between God and him thro this Imputed and believed righteousness 8. The justified one as he draws his first breath of the new man in believing unto righteousness so he lives upon this righteousness in all his Christian course in that Christs righteousness may be called the righteousness of Faith for Meat and Drink John 6.51 53. 9. Faith hath hereby all justifiable ways to God Christ is thereby his way unto the Father he can have access to the grace wherein he stands comes thro this righteousness with boldness to the Throne of grace and receives remission of sins and every good and perfect gift God having not spared his Son but given him for us hence he will not withhold any good thing 10. As it receives all grace in and with justifying grace so it gives and ascribes all to free grace in the Father Son and Holy Spirit both the gift of righteousness and faith it self and the life eternal given to such a poor wretch in and thro Jesus Christ 11. In that this grace being filled with Christs righteousness is leading to all fruits of Christs righteousness imputed and believed all which appear in the exercise of all holy affections graces and duties to the mortification of sin and growth in obedience and conformity to Christ § 14. Now having shewed the Excellency of this Grace in its Nature and Kind we must shew you that it is not Christ nor must not take his Throne or Crown from him yea abhors nothing more if true but will keep a Believer always a poor humble broken and contrite hearted Sinner Therefore we assert and Christ with his whole Word will stand by us in it that our Faith as a Grace of the Spirit or Work of ours is not imputed for Righteousness to Justification I shall but Name a few Arguments convincing enough and shew thereby the way to others to do the same 1. Faith is for the Honour of Christ our High-Priest upon the Throne if it takes to it self justifying Righteousness it takes the Crown from his Head and sets it upon his own for the great end of Christ's Humiliation and Exaltation was the working out of this Righteousness 2. If Faith be our Righteousness then Faith is its own Object when you bid Men believe unto Justification you must bid them believe in themselves and bid them by Faith go to their Faith for Righteousness and Life what 's Absurder 3. If God impute Faith it self as a Work to Justification then Faith must be imputed as meritorious of Justification For 1. Christs Righteousness is so imputed 2. No Righteousness can be imputed otherwise to Justification but such as is meritorious of it Justification being a law-Law-act 4. Faith making it self Righteousness for Justification by a Law makes it self altogether Legal as much as any Works whatever insomuch that it is not an evangelical Work so that it ought not to justifie as a Work by their own Rule that we are not justified by the legal works but we have proved all their Works legal 5. That that can't cover Sin and take off the Imputation of it can't be justifying Righteousness and take off the the Imputation of Sin for faith did not die for Sin or was made a Sacrifice for it to bear the Sin of many 6 The Priests and Sacrifices of Old were Types of Christs Righteousness for Justification of a Sinner not of the Sinners righteousness and the faithful looked upon themselves as sinners Typically justified in the Righteousness Typified and not in their Faith as a Work done 7. If our Faith in it self be our Righteousness then our unbelief is for that Faith must believe that Christs Righteousness is not imputed to us for Justification this his high unbelief according to the Scripture 8. If Faith say it justifie as a Work then Faith excludes it self the very Nature of it the Neonomian say the Law of Faith is the New-law if so then it excludes it self for the Law of Faith excludes boasting and Works of a Law i. e. the very Nature of Faith if it be good is so 9. If Faith justifie as a Work then Faith justifies not without Works for if it be a Work it self and justifying as such then it justifieth not without Works because it is a Work contrary to Rom. 4.6 10. If Faith be Imputed for Righteousness then the Blood of Christ is not but we are to be justified by the Blood of Christ and the Scripture saith we are by Faith in his Blood 11. If Faith Justifies as a Work then no more is ascribed to Faith than to other Graces in the concern of our Justification but the Apostle ascribes more concern to Faith than other Graces and then why doth he oppose Faith to Works Is it not that its more the Office of Faith as to Justification the Neonomian say it is the same with other Graces c. So Mr. Cl. Justifying Faith is the same thing in Substance with Effectual Calling Repentance Regeneration forming Christ in the Soul the new Creature c. Is not a great deal of the Scripture in vain hath not Paul wrote two Epistles in vain where he makes it his Main Business to beat down Justification by Works and oppose them to one another and now he tells us that Faith and Gospel Works i. e. legal are all one 12. That which justifies as a Righteousness justifies eternally Dan. 9. but Faith can't justifie eternally because Faith ceaseth in Heaven but justifying Righteousness doth not yea all the Righteousness of the New-law must cease 1 Cor. 13.10 14. That which is not the faederal Condition of the Covenant of Grace can't be our Righteousness in it self but Faith is not the faederal Condition because Faith is promised in the Covenant given by Grace purchased by Christ part of Eternal Life a means to lay hold of the Condition but I shall not enlarge upon this now only make one Quotation at last Mr. R. Capel who wrote of Temptation saith speaking of the Conditions of the Covenant In this Matter I am of the Opinion of Kendal that the Covenant he means of Grace was not made with us but with Christ this was the Assembly's Judgment for us and for the main I am clear of Opinion that the Covenant of Grace cannot stand with any Condition of ours at all for that I wish the Learned to consult Junius To deliver my Opinion Adam casting himself out of his Estate the Covenant of Works fell void Then it pleased God to fill up this Room with a New Covenant commonly called his last Testament wherein he bequeathed Grace and Glory on no other Condition that I know of out of the Scriptures but the Death of the Testator i. e. Jesus Christ that as the First Covenant was built on the Righteousness of the first Adam so the Second was built on the Righteousness of the second It is beyond my Brain to conceive that God should immediately make a Covenant with us who were Children of Disobedience and of Wrath who could not be capable of any such Covenant or Conditions but it was with Christ for us Adam lost his Righteousness the Foundation of the first Covenant but the Righteousness of Christ the Second can never be lost and therefore the second Covenant or rather Testament can never be broken or disanulled Condition of the Covenant p. 260. Errata PAge 38. line 2. read partaker p. 39. l. 32. r. relaxed p. 42. l. 23. r. Justice p. 43. l. 36. r. we could not p. 46. l. 17. r. per quam p. 48. l. 16. r. Is it by Imputation p. 49. l. 22. r. God justifies p. 50. l. 34. r. their sins p. 57. l. 34. r. the only p. 64. l. 23. dele r. bottom they must be Pelagians p. 66. l. 2. r. is it not so p. 72. l. 27. dele ◠p. ibid. l. 28. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 73. l. 40. r. Christs righteousness and us p. 78. l. 27. r. would not be p. 79. l. prope antep dele no. p. 85. l. 16. r. Gal. 3.21 p. 86. l. 21. r. Gal. 3.21 p. 87. l. 3. ab ult r. for Saviour self p. 88. l 23. r. Gal. 3.21 l. 37. r. is manifest p. 99. l. 16. dele not p. 100. l. 3. dele and l. 6. r. yea 123. l. 13. r. addicted to it l. 35. r. should not be p. 126. l. 10. r. righteousness twice p. 133 l. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 31. false Hebrew p. 134. l. 20. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 148. l. 17. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 29. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 34. dele the before events p. 149. l. 5. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 155. l. 6. a fine r. unprofitable p. 158. l. 6. ab ult r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 159 false Hebrew p. 160. l. 6. ab ult r. Arg. 3 The righteousness for which and by which a sinner is justified
State and so doth the sanctifying Grace of God in Regeneration God doth both justifie and sanctifie the ungodly by his active apprehending Grace Phil. 3.12 As to the second clause I suppose none can deny that therefore we believe that we may be justified Rom. 10.10 and elsewhere and as to the last Word wherein they lay the stress of the Error they might put it in unexceptionable Terms by adding a monosyllable they believe that they may be justified and declaratively they believe that they may receive and have Eternal Life and that they may know they have it according to the express Words of the Apostle 1 John 5.12 13. Er. 4. Union to Christ is before Faith at least by Nature and we partake of the Spirit by virtue of that Union and there 's a compleat Union with Christ before the Act of Faith A. For the first clause of the charge I own it and have defended it as Truth and shall stand by it and am ready to dispute it with the Accusers when they please in the mean time let them tell me whether Faith be not a vital Act of the Soul If so how came the Fruit to grow on the Branch before it was in the Root Christ Jesus Again if Faith be the Effect of Union to Christ then Union is the cause and in Nature antecedent to it There 's no need to enlarge upon so plain a Truth the second clause is as true that by virtue of this Union or in this Union we first partake of the Spirit because the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ Rom. 8. The Spirit is the Bond of this Union for 3. I know not whether it be mine in the terms expressed but if it were there was something said to explain it the Sense I am ready to defend it in is this that whatever Union Christ makes is compleat in it self such is vital Union in Regeneration where the Regenerated is altogether passive and all Regeneration is perfect tho' the regenerated is not every one conceived is perfectly conceived tho' the conceived is not perfectly grown every one born is perfectly born tho' every one born is not perfect so is every one born of the Spirit he hath compleat Life tho' he is not compleat in the Acts of Life compleatness of Life and compleatness in exercising the Acts of Life are to be distinguished Er. 5. It is a great Truth that God sees no Sin in a Believer and Sin can do no Hurt to a Believer God is not displeased with his People and is not angry with the Persons of Believers for their Sins A. Here are the 12 13 14 of the Rebuker's Articles crowded together As to the first I say 1. They are the Words of Scripture let the Exceptors shew and prove that the Spirit of God means quite contrary to what it saith in that Place Num. 21.21 and that all other Places of Scripture that confirm this Truth are false and mean quite contrary as when it saith a Believer is blessed his Sins being covered and not imputed Psal 32.1 2. This is Poyson but the meaning is He is blessed whose Sin is uncovered before God and his Iniquity imputed when God saith he doth not remember our Iniquities you must read it He doth remember our Iniquity Let them give a rational Sense of Jer. 50.20 Mic. 7.19 Jer. 31.34 Heb. 8.12 ch 10.17 But let them not take us to be so stupid as to understand this of the Eye of his Omnisciency but in respect of the Eye of his Justice Psal 51.9 when they give us any probable Interpretation of the forementioned Places of Scripture so to prove the Word of God false Num. 23. In the Sense we take it as I could never see yet the greatest of them ever did we will acknowledge it an Error in the mean time let them give us leave to believe it and receive it as an Article of Faith The second Clause the Rebukers 13 is That Sin can't do any real Hurt to a Believer A. Why is this charged upon the dissenting Brethren Did they ever hear any one of them assert it in Terminis he that uttered it in the Ardency of a popular Discourse was above 50 Years since and is it Blasphemy or Heresie to defend a good Man's Discourse by a charitable Interpretation If they had a Grain of Charity they may easily see that he meant not according to that gross Sense they would put upon the saying that he intended not to countenance Professors living in Sin nor in respect of Grief Sorrow and Darkness occasioned by a Believer's Fall into Sin but his meaning was 1. That their Falls into Sin should not prejudice that State of Union to Christ according to Rom. 8.35 36 37 38. 2. That tho' Sin remain in them yet they shall not have Dominion over them according to Rom. 6.14 15. 3. That tho' they fall they shall arise according to Mic. 7.8 4. That God will over-rule all the Falls of his Children for their Spiritual Good and Advantage according to Rom. 8.28 and therefore he saith real hurt The third thing here which is the Rebuker's 14th God is not displeased with his People i. e. their Persons A. Why do they not explain what they mean by God's displeasure do they mean Paternal or Vindictive If they mean Paternal in a way of Rebuke and Chastisment who denies it If they mean Vindictive we deny it Again why do they not tell us what they mean by God's People do they mean a Collection of Professing People Church or Nation Such may be the general Defection of these from their Profession never real and true that God's Vindictive Wrath may go forth against them as often against his People of Old Lastly God is never pleased with the Sins of his People therefore condemned all their Sins in the Flesh of Christ Rom. 8.3 But God is not displeased with the Persons of his People such as are called according to purpose because he loved them with an Eternal Love and he is a God that changeth not Art 6. Believers are as Righteous as Christ A. Most know who is Charged here it is one that is gone to give up his Account to his Lord and Master I doubt not but it is with Joy and that he hath received a Crown of Glory that fadeth not Tho' the Rebuker hath trampled upon his Bones and Memory in his Pride and Insolency and not only upon his but on those of that other Eminent Servant of God that is at rest with him And why Because both of them in their Life-time served their Generation in bearing faithful Testimony to the Truths of Jesus I need say nothing to this Article That worthy Servant of Christ spake enough to explain himself in that Position in his Printed Sermons which he Preached at Pinner's-Hall The sum of it was that he meant not in respect of Sanctification for there our best Holiness is imperfect therefore he means not in a way of
the Condition Resp Either the Neonomians have lost their understandings or think all other Men have and so think they may impose what they please upon them for here he distinguishes betwixt a conditional Gospel Covenant and a Gospel Covenant upon conditions a total Covenant and a partial a total upon conditions and a partial absolute upon performance of conditions and all these one new law Covenant a Covenant that pardons upon conditions and a Covenant absolutely pardoning upon conditions The total pardon if that which pardons all the World upon conditions not performed and yet it damns them too for non performances a pardoning Covenant that damns all for it remains not a pardon upon conditions when any one performs the conditions it s then absolute but did ever any one know that a conditional Covenant when the condition is performed absolute i.e. without conditions if any Man buy a House of his Neighbour for a Summ of Money will he say after he has paid his Money my Neighbour gave me this House for an absolute promise is a promise of free Gift He proceeds The one of these is that very Grace or Act of Grace it self as goes into that Act of Imputation or Act that imputes our Faith for Righteousness when the other still is the Effect or benefit following justification Resp The Man is in a Wood The one of these an act of Grace which of them That which hath conditional pardon without performance or that which upon performance becomes absolute the total general or the partial particular which I know not but one it is that is an Act of Grace going into the Act of Imputation Imputation is an Act of Justice in strict acceptation because its never but of righteousness tho' to bring righteousness to a sinner to whom the Law imputes righteousness is an act of Grace as Justification is but it must not be his own righteousness for that excludes Grace § 9. He is a little cautious of Mr. B's opinion that Justification is the making us righteous but he saith he will distinguish there is a making a Man just by infusion or by Imputation that by infusion is Regeneration which the Papists hold and which we distinguish from Justification Res The righteousness by which they 'll have a man justified is that of Regeneration and that of Works the Papists way has more of Grace in it because theirs is Justification of the ungodly as Regeneration is Sanctifying the ungodly Some he saith are for Justification by pardon and so a Man is righteous by non-imputation of Sin but he is not for this neither because he keeps pardon and non imputation of Sin for a consequent of Justification he will have a Man just in the Eye of the Law and yet under the imputation of Sin well how will he have it to be It s by imputation of what righteousness Christs no it s by Imputation of our Faith to us for righteousness Our Faith and Evangelical Obedience being imperfect and sinful and we are unrighteous in the Eye of the Law for all that but God in his judging us according to the Law of Grace doth allow of that i. e. Sin for Christ's sake instead of all which the Law requires to our Justification Resp Here you see what a parcel of righteousness this New Law righteousness is its imperfect sinful as to Sins of omission and commission and we are for all this righteous in the eye of the moral Law but God judging by the Law of Grace he allows all the Sin against his own Law for Christ's sake Christ hath merited Gods allowing our sinful righteousness i. e. Unrighteousness and justified us for it but seeing here is all this done by the Law of Grace how comes it to pass that it doth not pardon these Sins but they must go to another Bar for Pardon Why because the Law of Grace tho' it justifies the performer it pardons no Sin because no Law can suppose its own condition to be sinful but if there be Sin in the condition as these Men say again and again there is the Law of Grace allows it its certainly an Antinomian Law allows that Sin that Gods most Holy Law condemns God here must deny himself and to say he allows it for Christs sake is to make Christ the Minister of Sin die for allowance of Sin and establishing of it by Law and if God by a new Law hath established this sinful Obedience instead of all which the old Law required what need of asking pardon of the said Law Gods abolition or relaxation of the old Law and setting us upon Obedience to a New Law and the performances thereof instead of what the old Law required freed us from Sin and there needs no pardon for not performing perfect obedience for that would have been sin in the eye of the new law it requiring imperfect obedience imperfection and sinfulness being the formality of the condition and therefore it must needs forbid perfection as most contrary to it and condemn all glorified Saints § 10. By this may that expression of the Apostle he rightly understood God justifies the ungodly not in sensu divlso so that he that is so before his Justification is no longer so afterwards but in sensu composito our Faith or Evangelical Obedience in regard to the law he should have said the law of Works or in regard of those Works that are required by the law to our justification are no righteousness within its own nature therefore unrighteous would justifie us but God constitutes it so by the law of the Gospel and according to that law imputes it to us for righteousness Resp I need say no more to this but that it is both in sensu diviso composito an ungodly interpretation That God should make that righteousness by an after law which he had made moral unrighteousness by a former and impute that by one law for righteousness to Justification which he had imputed by another law for sin to condemnation Is God as Man that he should ly or as the Son of Man that he should repent The sence of the place is not difficult it is that justifies a sinner as such or else it s no act of Free Grace that when the Grace of Justification toucheth on the person of a sinner he is no more godly than when the Grace of Regeneration toucheth upon him tho the Grace of God lays hold on a sinner in both these respects finding them ungodly in all respects yet it leaves them not so His ensuing Supposition is very impertinent supposing that which never was nor never will be viz. That a Believer living regenerate can never be justified by the law of works by his own righteousness No he can be justified by no law neither did God ever make any law to account any mans unrighteousness righteousness I can call that unrighteousness which the law of Works condemns and God never intended by his Grace nor Christ
meaning is only that Justification of a sinner by the works of the old law is inconsistent but not Justification by the works of a new law whereas the design of the Apostle throughout is to disprove the Justification of a sinner by the works of a law any law he specifies not any one law in particular unless where he led to it but when he opposeth Works to Faith in Justification he speaks of law indefinitely excluding all works of any law whatever signified to us Gal. 3.2 If there had been any law given whereby life is given then righteousness had been by a law but there was no such law given § 6. The Apostle insists largely on this Dispute against Justification by works because it was a received Opinion among the Jews that a man might be justified by the works of the law and it was retained by many of them even after they were converted to the faith of Christ as appears Acts 21.20 Resp The Apostle insisted largely and strenuously on this Dispute in making and proving the direct opposition between Justification by the works of any law performed by us and Justification by faith in the righteousness of another 1. Because the Jews were generally bigotted to a righteousness of some law to be performed by them for Justification 2. Because they were generally ignorant of the righteousness of Christ which made them go about to establish their own righteousness in Point of Justification 3. What he writes to the converted Jews he doth 1. In order to convince them of the danger of joining their own righteousness in obedience to any law in Justification with the righteousness of Christ and this was the danger of the Galatians 2. He warns them of the vanity of the continuance of the works of Moses's law in order to Salvation Now Mr. Cl. brings the words of James to Paul Acts 21.20 to prove that the converted Jews sought Justification by the works of the Law of works To which I answer 1. That the unconverted Jews did none of them expect Justification by the works of the law of works for 1. They did not look upon their works as perfect works though they took the external obedience to be what the law mainly looked for which Christ refutes for they owned that their external works were mixed with much imperfection and sin Else 2dly They could not own the Doctrine of Sacrifices for sin wherein they saw the sinfulness of their works and were convinced at least thereof whether they saw by faith the Antitype signified by them or no and therefore could stand upon their works in themselves perfect in answer to the righteousness of that law but the Justification by works which they looked for was by an imperfect righteousness as the Neonomians do in obedience to the law of Moses which they made their new law as the Neonomians do the Gospel and therefore the Apostle saith that they sought it as it were by the works of the law it was Justification by works in their sence the Apostle preacheth accordingly against works as taken by themselves Rom. 9. Ans 2. As for the converted Jews spoken of Acts 21. they where for the observations of some things in the Obedience of Moses his Law as necessary means of Salvation not abolish'd by Christs coming in the Flesh and as the Apostles did not press harder upon them in that Point than only to leave them under an indifferency of using them or not provided they laid not the stress of their Justification thereon as appears by Acts 15. So here the charge against Paul which the Apostle James would have him clear himself of was that he contradicted the Apostles at Jerusalem in permitting the use of some Jewish Ceremonies as indifferent for the present by reason of the Jews weakness thou teachest the Gentiles to forsake Moses Now he shewed by his complying with James that whatever he taught the Gentiles yet he was not against complying with the Jews so far as to use yet some of Moses his appointment provided they made not such Actions of theirs the righteousness of Justification therefore tells the Galatians running on that Point that if they were circumcised Christ could profit them nothing Now this is clearly the Point he withstands Peter in and opposeth the Galatians in that he made his Saviour a Transgressor by his practice in judaizing contrary to the Doctrine he had preached in Justification by Christs righteousness alone As for the others they brought in another Gospel not one whatever they called it Hence the complaint against some believing Pharisees Acts 15.5 was that they taught the necessity of keeping Moses's Law unto full justification the conjoining our righteousness with his or that his righteousness meritted ours and therefore they were to observe Moses his Law as their own righteousness the New Law with them this Doctrine Peter opposeth in his speech unto ver 11. to which James agrees and proposeth an expedient ver 19 20. so that what the Pharisees attempted at Antioch and what the Galatians were seduced to was only the necessity of the works of a New Law as a sole or social righteousness with Christs for Justification Pro. 9.3 § 7. When he disputes against Justification by Works he means only the Works of the Law Resp He should have told us what Law the Apostles means Moral or Ceremonial or New Law or whether works of any Law whatever which we confidently affirm and if he make Gospel works Law works he disputes against them And this proposition of his he is large in proving with little Proof 1 It appears he saith by the Apostles wary close and restrictive way of speaking Rom. 3.20 The restrictiveness of that place we have spoken to and shewed the place is positively against all works of any Law Again we have shewed that Gal. 2.20 Is an absolute exclusion of the works of a Law any Law for as Mr. C. observes che works of a Law are three times excluded we shall not actum agere as near as may be Gal. 3. The design of the Apostle in that Chapter is to shew 1. That a believer of the Gentiles is blessed i. e. Justified by Faith with faithful Abraham ver 9. to prove this he argues thus either by Faith or by Works not by works of a Law any Law for saith he he that is a sinner and under a Law for Justification is under a Curse nor cannot come from under it by the works of it And that you may take an instance of the Voice of any Law take that of Moses ver 10. cursed is every one that abideth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moses his Law Because by a Law any Law no flesh living is justified with God or before God manifest because the just shall live by faith and shall draw the first breath of the life of Justification by faith and live that life always by
Counsels and Covenant-Compact with the Son as the Apostle saith expresly 1 Pet. 1.19 20. Christ as redeemer by his precious bloud as of a lamb without spot this is his righteousness who verily i. e. really as such was fore-ordained of God before the foundation of the world It was then the Plot and Contrivance of God and therefore may well be called the righteousness of God This Purpose and Grace to poor Sinners was first given us in the Person and Righteousness of Christ before the World began but was manifested since and especially at the first appearance of Christ in the flesh actually to work out this righteousness in abolishing Death and bringing Life and Immortality to Light in the said Gospel of Christ which he was a Preacher of this Head I might be large in insisting on from other places as Eph. 1.6 7 8 9. Prov. 8 30. Heb. 10.8 9. 2. It is the Righteousness of the Person who is God Acts 20.28 3. It s the only righteousness that God is well pleased with a sinner for and in which he makes his law honourable Isa 42.21 3. God hath called and anointed Christ thereto in righteousness Isa 42.6 i. e. to answer my law and righteousness therein and to perform the work of righteousness the Condition of the Covenant I have given thee for so Heb. 8.3 chap. 5.5 9.12 4. It s a Righteousness becoming the Grace of God as the gift of righteousness Rom. 5. and becoming the Perfect Justice and Law of God and therefore magnifies his Law c. and becoming the Wisdom of God therefore Christ is called the Wisdom of God and answers all the ends of God's Glory in Man's Salvation 5. It s the Righteousness of God in regard of the stateliness and highness thereof as the Trees of Lebanon were called the Trees of Jehovah Psal 104.16 6. In a way of opposition to all mens inherent righteousness which is humane mans righteousness only this is God's righteousness and be hath made Christ to be righteousness to us 1 Cor. 1.30 § 10. Now here is reason enough why Christ's Righteousness should be called the righteousness of God and that its plainly so intended in the Text appears 1. Because its a revealed righteousness that Man saw not before they can easily see their own own righteousness without Revelation they are addicted 2. It s the righteousness of Christ that is the righteousness of the Gospel of Christ the Gospel of Christ is called so because its the preaching Christ and him crucified 1 Cor. 3. and because it s his Gospel whereby he cometh and preacheth peace through his righteousness Eph. 2.14 15. 3. It s the righteousness of Christ because its the great object of Faith in Justification for its absurd to say our faith is the object of faith it s something without a man first that he believes upon faith is the evidence or Hypostacy of things not seen 4. It s opposed to the Anger and Wrath of God revealed in the Law v. 18. as that righteousness which answers it 5. The Apostle throughout this Epistle casts off and abandons all righteousness of ours as insufficient therefore this must be the righteousness intended 6. The Text is plain that the righteousness of God is spoken of objectively as to faith for a thing is revealed that it may be seen it s revealed from one act of faith to another and it is confirmed by the words of the Prophet the just shall live by faith on this righteousness believing in it and feeding upon it as their food of life and therefore is not in themselves but in the Gospel there as revealed for the import of the words should be according to those men I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ it is the power of God to Salvation for therein i. e. in the Gospel preached not in our selves is the righteousness of God revealed from one act of faith to another to be seen by it it is not said that faith is revealed to be the righteousness of God but the righteousness of God in the Gospel because it is the power of God to Salvation is revealed to our faith and to be that righteousness which is Gospel righteousness therefore not in our selves 3. The preaching thereof is the power of God to Salvation and that which a believers faith lives upon § 11. The next place Rom. 3.21 22. The Apostle in the 9th verse saith he proved both Jews and Gentiles under sin viz. under the transgression of the Moral Law as plainly appears by his Proof unto v. 19. now saith he they are under the law in that they are convict by the law even the whole World by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that law not the Ceremonial but Moral against which all the forementioned transgressions are committed and Gentiles who were never under the Ceremonial Law as well as Jews Now saith the Apostle seeing that by this Moral Law the World is condemned its impossible that any works of obedience to any law whatever should for if any other law comes to milder terms unless this law be rescinded its impossible any man can be righteous before God hence he concludes therefore by the deeds of the law i. e. any law no flesh can be justified in Gods sight whatever Law men may pretend to God will judge and try all by the Moral Law for a sinner and transgressor of God's law can have the knowledge of sin by it i. e. Conviction but no Salvation by any righteousness of his performance What then must all the World perish therefore for want of a righteousness No God hath provided a righteousness he doth not say God hath repealed his Law and made a new one the righteousness of God without a new law is evident or made manifest in the Gospel which is witnessed by the Law i. e. of Moses in the Doctrine of Sacrifices and by the Prophets that have prophesied of Christ v. 22. even the righteousness of God which is by the faith of Jesus Christ viz. the righteousness of Christ which faith lays hold on which is by faith i. e. which we receive by faith for it may be said what is this righteousness of God saith the Apostle it is in Christ how have it we in Christ by faith Now saith he it s unto all i. e. imputed unto all and upon all as a covering or robe of righteousness by the faith of every Believer by the least as well as the greatest by a Gentile Believer as well as a Jew there 's no difference in the degree of righteousness nor in the imputation of it nor application of it all Believers are equally and alike righteous in Christ's righteousness which is the righteousness of God and the reason added for all have sinned and justified freely by Gods grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ § 12. Now it appears that the righteousness of God is Christ's righteousness That righteousness that fully and compleatly satisfied
the Promise the Lord Jesus Christ and his righteousness that he believed 2. The Scripture saith his faith worked by love therefore it was not a dead faith he was called the friend of God he was from the greatness of love he had to God ready to yield any obedience to God thence the Apostle denies not that he was justified by faith only as to his Person but that God declared and witnessed also to his obedience as approved of by him which in the sence the Apostle is speaking of was a Justification as to his Faith and the goodness of it in his particular acts of obedience v. 24. you see therefore that a man is justified by works a man may have an approbation of his works and a commendation from God for them and not of his faith only God may commend and approve of a mans works as well as his faith for indeed it is a Justification by way of commendation and approbation of a mans faith and works which the Apostle James here speaks of Likewise v. 25. Rahab the harlot was she not justified by works i. e. did she not approve her self to be a true Believer when she received the messengers and had sent them out another way The World would be apt to condemn this action of Rahab as treachery to her Native Country and therefore God justifies her in this particular action that it was good being done in faith God witnesseth to it in his Word and justifies her as a Believer in foro mundi by this eminent act of her v. 26. whence having given these instances he concludes as a body without a spirit is dead so is faith without works dead and that was the thing which he undertook to prove that faith i. e. supposed or professed is dead if it be fruitless hence he saith Believers have been justified to be so by God in giving Testimony to their works as true fruits of saving faith Wherefore we may conclude that James and Paul are agreed in all 1. That James speaks of faith in general a Profession of Christian Faith and that such Profession is empty and profitable to our selves and others as also dead in it self if it is not justified by good works so the Apostle Paul often speaks of saving faith and our Saviour Christ that we can have no better Argument of each others truth of faith than the fruit growing upon the tree this is without question to v. 19. 2. He proves it in that they were true Believers had a double Justification 1 By Faith only and here he concurs with Paul concerning his Justification before God v. 23. and yet he had such a faith as wrought by love for the Scripture calls him the friend of God 2. That there is a Justification of a Person as to a particular act as well as his Person and State and therefore the instance of Abraham's offering his Son and Rahab is brought in and this is that Justification which the Apostle Paul speaks not so much of but the Spirit of God doth in several cases as Abel and Enoch God testifying some way to their Services in foro mundi and so Job whom God justified against the unjust charges of his Friends so Phineas his zeal for the glory of God in the matter of Cosbi that seemed a rash and mutinous piece of Usurpation God justified him in it declared his high approbation thereof Hence James speaks of faith that accompanies salvation at large and condemns that as false and hypocritical that is not fruitful 2. He speaks of Justification at large which is by faith in foro divino before God and in foro humano before Men by works and fruits of faith that in foro divino is by faith only without works 1. In that he saith no works of ours can answer God's law v. 10. He that keeps or pretends to keep the whole law and offends in one point is guilty of all whence ariseth this unanswerable Argument They that cannot keep the whole law of God without offending in out point can never be justified before God by works but none can do so Ergo. 2. He asserts Justification by faith before God in the instance of Abraham's faith using the same Expression and doth not deny this to be true Justification and full before God but only Abraham brought forth the fruits before Men from his faith working by love he is called the friend of God thus God justified him in his obedience as a true Believer Ergo he concludes as all true faith so true justifying faith hath such fruit 3. James shews how God often bears witness and approves of particular actions which men are ready to condemn such as Abraham's offering up his Son and Rahab's giving up the City and such a Testimony that they performed it by faith in Christ and his Righteousness for no other are approved of by God as Gospel-Works and thus you have the full scope of James not contradicting the Apostle Paul at all but speaking only of another Justification in foro humano in the effects that Men see and the approbation that God gives § 6. Hence I answer Mr. Cl. who saith the same Justification is intended by Paul and James I say James intends the same Justification before God in foro Dei aut â—egis when he speaks of Justification by Faith but he intends not the same when he speaks of Justification by works he intends as Paul doth so far as he speaks of Justification by Faith but when he speaks of the same persons justification by works it intends only Gods declaration of his approbation of the particular Acts of obedience and bearing witness thereto of the true faith in foro humano by word or evidences as in that whole of Hebr. 11. And in divers other Scripture James speaks of Justification of a mans person It is true and here it s ascribed to his faith the righteousness he receives by faith is imputed to him but the faith is not all the approbation that he hath not all his Justification he is also justified coram hominibus He doth not say works were imputed to him for righteousness But he and his works for his person then his obedience being accepted by God in Christ God witnesseth before men to his faith and obedience and to his faith by owning his obedience So that he speaks both of the Justification of his person and of his faith too but in divers respects 2. Can his faith save him Implying that tho faith without works cannot save yet faith with works will for Saved and Justified both belong to the same Subject R. True but that doth not prove that Justifying and Saving is in all respects the same for there may be works as well as faith in that respect saving because both accompany Salvation but it s not therefore that Saving in all respects is Justifying for there 's saving in sanctification and glorification and tho faith without it be such as in time
of our Sins And Procopius he saith expresseth it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not this as a Surety And yet he saith here is nothing like Suretiship to pay our Debts for us Now if the Bp. had pleased to read out the Chapter he might have seen two Verses more wherein this Truth is litterally express V. 11. He shall bear their Iniquities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shall take their Iniquities as a Burden on his Shoulders to carry them away as the Scape-Goat did the Iniquities of the Children of Israel And the lxx renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall take up their Iniquities upon him And V. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall bear the Sin of many shall the Spirit of God express it self to one thing so fully and plainly and all fly away at the Puff of a Bp. as Chaff before the Wind What is all that this learned Bp. hath said to refute this Doctrine of Christ's bearing our Sins and satisfying for them as our Debts to Divine Justice but this Here 's nothing like Christ's Suretiship to pay our Debts for us we will not take his Word for it till he proves that Sin is not a Debt to the Law of God when Christ hath told us it is 2. Till he shews any other credible way of bearing another's Faults besides this way of Suretiship till 3dly He shews and proves against the Apostle Peter that there is no other way of paying Debts on purchasing or redeeming than with plain Silver and Gold § 17. He proceeds to shew us the great Harm of Christ's being a Surety to pay our Debts of Sin p. 107. 1. Then Christ hath fully discharged our Debts already This is one Mischief of it but God forbid it should that Christ should do Harm in paying any Man's Debts but to do it by halves is to pay some only and leave others for us to pay How did he satisfie God's Justice if he gave not full Satisfaction God forbid that Christ should leave a Farthing for us to pay 2. The second Mischief is that we have nothing to do towards the Payment of our Debt all that we have to do is to believe and to be thankful for all this Transaction was long since past without Consideration of any Act on our parts A. Is it a Harm that Christ hath done so much for us in way of Satisfaction and Purchase that he hath left nothing of ours to put in for a Share in this Honour no not our believing it self I take it to be the Glory of Christ and the blessed Priviledge of Believers that he hath provided for Believers such a Furniture of Grace that they shall believe on him bear his Image walk in his Steps to the Glory of his Name in all Thankfulness and new Obedience The third Mischief is that it nulls all Faederal Conditions on our part but of this more afterward 4. That we can't suffer for those Sins that are already discharged Is this such a Harm It 's neither Reason or Justice that we should pay a Debt to the Law which is already discharged Christ hath born all the Sins of Believers in the deserved Punishments thereof hence the Sufferings of the Saints are not Penal nor can be but are Blessings for their Good purchased by Christ for them § 18. The Bp. saith There 's but one place of Scripture to be found to favour this Sense of the Suretiship of Christ viz. Heb. 7.22 It is easie to instance in many places that favour it and prove it it being as I may say the very Marrow of the Gospel but as to this place it expresly calls Christ a Surety and it is the more remarkable as to our present purpose that as the Spirit of God hath called Sins Debts and Christ's Suffering a Price paid and expresly excluding Payment by Silver or Gold so Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which as Lexicog say doth primarily signifie a Surety for Money Hence it appears the Spirit of God makes much of the Metaphor of Debt and Payment to confirm our Faith in this that there 's no better account of the Nature of Sin than a Debt to God's Justice and no better account of the Sufferings of Christ than that they were a Payment of this Debt to the Justice of God And what if it be but in one place of Scripture When a Truth is so fully and plainly expressed in one Text it is enough there are many Truths of great weight are so besides the marvellous Concurrence of other texts of Scripture to the tenor thereof But he saith this text speaks of a Covenant not of the Surety of a Covenant A. What is it that makes a Debt is not a Covenant or compact But it is of a better Covenant i. e. a Surety to pay the Debts of the old Covenant of Works but brought in by a better Covenant the new Covenant being a Covenant of Grace answering the Ends of God's Grace more than the old doing that which the old could not do to save Sinners by a Righteousness which is not their own but better in that it hath a Surety that it brings in to engage unto God to pay all our Debts due to the Justice of God from us under the old Covenant which had no Surety Heb. 7.19 makes it better in nothing else but the bringing in a better Hope viz. the Surety But he positively denies that Christ was to pay our debts unto God If so what 's the reason the Church prays Forgive us our Debts when God's way of Forgiveness of a Sinner as asserted in Scripture is by bringing in a Surety to pay his debts of Sin Col. 1.14 In whom we have Redemption thro' his Blood even the Forgiveness of Sins But what a Surety is it that he will have Christ to be Sure it is the same the Socinians will have to be only i. e. a Surety to engage for God to us not for us to God but a Surety only for the Truth and Faithfulness of God in his Promises See his Words p. 110. § 18. The Bp. takes notice of some dissenting Brethren he might better said of Protestants dissenting from the Church of Rome who talk much of Surety Righteousness and of Christ's being our Surety as to the Payment of our Debts because the Debtor may be said to pay the Sum the Surety lays down for him and that God doth account that Believers do pay that Debt of Obedience which Christ hath paid in their Stead because they are a legal Person with Christ and all this depends upon this mistaken Notion of Suretiship A. It is very sad that so plain Scripture should corrupt our Minds with mistaken Notions how shall we know we are mistaken or not in any then Or that we do know the Mind of the Spirit in them if when we have a plain text expressing a Truth according to the plain and undeniable Sence of other texts of Scripture not only
believe with all thy Heart c. that must be a real receiving of Christ He that hath the Son hath Life 1 John 5.11 12. The Sinner first receives Christ after sees and knows he hath received Christ himself V. 13 and 20. And we own there may be presumption where there 's an appearance of believing and knowing only there need not be such sputter as he makes about these matters neither doth it profit his cause Object But while we were Sinners Christ Died for us so saith the Apostle Rom. 5. and others after him Two things thereby signified 1. That Christ Died for us under that Consideration for he came not to Save those that are Righteous but those that were Sinners 2. That it was long ago that Christ Died while we were in the first Adam and in an unregenerate state Sinners of the Gentiles to which he rejoins thus How then must every Sinner believe that Christ Died for him A. Every Sinner under the Call of the Gospel is to believe in Christ for Life and Salvation according to the constant tenor of the Gospel but to know Christ did bear his Sins and die for him results from this Believing He that hath the Son i. e. by believing hath Life Receiving is first before knowing that a Man hath Received and it is Gospel truth that Christ bore the Sins of every one that truly believes and every one is an Elect Person whose Sins Christ bore For if the Apostle spake true he that makes sure his Calling makes sure his Election Then saith the Bp. here is Universal Redemption asserted in its full extent and what is more here is Universal Election too if all Men can believe that their Sins are forgiven A. Let us examine the Bp's fallacious Arguing 1. The Gospel is indefinitely preached to all under the Call thereof and directed to all Sinners without any exception he that believes on the Lord Jesus shall be saved is this an Argument that Redemption is Universal or that all are Saved or Elected It 's said as many as were Ordained unto Life believed therefore it cann't be said that every one doth or can believe John 12.39 2. See how foully this Man imposeth by charging his opposites with saying That all Men can believe that their Sins are forgiven p. 133. or to charge this as p. 132. That a Man's Sins are forgiven because he believes that they are forgiven being laid on Christ whereas a Man believes because his Sins are forgiven and laid on Christ for Christ bearing our Sin is the Cause of believing and not the Effect At least conditional Election follows upon it he saith We see he suspected his first consequence and therefore poacheth in another This may serve for a Professed Armin. but the Bp. I suppose would not have been accounted so the Argument is because Men are Saved in and by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ therefore Election is upon foresight of Faith but we say Men are as absolutely Elected unto Faith as unto Glory The controversie of Conditional Election is not here to be entered upon but we assert that it follows more upon the Bp's Hypothesis than ours § 26. He adds its ground enough of presumption as to all such as can believe that their Sins are forgiven A. Those that can believe their Sins are forgiven can believe through the Grace of God working it nay they have attained to a great measure of Grace How doth presumption consist with can Believe B. What can hinder any Man more from Repentance and forsaking his Sins than to be told that the first Act of Saving Faith is to believe his Sins is forgiven R. Where is any one that will teach an Unbeliever to Believe his Sins are forgiven in the state of Unbelief But we find the Voice of the Gospel to the Unbeliever is to invite and call him to believe the Gospel which saith that this is a Saying worthy of all acceptation That Christ came into the World to save Sinners that he bore Man's Sin and was made Sin and Curse for them and that the Sinner should come in particular and apply himself to Christ for this Pardon and Forgiveness that is in Christ for with him is Pardon and Plentiful Redemption He is a Fountain opened for Sin and Uncleanness and if a Fountain then not an empty Object of Faith but full of Pardon and of all the Grounds and Reasons of a Sinner's Faith and Hope Now how doth such coming to Christ and closing with him in a free Promise hinder Repentance and embolden them unto Sin For the Apostle saith Sin shall not have Dominion over you because you are under the Grace of God in the Promise and he shews Sin will reign over a Man while he is under the Law But the Gospel Preacheth Repentance in order to Remission R. It Preacheth Repentance and Remission to shew that where there is Repentance to Life there is Remission and where there is Remission received by Faith there will be Repentance in a Believing coming to God through Christ The Soul cann't turn from Sin to God but by a believing Repentance neither can any Repentance be unto Life unless it be a turning from Sin to God thro' Jesus Christ Hence Faith and Repentance are frequently put for one another or in one the other included When the Scripture speaks of the first Act of the Sinners coming unto God yea not only the first act of true Faith but all other are inseparable from Repentance as from other Graces Love Hope c. Though both Repentance Love and Hope are distinct Graces and Fruits of the Spirit from Faith and from each other This lastly I affirm as the truth of the Gospel that there can be no true Repentance antecedent in Nature to true Faith Faith being the first effect of Spiritual Life in one that is effectually called Bp Repentance is commanded and Baptism commanded therefore they are conditions R. The Antecedent is true but the consequence follows not if he meant new Covenant Conditions For all things and Duties Commanded are not therefore foederal Conditions For that Grace which God works by his Word and Spirit is very absurdly called a Condition of a Covenant that God makes with a Sinner But observe he makes Repentance such a condition as Baptism if so what inseparable connection is there as there should be in this Case between the condition and promise for will any say that he that is not Baptized shall be Damn'd The Scripture saith not so besides the Seal of a Bond is not the Condition of the Obligation but only a Ratification Whether Mr. R. B. did Socinianize The Chief thing discussed by the Bp in his third Chapter is whether Mr. B. was a Socinian from which Charge he makes as if he would Vindicate him I shall briefly examine how he acquits himself in this difficult undertaking The sum and substance of Mr. B's Opinion in this Point was That our Sins were no proper
Sir I shall no longer detain you from the ensuing Discourse but subscribe my self Yours in all Truth and Faithfulness J. C. THE DOCTRINE OF Iustification Explained and Vindicated c. CHAPTER I. Of the Doctrine of Iustification and the Neonomian Opposition thereto Section 1. The Article of the Assembly § 2. How opposed in the universality of Grace and qualification of the person justified § 3. How Neonomianism agrees with Papists and Quakers in Justification by Infused Righteousness § 4. How they oppose in Pardon of Sin and Imputing Righteousness § 5. Their agreement with the Papists in Justification by Works § 6. The Papists Talk of a New Law § 7. Quakers Doctrine of Justification § 8. The Socinian Doctrine of Justification § 9. The Arminian Justification § 10. Inference § 11. They assert Justification not for Christ's sake alone 12. Neonomians affirm Imputation of the Act of Faith § 13. They deny the Imputation of Christs Obedience and Satisfaction § 14. How they account Faith a qualifying Condition § 15. Conclusion Sect. 1. ASsembl conf cap. 11. § 1. Those whom God effectually calleth he also freely justifieth not by infusing Righteousness into them but by pardoning their Sins and by accounting and accepting their Persons as righteous Not for any thing wrought in them or done by them but for Christ's sake alone nor by imputing Faith it self the Act of believing nor any other Evangelical Obedience to them as their righteousness but by imputing the Obedience and Satisfaction of Christ unto them they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith which Faith they have not of themselves it is the gift of God To this Doctrine here delivered with the greatest Exactness according to the Word of God is the Doctrine of Neonomianism diametrically opposite as will abundantly appear § 2. They say Whom God effectually calleth he justifieth Mr. B. saith God justifieth all the World and he and Mr. H. ' That Christ redeemed all the World in which there are Millions that were never or will be effectually called 2. That God freely justifieth This is fuller expressed in the Larger Catechism Q. 70. Justification is an act of God's free grace unto Sinners Rom. 3.21 23 24. for the free Grace is demonstrated in the Object that Justification falls upon Justification considered in it self is an act of Justice but the Free Grace lies in bringing Justification upon a Sinner as such not as qualified by righteousness of his own under any Denomination whatsoever Christ died for the ungodly for enemies while yet sinners Rom. 5.6 7 8 9. it is such chap. 3. that are said to be justified chap. 4.5 by free Grace it is such that have sinned and come short of the glory of God as all he saith have both Jews and Gentiles such as are described from v. 10. of whom none are righteous no not one but full of all sin and wickedness as expressed with the highest aggravation unto v. 19. Now our Neonomians say it s of Free Grace because Justification is an Instance of Grace but by Mr. Cl's favour it must be in the Justification of a Sinner not of a just one and therefore it s said freely by Grace because he hath nothing nor brings any thing in or from himself 2. He saith It s in respect of what is required of us or in us Faith is wrought in us and it s of Free Grace that he accepts of Faith and imputes it to us for righteousness This by the Assembly is rejected as False Doctrine altho Faith and all the Graces of the Spirit are of Grace yet neither Faith or any of them are our righteousness for Justification neither doth God accept it as such nor impute it Mr. Cl. mightily perverts Rom. 4.16 therefore it is of faith ' i. e. the righteousness before spoken of is such as he received by faith he saith not therefore it is faith that it might be of grace because as Grace gives freely so Faith receiveth freely and is not so proud as to call it self righteousness but gladly humbly and thankfully receives the gift of righteousness which Grace bestows and Justice accepts and imputes to Justification § 3. Not by infusing righteousness into them The Assembly doth here exclude the Popish Justification at which Mr. H. inveighs and so doth J. G. for indeed there 's but a pair of Shears between the Papists and Neonomians for the Papists mean only That we have the righteousness for Justification by infusion and so says the other they say indeed Infusion is of Sanctification and it is so and we say Justification is only a relative Grace as it finds nothing in the justified so it puts nothing but the Neonomians say It must find a righteousness infused and there implanted in the justified for which he is justified or by which it s all one as we shall make appear anon in a word tho the Neonomians say The infusion of grace is not justification yet they say Grace infused is our righteousness for Justification and here they do concur with the Papists Quakers and others in confounding Justification and Sanctification together § 4. But by pardoning their sins The Neonomians will not have Pardon to be any part of Justification but an effect of it only we affirm it to be an essential part of Justification By accounting and accepting their persons as righteous The Neonomians say it s by accounting and accepting their imperfect obedience for righteousness God's Justification is first of the Person and then of their Services as Abel's but their Justification is first of their Services and so it is always in legal Justification never in that of Free Grace for in a meer Legal Justification Persons cannot be accepted before the Work done but the Person is accepted for the Work sake Not for any thing wrought in them or done by them The Papists Neonomians Quakers Socinians Arminians all say its for or by what 's wrought in us or done by us Pap. Cons Trid. There is one only formal cause of Justification and that is the righteousness of God not that whereby he is righteous but whereby he makes us righteous with which we being endowed are renewed in the spirit of our minds and are truly called righteous and are righteous c. Upon which Bellarmine saith the State of the whole Controversie may be reduc'd to this plain Question Whether our inherent righteousness be the formal cause of our own absolute Justification which he maintains in the Affirmative and this is the Question in Controversie exactly which our Neonomians plead for in the like manner tho some more obscurely and sophistically but others more honestly in speaking out plainly what they mean such as Mr. B. Mr. H. and Mr. Cl. Bellarmine also blames Kemnitius for dealing fraudulently in not distinguishing between propter and per saying with the Council of Trent That Christ's Righteousness is the propter the cause for which we we are justified and our own inherent
of Eternal State Where are we now what a Justification is this by the New Law wherein our eternal state is not concerned Well! but our Justification in this life is not yet perfect not by Christ because he takes off only eternal punishment but temporal he hath left to us to remove by Repentance performing the righteousness of the New Law I hope this righteousness falling in to help Christ's it will produce perfect Justification No it wont this righteousness takes away our Sins and Punishment wholly but sometimes and sometimes only in part and what 's the reason where 's the fault why it falls upon this New Law which is always fulfilling and never fulfilled it will never justifie any one till the last day and it cannot do it then without the perfect righteousness of the Old Law § 7. Let 's take Mr. Cl's Definition of Justification into consideration a little He saith The Definition of Justification so far as it relates to God is thus Justification is an act of God whereby he accounts us righteous at present and treats us as such and will solemnly declare and pronounce us so at the last day of Judgment Resp He should have told us what act of God whether immanent or transient whether an act of Grace or Justice or both he should have told us the object of that act whether a meer sinner or a righteous person he will tell us anon it s a righteous person and he saith accounting him so at present if this accounting him be in a law sense it s but Imputation at most and this is that and all that he doth at present he finds them holy and righteous and judgeth them to be as they be but doth not God declare them righteous at present neither in foro Legis nor in foro Evangelii nor in foro conscientiae in none of these at present when then the very Sentence of Justification is not till the last day so that indeed there is none justified till then for a suspended sentence keeps the person whatever Opinion the Judge hath of him under the Law in Prison and in continual fear of Condemnation so that they are all the day long for fear of Death subject to Bondage § 8. Hence he infers two things 1. That Justification while we are in this life is but partial imperfect and incompleat and that we shall not obtain fully compleat entire and final Justification for all the effects of sin till the Day of Judgment To which I answer Where there is but an imperfect partial Justification there must be a partial Condemnation it cannot be denied but the Apostle denys it and saith there 's no condemnatien to them that are in Christ Jesus 2. The law knows no such thing a man is either perfectly justied for the same thing or perfectly condemned there 's no Medium betwixt Justification and Condemnation 3. If the New Law do not perfectly justifie a person then it condemns too at the same time that when ever the Parator of righteousness takes himself to be justified he is bound to believe himself condemned also and whether will stand good at the last Day he knows not either his Justification or Condemnation CHAP. VI. Of Pardon Section 1. Whether Remission of Sin belongs to Justification § 2. Remission distinguished by Mr. H. § 3. Of general Remission § 4. Conditional Pardon antecedent to a mans Justification § 5. Actual Pardon subsequent to a mans Justification Sect. 1. MR. Cl's Second Inference is That Justification doth not properly consist in Pardon afterward he saith a man is first righteous and then pardoned to which we have spoken something Mr. H. makes a fearful pudder about this Point we will a little inspect his Notions Mediocr p. 44 55. Our Divines do generally place Justification in remission of Sins and so do the Papists and so did I my self Resp Remission of Sins is upon good grounds placed in Justification as an essential part of the Justification of a Sinner and I can boldly deny that sinner to be justified whose sins are not forgiven and to separate them is as possible as to separate homo animal rationale The Law any Law nay your New Law cannot justifie a sinner and declare him righteous unless in that very act of declaring him righteous his sins are taken away in foro legis and this is God's Remission tho not Man 's for his ways are not as mans and whereas Mr. H. makes remission of sins to be a benefit after Justification as an effect of it we say it is a benefit in Justification and the first thing in it in Nature for its impossible any one should stand righteous in the eye of any Law that stands chargeable as a transgressor thereof But remission must not saith Mr. H. be the formal reason of Justification Resp The form of an Act and the formal reason of that Act are two things the material reason of Justification is righteousness and the formal cause is imputation of that righteousness Justification comes in as the acquitting Sentence opposed as Mr. B. saith to condemnation which ex natura rei must formally carry in it forgiveness of sins He proceeds To forgive a mans sins and declare him rigeteous are two inconsistencies one with another in the same respect Resp Cujus contrarium verum in Justification of a Sinner they are most consistent and inseparable that in declaring a sinful man righteous his sins are also done away its true in mans way of Pardon there is some inconsistency because his is by dispensing with his Law but God's way of forgiveness is in and through the satisfaction of his Law but I must tell him that here no Man is looked upon as righteous in the eye of man's law that hath transgressed it till he is first pardoned and therefore when God pronounceth a man just it is according to the law of faith when he pardons his sins it is in respect of the law of works Resp Here are two Bars now he saith elsewhere he likes not two bars I would fain know now at which of these Bars a sinner is most justified either by the law of Works where all his sins are forgiven and therefore consequently must be made righteous or at the Bar of the New Law where he saith the man is declared just but imperfectly so and therefore goes away with his sins upon his Back to the Law of Works to have them pardoned Is it not pretty Divinity then to say a man is declared righteous first at the Bar of the Law of Faith and then all the Bed-role of his sins are pardoned at the Bar of the Law of Works § 2. He comes to distinguish of Remission It s either conditional and universal as it lies in the Covenant and is the purchase of Christ or actual as it lies in application thereof to particular persons upon performance of the conditions Resp This Distinction is a great Point among the Neonomians Mr. B.
makes much use of it in his Vniversal Redemption the Story is this They feign that God finding the inconvenience of the law of works by reason of the Fall his Son satisfied not the law broken but compounded with God as Lord above Law that this law should be relapsed saith Mr. H. Mr. B. saith that it might be abrogated which is more rational tho it is more downright Antinomianism which scares Mr. H. Christ accordingly dies to purchase a New Law with condition of imperfect obedience instead of the perfect the propounding or promulgating this New Law to all the world is universal remission it being the offer of Remission on the condition of imperfect obedience to all the World in this sence all the world they say is redeemed justified and forgiven before they perform that condition Now if any others besides Neonomians should talk at this rate they would be in danger of being taken up and sent to Bethlem for Madmen As if a Company suppose the E. India set up their Bills for a Sale at a certain time after prefixt with the respective Prizes if one or all should run about the City before the day of Sale prefixt and say they had sold their Goods at such and such Prizes all men will call them Liars or Madmen So because God proffers eternal life upon performance of a condition therefore all men are redeemed justified and forgiven i. e. say they conditionally and that 's not at all till they perform the condition but Neonomians may talk non-sence and contradict by the New Law yea and assert Justification before Faith while they call others Antinomians who do it when they are the greatest Antinomians themselves in the World Now the noise that they make about the Merit and Purchase of Christ it s no more than his purchasing the New Law of Works and they are justified by the performing the condition of the new law for the sake of Christ's Merits its only because as Mr. H. tells us that Christ by his Merits was an efficient of the New Law so that generally in all they talk of Christ's Satisfaction and Merits there 's some cheat or Amphibology Mr. H. indeed speaks out most honestly in as good as telling us that Neonomians are Papists in the Point of Justification But to proceed § 3. When Divines say we can do nothing our selves for procuring reconciliation and remission it is to be understood of conditional universal remission Resp What Divines understand so they are not the Protestants it s only the Neonomians who are no Protestants in the Point of Justification These Divines understand only that we cannot purchase the conditional universal Remission the Purchase of that it seems was peculiar to Christ but as for particular Remission these men purchase and Reconciliation too Christ purchased that we might purchase and tho he purchased the new law and promulgation of it yet he purchased not the performance of the Condition for such hard terms they will keep Christ too that he may not entrench on their Dignity § 4. Conditional Pardon is antecedent to a mans Justification and contained in our redemption in whom we have redemption through his blood the forgiveness of sins Resp Conditional Pardon is none it s no more than the offer of a Bargain to any that will come to the Terms As if I should offer to Lett my House for so much Money by a Bill over the Door and then say I have Lett my House to all the men in London And its strange that all men should be pardoned and redeemed and not justified but I think R. B. saith they are justified and I am sure they may be as well justified as pardoned However he owns Pardon in Redemption and this antecedent to Faith sure then Justification which with us is inseparable from Faith is not Antinomianism And is it possible any Divine should abuse the Scripture so as to wrest it to such a sense that the Apostle should by Remission there mean such as is contained in universal Redemption Col. 1.14 whereas the Apostle speaks of Redemption in particular application for the words preceeding v. 13. are who hath delivered us from the power of darkness and hath translated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son verse 14. In whom we have redemption § 5. Actual Remission is subsequent to Justification for we must be supposed first to have performed the condition and be pronounced righteous and then pardoned when there is no remission then but doth go before or follow Justification it cannot be made the very act it self of Justification Resp Let us try a little for it 1. He saith actual remission is subsequent to Justification now we are come into Mr. Cl's road he seems not to be so well acquainted with the Mystery of the antecedent remission and it s so indeed for it seems it is but potential remission it s not actual nay it s a contingent potentia there is pardon and none pardoned the meaning is that the New Law made all the world pardonable upon a contingent condition 2. We find a pretty odd invention here 's Justification beset with Remission before and behind and yet no Remission in it a man pardoned and not justified and then justified and not pardoned and truly if this subsequent Pardon be no better than the antecedent the Neonomian Justification is destitute of Pardon before and behind too I wonder all Protestant Divines do not nauseate such Whims as these 3. But is it possible that he should say that pardon cannot be made the act of Justification surely these forget what they are talking of is it not conditional Pardon the New Law promiseth how can there be Justification by the New Law of him that performs the condition but by pardon in the act of Justification for if the New Law saith believe and thou shalt be pardoned the new law when it justifies the Believer must pardon him and now we have help at a dead lift just now it was that tho our new law could justifie yet it could not pardon but we are fain to go to the old Law Bar to fetch a Pardon and trouble Christ about it too but we have found now that the new law can pardon for if it pardon all the World conditionally it can pardon particular persons actually when they perform the conditions CHAP. VII The Neonomian Doctrine of Iustification Examined Section 1. Mr. H's Definition of Justification § 2. Imperfect Obedience not to be accepted by God to Justification § 3. Justification not without Life § 4. Of the Form of Justification 5. What is the account of Christ's righteousness § 6. Christ's Merits put to account are imputed § 7. Distinction between Pardon and bearing with our defects § 8. A Pardon general becomes absolute § 9. Justification by Infusion and by Imputation distinguished § 10. Of Justifying the Vngodly § 11. Whether Old Law Righteousness or New be best § 12. Mr. H's Mystery which he saith
Dr. O. did not understand MR. H. defines Justification thus It is an act of God's free Grace whereby God imputes to every sound Believer his Faith for Righteousness upon the account of Christ's Satisfaction and Merit giving him Pardon and Life as the benefits of it Right of God p. 25. Resp For the Genus he refers the proof to the Assembly but he representeth himself short of the Assembly who say Justification is an act of God's free Grace unto sinners for which they quote Rom. 3.21 24 25. Now Justification barely considered as such is an act of Justifice unless it be spoken with this condition and I find Mr. H's Notion of it will not bear this connection for his Justification is of a person only that is subjectively righteous our Justification and his are distinguished toto genere for he saith the object of his Justification is a righteous person to such an one Justification is due it s no act of Grace to justifie such an one a sound Believer By Faith he means Repentance and New Obedience as the conditional terms of the New Law which being performed by any one he is not justified by free Grace but legally he can challenge it by the New Law § 2. This Faith and New Obedience tho imperfect God accepts in the room of perfect righteousness not accounting it perfect Resp It is absurd to say God accepts it in the room of perfect for if so it should come in in place and room of the perfect in the Covenant of Works God putting out that condition and putting in this but this imperfect comes as terms in another law so it hinders not the terms of another 2. No why should God account it perfect if it be as they say but the law of God is perfect and tho God judgeth the righteousness morally imperfect in comparison of the righteousness of the first law yet he must reckon it a perfect condition of the new law it being as much as the law requires and therefore a condition perfectly performed for else it can never be pleaded or imputed at its Bar but he saith he accepts it if he accept it its by its self or for the sake of a better righteousness now no law can accept any righteousness by its self but it must be esteemed by its self to be a full righteousness compleatly to answer the demands of the said law if the law accept it for or in the righteousness of another it thereby declares the insufficiency of the man 's own righteousness being such as the law cannot justifie him for but the sufficiency of the other righteousness for which he justifies him this now will bring in Christ and his obedience into the new law where our Neonomians will permit him to have nothing to do but only as a Legislator as for his Obedience and Satisfaction it belonged to the old law only with purchase of the new-remedying law Lastly its Nonsence that any law or God in a law should impute Faith and Obedience for righteousness which is not perfectly so according to the law constitution but he doth it upon the account of the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ How upon the account and is the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ put in the Ballance with our imperfect righteousness to make it up or is Christ's righteousness imputed to it that it cannot be unless imputed to the person which he denies how then must we understand this Gentleman for the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ is only effective because Christ was so kind as to purchase Merit and satisfie God for the new law without which he could not have been justified by our imperfect righteousness and this is all they intend by it for the Merits of Christ's sake a plain and facile simile may be given A Man ows a great deal of Money to his Creditor that 's suing of him in Court a friend of the Debtor and Creditor interposeth and brings the Creditor to a Composition of 10 s. 5 s. or 1 s. in the pound these Writings brought into the Court the Action is dismissed for the Merits Purchase and procurement of this person who now brought the Debtor under the new law of Composition which if the Debtor do not pay he is suible upon his Composition Now this is all these men make of the Merits of Christ its only his bringing God to the New Law Composition § 3. Pardon and Life he adds as effects of Justification We have already shewed what an absurd thing Justification is without Pardon Pardon being essential to it but it seems to be as absurd if not more that there should be Justification without life for if by condemnation a man be dead in law then certainly by Justification wherein Condemnation is taken off the person is made alive in law But Mr. H. will have a man to be justified and both ly under the guilt and condemnation of sin for he adds to these which he calls Benefits a right to impunity so that Justification lays but in the foundation of impunity they are not from under punity Justification brings only an expectation of Pardon Life Impunity hereafter but none of these are in hand § 4. When I say this Righteousness or Faith is the form I understand it in the sence as these Divines do who say Christs righteousness is the form or Remission is the form not the form of that Imputation but of Justification passively taken Resp Then the plain meaning is that Mr. Humph. understands our righteousness to have that place in causality of Justification which others give to the righteousness of Christ if other Divines say that Christ's is the formal reason of Justification in the sense that they take Christ's righteousness to be the formal cause in the person justified he takes a man 's own righteousness to stand in genere causalitatis this is Diametrical Opposition and therefore not only to be scrupled but to be contradicted and detested Hum. Not the form of that Imputation but of Justification passively taken Resp Mr. H. confounds his Notion by his obscure Logick for there is a great difference between the form of a thing and formalis ratio agentis the form is an essential cause and enters the effect the effect made up of the vis of all the causes hath existence from concourse of all the causes the formalis ratio is causa movens efficientem non ingreditur effectum tho the form doth which is another thing Now Justification in the abstract is forma justificationis in concreto or in the person justified and there is not any other form as Justitia is the form of justus or of a man imputed just that the imputation makes him legally just to be just and imputed so is one thing in law and to be justified is another Now the justice of a man is the form of the just man and the formalis ratio of Justification and this he saith is the form of Justification
consequence is there in this Argument works were the formal cause of Justification as to the Law of Works therefore works must be the formal cause in relation to the Gospel it follows not but vice versa and if the consequence be true then there 's no formal difference between Law and Gospel 3. Hereby he yields that New Law conditions are Old Law works and consequently his Gospel is no Gospel but a Law of works which is contrary to Scripture and accordingly Mr. Cl. saith Gospel works must merit the reward as works should have done in Adams Covenant Mr. H's reply is so weak that it s not worth taking Notice of § 3. Argum. 1. Justification hath a form and that must be some righteousness Resp It may have a form and yet Righteousness be the matter What righteousness is it whereby we are justified I answer against Mr. Cl. and him that it s no righteousness inherent in the justification of a sinner He saith it s not regenerating grace infused but imputed Answer What makes the difference then between Sanctification and Justification its nothing but the divers respect in Mr. H's Divinity and wherein lies that respect is it not in imputation and this Logick he yields in his Notes Argument 4. Divines generally fix it upon some righteousness Resp If some Divines speak improperly it doth not justifie Mr. H. to do so but he saith a distinction is made of a genus and differentia and therefore righteousness must be the form Resp Non sequitur for genus is the matter and but part of the form at most sometimes but the differencing part of the Definition is the form distinct from the genus Mr. Cl. saith the most plausible Argument of all because it is Scripture you have omitted we are justified by faith This saith Mr. H. is my id per quod that runs through all my Books its true and what would Mr. H. have done to support his Notion if the Cardinal had not helpt him to this id per quod and id propter quod he takes himself safe enough between the Cardinal and Bishops Well Mr. Cl. is not so well pleased I find with his formalis causa but rather than break with Mr. H. he will comport with him especially finding him very uncertain and unsettled sometimes our righteousness is the formal cause and sometimes the material and imputation the formal Mr. Cl. hath another denomination for our own righteousness he calls it our subordinate righteousness Our Justification by Faith or accounting it to us for righteousness will be considered anon § Cl. also gathering and applauding Mr. H's constitutive Justification let it be a little inspected Mr. Cl. saith That Mr. H. doth clearly distinguish his Opinion from the Papists in that he makes infused righteousness only Sanctification and imputation of the same to be Justification its only to distinguish up our own righteousness several ways I would ask these Gentlemen whether they do not hold the infusion of their righteousness and Justification upon it imputed if they do so do the Papist for if the Papist did hold making a man's righteousness inherent to be Justification then must they hold some merit of condignity to precede in the natural man for a meer free gift as such is an infusion cannot be Justification I do not see but Mr. H's constitutive Justification and the Papists is all one for if they say God infuseth righteousness and imputeth righteousness it s the same thing and God cannot constitute any just by infusion but he must impute him so I have said this constitutive Justification as they take it can be no other than Imputation if they will make it differ from declarative Justification 2. The constituting us as just doth in order of nature go before accounting or using us as just Resp God neither constitutes any man just in and by his own righteousness nor accounts them so But we can say God first gives us Christ's righteousness by his Grace then accounts us righteous therein Constitutive Justification consists in three things in making us just accounting us just and using us as just all these the Papists have Therefore more fully Justification is a judicial act and that by the law of Grace God by that Law and the act of God's law makes pronounces and by pronouncing makes a Believer a righteous person and being so made accounts him so Resp The Scripture speaks of Justification of a Sinner and therefore saith it s an act of free Grace Indeed Mr. H's Justification can be no other than a judicial Act it s no way consistent with Grace because he saith its by a Law and Act of it whereby it makes and pronounceth a believer righteous and it seems he is first declaratively justified and after imputed righteous when God hath pronounced him righteous then accounts him so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Cart before the Horse Our righteousness wrought in us by Vocation and is the same materially but not formally with this righteousness of Justification Resp Now here 's the reason why he sticks so hard for our righteousness being the formal part of our Justification so that the same righteousness as he saith materially the same Sanctifies us materially and Justifies us formally So as that as Sanctifying it hath no form and as Justifying no matter Now this is a Quatenus with a witness so in Mr. Cl's sence he doth well making the matter real and the form relative These things Mr. H. in his several middle-way Pages and Letters repeats a hundred times you cannot look into a Page hardly but you have the sum of his Doctrine therefore it must not be expected that I should follow him Page by Page unless I should Tautologize as he doth CHAP. X. Whether Faith be our justifying Righteousness Section 1. Whether the Saints before Christs did not look upon themselves as righteous by their own righteousness § 2. Abraham considered § 3. Abraham considered § 4. Abraham 's Justification further considered § 5. Of Subordinate righteousness § 6. Mr. Cl's defence of a Subordinate righteousness § 7 Opposition of Faith and Works in Justification Mr. Cl's 2d and 3d. Arg. § 8. Mr. Cl. fourth Argument Answer'd § 9. Argument 5 6. § 10. More to Mr. H 's challenge Sect. 1. MR. H's Enquiry about the Saints before Christs coming is He would know of any Man who is most Orthodox in his Complexion whether he does or is able to think that Enoch Noah Job who were before the Law Samuel the Kings and Prophets under the Law or any Man or Woman whatsoever before the coming of Christ did ever imagine that they were righteous or accepted with God for the Obedience which the Messiah should perform on their behalf when he came into the World and believing this was an Instrument of making him to be theirs c. And whether they did not look upon themselves righteous by their own righteousness their doing righteoâ—snâ—ss and to obtain favour by
and Faith as such is both seen in us and present with us 4. If Faith be the very righteousness then Faith believes in Faith as righteousness Doth the Scripture bid us believe in our selves or believe in another Faith believes in Faith for our very righteousness by these Men which is most absurd when they preach they should bid Men believe in themselves did Abraham believe in his Faith Was that his believing or did he believe that which was held out in the Promise the same thing that God imputes to us for righteousness we do make the Object of our Faith for Righteousness Now then if God imputes our believing to us then we believe in our believing these are inevitable Rocks this Doctrine will bring these Men unto 5. God cannot impute Faith as a Work and in the Neonomian sence for righteousness it being as Mr. H. confesseth again and again no righteousness sinful in need of pardon for 1. This would not be according to truth to call evil good nor to do it in a way of administration of Justice as in Justification would it be just But most unjust God is a God of Truth and Holiness and the Judge of all the World and therefore must deal righteously for tho' he pardons Iniquity yet will by no means clear the Guilty 2. It s contrary to their own assertions that Justification is an Act of Justice whereas such an Imputation and Justification as they speak of would be far from an Act of justice and is a meer dispensation with justice for where a Law must be abrogated or relaxed there is an absolute dispensation with Justice and without one of these they confess there cannot be Justification by their New Law 6. This cannot be justification because Sin is not pardoned in it nor the person accepted Imputation of righteousness to the work before it s to the person and if the person must do good works before he 's justifi'd which is absurd because the works he doth are imputed to him and he is justified by 'em as they say § 5. But let us hear what Mr. Cl. hath to say for the Proof of this Position that Faith is our Subordinate righteousness i. e. in his sence an interveening righteousness coming between Christs righteousness whereby we are justified before we come at Christ or pardon both being consequent to our Justification by this New-Law-Righteousness which he calls Faith see p. 64. His reason are these 1. What else can be the plain and proper meaning of that Phrase it was accounted to him for righteousness Without putting it upon the Rack of Tropes and Figures and the like Engines of Cruelty c. Resp Doth Mr. Cl. pretend to be an interpreter of Scripture and will not allow the use of a Trope or Figure but to call them Engines of Cruelty is to say where a Trope is said to be used in a Scripture there is a wresting of Scripture I must tell him that a Tropical sence of many Places of Scripture is the true plain and proper sence and meaning of the Spirit of God in many most eminent Expressions and for this he must expect to be watched in the adjusting his New-found righteousness whether he doth no where interpret Scripture Tropically What answer will he give the Papist in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation founded on This is my Body Mr. B. saith it s as credible as the Doctrine of imputation of Christs Righteousness And what saith Mr. Cl. to the Covenant of Circumcision Well let us make a little Impartial Examination of this Expression If Abraham were justified by works Rom. 4.2 he hath boasting but not before God not in the Presence of God for his Justification yea he may rejoice that through Grace he hath performed any action by faith which God witnesseth to as James speaks of but he dare not plead it before God for Justification of his Person Now he brings in Justification by Faith in diametrical opposition to it for the Scripture saith Abraham believed in God and it was accounted to him for righteousness so translated the words in the Hebrew may run thus He believed on Jehovah and he accounted it i. e. what he believed of him for righteousness to him the Words are rendred by the Septuagint and the New Testament Abraham believed God it was accounted to be unto righteousness The Seed promised before was the thing believed by Abraham the blessing unto all Nations which Seed was to proceed from his and Sarah his Wife's Loins this was the promise of God to him and this was accounted to him for righteousness he believed Jehovah graciously promising and the thing promised Jehovah imputed to him for righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he accounted the thing believed not the Faith it self therefore the Targum hath its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he believed the word of promise and the thing promised was imputed to him in this sense the Apostle takes it Rom. 4.3 Gal. 3.6 where in both places he opposeth a righteousness of faith i. e. which is believed on unto a righteousness within which is no object of faith for it is within us and an object of sense he believed God in the Promise of Christ and this that he believed was reckoned to him he argues presently that this imputation was not to Abraham as a work of any kind for to him that worketh as much as if he should say O do not mistake me I do not nor doth the Scripture speak of Abraham's Faith as a work the reward should not be of grace but debt but to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly as Abraham was when first justified Josh 24. his faith is esteemed to be unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. he believes upon the righteousness which is imputed to him And why may not Faith be taken objectively by a Metonomy for the thing believed for 't is not unusual in Scripture Christ is said to be our hope the object of our hope 1 Tim. 1.1 and so the hope laid up for us in Heaven i e. the things hoped for Coloss 1.5 so looking for that blessed hope Tit. 2.14 the things hoped for what 's more frequent than these Metonomies yea proper plain and elegant in matters of sense or perception its most frequent to put the object for the sence and sence for the object Matth. 6.22 the light of the body is the eye and there the light is for the eye and after the eye for the light besides it s a rule that when a word in Scripture taken in the direct sense will cross other Scriptures and the signification lies fair for the Analogy of Faith then the true sense lies in the Trope as here we are justified by faith but how as it lays hold on the justifying blood of Christ or else we contradict Rom. 5.9 being now justified by his blood now either Faith or the justifying Blood of Christ must fall into a Trope for which
more apparent in Scripture then that by Grace it is that we are justified and by Grace saved Resp But will Mr. H. affirm that Grace doth justifie us without Justice Doth not the Apostle say a sinner is justifyed by Grace in and through Christs Redemption that God may be just Doth not Mr. H. say Justification is an Act of Justice again and again Doth not this setting up our own righteousness in performance of the Condition of the New Law make his Justification an Act of Justice yea and without Grace What do these Men mean so often and positively to contradict the Scripture and themselves to draw their dirty Inferences upon the Truth with holding it in unrighteousness § 8. If nothing less then a Righteousness as doth Answer and satisfie the Law fully will suffice for the sinners Plea to flee from Condemnation he is not judged by the Law of Grace but by the Law of Works R. The inference hath no danger in it for 1. We know of no Judgment in freeing any from Condemnation but a Discharge in Christ from the Law of Works before which every Believer is discharged here and hereafter through Grace 2. We know of no New Law either to quit or condemn a Law of Grace in that sense is a Bull Grace and a Law are directly opposite 2. He here insinuates as if Christs satisfaction were compleat and imperfect If nothing else will suffice for a Plea 1. What can be better than a perfect satisfaction for a Plea 2. Either Christs is not perfect or else perfect will not do without an imperfect added to it which indeed he means that Christs perfect satisfaction must have our Imperfect added to make our Plea compleat 3. What is freeing from condemnation but Pardon of Sin I pray what righteousness doth a Neonomian flee to for the pardon of Sin Do they tell us its Christs tho' they be justified by their own I would know whether they esteem Christs Righteousness full and compleat for the pardon of Sin Or do they plead for some of their pardon at the Bar of the New Law where they are justifyed and some of their pardon at the Bar of the Old Law where they are condemned But this imputed righteousness is a mistake of the Protestants poor Man I pitty him and he hath found the mistake so it seems indeed by his Writing § 8. Christ came into the World to procure and tender a New Law and in this regard he is called our Law giver not that he hath given any other Moral rules of Life to us but that he hath given the same Precepts with Indulgence Resp Now mark the Neonomian Spirit but Two or Tree Lines off he was for Justification only by Grace without Law that he might dethrone Christ but now again that he may Enthrone Mans Righteousness he is altogether for Law his Language is half Ashdod take him where you will 1. He tells you what he means by Satisfaction which he saith is procurement Christ came into the World not to satisfie the Law of God which we had broken but to procure a Law a remedial Law a better Law to answer Gods Ends than the First it was a great mistake sure in Divine Wisdom to make such a Law at first as would not do 2. It was another oversight at least that Christ did not come to procure a right law at first 3. It s very strange that God would not afford a right law without procurement Laws are not used to be purchased or procured Legislators make Laws according to their pleasure without procurement 4. And whâ—t's the World the better Christ hath procured the putting the World under New-Law Terms and not satisfied the Old Law and now they must perform the condition of the New Law and be pardoned by the old Law unsatisfied else they cannot be saved 5. After all the noise about saving by Grace it s but by a law which requires personal obedience in fulfilling the condition this is the Grace of the Law and Law of Grace a Law of Grace it is such wherein Grace is no more Grace and the Law is no more a Law that indeed a law of Grace is a Contradiction in proprio adjuncto a meer Hobgoblin But how is these mens New Law compounded It is they say of Grace and a Law and it lies In that he hath not given new Moral Laws of life to us other than what was contained in the old law before but that he hath given the same precepts with indulgence Answ Well Christ is not our Lawgiver according to purchase for these Men make Christ to have died for himself to make himself a Lawgiver to devise and constitute any new Moral Precepts but first to pluck down the old house and then to take the broken and scattered pieces and make a new one he takes the Moral Materials of the old Law cuts and hews them pretty much makes the Duties more indifferent the sins forbidden Venial and allowable yea necessary to come into the righteousness of the new law for if the Condition be not mixt of Morality and Immorality its good for nothing it will not serve this turn therefore the old law with indulgence of sin is the New Law I pray let me know from the Wits of our Age whether this be not Antinomianism Now he tells us this is a law of indulgence c. the plain English of it is that its a Law of Dispensation with a Law of Justice i. e. a lawless law that all the Satisfaction he means is Gods Dispensation with Law and Justice and a law to call Sin by one law Sin and righteousness by another the truth is the whole Doctrine tends to deny God in his glorious Properties and to change him into the similitude of an Ox that eateth Hay interpretativè and if God doth not act now and at Judgment by this lay of Dispensation with Law and indulgence of Sin he says the main business of Christ's coming and Redemption is lost that can be no other in his sence than to be Minister of Sin § 10. You shall hear a Protestant i. e. Neonomians they are Papists according to the Profession of this downright Papist in his Prayer appealing from the Tribunal of Gods Justice to the Throne of his Grace yet in his Sermon telling the People that it is nothing else but the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ imputed to them that saves them which is to bring them back from the throne of Grace to the Bar of his Justice to be judged Resp I am ashamed to read such a Banter of Christianity from any man that professeth himself a Christian tho a Papist and Socinian 1. Is it a good Appeal or no for a sinner to make from the Tribunal of Justice i. e. meer Justice where God beholds the Sinner as he is in himself by his most righteous law a condemned transgressor to the Throne of Grace not that God hath two Thrones Rev. 4.