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
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
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
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
believe with all thy Heart c. that must be a real receiving of Christ He that hath the Son hath Life 1 John 5.11 12. The Sinner first receives Christ after sees and knows he hath received Christ himself V. 13 and 20. And we own there may be presumption where there 's an appearance of believing and knowing only there need not be such sputter as he makes about these matters neither doth it profit his cause Object But while we were Sinners Christ Died for us so saith the Apostle Rom. 5. and others after him Two things thereby signified 1. That Christ Died for us under that Consideration for he came not to Save those that are Righteous but those that were Sinners 2. That it was long ago that Christ Died while we were in the first Adam and in an unregenerate state Sinners of the Gentiles to which he rejoins thus How then must every Sinner believe that Christ Died for him A. Every Sinner under the Call of the Gospel is to believe in Christ for Life and Salvation according to the constant tenor of the Gospel but to know Christ did bear his Sins and die for him results from this Believing He that hath the Son i. e. by believing hath Life Receiving is first before knowing that a Man hath Received and it is Gospel truth that Christ bore the Sins of every one that truly believes and every one is an Elect Person whose Sins Christ bore For if the Apostle spake true he that makes sure his Calling makes sure his Election Then saith the Bp. here is Universal Redemption asserted in its full extent and what is more here is Universal Election too if all Men can believe that their Sins are forgiven A. Let us examine the Bp's fallacious Arguing 1. The Gospel is indefinitely preached to all under the Call thereof and directed to all Sinners without any exception he that believes on the Lord Jesus shall be saved is this an Argument that Redemption is Universal or that all are Saved or Elected It 's said as many as were Ordained unto Life believed therefore it cann't be said that every one doth or can believe John 12.39 2. See how foully this Man imposeth by charging his opposites with saying That all Men can believe that their Sins are forgiven p. 133. or to charge this as p. 132. That a Man's Sins are forgiven because he believes that they are forgiven being laid on Christ whereas a Man believes because his Sins are forgiven and laid on Christ for Christ bearing our Sin is the Cause of believing and not the Effect At least conditional Election follows upon it he saith We see he suspected his first consequence and therefore poacheth in another This may serve for a Professed Armin. but the Bp. I suppose would not have been accounted so the Argument is because Men are Saved in and by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ therefore Election is upon foresight of Faith but we say Men are as absolutely Elected unto Faith as unto Glory The controversie of Conditional Election is not here to be entered upon but we assert that it follows more upon the Bp's Hypothesis than ours § 26. He adds its ground enough of presumption as to all such as can believe that their Sins are forgiven A. Those that can believe their Sins are forgiven can believe through the Grace of God working it nay they have attained to a great measure of Grace How doth presumption consist with can Believe B. What can hinder any Man more from Repentance and forsaking his Sins than to be told that the first Act of Saving Faith is to believe his Sins is forgiven R. Where is any one that will teach an Unbeliever to Believe his Sins are forgiven in the state of Unbelief But we find the Voice of the Gospel to the Unbeliever is to invite and call him to believe the Gospel which saith that this is a Saying worthy of all acceptation That Christ came into the World to save Sinners that he bore Man's Sin and was made Sin and Curse for them and that the Sinner should come in particular and apply himself to Christ for this Pardon and Forgiveness that is in Christ for with him is Pardon and Plentiful Redemption He is a Fountain opened for Sin and Uncleanness and if a Fountain then not an empty Object of Faith but full of Pardon and of all the Grounds and Reasons of a Sinner's Faith and Hope Now how doth such coming to Christ and closing with him in a free Promise hinder Repentance and embolden them unto Sin For the Apostle saith Sin shall not have Dominion over you because you are under the Grace of God in the Promise and he shews Sin will reign over a Man while he is under the Law But the Gospel Preacheth Repentance in order to Remission R. It Preacheth Repentance and Remission to shew that where there is Repentance to Life there is Remission and where there is Remission received by Faith there will be Repentance in a Believing coming to God through Christ The Soul cann't turn from Sin to God but by a believing Repentance neither can any Repentance be unto Life unless it be a turning from Sin to God thro' Jesus Christ Hence Faith and Repentance are frequently put for one another or in one the other included When the Scripture speaks of the first Act of the Sinners coming unto God yea not only the first act of true Faith but all other are inseparable from Repentance as from other Graces Love Hope c. Though both Repentance Love and Hope are distinct Graces and Fruits of the Spirit from Faith and from each other This lastly I affirm as the truth of the Gospel that there can be no true Repentance antecedent in Nature to true Faith Faith being the first effect of Spiritual Life in one that is effectually called Bp Repentance is commanded and Baptism commanded therefore they are conditions R. The Antecedent is true but the consequence follows not if he meant new Covenant Conditions For all things and Duties Commanded are not therefore foederal Conditions For that Grace which God works by his Word and Spirit is very absurdly called a Condition of a Covenant that God makes with a Sinner But observe he makes Repentance such a condition as Baptism if so what inseparable connection is there as there should be in this Case between the condition and promise for will any say that he that is not Baptized shall be Damn'd The Scripture saith not so besides the Seal of a Bond is not the Condition of the Obligation but only a Ratification Whether Mr. R. B. did Socinianize The Chief thing discussed by the Bp in his third Chapter is whether Mr. B. was a Socinian from which Charge he makes as if he would Vindicate him I shall briefly examine how he acquits himself in this difficult undertaking The sum and substance of Mr. B's Opinion in this Point was That our Sins were no proper
Taste how the Quakers and Socinian fall in with this Doctrine of Justification by Works Quakers Works and Faith are equally required to Justifie Works of the Law are excluded as done by us to be justified by Grace is to be justified by Regeneration which cannot exclude Works wrought by Grace since the Law gives not Power to obey and so fall short of Justification there 's Power under the Gospel whereby the Law comes to be fulfilled inwardly Works through the Power of the Spirit is a Condition upon which Life is proposed under the New Covenant It appears from divers Scriptures that the Apostle excludes only our own Righteousness as being the Righteousness of the Law from being necessary to Justification Barcl Socinian There was never but one way of Justification by Faith This Faith is nothing else but under the hope of Eternal Life to obey the Commands of Christ and this we apprehend to be understood in Scripture where-ever we read of Salvation promised to them that believe in Christ Socin de offic Chr. Them 42.43 To believe in Christ is nothing else than to obey God according to the Rule and Prescription of Crist and in doing it to expect of Christ a Crown of Eternal Lise Socin de Servatori To the attaining Eternal Life not any Merits are required but the obeying Christs Precepts to which Eternal Life is the constituted Price or Reward not that Obedience it self deserved it but because it hath pleased the most gracious God to deal so with Mankind Socin Respon ad Obj. cut § 3. Now let us see how Consonant our Neonomians be to this Fraternity in the Doctrine we 'll take it from Mr. H. one of the honestest of the Pack and freest from Juggling Medeocr p. 16 17. Our Works do not Merit because they are not perfect i. e. therefore do not Merit as related to the Old-Covenant but Merit notwithstanding ex pacto in relation to the New-law-Covenant but we are justified by Works as we are by Faith because Faith justifies only as productive of Works thence you see he placeth the Righteousness of Faith in it self as a Work done and that it justifies only so and hath no more justifying Nature or End then the Fruits thereof It is Faith as productive of Works that receive the Reward of perfect Righteousness in that this imperfect stands in the Room of perfect but we are still to remember for Christs sake Bellarmine remembred that and the Council of Trent God judgeth and will judge all Men according to the Gospel those who perform the Condition of it he accounts and pronounceth righteous those whom he accounts righteous are justified I will add that the righteousness of Christ which is the meritorious cause of our Justification and always comes under the efficient cannot by the same reason be the formal and material cause of it It is not infusion of righteousness with the Papist which is our Sanctification nor the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness with the Protestant which is not to be understood in genere causae efficiente nor Remission of Sin with Protestant and Papist you see here how far he goes beyond the Papist but to impute to a person his performance of the New Covenant for Righteousness or pronouncing him righteous according to that Covenant is the formal cause of his Justification Med. p. 46. Here is to be remarkt that Mr. H. doth peremptorily exclude from our Justification the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness and Remission of Sins and places the whole of it in imputation of our own works for righteousness as active obedience § 4. These Men do as the Papists and the rest make our inherent Holiness in Sanctification to be that very righteousness by which we are justified Take Mr. Cl's words wherein he fully expresseth Mr. H's sense in differing from the Papist about Infusion Herein lieth the true difference between Justification and Sanctification In Sanctification we are made holy righteous and good by the infusion of those Graces into us but in Justification we are only accounted and declared such in the one the change is but relative and in the other real Come in Quakers and shake this Friend by the hand as one of you you have quarrelled with the Pulpits a great while and now you may ascend them your selves when you please and be not so angry at them for you shall not hear these men call your Doctrine Popish any more but you 'll hear them call all men that are not of your Opinion Antinomians briskly See now the depth of this distinction Justification is not by infusion of Sanctification but yet Justification is by Sanctification infused Is it not much more rational to say that Justification is by making a man righteous that was not so before for Justification of a sinner must be such Besides is it not much more Evvngelical as to justifying the ungodly as Bellarmine saith But these Men say We are first made righteous that is godly and then pardoned he should have said justified for his Justification comes in between his sanctifying Righteousness and Pardon and not on the contrary first pardoned and then righteous Mr. C. p. 19. Resp Were ever such Absurdities asserted by Men of Reason 1. We are first made righteous and quatenus made so are sanctified and not justified therefore Justification makes no man righteous but finds them so but it declares Men what what it finds them i. e. sanctified Hence to declare a Man sanctified is his Justification and I pray now how comes in Mr. H's causa formalis how doth Justification differ formally nam ad formam pertinet proprium differentia from Sanctification when Imputation or God's accounting a man holy and sanctified is his Justification Is not God's Judgment according to Truth Is it not certain that God accounts every thing to be as it is a holy man holy If this be all your Justification it s no more than as God justified at the Creation he saw that every thing was good 2. If we are first made righteous and then justified because we are so its meritum ex condigno whereon we are justified all the World cannot hinder it 3. First righteous and then pardoned What sense is in that for a righteous person needs no Pardon in that thing wherein he is righteous for therein to be righteous and want Pardon is to speak Daggers and the absurdest contradiction in the World § 5. Well But why must our Neonomians be pardoned when righteous and justified before because indeed their Righteousness and Justification by it is not worth a Fig by their own confession for Mr. Cl. saith for since subordinate Gospel Righteousness is an imperfect righteousness consistent with manifold failings and infirmities therefore notwithstanding that there 's need of pardon and that continually This is also Mr. H's Doctrine therefore I need not transcribe his very words which are to this purpose in many places Resp I find they are not fully agreed about the
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
Righteousness to us for they expresly deny both the one and the other § 5. Mr. H. So as Adam if he had perfectly obeyed his obedience had been his formal righteousness in regard of the law Resp His Obedience had bin his material Righteousness and this imputed to Justification had bin his Righteousness clothed with the Form and End and unless we have a material and formal righteousness in regard to the same law we can never be justified So is this ours in regard to the Gospel Resp The Gospel is not a new Law neither doth it allow our own righteousness for any in our Justification and is therefore Gospel because it doth not He tells us both Protestant and Papist are both out in saying the Law is the rule of that Righteousness which both say is the formal reason of their Justification Resp It is the Neonomians are out and worse than the Papists in this Point in that they will bring any other rule of Righteousness for Justification the Law of Works is only norma officii judicii for Righteousness and Justification They are both out for the Papists speaks for inherent Grace and his Works so as he would have them meritorious and perfect pleading for Merit and Perfection but can never bring them to answer the law but must still pray forgive us our trespasses Resp The Papists are righter and more rational here than Neonomians if they differ from them in Merit they ought not and Mr. B. asserts it in his End of Controversies but whereever the performance of the condition of a law requires Justification by the law there is Merit and must be for such a Performer deserves and merits Justification and the remuneration thereof as much as Adam's standing and performing the condition of the Law of Works had merited Justification thereby Likewise as to Perfection they are right for that is a man's Perfection which the Law makes so and justifies a man by the Law matters not what other laws make perfect performance the Old Law is no rule to the New Law that 's a man's Perfection which the Law that justifies him saith is the performance of the condition Mr. H. quotes Mr. B. for saying the New Law acquits a man from non-performance of the condition and what need such an one pray for Pardon any more than they that say they are justified in Christ's Righteousness the great Cry they make against Justification in Christ's Righteousness what need such an one pray for Pardon for if their Justification in and by their own righteousness be not as perfect discharging from guilt by Pardon as ours is in Christ's Righteousness it s not worth a Fig we desire no such trifling Justifications § 6. The Protestants on the other side plead for Christ's righteousness which arswers the Rule but this being without us though it be upon the account thereof id propter quod or cujus merito we are justified the Papists say stiffly it can never be made formally ours so as to be propter quod we are justified â—â—d I must say the same for the Truth is Truth Resp Here you have Mr. H. plainly confessing himself a Papist in the Point of Justification and hence it s no wrong to him to say he is a Papist upon his own Confession and the truth is the truth He saith with the Papists that this being without us cannot oâ— imputed can nothing but what is personally done by us be Imputed to us I find no Proof that he makes any where that one man's righteousness cannot be imputed to another and here it is only because it is without us What is more common than Sureties to pay the Deâ—ts of insolvent Persons and that Christ made Payment and Satisfaction for Sinners is most plain from Scriptures though these men will deny that the Scripture saith any thing thereof which denial will be tried by us whether there is any weight in it There are two great Points to be cleared in this Controversie 1. Whether the Scripture excludes all inherent righteousness from the Justification of a Sinner before God 2. Whether the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to a Sinner for his Justification before God These Questions shall be maintained by us in the Affirmative God willing in their due place § 7. Whereas Mr. H. Prides himself exceedingly in the singularity of his Notion of our Righteousness being the formal cause of our Justification any one may see it in Cardinal Bellarmine and J. Goodwyn from both whom its easie to shew how the Neonomians have taken up their Doctrine as for the Notion it self it labours under many weaknesses 1. That Righteousness in it self is not the formal but the material reason of Justification that which induceth the form is a legal Imputation for if a man be never so innocent and righteous if the Court do not impute him so he shall not be justified and if a man be never so unrighteous if the Court impute righteousness to him he shall be justified so it s here Imputation is the legal form of Justification and righteousness is but the material only 2. He makes a formal reason without material for if our own righteousness be the formal reason where 's the material he will not make Christ's Merits the material for he brings in them sub genere causae efficientis besides he cannot for it would be very absurd to place the matter in one subject and the form in another therefore his formal reason is immaterial and it s indeed but an imagenary Chymaera both his New Law and his Formal Righteousness 3. Our Righteousness if it be the formal reason of our Justification it s such as per quam homo justus est and that is in law always propter quod for no law justifies any one but because he is righteous his righteousness must constitute him just and the law esteeming him so he is justified as legally meritorious thereof the noise Mr. B. J. G. and others make of the distinction between constitutive and declarative Justification is Popish and hath nothing in it constitutive Justification is no more than Imputation it is that which in law constitutes any one just and meritorious of declarative Justification § 8. Mr. H. makes a distinction of Justification that its active and passive whereas Justification is but one and it doth not constitute properly a physical effect but a legal relation it doth neither find nor make any sinner inherently righteous for Justification of a righteous person finds him inherently so this Justification we speak not of but Mr. H. will have a passive Justification upon this account because it finds the sinner righteous inherently he saith indeed the infusion of this preceeding righteousness is not his Justification according to the Papists but his Justification is for the righteousness which it finds infused and so it s the formal cause of Justification He might with much better reason say that Sanctification is double active sanctifying and passive
Evangelical But alas Mr. Cl. to prevent misconstruction after he hath bin disputing for the work of Faith to be our righteousness yet we must not expect Mercy Justification Pardon Reconciliation or Favour with God upon the account of our sincerity Faith or Obedience as the procuring cause but we are to look up to Christ confessing our best works to be but filthy rags in strict justice c. Resp One may see how frail a righteousness these men have feigned to themselves it is as the Spider's Web that they dare not lean upon it tho they will swagger and vapour with it to out-dare them whom they call Antinomians who will cleave immediately to Christ's righteousness alone as their only righteousness without the intervention of these filthy Rags their righteousness must have Christ stand behind the Curtain to patch their ragged raiment their House cannot stand without Bellarmine's propter quod their Pageantry is all dead Images unless one behind the Curtain move them which no body must see here is no Mercy Pardon and Reconciliation for and by their Righteousness but Christ procured something of it I know not what but Christ's Procurement was long ago the Law is in their own hands now he only procured the New Law they must shift as well as they can to perform the Conditions Christ did not purchase those neither died he to forgive any fault in their righteousness but oh their righteousness comes not up to the old Law what need they trouble themselves about that Christ hath fetcht them from under that faulty Perfection and brought them under a faultless unrighteousness of the Remedial Law and faults their Righteousness must have or else it would be an adequate condition but they must acknowledge their unworthiness and desert of all evil and when we have done God looks upon us as righteous in a Gospel sense I had thought in the beginning of this Paragraph Christ had bin to have pardoned and mended the faults of our remedial righteousness but it seems here is some pretence to it only that Christ may not think he is put off with nothing but the compleating of these rough Garments to deceive lies in their own doings if we do this God looks upon us as righteous in a Gospel-sense and pardons us first justified and not pardoned and then pardoned and not justified VVhat a great matter of Lamentation is it to see the corrupt minds of men thus vainly and mischievously sport themselves with the rich Grace of God and his strict Justice § 9. Before I leave this Chapter let us talk a little further with Mr. Humph. about his great challenge if it be as he saith that no Man or Woman before Christ coming did Imagine they were righteous before God or accepted for the Obedience of Christ it must follow that they had a hard task under the New Law for they wanted the propter quod and both Mr. Cl. and he saith their righteousness wants pardon and they must go to the id propter quod for pardon and acceptance Now I would Query whether if they could not imagine Christs Obedience to be their righteousness how could they imagine that Christs Obedience could be the procuring cause so that they were altogether destitute of the id propter quod I would know whether the Faith of Gods Children before Christ had no Eye unto Christ and his righteousness in the Sacrifices and sin Offerings which they offered daily did they not look at them as shadows and types of a better and more perfect Sacrifice the Apostle saith that the righteousness of God which we shall by and by shew to be the righteousness of Christ was witnessed by the Law i. e. the Law of Moses and the Prophets and if so its strange that they should have no imagination of it when as the Apostle Peter 1 Ep. c. 1.10 Saith the Prophets have Enquired after and searched diligently for this Salvation prophesied of Searching what and what manner of times the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signifie when it testified before hand the sufferings of Christ and the glory which should follow The Apostle Peter was clear in this Point Acts 2.31 He saith that David foresaw the Resurrection of Christ and spake of it and Christ himself affirms this after his Resurrection to the two Disciples going to Immaus that he ought thus to suffer and enter into Glory beginning at Moses and all the Prophets he expounded unto them in all the Scripture the things concerning himself Now if Moses and all the Prophets yea all the Scriptures should so eminently and expresly foretel Christs sufferings and resurrection and why it was viz. to bear Sin and satisfie Gods justice as the Prophet Isa c. 53. and David and Jer. and all the Sacrifices of old and his Redemption was also for them to the transgressions under the first Testament Heb. 9.15 It is strange that none of them from Adam to Christ should in the least imagine their acceptance with God should be for his righteousness but that they should look for Justification by their own righteousness only and none others § 10. Mr. Cl. in the conclusion of his Book undertakes to disprove the Imputation of the Active righteousness of Christ when as all a long his Book he holds that Christ's righteousness Active or Passive is not imputed but as to Effects now he can mean nothing by the non-imputation of Either but as to Effects So that he must intend by the non-imputation of Christs active Obedience of the Effect and then either it had no effects or no effects pro bono nostro now sure if I mistake not he grants that whatever Christ was it was for our good and therefore have some benefit by it and God reckons it a benefit for that 's their Imputation when we have a benefit God reckons it so i. e. Imputes it to be what it is surely if Christ active Obedience did but fit him to redeem us by passive it was a benefit to us His Incarnation was it not a benefit In their way of Imputation they may say after Mr. B. because he did not obey that we should not obey Resp Neither did he suffer that we should not suffer but Christ suffered that we might not suffer penally and obey that we might not obey legally and its strange that the second Adam should have actual righteousness for us as well as the first had actual sin that all should not be repaired as to the preceptive as well as the vindicative part of the Law which was fallen upon us in the first Adam by the second Adam Why was he made under the Law Was it not for active as well as passive Obedience CHAP. XI Of Iustification by Works Section 1. The Neonomian Doctrine opposed § 2. Who it is God justifies § 3. More fully Answer'd § 4. Arguments against Justification by Works § 5. Mr. Cl's Proposition § 6. Of the Jews Opinion about Justification § 7. Whether
Law is unsinning therefore this Plea will serve no more for Ejection of the VVorks of the Old Law than for the Ejection of the VVorks of the New Law out of Justification Hence we see the pretence of casting out the VVorks of the Old Law is frivolous and vain because they are performed by our Strength which none can pretend to no not Adam in Innocency or because they introduce boasting when the VVorks of any Law do when Justification is pleaded for thereby they are meritorious when the VVorks of any Law are so or they are unsinning and perfect when the VVorks of any Law must be so or else it justifies not § 17. Prop. 10. The Jews many of them did Conceit and Fancy that they could yield perfect Obedience to this Law so as to need no Pardon This he would prove from Luke 16.15 and Luke 18.9 Resp It is not to be granted that a People that offered so many Sacrifices for Sin should think they could yield perfect Obedience to the Law of God That of Luke 16. proves not his Assertion for Christ speaks only of the Justification before Men by their external Actions and he shews that neither their external nor internal would justifie them before God and besides he tells them that which Men account Righteousness God looks upon as an Abomination Nor that Chap. 18.9 for he there condemns plainly looking for Justification by Mens own Righteousness and trusting to it VVhat doth a Neonomian do less then they when he looks upon himself as Righteous to Justification by his own Righteousness thence he gives the Instance of the proud Pharisee and poor Publican he saith the Publican of the two lookt more like a Justified Person because he renounced his own Righteousness and applied himself wholly to the Mercy of God as a poor Sinner not pleading any works at all of any kind 2. It is to be supposed the carnal Jews did look for Justification by their own Righteousness tho' they looked not at themselves as Righteous in perfect performance of the Moral Law for if so they could not have been so Zealous for Moses his ceremonial Law the chiefest part whereof was the Levitical Priesthood and Sacrifices they could not but know that the very High-Priest sinned and offered first for his own Sins and then for the Sins of the People yea that Sin polluted their holiest things and therefore Sacrifices for Sin were offered for them yea all sprinkled with Blood But they having such apprehensions of their Justification as the Neonomians have of theirs they fall under the severe remarks of the Lord Christ and his Apostles 1. They looked upon Moses his Law as that which was their New Law for Justification by imperfect Righteousness in opposition to the Old Law as first given to Adam in Innocency 2. They looked upon the Sanction of the Law of Works as to perfection to be abrogated or relaxed that God would accept them for their sincerity in Imperfect works so Paul in his unregeneracy 3. They looked to the Opus operatum in all Obedience to Moses his Law for because 1. They looked for forgiveness by the Offering up of Sin Offering meerly without looking to the Antitype by Faith 2. They looked upon the most material part of the Law of Works to be taken up into Moses his Law their New Law now its Impossible but the New Law to them if ever any such thing was Exhibited and dispensed by Moses his Law which indeed being spiritually understood was the Jews Gospel therefore saith the Apostle they sought Righteousness Rom. 9. As it were by the Works of a Law tho' it was impersest yet the works of a Law and never attained to a law of Righteousness and why Because they went to Establish their own impertect Righteousness but sought not after a true perfect Righteousness which was not their own but Christs Rom. 10.3.4 Now saith the Apostle these are engaged in a great mistake for they think to have a Justification by an impepfect partial Obedience but they become hereby Debtors to keep the whole Law of Moses Moral and Ceremonial but such as seek such Justification by Law-Works either Legal or Evangelical for the New-Law must be such else they were not saved even as we are abdicated from Christ and fallen from Grace Gal. 3.3 4. As for the words of the rich Man Luke 11.21 And as to Paul's sentiments in his unregeneracy Phil. 3.6 They are to be understood only as to common account and gross Actions not that Paul thought he was perfect as to Moral-Obedience but that he was imperfectly righteous by some degrees of moral obedience together with his Mosaical Expiation for Sin and this is no other than his New-Law righteousness hence Rom. 7.9 he was alive without the law once i. e. he once laid aside the thoughts of the spirituality and exactness of the righteousness of the true law of God and therefore cast it off but was wholly taken up with a New-Law righteousness imperfect and that God would accept this to Justification but when he came to see the true law and what righteousness he must be justified by or perish eternally then sin revived then he could see sin with a vengeance in himself and died to all Justification by his works or by a law of what kind soever it was § 18. There 's one place yet behind under the branch of Negative 1 Cor. 4.4 I know nothing by my self yet am I not hereby justified Resp This place is against Mr. Cl. for here are two things in it He tells us of a twofold Judgment of God that he looked for 1. That of his Person 2. The regularity and sincerity of his Actions and Deportment Whatever Censures Men were ready to pass upon him yet he had the testimony of a good conscience as chap. 1. but whatever his simplicity and godly sincerity was he expected not to be justified by it but it might be said your actions are condemned by men and there 's none that doeth good and sinneth not and so may you in discharge of your Apostleship He saith as to my actions God knows what they are and he will testifie to them before the World that condemns them when he shall come and lay open the secret and hidden things of darkness therefore he disowns plainly Justification by New-law-works and he appeals plainly to the Judgment of God as to his ways and works to be such wherein he is Evangelically thro Christ approved of God as such as are regular sincere and from a true Principle renouncing Justification thereby but desiring to walk in all well-pleasing to God in Sanctification § 19. It is now time to look back a little and take notice of the great Challenge Mr. Cl. makes I do absolutely deny true Gospel works and justifying faith are opposed one to another which is very unfairly made as to the Terms whereas Justifying-Faith and Gospel-Works as the fruits of justifying are consentaneous as Cause