State and so doth the sanctifying Grace of God in Regeneration God doth both justifie and sanctifie the ungodly by his active apprehending Grace Phil. 3.12 As to the second clause I suppose none can deny that therefore we believe that we may be justified Rom. 10.10 and elsewhere and as to the last Word wherein they lay the stress of the Error they might put it in unexceptionable Terms by adding a monosyllable they believe that they may be justified and declaratively they believe that they may receive and have Eternal Life and that they may know they have it according to the express Words of the Apostle 1 John 5.12 13. Er. 4. Union to Christ is before Faith at least by Nature and we partake of the Spirit by virtue of that Union and there 's a compleat Union with Christ before the Act of Faith A. For the first clause of the charge I own it and have defended it as Truth and shall stand by it and am ready to dispute it with the Accusers when they please in the mean time let them tell me whether Faith be not a vital Act of the Soul If so how came the Fruit to grow on the Branch before it was in the Root Christ Jesus Again if Faith be the Effect of Union to Christ then Union is the cause and in Nature antecedent to it There 's no need to enlarge upon so plain a Truth the second clause is as true that by virtue of this Union or in this Union we first partake of the Spirit because the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ Rom. 8. The Spirit is the Bond of this Union for 3. I know not whether it be mine in the terms expressed but if it were there was something said to explain it the Sense I am ready to defend it in is this that whatever Union Christ makes is compleat in it self such is vital Union in Regeneration where the Regenerated is altogether passive and all Regeneration is perfect tho' the regenerated is not every one conceived is perfectly conceived tho' the conceived is not perfectly grown every one born is perfectly born tho' every one born is not perfect so is every one born of the Spirit he hath compleat Life tho' he is not compleat in the Acts of Life compleatness of Life and compleatness in exercising the Acts of Life are to be distinguished Er. 5. It is a great Truth that God sees no Sin in a Believer and Sin can do no Hurt to a Believer God is not displeased with his People and is not angry with the Persons of Believers for their Sins A. Here are the 12 13 14 of the Rebuker's Articles crowded together As to the first I say 1. They are the Words of Scripture let the Exceptors shew and prove that the Spirit of God means quite contrary to what it saith in that Place Num. 21.21 and that all other Places of Scripture that confirm this Truth are false and mean quite contrary as when it saith a Believer is blessed his Sins being covered and not imputed Psal 32.1 2. This is Poyson but the meaning is He is blessed whose Sin is uncovered before God and his Iniquity imputed when God saith he doth not remember our Iniquities you must read it He doth remember our Iniquity Let them give a rational Sense of Jer. 50.20 Mic. 7.19 Jer. 31.34 Heb. 8.12 ch 10.17 But let them not take us to be so stupid as to understand this of the Eye of his Omnisciency but in respect of the Eye of his Justice Psal 51.9 when they give us any probable Interpretation of the forementioned Places of Scripture so to prove the Word of God false Num. 23. In the Sense we take it as I could never see yet the greatest of them ever did we will acknowledge it an Error in the mean time let them give us leave to believe it and receive it as an Article of Faith The second Clause the Rebukers 13 is That Sin can't do any real Hurt to a Believer A. Why is this charged upon the dissenting Brethren Did they ever hear any one of them assert it in Terminis he that uttered it in the Ardency of a popular Discourse was above 50 Years since and is it Blasphemy or Heresie to defend a good Man's Discourse by a charitable Interpretation If they had a Grain of Charity they may easily see that he meant not according to that gross Sense they would put upon the saying that he intended not to countenance Professors living in Sin nor in respect of Grief Sorrow and Darkness occasioned by a Believer's Fall into Sin but his meaning was 1. That their Falls into Sin should not prejudice that State of Union to Christ according to Rom. 8.35 36 37 38. 2. That tho' Sin remain in them yet they shall not have Dominion over them according to Rom. 6.14 15. 3. That tho' they fall they shall arise according to Mic. 7.8 4. That God will over-rule all the Falls of his Children for their Spiritual Good and Advantage according to Rom. 8.28 and therefore he saith real hurt The third thing here which is the Rebuker's 14th God is not displeased with his People i. e. their Persons A. Why do they not explain what they mean by God's displeasure do they mean Paternal or Vindictive If they mean Paternal in a way of Rebuke and Chastisment who denies it If they mean Vindictive we deny it Again why do they not tell us what they mean by God's People do they mean a Collection of Professing People Church or Nation Such may be the general Defection of these from their Profession never real and true that God's Vindictive Wrath may go forth against them as often against his People of Old Lastly God is never pleased with the Sins of his People therefore condemned all their Sins in the Flesh of Christ Rom. 8.3 But God is not displeased with the Persons of his People such as are called according to purpose because he loved them with an Eternal Love and he is a God that changeth not Art 6. Believers are as Righteous as Christ A. Most know who is Charged here it is one that is gone to give up his Account to his Lord and Master I doubt not but it is with Joy and that he hath received a Crown of Glory that fadeth not Tho' the Rebuker hath trampled upon his Bones and Memory in his Pride and Insolency and not only upon his but on those of that other Eminent Servant of God that is at rest with him And why Because both of them in their Life-time served their Generation in bearing faithful Testimony to the Truths of Jesus I need say nothing to this Article That worthy Servant of Christ spake enough to explain himself in that Position in his Printed Sermons which he Preached at Pinner's-Hall The sum of it was that he meant not in respect of Sanctification for there our best Holiness is imperfect therefore he means not in a way of
and his Distinction is a Chimaera and if Dr. O. did not trouble his head with such Whims his Consideration is not to be blamed But he tells us that which is not ours comes after imputation as an effect the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ but they become not ours by imputation therefore one leg of his distribution is dropt off for he saith there 's an imputation of a thing ours and a thing not ours this thing not ours which is Christ's satisfaction he saith is not imputed but comes in as an effect of this imputation of our own righteousness but why must Christ's Satisfaction come in the rear because a man must be justified first and then Christ's Satisfaction must come in to mend the faults of his Justification as a remedying righteousness the formal part of his Justification must be pardoned and accepted and before his Justification hath released the man from condemnation and unacceptableness to God he must have the effect of his Justification hence this imputation of ours is the cause of our pardon and acceptation by Christ's Merits an imputation of our immoral righteousness the cause of a perfect But how can we have pardon through the Satisfaction of Christ and acceptance through his merits without God's imputation of them to us for if by the rules of Justice in the New Law Court our righteousness is imputed to us how comes it to pass that when we come sinners into the old law Court we can there become righteous free from condemnation and accepted by Satisfaction and Merit and yet not have it imputed to us this is most extra-judicial for a Court always imputes that satisfaction and merit to the person discharged which is paid into Court for it It were easie to run endlesly upon shewing the gross absurdities of this Divinity for they will have the New Law to impute righteousness which they say is no righteousness and the Old Laws righteousness to be good and perfect but not imputed so that indeed according to their Doctrine the sinner is ruin'd for want of righteousness Under the New Law is no righteousness and under the Old Law good righteousness but no imputation without which a sinner can never be justified now if they would permit these two laws to meet and agree the matter something might be done then the New Law might borrow the Old Laws righteousness and the Old the New Laws Imputation CHAP. VIII Of the Formal Cause of Iustification Section 1. Mr. H's Distinction of by and for according to Bellarmine § 2. The Distinction considered § 3. Justification purchased by Christ. § 4. They advance not God's Grace in Justification § 5. Papists truer than Neonomians in the Doctrine § 6. They say the same with the Papists and confess it § 7. The Errors and Weaknesses of their Opinions § 8. Of Active and Passive Justification § 9. Of Condition and Duty Sect. 1. MR. H. for the better establishment of the Neonomian Doctrine hath taken up a distinction from his friend Cardinal Bellarmine The Protestants saith Mr. H. have denied that Faith is our formal Righteousness Righ p. 46. the reason of the denial hath bin much because they have confounded the causa per quam propter quam by Faith saith the Scripture we are justified by is id per quod causa formalis but Christs Righteousness is id propter quod Let us see out of whose Shop he took this Distinction Bellarmine de just lib. 2. c. 2. having stated the Question Whether Righteousness inherent in us be the formal cause of absolute Justification or not In order to his defence of it in the Affirmative hath this distinction and chargeth Kemnitius with fraudulent dealing in stating the Question because he put id propter quod instead of per quam saith If one will speak properly he must not use the Word propter but per when he will point out the formal cause of Justification If any one ask by what doth a Man live By what do the Stars shine By what is the Fire hot It will be answer'd by his Soul by the Light by the Heat which are the formal causes but if any ask wherefore did the Emperour Triumph wherefore did the Souldiers fight It will be answered not by giving the formal cause but the meritorious and final the Souldiers fight that they may overcome the Emperour triumphs because he overcame so Kemnitius if he had spoken without fraud and properly should have said what is that by which a Man is Justified whether the Righteousness given to him of God and inherent through the Merits of Christ or the Merits of Christ from without him imputed Now Bellarmine having so fully acquainted us with the distinction according to the full sense of Mr. H. I think it will be but loss of Paper and Time to transcribe what Mr. H. saith of it again and again being but all to the same intention of the Cardinal § 2. This distinction duly considered is but one of the Papists shifts and Evasions for First In all juridical proceedings causa per quam est causa propter quam for a Mans righteousness is that by which and for which he is justified and so his transgression is that by which and reason wherefore he is condemned and if meritorious righteousness of a Man 's own or of anothers is brought into Plea and be admitted he is said to be justified by it if it be enquired how came such an one to be acquitted the Answer will be by his Innocency how came such an one to be condemned the Answer will as soon be by as for Wickedness all Righteousness by which any one is Justified is propter quam it s that by Reason whereof he is Justified why doth the New Law justifie him that hath performed the condition is his Righteousness the Justifying condition is not the Justification propter conditionem if it doth refuse to Justifie because the condition is not performed then it justifies not because it is not performed in all conditional Covenants the promise is performed by reason of the performance of the condition 2. Again if this Distinction were True as applied then we should be said to be justified or reconciled still propter sanguinem Christi but we are said to be justified by his Death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred ' by ' not for Rom. 5.9 Are reconciled to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the Death of his Son for dia with a Genitive Case signifies per with an Accusative propter ver 10. So we have Redemption 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Colos 1.14.20 Is rendred through but they that have knowledge of the prepositions know by or through are the same when a thing is done by it s done through See Acts 20.28 the Church of God which he hath purchased 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that its evident that the distinction will not hold to make Evangelick Obedience causa per quam and Christs Obedience propter quam
justified it is not imputed that we may have it but because we have it it is imputed Mr. H. herein goes against himself Or else if we have it it must be imputed to some other end than to have it Answ Yes it s imputed legally that we may be justified we have it by gift prius natura by gift of Grace for we must have the righteousness before the Law can judge we have it because legal Judgment is according to Truth Mr. H's Justification runs thus far that we must have a righteousness before it is imputed nay and he saith its by Gift too Now if Christ did obey or suffer in our persons or as our legal person so as in law sence we have and are accounted to have obeyed and suffered in him then can his righteousness consisting of his Obedience and Sufferings be neither imputed to us that we may have it or be made ours or reckoned to us as ours seeing we have it already it is ours it is reckoned as ours in that it was performed in our persons nor can it be imputed to us to any other end or thing but ad justitiam which is to the same end and for the same thing and can be no other Resp Mr. H. thinks this Argument irrefrigable and that it will carry all before it but poor men as most opposers of truth have the unhappiness to smite with the backs of their Swords and cut themselves with the edge Mr. H. argues if we have Christ's righteousness we cannot have it by Imputation We do not say we have it by imputation any other than a legal allowance that we have it having it is antecedent to the legal allowance it is not so in their Principles we have our own righteousness before it is imputed to us But if in a law-sence we are accounted to have obeyed and suffered in Christ then his righteousness cannot be imputed unto us cujus contrarium verum yea therefore it s imputed unto us for one man's payment is not reckoned and imputed to another unless the payment be made in his person in a law-sence it is ours and reckoned as ours in that it was performed in our persons he saith therefore as such it is reckoned and imputed to us nor can it be imputed to us for any other end than for righteousness we say and you say § 5. Mr. H's Arguments for Faith and Obedience being the Formal Cause of our Justification we shall examine in the next place they are as Mr. Cl. hath gathered them up By the consent of all Divines That righteousness which denominates us righteous in the sight of God must be the form or formal part of our Justification But neither Regeneration nor Christ's Righteousness nor Pardon is that which justifies per modum causae formalis and therefore it must be Faith Resp 1. He should have added imputed to the things enumerated in the minor for he saith to Mr. C. he means so 2. If he doth mean so he putteth the material and formal cause together and therefore I shall deny his Minor under the term of essential causes which takes in his formal As to the major I except that all the Divines do not hold that righteousness that denominates us righteous before God is the formal cause but insist on the minors denial that the righteousness of Christ doth not denominate us righteous before God for so should the assumption be the Syllogism as it stands is false having one medium in Major another in the Minor Dare Mr. H. be so scandalous as to speak out his Minor as he ought by his Medium That Christ's Righteousness doth not denominate us righteous in the sight of God its plain that he shifts it off by a wrong Assumption and according to that fault makes his Proof And I only say that there 's no righteousness can denominate us righteous in the sight of God but what is fully satisfactory to the Law that condemns us but there 's no righteousness fully satisfactory to the Law that condemns us but Christ's let Mr. H. shew any other if he can and as for the righteousness of the New Law which he pleads for he acknowledgeth that it s no righteousness in its own nature that it needs Pardon at the Bar of the Old Law and therefore it cannot denominate us righteous in the sight of God § 6. He proceeds to prove his false Assumption by parts 1. That Christ's righteousness is not that righteousness whereby we are denominated righteous in the sight of God why because saith he it is the meritorious case I answer therefore it is for no righteousness makes any one righteous coram Judice but a meritorious righteousness not regenerating grace see how he shifts he said in his Minor not regeneration i. e. inherent renovation which he all along asserts for our justifying righteousness and now he has brought it to the active infusion of Grace as he quibbles with the Papists and why not Regenerating Grace because that must precede Justification and must not the righteousness precede the Justification by his own Doctrine and doth not the formalis ratio precede the effect but what doth regenerating Grace preceed Is it not regeneration it self it being the working cause of it but as for the Grace of regeneration wrought that 's the very righteousness which he means and yet saith in his Assumption not regeneration this is but juggling it is not plain dealing He goes on not pardon for that comes after it Mr. H. saith so I know no better authority for it and I will believe it ad Graecas calendas I have shewed the absurdity and folly of it yea and of his pardon preceeding Justification And if none of these be the formal cause i. e. the Essential causes denominating us Righteous in Gods sight it must be something else What 's that The righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel i. e. Faith and Obedience Mr. Cl. saith something else Imputation it s that which is the form one essential cause in this they differ but as to the matter they agree that Faith and imperfect Obedience is the righteousness whereby we are denominated righteous in the sight of God and is not the Grace of regeneration inherent whether Faith be the righteousness of God shall be examined anon by its self because Mr. H. puts so much stress upon it § 7. Arg. 2. Adam if he had perfectly obeyed his Obedience had been his formal Righteousness in regard to the Law so is this ours in regard to the Gospel Again works were the formal righteousness in regard to the Law therefore Faith is the formal righteousness of Justification by the Gospel And two things go to this formal Righteousness Faith and the imputation of it Resp It seems Mr. H. understands formal cause matter formed and that is an effect not a cause the materia formata is the formal cause I must tell him his Notion is neither Divinity nor Logick 2. What
it which is not to get life by our own works but living by and upon the righteousness of another by faith and thus he argues from Moses's Law to every Law that works of neither cannot justifie and when he speaks of Moses his law he seldom understands the meer Ceremonial Law but the Moral also as recognized under Moses and that of Gal. 5.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye are abdicated from Christ whoever of you are justified by the works of a law in Mr. Cl's sence it is whoever of you are justified by the works of some law only so Paul opposeth Christ himself to the works that are of a Law Phil. 3.9 His own righteousness he saith is such viz. this he desires to be found out of but in Christ viz. his righteousness by Faith which he opposeth to his own as that which he calls the righteousness of God in opposition to the righteousness of Man He saith indeed in one place Works are mentioned in general Rom. 4.2 It s true but he takes not Notice how often Law is mentioned in general and so the works of a Law are general where-ever spoken so of But he saith these words must be understood with a limitation too and be meant of the same kind of works Resp And therefore the words import thus if Abraham were justified by some kind of works he hath wherein to Glory but why should some kind of works give Abraham more cause of boasting than others He will say because some are great and perfect others little and imperfect but I say there 's no specifick difference between great and little of the same kind besides he that attains a great End by a small work hath more cause of boasting than he that attains it by great work and Labour therefore a Man may rather boast of the works of the New Law than of the Old and then they are all works opposed by him to Faith for he saith the reward is to him that worketh not that that Expression excludes all works for Paul could not be so absurd to express works by not working § 8. If Paul understood himself c. We must grant and conclude that Paul disputes only against the works of the Law Resp No doubt he knew his own Mind and was consistent with himself and if such plain Expressions are intelligible he excludes all works of any Law what ever but he gives his reason why he means we are justified by works when he saith positively we are not justified by works and that he that worketh not but is ungodly Because they were such works as did frustrate and evacuate the undertakings of Christ Rom. 4.14 Gal. 5.4 Resp So do all works of a Law brought in for righteousness for if the great End of Christ's undertaking was to be our Justifying-righteousness then any works brought into the room thereof frustrate Christ's righteousness but that was the chief End of Christ's undertaking Rom. 4.25 2 Cor. 5.21 The words of Rom. 4.14 are if they that be of a Law be Heirs i. e. such as claim by the works of a Law performed by them Faith is made Void i. e. it s to no purpose to believe on another for righteousness Faith is made empty of the righteousness of another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Promise or Gospel is abdicated for the same thing cannot be Law and Promise or Gospel and the reason is given because you see the law of Moses worketh wrath and where there 's no law there 's no transgression the law determines the transgression and the sinner to wrath for it and this doth every law whatever The other Scriptures were spoken to before 2d Reason They are such works as he opposeth every way to faith and also to Grace Gal. 4.4 therefore they are not faith or any inherent grace Gal. 5.4 But he never opposeth faith and Gospel-Works Resp He always opposeth Faith and all Works in the Point of Justification because Works justifie by themselves but Faith by its Object only Because Gospel-works suppose Faith or Grace being the fruit of Faith and product of Grace Resp A pitiful Reason because a man that runs apace is supposed to see therefore a man runs by his eyes and after this manner he applies 1 Cor. 15.10 by the Grace of God I am what I am and laboured more abundantly than they all ergo Paul was justified by works is not this a very learned consequence I grant saith he faith and works of the law are frequently opposed by the Apostle Resp Then faith and works of a law are not the same in this he gives us the Cause Let us see his Concessions further I grant saith he a meer profession of faith is opposed to works James 2.14 Resp True Faith fruitful in good works is opposed to false faith that has no fruits 3. I grant that even Gospel-works are opposed to Grace tho not to faith both in Election Rom. 11.5 6. and in Vocation 2 Tim. 1.9 Resp Works of a law by which a man claims Justification are not Gospel-works but Legal and they are opposed to Grace both in Election Vocation and Justification but as Election is not on the foresight of any works or righteousness no not of Christ's and Vocation is not upon our performance of any works no more is Justification I grant God chooseth not upon foresight of good works or faith in us neither call any because they have faith or good works but that they may have them his Grace is antecedent to any good in us but now the case is otherwise in reference to those priviledges which follow Vocation for God justifies and glorifies us yet not as the meritorious cause thereof but only as a way means and qualification c. Resp Well now the Case is altered Grace goes no further than Vocation there it makes a stand and man does the rest himself but let us enquire a little into this Mystery Is a man effectually called and made holy and yet not justified for he that is made holy in order to Justification suppose qualified and conditionated for it is in order of Nature holy before justified i. e. hath the Spirit of Holiness the Gift of Grace and inherent righteousness whilst a child of wrath and actually under the curse of the law 2. All Justification for Holiness because it is the work of a law is meritorious righteousness for there 's no law justifies but because the performance of the condition deserves it in Justice Hence all Qualifications and Means made legally conditionally to the remunerative part of the Law are deserving thereof and meritorious and undeniably so for if the absence of the Qualification and the Means or Non-performance of the Condition doth merit or deserve the Wages of the Sin from the Law enjoyning the said Qualifications or Conditions then having and performance thereof doth upon the same Reason merit and deserve the Reward of Righteousness but the Antecedent is true therefore the
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
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
of all the elect a slander and imposed expression that none ever said the reatum culpae or guilt of fault and so he bore the sins of all the Elect by real imputation this is truth which Mr. B. chargeth as one of his hundred Antinomian Errors Er. 18. p. 10. Again being made sin for us is meant a sacrifice for sin so Mr H. and used as a sinner why should he be used as a sinner if sin was not charged upon him sure very unjustly If God imputed sin to Christ or accounted Christ a sinner he must be by sin hateful to God c. and Christ suffered for his own sins c. Scr. G. d. p. 30 31. If Christ had bin a sinner in his individual person these consequences might have held but Christ being by Law-imputation made sin in order to the Salvation of Sinners it s otherwise therefore doth my Father love me because I lay down my life for my sheep Is a rich person and honourable hated in the Court and detested because he enters himself Debtor for some Ludgate Prisoners Socin The meaning of these words 2 Cor. 5.21 is not that he was made sin for us by God's imputation but that he was made a sacrifice for sin the word made is a word of Election and Ordination Pinct Dial. to which Mr. Norton answers thus He was made sin for us as we are made righteousness i. e. by judicial imputation without the violation yea with establishing of Justice as he was made curse Gal. 3.13 because he was the sin-offering in truth therefore be was made sin by real imputation Nort. against Pinch Quak. We deserved those things that Christ endured and much more for our sins but that God ever reputed him a sinner is denied neither did he ever dy that we should be reputed righteous by his being made sin for us must be understood his suffering for our sins that we might be made partakers of the grace purchased by him by the working whereof we are made the righteousness of God in him Barch Apol. of Just p. 376. Thus you see how Sister Sects run hand in hand together Thus far of Imputation here which should have bin continued to imputation of Righteousness The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness being the main Point which the Neonomians oppose but because it will be the main subject of our ensuing Discourse we pass it over in this Chapter CHAP. V. Of Imputation of Righteousness unto the Iustification of a Sinner Sect. 1. Righteousness imputed and what § 2. Cardinal Bellarmine a Middle-way-man and so Quakers too and Socinians § 3. How consonant Neonomians are to that Fraternity § 4. They make inherent Holiness to be our Righteousness § 5. Why pardoned after justified and of subordinate righteousness § 6. Of Legal and Evangelical Guilt § 7. Of Mr. Cl's definition of Justification and of incompleat Justification in this life Sect. 1. THat Righteousness is imputed to the Justification of a sinner before God is held on all sides but the great Controversie lies here What Righteousness is it Is it our own inherent righteousness or the righteousness of another the Neonomians with the Papists say it s our own which is the formal cause of our Justification we say that Christ's Righteousness is the material cause of our Justification and Imputation the formal Mr. H. excludes the Merits of Christ from any of the essential causes and makes it only modum efficientis something in the hand of the efficient it may be an instrument but at the best it s but causa ministrans by way of efficiency but enters not that effect as any essential Cause Mr. H. would find out some little Difference between the Papists and himself but it s so little that he can hardly render it visible The Counsel of Trent saith thus There is only one formal Cause of Justification which is the Righteousness of God not whereby he is Righteous but whereby he makes us Righteous viz. which he hath bestowed on us whereby we are renewed in the Spirit of our minds and are not only reputed Just but are truly called Righteous and are so and it follows In this is the Justification of the Vngodly whilst for the Merit of that most Holy Passion the Love of God is shed abroad by the Holy Ghost in the Hearts of them that are justified and inherent in them whence in Justification it self with Remission of Sins this is together with it infused c. Sess 6. c. 7. Mr. H. agrees with them that our inherent Righteousness is the formal Cause and that it is for the Merits of Christ that this Righteousness is wrought in us that therefore it 's called the Righteousness of God Bellarmine in Defence of the Doctrine of the C. of Tr. says the State of this whole Controversie may be reduced to this one Question Whether or no the formal Cause of Absolute Justification be Righteousness inhering in us Which he endeavours to maintain in the Affirmative Mr. H. would have some difference from the Papists in that they say Justification is by Infusion of Righteousness whereas he saith Infusion of Grace is Sanctification but Justification is by Grace infused of the two I take the Papist to be rightest in constitutive Justification and to have less of Merit in it whereas Mr. H. Justification is by Sanctification wrought first which carries more of Merit and less of Grace for here Justification appears at first sight to be ex condigno the good qualification of the Subject Yea the Papists go further then Mr. H. for he will not have Imputation of Christs Righteousness nor Remission of Sins to have any place in Justification which the Papists own to be Parts of our Justification for the Council of Trent do Anathametize those only that teach that a Man is justified only by Imputation of Christs Righteousness and Remission of Sins without inherent Grace and Charity yea I do not find that this Neonomian Doctrine comes any whit short of the Popish Doctrine of Justification nay it out-does it in daring Contradiction to the the Gospel § 2. See what a Middle-way Man the Cardinal is if he go far enough He gives his Sense of Rom. 3.24 Justified freely i.e. from his mere liberality as to our Merits for we cannot deserve to be justified by any Work of ours and this Bounty of God is the efficient Cause but we are justified by his Grace i. e. by a Righteousness given and infused by him is not this Mr. H. exactly what doth he trifle for about Infusion and this is the formal Cause we are justified also by the Redemption of Christ and this is the meritorious Cause Lastly we are justified by Faith in the Blood of a Propitiator and this the disposing Cause from hence we may learn that every sincere Neonomian is a Papist in the Point of Justification and that the Popish Doctrine of Justification is the Middle-way between the Calvinists and Arminians See but a
intervening Righteousness between Christ and us what to call it Mt. Cl. calls it subordinate and so doth Mr. B. but Mr. H. liking not that Name so well had rather call it co-ordinate but I know not from the Notion of the thing duly considered why they may not go one step further and call it the Principal or supream justifying righteousness for that which hath the principal place in any thing ascribed to it is the principal but our own righteousness hath the principal place in the thing ascribed to it which is Justification therefore it s the chief and supream righteousness For they say we are justified by the imputation of this righteousness only and by no other therefore all conducing righteousnesses to the introducing this are subordinate to it Again That which hath its place only in the external causes and in the modality of their operation as to the production of the effect is much inferiour to the essential causes that enter the very effect and are constitutive to it but Christ's Righteousness by these men is no more and therefore must be a subordinate righteousness to ours ours being causa formalis justificationis an essential cause Christ's being but causa protarch a remote cause adjuvant to the efficient therefore the righteousness of Christ can have no more than a remote causality in purchasing the New Law by the righteousness whereof we are justified which is no better indeed than causa sine qua non it s in ordine ad the justifying righteousness therefore subordinate to it 2. He saith This subordinate Gospel Righteousness is an imperfect righteousness Truly I am sorry for it that Gospel Righteousness should be imperfect I doubt there 's little dependance upon it since the righteousness of the law that condemns us is perfect its little likelihood that an imperfect righteousness should save us from it ay but they will say it s Christ's perfect righteousness must save us from the perfect righteousness of the law condemning us Say you so and therefore why should not this righteousness of Christ have the honour of justifying us it seems we are saved by Christ's righteousness and justified by our own as if Justification were not Salvation But is our Gospel-righteousness imperfect this is no Gospel for its ill News I must tell these men its a rotten foundation they build upon and their Building will drop not being built on Christ the Corner Stone in Justification 3. He saith It s imperfect consistent with many failings and infirmities Resp I pray how comes this to pass is it from the Legislator that constituted such a Law whose condition is obedience consistent with sin or is it from the Operator or Worker under this Law if from the former then the Law makes it in fault if there be any but if he hath made a law with such condition of obedience consistent with sin then performance of such is no sin nor needs a Pardon for sin is the transgression of the law the subject is under Now if Believers are under the New Law for Justification and perform there what 's required what need have they of a Pardon from a righteousness borrowed from another law If it be from the last viz. the fault and defect of the operator of righteousness that his righteousness is not the performance of the condition of the New Law as required then this New Law cannot justifie him our Neonomians in this Point will be on Scilla or Charybdis in spite of the World In a word 1. That righteousness that cannot justifie us at the Bar of the old Law or Covenant of Works is no justifying righteousness but none of our own righteousness New Law or other will not justifie us at the Bar of the Covenant of Works by the Neonomians own confession therefore we cannot be justied by any such righteousness 2. Again that righteousness which needs pardon is no justifying righteousness but is condemned by the law for whatever is pardoned is condemned by the law first neither is that person justified who by the law is unpardoned Pardon being an essential part of Justification in Mens Courts where many Indictments ly against a Man if he be quitted of some and not of all he is not discharged as justified but here it s worse I do not find that at the New Law Bar a man as they say justified is quite discharged from any Indictment at all for there 's none fully pardoned wherefore our Neonomians say that their Justification is not perfect in this life So Mr. Cl. Our Justification in this world is not perfect and compleat c. p. 18. § 6. Mr. Cl. saith There 's a twofold guilt Legal and Evangelical Legal Guilt is an obligation to eternal punishment this is fully pardoned in Justification and can never return again because Christ hath taken it all upon himself and made full satisfaction to his Father's Justice for it but Gospel-guilt which is an obligation to Gospel-Punishment i. e. fatherly chastisements for sins after Justification returns upon commission of new sins and is removed upon repentance sometimes wholly sometimes in part This is also Mr. H's Doctrine Resp The distinction is naught for we deny any Evangelical Guilt Evangelical Guilt Threat or Punishment is a Bull a downright Contradiction if we know what Gospel is and they that will be ignorant and call this Assertion Antinomian Poyson let them be ignorant still I thank God for the knowledge of the Gospel so far as that it is quite contrary to Guilt Threat and Punishment or Obligation to it in the true legal sense thereof Likewise he should have distinguished of Guilt as usual reatus culpae and reatus paenoe the first properly Guilt and that in judicio legis vel judicio conscientiae if a Man be sub reatu culpae judicio legis as they say the justified ones are he is unjustified for the law cannot justifie a man and declare him guilty i. e. not guilty and guilty at the same time Obligation to Punishment is not Guilt in the true sense of it for we say a man cast in Court is guilty of the charged Fault and therefore the Law binds him over to Punishment We never say a Man is guilty of the punishment but deserves he is found guilty and therefore the Sentence of the Law binds him to Punishment but he saith Legal Guilt is fully pardoned in Justification Pardon is always of a fault and includes not punire but is sin pardoned fully in Justification as to an obligation to eternal punishment then 1. Pardon is included in Justification contrary to what he asserts in the foregoing Page 2. Justification is perfect and compleat so far as the taking off eternal punishment 3. He cannot but own this to be the main part of Justification at least and this it seems is owing to the full satisfaction made by Christ to the Justice of God our righteousness of the New Law hath nothing to do here in the matter
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
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
because Christs Obedience is said to be per quam when it is intended thereby to be the very righteousnes unto Justification ergo per quam and propter quam are of the same import in a juridical sence but that which our Nâ—onomâ—ans and Papists aim at is an immediate and mediare righteousness that we are justified by one as immediate for the sake of Christ's the mediate § 3. The Papists by this distinction would make way for a double righteousness in our Justification for the Council of Trent doth anathematize those that say a man is justified only by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ or only by remission of sins without inherent Grace and Charity To this purpose our Neonomian Mr. Cl. p. 35. That the merit of Christ's Death and Sufferings he excluding his active obedience hath purchased this priviledge for us among others that sincere faith should be accounted for righteousness and that God will account us righteous if we be possest thereof Resp In both these we see Christ's righteousness is made the propter quam and our own the per quam Christ's the meritorious of our Justification by our own righteousness whereby the ascribing any essential causality to Christ's righteousness is out of doors For 1. The Justification by our own ' is entire in all essential causes without Christ's for our righteousness imputed must be the material as well as the formal part of our Justification 2. It must be first imputed and we justified by it for they make not only the Condition but the Imputation thereof and Justification thereby ' to be conditional of our pardon and acceptance by Christ's Righteousness 3. The very righteousness of our own is imputed not Christs Righteousness at all only the effects cause and effects are opposita therefore if the effects only then not the righteousness it self 4. To say that Christ purchased Justification by our own righteousness is but to make Christ such a remote cause of Justification as Election is Now to talk that the condition by which we are justified is a formal cause and yet to be no cause is non-sence for a formal cause altho it be sine qua non and so is every cause yet the four immediate causes are not only so and this distinguisheth them as propter immediate causes whose vis caters the effect when causa sine qua non as to the effect is only antecedent or causa causae and enters not the effect spoken of But Mr. H. saith it s a cause as well as a condition it is both if we made our works to justifie us sub genere causae efficientis procatarct and so the meritorious cause it were to bring our works into the office of Christ's Righteousness and derogate from Grace Resp So they do notwithstanding all they say for if they thrust out Christ's Righteousness from any essential part of our Justification as they do not allowing it materiality or formality therein they put our own Works into Christ's Office and nothing can be more derogatory to the Grace of God they say they make it medus efficientis causa procatarchtica an external motive to the efficient the effect then in that respect falls on the efficient but the effect of the efficient is another thing Supposing God justifies as Judge Christ's Righteousness by way of Merit falls upon him and procures of him that he takes our righteousness in payment We may use this Similitude a Man is prosecuted before a Judge for an hundred Pounds a Friend of the Defendant tampers with the Jury and Judge and procures of them that the Debtor pay but 10 l. I pray whether is he justified by paying the 10 l. in Court or by that which the Judge and Jury received which is not brought in Plea at all so that all meritorious righteousness is brought in Plea coram Judice and accordingly being imputed or not Judgment passeth The Righteousness of Christ whatever it may purchase out of the Court of the New Law it s not allowed there as a Plea and is never nay cannot be imputed these men say though pleaded therefore no Justification thereby for no man is justified legally but by what is imputed § 4. But when we make it the formal cause only of our passive Justification we do nothing thereby but advance God's Grace and Christ's Merits as having obtained for us not only that God should require of us no othâ—r condition but our Faith or inchoate Righteousness unto life but also that he should corstitute by his New Law this condition performed to be our righteousness in the room of that perfect one required of the old p. 47. of right Resp Note 1. They do something besides advancing the Grace of God because it makes Justification due to us upon Debt for he that hath a formal right-ousness of his own legally imputed to him he may demand Justification as due to him by the law it self and this is not to advance Grace but contrary if the Apostle speak sence Rom. 4. 2. It is not an advance of Christ's Merits for it casts it out of Imputation and Justification and makes it but a causa sine quanon it casts them out of the essential causes and it makes them but an adjuvant cause or con-cause a co-ordinate according to Mr. H. it makes not Christ's Merits the only righteousness it makes our own righteousness the inchoate and foundation righteousness the Corner Stone of our Justification and whereas the Scriptures make Christ's it makes Christ's Righteousness but to belong to another law whereby they say we are not justified and our own to that which justifies and the only justifying righteousness of the new law it makes Christ's Righteousness and our Pardon by it to be a consequent of Justification by our own and that without imputation thereof extra-judicial but our own very righteousness to be imputed to us it makes that righteousness within its self and own nature saith Mr. H. again and again to be righteousness legal for our Justification and rejects Christ's perfect Righteousness as to Imputation and Justification which is contrary to the Holiness and Justice of God 3. He makes the Grace of God to consist in constituting a Law for Justification which is but part of distributive Justice the exercise of a Legislative Power and not of Grace to Sinners 4. The constitution of this inchoste righteousness is harder terms than the constitution of the righteousness of the Covenant of Works for Reasons before given 5. We see what their meaning is of Christ's Merits its only that he purchased a new Law and we see what is the Neonomian Commutation that they have of late made such a stir about they are for a Commutation what 's that its a commutation of our righteousness i. e. bringing into the room of the righteousness of the law i. e. Christ's in Justification they deny it in Dr. C's sence i. e. that our sins were imputed to Christ and his
sanctified but where there is the cause working there is the effect wrought and the justified is but the effect and constitutes no distinct species of it But we say the Grace of Justification of a Sinner proceeding from Grace is wholly in and from God and hath no cause in a Sinner material or formal nor is there any cause external of that Grace the moving cause only is the good will and pleasure of God he is gracious to whom he will graciousness pardoning Iniquity is only from his Grace and for the glory of his Grace which cannot be in the Justification of a righteous person but because not simply Grace but also Justice shall be glorified in a sinner's justification and God in his pardon will not clear the guilty he hath graciously provided and bestowed on the sinner a righteousness accepted by the Law and imputed to him that he may appear therein just and so just in administration of righteousness as not to infringe his Justice in the least but to the highest honor of the Law standing in its full force against the sinner without the least Relaxation This is done quite contrary to the Neonomian Doctrine therefore Gods Justification falling upon a Sinner makes actually a correlate to Gods justifying and faith is no more than the Sinners reception of this Grace no part of that righteousness by which faith or for which the Sinner is justified neither is it a grain of that righteousness which is imputed to him § 9. Mr. H. also hath another distinction between condition and duty which I will not stay upon because its frivolous and it is because he will have the duties of the Law to be performed by us tho we be not justified by them he insists upon a Relaxation of the old Law but not a total Abolition Mr. Bax. Opinion is that its abrogated as much as the Ceremonial Law wherein both penalty and duty is taken away and indeed Mr. B. is in the right according to his notion for the introduction of a New Law in the room of it and for the ends that the old Law was establisht is certainly the nulling of the said old Law but how then can Mr. B. be secured from a just charge of Antinomian viz. that moral duties are not required of us which is more Antinomian than I ever saw in any he chargeth with it he hath one poor shift which is that the duties of the old-Law are taken or spunged up in the conditions of the New but however the broken pieces are pickt up the Law it self is gone and there 's no transgression upon that account Mr. H. saith the Law 's only relaxed but his relaxation is no better than a Crack in the middle of a Glass and heart of it and he hath not told us how far this relaxation goes and every man will be ready to plead for his own sin that the Law in that respect is relaxt But he would have us believe that the moral duties still remain how relaxt or not If relaxt then at least to an indifferency a man may do them or not without any sin but he saith they are re-established in the New-Law if so they are re-established without the Relaxation and then the New-Law is as strict as the Old or with the relaxation and then all duties are required with abatement as to quality and quantity with an allowance of sin our posse or velle and what is more Antinomianism But saith he the Conditions are not Duties It was never affirmed by men of reason that the Condition of a Law is not a Duty for that which is required of us upon pain of punishment is always a Duty and to the Condition of the New-Law the highest because it hath the Sanction of a Law of the Highest he that continueth not in all things by way of performance that it requireth is cursed by it if it be but imperfect obedience it saith he that continueth not in imperfect obedience is cursed by it therefore when the Saints come to Heaven and fall into perfect obedience they fall under the Curse of the new law or else it s out of doors before they come there or the last day and the World can't be judged by it Lastly What are the conditions of imperfect obedience are they not Duties of Righteousness by the performance whereof Mr. H. will have us justified Yes this cannot be denied but the distinction will hold with a quatenus as they refer to the absolute relaxed Laws they are Duties i. e. as they respect no Law or a lawless Law and as they refer to the New Law they are Conditions and are not Duties Hence it s no Duty to perform the Conditions of the New Law for Justification thereby and this is the Truth which we stand by though infer'd truly from Mr. H's Logick and Divinity CHAP. IX An Answer to Mr. H's Arguments against Imputation of Christs Righteousness Section 1. Arguments Artificial or Inartificial § 2. His First Argument against the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness answered § 3. His Second Argument Answered § 4. His Third Argument Answered § 5. Mr. H's Argument for Faith and Obedience being the formal part of Justification First Answer § 6. The Assumption by parts § 7. Argument the Second Answered § 8. Mr. H's Third Argument Answered with his Fourth Argument § 9. Of Constitutive Justification Sect. 1. NOw it is time to come to Examine the grounds of Mr. H. and Mr. C's Doctrine in this Point of Justification And First I shall treat of them that are the reasoning Arguments Artificial as called in Logick the weakest in Divinity and then those that are pretended from Scripture which in Logick are called inartificial but if grounded upon Divine Testimony the best and strongest § 2. Against the Imputation of Christs Righteousness he argues thus How can God account our Sins to be Christs and his Righteousness ours when really they are not so and Gods Judgment is according to Truth Resp this is used again and again by Mr. B to which I shall Answer 1. By retorting the Medium and not so tedious to put it into any other form how can God account our own New Law righteousness to be justifying righteousness when in its own nature it s no righteousness Mr. H. saith so over and over and Gods judgment is according to Truth now see the honesty of these Men God must not make a Judgment according to Truth in imputing Christs perfect righteousness to us because it was not personally performed by us and imputing our Sins to Christ because they were not actually committed by him and yet God makes a judgment according to Truth in imputing our own paultry sinful righteousness to us for our righteousness when they themselves say its really no righteousness 2. Is not his righteousness ours The Scripture saith it is and our Sins made his they say it doth not that we will try God willing but for the present we ask what if
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