Justified by this Law here 's Christs law causa sine qua non with a Witness As to the consequence if Justification be an effect of Merits and it be a Juridical effect then Merits which is the cause must be imputed to the person on whom these effects must fall What moves the Court or Judge to justify this or that person his own Merits or the Merits of another Not his own but the Merits of another Then these Merits are imputed for it quickly and plainly appears what is imputed to any whether merits of Condemnation or merits of Justification for Justice goes by nothing but Merit and therefore mens own righteousness cannot justify-because it cannot Merit And do not our Neonomians speak as the Socinians in this point and mumble as if their mouths were full of plumbs Now therefore if Christs Merit be brought into Court as a meritorious cause of the Sinners Justification they are imputed to him for his Justification as if he had merited himself § Arg. 5. They say Christs Merits cannot be Imputed but the Effects are Imputed And I Argue If Christs Righteousness be Imputed its Imputed as a cause of Justification or in the Effect It should be as an Effect or the Disjunction is ridiculous but it s not Imputed in the Effect Ergo. In and as the Cause for the Effect is not the Cause but contrary it s another thing so that to say Christs Merits are imputed and so imputed to the person Justified is nonsense But what are the effects imputed All the Benefits purchased by Christ For is Justification an effect imputed Sure not Is Justification imputed to Justification Sure that 's most absur'd Is Mortification imputed to Justification That looks very odd Is Vocation and Adoption or Glorification all or any of them Imputed to Justification for they are Effects of Christs Merits But suppose they say some of these or all are to us imputed for righteousness unto Justification I then Query Whether the Righteousness perform'd by us in the new law Justification be merited by Christ as an Effect Do not I see them sneak away now and give no Answer but upon another Subject they will tell you that Faith and the condition of the New law was not purchased by Christ but are by the gift of Election only And now I pray what 's become of Justification by Effects of Christs Merits They will say we are Justified by Imputing the Spirits operations to us for righteousness Now this cannot be 1. The Spirit never was incarnate nor his Office to work a Righteousness for Justification this was peculiar to Christ 2. The fruits of the Spirit when they come to be exerted are called our works and justly so because Graces exercised or Duties performed by us are so these are all renounced as such by the Apostle Paul Phil. 3.8 and elsewhere 3. What the Spirit doth in Justification its office is by way of Application it takes of Christs and gives it to us it applies and brings home to a sinner the Impetration of Christ as Righteousness unto his Justification hence the Spirit is said to justifie 1 Cor. 6.11 in bringing to the Soul the Grace of Justification and enstating him therein by faith as he sanctifies by bringing in the Grace of Sanctification Now then if Christ's Righteousness cannot be imputed in the effect and is imputed at all then as the cause meritorious of Justification But they say God cannot impute Christs Righteousness to us because we did not perform it and God is a God of Truth he cannot impute that to us which we did not To which I answer 1. That God doth not reckon we performed Christs Righteousness 2. God may give us his Son for righteousness Rom. 8. and give us this righteousness Rom. 5.5 3. He may accept it for us on law terms as our righteousness to Justification and all this is according to Truth and Righteousness imputing it to us in a Law Sense 4. The Argument will fall upon Neonomian Justification for that 's to call that righteousness which is unrighteousness and not according to Truth as hath been shewed Mr. Cl. makes it a great Argument that the active righteousness of Christ must not be imputed because Christ did not obey that we should not obey and where 's the Antinomian that says so but we say that Christ did and suffered all that the law required of him as a Second Adam and our Surety and his obeying in doing is no hindrance but a Gospel ground and reason of our doing and obeying As Christ did not suffer that we should not suffer but not suffer the Penally so Christs doing was not that we should not obey Evangelically but that we should but not obey legally with expectation of our Justification by our works or from a law for that is to be under a Law and not under Grace and to sin instead of obeying Rom. 6 c. Lastly If Christ's righteousness be taken as a meritorious cause in a sinner's Justification it is imputed as such to the person justified the effect of this cause is the sinner's Justification which is his proper Discharge and this is not Imputation but Judgment upon it and Delivery in Law and suppose the effects of Merit could be imputed the cause and reason thereof must be first imputed for the Law doth nothing in way of Condemnation or Justification but upon a meritorious cause imputed unto Condemnation or Justification and how absurd is it to say Condemnation is imputed but its proper to say the sin that merits it is imputed § 6. Arg. 6. That Righteousness which is accepted in law unto Justification is imputed to the person justified but Christ's Merits are accepted of God to the Sinner's Justification The major must be owned for Truth by the Neonomians otherwise they could not assert their Justification by Works The minor hath been counted sound Divinity by most Protestants and many Papists but whether it be or be not the Scripture affirms it roundly see for a taste Eph. 5.2 chap. 1.6 for an acceptation in law must be an imputation of Merit to Justification and can be upon no other account either of a man 's own or of another's for him the law looks at the value of his Money or Works that he brings into Court not how he came by either whether by Gift or otherwise § 7. Arg. 7. That righteousness through which Sin is not imputed to condemnation is the righteousness through which a man is imputed righteous unto Justification But Christs righteousness is that through which sin is not imputed to condemnation Ergo. The minor is very clear from Rom. 8.1.34 who is he that condemneth it is Christ that died chap. 4.6 7 8 Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven to whom God doth not impute sin and this is told us is a righteousness without works that which comes on Jews and Gentiles that which covers Sin from the Eye of God's Justice therefore that which
nothing of the sinner's deserving that brought Christ's suffering for the sinners but the substitution of Christ for this end by the Father and himself tho' the sinner deserves punishment § 7. The second thing according to the B. implied in Legal guilt is obligation to undergo the deserved punishment but because the execution of punishment depends on the wisdom and justice of the Legislator therefore here a change of person may intervene A. It behoves us to be exact with the B. here because he acquaints us with a curiosity in this point of change of persons that of late men have so shittlecock'd it up and down that it 's hard to find what either side would have but what they both agreed in that they would not have it to be what Dr. Crisp said it was 1. What is the reason the B. distinguisheth the obligation to undergo the deserved punishment and execution of punishment Why saith he not execution of deserved punishment To me it seems to be a very smatch of Socinianism as if Christ did not undergo any deserved punishment but only a punishment without desert i. e. only suffering and not punishment in any proper sence 2. If obligation to undergo the deserved punishment be the guilt only transferred to Christ then it will follow it 's only the guilt of the law is charged on Christ not of the sinner and it 's plain the B. means so for he denies that the guilt of any person is charged on Christ 3. He saith this obligation to punishment is only in the law and its truth therefore he means that this law obligation falling on Christ is all the guilt that falls upon him and here may be no change of persons for tho' the law obligation may fall upon John and Thomas and John be never the better that it falls on Thomas because it falls not on Thomas for the sake of John But he saith that here a change of persons may intervene how between two persons to undergo punishments If so it must be under one and the same law not a change from being under one law to a being under another 2. It must be a change in respect of deserved punishment for punishment cannot be without desert it becomes not the wisdom and justice of God that it should be be so 3. If the change be in respect of deserved punishment we have gained as much as we expect for then the desert of the sinner which is of his fault and his guilt is translated to Christ because his punishment was deserved e. gr he bore the deserved punishment of sin of what or whom of the law nay the law never deserved punishment of any persons nay quoth the B. he bore no personal guilt then there is no change in respect of deserved punishment Christ suffer'd for us but was not punished for any he suffered no deserved punishment Hence no punishment at all for all just punishment is due § 8. He saith The execution of punishment depends on the wisdom and justice of the Legislator It is true therefore ought not the execution of punishment answer the obligation to it Is it wisdom and justice in God to oblige in his law to any punishment not deserved And is it wisdom or justice in God to oblige in his law to deserved punishment and not to execute deserved punishments For if Christ's punishments were not deserved they were meer sufferings and if so no more to us than the suffering of a Martyr to us if deserved suffering then 1. According to some rule of justice 2. Deserved by himself or some others not by himself and his own individual person you will say therefore by some other Hence if Christ bore deserved punishments of others he bore the guilt of sin the Reatus culpae that being the formal desert of punishment the law making it so either of God or Man He saith By the wisdom and justice of God a mediator may be accepted in such a manner as himself hath determined and upon acceptance of his Sacrifice the offenders may be pardoned and received into grace and favour of God on such terms as he hath declared in the Gospel and in this sence is the guilt of sins charged on Christ c. A. It is much that these men can take upon themselves a power of directing God and telling him what he may do when God hath never said that he did or would do so the true Explanation of the B's sence in this paragraph is by the new-coin'd law but we will take him in his own terms And I say in God's execution of punishment it becomes the wisdom and justice of God to do it according to a promulgated law which the Legislator hath in his wisdom and justice made a manifest Norma Justitiae to shew forth his justice and that God may be justified as Judge of all the world to deal righteously and therefore not to accept of a Sinner or a Mediator for them upon other terms than is in his law express'd and not upon other secret and unknown terms 2. How may God accept of a Mediator Is it not in satisfying for the sinner in bearing the sinners deserved punishment and therein taking off the laws obligation of the Sinner to punishment God can't otherwise do in wisdom or justice 3. He makes God's acceptance of a sacrifice to be an antecedent of pardon only not a satisfying and meritorious reason thereof 4. How doth God accept Christ's sacrifice as a single noble act done by him wherein none is concern'd but himself or a qualifying act to God himself to make him able to pardon Or doth he accept his sacrifice for sinners deserving punishment under the law Taking their deserts and punishment upon himself then he is a mediatorial sacrifice otherwise if the guilt lyes upon persons unremoved he is neither a sacrifice for their sins nor accepted of God as such 5. Is it according to the justice of God to accept a sacrifice for sinners whose personal guilt he never took away thereby and pardon and receive them into favour upon other terms afterwards Sure then the mediator is not accepted till they have performed those conditions upon which their pardon and acceptance is laid § 9. In answer to the Reporter p. 8. he takes occasion to tell him that the Consideration of sins as debts is a wrong notion and gives up the point of Satisfaction to the Socinians If it do it doth but as the B. and his right Reverend Father Mr. B. hath done from whom he took up this divinity It seems the spirit of God did not so well consider of it as the B. hath done nor our master the Lord Jesus when he taught his disciples to pray so I know it sticks cruelly in the Neonom stomachs that our Lord Jesus was so rash and inconsiderate to make use of this word debt for sin but why doth this give away the cause to Socinians Because if sins be considered as debts
said and only take notice of the things of weight But first it is necessary to shew how we understand this Question 1. In what capacity Christ stood when he bore sin and punishment 2. In what sense he bore sin 3. What personal guilt is 4. How Christ came to bear personal guilt A. As to the first that Christ stood in the capacity of a publick person representing the whole body of the Elect under the consideration of the lapsed Estate and Condition in the first Adam As to the second when we say Christ bore Sin it 's neither treason or blasphemy as our Adversaries would have it because we speak in the language of the Spirit of God however to prevent cavilling we will vouchsafe to yeild to the Bp's term personal guilt which can import nothing but the committed Sin remaining on the sinner's person and conscience as a forbidden and condemned fault by the law neither do we say that Christ committed these Sins or was made to have committed them when our Sins were laid upon him neither that his Nature was physically or morally corrupted thereby Lastly We cannot but adore the wisdom of God in calling personal guilt Sin because 1. A bare physical Act as such is not Sin and as all killing is not sin but Sin is a physical Act cloathed with a moral Exorbitancy arising from its relation to and comparing with the law of God therefore to say the substratum of the physical act or defect is transferred from one subject to another is most absurd but the guilt of this fact and its moral relation to the law may be transferred and taken away from the subject transgressor as we shall make it appear As to the third the Bp. tells us what he means by personal guilt and it 's very plain David's personal guilt was of Murder and Adultery so Peter's of denying his Master Now the Bp. will not have personal guilt ever to be taken off from any but that David continues in Heaven under personal guilt of Murder and Adultery to this Day and for ever Lastly Christ came to bear Sin 1. By God's call and his acceptance voluntarily obeying his Father's command 2. In submitting himself to a legal way of proceeding with him when he came under the same law the transgressor was under 3. By a legal accounting and imputing our Sin to him he coming in forum Justitiae and writing himself debtor in the room and stead of all the insolvent debtors to the Law of God Justice accepts of him as a sufficient Paymaster Hence in the law sense Christ was called by God what he was not in a natural sense Rom. 4. He was made Sin who knew no Sin and God calls things that are not as tho' they were both in calling Christ Sin and us Righteous § 3. Now we say that Commutation of Persons was so far and no more nor less than God hath made it to be in his legal way of proceeding in this great mystery That Christ should according to the Preordination and Constitution of the Father freely put himself under a judicial Process for the Sins of all the Elect under the same law that they transgressed and that Justice should deal with him as if he had been the original transgressor and in the stead thereof in transferring the charge upon him and punishing him for Sin Hereupon follows the change that he is made Sin and we Righteousness in him Justice receiving full satisfaction for our Sins Hence we shall not much trouble our selves with the many odious Inferences that the Neonom would draw upon this glorious Mystery nor the dirty Reflections on the unsearchable Wisdom of God the Truth being as fully and plainly made manifest in Holy Writ as any doctrine of Godliness 1. It is plain that Sin was laid on Christ in some sence or other the Scripture being so express in it 2. It 's granted on all hands the physical part of the Act was not transferred to Christ after which that which remains on the Sinner is the guilt of it which is his relation to the law in the moral sense as a transgressor and must be his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the laws condemnation of the Fact making his guilt or desert of punishment 3. The Spirit of God calls this Merit or Desert Sin and shall we call it contrary to Scripture Where doth the Scripture say it was not It saith again and again that it was and what if contrary to the Bp's reason Are we to believe God or Man Is the Bp's reason the rule of our Faith What if the same word be used in Scripture for Sin and Punishment I grant that one word in Hebrew is used for Sin and the Sacrifice for Sin sometimes but when it 's used for the Sacrifice it 's therefore used because Sin was judicially transferred to the Sacrifice that it bore the Sin of the Transgressor so that it became the formalis ratio of its Suffering and therefore it 's denominated from its most essential cause To say it 's a tropical word is not much to the purpose it being such as expresseth the very nature of the thing as often in Scripture by a Metonimy Sensus pornitur pro sensili a Grace of the Spirit put for the Object Faith for the Object and Hope for its Object so here Sin for the personal guilt of Sin the Subject put for an essential or proper Production It 's a Metan of another nature from that this is my Body where Signum is put for Signatum and its true the Scripture doth always denote the guilt of Sin by Sin and the Bp. doth concede that Punishment is not Sin but a Consequent of guilt we say it 's more than a mere Consequent it is a merited effect and Sin always deserves and merits Punishment tho' no Sinner merited that a Surety should be punished for him this is by Gracious Surrogation or Substitution And it 's to contradict Scripture to make Punishment separable from guilt and for good reason to for no just Law punisheth any one but the guilty whereby it 's always said that Sin lyes upon him i. e. the just charge of Sin § 4. Bp. Obj. But Punishment must have relation to Sin as to the same Person This is true it must and always hath Sin is inseparable from Punishment in the same Person according to the just Terms and Constitution of any Law by which any Person is punished To this the Bp. saith he answers distinctly that there are three ways our Sins are said to have relation to Christ's Sufferings 1. As an external impulsive cause no more than occasional no proper reason of Punishment and so for the Socinians This I suppose he leaves to the Socinians with whom Mr. B. is one in this point 2. As an impulsive cause becomes meritorious by the voluntary Act of Christ's undertaking to satisfie Divine Justice for our Sins and not as his own 3. As to the Personal guilt of our
Blood of Christ is purged from all his Sins and is perfectly Righteous in the sight of God in Christ though not in himself notwithstanding all the inherency of remaining corruption in him after he is partaker of Regenerating and Sanctifying Grace Bp For God may see cause to forgive a Sinner and receive him into favour although he still continues to hate and abhor the Sin A. What cause can God have to forgive a Sinner and receive him into favour besides his Free-Grace and the Satisfaction of his Son which he hath made to his Justice in bearing his Sin and suffering for it And this God doth and yet hates and abhors Sin for though Christ bore Sin it was not in kindness to it but to condemn it in his Flesh And though God loves and saves the Person of the Sinner yet he always hated Sin both of the Elect and Reprobate § 13. Bp As to the Guilt of Sin as it relates to Punishment these things are to be considered He should have told us what Guilt of Sin he means for obligation to Punishment he told us is in the Law not in the Delinquent therefore his Guilt is not of Sin but of the Law I have not much to say to the three particulars provided they be rightly meant viz. 1. Although a Divine Justice require satisfaction for Sin it is not necessary the actual Transgressors should undergo the Punishment which they have deserved i. e. if another undergo their deserved Punishment by a substitution legally in their stead in regard of Desert and Punishment for then there would be no room for Grace and Favour which is not shewed by God to any absolutely in a dispensation with Justice but in such a way as may glorifie Divine Justice 2. That it is consistent with the Wisdom and Justice of God to accept of a Mediator such an one as is a Surety to interpose between the Severity of the Law and the Punishment of the Transgressor upon terms agreeable to Divine Wisdom and Mercy A. 1. The Mediator ought to be between God and Man in respect of Sin especially the cause of Punishment for it's Sin that 's contrary to God's Law Punishment of the Sinner is agreeable to God's Law 2. He speaks of terms upon which God accepted of a Mediator I cannot understand what he means by it for Christ's Mediatorship was the condition of God's acceptance of us Christ in respect of himself was absolutely accepted not upon any previous conditions performed by him or after-conditions to be performed by us Which latter I find he intends 3. That such a Mediator undertaking to make Atonement for our Sins by Suffering in our stead and Place as Sinners may truly and properly be said to undergo the Punishment of our Sins and our Sins to be the Meritorious cause of it By no means in Suffering only upon an occasional remote reason from Sin but he must suffer judicially taking upon him a Legal Charge of Merit and Desert in the place and stead of the Sinner Now he seems to suspect himself in this Doctrine of his to fall upon the Shelves of marvellous inconsistency and therefore indeavours to forestall the following Objection If Desert adhere to Personal Guilt inseparably as before asserted how can our Sins be the Meritorious cause of another's Punishment The Argument against his Doctrine he can't Answer for where there 's no Guilt there 's no Desert and where there 's no Desert there 's no Punishment in legal Sense He riggles up and down under the pressure of this Objection but can't get it off I answer that a meritorious cause may be considered two ways 1. In a Natural Course of things and so Desert follows the Fact so that the Sinner always deserves Punishment and no interposition nor forgiveness can take off the Desert c. A. The subject Act to Sin is Natural but the formal Nature of Sin as Guilt is Moral as it stands in Relation to the Law So that supposing that Ordine naturae the Guilt or Desert follows the Fact yet it 's not in a Physical course of things 2. His after Assertion implies that no Sin is pardoned in and through the Satisfaction of Christ that whether the Sin be Pardon'd in a way of Grace or satisfied for in a way of Justice the Sin remains in its full strength upon the Sinner for ever for he that deserves Punishment doth so by the Law for the strength of Sin is the Law and therefore must of necessity for fear of Death the Wages of Sin be all the Day long subject unto Bondage this is a sad Gospel 2. He saith As Desert implies only a just reason of Punishment and so there may be a Meritorious cause in extraordinary Cases when the Legislator consents that another bear the Punishment which others have deserved Immerito quemque punire est injuste punire as Johns out of Cret Immerito is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 merito 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Cic. Jure merito are most commonly put together A. Here we have the cause given The Question is in plain terms whether Christ Died merito for our Sins He here plainly grants those things 1. That Desert implies a just reason of Punishment then I argue if Christ was punished justly then he Died with a just reason thereof and there can be no just reason of Punishment but Desert and if this was on Christ it came from Christ's own Personal Sins or from ours The Bp would not say from his therefore from ours 2. He grants there may be a meritorious Cause in extraordinary Cases when the Legislator consents that another shall undergo the Punishment What 's that 1. Was any Case more extraordinary than this we are speaking of 2. He must needs mean that when the Legislator consents that another shall undergo the Punishment that then the said Person so undergoing stands under the Desert of that Person for whom he is punished 3. He grants the truth and none can deny it that Immerito aliquem punire est injuste punire it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 punire sine ratione in juditio Nothing of Suffering can be reasonable in Judicial Proceedings unless there be a desert therefore he saith that Cic. puts jure merito together Now this is the Mystery that the Bp is to reveal to shew how Christ was Punished for a meritorious Cause and yet stood not under any of our Personal Deserts § 14. He comes now to Answer what is said for Christ's bearing our Personal Guilt and the most that he saith is to resay what he said before and is sufficiently Answered already but to do him right we will briefly weigh his strength The first is The injustice of Punishing any immerito this is the summ of it His Answer lyes chiefly in asserting that this is the Socinian way of Arguing and so we see the Antinomians join with the Socinians But how the same way of Arguing May not one and the
meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings they were only premeritorious or occasional Causes For although the Bp would have Mr. B. mean something more than occasional by promeritorious yet he acquits us with Mr. B's own Explication of his meaning of premeritorious that it is only occasional which the Bp saith is no cause at all and Socinianism and yet he good Man would defend him though he finds it hic labor hoc opus and fain to leave it re infecta The first proof which he would make is from Mr. B's Confession wherein all that he saith is no more than what a Socinian will say in this Point That Christ gave up himself a Sacrifice for our Sins and a Ransom for us in suffering for us upon the Cross which he doth make according to his way of moulding of Doctrine comport well enough with Socinian Principles See what he gives for Antinomianism 1. That Christ satisfied God's Justice as in the Person of all the Elect this one Error whereby he denies Jesus Christ to be a Publick Person 2. That in a Law-sence and God's account they themselves did satisfie in and by Christ Here he denies Christ to have Suffered in our stead or to have made Payment to Justice for our Sins either in a Law-sense nor in God's account and therefore he made no payment for us neither can we say we satisfie in and by him Whereas every Debtor can say so who hath a Surety that makes payment in his stead the Law accounting this payment to the Original Debtor neither is it untrue that he paid in and by his Surety but an honour to his Surety and detraction from himself when he saith he paid in and by his Surety 3. That Christ's Sufferings were full and proper Executions of the threatning of the Law to Man Here he denies Christ's Suffering under the Law that Man brake and that his Punishment was no proper execution of the threatning of the Law and therefore no proper Punishment 4. And so acquits them ipso facto on the meer Suffering Here he makes up his charge by ambiguous Expressions without any further means of conveyance to give them right in it by Application 1. Here he insinuates that there was no Discharge of Christ from the Sins of the Elect which he suffered for If so no satisfaction 2. He makes as if some held that Men have an Actual and Personal discharge before their being by Grace or Nature which is a false Charge and a male Consequent drawn by himself on the Doctrine As if those that held Christ's full and compleat Satisfaction by impetration denied application 3. He would have us believe it an Error that Christ purchased a right to Eternal Life for all the Elect as the immediate effect of his purchase and that our right comes by application whereas our right lyes in the purchase only and our claim of that right and possession is by application The Socin Error he thus represents That Jesus Christ did not undergo any Penalty for our Sins as meritorious or promeritorious Cause but only as occasional And doth not Mr. B. say the same thing again and again in his Writings only he foacheth in his promeritorious which if the Socin either did not use or if they did they would not deny it in the Sense Mr. B. useth it and as he hath explain'd himself And that he did not make any Satisfaction to God's Justice for us c. there is nothing plainer in Mr. B's Writings both in his Methodus and Universal Redemption He puts for Truth as follows That Jesus Christ as a Publick Sponsor did bear the Punishment deserved by the Sins of the World he means of all and every Man and made to his Father a Satisfaction sufficient for all It is strange a Bishop of the Church of England should look upon this as an Orthodox and Plain Confession to distinguish a Man from a Socinian for it 's plain he prevaricates in speaking of Christ as a Publick Person for in the Antin charge he makes it a marvelous Error to say Christ satisfied Justice in the Person of all the Elect so he must mean here that Christ was such a Publick Person that was no Representative or Surety which is no publick Person at all 2. In that he saith Christ did bear the Punishment deserved by Sin he also prevaricates for he doth every-where deny that our Sins were imputed to Christ that he suffered the Punishment of our Sins in any proper Sense and that Sin was but an occasional no proper Cause thereof and therefore his Punishment was but Analogical Equivalent to the Socinian's Metaphorical He cann't mean in respect of proportion in a Mathematical Sense for that would overthrow his whole Hypothesis Mr. Lob quotes enough to overthrow all that the Bp pleads on his behalf He shews that in his Methodus he expresly declares that the Sufferings of Christ were only a Natural Evil undergone by occasion and the remote causality of the Sins of Mankind and that Christ's sufferings are only sufferings in an Improper and Analogical Sense These things saith the Bp were long since written The chief Expression is Christ's Sufferings had no proper meritorious Cause but yet Man's Sins were the Pro causa meritoria c. and saith nothing to defend it p. 151. He considers whether Mr. B's own words do lay him open to the suspicion of going too far towards the Socinians in this matter Now let us see whether Mr. B. hath a fair deliverance at the Bp's Bar. Bp In this case we must distinguish the Scripture Notion of Punishment from a Strict and Philosophical Sense of Punishment R. This is a strange distinction of a Learned Bp what means he by a Philosophical Punishment Is it morally Philosophical i. e. such Punishment as belongs to the breach of a Moral Law If so sure the Scripture Punishment cann't be distinguished from it for that is legal Punishment but he saith it's strict Punishment i. e. according to the exact tenor of a Moral Law if he mean so it cannot be excluded from Scripture Punishment Bp The Scripture speaks in General of Christ's bearing our Sins c. but not a word of strict and proper Punishment R. No sure the Bp is mistaken greatly when he might see in the same Chapter that Christ was wounded for our Transgressions was not that proper Punishment Doth the Scripture say nothing of strict and proper Punishment when it saith the Wages of Sin is Death Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the Book of the Law Is not the Curse of the Law strict and proper Punishment If this be his Philosophical Punishment there 's much of it in Scripture and it cann't be distinguish'd from it Bp. But of that which was appointed and accepted in order to atonement for our Sins as the impulsive Cause which become meritorious by his voluntary undertaking R. The Bp would suggest that there 's some general improper
acceptation of Punishment in Scripture always used in which sence Christ was Punished because he saith the nature of the Expressions that is of the use of the word Punishment doth imply as it were an impulsive cause when indeed there was none but something that God appointed and accepred in order to Atonement but was not Punishment in strict and proper Sense But yet becomes meritorious by his voluntary undertaking R. That is as much as to say there was nothing in Christ's Sufferings themselves that made them Meritorious but something Antecedent to them viz. The Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ in giving himself to be a ransom but the ransom it self and what he suffered had no merit in it Here the Bp doth basely Baxterize to cast Mr. Lob in this Cause To which I briefly return that Punishment which was appointed by God and accepted for full Satisfaction to his offended Justice was strict and proper Punishment and of it self meritorious but Christ's Punishment was such The Major is true else the Judge of all the World did not deal Righteously in putting his Son to grief for if he put him not to as much as the Law required the Law was not satisfied if he made only a shew of Punishing him and did not do it then the Scripture hath given us but a kind of Romantick account of Christ's Punishment when indeed there was no such thing nor any such cause as the Scripture acquaints us with He acquaints us that Mr. B. not content with Scripture terms falls to enquire into the Nature and Reason of the thing it self suggesting that he would dive deeper into the thing than Scripture 1. That Punishment is a Natural Evil inflicted for a Moral 2. That the Name of Punishment is ambiguous because it relates to Punishment justly inflicted and that which is not the former Proper the latter Analogical So that this Analogical Punishment is that which hath a representation and looks like it but is not so Similia non sunt Idem things alike are not the same And that which is improper is unjustly inflicted ergo and hence Christ's Sufferings would be unjust But he saith the first and most natural Sense of punishment is when the Offender suffers for his own fault but there may be other reasons of Punishment which he calls Analogical and those from nearness of Relation as Subjects for Princes or Vicarious and why I pray must these be called Analogical and Improper Punishments Because it 's Mr. B's pleasure Why would it not be better distributed unless to serve a turn Punishment is either just or unjust Just is either that which falls on the Person committing the fault or on another Relation or Sponsor that suffers on his behalf voluntarily subjecting to the Law in his Place and what need we Analogical when Proper payment is made to the Law Bp From whence he inferrs that since Christ did not Die as a Sinner therefore his Punishment could not be proper in the strictest sense R. But if Christ Died for Sin he Died as Sinners Die though he did no Sin and in that sense was not a Sinner yet he Died for our Sins as the reason of judicial proceeding against him and this being done by a just God for the honour of his Law it could not be but proper Punishment For all just Punishment is proper Punishment The Bp himself shews that this will not hold Water for whereas Mr. B. distinguisheth of Punishment by false imputation and calls it unjust but Analogical and the Punishment of another by consent he calls Analogical but not unjust the Bp Answers If the Punishment be just the Cause must be just and Christ's could not be just with Relation to his own fault for none is supposed therefore there may be a just Punishment for another's fault and if so that viz. the fault of another may be truly said to be the Meritorious cause of it and the Punishment a proper Punishment although for another's fault What can be said more directly and demonstratively against Mr. B. in this Point The Argument is this That Punishment which is just must have a just cause of fault either in the Person suffering or some other and that cause is truly meritorious and the Punishment a proper Punishment But the Punishment of Christ was such therefore a proper Punishment Having thus thrown Mr. B. on his Back he endeavours to make some little excuses for him That which led Mr. B. in denying of it was the Antinomians making Christ to undergo the proper Punishment of our Sin because our Personal Guilt was according to them transferred upon him R. Hence it appears that in the Bp's Judgment Mr. B. was more excuseable in being a Socinian than in being an Antinomian for he finding saith the Bp this Principle to be the Foundation of Antinom that this could not be true and therefore denied Christ's Punishment to be proper But let me speak what is truth as to Mr. B. that I believe he had a further insight into this Controversie than it appears the Bishop had and would have told him that these two Principles are inconsistent and overthrow one another Christ's Suffering was proper Punishment And Christ bore no Personal guilt of any so that the Bp's Argument that refutes Mr. B. redounds back upon himself So that instead of fetching off Mr. B. they both fall irrecoverably together by one blow and it 's easie to take notice how he buffets Mr. B. afterwards quoting Mr. B's words upon this reason he saith But then as you Mr. Lob truly cite his words he makes our Sins not to be the meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings but a kind of promeritorious or occasional Cause Therefore he means no more by promeritorious than occasional and in the Bp's Judgment falls under Mr. L's Charge Yea he saith we must do him right is it to acquit or condemn Mr. B Sure to pass sentence against him So far as to take notice that in stating the Socinian Controversie he makes it to consist in denying that Christ did undergo any Penalty for our Sins as the meritorious or promeritorious Cause but only as occasions and yet here he makes the pro-meritorious cause and the occasional the same and he denies that our Sins were the meritorious cause but only because if we had not Sinned he had not suffered What is this any more than an occasional cause If the World had not been created Man had not fell if there had been no Law there had been no Sin and what saith the Bp truly he is necessitated to give Sentence against Mr. B. though in as soft terms as may be P. 156. These Expressions I grant taken alone yield too much to the Socinians who do not deny our Sins to have been a remote impulsive and occasional cause of Christ's Sufferings but deny them to be the meritorious cause of them What can be more plain and full to prove Mr. B. Socinianizing in these Points For
all this he will not give up Mr. B. to the Socinians why Because he hath writ of the Doctrine of the Trinity that he might do and yet be a Socin in the Doctrine of Satisfaction But he hath written of the Doctrine of Satisfaction yes he hath retained the word to make his Doctrine go down the better but hath endeavoured to destroy the thing to all intents and purposes Bp. These may be said for his Vindication 1. By laying all the passages together he must mean something more by his promeritous Cause than meerly a remote occasional Cause A. This supposition is very unreasonable when the Bp hath told us from Mr B's own Mouth what he means by his promeritorious Cause It is not hard to conceive what Mr. B. meant by promeritorious it is only that Sin Antecedently to Christ's Death was meritorious of Death but this merit terminated there and never reached as a Cause meritorious of the Sufferings of Christ This merit the Bp saith is antecedent to the Legislator's act in accepting a Sponsor and is but an occasional Cause and what saith he of an occasional Cause It 's really no Cause at all c. just as if a Man said the Fire of London was the occasional Cause of the Monument p. 169. Bp. Now no Man can say the fault antecedently was any more than an occasional cause of the innocent Person 's Suffering A. This is true in Mr B's sense that the fault of the Offender makes him only guilty and deserving of Punishment in general but is not transferred to the Sponsor to be any Guilt or desert of his Punishment which is truly Mr. B's meaning of his term promeritorious And therein Mr. B. is consonant to himself in saying it's but an occasional Cause and that Sin is a remote impulsive Cause viz. remote from Christ tho' immediate and impulsive to Punishment 2. This is true in the Bp's Sense who saith Christ suffered Punishment for Sin and bear the Personal Guilt of none is to make the Sin of Man no more than an occasional Cause But the consistency of the assertion lyes more on Mr. B's side because he knew it to be a great inconsistency to say that Christ bore proper Punishment when he bore the guilt of no Sin Bp. But taking all together when he is admitted to suffer in the place of the Guilty the Law with the Punishment makes the impulsive Cause become meritorious and it is the immediate Reason of his Sufferings R. This the Bp speaks as the truth and intimates as if he would have it Mr. B's Sense but gives no proof that it is so neither is it likely he should being not consonant at all to what Mr. B. every-where maintains and what if the Bp saith so it 's not consonant at all to the Tenet he defends that Christ bore no Personal Guilt For then how can the Guilt of any become the meritorious and immediate reason of his Sufferings Bp. The only question then is whether this can properly be called a meritorious cause A. That may be taken in two Senses 1. In a strict and proper sence so your self deny that Christ merited by his own Sin 2. In the sense of the Law i. e. Sin was legally charged on Christ and so that which was the near impulsive cause the fault of the Transgressor may be truly said to be meritorious as to his sufferings because they made it an act of Justice which otherways had been an act of Power and Dominion R. See now the Bp's clear concession 1. That what is here spoken of Christ it 's in the sense of the Law not in a Physical or Moral sense 2. He makes the near impulsive cause Sin and here Sin in its merits or deserts the immediate reason of Christ's suffering can that be any thing but the Guilt of Men's Persons 3. Sin is such a reason as may distinguish Christ's Punishment from an Act of Dominion and make it an Act of Justice How is it possible that any Man that saith this can say that the guilt of Man's Sin was not charged on Christ as our Representative in a legal Sense i. e. in a way of Judicial proceeding Now doth the Bp lay down this as Mr. B's sense No he dare not for if he did Mr. B. were he living would say he had laid therein the Foundation of Antinomianism Bp. The question between us and the Socinians is not about meritorious and promeritorious Cause R. I wonder the Bp should insinuate so great a falshood when he knows the question between us and the Socinians is whether our Sins were the meritorious cause of Christ's sufferings or occasional And it 's that which hath been at present under hand Promeritorious being a word of Mr. B's bringing in it may be they might not think of it to hide occasional under it as he doth to make Men think he did not deny all merit in this Case Bp. But the question is whether Christ did really undergo the Punishment of our Sins in order to be a Sacrifice of Atonement for them And in this we have Mr. B 's consent express'd on all occasions R. I wonder the Bp can speak thus why doth he not acquaint us then with his consent in one passage if he hath any such passage doth he mean as he speaks No no more than the Bp who could not as long as he held that Christ bore the personal guilt or desert of none It is now evident the Bp hath said nothing to the purpose for vindication of Mr. B. what hath been said hath been for a greater confirmation of the Charge and wounding his own Cause He saith little further but to excuse 1. Liberty must be given to Metaphysick Heads 2. Tells a Story of Lubbertus and Mcacovius 3. He tells us of favourable interpretations that are to be given to Persons that keep to the main point as if this were but a trifling matter between the Socin and us 4. Mr. L. argues that Mr. B. speaks after the Unitarians That Christ did not undergo punishment properly so called but in a popular sense of Punishment The Bp in answer doth fill up p. 162 163 164 165 166. in shewing what slippery Gentlemen the Writers of the Unitarian Doctrine are but nothing to Mr. L's Charge of Mr. B. therefore yields the truth thereof and agrees with Mr. L. in these words Bp. you say Rectoral Justice doth essentially respect the Law in its distributions Whatever a Soveraign may do in acts of Dominion A Rector cannot justly inflict Sufferings on an innocent person as such Here I grant you have come up to the true state of the Case between the Socin and us and therefore we shall leave it and let the Reader judge who is cast at the Bp's Bar. But before I end it 's necessary to consider how the Bp. doth reconcile his two Principles 1. That the Sin of Man was the immediate impulsive and meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferigns This he holds
Distinctions or Explications Doth this become learned Divines The Rebukers Articles which he brought into Court were I find to the number of 21 but it seems the judicious Bp. contracted them to Six which he hath called us to appear to looking upon the rest I suppose as frivolous illiterate or spiteful the Six with my respective Answers are as follows Er. 1. That Pardon is rather the Condition of Faith having a causal Influence thereunto then Faith and Repentance are of Pardon A. The Words were mine in transitu of a Discourse and therefore it is very unfair to expose them without shewing their Dependance 1. I have shewn and proved and will stand by it that Pardon Faith and Repentance belong not to the conditional Part of the new Covenant but to the Promisory 2. That Pardon Faith and Repentance altho' they are not Foederal Conditions yet being connected in the Promise may have a Connexion conditional given to them as if a Man believe he receiveth Pardon in believing if he repent he will believe if he repent and believe he shall be saved and I renounce not the Scripture Language in anything but desire to understand and explain it in its true and genuine Sense 3. I say that if we talk of the Foederal Conditionality of Faith to Pardon Pardon is rather a Foederal Condition of Faith and Repentance than Faith of Pardon I say not that it is but rather because distinguishing Pardon aright into Active and Passive I say Pardon Passive received can't be without Faith to receive it but Pardon Active must be before Faith 1. Because the Object that the Hand receives must be before the Instrument that receives it 2. The Grace of Pardon is in God to be bestowed before we receive it 3. There is Pardon in Christ for all that shall believe Jo. 17.20 See what Mr. Capel saith on this point It is one thing for all the Sins of all the Elect to be pardoned to Christ for them that was done before we were or our Sins were another thing to be pardoned to them Christ was made a Curse for us by Imputation for that the Father did impute all our Sins as a Judge to Christ as our Surety the true notion of Imputation that it is not an Act of Grace but a Judicial Act and God did exact all of him as guilty by that Law c. 3. Pardon in God and in Christ hath a causal Influence on Faith and Repentance 1. Pardon is an essential cause of a pardoned Person the Abstract being the formal cause of the Concrete pardoning Grace doth effectually work all Graces of the Spirit in us the pardoning Grace of the Father Son and Spirit 2. The Gospel preached to Sinners which is Pardon of Sin the Gospel preached to Abraham is that which works Faith thro' the effectual Operation of the Spirit Act. 13.39 Rom. 10.15 And it was preached to David by Nathan 2 Sam. 12.17 as done before his particular Repentance express'd Psal 51. therefore if we talk of Foederal Conditions Pardon is rather such than Faith and Repentance because it 's in Nature as well as Time antecedent and such an antecedent as hath a causal Influence And hence I also assert that every necessary antecedent tho' with causal Influence upon the consequent is not a Foederal Condition Er. 2. That Sin it self as opposed to Guilt was laid on Christ and Christ was reputed a Criminal not only by Man but God A. As to the first clause they should have pointed out the Person that said it If I spake it or writ it I was asleep then for when we say Sin was laid on Christ we speak not of it by way of Opposition unto Guilt but by way of Identity or Sameness with Guilt in the Dialect of the Spirit of God our use of the Word Guilt being but an apt Exegetical Term to express the meaning of Sin in this Point because the Physical Substratum of Sin can't be transferred to another but the Law Relation may As to the second charge 1. It will be easily granted by the Accusers that a Sinner's Debts to the Law are Crimes 2. To say he was a reputed Criminal in Law only is by a received Sense to justifie the personal and absolute Innocency of Christ in himself 3. I suppose they will not deny that if Sin was charged on Christ for the delivery of Sinners it was done by God as his Act and not by the false Accusation of Satan or his Instruments for the Salvation of Sinners by his bearing Sin was never their Design and it 's said God laid upon him the Iniquity of us all Isa 53.4 The term Criminal might possibly be used by some or other with a good Meaning but I look not upon it as proper and I don't know that I have used it if I have I have better considered of it 1. Because tho' the Scripture saith Sin was laid on Christ and that he was made Sin yet it saith not that he was a Sinner or a Criminal 2. Because his bearing Sin and being made so it plainly implies that he was not so in himself but made so by Law Imputation and by standing in a Surety relation to the Law for us 3. A Sinner or Criminal doth in an ordinary and common Acceptation import a Committer or Perpetrator of Sin which Christ never was not reputed by God so to be Therefore herein God shews his wonderful Wisdom in teaching us to speak of Christ in this great Mystery with so much Exactness Er. 3. That the Doctrine of Justification before Faith is not an Error but a great and glorious Truth and therefore we believe that we may be justified declaratively A. It is an Error and it is not an Error it is an Error to say Justification by Faith is before Faith in time and a contradiction in Adjecto therefore I never said so for Justification by Faith can't be before Faith is in the Receiver to receive it by But that Justification is before Faith is a glorious Truth and this I must affirm for Truth that there is Justification before Faith if we distinguish of Justification aright as of Pardon and say it 's actively and passively to be understood active Justification is in God that justifieth Rom. 8. the Grace of Justification a Gift to us 2. Christ as the Head and Representative of the Elect was justified and all the Elect fundamentally in him else Jesus Christ's suffering as a publick Person could not have been he was taken from Prison and Judgment 3. Justification in Application is by Nature before Faith because all Grace apprehends the Sinner before he apprehends it and is the immediate cause of a Sinner's apprehending it Again the Grace of Justification is in nature before Sanctification and the Foundation of it by the consent of Protestants and therefore it 's said in that Sence that God justifies the ungodly not that we should be ungodly but that he finds and takes us in that
Taste how the Quakers and Socinian fall in with this Doctrine of Justification by Works Quakers Works and Faith are equally required to Justifie Works of the Law are excluded as done by us to be justified by Grace is to be justified by Regeneration which cannot exclude Works wrought by Grace since the Law gives not Power to obey and so fall short of Justification there 's Power under the Gospel whereby the Law comes to be fulfilled inwardly Works through the Power of the Spirit is a Condition upon which Life is proposed under the New Covenant It appears from divers Scriptures that the Apostle excludes only our own Righteousness as being the Righteousness of the Law from being necessary to Justification Barcl Socinian There was never but one way of Justification by Faith This Faith is nothing else but under the hope of Eternal Life to obey the Commands of Christ and this we apprehend to be understood in Scripture where-ever we read of Salvation promised to them that believe in Christ Socin de offic Chr. Them 42.43 To believe in Christ is nothing else than to obey God according to the Rule and Prescription of Crist and in doing it to expect of Christ a Crown of Eternal Lise Socin de Servatori To the attaining Eternal Life not any Merits are required but the obeying Christs Precepts to which Eternal Life is the constituted Price or Reward not that Obedience it self deserved it but because it hath pleased the most gracious God to deal so with Mankind Socin Respon ad Obj. cut § 3. Now let us see how Consonant our Neonomians be to this Fraternity in the Doctrine we 'll take it from Mr. H. one of the honestest of the Pack and freest from Juggling Medeocr p. 16 17. Our Works do not Merit because they are not perfect i. e. therefore do not Merit as related to the Old-Covenant but Merit notwithstanding ex pacto in relation to the New-law-Covenant but we are justified by Works as we are by Faith because Faith justifies only as productive of Works thence you see he placeth the Righteousness of Faith in it self as a Work done and that it justifies only so and hath no more justifying Nature or End then the Fruits thereof It is Faith as productive of Works that receive the Reward of perfect Righteousness in that this imperfect stands in the Room of perfect but we are still to remember for Christs sake Bellarmine remembred that and the Council of Trent God judgeth and will judge all Men according to the Gospel those who perform the Condition of it he accounts and pronounceth righteous those whom he accounts righteous are justified I will add that the righteousness of Christ which is the meritorious cause of our Justification and always comes under the efficient cannot by the same reason be the formal and material cause of it It is not infusion of righteousness with the Papist which is our Sanctification nor the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness with the Protestant which is not to be understood in genere causae efficiente nor Remission of Sin with Protestant and Papist you see here how far he goes beyond the Papist but to impute to a person his performance of the New Covenant for Righteousness or pronouncing him righteous according to that Covenant is the formal cause of his Justification Med. p. 46. Here is to be remarkt that Mr. H. doth peremptorily exclude from our Justification the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness and Remission of Sins and places the whole of it in imputation of our own works for righteousness as active obedience § 4. These Men do as the Papists and the rest make our inherent Holiness in Sanctification to be that very righteousness by which we are justified Take Mr. Cl's words wherein he fully expresseth Mr. H's sense in differing from the Papist about Infusion Herein lieth the true difference between Justification and Sanctification In Sanctification we are made holy righteous and good by the infusion of those Graces into us but in Justification we are only accounted and declared such in the one the change is but relative and in the other real Come in Quakers and shake this Friend by the hand as one of you you have quarrelled with the Pulpits a great while and now you may ascend them your selves when you please and be not so angry at them for you shall not hear these men call your Doctrine Popish any more but you 'll hear them call all men that are not of your Opinion Antinomians briskly See now the depth of this distinction Justification is not by infusion of Sanctification but yet Justification is by Sanctification infused Is it not much more rational to say that Justification is by making a man righteous that was not so before for Justification of a sinner must be such Besides is it not much more Evvngelical as to justifying the ungodly as Bellarmine saith But these Men say We are first made righteous that is godly and then pardoned he should have said justified for his Justification comes in between his sanctifying Righteousness and Pardon and not on the contrary first pardoned and then righteous Mr. C. p. 19. Resp Were ever such Absurdities asserted by Men of Reason 1. We are first made righteous and quatenus made so are sanctified and not justified therefore Justification makes no man righteous but finds them so but it declares Men what what it finds them i. e. sanctified Hence to declare a Man sanctified is his Justification and I pray now how comes in Mr. H's causa formalis how doth Justification differ formally nam ad formam pertinet proprium differentia from Sanctification when Imputation or God's accounting a man holy and sanctified is his Justification Is not God's Judgment according to Truth Is it not certain that God accounts every thing to be as it is a holy man holy If this be all your Justification it s no more than as God justified at the Creation he saw that every thing was good 2. If we are first made righteous and then justified because we are so its meritum ex condigno whereon we are justified all the World cannot hinder it 3. First righteous and then pardoned What sense is in that for a righteous person needs no Pardon in that thing wherein he is righteous for therein to be righteous and want Pardon is to speak Daggers and the absurdest contradiction in the World § 5. Well But why must our Neonomians be pardoned when righteous and justified before because indeed their Righteousness and Justification by it is not worth a Fig by their own confession for Mr. Cl. saith for since subordinate Gospel Righteousness is an imperfect righteousness consistent with manifold failings and infirmities therefore notwithstanding that there 's need of pardon and that continually This is also Mr. H's Doctrine therefore I need not transcribe his very words which are to this purpose in many places Resp I find they are not fully agreed about the
of Eternal State Where are we now what a Justification is this by the New Law wherein our eternal state is not concerned Well! but our Justification in this life is not yet perfect not by Christ because he takes off only eternal punishment but temporal he hath left to us to remove by Repentance performing the righteousness of the New Law I hope this righteousness falling in to help Christ's it will produce perfect Justification No it wont this righteousness takes away our Sins and Punishment wholly but sometimes and sometimes only in part and what 's the reason where 's the fault why it falls upon this New Law which is always fulfilling and never fulfilled it will never justifie any one till the last day and it cannot do it then without the perfect righteousness of the Old Law § 7. Let 's take Mr. Cl's Definition of Justification into consideration a little He saith The Definition of Justification so far as it relates to God is thus Justification is an act of God whereby he accounts us righteous at present and treats us as such and will solemnly declare and pronounce us so at the last day of Judgment Resp He should have told us what act of God whether immanent or transient whether an act of Grace or Justice or both he should have told us the object of that act whether a meer sinner or a righteous person he will tell us anon it s a righteous person and he saith accounting him so at present if this accounting him be in a law sense it s but Imputation at most and this is that and all that he doth at present he finds them holy and righteous and judgeth them to be as they be but doth not God declare them righteous at present neither in foro Legis nor in foro Evangelii nor in foro conscientiae in none of these at present when then the very Sentence of Justification is not till the last day so that indeed there is none justified till then for a suspended sentence keeps the person whatever Opinion the Judge hath of him under the Law in Prison and in continual fear of Condemnation so that they are all the day long for fear of Death subject to Bondage § 8. Hence he infers two things 1. That Justification while we are in this life is but partial imperfect and incompleat and that we shall not obtain fully compleat entire and final Justification for all the effects of sin till the Day of Judgment To which I answer Where there is but an imperfect partial Justification there must be a partial Condemnation it cannot be denied but the Apostle denys it and saith there 's no condemnatien to them that are in Christ Jesus 2. The law knows no such thing a man is either perfectly justied for the same thing or perfectly condemned there 's no Medium betwixt Justification and Condemnation 3. If the New Law do not perfectly justifie a person then it condemns too at the same time that when ever the Parator of righteousness takes himself to be justified he is bound to believe himself condemned also and whether will stand good at the last Day he knows not either his Justification or Condemnation CHAP. VI. Of Pardon Section 1. Whether Remission of Sin belongs to Justification § 2. Remission distinguished by Mr. H. § 3. Of general Remission § 4. Conditional Pardon antecedent to a mans Justification § 5. Actual Pardon subsequent to a mans Justification Sect. 1. MR. Cl's Second Inference is That Justification doth not properly consist in Pardon afterward he saith a man is first righteous and then pardoned to which we have spoken something Mr. H. makes a fearful pudder about this Point we will a little inspect his Notions Mediocr p. 44 55. Our Divines do generally place Justification in remission of Sins and so do the Papists and so did I my self Resp Remission of Sins is upon good grounds placed in Justification as an essential part of the Justification of a Sinner and I can boldly deny that sinner to be justified whose sins are not forgiven and to separate them is as possible as to separate homo animal rationale The Law any Law nay your New Law cannot justifie a sinner and declare him righteous unless in that very act of declaring him righteous his sins are taken away in foro legis and this is God's Remission tho not Man 's for his ways are not as mans and whereas Mr. H. makes remission of sins to be a benefit after Justification as an effect of it we say it is a benefit in Justification and the first thing in it in Nature for its impossible any one should stand righteous in the eye of any Law that stands chargeable as a transgressor thereof But remission must not saith Mr. H. be the formal reason of Justification Resp The form of an Act and the formal reason of that Act are two things the material reason of Justification is righteousness and the formal cause is imputation of that righteousness Justification comes in as the acquitting Sentence opposed as Mr. B. saith to condemnation which ex natura rei must formally carry in it forgiveness of sins He proceeds To forgive a mans sins and declare him rigeteous are two inconsistencies one with another in the same respect Resp Cujus contrarium verum in Justification of a Sinner they are most consistent and inseparable that in declaring a sinful man righteous his sins are also done away its true in mans way of Pardon there is some inconsistency because his is by dispensing with his Law but God's way of forgiveness is in and through the satisfaction of his Law but I must tell him that here no Man is looked upon as righteous in the eye of man's law that hath transgressed it till he is first pardoned and therefore when God pronounceth a man just it is according to the law of faith when he pardons his sins it is in respect of the law of works Resp Here are two Bars now he saith elsewhere he likes not two bars I would fain know now at which of these Bars a sinner is most justified either by the law of Works where all his sins are forgiven and therefore consequently must be made righteous or at the Bar of the New Law where he saith the man is declared just but imperfectly so and therefore goes away with his sins upon his Back to the Law of Works to have them pardoned Is it not pretty Divinity then to say a man is declared righteous first at the Bar of the Law of Faith and then all the Bed-role of his sins are pardoned at the Bar of the Law of Works § 2. He comes to distinguish of Remission It s either conditional and universal as it lies in the Covenant and is the purchase of Christ or actual as it lies in application thereof to particular persons upon performance of the conditions Resp This Distinction is a great Point among the Neonomians Mr. B.
passively taken this we deny and for Justification is active but the justified is the passive where Justification it self is the form Again we deny that our righteousness is the formalis ratio of Justification Remission indeed belongs to the form it self but the formalis ratio of Justification is external to the form and therefore to be considered apart from it This only by the way § 5. I add at last upon the account of Christs Merits or through Christ or for Christs sake because this faith of ours or Evangelick Righteousness hath so many defects in the best Christians that if thro the sacrifice of Christ they were not pardoned and through his Merits those imperfect duties which are done accepted it could not be imputed to us for Righteousness Resp Christ is beholden to him to bring him at last tho but at the fagg end of Justification But how comes Justification to be at last upon the account of Christ for we are formally justified upon the account of our own righteousness i. e. perfectly so for what is formally existent is perfectly so and that by our own righteousness i. e. upon the account of it for the effect quod è causis existit is such upon the account of all the causes but especially upon account of the form now he that is formally thus justified must be upon all accounts justified and needs nothing to be added to it Why then upon the account of Christ's Merits why because Christ purchased a law of righteousness which could not justifie perfectly but leaves the person justified in a need of further righteousness for Justification if the Merits and Sacrifice of Christ must come in upon the account of which a man is justified then he is not justified before and Christ's righteousness is the justifying righteousness only for our own leaves us unjustified by Mr. H's own confession i. e. it leaves us in such a case that no man of sense can say we are justified for by his own words the righteousness of the new law is not cannot be imputed to us for righteousness unless it be pardoned and accepted in Jesus Christ and therefore this law cannot justifie any one upon his inherent righteousness for its most absurd to say it can justifie when it cannot impute its own righteousness by reason of the defects thereof § 6. I find Mr. H. is at a great loss in establishing his Notion upon a right bottom he seems to suspect that Christ may come off a loser by it and he will most fearfully I do more especially signifie thereby that Christs righteousness which cannot be imputed to us as a formal cause of our Justification is and must be very carefully brought to our account and granted to be imputed and the meritorious cause of our acceptation Resp I am glad to see this saying wherein he hath overthrown his own Doctrine tho uttered in a great contradiction for he saith Christ's cannot be imputed and then it must be imputed but why cannot it in the first place That which is put to our account in Justification whether as to the part or to the whole of our righteousness is imputed but according to Mr. H. the Merits of Christ's is put to our account and therefore the Merits of Christ to speak more distinctly thus put to our account are the materialis formalis ratio of our Justification for if the merits of Christ be put to our account in Justification it s but trifling to say it s only the effects if one man pay for another in part or whole it s the money it self paid that is put to his account and therefore imputed to him in Court and indeed he ingeniously confesseth he learned of Mr. B. to mend his Notion and allowed Christ's Merit to be the material cause of our Justification but that which he amends with one hand he spoils with another and thereby runs into grosser logical Absurdities saying Because I make our faith the formal in Justification Resp Very good The matter is in one subject in Christ and the form in us another Causa per qua res est id quod est is in us ex qua in Christ in a legal act Christ's righteousness is but generical matter which is as much for all the world as a Believer but the formal part the proprium differentia is in the subject Man this in law is always the meritorious part Money in general turns no Cause there but it s the Propriety that this or that man hath that doth it now it s not Christ's righteousness in special that doth the business but righteousness in general that Christ hath brought in as a material part but its mans righteousness in special that is the principal essential cause according to Mr. H. § 7. After this I distinguish between this pardoning and bearing with the defects of our Faith Repentance and new Obedience which are the condition of the Gospel Covenant and so our Gospel Righteousness or that which is Imputed for Righteousness and that General or Total Pardon c. Resp If Justification be upon performing these as a law condition what need all this talk about bearing with our defects If the Gospel Covenant run in these Terms he that doth what he can shall live therefore Man doing what he can leaves no room for bearing with defects he fulfils the Law in doing what he can Again if this be imputed to us for righteousness by the law and we discharged and declared righteous thereon it is enough Where also observe what imputation the Neonomians owns its imputation of our own righteousness to our selves And such a righteousness as is none because imperfect and sinful but yet imputed for righteousness to us as if it were perfect what 's the reason then that it s found defective after imputation if imperfect by imputation comes in the room and doth as well as perfect Nay what 's the reason that this righteousness that is such a paultrey one which can do nothing by their own concession in Justification without Christs must have the honour of being imputed to us but Christ must not cannot be imputed and why I pray Because tho' its acknowledged to be perfect and compleatest righteousness yet it may not be imputed to us for ours because performed by Christ and not by us I pray let me ask whether it would not more comport with the honour of God the nature of a Gospel and common Reason to impute legally to a delinquent the payment of another which is perfect full and compleat then to impute to him the payment of his whole debt for 10 per Cent. or 6 d. or 4 d. Nay after this acceptance how honourable would it be to the Court to sue to the King for the pardon of the Prisoner for paying so little § 8. But let us come to the other part of the distinction And that general and total Pardon which the Covenant promises and becomes Absolute upon performing
Evangelical But alas Mr. Cl. to prevent misconstruction after he hath bin disputing for the work of Faith to be our righteousness yet we must not expect Mercy Justification Pardon Reconciliation or Favour with God upon the account of our sincerity Faith or Obedience as the procuring cause but we are to look up to Christ confessing our best works to be but filthy rags in strict justice c. Resp One may see how frail a righteousness these men have feigned to themselves it is as the Spider's Web that they dare not lean upon it tho they will swagger and vapour with it to out-dare them whom they call Antinomians who will cleave immediately to Christ's righteousness alone as their only righteousness without the intervention of these filthy Rags their righteousness must have Christ stand behind the Curtain to patch their ragged raiment their House cannot stand without Bellarmine's propter quod their Pageantry is all dead Images unless one behind the Curtain move them which no body must see here is no Mercy Pardon and Reconciliation for and by their Righteousness but Christ procured something of it I know not what but Christ's Procurement was long ago the Law is in their own hands now he only procured the New Law they must shift as well as they can to perform the Conditions Christ did not purchase those neither died he to forgive any fault in their righteousness but oh their righteousness comes not up to the old Law what need they trouble themselves about that Christ hath fetcht them from under that faulty Perfection and brought them under a faultless unrighteousness of the Remedial Law and faults their Righteousness must have or else it would be an adequate condition but they must acknowledge their unworthiness and desert of all evil and when we have done God looks upon us as righteous in a Gospel sense I had thought in the beginning of this Paragraph Christ had bin to have pardoned and mended the faults of our remedial righteousness but it seems here is some pretence to it only that Christ may not think he is put off with nothing but the compleating of these rough Garments to deceive lies in their own doings if we do this God looks upon us as righteous in a Gospel-sense and pardons us first justified and not pardoned and then pardoned and not justified VVhat a great matter of Lamentation is it to see the corrupt minds of men thus vainly and mischievously sport themselves with the rich Grace of God and his strict Justice § 9. Before I leave this Chapter let us talk a little further with Mr. Humph. about his great challenge if it be as he saith that no Man or Woman before Christ coming did Imagine they were righteous before God or accepted for the Obedience of Christ it must follow that they had a hard task under the New Law for they wanted the propter quod and both Mr. Cl. and he saith their righteousness wants pardon and they must go to the id propter quod for pardon and acceptance Now I would Query whether if they could not imagine Christs Obedience to be their righteousness how could they imagine that Christs Obedience could be the procuring cause so that they were altogether destitute of the id propter quod I would know whether the Faith of Gods Children before Christ had no Eye unto Christ and his righteousness in the Sacrifices and sin Offerings which they offered daily did they not look at them as shadows and types of a better and more perfect Sacrifice the Apostle saith that the righteousness of God which we shall by and by shew to be the righteousness of Christ was witnessed by the Law i. e. the Law of Moses and the Prophets and if so its strange that they should have no imagination of it when as the Apostle Peter 1 Ep. c. 1.10 Saith the Prophets have Enquired after and searched diligently for this Salvation prophesied of Searching what and what manner of times the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signifie when it testified before hand the sufferings of Christ and the glory which should follow The Apostle Peter was clear in this Point Acts 2.31 He saith that David foresaw the Resurrection of Christ and spake of it and Christ himself affirms this after his Resurrection to the two Disciples going to Immaus that he ought thus to suffer and enter into Glory beginning at Moses and all the Prophets he expounded unto them in all the Scripture the things concerning himself Now if Moses and all the Prophets yea all the Scriptures should so eminently and expresly foretel Christs sufferings and resurrection and why it was viz. to bear Sin and satisfie Gods justice as the Prophet Isa c. 53. and David and Jer. and all the Sacrifices of old and his Redemption was also for them to the transgressions under the first Testament Heb. 9.15 It is strange that none of them from Adam to Christ should in the least imagine their acceptance with God should be for his righteousness but that they should look for Justification by their own righteousness only and none others § 10. Mr. Cl. in the conclusion of his Book undertakes to disprove the Imputation of the Active righteousness of Christ when as all a long his Book he holds that Christ's righteousness Active or Passive is not imputed but as to Effects now he can mean nothing by the non-imputation of Either but as to Effects So that he must intend by the non-imputation of Christs active Obedience of the Effect and then either it had no effects or no effects pro bono nostro now sure if I mistake not he grants that whatever Christ was it was for our good and therefore have some benefit by it and God reckons it a benefit for that 's their Imputation when we have a benefit God reckons it so i. e. Imputes it to be what it is surely if Christ active Obedience did but fit him to redeem us by passive it was a benefit to us His Incarnation was it not a benefit In their way of Imputation they may say after Mr. B. because he did not obey that we should not obey Resp Neither did he suffer that we should not suffer but Christ suffered that we might not suffer penally and obey that we might not obey legally and its strange that the second Adam should have actual righteousness for us as well as the first had actual sin that all should not be repaired as to the preceptive as well as the vindicative part of the Law which was fallen upon us in the first Adam by the second Adam Why was he made under the Law Was it not for active as well as passive Obedience CHAP. XI Of Iustification by Works Section 1. The Neonomian Doctrine opposed § 2. Who it is God justifies § 3. More fully Answer'd § 4. Arguments against Justification by Works § 5. Mr. Cl's Proposition § 6. Of the Jews Opinion about Justification § 7. Whether
as well the last as the first and it should have been rendred thus if there had been a Law given which could have given Life then Righteousness had been by a Law therefore this place is fully exclusive of justifying righteousness by a new Law and God never made such a Law The consequence is clear if all other Law righteousness but Christ's be excluded then Christ's righteousness is that alone by which a Sinner is Justified These Arguments are strong and enough to prove what we assert and against all the World if the Scripture and Reason enlightned thereby may take place The Scripture is so full of proof that these Sixteen might be made Sixty but brevity is call'd for by the circumstances that attend Printing CHAP. XVII Of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness Section 1. Christ's Righteousness is Imputed to us and Paul saith so § 2. Argument 1. § 3. Arg. 2. and 3. § 4. Arg. 4. § 5. Arg. 5. § 6. Arg. 6. § 7. Arg. 7. § 8. Arg. 8. § 9. Arg. 9. § 10. Arg. 10.11 Section 1. OUr Adversaries say they own the Imputation of Righteousness to Justification but they say it s there own not Christ's Now we shall prove that Christ's Righteousness is Imputed They say it s no where said that Christ's Righteousness is Imputed We say it is in all that is said by the Apostle Paul so plain that all but he that will shut his Eyes perversly must see it I shall but give brief hints of it 1. The Apostle Paul Rom. 4. speaking so often of Imputation gives us plainly to understand that he means no Imputation but of Christ's Righteousness to Justification for his Discourse in the 4th chap. is continued from ver 25. of the 3d to prove the Doctrine of Justification by the Propitiation Blood and Righteousness of Christ and shews how Faith honours this Righteousness and wrongs not the law by it but establisheth it In the 4th ch he goes on to exclude all Justification by any works and shews in Abraham and David they took Christ's Righteousness viz. that spoken ch 3.25 by Faith for their Imputed righteousness unto justification and remission and covering of them from the Eye of God's justice wherefore Christ is call'd our Propitiation in allusion to the Golden cover of the Ark that hid the Law and was the mercy seat now briefly to shew that by Imputation so often mention'd in this chap. he meant the Righteousness of Christ to our Justification he tells us ver 22. that what God had promised to Abraham viz. the Righteousness of Christ which he was fully by Faith perswaded of was Imputed to him for Righteousness now saith the Apostle it was not written for the sake of Abraham only but for us also to whom it shall be Imputed i. e. the Righteousness in the Promise if we believe on him that raised up the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead who was delivered for our offences and raised again for our Justification i. e. if we believe in God thro' the full perfect and compleat righteousness of Christ for our Righteousness could not have been full and compleat without his Resurrection and his Justification as a publick head of all the Elect who raised was Justified as having wrought out a full and compleat Justifying righteousness for them they are incouraged and invited to take it for their Righteousness by Faith and they might assure themselves of the Imputation thereof and proceeds in the next chap. to say that having taken this Imputed righteousness by Faith they are said to be justified by Faith and to have peace with God and access unto the grace of God thro the said righteousness § 2. Arg. 1. Now then I Argue if Christ in the promise be Imputed for Righteousness to Abraham and every believer and the Apostle saith so then the Imputation here spoken of is the Imputation of Christ's righteousness but the antecedent is true from Gal. 3.21 22. its plain that it was what God had promised to him was Imputed to him The consequence needs no proof for it was Christ was promised and he saw Christ's day in that promise and the Promise of Christ was the Gospel preached to him Again to prove the Apostle means the Righteousness of Christ is imputed If the delivery of Christ for our sins and raising him again for Justification was the Righteousness of Christ for Justification then this is that which was imputed not to Abraham for righteousness only but also to every Believer by the Text and therefore the minor is fully there proved and I think as to the major that none can deny the Life Death and Resurrection of Christ to be his compleat Righteousness § 3. Arg. 2. He that was made of God righteousness to us is made by imputation of his righteousness to us but Christ is made so of God 1 Cor. 1.30 but saith Mr. Cl. he is made righteousness as he is made Wisdom So Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption but it follows not only that he be made of great advantage to a Christian but these several ways that he is not one thing as the other he is not a Prophet as a Priest and if he should mean made righteousness in Mr. Cl's sence then he should be but made sanctification twice taken for Mr. Cl's justifying righteousness is but Sanctification it s he is made the Spring Head and Root of Sanctification and legally made righteousness to us Arg. 3. Again If we be made the righteousness of God in Christ where its plain this righteousness of God is in Christ then the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us but we are made the righteousness of God in him Ergo. the antecedent is proved by 2 Cor. 5.21 as to the major the Neonomians say the righteousness of God is our own righteousness We say nay the righteousness of God is said to be in Christ and we are made so by imputation for Christ could not be made Sin for us but by Imputation and if it is meant of a Sacrifice for Sin even such were made Sin by Imputation and therefore we are made the righteousness of God in Christ by Imputation § 4. Arg. 4. Again If Christ hath merited our Justification Christs Merits are imputed in themselves to Justification but Christ hath merited our Justification The minor is granted by these Gentlemen They tell us that Christs Merits are id propter quod we are justified for the sake or rather by reason of Christs Merits but they mean not that Christ purchased the Sinner's perform'd condition of the New law but that he procured of God a new law for man to perform the condition of Now this is no more to be the cause of Justification than God in making a Law was a cause of Sin for sin is not Imputed where there 's no law and where there is a Law there will be Justification or Condemnation Christ merited a Law and made one therefore for the sake of Christ we are