Chapter 9: The Formal Cause of Justification; The Righteousness by Which Believers Are Justified

THe principal differences about the doctrine of justification are reducible unto three heads. (1) The nature of it; namely, whether it consist in an internal change of the person justified by the infusion of an Habit of inherent grace or righteousness; or whether it be a Forensick act, in the judging, esteeming, declaring, and pronouncing such a person to be righteous, thereon absolving him from all his sins, giving unto him right and title unto life. Herein we have to do only with those of the church of Romanse, all others, both protestants and socinians being agreed on the Forensick sense of the word, and the nature of the thing signified thereby. And this I have already spoken unto, so far as our present design does require, and that I hope with such evidence of truth, as cannot well be gainsayed. Nor may it be supposed that we have too long insisted thereon, as an opinion which is obsolete, and long since sufficiently confuted. I think much otherwise, and that those who avoid the Romanists in these Controversies, will give a greater appearance of fear, than of contempt. For when all is done, if free justification through the Blood of Christ and the imputation of his righteousness, be not able to preserve its station, in the minds of men, the Popish doctrine of justification must and will return upon the world, with all the concomitants and consequences of it. Whilst any knowledge of the law or gospel is continued amongst us, the Consciences of men will at one time or other, living or dying, be really affected with a sense of sin, as unto its guilt and danger. Hence that Trouble and those Disquietments of mind will ensue, as will force men, be they never so unwilling, to seek after some Relief and satisfaction. And what will not men attempt, who are reduced to the condition expressed, Micah. 6:7, 8. Wherefore in this case, if the true and only relief of distressed Consciences, of sinners who are weary and heavy laden be hid from their eyes; if they have no apprehension of, nor trust in that which alone they may oppose unto the sentence of the law, and interpose betweens Gods justice and their souls, wherein they may take shelter from the storms of that wrath which abids on them that believe not; they will betake themselves unto any thing which confidently tenders them present ease and relief. Hence many persons living all their days in an ignorance of the righteousness of God, are oftentimes on their sick Beds, and in their dying hours, proselyted unto a confidence in the ways of Rest and peace, which the Romanists impose upon them. For such seasons of advantage do they wait for, unto the Reputation as they suppose of their own Zeal, in truth unto the scandal of Christian religion. But finding at any time the Consciences of men under disquietments, and ignorant of, or disbelieving that Heavenly relief which is provided in the gospel, they are ready with their Applications and Medicines, having on them pretended Approbations of the experience of many Ages, and an innumerable company of devout souls in them. Such is their doctrine of justification, with the Addition of those other Ingredients of confession, absolution, Penances or Commutations, Aids from saints and Angels, especially the blessed Virgin, all warmed by the Fire of Purgatory, and confidently Administred unto persons, sick of Ignorance, darkness and sin. And let none please themselves in the Contempt of these things. If the truth concerning Evangelical justification be once disbelieved among us, or obliterated by any Artifices, out of the minds of men, unto these things at one time or other, they must and will betake themselves. For the new Schemes and Projections of justification which some at present would supply us withal, they are now way suited, nor able to give Relief or satisfaction unto a conscience really troubled for sin, and seriously enquiring how it may have Rest and peace with God. I shall take the boldness therefore to say, whoever be offended at it; that if we lose the antient doctrine of justification through faith in the Blood of Christ, and the imputation of his righteousness unto us, public profession or religion, will quickly issue in Popery, or Atheism, or at least in what is the next door unto it, .

The second principal Controversie is about the formal cause of justification, as it is expressed and stated by those of the Romansan church. And under these terms some protestant Divines have consented to debate the matter in difference. I shall not interpose into a strife of words. So the Romanists will call, that which we inquire after. Some of ours say the righteousness of Christ imputed; some, the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, is the formal cause of our justification; some, that there is no formal cause of justification, but this is that which supplies the place and use of a formal cause, which is the righteousness of Christ. In none of these things will I concern my self, though I judge what was mentioned in the last place, to be most proper and significant.

The substance of the inquiry wherein alone we are concerned is; what is that righteousness whereby, and wherewith, a Believing sinner, is justified before God; or whereon he is accepted with God, has his sins pardoned, is received into grace and favor, and has a title given him unto the Heavenly Inheritance. I shall no otherwise propose this inquiry, as knowing that it contains the substance of what convinced sinners do look after in and by the gospel.

And herein it is agreed by all, the socinians only excepted, that the Procatarctical or procuring cause of the pardon of our sins and acceptance with God, is the satisfaction and merit of Christ. Howbeit it cannot be denied, but that some retaining the names of them, do seem to renounce or disbelieve the things themselves. But we need not to take any notice thereof, until they are free more plainly to express their minds. But as concerning the righteousness it self enquired after, there seems to be a difference among them, who yet all deny it to be the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us. For those of the Romansan church plainly say, that upon the infusion of an habit of grace, with the expulsion of sin and the Renovation of our natures thereby, which they call the first justification, we are actually justified before God, by our own works of righteousness. Hereon they dispute about the merit and satisfactoriness of those works, with their condignity of the reward of eternal life. Others as the socinians openly disclaim all merit in our works; only some, out of Reverence as I suppose, unto the Antiquity of the word, and under the shelter of the Ambiguity of its signification, have faintly attempted an accommodation with it. But in the substance of what they assent unto this purpose, to the best of my understanding they are all agreed. For what the papists call Justitia Operum, the righteousness of works, they call a personal inherent Evangelical righteousness, whereof we have spoken before. And whereas the papists say, that this righteousness of works is not absolutely perfect, nor in it self able to justify us in the sight of God, but owes all its worth and dignity unto this purpose unto the merit of Christ, they affirm that this Evangelical righteousness is the condition whereon we enjoy the benefits of the righteousness of Christ, in the pardon of our sins, and the acceptance of our persons before God. But as unto those who will acknowledge no other righteousness wherewith we are justified before God, the meaning is the same, whether we say that on the condition of this righteousness we are made partakers of the benefits of the righteousness of Christ; or that it is the righteousness of Christ which makes this righteousness of ours accepted with God. But these things must afterwards more particularly be enquired into.

3. The third inquiry wherein there is not an Agreement in this matter is, upon a supposition of a necessity, that he who is to be justified, should one way or other be interessed in the righteousness of Christ, what it is that on our part is required thereunto. This some say to be faith alone, others faith and works also, and that in the same kind of necessity and use. That whose consideration we at present undertake, is the second thing proposed. And indeed, herein lies the substance of the whole controversie about our justification before God, upon the determination and stating whereof, the determination of all other incident questions does depend.

This therefore is that which herein I affirm. The righteousness of Christ (in his obedience and suffering for us) imputed unto believers, as they are united unto him by his spirit, is that righteousness whereon they are justified before God, on the Account whereof their sins are pardoned, and a right is granted them into the Heavenly Inheritance.

This Position is such as wherein the substance of that doctrine in this important Article of Evangelical truth which we plead for, is plainly and fully expressed. And I have chosen the rather thus to express it, because it is that Thesis wherein the Learned Davenant laid down that common doctrine of the reformed churches whose defense he undertook. This is the shield of truth in the whole cause of justification, which whilst it is preserved safe, we need not trouble our selves about the differences that are among Learned men, about the most proper stating and declaration of some lesser concernments of it. This is the Refuge, the only Refuge of distressed Consciences, wherein they may find Rest and peace.

For the confirmation of this assertion, I shall do these three things. (1) Reflect on what is needful unto the explanation of it. (2) answer the most important general objections against it. (3) Prove the truth of it by arguments and testimonies of the holy scripture.

As to the first of these, or what is necessary unto the explanation of this assertion, it has been sufficiently spoken unto in our foregoing discourses. The heads of some things only shall at present be called over.

1. The Foundation of the imputation asserted, is union. Hereof there are many grounds and causes as has been declared. But that which we have immediate respect unto as the Foundation of this imputation, is that whereby the Lord Christ and believers do actually coalesce into one mystical person. This is by the Holy Spirit inhabiting in him as the head of the church in all fulness, and in all believers according to their measure, whereby they became members of his mystical body. That there is such an union between Christ and believers, is the faith of the Catholick church, and has been so in all Ages. Those who seem in our days to deny it or question it, either know not what they say, or their minds are influenced by their doctrine, who deny the Divine persons of the Son, and of the Spirit. Upon supposition of this union, reason will grant the imputation pleaded for to be reasonable; at least, that there is such a peculiar ground for it, as is not to be exemplified in any things natural or political among men.

2. The nature of imputation has been fully spoken unto before, and thereunto I refer the reader for the understanding of what is intended thereby.

3. That which is imputed is the righteousness of Christ; and briefly I understand hereby, his whole obedience unto God in all that he did and suffered for the church. This I say is imputed unto believers, so as to become their only righteousness before God unto the justification of life.

If beyond these things any Expressions have been made use of in the explanation of this truth, which have given occasion unto any differences or Contests, although they may be true and defensible against objections, yet shall not I concern my self in them. The substance of the truth as laid down, is that whose defense I have undertaken, and where that is granted or consented unto, I will not contend with any about their way and methods of its declaration, nor defend the Terms and Expressions that have by any been made use of therein. For instance. Some have said, that what Christ did and suffered, is so imputed unto us, as that we are judged and esteemed in the sight of God to have done or suffered our selves in him. This I shall not concern my self in. For although it may have a sound sense given unto it, and is used by some of the Antients, yet because offence is taken at it, and the substance of the truth we plead for is better otherwise expressed, it ought not to be contended about. For we do not say that God judgs or esteems that we did and suffered in our own persons what Christ did and suffered, but only that he did it and suffered it in our stead. Hereon God makes a Grant and Donation of it unto believers upon their Believing, unto their justification before him. And the like may be said of many other Expressions of the like nature.

These things being premised, I proceed unto the consideration of the general objections that are urged against the imputation we plead for. And I shall insist only on some of the principal of them, and whereinto all others may be resolved; for it were endless to go over all that any mans Invention can suggest unto him of this kind. And some general considerations we must take along with us herein. As,

1. The doctrine of justification is a part, yea an eminent part of the mystery of the gospel. It is no marvel therefore if it be not so exposed unto the common notions of reason, as some would have it to be. There is more required unto the true spiritual understanding of such mysteries; yea unless we intend to renounce the gospel, it must be asserted, that reason as it is corrupted, and the mind of man destitute of Divine supernatural Revelation, do dislike every such truth, and rise up in Enmity against it. So the scripture directly affirms, Romans 8:7. 1 Corinthians 2:14.

2. Hence are the minds and Inventions of men wonderful fertile in coyning objections against Evangelical Truths, and raising cavils against them. Seldom to this purpose do they want an endless number of sophistical objections, which because they know no better, they themselves judge insoluble. For carnal reason being once set at liberty under the false notion of truth, to act it self freely and boldly against spiritual mysteries, is subtile in its arguings, and pregnant in its Invention of them. How endless, for instance, are the Sophisms of the socinians against the doctrine of the Trinity, and how do they triumph in them as unanswerable. Under the shelter of them they despise the force of the most evident testimonies of the scripture, and those multiplied on all occasions. In like manner they deal with the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ, as the Pelagians of old did with that of his grace. Wherefore he that will be startled at the Appearance of subtile or plausible objections, against any gospel mysteries that are plainly revealed, and sufficiently attested in the scripture, is not likely to come unto much stability in his profession of them.

3. The most of the objections which are levied against the truth in this cause, do arise from the want of a due comprehension of the order of the work of Gods grace, and of our compliance therewithall in a way of duty as was before observed. For they consist in opposing those things one to another as inconsistent, which in their proper place and order are not only consistent, but mutually subservient unto one another; and are found so in the Experience of them that truly believe. instances hereof have been given before, and others will immediately occur. Taking the consideration of these things with us, we may see as the Rise, so of what force the objections are.

4. Let it be considered that the objections which are made use of against the truth we assert, are all of them taken from certain consequences, which as it is supposed, will ensue on the admission of it. And as this is the only expedient to perpetuate controversies, and make them endless, so to my best observation I never yet met with any one, but that to give an Appearance of force unto the absurdity of the consequences from whence he argues, he framed his suppositions, or the state of the question, unto the disadvantage of them whom he opposed; a course of proceeding which I wonder Good men are not either weary, or ashamed of.

1. It is objected, that the imputation of the righteousness of of Christ does overthrow all remission of sins on the part of God. This is pleaded for by Socinus, De Servator. lib. 4. cap. 2, 3, 4. and by others it is also made use of. A confident Charge this seems to them who stedfastly believe that without this imputation, there could be no remission of sin. But they say, That he who has a righteousness imputed unto him that is absolutely perfect, so as to be made his own, needs no pardon, has no sin that should be forgiven, nor can he ever need forgiveness. But because this objection will occur unto us again in the vindication of one of our ensuing arguments, I shall here speak briefly unto it.

1. Grotius shall answer this objection; says he, Cum duo nobis peperisse Christum dixerimus, impunitatem & praemium, illud satisfactioni, hoc merito Christi distincte tribuit vetus Ecclesia. Satisfactio consistit in peccatorum Translatione, meritum in perfectissimae Obedientiae pro nobis praestitae Imputatione. Praefat. ad lib. de satisfact. Whereas we have said that Christ has procured or brought forth two things for us, freedom from punishment, and a reward, the antient church attributes the one of them distinctly unto his satisfaction, the other unto his merit. satisfaction consists in the Translation of sins (from us unto him) merit in the imputation of his most perfect obedience performed for us, unto us. In his judgment the remission of sins, and the imputation of righteousness, were as consistent as the satisfaction and merit of Christ, as indeed they are.

2. Had we not been sinners, we should have had no need of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to render us righteous before God. being so, the first end for which it is imputed, is the pardon of sin; without which we could not be righteous by the imputation of the most perfect righteousness. These things therefore are consistent, namely, that the satisfaction of Christ should be imputed unto us for the pardon of sin, and the obedience of Christ be imputed unto us, to render us righteous before God. And they are not only consistent, but neither of them singly were sufficient unto our justification.

2. It is pleaded by the same author and others; That the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, overthrows all necessity of repentance for sin, in order unto the remission or pardon thereof, yea rendrs it altogether needless. For what need has he of repentance for sin, who by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, is esteemed compleatly Just and righteous in the sight of God. If Christ satisfied for all sins in the person of the elect; if as our Surety he paid all our debts, and if his righteousness be made ours before we repent, then is all repentance needless. And these things are much enlarged on by the same author in the place before-mentioned.

Ans. (1) It must be remembred, that we require Evangelical faith in order of nature antecedently unto our justification by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto us, which also is the condition of its continuation. Wherefore whatever is necessary thereunto, is in like manner required of us in order unto Believing. Amongst these, there is a sorrow for sin, and a repentance of it. For whosoever is convinced of sin in a due manner, so as to be sensible of its Evil and Guilt, both as in its own nature it is contrary unto the preceptive part of the Holy law, and in the necessary consequences of it, in the wrath and curse of God, cannot but be perplexed in his mind, that he has involved himself therein. And that posture of mind will be accompanied with shame, fear, sorrow, and other afflictive passions. Hereon a Resolution does ensue, utterly to abstain from it for the future, with sincere endeavours unto that purpose, issuing if there be time and space for it, in reformation of life. And in a sense of sin, sorrow for it, fear concerning it, Abstinence from it, and reformation of life, a repentance true in its kind does consist. This repentance is usually called legal, because its motives are principally taken from the law; but yet there is moreover required unto it that temporary faith of the gospel which we have before described. And as it does usually produce great effects in the confession of sin, humiliation for it, and change of life, as in Ahab and the Ninevites, so ordinarily it preceds true saving faith, and justification thereby. Wherefore the necessity hereof, is no way weakened by the doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, yea it is strengthened and made effectual thereby. For without it, in the order of the gospel, an interest therein is not to be attained. And this is that which in the Old testament is so often proposed as the means and conditions of turning away the judgments and Punishments threatned unto sin. For it is true and sincere in its kind; neither do the socinians require any other repentance unto justification. For as they deny true Evangelical repentance in all the especial causes of it, so that which may and does precede faith in order of nature. is all that they require. This objection therefore as managed by them, is a causless vain pretence.

2. Justifying faith includs in its nature the entire principle of Evangelical repentance, so as that it is utterly impossible that a man should be a true believer, and not at the same instant of time be truly penitent. And therefore are they so frequently conjoined in the scripture as one simultaneous duty. Yea the call of the gospel unto repentance is a call to faith, acting it self by repentance. So the sole reason of that Call unto repentance which the forgiveness of sins is annexed unto, (Acts 2:38.) is the Proposal of the promise which is the object of faith, verse 39. And those Conceptions and affections which a man has about sin, with a sorrow for it and repentance of it, upon a legal conviction, being enlivened and made Evangelical by the Introduction of faith as a new principle of them, and giving new Motives unto them, do become Evangelical; so impossible is it that faith should be without repentance. Wherefore although the first Acts of faith, and its only proper exercise unto justification, does respect the grace of God in Christ and the way of salvation by him, as proposed in the promise of the gospel, yet is not this conceived in order of time to precede its actings in self-displicency, godly sorrow, and universal conversion from sin unto God; nor can it be so, seeing it virtually and radically contains all of them in it self. However therefore Evangelical repentance is not the condition of our justification, so as to have any direct Influence thereinto; nor are we said any where to be justified by repentance; nor is it conversant about the proper object which alone the soul respects therein; nor is a direct and immediate giving glory unto God, on the account of the way and work of his wisdom and grace in Christ Jesus, but a consequent thereof; nor is that Reception of Christ which is expressly required unto our justification, and which alone is required thereunto; yet is it in the Root, principle, and Promptitude of mind for its exercise, in every one that is justified, then when he is justified. And it is peculiarly proposed with respect unto the forgiveness of sins, as that without which it is impossible we should have any true sense or comfort of it in our souls; but it is not so as any part of that righteousness on the consideration whereof our sins are pardoned, nor as that whereby we have an Interest therein. These things are plain in the divine method of our justification, and the order of our duty prescribed in the gospel; as also in the experience of them that do believe. Wherefore considering the necessity of legal repentance unto Believing, with the sanctification of the affections exercised therein by faith, whereby they are made Evangelical, and the nature of faith as including in it a principle of universal conversion unto God, and in especial of that repentance, which has for its principal motive the love of God, and of Jesus Christ, with the grace from thence communicated, all which are supposed in the doctrine pleaded for, the necessity of true repentance is immoveably fixed on its proper Foundation.

3. As unto what was said in the objection concerning Christs suffering in the person of the elect, I know not whether any have used it or no, nor will I contend about it. He suffered in their stead; which all sorts of writers ancient and modern so express, in his suffering he bare the person of the church. The meaning is what was before declared. Christ and believers are one mystical person, one spiritually animated body, head and Members. This I suppose will not be denied; To do so, is to overthrow the church and the faith of it. Hence what he did and suffered is imputed unto them. And it is granted that as the Surety of the covenant he paid all our debts, or answered for all our faults; and that his righteousness is really communicated unto us. Why then say some, there is no need of repentance, all is done for us already. But why so, why must we assent to one part of the gospel unto the exclusion of another? Was it not free unto God to appoint what way, method and order he would, whereby these things should be communicated unto us? nay upon the supposition of the design of his wisdom and grace, these two things were necessary.

1. That this righteousness of Christ should be communicated unto us, and be made ours in such a way and manner, as that he himself might be glorified therein, seeing he has disposed all things in this whole Oeconomy, unto the praise of the glory of his grace, Ephesians 1:6. This was to be done by faith on our part. It is so, it could be no otherwise. For that faith whereby we are justified, is our giving unto God the glory of his wisdom, grace and love. And whatever does so, is faith, and nothing else is so.

2. That whereas our nature was so corrupted and depraved, as that continuing in that state, it was not capable of a participation of the righteousness of Christ, or any benefit of it, unto the glory of God, and our own Good, it was in like manner necessary that it should be renewed and changed. And unless it were so, the design of God in the mediation of Christ, which was the entire Recovery of us unto himself could not be attained. And therefore as faith, under the formal consideration of it was necessary unto the first end, namely, that of giving glory unto God, so unto this latter end, it was necessary that this faith should be accompanied with, yea and contain in it self the seeds of all those other Graces wherein the Divine nature does consist, whereof we are to be made Partakers. Not only therefore the thing it self, or the communication of the righteousness of Christ unto us, but the way and manner, and means of it, do depend on Gods Soveraign order and disposal. Wherefore although Christ did make satisfaction unto the justice of God for all the sins of the church, and that as a common person, (for no man in his Wits can deny but that he who is a Mediator and a Surety, is in some sense a common person) and although he did pay all our debts, yet does the particular Interest of this or that man, in what he did and suffered, depend on the way, means, and order designed of God unto that end. This and this alone gives the true necessity of all the duties which are required of us, with their order and their ends.

3ly, It is objected, That the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, which we defend, overthrows the necessity of faith it self. This is home indeed. Aliquid adhaerebit, is the design of all these objections. But they have reason to plead for themselves who make it. For on this supposition, they say, the righteousness of Christ is ours before we do believe. For Christ satisfied for all our sins, as if we had satisfied in our own persons. And he who is esteemed to have satisfied for all his sins in his own person, is acquitted from them all, and accounted just, whether he believe or no; nor is there any ground or reason why he should be required to believe. If therefore the righteousness of Christ be really ours, because in the judgment of God we are esteemed to have wrought it in him, then it is ours before we do believe. If it be otherwise, then it is plain that that, righteousness it self can never be made ours by believing; only the fruits and effects of it may be suspended on our Believing, whereby we may be made Partakers of them. Yea if Christ made any such satisfaction for us as is pretendrd, it is really ours, without any farther imputation. For being performed for us and in our stead, it is the highest injustice not to have us accounted pardoned and acquitted, without any farther either imputation on the part of God, or faith on ours. These things I have transcribed out of Socinus, De Servator. lib. 4. cap. 2, 3, 4, 5. which I would not have done, but that I find others to have gone before me therein, though to another purpose. And he concludes with a confidence which others also seem in some measure to have learned of him. For he says unto his Adversary, Haec tua, tuorumque sententia, adeo foeda & execrabilis est, ut pestilentiorem errorem post homines natos in populo Dei extitisse non credam; speaking of the satisfaction of Christ and the imputation of it unto believers. And indeed his Serpentine wit was fertile in the Invention of cavils against all the mysteries of the gospel. Nor was he obliged by any one of them, so as to contradict himself in what he opposed concerning any other of them. For denying the Deity of Christ, his satisfaction, sacrifice, merit, righteousness, and overthrowing the whole nature of his mediation, nothing stood in his way which he had a mind to oppose. But I somewhat wonder how others can make use of his Inventions in this kind, who if they considered aright their proper tendency, they will find them to be absolutely destructive of what they seem to own. So it is in this present objection against the imputation of the righteousness of Christ; If it has any force in it, as indeed it has not, it is to prove that the satisfaction of Christ was impossible; and so he intended it. But it will be easily removed.

I answer first in general; that the whole fallacy of this objection lies in the opposing one part of the design and method of Gods grace in this mystery of our justification, unto another; or the taking of one part of it to be the whole, which as to its Efficacy and perfection depends on somewhat else. Hereof we warned the reader in our previous discourses. For the whole of it is a supposition, that the satisfaction of Christ, if there be any such thing, must have its whole effect, without Believing on our part, which is contrary unto the whole declaration of the will of God in the gospel. But I shall principally respect them who are pleased to make use of this objection, and yet do not deny the satisfaction of Christ. And I say

1. When the Lord Christ died for us, and offered himself as a Propitiatory sacrifice, God laid all our sins on him. Isaiah 53:6. And he then bare them all in his own body on the Tree, 1 Peter 2:24. Then he suffered in our stead, and made full satisfaction for all our sins; For he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, Hebrews 9:26. and by one offering he has perfected for ever them that are sanctified, Chap. 10:14. He whose sins were not actually and absolutely satisfied for, in that one offering of Christ, shall never have them expiated unto eternity. For henceforth he dieth no more, there is no more sacrifice for sin. The Repetition of a sacrifice for sin, which must be the Crucifying of Christ afresh, overthrowes the foundation of Christian religion.

2. Notwithstanding this full plenary satisfaction once made for the sins of the world that shall be saved; yet all men continue equally to be born by nature Children of wrath, and whilst they believe not, the wrath of God abids on them, John 3:36. that is, they are obnoxious unto, and under the curse of the law. Wherefore on the only making of that satisfaction, no one for whom it was made in the design of God, can be said to have suffered in Christ, nor to have an interest in his satisfaction, nor by any way or means be made partaker of it antecedently unto another Acts of God in its imputation unto him. For this is but one part of the purpose of Gods grace, as unto our justification by the Blood of Christ, namely, that he by his death should make satisfaction for our sins. Nor is it to be separated from what also belongs unto it, in the same purpose of God. Wherefore from the Position or Grant of the satisfaction of Christ, no argument can be taken unto the negation of a consequential Acts of its imputation unto us; nor therefore of the necessity of our faith in the believing and receiving of it, which is no less the appointment of God, than it was that Christ should make that satisfaction. Wherefore

3. That which the Lord Christ paid for us, is as truly paid, as if we had paid it our selves. So he speaks, Psalm 69:5. He made no spoil of the glory of God, what was done of that nature by us, he returned it unto him. And what he underwent and suffered, he underwent and suffered in our stead. But yet the act of God in laying our sins on Christ, conveyed no actual right and title to us, unto what he did and suffered. They are not immediately thereon, nor by virtue thereof ours, or esteemed ours, because God has appointed somewhat else, not only antecedent thereunto, but as the means of it, unto his own glory. These things both as unto their being and order, depend on the free Ordination of God. But yet,

4. It cannot be said that this satisfaction was made for us on such a condition as should absolutely suspend the event, and render it uncertain whether it should ever be for us or no. Such a constitution may be righteous in pecuniary solutions. A man may lay down a great sum of money for the discharge of another, on such a condition as may never be fulfilled. For on the absolute failure of the condition, his money may and ought to be restored unto him, whereon he has received no injury or damage. But in poenal suffering for crimes and sins, there can be no righteous constitution that shall make the event and efficacy of it to depend on a condition absolutely uncertain, and which may not come to pass or be fulfilled. For if the condition fail, no Recompence can be made unto him that has suffered. Wherefore the way of the application of the satisfaction of Christ unto them for whom it was made, is sure and stedfast in the purpose of God.

5. God has appointed that there shall be an immediate Foundation of the imputation of the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ unto us, whereon we may be said to have done and suffered in him, what he did and suffered in our stead, by that Grant, Donation, and imputation of it unto us; or that we may be interessed in it, that it may be made ours, which is all we contend for. And this is our actual coalescency into one mystical person with him by faith. Hereon does the necessity of faith originally depend. And if we shall add hereunto the necessity of it likewise unto that especial glory of God which he designs to exalt in our justification by Christ, as also unto all the ends of our obedience unto God, and the Renovation of our natures into his Image, its station is sufficiently secured against all objections. Our actual Interest in the satisfaction of Christ, depends on our actual Insertion into his mystical body by faith, according to the Appointment of God.

4thly. It is yet objected, That if the righteousness of Christ be made ours, we may be said to be Saviours of the world as he was, or to save others as he did. For he was so and did so by his righteousness and no otherwise. This objection also is of the same nature with those foregoing, a mere Sophistical Cavil. For,

1. The righteousness of Christ is not transfused into us, so as to be made inherently and subjectively ours, as it was in him, and which is necessarily required unto that effect, of saving others thereby. Whatever we may do, or be said to do with respect unto others, by virtue of any power or quality inherent in our selves, we can be said to do nothing unto others, or for them, by virtue of that which is imputed unto us, only for our own benefit. That any righteousness of ours should benefit another, it is absolutely necessary that it should be wrought by our selves.

2. If the righteousness of Christ could be transfused into us, and be made inherently ours, yet could we not be, nor be said to be the Saviours of others thereby. For our nature in our individual persons, is not subjectum capax, or capable to receive and retain a righteousness useful and effectual unto that end. This capacity was given unto it in Christ by virtue of the Hypostatical union, and no otherwise. The righteousness of Christ himself as performed in the Humane nature, would not have been sufficient for the justification and salvation of the church, had it not been the righteousness of his person, who is both God and Man; for God redeemed his church with his own Blood.

3. This imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto us, as unto its ends and use, has its measure from the will of God, and his purpose in that imputation. And this is, that it should be the righteousness of them unto whom it is imputed, and nothing else.

4. We do not say that the righteousness of Christ as made absolutely for the whole church, is imputed unto every believer. But his satisfaction for every one of them in particular, according unto the will of God, is imputed unto them; not with respect unto its general ends, but according unto every ones particular Interest. Every believer has his own Homer of this Bread of life; and all are justified by the same righteousness.

The apostle declares, as we shall prove afterwards, that as Adams actual sin is imputed unto us unto condemnation, so is the obedience of Christ imputed unto us, to the justification of life. But Adams sin is not so imputed unto any person, as that he should then and thereby be the cause of sin and condemnation unto all other persons in the world; but only that he himself should become Guilty before God thereon. And so is it on the other side. And as we are made Guilty by Adams actual sin which is not inherent in us, but only imputed unto us; so are we made righteous by the righteousness of Christ which is not inherent in us, but only imputed unto us. And imputed unto us it is, because himself was righteous with it, not for himself but for us.

It is yet said, That if we insist on personal imputation unto every believer of what Christ did, or if any believer be personally righteous in the very individual Acts of Christs righteousness, many Absurdities will follow. But it was observed before; that when any design to oppose an Opinion from the absurdities which they suppose would follow upon it, they are much enclined so to state it, as that at least they may seem so to do. And this oftimes the most worthy and candid persons are not free from in the heat of disputation. So I fear it is here fallen out. For as unto personal imputation I do not well understand it. All imputation is unto a person, and is the Acts of a person, be it of what, and what sort it will, but from neither of them can be denominated a Personal imputation. And if an imputation be allowed that is not unto the persons of men, namely, in this case unto all believers, the nature of it has not yet been declared as I know of.

That any have so expressed the imputation pleaded for, That every believer should be personally righteous in the very individual Acts of Christs righteousness, I know not; I have neither read nor heard any of them who have so expressed their mind. It may be some have done so; but I shall not undertake the defense of what they have done. For it seems not only to suppose that Christ did every individual Acts which in any instance is required of us, but also that those Acts are made our own inherently; both which are false and impossible. That which indeed is pleaded for in this imputation, is only this; That what the Lord Christ did and suffered as the Mediator and Surety of the covenant in answer unto the law, for them and in their stead, is imputed unto every one of them unto the justification of life. And sufficient this is unto that end without any such supposals. (1) From the dignity of the person who yielded his obedience, which rendered it both satisfactory and meritorious, and imputable unto many. (2) From the nature of the obedience it self, which was a perfect compliance with, a fulfilling of, and satisfaction unto the whole law in all its demands. This on the supposition of that Acts of Gods Soveraign authority, whereby a Representative of the whole church was introduced to answer the law, is the ground of his righteousness being made theirs, and being every way sufficient unto their justification. (3) From the constitution of God, that what was done and suffered by Christ as a public person and our surety, should be reckoned unto us as if done by our selves. So the sin of Adam whilst he was a public person, and represented his whole Posterity, is imputed unto us all, as if we had committed that actual sin. This Bellarmin himself frequently acknowledgs. Peccavimus in primo homine quando ille peccavit, & illa ejus praevaricatio nostra etiam praevaricatio fuit. Non enim vere per Adami inobedientiam constitueremur peccatores, nisi inobedientia illius nostra etiam inobedientia esset. De Amiss. Grat. & Stat. Peccat. lib. 5. cap. 18. And elsewhere, That the actual sin of Adam is imputed unto us, as if we all had committed that actual sin; that is, broken the whole law of God. And this is that whereby the apostle illustrates the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto believers; and it may on as good grounds be charged with absurdities as the other. It is not therefore said that God judgs that we have in our own persons done those very Acts, and endured that penalty of the law which the Lord Christ did and endured. For this would overthrow all imputation; But what Christ did and suffered, that God imputes unto believers unto the justification of life, as if it had been done by themselves; and his righteousness as a public person is made theirs by imputation, even as the sin of Adam whilst a public person, is made the sin of all his Posterity by imputation.

Hereon none of the absurdities pretended, which are really such, do at all follow. It does not so, that Christ in his own person performed every individual Acts that we in our circumstances are obliged unto in a way of duty; nor was there any need that so he should do. This imputation, as I have shewed, stands on other Foundations. Nor does it follow, that every saved persons righteousness before God is the same identically and numerically with Christs in his public capacity as Mediator; For this objection destroys it self, by affirming that as it was his, it was the righteousness of God-Man; and so it has an especial nature as it respects or relates unto his person. It is the same that Christ in his public capacity did work or effect. But there is a wide difference in the consideration of it, as his absolutely and as made ours. It was formally inherent in him, is only materially imputed unto us. Was actively his, is passively ours; was wrought in the person of God-man; for the whole church, is imputed unto each single believer, as unto his own concernment only. Adams sin as imputed unto us, is not the sin of a Representative, though it be of his that was so; but is the particular sin of every one of us. But this objection must be further spoken unto where it occurs afterwards. Nor will it follow, that on this supposition we should be accounted to have done, that which was done long before we were in a capacity of doing any thing. For what is done for us and in our stead, before we are in any such capacity may be imputed unto us, as is the sin of Adam. And yet there is a manifold sense wherein men may be said to have done what was done for them, and in their name before their actual existence; so that therein is no absurdity. As unto what is added by the way that Christ did not do nor suffer the Idem that we were obliged unto; whereas he did what the law required, and suffered what the law threatned unto the disobedient, which is the whole of what we are obliged unto, it will not be so easily proved; nor the arguments very suddenly answered whereby the contrary has been confirmed. That Christ did sustain the place of a surety, or was the surety of the New-Covenant, the scripture does so expressly affirm, that it cannot be denied. And that there may be sureties in cases criminal, as well as civil and pecuniary, has been proved before. What else occurs about the singularity of Christs obedience as he was Mediator, proves only that his righteousness as formally and inherently his, was peculiar unto himself, and that the Adjuncts of it which arise from its relation unto his person, as it was inherent in him, are not communicable unto them to whom it is imputed.

It is moreover urged, That upon the supposed imputation of the righteousness of Christ, it will follow that every believer is justified by the works of the law. For the obedience of Christ was a legal righteousness, and if that be imputed unto us, then are we justified by the law, which is contrary unto express testimonies of scriptures in many places. Ans. (1) I know nothing more frequent in the Writings of some Learned Men, then that the righteousness of Christ is our legal righteousness; who yet I presume are able to free themselves of this objection. (2) If this do follow in the true sense of being justified by the law, or the works of it, so denied in the scripture, their weakness is much to be pitied who can see no other way whereby we may be freed from an obligation to be justified by the law, but by this imputation of the righteousness of Christ. (3) The scripture which affirms that by the deeds of the law no man can be justified, affirms in like manner, that by faith we do not make void the law, but establish it; that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us; that Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it, and is the end of the law for righteousness unto them that do believe. And that the law must be fulfilled or we cannot be justified, we shall prove afterwards. (4) We are not hereon justified by the law or the works of it, in the only sense of that proposition in the scripture, and to coin new senses or significations of it, is not safe. The meaning of it in the scripture is, that only the doers of the law shall be justified, Romans 2:13. and that he that does the things of it shall live by them, chap. 10:5. namely, in his own person, by the way of personal duty which alone the law requires. But if we who have not fulfilled the law in the way of inherent personal obedience, are justified by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto us, then are we justified by Christ and not by the law. But it is said, that this will not relieve. For if his obedience be so imputed unto us, as that we are accounted by God in judgment to have done what Christ did, it is all one upon the matter, and we are as much justified by the law, as if we had in our own proper persons performed an unsinning obedience unto it. This I confess I cannot understand. The nature of this imputation is here represented as formerly, in such a way as we cannot acknowledge; from thence alone this inference is made, which yet in my judgment does not follow thereon. For grant an imputation of the righteousness of another unto us, be it of what nature it will, all justification by the law and works of it in the sense of the scripture is gone for ever. The admission of imputation takes off all power from the law to justify; for it can justify none, but upon a righteousness that is originally and inherently his own. The man that does them shall live in them. If the righteousness that is imputed be the ground and Foundation of our justification, and made ours by that imputation, state it how you will, that justification is of grace and not of the law. However, I know not of any that say we are accounted of God in judgment personally to have done what Christ did; and it may have a sense that is false; namely, that God should judge us in our own persons to have done those Acts which we never did. But what Christ did for us and in our stead, is imputed and communicated unto us, as we coalesce into one mystical person with him by faith, and thereon are we justified. And this absolutely overthrows all justification by the law or the works of it; though the law be established, fulfilled and accomplished, that we may be justified.

Neither can any on the supposition of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ truly stated, be said to merit their own salvation. satisfaction and merit are Adjuncts of the righteousness of Christ as formally inherent in his own person; and as such it cannot be transfused into another. Wherefore as it is imputed unto individual believers, it has not those properties accompanying of it which belong only unto its existence in the person of the Son of God. But this was spoken unto before, as much also of what was necessary to be here repeated.

These objections I have in this place taken notice of, because the answers given unto them do tend to the farther explanation of that truth, whose confirmation by arguments and testimonies of scripture I shall now proceed unto.

The principal disagreements about the doctrine of justification can be reduced to three heads. First, its nature: does it consist in an inward change in the person justified through the infusion of a habit of inherent grace or righteousness, or is it a forensic act — the judging, regarding, declaring, and pronouncing a person to be righteous, thereby absolving him from all his sins and granting him a right and title to life? On this question we deal only with the Roman Catholic church, since all others — both Protestants and Socinians — agree on the forensic meaning of the word and the nature of the thing it describes. I have already addressed this as much as our present purpose requires, and I hope with enough clarity and evidence that it cannot easily be refuted. Nor should it be assumed we have spent too long on this, as if it were an outdated opinion long since adequately answered. I think quite the opposite, and those who avoid engaging the Roman Catholics on these controversies will give more evidence of fear than of confidence. For when all is said and done, if free justification through the blood of Christ and the imputation of His righteousness cannot hold its ground in people's minds, the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification will return to the world — with all its accompaniments and consequences. As long as any knowledge of the law or the gospel remains among us, human consciences will at some point — in life or in death — be genuinely burdened with a sense of sin in its guilt and danger. From this will follow such trouble and disturbance of mind as will force people — however unwilling they may be — to seek some relief and satisfaction. And what will people not attempt when they are brought to the condition described in Micah 6:7-8? Therefore, when consciences are pressed, if the true and only relief for distressed souls — for sinners who are weary and heavy laden — is hidden from their eyes; if they have no understanding of or trust in the one thing they may place between God's justice and their souls, the one shelter from the storms of the wrath that rests on those who do not believe; then they will grasp at anything that confidently offers them immediate ease and relief. This is why many people who live their entire lives in ignorance of the righteousness of God are so often, on their sickbeds and in their dying hours, converted to confidence in the ways of rest and peace that Rome imposes on them. For it is in just such moments of vulnerability that they lie in wait — to what they suppose is the credit of their own zeal, but is in truth a scandal to Christian religion. Whenever they find consciences troubled and ignorant of, or disbelieving in, the heavenly relief provided in the gospel, they are ready with their remedies — carrying with them the pretended endorsement of many centuries of experience and countless devout souls. Such is their doctrine of justification — supplemented by confession, absolution, penances or substitutes for them, help from saints and angels (especially the blessed Virgin), all heated by the fire of purgatory — and confidently administered to people sick with ignorance, darkness, and sin. Let no one take comfort in despising these things. If the truth concerning evangelical justification is once disbelieved or erased from people's minds by any means, they will sooner or later turn to exactly these things. As for the new schemes and proposed alternatives for justification that some are currently promoting, they are in no way suited or able to give relief or satisfaction to a conscience genuinely troubled by sin and seriously asking how it may find rest and peace with God. I will therefore venture to say, whatever offense it may cause: if we lose the ancient doctrine of justification through faith in the blood of Christ and the imputation of His righteousness to us, public religious profession will quickly end in Roman Catholicism, atheism, or at least something very close to it.

The second principal controversy concerns the formal cause of justification, as framed and debated by the Roman Catholic church. Under these terms, some Protestant theologians have agreed to debate the matter. I will not get involved in a dispute over terminology. The Roman Catholics will call it what they wish. Some on our side say the righteousness of Christ imputed is the formal cause of our justification; others say it is the imputation of the righteousness of Christ; and still others say there is no formal cause of justification strictly speaking, but that the righteousness of Christ fills the role that a formal cause would fill. I will not concern myself with these distinctions, though I judge the last formulation to be the most precise and meaningful.

The substance of the inquiry — which alone concerns us — is this: what is the righteousness by which and with which a believing sinner is justified before God? That is, on what basis is he accepted by God, has his sins pardoned, is received into grace and favor, and is granted a title to the heavenly inheritance? I will frame the inquiry in no other way, knowing that this is the substance of what convicted sinners actually look for in and through the gospel.

On this point, all agree — the Socinians alone excepted — that the procuring cause of the pardon of our sins and acceptance with God is the satisfaction and merit of Christ. It cannot be denied, however, that some, while retaining these terms, appear to reject or disbelieve the realities they express. But there is no need to take notice of that until they are willing to state their views more plainly. Regarding the righteousness itself under inquiry, there appears to be a difference among those who all deny that it is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us. The Roman Catholics say plainly that upon the infusion of a habit of grace — with the expulsion of sin and the renewal of our natures through it, which they call the first justification — we are actually justified before God by our own works of righteousness. On this they dispute about the merit and adequacy of those works, and their worthiness of the reward of eternal life. Others, like the Socinians, openly disclaim any merit in our works — though some, out of respect (I suppose) for the ancient term and sheltered by its ambiguity, have made faint attempts at accommodation with it. But in the substance of what they are asserting, my best understanding is that they all agree. For what the Roman Catholics call the righteousness of works, these others call a personal inherent evangelical righteousness — which we have already discussed. And whereas the Roman Catholics say that this righteousness of works is not absolutely perfect and is not in itself able to justify us before God — owing all its worth for that purpose to the merit of Christ — these others affirm that this evangelical righteousness is the condition on which we enjoy the benefits of Christ's righteousness in the pardon of our sins and the acceptance of our persons before God. As for those who recognize no other righteousness as the basis of our justification before God, the substance is the same whether we say that on the condition of this righteousness we share in the benefits of Christ's righteousness, or that it is the righteousness of Christ that makes our righteousness acceptable to God. But these matters must be examined more closely later.

3. The third point of disagreement is this: given that the one to be justified must in some way be granted a share in the righteousness of Christ, what is required of us to that end? Some say faith alone; others say both faith and works, with the same kind of necessity and role. This second question is what we are now undertaking. Indeed, this is where the heart of the entire controversy about our justification before God lies, and the answer to every other related question depends on how this one is resolved.

This, then, is what I affirm: the righteousness of Christ — in His obedience and suffering for us — imputed to believers as they are united to Him by His Spirit, is the righteousness on the basis of which they are justified before God, on account of which their sins are pardoned and a right to the heavenly inheritance is granted to them.

This statement plainly and fully expresses the substance of the doctrine in this important article of evangelical truth that we are defending. I have chosen to frame it this way in particular because it is the thesis in which the learned Davenant set out the common doctrine of the Reformed churches whose defense he undertook. This is the shield of truth in the whole matter of justification. As long as it is kept safe, we need not be troubled by the differences among learned men about the most precise formulation of its lesser aspects. This is the refuge — the only refuge — of troubled consciences, where they may find rest and peace.

To confirm this affirmation, I will do three things: first, note what is needed for its explanation; second, answer the most important general objections against it; and third, prove its truth by arguments and testimonies from Holy Scripture.

As to the first of these — what is needed for the explanation of this affirmation — it has been sufficiently addressed in the preceding discussions. I will only briefly revisit the main points.

1. The foundation of the imputation affirmed is union. There are many grounds and causes for this union, as has been explained. But what we immediately have in view as the foundation of this imputation is the union by which the Lord Christ and believers actually coalesce into one mystical person. This union is formed by the Holy Spirit dwelling in Christ as the head of the church in fullness, and in all believers according to their measure, making them members of His mystical body. That such a union exists between Christ and believers is the faith of the catholic church in every age. Those who in our day seem to deny or question it either do not understand what they are saying, or their thinking has been shaped by the doctrine of those who deny the divine persons of the Son and the Spirit. Once this union is granted, reason itself will allow that the imputation we are affirming is reasonable — or at least that it has a unique basis unlike anything that can be illustrated from natural or political relationships among people.

2. The nature of imputation has been fully discussed earlier, and I refer the reader to that discussion for an understanding of what is meant by it here.

3. What is imputed is the righteousness of Christ. By this I mean, in brief, His whole obedience to God in everything He did and suffered for the church. This, I say, is imputed to believers so as to become their only righteousness before God for the justification of life.

If, beyond these points, any expressions have been used to explain this truth that have given rise to differences or debates, I will not involve myself in defending them — even if they may be true and defensible against objections. The substance of the truth as stated is what I have undertaken to defend, and where that substance is granted or agreed to, I will not contend with anyone over their way of expressing it, nor defend particular terms and phrases others have used. For example: some have said that what Christ did and suffered is so imputed to us that we are judged and regarded in God's sight as having done and suffered it ourselves in Him. I will not involve myself in that formulation. Although a sound meaning can be given to it, and it is used by some of the ancient writers, yet because it gives offense, and the substance of the truth we are defending is better expressed in other ways, it should not be argued over. For we do not say that God judges or regards us as having done and suffered in our own persons what Christ did and suffered, but only that He did it and suffered it in our place. On that basis, God makes a grant and donation of it to believers upon their believing, for their justification before Him. The same may be said of many other similar expressions.

With these points in place, I proceed to the general objections raised against the imputation we are affirming. I will address only the most important ones — those into which all other objections can be resolved — for it would be endless to address every objection a person's ingenuity might suggest. We must also keep some general considerations in mind.

1. The doctrine of justification is a part — indeed an eminent part — of the mystery of the gospel. It is no surprise, therefore, if it does not readily conform to ordinary human reason the way some would like. Something more is required for a true spiritual understanding of such mysteries. Indeed, unless we intend to abandon the gospel, it must be affirmed that human reason as it is corrupted — and the human mind without divine supernatural revelation — rejects every such truth and rises in hostility against it (Romans 8:7; 1 Corinthians 2:14).

2. This is why the minds and ingenuity of people are remarkably fertile in manufacturing objections against evangelical truths and raising quibbles about them. They rarely lack for an endless stream of sophisticated objections which, having nothing better, they themselves judge to be unanswerable. For fallen reason, once set loose under the false pretense of pursuing truth, to act boldly against spiritual mysteries, is clever in its arguments and prolific in inventing them. How endless, for example, are the Socinians' sophistries against the doctrine of the Trinity, and how they triumph in them as though they cannot be answered. Sheltered by these, they disregard the force of the clearest scriptural testimonies, multiplied on every occasion. They deal with the doctrine of Christ's satisfaction in the same way that the Pelagians of old dealt with the doctrine of grace. Therefore, anyone who is unsettled by the appearance of clever or plausible objections against clearly revealed and sufficiently attested gospel mysteries is unlikely to achieve much stability in their profession of them.

3. Most of the objections leveled against the truth in this matter arise from a failure to grasp the proper order of God's work of grace and our corresponding obedience — as was noted earlier. They consist in treating as contradictory things that, in their proper place and order, are not only compatible but mutually supportive of each other — as those who truly believe find in their own experience. Examples of this were given earlier, and more will come up shortly. Keeping these considerations in view, we can see both the origin and the actual force of these objections.

4. Consider that all the objections against the truth we affirm are drawn from certain supposed consequences of accepting it. This approach is the surest way to make controversies endless, since consequences can always be disputed. Moreover, in my observation, every person who argues this way frames the question to the disadvantage of those he opposes in order to make the supposed consequences appear more absurd — a way of proceeding that I am surprised good people are not either tired of or ashamed of.

1. It is objected that the imputation of Christ's righteousness destroys all remission of sins on God's part. This is argued by Socinus (De Servatore, lib. 4, cap. 2-4) and others as well. This charge may seem bold to those who are firmly convinced that without this imputation there could be no remission of sin. But they argue: a person who has a perfectly righteous imputed to them as their own has no need of pardon, no sin to be forgiven, and can never need forgiveness. Since this objection will come up again in connection with one of the arguments that follows, I will address it only briefly here.

1. Let Grotius answer this objection. He writes: "When we have said that Christ procured two things for us — freedom from punishment and a reward — the ancient church attributed the one specifically to His satisfaction and the other to His merit. Satisfaction consists in the transfer of sins [from us to Him]; merit consists in the imputation to us of the most perfect obedience He performed for us" (Preface to the book On Satisfaction). In his view, the remission of sins and the imputation of righteousness were as compatible with each other as the satisfaction and merit of Christ — as indeed they are.

2. Had we not been sinners, we would have had no need for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to make us righteous before God. Since we are sinners, the first purpose for which it is imputed is the pardon of sin — without which we could not be righteous even through the imputation of the most perfect righteousness. These two things are therefore consistent: Christ's satisfaction being imputed to us for the pardon of sin, and Christ's obedience being imputed to us to render us righteous before God. Not only are they consistent — neither alone would be sufficient for our justification.

2. The same author and others also argue that the imputation of Christ's righteousness destroys all necessity for repentance for sin in connection with its pardon — that it renders repentance entirely needless. For what need of repentance does a person have who, through the imputation of Christ's righteousness, is regarded as completely just and righteous before God? If Christ satisfied for all sins in the person of the elect; if as our surety He paid all our debts; and if His righteousness becomes ours before we repent — then repentance is entirely unnecessary. The same author develops these points at length in the passage cited.

In answer: First, it must be remembered that we require evangelical faith — in the order of nature — prior to our justification by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and that faith is also the condition for the continuation of our justification. Therefore, whatever is necessary for believing is equally required of us in preparation for it. Among these is sorrow for sin and repentance of it. For whoever is convicted of sin in a proper way — so as to genuinely grasp its evil and guilt, both in how it contradicts the moral commands of God's holy law and in its necessary consequences of God's wrath and curse — cannot but be troubled in mind that they have brought themselves into such a condition. That state of mind will be accompanied by shame, fear, sorrow, and other distressing feelings. From this follows a resolve to abstain from sin in the future, with sincere efforts toward that end — leading, given time and opportunity, to a reformation of life. A genuine sense of sin, sorrow for it, fear concerning it, abstaining from it, and reforming one's life together constitute a repentance that is true in its kind. This repentance is commonly called legal because its motivations are drawn primarily from the law; but it also requires the temporary faith in the gospel that was described earlier. As it often produces profound effects in confession of sin, humiliation for it, and changed behavior — as with Ahab and the Ninevites — it ordinarily precedes true saving faith and justification. Therefore, the necessity of repentance is in no way weakened by the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness — it is in fact strengthened and made more effective by it. For without repentance, according to the order of the gospel, an interest in that imputation is not to be obtained. This is what the Old Testament so often presents as the means and conditions for averting the judgments and punishments threatened for sin. This repentance is genuine and true in its kind — and in fact the Socinians themselves require no other kind of repentance for justification. As they deny true evangelical repentance in all its distinctive causes, the only repentance they require is this kind that precedes faith in the order of nature. This objection, therefore, as they press it, is a groundless pretense.

2. Justifying faith includes within its very nature the entire principle of evangelical repentance — so that it is utterly impossible for a person to be a true believer without being, at that very same moment, truly penitent. This is why Scripture so frequently joins the two together as a single simultaneous duty. Indeed, the gospel's call to repentance is a call to faith expressing itself through repentance. The sole reason that the call to repentance in Acts 2:38, to which forgiveness of sins is attached, is followed immediately by the promise in verse 39 — the object of faith. The thoughts and feelings a person has about sin — along with sorrow for it and repentance of it, arising from legal conviction — are enlivened and made evangelical when faith enters as a new principle motivating them and providing new reasons for them. It is therefore impossible for faith to exist without repentance. So although the first act of faith, and its only proper exercise in relation to justification, is directed toward the grace of God in Christ and the way of salvation through Him as offered in the promise of the gospel, this is not conceived as preceding, in time, its expression in self-displeasure, godly sorrow, and whole-hearted turning from sin to God — nor can it be, since faith virtually and fundamentally contains all of these within itself. Therefore, while evangelical repentance is not a condition of our justification in the sense of having any direct role in it — we are nowhere said to be justified by repentance, it is not directed toward the proper object the soul rests in for justification, it is not a direct giving of glory to God for His wisdom and grace in Christ but rather follows from it, and it is not the reception of Christ that is explicitly and solely required for justification — it is nonetheless present in the root, principle, and readiness of mind for its exercise in every person at the moment of their justification. Repentance is especially presented in connection with the forgiveness of sins as something without which it is impossible to have any true sense or comfort of forgiveness in the soul — but not as any part of the righteousness on account of which our sins are pardoned, nor as the means by which we have a share in that righteousness. All of this is clear from the divine method of our justification and the order of duty prescribed in the gospel, as well as from the experience of those who truly believe. Therefore, given the necessity of legal repentance for believing, the transformation of the affections exercised in it through faith (making them evangelical), and the nature of faith as including within itself a principle of whole-hearted turning to God — and especially the repentance that has as its chief motive the love of God and of Jesus Christ and the grace flowing from it — all of which are included in the doctrine we are defending, the necessity of true repentance is permanently and securely grounded.

3. As for what was said in the objection about Christ suffering in the person of the elect — I am not certain whether anyone has used that exact expression or not, and I will not argue about it. He suffered in their place, which writers of all kinds — ancient and modern — express by saying that in His suffering He bore the person of the church. The meaning is what was explained before. Christ and believers are one mystical person — one spiritually animated body, head and members. I assume this will not be denied; to deny it would be to overthrow the church and its faith. Therefore, what He did and suffered is imputed to them. It is granted that as the surety of the covenant He paid all our debts and answered for all our sins, and that His righteousness is truly communicated to us. Why then, say some, is repentance needed? Everything has already been done for us. But why should we accept one part of the gospel while rejecting another? Was God not free to appoint whatever way, method, and order He chose for communicating these things to us? Or, given the design of His wisdom and grace, were these two things not both necessary?

1. The righteousness of Christ was to be communicated to us and made ours in such a way that He Himself would be glorified in it — since He has ordered all things in this entire economy to the praise of the glory of His grace (Ephesians 1:6). This was to be accomplished through faith on our part. That is how it is, and it could not be otherwise. For the faith by which we are justified is our giving to God the glory of His wisdom, grace, and love. Whatever does that is faith, and nothing else is.

2. Since our nature was so corrupted and depraved that, remaining in that condition, it was incapable of receiving the righteousness of Christ or any benefit from it in a way that glorifies God and truly serves our own good — it was equally necessary that our nature be renewed and changed. Without this, God's purpose in the mediation of Christ — the complete recovery of us to Himself — could not be achieved. Therefore, just as faith in its formal nature was necessary for the first purpose (giving glory to God), it was necessary for this latter purpose that faith be accompanied by — indeed that it contain within itself the seeds of — all the other graces that constitute the divine nature, of which we are to be made partakers. Therefore, not only the thing itself — the communication of Christ's righteousness to us — but also the way, manner, and means of it all depend on God's sovereign order and arrangement. So although Christ did make satisfaction to God's justice for all the sins of the church — and as a common representative person, for no sane person can deny that a mediator and surety is in some sense a common person — and although He did pay all our debts, yet each individual's personal share in what He did and suffered depends on the way, means, and order that God has appointed for that purpose. This and this alone gives the true foundation and necessity for all the duties required of us, with their proper order and ends.

3. It is objected that the imputation of Christ's righteousness as we defend it actually destroys the necessity of faith itself. This hits closer to home. The design of all these objections is to make something stick. But those who raise this objection have their reasons. They say: on our supposition, the righteousness of Christ is ours before we believe. For Christ satisfied for all our sins as if we had satisfied in our own persons. And the one who is regarded as having satisfied for all his sins in his own person is acquitted from them all and counted just — whether he believes or not. There is therefore no ground or reason why he should be required to believe. If, therefore, Christ's righteousness is truly ours because God regards us as having worked it in Him, then it is ours before we believe. If this is not the case, then it is plain that the righteousness itself can never be made ours through believing — only its fruits and effects can be suspended on our believing, so that we may receive them. Indeed, if Christ made any such satisfaction for us as is claimed, it is actually ours without any further imputation. For being performed for us and in our place, it would be the height of injustice for us not to be accounted pardoned and acquitted — without any further imputation on God's part or faith on ours. I have reproduced these arguments from Socinus (De Servatore, lib. 4, cap. 2-5) — which I would not have done except that I find others have already done the same, though for different purposes. He concludes with a confidence that others appear to have partly learned from him, saying of the satisfaction of Christ and its imputation to believers: "This opinion of yours and your colleagues is so shameful and execrable that I do not believe a more pestilential error has ever arisen among the people of God since the beginning of humanity." Indeed, Socinus's serpentine wit was fertile in inventing sophistries against all the mysteries of the gospel. Nor did any one of them oblige him to contradict himself in opposing the others — since by denying the deity of Christ, His satisfaction, sacrifice, merit, and righteousness, and by overthrowing the entire nature of His mediation, nothing stood in his way that he wanted to oppose. I am somewhat puzzled, however, how others can make use of his inventions in this way — for if they thought carefully about where they naturally lead, they would find them to be absolutely destructive of what those same people claim to affirm. So it is with this objection against the imputation of Christ's righteousness: if it has any force — which it does not — it is to prove that the satisfaction of Christ was impossible. That was indeed Socinus's intent. But the objection is easily answered.

I answer, first in general: the entire fallacy of this objection lies in setting one part of the design and method of God's grace in the mystery of our justification against another — or in treating one part of it as if it were the whole, when its efficacy and completeness depends on something else as well. We warned the reader of this in earlier discussions. For the whole objection rests on the assumption that the satisfaction of Christ, if it exists, must take its full effect without any believing on our part — which is contrary to the entire declaration of God's will in the gospel. I will address the objection primarily as it is used by those who do accept the satisfaction of Christ.

1. When the Lord Christ died for us and offered Himself as a propitiatory sacrifice, God laid all our sins on Him (Isaiah 53:6). He then bore them all in His own body on the cross (1 Peter 2:24). He suffered in our place and made full satisfaction for all our sins — for He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself (Hebrews 9:26), and by one offering has perfected forever those who are sanctified (Hebrews 10:14). Whoever's sins were not actually and fully satisfied for in that one offering of Christ will never have them expiated. For He dies no more — there remains no further sacrifice for sin. Any repetition of a sacrifice for sin, which would require crucifying Christ again, overthrows the very foundation of the Christian faith.

2. Yet despite this full and complete satisfaction once made for the sins of all who will be saved, all people continue to be born by nature as children of wrath — and while they do not believe, the wrath of God remains on them (John 3:36), that is, they are liable to and under the curse of the law. Therefore, from the mere making of that satisfaction alone, no one for whom it was made in God's design can be said to have suffered in Christ, or to have a personal share in His satisfaction, or to be made a partaker of it in any way prior to a further act of God in imputing it to them. For this is only one part of God's purpose of grace regarding our justification by the blood of Christ — that He by His death should make satisfaction for our sins. This must not be separated from everything else that belongs to the same purpose of God. Therefore, from the fact of Christ's satisfaction, no argument can be drawn against the consequential act of its imputation to us — and therefore none against the necessity of our faith in believing and receiving it, which is no less God's appointment than that Christ should make that satisfaction.

3. What the Lord Christ paid for us is as truly paid as if we had paid it ourselves — as He says in Psalm 69:5. He restored to God the glory that had been taken from Him by our sin. What He endured and suffered, He endured and suffered in our place. Yet the act of God in laying our sins on Christ did not immediately convey to us an actual right and title to what He did and suffered. Those things are not immediately ours, nor regarded as ours, by virtue of that act alone — because God has appointed something else not only prior to that conferral but as its very means, for His own glory. These things — both their reality and their order — depend on God's free ordination.

4. It cannot be said, however, that this satisfaction was made for us on a condition that absolutely suspended its outcome and left it uncertain whether it would ever benefit us at all. Such an arrangement might be just in the case of monetary payments. A person may pay a large sum for another's release on a condition that is never fulfilled — in which case, on the condition failing, the money may and should be returned, and the payer has suffered no real loss. But in the case of penal suffering for crimes and sins, no just arrangement can make the outcome and efficacy of it depend on an absolutely uncertain condition that may never be fulfilled. For if the condition fails, no compensation can be made to the one who has suffered. Therefore, the application of Christ's satisfaction to those for whom it was made is certain and secure in God's purpose.

5. God has appointed an immediate basis for the imputation of Christ's satisfaction and righteousness to us — on account of which we may be said to have done and suffered in Him what He did and suffered in our place, through that grant, donation, and imputation of it to us — so that we may have a share in it and it may be made ours. This is all we are arguing for. And this basis is our actual union into one mystical person with Him through faith. The necessity of faith originates here. If we add to this the necessity of faith for that distinctive glory of God which He intends to exalt in our justification through Christ, and also for all the ends of our obedience to God and the renewal of our natures into His image — its necessity is amply secured against all objections. Our actual share in Christ's satisfaction depends on our actual incorporation into His mystical body through faith, according to God's appointment.

4. It is also objected that if the righteousness of Christ is made ours, we could be said to be saviors of the world as He was, or to save others as He did — for He was that and did that by His righteousness, and by nothing else. This objection is of the same kind as those already answered — a mere sophistical quibble.

1. The righteousness of Christ is not infused into us so as to become inherently and subjectively ours as it was in Him — which is what would be required in order to save others by it. Whatever we may do, or be said to do, in relation to others by virtue of a power or quality inherent in ourselves, we cannot be said to do anything for others by virtue of what is imputed to us — which is imputed only for our own benefit. For any righteousness of ours to benefit another, it is absolutely necessary that we ourselves have performed it.

2. Even if the righteousness of Christ could be infused into us and made inherently ours, we still could not be — nor could we be called — saviors of others by it. For our human nature in our individual persons is not capable of receiving and sustaining a righteousness that is effective for that purpose. This capacity was given to Christ's human nature specifically by virtue of the hypostatic union, and by nothing else. The righteousness of Christ Himself, as performed in human nature, would not have been sufficient for the justification and salvation of the church had it not been the righteousness of His person — who is both God and Man. For God redeemed His church with His own blood.

3. The imputation of Christ's righteousness to us, in terms of its ends and use, is determined in scope by God's will and purpose in that imputation. And that purpose is simply this: that it should be the righteousness of those to whom it is imputed — nothing more and nothing less.

4. We do not say that the righteousness of Christ — as made absolutely for the whole church — is imputed collectively to every believer. Rather, His satisfaction for each one of them individually, according to God's will, is imputed to them — not with respect to its general scope, but according to each person's particular share in it. Every believer has their own portion of this bread of life, and all are justified by the same righteousness.

The apostle declares — as will be proved later — that just as Adam's actual sin is imputed to us leading to condemnation, so the obedience of Christ is imputed to us for the justification of life. But Adam's sin is not imputed to any person in such a way that he thereby becomes the cause of sin and condemnation to every other person in the world — only that he himself becomes guilty before God. The same logic applies on the other side. Just as we are made guilty by Adam's actual sin, which is not inherent in us but only imputed to us, so we are made righteous by the righteousness of Christ, which is not inherent in us but only imputed to us. And it is imputed to us because He Himself was righteous with it — not for Himself but for us.

It is also argued that if we insist on the personal imputation to every believer of what Christ did, or if any believer is personally righteous in the very individual acts of Christ's righteousness, many absurdities will follow. But as was observed earlier, when people want to oppose an opinion by showing its supposed consequences, they tend to state that opinion in a way that makes those consequences appear as damaging as possible — often without intending to misrepresent. Even the most careful and honest people sometimes fall into this in the heat of argument. I fear that has happened here. As for "personal imputation" — I do not quite understand the phrase. All imputation is to a person and is the act of a person — whatever its content or kind — but neither of those facts makes it properly called "personal imputation." And if some imputation is allowed that is not directed to persons — that is, in this case, to all believers individually — its nature has not, to my knowledge, been explained.

I am not aware that anyone has expressed the imputation we are defending by saying that every believer is personally righteous in the very individual acts of Christ's righteousness. I have neither read nor heard anyone express it that way. Perhaps some have, but I will not undertake their defense. For that formulation seems to suppose not only that Christ performed every specific act that is required of us in any given instance, but also that those acts become inherently ours — both of which are false and impossible. What we are actually defending in this imputation is simply this: that what the Lord Christ did and suffered as the mediator and surety of the covenant in answer to the law — for them and in their place — is imputed to every one of them for the justification of life. This is fully sufficient for that purpose, without any such suppositions, for three reasons. First, from the dignity of the person who yielded His obedience — which made it both satisfactory and meritorious, and capable of being imputed to many. Second, from the nature of the obedience itself — a perfect compliance with, a fulfillment of, and full satisfaction to the whole law in all its demands. Given the sovereign act of God by which a representative of the whole church was appointed to answer the law, this is the ground of His righteousness being made theirs, and being fully sufficient for their justification. Third, from God's appointment that what was done and suffered by Christ as a public person and our surety should be reckoned to us as if done by ourselves. So the sin of Adam — while he acted as a public person representing all his descendants — is imputed to us all as if we had committed that actual sin. Bellarmine himself frequently acknowledges this: "We sinned in the first man when he sinned, and his transgression was also our transgression. For we would not truly be constituted sinners by Adam's disobedience unless his disobedience were also our disobedience" (De Amissione Gratiae et Statu Peccati, lib. 5, cap. 18). And elsewhere he acknowledges that the actual sin of Adam is imputed to us as if we had all committed that same actual sin — that is, as if we had broken the whole law of God. This is precisely how the apostle illustrates the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers, and the same charge of absurdity could be leveled against the one as against the other. We are therefore not saying that God judges us to have in our own persons performed the very acts and endured the very penalty that the Lord Christ performed and endured — for that would overthrow all imputation. Rather, what Christ did and suffered is imputed by God to believers for the justification of life as if it had been done by themselves; and His righteousness as a public person is made theirs by imputation — just as the sin of Adam while a public person is made the sin of all his descendants by imputation.

None of the supposed absurdities — those that are genuinely absurd — actually follow from our position. It does not follow that Christ in His own person performed every specific act that we in our circumstances are obligated to perform — nor was there any need for Him to do so. As I have shown, this imputation rests on other foundations. Nor does it follow that the righteousness of every saved person before God is numerically and identically the same as Christ's in His public capacity as Mediator. In fact, this objection destroys itself by affirming that as His righteousness, it was the righteousness of the God-man — and therefore has a distinctive nature in relation to His person. It is the same righteousness that Christ in His public capacity worked and accomplished. But there is a wide difference in considering it as His absolutely and as made ours. It was formally inherent in Him; it is only materially imputed to us. It was actively His; it is passively ours. It was wrought in the person of the God-man for the whole church; it is imputed to each individual believer only in terms of their own concern. Adam's sin as imputed to us is not the sin of a representative — though it is the sin of the one who was representative — but becomes the particular sin of each one of us. But this objection must be addressed further when it recurs later. Nor does it follow that on this supposition we are accounted as having done what was done long before we were in any position to do anything. For what is done for us and in our place before we were capable of any such action may be imputed to us, as is the case with Adam's sin. And yet there is a meaningful sense in which people may be said to have done what was done for them and in their name before they existed — so there is no absurdity here. As for the added point that Christ did not do and suffer the identical thing we were obligated to — since He did what the law required and suffered what the law threatened to the disobedient, which is the entirety of what we owe — this will not be easily proved, nor will the arguments confirming the contrary be quickly answered. That Christ was a surety, or the surety of the new covenant, Scripture so expressly states that it cannot be denied. And that a surety may stand in criminal as well as civil and monetary matters has already been demonstrated. Whatever else is urged about the uniqueness of Christ's obedience as Mediator proves only that His righteousness, as formally and inherently His own, was peculiar to Himself — and that the characteristics attaching to it by reason of its being inherent in His person are not communicable to those to whom it is imputed.

It is also urged that if the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, it would follow that every believer is justified by the works of the law. For Christ's obedience was a legal righteousness, and if that is imputed to us, then we are justified by the law — which contradicts many plain statements of Scripture. In answer: first, I know nothing more common in the writings of some learned men than to say that the righteousness of Christ is our legal righteousness — and yet they are presumably able to answer this objection themselves. Second, if this objection actually holds — in the true scriptural sense of being justified by the law or its works — then one can only pity those who see no other way to escape the obligation to be justified by the law except through the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Third, the Scripture that affirms no one can be justified by the deeds of the law equally affirms that through faith we do not nullify the law but establish it; that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us; that Christ came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it and is the end of the law for righteousness to all who believe. And we will prove later that the law must be fulfilled before we can be justified. Fourth, we are not on this basis justified by the law or its works in the only scriptural sense of that statement — and to invent new senses for it is not safe. Its meaning in Scripture is that only the doers of the law will be justified (Romans 2:13), and that the one who does the things of it will live by them (Romans 10:5) — namely, in his own person, through personal obedience, which is all the law requires. But if we, who have not fulfilled the law through inherent personal obedience, are justified by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, then we are justified by Christ and not by the law. But it is said this does not resolve the matter. For if His obedience is so imputed to us that God in judgment regards us as having done what Christ did, then it amounts to the same thing — we are as much justified by the law as if we had in our own persons rendered a sinless obedience to it. This I confess I cannot follow. The nature of this imputation is being represented in the way I have rejected as ours — and only from that misrepresentation does the inference follow, which in my judgment does not actually follow from the truth. For grant an imputation of another's righteousness to us — of whatever nature — and all justification by the law and its works in the scriptural sense is gone forever. Imputation removes from the law all power to justify, since the law can only justify on the basis of a righteousness that is originally and inherently one's own — "The man who does them shall live by them." If the righteousness that is imputed is the ground and foundation of our justification, and is made ours by that imputation — however you frame it — that justification is of grace and not of the law. As for the claim that we are accounted by God in judgment to have personally done what Christ did — I know of no one who actually says this, and it may carry a false meaning, namely, that God should judge us in our own persons to have performed acts we never performed. What Christ did for us and in our place is imputed and communicated to us as we are united into one mystical person with Him through faith — and on that basis we are justified. This absolutely rules out all justification by the law or its works, even though the law is established, fulfilled, and accomplished so that we may be justified.

Nor can anyone, given a properly stated understanding of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, be said to merit their own salvation. Satisfaction and merit are properties of Christ's righteousness as formally inherent in His own person — and as such, they cannot be transferred to another. Therefore, as it is imputed to individual believers, the righteousness does not carry with it those properties that belong only to its existence in the person of the Son of God. But this was addressed earlier, as was everything that needed to be repeated here.

I have noted these objections here because the answers to them help further clarify the truth whose confirmation through arguments and scriptural testimonies I will now proceed to.