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
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
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
their upright walking and no otherwise in the World Resp If Mr. H. means Men of the Orthodox complexion in his Eye Neonomian complexions I believe but few if any for ought I know but are of the Opinion Mr. B. hath declared himself and divers others of that Orthodoxy but if he means the true Protestant Calvinistical complexion there 's enough of them 2. I would know whether or no they did ever hear of a New Law and if they expected to be justified by their own righteousness or whether they thought of any other Law to be justified by than the Law of Works For there was not the least Word of any other Law before the Flood or after none can be pretended to be till Abrahams time at furthest 3. Whether there was one Word of a conditinal promise to Adam after the fall and whether he thinks not that Adam Abel Enock c. Were not saved by Faith in that absolute promise that the seed of the Woman c. who is the Messiah tho' not under the Name of Messiah till Ages afterwards did they not believe in his righteousness as that which should break the Serpents Heads i. e. all the power he had got over Man by the unrighteousness he had brought him into 4. If they did look upon themselves as righteous without the Obedience of the Messiah or by the Name which the Spirit of God reveal'd him to them why did they offer Sacrifice for Sin did they look at no Significancy or typicalness in them were they not taught of God so to do and did he not shew shew them that they were typical of the great Sacrifice the seed of the Woman should offer in the end of the World Was it not by Faith they offered them Heb. 11. And what was that Faith was it not in a righteousness for Noah believed in a righteousness and became heir of righteousness which is by Faith what was he Heir of his own Righteousness did they believe in themselves The Apostle 's design is not to prove that Faith is the Evidence of things not seen the Substance of those things hoped for that those worthys lived in Faith and Hope and dyed so not having received the promise in performance but saluted and embraced it by Faith 5. Had Job and his friends such Principles tho' not of the Jews Church chap. 19.27 I know that my Redeemer liveth was there no Faith in his Words is there no righteousness in a Redeemer and what were the Sentiments of his Friends in this Doctrine sure they were not Neonomians Job 25.4 How can Man be justified with God or how can he be clean that is born of a Woman Saith Bildad A Neonomian would have easily resolved this Question by performing of the conditions of the New-Law but alas they heard not of this New-Law this Nor-West passage to Heaven § 2. Let us consider Abraham whether he did imagine himself righteous by his doing righteously or looked to obtain favour of God thereby and no otherways and whether his Faith was not Eminently carried forth to the Eying of Christ in the promise Christ saith Abraham rejoiced to see my Day and saw it and was glad he saw it and saw it and rejoiced and was glad John 8.58 And where and how did he see it was it not in the promise of his Seed and what did he see in it was it not the blessedness promised Gen. 12. and the Salvation by Redemption and Righteousness did he see nothing in Christ for his own Soul yes you say he saw him as a Neonomian Cypher to stand by his Justification by his own Works to the magnifying his own righteousness but the Spirit of God saith he was not justified by Works how come Men to say he was James saith he was how by approving the Truth of his Faith for he was in a justifyed State long before the offering up his Son but his Faith was proved and approved of by God and witnessed to by this eminent Act of Obedience God testified to his particular Acts of Obedience which the World was ready to Condemn and so to Rabab so to Phineas his Act that whatever the World judged of these Actions yet they were approved of God as righteous and true Obedience Abel was an accepted person of God before his offering then because his person was justified God witnesseth to his gifts that they were accepted as being done in Faith whereas Cain was an unjustified person there 's no Sinner justified by his Works but a Believers Works are accepted because their persons are accepted in another righteousness in which their Works are accepted afterward Abel was first accepted and then his Service § 3. Now we are upon Abraham let us consider him a little further did he imagine himself righteous without the Obedience of Christ and no other way than by his own righteousness What do these Men make of the Gospel preached is it not the preaching of Christ for righteousness for Christ is made Righteousness to us 1 Cor. 1. The Gospel was preached to Abraham what was that The Apostle tells us Gal. 3.8 It was in the first promise whereby he was converted to God in Vr of the Chaldees Gen. 12. In thee shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed and that this contained in it that blessing of righteousness which is after more particularly Explained he was justified as the Heathen and believing Gentiles were to be justified afterwards and the Apostle saith these that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. of that kind of Justification are blessed with faithful Abraham ver 9. but such as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that expect justification from the Works of a Law are under a curse for the Law i. e. Justification by the works of the Law is not of justifying Faith their 's none under Abraham's blesssing expect Justification by the Works of the Law Indeed the Mystery was not so distinctly understood Eph. 3.5 Yet they were saved even as we Acts 15. And how are we Gentiles saved by becoming fellow Heirs of the same Body i. e. mystical and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel Eph. 3.6 The which participation the faithful before Christ was the Gospel had preached to Abraham § 4. The great cry is that Faith i. e. our working Faith our Faith and Obedience is our Subordinate Righteousness or co-ordinate or Supream which our Neonomians please for Justification because it is said Abrahams Faith was imputed to him for Righteousness i. e. say they his Gospel Works not Mosaical or not according to the Old Law but according to the New This assertion is most false for these reasons 1. There was no Mosaical Law in Abraham's days 2. There was no New Law exhibited to Abraham for their promise was absolute Gen. 12. And cannot be pretended to be conditional 3. It s not consistent with the nature of Faith which is the Evidence of something not seen or present but Works
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
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
former Court the Judgment is always according to truth but it s not so here for a man may be acquitted there and condemned here both Persons and Actions nay let me say a person may be acquitted in foro Dei and yet his Actions justly condemned in foro humano i. e. mundi but then I do not say those actions are accepted in foro Dei but are burnt for Hay and Stubble as men do justifie themselves and others in this foro mundi very often so doth God himself justifie his children and their actions that are so condemned by and ungrateful to the World God doth as it were come into it and vindicate his accused Saints where Satan takes it upon him as his Prerogative to accuse the Brethren when his Accusations run high God looks upon his Honour engaged to vindicate such in those eminent unaccountable and condemned Actions which they do for his Names sake Here we read of God's own vindicating and bearing Testimony to the actions of his children that looked strange in the eye of the World God's justifying those Actions before the World is called Justification and their Actions Righteousness not that the persons were justified thereby but that they were approved fruits of Christ's Righteousness received by Faith yea we find when God comes into the Court of the World to declare Persons or Actions to be approved by him it s usually in some extraordinary thing wherein they were Eminent and suffered much thereupon at least in their good Name if not otherwise § 4. In this case God justifies the Act of Phineas in taking upon him to execute Judgment in the case of Zimri and Cosbi the action lay condemnable in Phineas as a rash action which proceeded from an usurped Authority he being not High-Priest nor having any particular Commission from Moses This Action God testifies to as a holy and righteous Act tho it looked so extrajudicial and should be looked upon as a righteous act to all Generations Phineas was a justified person long before Numb 25.12 13. Psal 106.30 31. So Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain was he not in an accepted and justified state before God for God first accepted Abel and then his Offering and because his Offering notwithstanding God's acceptation was condemned by Cain and no doubt by his Posterity he obtained witness that he was righteous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby he was witnessed unto for God witnessed in foro mundi to the righteousness of Abel i. e. to his Justification in that he made it appear by his manifested acceptance undoubtedly Fire came down from Heaven and consumed the Sacrifice here the Apostle saith God testifying of his Gifts and this was a testimony of his Person that he was righteous but this is not the justification of his Person for if he had not been justified in foro Dei yea Conscientiae too he could not by faith have offered a Sacrifice so well pleasing to God wherefore to shew to the World that he was an accepted person God testifies to his Services So Enoch he had some eminent Testimony from God before his Translation against all the calumniating and blaspheming Posterity of Cain So Noah also in his Generation a Preacher of the righteousness of faith he had a Testimony in the Ark and the Salvation that he and his House had to both the Worlds and yet this Testimony was not that Justification which he had before God for he was heir of the righteousness of God by faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was become the heir not upon building the Ark but was so before § 5. God's appearing then to witness to the Ways and Actions of his People in the World which the children of men are still condemning of and their Persons and Profession for is not their Justification before God but an eminent fruit thereof Abraham when he offered up his Son Isaac he exerted the eminent fruit of a tried Faith which the World would be apt to condemn as one of the heinousest and most unnatural in the World therefore God justifies this Action of his and therein recommends him for the most Eminent Believer he not staggering in his faith of the promise notwithstanding believing that God could raise his son from the dead and if he should slay his son that God would do it rather than not fulfil his Promise Now I dare appeal to our most ingenuous Opposers whether they think Abraham was not justified before this great Action of his and what can James his Justification be more than God's declaring in foro mundi that this strange action of his wherein he was a Wonder to the World and for which he stood ready to be condemned by it was highly approv'd by him and an eminent Fruit and Testimony of his Faith It appears by the context that James understood nothing but that a True Faith brings forth Works witnessing in foro mundi to the truth of it and James 2.10 and that the offender of the Law in one point is guilty of all and that he that is saved by faith is saved by a lively faith such as will shew it self by works and such as God will testifie to by his Word or Providence or both that they are wrought of God § 6. The like may be said of Rahab The World would condemn her for a treacherous Harlot in betraying her Native Country to destruction But this action of justified Rahab being a signal fruit of her Eminent Faith is signally owned by God himself and her strange action justified to the World that when the Walls of Jericho fell her house stood only and she saved with the Honour and Renown of an exemplary believer in the Church yea God honoured her so far as to come into the Line of the Messiah Hath not God gloriously justified his Saints i. e. by testifying to their Gifts and Services to the World whence else hath been that eminent Spirit visible and astonishing to the World whereby they have not only rejoiced to suffer for the Name of Jesus in the spoil of their goods but in giving their bodies to death and overcame all the Reproaches and Blasphemies of their cruel enemies by faith in the blood of the Lamb and Word of the Testimony Was not that admirable Presence of God with them not only which we read of Heb. 11. but in other Martyrologies The Witness of God to their Gifts in and to the convincing the World to which they had never come had they not been freely justified by God before I am ashamed to see that Men should think that the Saints in their great Services and Sufferings should be of such servile and base Spirits as to be bargaining with God by their Works when they were frying in the Flames § 7. There is also a Justification in foro Conscientiae which is received by faith and cannot be received but by faith and its a closing in with the judgment of God according to truth
he tells us what a Compact is § 10. Mr. H. A Compact may be two-fold Vpon Terms equal or unequal Vpon terms equal we know the reward doth become debt and may he said to be merit notwithstanding by way of strict Retaliation or upon account of equal benefit the performance of the condition would require no such matter Resp Equality of Terms in an Agreement is so much for so much the mutual performance whereof is strict retaliation Tho the Term is foreign to the matter in hand for it belongs to revenge in giving a man as good or rather bad as he brings I deny that Compact upon Terms equal or unequal do alter the nature thereof so that the Condition is not a Merit and the Promise a Reward He saith If I agree to give a man 2 s. 6 d. for his days work I must pay the debt tho the Emolument be not worth half the money Here he answers himself in his strict retaliation and tho the condition is worth little yet it is the Compact that makes the Debt upon the performance And he says If I promise a poor man a shilling for leading my Horse to the next Stile its Alms an act of Grace Resp It seems here 's but 18 d. difference between Works and Grace An agreement to give a man 2 s. 6 d. for a Days Work makes a Debt but an agreement to give a shilling for leading his Horse is Alms he allowed the mans Days-work prov'd not to be worth above a shilling and yet ex pacto he was indebted to him 2 s. 6 d. and why I pray Is it not as good a Debt to the poor man that he bargains with to lead his Horse to the next Stile he will say it was not worth so much in strict Retaliation no more was the other man's Days-work if he had given the man the shilling and afterward said prethee lead my Horse to the next Stile he would have said ay Master and thank you too but if he agree with him when he hath done his work he could demand the Wages as Debt tho it may be he would thank him for so easie a Bargain He tells us The first Covenant was upon Terms equal and if man did his duty tho with the ability God gives him as if I agree with a man to work with my Tools the reward is of Merit or Debt Answ If he means equal in value I deny that the First Covenant was so any more than the New Law covenant Ay but if he means equal as to obligation in a way of commutative Justice i. e. that God is as much bound to perform his part after covenanting as Man to perform his then I say the New Covenant is as equal as the old for each is but equality of obligation but he goes on When he gives us the reward which is eternal life thro his Son upon obedience which is imperfect that is upon a new covenant upon terms unequal he gives it freely R. Here it plainly appears what he means by terms equal and unequal that it is as to intrinsick value that a covenant of works are terms equal wherein also he contradicts himself i. e. man's perfect obedience in the said covenant is so much for so much as good as the reward it s a days-work in it self worth the Wages promised whereas before he saith it was not but now he saith when the wages are more worth than the work it s on terms unequal but the terms unequal do not change the nature of a Bargain to make it none for there are different Bargains some better and some worse but is the new law covenant a better Bargain or worse than that of the covenant of Works I take it to be much the harder because of the incapacity of the Covenantee Man in the state of Perfection could much easier perform the condition of the covenant by perfect obedience than he can now in his lapst state perform the condition of the new law by imperfect as may easily be demonstrated from these mens Principles they affirming that the performing the condition is not by natural power and strength § 11. But Mr. H. returns after this excursion in saying p. 7. That the grace of Justification is purchased by Christ is apparent by Rom. 3.24 The purchase of Grace being free in the exerting its self is a contradiction for what God doth by Grace he doth sua sponte without motion thereto by externals and it s meerly of his own good will and pleasure I will have mercy on whom I will Our Divines say the covenant of Grace was not purchased no not by Christ but the way of the execution of this covenant was in and through Christ and his Purchase that God might not infringe his Justice in the least in exerting his Grace to the Salvation of Sinners This Mr. H. opposeth and saith If the Notion of free did ly in the conception our Divines ordinarily frame then could it not be the fruit of Christ's purchase for how can that which is purchased in their sense be free Resp There 's much more reason to say how can that which is purchased in Mr. H.'s sense be free There 's less reason that a thing purchased in the Original and Fountain should be free than what is purchased in the Streams therefore Mr. H's Answer cuts off his own legs for if the Grace of God be not free because it comes to us in and through Christ and as the fruits of Christ's Purchase then when this gratia dans is purchased how can that be free He proceeds § 13. Whereas it is this Grace certainly is the main fruit of Christ's Redemption viz. that the new Covenant should be established Resp Here it appears that he asserts That the Grace whereby the New Covenant was made was purchased grace therefore not free by his own assertion because purchas'd he says Christ purchased the Grace of the New Covenant therefore the covenant and all in it So you see he will have Purchase in our sense inconsistent with Free Grace but purchase in his sense more comprehensive to be Free Grace but now he will have the freeness to ly in bestowing freely the works which should make the reward due to him To which I answer it s one thing to justifie for the Works wrought and another to give them Mr. H. calls this latter infusion of Grace and Sanctification but Justification is declaring a man righteous by the said Works Now if this Grace giving the condition be purchased then Faith and Obedience was purchased by Christ contrary to Mr. H. who saith it comes only as the gift of election Hence it appears that he will have Grace in the root to be purchased as to exhibition of the whole covenant but not as to the performance of the main part of it § 13. See then how the Grace of God is made free in the sense of the Apostle not upon the account that man cannot merit
at God's hand seeing God can be a debtor ex pacto regimine gratiae paterno Resp God can be a Debtor to sinful Man ex pacto but then 1. It s upon pactum absolutum not such a Covenant as makes man's works meritorious 2. It is in and through Christ only that God is a Debtor in the way of Justice 3. It s meerly Free Grace that hath brought about the Sinners Salvation by Christ and not purchased by himself 4. God is not nor ever will be a Debtor to sinful Man to justifie him for or by any works done by him either here or hereafter 5. Therefore whatever is the fruit of Free Grace in us is free in respect of us on whom it is bestowed we do not merit or deserve it in the least neither doth God reward any of his Children regimine foederis operum such as the New Law is and must be which rewards us upon our own fulfilling the condition But upon the account here mentioned before refuted which is a most direct answer because we have shewed the indirectness and falsity of it And I declare that God's Abatement of Terms and requiring a new Condition is that which therefore makes it free seeing it is tendred and obtained without performance of the old Resp The changing of Terms in a covenant doth not make it free if God had changed the terms of the old covenant from perfect obedience to imperfect it had not made it free because the condition is Works still for here the change is but a change from one compact to another viz. Abatement of terms and requiring new terms in the room What if a man gets his Creditor of whom he complains he hath a hard Bargain to make another Bargain upon easier terms this is a favour indeed but its justice considering he had brought him under too hard terms before but yet he doth not therefore give the commodity to him because he allows him easier terms but makes another Bargain upon other terms So here the new law is as much a Bargain as the other tho upon easier terms which cannot be admitted He proceeds to refute Augustine about the works of the law according to Paul's sense which we shall examine when we come upon that Point § 14. We shall here gather the sum of what according to truth is to be asserted and defended against Mr. H. and the rest 1. That the covenant of Works was not made with Man upon equal Terms for his perfectest Obedience could never be equal with the promised Reward 2. That the New-law Covenant is upon as equal Terms according to the nature of the Law and they differ not in nature from the old covenant being works if they differ in degree it s the covenant which hath made it so and the Promise is as much a reward to the imperfection as it was in the old to a perfect condition by God's constitution 3. God is free and can be bound by none but himself and it s his Grace to covenant with the creature any way but when God hath freely without purchase covenanted upon Terms of the creatures performance he maketh himself a Debtor thereupon let the Terms be perfect or imperfect 4. In the pretended new-law covenant where faith and obedience are the conditions Man merits ex pacto and God become a Debtor to him as much as he should have bin to Adam if he had stood hence the Apostle cannot mean justifying freely by grace in Mr. H's sense But when we are said to be justified freely by Gods grace is meant 〈◊〉 That it is of the pleasure of God's Will not upon any external Motive no not of Christ's Death that God exerts the Grace of Justification he is gracious to whom he will 2. It is free in that the Object of it upon whom it falleth is a sinner every way undone and miserable without Works or Qualifications much less deserving of this Grace and this is the chief meaning of the Apostle in Rom. 3. 3. The providing giving and bestowing Christ and his righteousness is an high act of Grace that a sinner may be justified at the Bar of Divine Justice that a sinner according to the Mystery of his Will and gracious Dispensation may be fully acquitted thro Christ from the fiery Law and discharged from all the charges thereof by the highest Justice 4. That as it was Free Grace every way to us considered in our selves therefore a Covenant of Promise without conditions required on our part hence absolute so it was a higher Covenant of Works to the Second Adam than ever the First was under and whereas Mr. H. objects and says then we are justified by the law I answer 1. Where did he ever see Justification but by a Law 2. He makes his to be by the new Law which law we deny to be in rerum natura 3. As we are justified by the Grace of God so it is in Christ Jesus and a Believer in Christ needs no New Law to justifie him he is justified by the Law in Jesus Christ and yet freely by Grace CHAP. III. Of Righteousness Sect. 1. Righteousness what and of what kinds § 2. Of Distributive Justice § 3. Distinctions in respect of Justice § 4. God's Justice in Efficiency § 5. No Justifying Righteousness but perfect § 6. Of the way of God's Execution of his Justice § 7. Righteousness again distinguished § 8. Righteousness of Justification and Sanctification Sect. 1. JVstitia est suum cuique tribuere to give every one his due so Cicero The Spirit of God tells us it s to render every one their due or right Rom. 13.7 Prov. 27. And it s either commutative or distributive commutative when persons mutually perform their Duty to each other which they are bound to by any Law Covenant or Agreement whether they be superiors to inferiors or inferiors to superiors or equals to one another a due conformity in obedience to a Law is commutative Justice Rom. 13. done for Conscience sake giving the Legislator his due but if he is pleased not only to bind me to Duty but promise a Reward upon performance as I am bound to Obedience so on the performance thereof God is bound to Reward whence if Man had stood the Covenant had bin fulfilled by way of commutation it s so between Magistrate and People being bound together by Covenant and each observing his Duty to other it s done by commutative Justice and yet without any derogation from the Authority and Grandeur and just Prerogative of the Magistrate § 2. Distributive Justice or Righteousness is Magistratick for the maintaining commutative Justice by awarding it where it s refused or punishing the breach thereof or in vindicating just persons which are falsly accused upon that account to render to men judicially according to their works All first conformity to Laws and Covenants is by commutative Justice but upon complaint of the breach of the Rules thereof Distributive Justice takes place Hence
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
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
Paul means only Works of Moses's Law § 8. Whether Paul disputes only against some Works § 9. Mr. Cl's Denial and Challenge § 10. What Law the Apostle means § 11. How the Jews looked upon the Law § 12. Of the Law of Faith § 13. What Deeds of the Law § 14. What Works to be boasted of § 15. Of meritorious Works § 16. Of justifying Works § 17. Of the Jews Conceit of Perfect Obedience § 18. 1 Cor. 4.4 considered § 19. Mr. Cl. unfair in his Challenge § 20. Of Rom. 4.5 § 21. Of Rom. 2.20 Sect. 1. OUR Neonomians affirm we are justified by works not of the Old Law which the Apostle Paul every were excludes but of the New Law this is that which we oppose and say the Apostle doth exclude all our works even in the state of Regeneracy from Justification and in this Point we shall take Mr. Cl. because he seems to be most full in the handling of it and take up that Mr. H. saith in a more scattered manner here and there § 2. Chap. 10. He tells us who it is that God Justifies not ungodly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Rom. 4.5 No saith Mr. Cl. the Spirit of God means the godly and he brings against the position of the Spirit of God in this place that of Exod. 23.7 Where the LXX useth the same words Resp To which I shall answer 1. That Mr. Cl. knows the LXX doth not translate the words according to the Heb. Text but rather speaks to the drift of the Text which is to enjoyn unto Men an impartial Execution of distributive Justice and therefore it renders it Thou shalt not justifie the wicked for a reward and that is the plain Drift of the Text by what precedes v. 6. Thou shalt not wrest judgment and thou shalt take no gift v. 8. and the Hebrew in the 7th verse is I will not justifie i. e. will not have thee to justifie for thou art but my Deputy and I sit in the Assemblies and Courts of Earthly Judges and whatever Judgment contrary to Justice and Right thou passest I will call thee to an account for it Then 1. This Text speaks of Man's Judgment not of God's immediately but as supervising the actions of men 2. He might as well or better alledged Exod. 34.7 where God proclaiming himself a sin-pardoning God saith he will by no means clear the guilty but in pardon of sin God doth clear the guilty and so the ungodly in Justification of them by the imputed righteousness of Christ which takes off the ungodliness in that kind tho man cannot provide for the Justification of an unrighteous person by gifts or partiality in a way of Justice yet God can by gracious and just ways and means provide for the acquitting the guilty and justifying the ungodly justly 2. It must be understood Rom. 4. according to the words in a strict sence God justifies the ungodly while such not to remain such For Abraham there spoken of was such an ungodly vile Idolater Josh 24. Had Abraham performed any New-Law righteousness before he came out of Vr Mr. C. will understand it he saith in a strict Law sence i. e. that he was a transgressor of the law of works so will I and that 's therefore to be ungodly and I know no ungodliness but such and while he was such God justified him and he did no New-Law works before he was justified for Heb. 11.8 for by faith when he was called of God to go forth he went so that he had faith and was justified before he obey'd the Call 3. It s most consistent with the Grace of God to justifie the ungodly and not in the least derogatory from his Justice to justifie a sinner in Gods way of Justification 4. As God justifies none to be ungodly nor justifies ungodliness but that sinners may be godly so there 's none can be godly before he is justified he cannot perform one godly Act nor have the Spirit the natural Man being a stranger to God and Enemy to him 5. Why may not God justifie the ungodly as well as sanctifie the ungodly if God may give one gift to the rebellious why not another if he may give Grace why not all Grace they will have Men justified by works who works in them to will or do Who gives them this righteousness Doth not this gift of God find them ungodly They will say yea undoubtedly then I will say why may not God give Christ to an ungodly one the gift of righteousness and justifie him thereby I hope if God can give one righteousness he can give another unless they will limit his Sovereign Grace § 3.1 But more fully And first Negatively not by the Law Gal. 2.16 viz. the Law of Moses and why so is there any the least word of the Law of Moses its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the works of a law any law when the Apostle speaks of Moses's law he annexeth the pre-positive Article So Rom. 3.20 it s a law from the works of a law no flesh living can be justified now this is not the Ceremonial Law by v. 19. but that law whereby all the world became guilty Jews and Gentiles v. 9 c. for the Gentiles were not guilty by Moses Law neither could the works of the New Law admit of an exception here for its any law that gives the knowledge of sin Now if the New Law gives the knowledge of sin the works of it are here excluded for that is no law that gives no knowledge of sin Hence all works of all Laws are here excluded i. e. such as the righteousness thereof required is our obedience performed by us whence its plain that the Law of VVorks the Ceremonial Law and the New Law are equally excluded Now the next Verse hath it that the righteousness of God is manifested without these excluded works this is no new Notion but witnessed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the law i. e. of Moses and the Prophets VVhat Gal. 3.16 is brought in for I know not I find it not among the Errata's but I think it must be one Hitherto also do belong these places Job 15.14 chap. 25.4 Psalm 143.2 which Places plainly and peremptorily deny righteousness in Man to be found unto Justification Mr. Cl. says according to strict Justice according to the law of works as Paul expounds it Gal. 2.16 Resp The Apostle there doth peremptorily protest against Justification by the works of a Law any Law whatever and if he hath an eye upon the Psalmists words he explains them so far as to us why the Psalmist denies Justification to any man living is because all works that Man can perform must be referred to some law by the works of a law no flesh living could be justified Let me add what the Apostle saith If righteousness be by a law then Christ died in vain It s strange the Apostle should so expresly and positively exclude the works of
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.
beloved as he was was ignorant of it but that very day as v. 16. According to thy righteousness I beseech thee let thy anger and thy fury be turned away a Neonomian will Gloss thus i. e. according to our righteousness of the New Law v. 18. We do not present our supplications to thee for our righteousness i. e. say the Neonomians the righteousness of the Old Law not of the New but for thy great mercy that say they is the Law of Grace so they will have their Belly-full of law shortly § 2. Mr. H. gives a wild Gloss upon Eph. 1.4 According as he hath chosen us in Christ before the Foundation of the World he saith the Election of Grace is the Election of Grace and Gods choosing us is the taking the Way and Method of Grace and not of Works a choice way of saving Resp Ay indeed it s a choice way to save by Grace and not by Works but to save by Grace and yet by Works is a Contradiction in Paul's Logick Election is in Christ how according to common Notion of Election is over hard to conceive but take it in this Notion and here is even Day-light if you take it for the Law of Grace the Law is the Will of the Law-giver and that 's all one with the Gospel there 's no difficulty in it Resp This Man is so fond of his New Law that ask him of what Place of Scripture you will what it means and he will tell you its the New Law what is Election The New Law what is Redemption Purchase of the New Law How are you justified by the Righteousness of the New Law how shall you be judged by the New Law what 's the Gospel the New Law may not these Men be fitly call'd Neonomian that thus New Law it its hard to conceive how Election is in Christ why Because he cannot conceive Christ to be a common Person or Head of the Elect and that Christ as such was chosen and the whole Body in him but tell him that we are chosen in the New Law and the Difficulty is removed and you see what he makes of the Gospel it is the Law-giver I think its Time to give over talking with Men whose Wits go a Wool-gathering once more though § 3. 2 Cor. 5.19 God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself not imputing their Trespasses and hath committed to us the Word of Reconciliation the Word is the Gospel declaring to the World this purchased Pardon the Pardon is General a standing Pardon an Act of Grace yet if any will have Benefit by it he must look into the Act and see how he is to be qualified Resp The Gospel he saith is the Declaration of the New Law the making of which was an Act of general Pardon for all the World and for this Pardon Christ atoned none could obtain this but Christ and here all the Rogues and Whores in the World continuing so are pardoned at once now the silly Antinomian talks only of the Pardon of Believers before Faith now a Neonomian doth Antinomize to Purpose and Mr. H. is willing Christ shall have the Honour of saving Peter so far as he saved Judas and so far it 's from the Love of the Father in sending his Son to fulfil the Law how By no Obedience to it or Satisfaction for wrong done to him in it and in this Sence he will allow Grace is without Condition i. e. as much as Creation is Grace and God's giving a Law at first it 's true whatever Act God puts forth at first to a Created Being in a way of Nature or Jurisdiction or Mercy it may be said to proceed from his Sovereignty but it cannot shine forth in a way of Grace unless it be the bestowing some good Thing in a way of Speciality Peculiarity and in Distinction from others not to do something in general for all the World in common this is not that which will bear the Name of Grace likewise considering that what he calls a Law of Grace is but an Exhibition of a Law of Works for it is but do believe God had made the first Law as much a Law of Grace as this had the World been as full of People as since and more for it had been easier to perfect Man to perform than now an un-performable condition is to lapsed man This is Grace without conditions he saith even as much as the first Covenant for God made that Covenant without Man's causing it the Condition was lege constitura in the law enacted the previous causes of a law whether it proceed from the meer pleasure of the Legislator or obtained from him by Petition or Purchace are not considered in the law by the Subject it s the tenour of it that he looks at and is concerned in it therefore the making a law the proper nature whereof is to be conditional and promulgatting of it to all the world is no Pardon therefore he soon trips up the heels of his General Pardon in saying If any come to look for benefit by this Pardon Act of Grace Law Covenant Testament any thing a declaration of the will of God as he saith which being a law is not therefore Grace he must read it and see the conditions or terms that God requires And are not these conditions required of all the World are they therefore pardoned because they are required of them its required of every man he saith to believe repent walk sincerely in order to the benefit if these be the conditions of the Covenant then not free because working conditions are required of all the World which by the World are unperformable The main of the Text he cannot see he is so dazled with his New Law v. 18. All things are of God even the reconciliation of the World as well as its new Creation and therefore the righteousness by which reconciliation is made is of God and therefore saith reconciling us by Expiation and Satisfaction for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying reconciling by an Expiatory Sacrifice to himself the enmity was between the Sinner and God and God in this Grace is the first mover of Reconciliation by or in Jesus Christ in whom the righteousness of Satisfaction is giving to us the word of reconciliation i. e. the Gospel in which this reconciliation is preached whereby the Sinner seeing the preventing love of God in the mystery of Reconciliation by the Impetration of Christ he may have the application of this Grace also by Faith for this is the great doctrin that reconciles the heart and brings him to believe This he repeats v. 9. shewing only exegetically that we who are to be saved are the world in the sense of the Scripture in this truth by an usual synecdoche of the choice part being put for the whole and the whole for the better part not imputing their Trespasses shew which is the great thing done in reconciliation of a Sinner to
produceth works will not save upon any account yet it follows not that works do justify before God 3. He speaks of the person of Abraham being Justified and there was a concurrence of his works with his faith in his Justification R. There was in foro humano for he could not appear unto men that he had faith but by works if Abraham saith he is a believer and righteous before God another man will say shew me such works as will argue it to me So Abraham shews his obedience and his faith concurrs to it for he could do such works but by Faith and God witnesseth to them Heb. 11. coram hominibus 4. He rejects being Justifyed by Faith only R. 1. He cannot be Justifyed by Faith that is dead and barren 2ly He cannot be Justifyed before God and man too without works 3ly There was not any held a mans Faith was justifyed by his faith but his person and that his faith was justifyed to men by his outward demeanour in exercising visible graces 5. The reason that he coucheth in that Similitude v. 26. shews that he speaks of the Justification of the person viz. That such a faith cannot Justify because its dead R. The words are as the body without the spirit is dead so faith without works is dead These words shew only what was the drift of the Apostles discourse from the 14 v. viz. to shew that faith which bringeth not forth good works is not true it will not save it will not profit it is no better than reprobates may have it is not Justifying before God or Man Now then for Mr. Cl. Pairs of Antith he saith A man is justifyed by works as James saith a man is Justifyed without works of the law i. e. saith he A man is Justifyed by such works as are in the nature of living faith but not by such as are works of the law R. All works and faith it self as a qualification are works of a Law and whereby no flesh living shall be justify'd Gal. 3.11 and tho the Apostle speaks of and owns Abraham's Justification by faith before God as Paul doth Rom. 4. yet he no where saith a person is justifyed by works before God if he had said so he had directly contradicted the Apostle Paul but the Reconciliation is thus a believer is not Justified by works before God but he is justifyed by works of faith or fruits of it before man 2d Pair A man is Justifyed by faith and a man is not Justifyed by Faith only Reconc A man is Justifyed by that faith that includes works but not by that faith that is without works Recon A man is Justifyed by faith objectively which produceth works before God and man is not Justifyed without works before man The 3d Pair is thus A man is Justifyed by Faith and a man is Justifyed by Works I reconcile thus a man is justifyed by that faith which brings forth works and a man is justifyed by those works R. Recon a man is justifyed before God by faith a man is justifyed before man by works By all which it appears that Paul and James are agreed in the nature of true Faith and Justification by it in the sight of God but only James speaks of Justification in a larger sence to wit Justification in foro humano as well as Divino and therefore he ascribes a kind of Justification to works so that a man cannot be Justifyed by Faith alone in the largest sence seeing he cannot be Justifyed before man without works Now if he had meant as our Neonom do he must have ascribed all Justification to works only for they hold our Justification by Faith to be no otherwise than as a work Mr. Cl. seems to boast himself in expression of the Psal 106.3 1. concerning Phineas where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used the same root which is used of Abraham 's Faith Gen. 15.6 Where the thing that Abraham believed in the Promise God Imputed to him for righteousness as the Apostle expounds Gal. 3.6.8 for he saw Christ in that Gospel preached to him as our Saviour witnesseth and as the word there is an Active signification It is a Passive in Niph with the Psalm it plainly referrs to the particular Act of Phineas It is said that Phineas stood up and executed Judgment and the Plague was stayed and it was reckoned to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Righteousness for a noble righteous just Act to all Generations it s not said that the Lord accounted it him for the righteousness of his person before God but God bore witness to the seasonableness and justice of the action in staying of the Plague and such an effect being thereof all men have since judged it a righteous just Act to all Generations So that the word is not used impersonally but personally and passively and the Act which he perform'd is the Nominative Case neither is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used impersonally but the thing that God promises and he believes is the Nominative Case CHAP. XVI The Righteousness of Christ is the only Righteousness whereby a sinner is Iustified in God's sight Section 1. The Transition and Subject asserted § 2. Argument 1. § 3. Arg. 2. § 4. Arg. 3. § 5. Arg. 4. § 6. Arg. 5. § 7. Arg. 6. § 8. Arg. 7. § 9. Arg. 8. § 10. Arg. 9. § 11. Arg. 10. § 12. Arg. 11. § 13. Arg. 12. § 14. Arg. 13. § 15. Arg. 14. § 16. Arg. 15. Sect. 1. HAving written hitherto in way of defence against the Adversaries of our Justification by Christ's Righteousness and having in some measure as I trust the mind of the Spirit I dare not let these Adversaries pass without using the Sword of the Spirit to the wounding their Doctrine even in its very Vitals by home thrusts and downright blows For the Lord Jesus Christ who is come forth upon his white Horse with a Bow and a Crown will not return till he hath conquered all the Enemies of this glorious Righteousness of his and triumphed over them I have chearfully thro' grace taken this Service in hand under the Captain of my Salvation thro whose strength and assistance I hope for success to his praise and glory I shall in the first place prove that the Righteousness of Christ is the only righteousness that a Sinner is justified by before God and the Arguments are these briefly § 2. Arg. 1. That is the righteousness only that a sinner can be justified by which fulfils that law which he hath broken But Christs Righteousness is such For the minor our adversaries would have us believe that they mean so however they often talk of satisfaction to the Law their sincerity therein will be tried in due time As to the major its indubitable to any man of sence that it s not another law can excuse him from the condemnation of the law which he hath broken nor a righteousness of another law especially such as is imperfect and