righteousness of Christ, when we have it already as to that Effect, or in that Imputation? It appears to me therefore not unfit to say here, that the Righteousness of Christ, and the Performance of the Evangelic Condition, do concur to our Justification as to the Form of is, which is the imputing to us that Evangelick Condition performed for Righteousness, in a Co-ordination of divers Causes as to that Effect, but in a Subordination as to the Effects or Benefits, both of Christ's Righteousness and Justification, that follow.   

The Fourth PART.  
I Know in this Discourse of the Righteousness of God, I do assert that which our Protestant's hitherto have denied (but scarce taken into their. Thoughts to examine, with the Bereans, whether it be so or no) to wit, that Faith (which is a living working Faith) is our Formal Righteousness, the reason of their denial having been much, because they have confounded the Causa per quam, and Propter quam, and spoken of them as one, as appears by Davenant before quoted, and others, their meaning in the Main being only, that it is not our Righteousness but Christ's, which is Id propter quod, or Cujus merito, we are justified, unto which we all agree. But it is time if they have understood otherwise to set the Matter right now. By Faith, says the Scripture again and again, we are justified. By is, Id per quod, the Causa formalis, and I avert accordingly, that it is Formaliter, or Per modum Causae formalis; that by Faith we are justified. And why should I not stick to that the Scripture does so expressly warrant? Davenant that here is quite opposite, and holds, that it is Christ's Righteousness which does Formaliter, justify us, does yet acknowledge that we are in Scripture still denominated, or accounted righteous by God, in regard to our Evangelical Righteousness, and never in regard to Christ's. Now Justificari is Justum esse censeri. Justi autem censemur (according to him) à justitia inchoata, and yet Ab inchoata justitia non justificamur, but à justitia Christi imputata. Justi censemur (says he) à justitia inchoata: Justificati dicimur à justitia perfectissima Christi imputata. What is this, but Apparent Conviction, and Authoritative Tergiversasation? There are two Reasons I find move our Protestants. One is, they are startled by a Word, the Word Cause, they will not have our Works, nor Faith, as a Work, to justify, because that makes it a Cause of our Justification, which to Avoid they will call it a Condition only. Now a Condition being Cause sine qua non does make our Evangelic Righteousness as necessary (so as we cannot be justified without it) as the making it a Cause does; And I find it no regret in my Mind to call it a Cause, as well as a Condition, for it is both, only we must consider what Cause we make it. If we made our Works, or Faith, as a Work, to justify us, Sub genere, Causae Efficientis, it must be that which is Procatarctick, and so the Meritorious Cause thereof, which were to bring our Works▪ or Faith, into the Office of Christ's Righteousness, and to derogate from Grace, a thing we utterly disclaim: But when we make it the Formal Cause only (of our Passive Justification), we do nothing thereby, but advance God's Grace, and Christ's Merits, as having obtained for us, not only than God should require of us no other Condition but our Faith, or this inchoate Righteousness unto Life, but also that he should constitute by his Now Law this Condition performed to be our Righteousness, in the room of that perfect one required by the Old; So that, as Adam, if he had perfectly obeyed, his Obedience had been his Formal Righteousness, in regard to the Law, so is this, Ours, in regard to the Gospel. The other Reason then of their denial, is the Supposition that both Protestants and Papists have gone upon, to wit, that the Law is the Rule of that Righteousness, which they on both sides contend for as the Formal Reason of their Justification. And upon this Account they both of them are out, for the Papist on one side speaks up for inherent Grace, and his Works done by it, so as he would have them Meritorious and Perfect (for the Papist pleads for Merit and Perfection), but he can never bring them up to answer the Law, seeing he must still pray, Enter not into Judgement, and forgive us our Trespasses, and therefore the Protestant denies, that our Faith, or Works, are any Formal Righteousness that can justify us, and I say the same in the Sense they understand one another, for our inchoate Obedience cannot be so, when the Law is made the Rule of it: On the other side, the Protestant pleads therefore for Christ's Righteousness, which is a Righteousness indeed that answers the Rule (they both make so), but this Righteousness being without us, though it be upon the Account thereof, Id propter quod, or Cujus merito, we are justified, the Papist says stiffly it can never be made Formally Ours, so as to be Id per quod, we are justified, and I must say the same, for Truth is Truth, and Absurdity is Absurd, whether on one side or the other. The Supposition then, the Ground on which they go, being a Mistake, it must be rectified. Let us understand therefore here, that there is a double Rule, a Rule of Life, and a Rule of Judgement, there is Norma Officii, and Norma Judicii, as I have it in my Pacification, and although the Law of Works be the Rule of Life or Duty, and being the Law of Nature it must abide so for ever, yet Jesus Christ having perfectly obeyed it in our stead, for the fleeing us from it (in regard to its Condition), it is relaxed (as I show there) through Grace, and the Gospel made the Rule of Judgement, and consequently of that Righteousness which is the Formal Cause of our Justification. Christ's Obedience was perfect according to Law, but it is not by the Law that God pronounces the Believer righteous. The Law is not of Faith, and Righteousness cometh not by the Law. If it be by the Gospel then, not by the Law God pronounces a Man righteous, it is not by the Righteousness of Christ imputed, which is a Righteousness according to the Law, but by the Evangelic Condition performed, which is a Righteousness accordingly (accepted through the Merit and Satisfaction of Christ) that the Believer is justified. Inter Protestantes certum est fidem etiam vivam non esse justitiam illam per quam coram severo Dei Judicio stamus, says Le Blanc. This is true, I have just now acknowledged, but I wonder that this very considerate Man should never come to understand that, that severe Judgement of God he speaks of, is the Judgement of God according to the Law, and that we stand not at that Judgement. I acknowledge again, that at that Judgement our inchoate inherent Grace is not any Formal Righteousness, or the Justitia per quam, we can stand there: But there is a Paternal Judgement of God according to the Gospel, and at this Judgement our Faith is the Righteousness, Per quam, or Formal Righteousness by which we are justified. If here you will conceive of two Bars, you must not conceive of them as before, so as if after you are justified upon a Personal Righteousness, you must come to another to be justified by Christ, but you must conceive of the Bar of the Law as erected first. There was but two Persons ever brought to that Bar, and they were Adam and Christ, where the one was condemned, and the other justified. They were both Public Persons, and as we all were condemned in Adam, so are we all freed from that Condemnation by Christ, but upon the Terms of the Gospel. We are then, as it were, already passed the Bar of the Law, in Christ's answering there in our Persons for us, and God will never call him to any move Account, so that what Charge or Accusation soever may be raised thence, they are all Terrors only, as those or Children going in the dark, when the Charge, alone we are concerned in, is the Charge of Non-performance of the Gospel Condition. I know our Divines are still ready to state the Question between us and the Papists thus. What is that when the Conscience is ●said under the Sense of Sin, that we can oppose against the Wrath of God, and rest upon for our Peace? It is our own Righteousness, Works, or Merits, or is it the Satisfaction of Christ? But this is partial and wide, there is no Man but will answer straight to the Question, and say Christ's Satisfaction. It is that (we all know) that did, or could appease God's Justice. And this we all know too, that we are so far from doing this ourselves by our Works or Merits, that Christ hath done it without our doing any thing at all towards it. It was wholly of Free Grace, and there can be no doubt or fear upon the Conscience in regard to that. This is therefore not the Question, but the Satisfaction of Christ and our Redemption by it presupposed, and so a General Pardon proceeding Justification already obtained, which being Conditional, the Question only is, whether it be not by performing the Condition that we are justified, to make that Pardon absolutely Ours, or to have Christ's Righteousness, or Satisfaction made so, as to that Effect, which can be ours no otherwise, but Quoad fructus out effectus only. This indeed is the Question between some of Ours and the Papists, the more is the pity, but the Question as to the terrified Christian himself, can be only whether the Condition be performed. If that be so, the Danger is all over. If you will ask further, What we must rest upon, and trust to here in this Case? I say, to the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ upon the Performance. Tho' we trust not our Duty, we must trust on God in Duty, and I have no apprehensive fear about resting in Duty, but this, lest we sit down short of Sincerity. It is by the Performance through Christ's Satisfaction the Believer is justified. There is yet this Comfort here, tho' none else in the World, for this alone is worth a World, that we may, must, aught to trust, lean, cast ourselves upon the Satisfaction and Merit of Christ, for pardoning all our Failings, and accepting our poor Mite, and if the Soul remains in doubt, it must quiet itself upon him. If with the Pharisee I justify myself, God may condemn me: If I condemn myself with the Publican he may acquit me. And what must I do in this Case? Behold, O Lord I am at thy Bar and I commit my Cause unto my Judge. Thy Bar is a Bar, or Throne of Grace: I cast myself on thy Grace. And the Lord send me a good Deliverance at the Great Day. As for Actual Pardon and Life that follows Justification the Merit is to be attributed to that which procured Justification on that Condition. There is nothing of Merit but Christ's throughout. It is Christ's Satisfaction runs through all (I must still say) as the Meritorious Cause, when Performance of the Condition becomes thereby the Formal Cause of our Justification.  
I know how hardly this is like to be received by many, when Dr. Owen will allow nothing of any Personal Righteousness, or) any Works Legal or Evangelical, but excludes them all from our Justification, supposing that if it be of Works any way, it is not of Grace at all, when it is therefore of Faith (or upon the Evangelic Condition) that it may be of Grace. Dr. Owen is a Person whose Name I honour for his Worth Learning, Comprehensive Parts, and one in whom was more of a Gentleman, as to his Deportment, than in any Divine I knew ever among us: Yet is he more Authorative sometimes in his Book than he needs, which being liable to hurt the humbly Inquisitive, I will speak the more positively in this matter, that the Doctor is out, as I believe, and never came to the plain true knowledge of what Paul means by the Works he opposes to Faith in this Point of Justification: Which Works are such as would justify a Man in the Apostles Account if he had them, but that no Man is justified by Works, because he has them not. This I am past doubt is Paul's meaning, and in this particular the Learned and Honoured Sir Charles Wolesley, before quoted, is rather to be attended. A Man (says Sir Charles) that has not a Legal Sinless Perfection, is that Paul means by the Ungodly, Rom. 4.5. In my first Papers I wrote, I had this Sense of the place, and I have it before, and in my Pacification I say the like of that Text 
* For solving this Matter, Austin, and from him the Schools distinguish of Opera Naturae, and Opera Gratiae. We are not saved by Works, or according to Works done in our own Strength, but by Works done by Grace. But is this the Apostle's meaning? No, I have shown in my Book of Just. that One Thing of Three wherein Austin was out, and hath misled the Schools, is this Notion of Grace. By Grace he understands still this inherent Grace, or Operation of God's Spirit in us, when Paul understands it of that without, his Favour, or Condescension to us. Not of Works, but of Grace, is all one, as not of Desert, but of Favour only. Grace is Mercy without, or contrary to Merit. Now when the Papist receives the Solution mentioned, the Protestants generally will have all Works, though of the Regenerate, to be but Rags, and Christ's Righteousness alone to save us. But they are both out, for Paul's meaning it plainer than they think. Not by Works of Righteousness we have done. The Righteousness which the Jew hath done, is living according to the Law of Moses: The Righteousness which the Gentile hath done, is his living according to the Law of Nature. There is neither one or the other that fulfil that Righteousness which answers God's Law, so as it should be able to save him, and therefore it is of Grace or Mercy that Any are saved. Pacif. p. 29.  Not by the Works of Righteousness we have done, but according to his Mercy he saved us: Which Words have put so many to the inventing Distinctions, when the right understanding is to make none, the meaning being only, Not by the Works of Righteousness we have done, because we have not done them, and it must be of Mercy therefore, and in another way, we are saved, or not at all. See the Quotation above. The Works than I have said there and here, and must still say, which Paul means, are such as would justify us, such as would make the Reward of Debt if we had them, that is perfect Works, Such (says the Judicious Le Blanc) as the Law requires to Justification: And as for that the Doctor hath in answer to this, that it is a wild Imagination that the perfect Works of the Law will not justify us, but imperfect Works which answer not the Law will do so, it does confirm what I judge of the Doctor's Conceptions, that certainly he never understood the Apostle as to this Matter, who (I say) excludes not Works of the Law from Justification, as if they would not justify us if we had them, but because none have them to be justified by them. It is therefore the Righteousness of God, the Righteousness of the Evangelic Condition that he in his Mercy through Christ's Merits hath instituted in the room of Works, to justify the Christian. And as for the Doctor's quoting Socinus saying this, to prejudice the Reader against it, I must needs say, I like this excellent Doctor's Judgement the meaner, and seeing I took the Notion from Scripture, and am sure I am no Socinian myself, Socinus was a Man of Reason, and it is to be liked the better for that.  
It is a thing (whether so proposed or not) more worth the Thoughts of a serious Man, how the Doctrine of Justification as formerly it hath been taught, and is maintained by the Doctor, can be made to lodge with the Doctrine of Sanctification, or Regeneration in the same Scripture, or be preached together in the same Gospel. The Papists are so careful to have these agree, that they make them one: The Protestants are so careful to keep them asunder that they will not have any Works of ours, not Faith itself as a Work, or the Fruits of it Repentance and a Good Life, to be brought into our Justification, lest by going to establish our own Righteousness we submit not to the Righteousness of God, and perish. Let the Works be wrought in us (says the Doctor. Of Just. p. 524.) if they be also wrought by us, I fear their Introduction into our Justification doth include beasting. This (he adds) is a dangerous Point, even like to make us lose all the Benefit we might otherwise expect by the Grace of God. I cannot but remember since I was young, holy Mr. Shepherd's Book, The Sincere Convert, and do reflect sometimes on that Terror the Reading that, and the like Books, hath wrought in many for fear on one hand lest they live short of that universal unreserved Obedience, which is the most general Mark given of Sincerity, and on the other hand, when they have come to be satisfied a little as to that, lest they split on the Book of trusting to themselves, or resting in Duty, instead of the Righteousness of Christ received by Faith only. All things that are comprised any way in following after Righteousness, such as are all our Duties and Works are excluded from any Influence in our Justification, says the Doctor, p. 490. And in p. 493, he says, When the Apostle James affirms, that a Man is justified by Works, and not by Faith only, he cannot intent our Justification before God, where it is impossible they should both concur. I have no doubt but St. James, and St. Paul both, understood by the Justification they speak of, our Justification before God, I have proved it, Mid. Way of Just. p. 51, 52. The Justification of Abraham before, and at his Offering his Son, argues nothing but that Justification is a continued Act (as a Pardon at Law), and seeing his Faith and Works had Influence in it against the Doctor, I conceive that Faith and Works may be made to concur in Justification more kindly, than Justification and Sanctification can, in their Preaching of the Gospel. The most of the Objections the Doctor tells us, that are raised against his Doctrine, do arise (he says) for want of a due Comprehension of the Order of the Work of Grace, and our Compliance therewithal in a Way of Duty. I must say the same of him, and as to all that is raised by any against the Doctrine of the Righteousness of God, which I am endeavouring to establish against that which is the Doctor's, and the common Protestants Own, instead of Paul's, Revealed in the Gospel. The Gospel calls for Repentance out of Question, as well as Faith, and the Doctor, and others, could never exclude all Works from Justification against St. James, but for want of a due Comprehending the Way and Method of becoming Righteous, which God of his Grace and abundant Mercy, (when we were lost and liable to Damnation, through the need of an irrecoverable Innocency) hath instituted through Christ's Redemption, and the Evangelic Condition, accepted by him instead of the Righteousness of Works, from whence we are fallen. This is the Righteousness of God, in a short Explanation. 
* Well! Let us consult what is that Righteousness of God St. Paul speaks of, Rom. 1.17. Rom. 3.21, 22, 26. Rom. 10.3. 2 Cor. 5.21. Phil. 3.9. which he calls so, God's Righteousness, the Righteousness of Faith, that which is through the Faith of Christ, the Righteousness which is of God by Faith, in opposition to Works, in the Point of Justification? Is it the Righteousness of Christ, who is God? I am persuaded this is a First Thought, so shallow, that it must be short. What then indeed is it? This Righteousness of God is that Way and Method of becoming Righteous, which is of God's Institution, as Another hath expressed it. That is, not the Righteousness of Christ, but that Righteousness through Christ, which is Ordained of God, and promulgated in the Gospel, to be accepted (I say, through him) unto Justification and Salvation. But what Way and Method is that? When God made Man, we must conceive he had in his Prospect what to do with him, and that was to glorify himself in Saving him. There was two Ways to do this, Either by the Way of Works, or Grace. Man was Created with an Original Righteousness, and what was Original must be Natural, and if he had stood, he must according to Nature have been Righteous, and all his Posterity, and the Reward then (as it is reckoned by the Apostle) would have been of Debt, or Merit, and not of Grace. God hereby should have glorified his Justice and Goodness in Saving Man, but he should have shown no Mercy, nor Man have any need of it: No, nor any need of a Saviour, or Redemption, or the Holy Spirit's Operation: That is, of that Grace which is Medicinal, or Habitual Grace, for I say, if he had an Original Righteousness, he had no need of the Infusion of a New, to heal Original Corruption. He would have been saved by Works proceeding from Nature, Ex Regula, & viribus Naturae, and not from Grace or the Spirit, and have needed none of that Grace neither which is Favour, but only God's Justice to have dealt with him according to that Law of Innocency, which he had performed. God therefore did not choose this Way, that Man should be saved by a Righteousness of his own, according to Nature, but by Way of Grace, and Works proceeding from Grace, or the Holy Spirit, and not of himself, and that is by a Righteousness which is of God by Faith. For by Grace are ye saved through Faith, and not of yourselves, lest any Man should boast: That is, not a Righteousness of your effecting, but of God's own Contrivance, who hath chosen this way rather than that of Works, that none may ascribe that to themselves, which is due only to God. Not by Works of Righteousness which we have done, but according to his Mercy he saved us, by the washing of Water, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Note, here is the Righteousness we have done, and the Renewing of the Holy Ghost so opposed, as that we are saved by that Righteousness which is of God, and of God's Spirit, and not by that which is our Own. How is that? Why, They being ignorant of God's Righteousness, and going about to establish their own, have not submitted to that which should have saved them. The Performance of the Law of Moses, was the Jews Righteousness (for God says, This shall be your Righteousness), and the Performance of the Law of Nature, or Covenant of Works, is all Mankind's Righteousness; and when neither Jew could perform the One, nor any Mortal the Other, there are none can be saved by the Righteousness of their Own, but it must be by Another Righteousness, called by the Apostle the Righteousness of God. But now the Righteousness of God without the Law is manifest, being witnessed by the Law and Prophets, even the Righteousness of God, which is by the Faith of Jesus Christ. Here is a Righteousness that was ever on foot in the World (or none else could have been saved) but now revealed by the Gospel, which is the Righteousness that save us, in opposition to the Righteousness of the Law, or of Works, even the Righteousness of Faith, that is a Righteousness according to the Law or Covenant of Grace, which Christ hath procured by his Blood. Hence do we read it is said of Christ in Daniel, that as he should make Reconciliation for Iniquity, so he should bring in an Everlasting Righteousness, that is, by his Death he should procure a Covenant or Law of Grace, by our Performance whereof (without the Law) we are righteous, and must be justified and saved. 'Tis that is this Righteousness. If Christ had not procured for us this New Law, there could have been no Righteousness in the Earth, for the Law of Innocency no Man can perform, and therefore hath he by procuring this New Covenant, brought in a Righteousness in the World, and that which is the abiding Righteousness, the Righteousness of this Covenant, whereby all are saved, that have, or ever shall be saved. Now when we have here a Righteousness which lies in the Performance of the Law of Grace, purchased for us by Christ, and wrought in us by the Spirit of Grace (for the spirit we must know is not given to perform the Law of Works, but this Law) we do see what does belong to this Way of Grace, which God hath chosen to save Man by. This Way of Grace does contain in it the giving of Christ, the Redemption we have by him, our Reconciliation with God, Pardon of Sin, the Covenant itself, and the Dispensation of the Spirit, or his Grace for performing the Condition of it. All this, and more, hang together, so that when we say it is not by Works but by Grace, that we are saved, it is all one as to say, it is not by Perfect Works, but by an Evangelical Righteousness, by Mercy, by Pardon, by Christ. See what this Righteousness of God comes to in its right and full Definition. Mid. Way of Just. p. 57, 58.  I have two Pages to set it out more fuller in my Mid. Way of Just. p. 57, 58; and I have two Pages in my Pacif. p. 27, 28, 29, 30. which should be read, rather than here abridged. The Design of God to save Man was to magnify his Grace, and therefore of two Ways to do it, God chose this of Grace, and not the Way of Works, unto which yet was Man created, and by which he should have lived if he had stood, and it is such Works (which Dr. Owen never came to consider) unto which Grace is opposed by the Apostle. To this End the Fall is permitted, Redemption by Christ appointed. This Redemption is double, from Sin, and from Condemnation. Christ redeems us from Death by the Sacrifice of himself, upon which an Act of Grace passes, that gives Pardon and Life upon Condition, and the Condition is Repentance toward God, and Faith toward Jesus Christ. Redemption from Sin is by the Grace of God's Spirit working in us this Repentance and Faith in order to our Justification, and is called by our Divines Effectual Vocation. It is so far therefore from Truth to exclude Evangelical Works from any Interest in our Justification, that they are ordained of God in order to it. God hath linked his Golden Chain, so that Election does enter our Calling, for Effectual Calling is Actual Election; and our Effectual Calling does enter our Justification, for the Works of it, Faith, Repentance, New Obedience, are imputed to us for that Righteousness that justifies us; and our Justification, and inchoate Righteousness does enter and is the Infancy of Glory.  
From hence the Justification of a Sinner by the Righteousness of God may come under a double Consideration. It may be considered Precisely in itself, or Complexly with its Antecedents, and Consequents. That which is Antecedent to it is Redemption, and that from Damnation as that from Sin, both being wrought without our doing any thing (not so much, says Ruiz, as to give an Active Occasion) towards it, but wholly of Grace. It is like, that in regard to the Antecedents, the Apostle speaks of the Freeness of our Justification, so as he does Rom. 3.24. and the like places when otherwise he lets us know, that without Conversion, or a Call of Turning from Sin unto God, no Man can be justified and saved. Unto whom I send thee to turn them from Darkness to Light, from the Power of Satan unto God, that they may receive Forgiveness of Sins, Acts 27.18. There is therefore the Antecedents, the Constituents, and Subsequents of this Righteousness of God, and our Justification by it. Redemption and Calling are Antecedents: The Work of that Calling, which is the Performance of the Condition, and the Imputation of it for Righteousness (the one being as it were the Matter, and the other giving the Form to it) are the Constituents: Actual or Absolute Pardon and Life the Subsequents, or Benefits of it. This Distinction I would not omit before I go; off, because I would have none so stiff in theri own Opinions (much less froward), but that they may yield to others also something in theirs. If Austin will place Justification in the Infusion of Grace, I will grant it him as Antecedent to it. If Mr. Wotton will place it in Pardon, I will grant it him as Consequent to it, or as the Special Benefit of it. If the Assembly will place it in Pardon, and the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, if they mean it, Per modum Meriti, and not In se, I will grant it. If Mr. Baxter will place it in a Personal Righteousness subservient to the Righteousness of Christ, not formally made Ours, but in the Effects (that is as much as to say, required in order to our having Impunity and Life as Comprehensive of all its Effects or Benefits) I will grant it him, as Constituent of it. If Dr. Owen will be content, tho' others differ from him, so long as Remission of Sin, Acceptance with God, Right to Life, are acknowledged all to be owing to the Righteousness of Christ, and not the Merit of our Works, I kiss Dr. Owen's Hand also. Let this Righteousness of God for Justification of Life, be taken in its Complex Consideration, and we may all join in some Agreement in it, tho' where it is Precisely taken, every own will stand for his own Opinion. I was long before I could come to this. God accounting a Man righteous by the Law of Grace, as having performed the Condition I always thought to be Justification; and this Mr. Baxter granted me. Pardon then I counted the Effect of this, and therefore different from it, besides that the Word methoughts would not allow them to be the same. Pardon of Sin is not signified by the Word Justification in any place of Scritpure, says Dr. Owen, p. 173. The Word is never found so used, either in the Hebrew or Greek Writers, Sacred or Profane, nor in our common Speech, says Gattaker (on Isa. 5.23), who was in this yet a more competent Judge. How these two Things being different, as the Cause and Effect, should enter the same Definition, and be made one, I could not devise or admit, till I was taught by one Word in a Letter I received from Mr. Baxter. Pardon (says he) is not that Justifications. The Word [That] instructed me, that Justification being a Forensical Term opposed to Accusation, According to the Accusation, such he counted Justification. There are now two Charges (as most say) against the Sinner, a Charge of the Law, and a Charge of the Gospel. The Charge of the Law is, that we have broke it, and are liable to the Curse, Gal. 3.10. Our Justification against this Charge, is by an Acknowledgement of the Indictment, but we plead a Stature made in the Year of our Lord Christ's Death, when and where it is Enacted, That whosoever believes and reputes, shall be freed from that Condemnation. That is, Our Plea in short is, a Pardon upon Christ's Satisfaction. But this Pardon being General and Conditional, there arises the Charge of the Gospel. This Charge is that we have not performed the Condition, And our Justification against this Charge, is by pleading Not Guilty, for the Performance of the Evangelic Condition (accepted through Mercy and Christ's Merits, is our Righteousness, as Not Guilty (which is shown before) of this Charge of Non-performance. Here De Re, I agree with Mr. Baxter, but De Nomine, I am not satisfied yet, to allow any other than one Justification. Our Justification at Judgement, Come ye blessed, for when I was hungry ye fed me, is plainly the Evangelic Condition performed, and that is the Righteousness according to which the Sentence passes, and as is the Justification of the Judge, such must be that of the present Law, whereby he judges, and that is therefore our Evangelical Justification. As for the Charge of the Law, I count it can have no place at the Judgement of God, for the Satisfaction of Christ, and the Pardon upon it cannot there be brought in question. If a Charge may be supposed, the Satisfaction of Christ, which is our Plea against it, is not Ours, or imputed to us for Ours, not imputed In se (I and Mr. Baxter hold) and so cannot be here our Formal Righteousness, without which a Legal Justification thereby arises not. Besides this, the Pardon granted upon Christ's Satisfaction, is that Universal Conditional Remission which precedes Justification, and when it comes to be Absolute or Actual to any one, it is the Consequent of his Justification, and must not be Justification itself, as some make it. I am not willing therefore to apprehend, that because here are two Righteousnesses, there are two Justifications, for Christ's Righteousness, as the Meritorious Cause of it goes into that Evangelical one, and makes not Another: But I would have one only Justification, yet set forth in Scripture, and spoken of by Divines under a double Consideration, as Strictly and Largely taken. Under a Strict and Precise Consideration, I suppose nothing but what goes into the Form of it, may be said of it: Under a Large and Complex Consideration, I allow the thing and benefit, tho' Cause and Effect (which was my heretofore Scruple) may be comprised in our speaking of one and the same Justification. I will press this Difficulty no further, nor move any other, but will break off with that Resolution I take up from Chemnicius, and he, by the Style, I suppose, from Luther. Quae dialectica subtilitate dissolvi non possunt, piscatoria simplicitate praecidantur. And as to these aforesaid Charges or Accusations, I say this only, that let as many be raised, as any can raise, they need not every one a Particular, but are all discharged by one Universal Evangelical Justification.  
FINIS.    

COROLLARIUM.  
IN the Year 1684, I wrote four or five Sheets entitled, Two Steps toward obtaining my Liberty of Preaching, and a Third Step after, but both at that time without effect. I will suppose a Man Episcopally Ordained, and one that holds Communion with the Church. Such a Man yet cannot have a Living, or a Lecture (we know) without his Declaration of Assent and Consent, and his Subscription according to the Canons, with Conforming in all Things beside: But there is nothing to hinder him the Preaching an Occasional Sermon (Prayers being duly read) in any Church, only the want of a Licence to Preach. Unto such a Licence in the Act of Uniformity, is required his Reading the Thirty Nine Articles, and Assent to them, before the Bishop, and nothing else. A Canon need not be urged, it were unmerciful, when an Act connives. The Act indeed, as well as Canons, requires more to the Preaching as a Lecturer, or Beneficed Man; but no more to a Licence to Preach. The Uniformity Act requiring this, is bound up with the Common Prayer, and is made part of that Book. In the Preface hereof, there is a Clause to this Sense, That if any Doubts shall arise about the Understanding any Matter contained in the Book, the Person shall resort to the Bishop, or Archbishop, and he shall resolve the same. That the Articles are of various and doubtful Interpretation, it is apparent by the Ministers of divers Judgements, some Arminians, some Calvinists, subscribing them, and that with Allowance of the Church. If then such a Man (as before qualified) shall make, or set down, his own Construction of every such Article as he scruples, and then in his reading the Article, read also his Sense of it, and it be such as the Bishop allows to be Orthodox, a Licence upon this Account, Salva Conscientia, may be had. I cannot give an unfeigned Assent to these Articles, all, without a Liberty of Explication, but with one, I may: And upon that Supposition there is the Eleventh Article, Entitled, Of the Justification of Man, which concerns me, in regard to this present Book.  
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 a wholesome Doctrine, and very full of Comfort, as is more largely expressed in the Homily of Justification. Art. 11.  
By the Words [Faith only] I understand what Paul means by [Faith without Works], that is, Faith in opposition to Works, that would make the Reward to be of Debt, and not of Grace; or to the Works of the Law, Works which the Law requires to Justification (which none have, and if any be justified at all, it must be therefore without them), not in opposition to Repentance and Evangelical Obedience: And though it be for Christ's sake, or his Merits, not Ours, that he accounts us righteous, yet is our Faith, Repentance, and sincere Obedience, the Condition upon which he does it, or rather the Righteousness itself, which upon the Account of Christ's Deservings he accepts unto Life everlasting. So I have it in these mentioned Sheets.  
J. H.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 9 l. 28. for First, r. Fifth. p. 11.21. for Meritory, r. Meritoriè. p. 14. l. 34. for its, r. it, with a Full-point. p. 15. l. 32. for Sated, r. Stated. p. 18. l. 26. in the Margin for that, r. by which. p. 31. l. 32. for rearum r. reatum. p. 27. l. 2. for Cause, r. Cause.   

An ADVERTISEMENT from the Bookseller.  
THere are several Papers of Four or Five Sheets apiece, written formerly by this Author, called, The Middle Way, of Election, of Redemption, of Justification, of the Covenants, Law and Gospel, of Perfection: As also Peaceable Disquisitions, which Treat, Of the Natural, and Spiritual Man, of Praying by the Spirit, of Preaching by Demonstration of it, of Assurance, of the Arminian Grace, of the Possibility of Heathens Salvation, of the Reconciliation of Paul and James, of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, with other Incidental Matters: One of which Middle Papers, that of Justification, was Reprinted two Years since, with the Quotation of what concerns that Subject, out of the other, and since that One Sheet (so called), and his Six Sheets last Year, called, Pacification, All which may be bound up together with this present Discourse, for any that desires them.  
In that Book called Pacification, there is the Case of Nonresistance and Passive-Obedience Stated and Resolved, the Doctrine whereof Abjured in the two former Reigns, is here in this King's Reign Recorded for a Memoriae Sacrum, to those which are to come.  
Whosoever hath those Six Sheets, they are desired in Page 35. Line 20. to put in the word [not], which the Printer hath left out, to the contradicting the Scope of the Book.  
T. P.