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
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
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
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
faulty that will serve the turn God never abandoned nor relaxed his original Law though others as branches in positive laws for a time being may be but that was perfectly fulfilled in Christ § 3. Arg. 2. That Righteousness which merits the Justification of a Sinner before God is that righteousness only by which and for which he is justified before God but the Righteousness of Christ is such Ergo. For the minor our adversaries grant it that Christ merited and purchased our Justification i. e. by works of our own and that our Righteousness and Justification are effects thereof and therefore there needs no further Proof here but we must come to the major which pincheth hard upon them but it appears to be true 1. Because there is no legal Discharge of an accused person without a meritorious righteousness appearing Now these men with the Socinians say some at least and others do but lisp at it Mr. B. says it downright he knowing it to be inseparable from the Popish Doctrine that their righteousness is not meritorious being imperfect if it be not it s no justifying righteousness I will stand by it that there is no righteousness can claim Justification but upon the merit of their action in the performance of the preceptive part and if they be justified by the new law they must be justified by the merits thereof but we assert that the righteousness must answer the old law broken and it must be as in Justice it doth so satisfie that law that it lays claim to Justification by vertue of those merits and no other righteousness will pass there but what is such § 5. Arg. 4. The righteousness typified by the Priests Sacrifices of old was the righteousness whereby a sinner is justifi d in the sight of God but the righteousness of Christ a-alone is such Ergo. For the major our adversaries Mr. Bellarmine and Mr. H. say that Christs Righteousness is the thing for which id propter quod not as the End but as an Instrument of the Efficient and a meritorious cause and our Faith and Obedience is the per quam which they say doth not denote Merit and in the Protestant sence per quam denotes only instrumentality but indeed here 's these mens Commutation they make Christ's Righteousness the Instrument and that remote enough too and our own righteousness the Formal Cause of Justification which in truth is their meritorious cause upon their own Positions the major must be granted The minor will be very demonstrable upon these reasons That the Righteousness of Christ is only such the id propter quod and per quod a sinner is justified in Gods sight 1. i. e. The righteousness by which we are justified is not two but one and Christs is that as the Scripture affirms 2. That for which a man is meritoriously justified in tribuno legis is that by which he is justified so the law knows no difference in those terms for it doth nothing by any righteousness but it doth it for that righteousness 3. The Spirit of God therefore useth the Greek Prepositions promiseuously in this case as hath in part been shewed 4. No Sinner therefore can stand in Judgment but by and for this Righteousness of Christ § 5. Arg. 4. The Righteousness typified by the Priestly Sacrifices of old was the righteousness whereby a sinner is justified in the sight of God but this was the Righteousness of Christ only Ergo. The major and minor are so clear that no Christian that hath read the Scripture with any understanding can deny either if any shall say it s not easie to defend it there 's the whole Epistle to the Hebrews yea the whole Scripture to prove them all the Devils in Hell cannot cast down this Fortress and I leave it therefore to the intelligent Reader let him search the Scriptures they testifie of it § 6. Arg. 5. That Righteousness which is a ransoming and redeeming righteousness from a legal Bondage is the justifying righteousness of a sinner before God but Christ's Righteousness is that alone which is a redeeming and ransoming righteousness Ergo. The minor is true none that call themselves Christians dare to fly so audaciously in the face of Christ and deny plain Scripture to deny this if they do there 's enough to prove it to the meanest Christian The major therefore I will prove beyond all contradiction That righteousness which meritoriously dischargeth the sinner from his Bondage under the Law the condemnation and curse of it is justifying Righteousness but Christs Righteousness is such Rom. 8.34 Gal. 3.13 and divers places for a discharge of a person from under the Bonds Imprisonments and Curse of the Law is his Justification and the righteousness for which he is discharged is his Justification § 7. Arg. 6. That Righteousness which only can justifie a Sinner against the Law is the Righteousness whereby a Sinner is Justifyed in the sight of God but Christ's Righteousness is such Ergo I suppose the major is undeniable except men will cavil at the Sun at noon day and will any have the face to say as to the minor 1. That God hath not purer Eyes of Justice than to behold Iniquity 2. That he exerciseth justice by halves and not in the strictest and exactest manner 3. Will they say their righteousness is so perfect as to answer Gods Law The Neonomians say no. How will they dare to say then they are justifyed by a Righteousness which is not answerable in perfection to the Law but they will be justifyed by another Righteousness the worst they can think of by a Law coined adequate to Antinomian and licentious Principles 4. A Sinners unrighteousness is such that the Law could never look upon him for to be righteouss in the sight of God in his own righteousness because he hath been once a transgressor James saith If a man transgress but in one Point he is guilty of all The Saints in Heaven tho glorified with Perfection yet having been sinners and transgressors of the Law they could not stand Justifyed out of Christ's righteousness It is one thing to have perfection of Sanctification as to the present standing and performances and another thing to have perfection of Justification wherein the least believer here on Earth are as perfectly Justifyed and as righteous before God as the glorifyed Saints in Heaven See Col. 1.22 Eph. 6.27 Rev. 14.4.5 § 8. Arg. 7. That Righteousness which repairs all our unrighteousnesses lost in the first Adam is the only righteousness whereby we are Justifyed before God but Christ's righteousness is such and no other righteousness Ergo as to the major for all other righteousness comes short of what we lost in the first Adam our unrighteousness was our breach of the preceptive part of Gods Law this was our unrighteousness our loss and punishment was also very great in respect of moral original righteousness and coming under the wages of sin which is death or liableness thereto by
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
Distinctions or Explications Doth this become learned Divines The Rebukers Articles which he brought into Court were I find to the number of 21 but it seems the judicious Bp. contracted them to Six which he hath called us to appear to looking upon the rest I suppose as frivolous illiterate or spiteful the Six with my respective Answers are as follows Er. 1. That Pardon is rather the Condition of Faith having a causal Influence thereunto then Faith and Repentance are of Pardon A. The Words were mine in transitu of a Discourse and therefore it is very unfair to expose them without shewing their Dependance 1. I have shewn and proved and will stand by it that Pardon Faith and Repentance belong not to the conditional Part of the new Covenant but to the Promisory 2. That Pardon Faith and Repentance altho' they are not Foederal Conditions yet being connected in the Promise may have a Connexion conditional given to them as if a Man believe he receiveth Pardon in believing if he repent he will believe if he repent and believe he shall be saved and I renounce not the Scripture Language in anything but desire to understand and explain it in its true and genuine Sense 3. I say that if we talk of the Foederal Conditionality of Faith to Pardon Pardon is rather a Foederal Condition of Faith and Repentance than Faith of Pardon I say not that it is but rather because distinguishing Pardon aright into Active and Passive I say Pardon Passive received can't be without Faith to receive it but Pardon Active must be before Faith 1. Because the Object that the Hand receives must be before the Instrument that receives it 2. The Grace of Pardon is in God to be bestowed before we receive it 3. There is Pardon in Christ for all that shall believe Jo. 17.20 See what Mr. Capel saith on this point It is one thing for all the Sins of all the Elect to be pardoned to Christ for them that was done before we were or our Sins were another thing to be pardoned to them Christ was made a Curse for us by Imputation for that the Father did impute all our Sins as a Judge to Christ as our Surety the true notion of Imputation that it is not an Act of Grace but a Judicial Act and God did exact all of him as guilty by that Law c. 3. Pardon in God and in Christ hath a causal Influence on Faith and Repentance 1. Pardon is an essential cause of a pardoned Person the Abstract being the formal cause of the Concrete pardoning Grace doth effectually work all Graces of the Spirit in us the pardoning Grace of the Father Son and Spirit 2. The Gospel preached to Sinners which is Pardon of Sin the Gospel preached to Abraham is that which works Faith thro' the effectual Operation of the Spirit Act. 13.39 Rom. 10.15 And it was preached to David by Nathan 2 Sam. 12.17 as done before his particular Repentance express'd Psal 51. therefore if we talk of Foederal Conditions Pardon is rather such than Faith and Repentance because it 's in Nature as well as Time antecedent and such an antecedent as hath a causal Influence And hence I also assert that every necessary antecedent tho' with causal Influence upon the consequent is not a Foederal Condition Er. 2. That Sin it self as opposed to Guilt was laid on Christ and Christ was reputed a Criminal not only by Man but God A. As to the first clause they should have pointed out the Person that said it If I spake it or writ it I was asleep then for when we say Sin was laid on Christ we speak not of it by way of Opposition unto Guilt but by way of Identity or Sameness with Guilt in the Dialect of the Spirit of God our use of the Word Guilt being but an apt Exegetical Term to express the meaning of Sin in this Point because the Physical Substratum of Sin can't be transferred to another but the Law Relation may As to the second charge 1. It will be easily granted by the Accusers that a Sinner's Debts to the Law are Crimes 2. To say he was a reputed Criminal in Law only is by a received Sense to justifie the personal and absolute Innocency of Christ in himself 3. I suppose they will not deny that if Sin was charged on Christ for the delivery of Sinners it was done by God as his Act and not by the false Accusation of Satan or his Instruments for the Salvation of Sinners by his bearing Sin was never their Design and it 's said God laid upon him the Iniquity of us all Isa 53.4 The term Criminal might possibly be used by some or other with a good Meaning but I look not upon it as proper and I don't know that I have used it if I have I have better considered of it 1. Because tho' the Scripture saith Sin was laid on Christ and that he was made Sin yet it saith not that he was a Sinner or a Criminal 2. Because his bearing Sin and being made so it plainly implies that he was not so in himself but made so by Law Imputation and by standing in a Surety relation to the Law for us 3. A Sinner or Criminal doth in an ordinary and common Acceptation import a Committer or Perpetrator of Sin which Christ never was not reputed by God so to be Therefore herein God shews his wonderful Wisdom in teaching us to speak of Christ in this great Mystery with so much Exactness Er. 3. That the Doctrine of Justification before Faith is not an Error but a great and glorious Truth and therefore we believe that we may be justified declaratively A. It is an Error and it is not an Error it is an Error to say Justification by Faith is before Faith in time and a contradiction in Adjecto therefore I never said so for Justification by Faith can't be before Faith is in the Receiver to receive it by But that Justification is before Faith is a glorious Truth and this I must affirm for Truth that there is Justification before Faith if we distinguish of Justification aright as of Pardon and say it 's actively and passively to be understood active Justification is in God that justifieth Rom. 8. the Grace of Justification a Gift to us 2. Christ as the Head and Representative of the Elect was justified and all the Elect fundamentally in him else Jesus Christ's suffering as a publick Person could not have been he was taken from Prison and Judgment 3. Justification in Application is by Nature before Faith because all Grace apprehends the Sinner before he apprehends it and is the immediate cause of a Sinner's apprehending it Again the Grace of Justification is in nature before Sanctification and the Foundation of it by the consent of Protestants and therefore it 's said in that Sence that God justifies the ungodly not that we should be ungodly but that he finds and takes us in that
Taste how the Quakers and Socinian fall in with this Doctrine of Justification by Works Quakers Works and Faith are equally required to Justifie Works of the Law are excluded as done by us to be justified by Grace is to be justified by Regeneration which cannot exclude Works wrought by Grace since the Law gives not Power to obey and so fall short of Justification there 's Power under the Gospel whereby the Law comes to be fulfilled inwardly Works through the Power of the Spirit is a Condition upon which Life is proposed under the New Covenant It appears from divers Scriptures that the Apostle excludes only our own Righteousness as being the Righteousness of the Law from being necessary to Justification Barcl Socinian There was never but one way of Justification by Faith This Faith is nothing else but under the hope of Eternal Life to obey the Commands of Christ and this we apprehend to be understood in Scripture where-ever we read of Salvation promised to them that believe in Christ Socin de offic Chr. Them 42.43 To believe in Christ is nothing else than to obey God according to the Rule and Prescription of Crist and in doing it to expect of Christ a Crown of Eternal Lise Socin de Servatori To the attaining Eternal Life not any Merits are required but the obeying Christs Precepts to which Eternal Life is the constituted Price or Reward not that Obedience it self deserved it but because it hath pleased the most gracious God to deal so with Mankind Socin Respon ad Obj. cut § 3. Now let us see how Consonant our Neonomians be to this Fraternity in the Doctrine we 'll take it from Mr. H. one of the honestest of the Pack and freest from Juggling Medeocr p. 16 17. Our Works do not Merit because they are not perfect i. e. therefore do not Merit as related to the Old-Covenant but Merit notwithstanding ex pacto in relation to the New-law-Covenant but we are justified by Works as we are by Faith because Faith justifies only as productive of Works thence you see he placeth the Righteousness of Faith in it self as a Work done and that it justifies only so and hath no more justifying Nature or End then the Fruits thereof It is Faith as productive of Works that receive the Reward of perfect Righteousness in that this imperfect stands in the Room of perfect but we are still to remember for Christs sake Bellarmine remembred that and the Council of Trent God judgeth and will judge all Men according to the Gospel those who perform the Condition of it he accounts and pronounceth righteous those whom he accounts righteous are justified I will add that the righteousness of Christ which is the meritorious cause of our Justification and always comes under the efficient cannot by the same reason be the formal and material cause of it It is not infusion of righteousness with the Papist which is our Sanctification nor the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness with the Protestant which is not to be understood in genere causae efficiente nor Remission of Sin with Protestant and Papist you see here how far he goes beyond the Papist but to impute to a person his performance of the New Covenant for Righteousness or pronouncing him righteous according to that Covenant is the formal cause of his Justification Med. p. 46. Here is to be remarkt that Mr. H. doth peremptorily exclude from our Justification the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness and Remission of Sins and places the whole of it in imputation of our own works for righteousness as active obedience § 4. These Men do as the Papists and the rest make our inherent Holiness in Sanctification to be that very righteousness by which we are justified Take Mr. Cl's words wherein he fully expresseth Mr. H's sense in differing from the Papist about Infusion Herein lieth the true difference between Justification and Sanctification In Sanctification we are made holy righteous and good by the infusion of those Graces into us but in Justification we are only accounted and declared such in the one the change is but relative and in the other real Come in Quakers and shake this Friend by the hand as one of you you have quarrelled with the Pulpits a great while and now you may ascend them your selves when you please and be not so angry at them for you shall not hear these men call your Doctrine Popish any more but you 'll hear them call all men that are not of your Opinion Antinomians briskly See now the depth of this distinction Justification is not by infusion of Sanctification but yet Justification is by Sanctification infused Is it not much more rational to say that Justification is by making a man righteous that was not so before for Justification of a sinner must be such Besides is it not much more Evvngelical as to justifying the ungodly as Bellarmine saith But these Men say We are first made righteous that is godly and then pardoned he should have said justified for his Justification comes in between his sanctifying Righteousness and Pardon and not on the contrary first pardoned and then righteous Mr. C. p. 19. Resp Were ever such Absurdities asserted by Men of Reason 1. We are first made righteous and quatenus made so are sanctified and not justified therefore Justification makes no man righteous but finds them so but it declares Men what what it finds them i. e. sanctified Hence to declare a Man sanctified is his Justification and I pray now how comes in Mr. H's causa formalis how doth Justification differ formally nam ad formam pertinet proprium differentia from Sanctification when Imputation or God's accounting a man holy and sanctified is his Justification Is not God's Judgment according to Truth Is it not certain that God accounts every thing to be as it is a holy man holy If this be all your Justification it s no more than as God justified at the Creation he saw that every thing was good 2. If we are first made righteous and then justified because we are so its meritum ex condigno whereon we are justified all the World cannot hinder it 3. First righteous and then pardoned What sense is in that for a righteous person needs no Pardon in that thing wherein he is righteous for therein to be righteous and want Pardon is to speak Daggers and the absurdest contradiction in the World § 5. Well But why must our Neonomians be pardoned when righteous and justified before because indeed their Righteousness and Justification by it is not worth a Fig by their own confession for Mr. Cl. saith for since subordinate Gospel Righteousness is an imperfect righteousness consistent with manifold failings and infirmities therefore notwithstanding that there 's need of pardon and that continually This is also Mr. H's Doctrine therefore I need not transcribe his very words which are to this purpose in many places Resp I find they are not fully agreed about the
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
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
said and only take notice of the things of weight But first it is necessary to shew how we understand this Question 1. In what capacity Christ stood when he bore sin and punishment 2. In what sense he bore sin 3. What personal guilt is 4. How Christ came to bear personal guilt A. As to the first that Christ stood in the capacity of a publick person representing the whole body of the Elect under the consideration of the lapsed Estate and Condition in the first Adam As to the second when we say Christ bore Sin it 's neither treason or blasphemy as our Adversaries would have it because we speak in the language of the Spirit of God however to prevent cavilling we will vouchsafe to yeild to the Bp's term personal guilt which can import nothing but the committed Sin remaining on the sinner's person and conscience as a forbidden and condemned fault by the law neither do we say that Christ committed these Sins or was made to have committed them when our Sins were laid upon him neither that his Nature was physically or morally corrupted thereby Lastly We cannot but adore the wisdom of God in calling personal guilt Sin because 1. A bare physical Act as such is not Sin and as all killing is not sin but Sin is a physical Act cloathed with a moral Exorbitancy arising from its relation to and comparing with the law of God therefore to say the substratum of the physical act or defect is transferred from one subject to another is most absurd but the guilt of this fact and its moral relation to the law may be transferred and taken away from the subject transgressor as we shall make it appear As to the third the Bp. tells us what he means by personal guilt and it 's very plain David's personal guilt was of Murder and Adultery so Peter's of denying his Master Now the Bp. will not have personal guilt ever to be taken off from any but that David continues in Heaven under personal guilt of Murder and Adultery to this Day and for ever Lastly Christ came to bear Sin 1. By God's call and his acceptance voluntarily obeying his Father's command 2. In submitting himself to a legal way of proceeding with him when he came under the same law the transgressor was under 3. By a legal accounting and imputing our Sin to him he coming in forum Justitiae and writing himself debtor in the room and stead of all the insolvent debtors to the Law of God Justice accepts of him as a sufficient Paymaster Hence in the law sense Christ was called by God what he was not in a natural sense Rom. 4. He was made Sin who knew no Sin and God calls things that are not as tho' they were both in calling Christ Sin and us Righteous § 3. Now we say that Commutation of Persons was so far and no more nor less than God hath made it to be in his legal way of proceeding in this great mystery That Christ should according to the Preordination and Constitution of the Father freely put himself under a judicial Process for the Sins of all the Elect under the same law that they transgressed and that Justice should deal with him as if he had been the original transgressor and in the stead thereof in transferring the charge upon him and punishing him for Sin Hereupon follows the change that he is made Sin and we Righteousness in him Justice receiving full satisfaction for our Sins Hence we shall not much trouble our selves with the many odious Inferences that the Neonom would draw upon this glorious Mystery nor the dirty Reflections on the unsearchable Wisdom of God the Truth being as fully and plainly made manifest in Holy Writ as any doctrine of Godliness 1. It is plain that Sin was laid on Christ in some sence or other the Scripture being so express in it 2. It 's granted on all hands the physical part of the Act was not transferred to Christ after which that which remains on the Sinner is the guilt of it which is his relation to the law in the moral sense as a transgressor and must be his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the laws condemnation of the Fact making his guilt or desert of punishment 3. The Spirit of God calls this Merit or Desert Sin and shall we call it contrary to Scripture Where doth the Scripture say it was not It saith again and again that it was and what if contrary to the Bp's reason Are we to believe God or Man Is the Bp's reason the rule of our Faith What if the same word be used in Scripture for Sin and Punishment I grant that one word in Hebrew is used for Sin and the Sacrifice for Sin sometimes but when it 's used for the Sacrifice it 's therefore used because Sin was judicially transferred to the Sacrifice that it bore the Sin of the Transgressor so that it became the formalis ratio of its Suffering and therefore it 's denominated from its most essential cause To say it 's a tropical word is not much to the purpose it being such as expresseth the very nature of the thing as often in Scripture by a Metonimy Sensus pornitur pro sensili a Grace of the Spirit put for the Object Faith for the Object and Hope for its Object so here Sin for the personal guilt of Sin the Subject put for an essential or proper Production It 's a Metan of another nature from that this is my Body where Signum is put for Signatum and its true the Scripture doth always denote the guilt of Sin by Sin and the Bp. doth concede that Punishment is not Sin but a Consequent of guilt we say it 's more than a mere Consequent it is a merited effect and Sin always deserves and merits Punishment tho' no Sinner merited that a Surety should be punished for him this is by Gracious Surrogation or Substitution And it 's to contradict Scripture to make Punishment separable from guilt and for good reason to for no just Law punisheth any one but the guilty whereby it 's always said that Sin lyes upon him i. e. the just charge of Sin § 4. Bp. Obj. But Punishment must have relation to Sin as to the same Person This is true it must and always hath Sin is inseparable from Punishment in the same Person according to the just Terms and Constitution of any Law by which any Person is punished To this the Bp. saith he answers distinctly that there are three ways our Sins are said to have relation to Christ's Sufferings 1. As an external impulsive cause no more than occasional no proper reason of Punishment and so for the Socinians This I suppose he leaves to the Socinians with whom Mr. B. is one in this point 2. As an impulsive cause becomes meritorious by the voluntary Act of Christ's undertaking to satisfie Divine Justice for our Sins and not as his own 3. As to the Personal guilt of our
Sins These three ways of Sin 's relation to Christ we will consider 1. The fact of Sin and from it the guilt of it is the proper meritorious cause of Punishment it 's causa proegumena internal always to the punished let the Socin and Mr. B. say what they will the punished is always the guilty Person and he is therefore punished because guilty 2. This Impulsive of ours becomes meritorious he saith how I pray By Christ voluntary undertaking c. This is very absurd that Christ's free undertaking should make Sin meritorious was not Sin meritorious of Punishment of it self What is the Sin of faln Angels that Christ never undertook for But he should have said that Christ's voluntary undertaking brought the guilt and punishment upon himself by his coming under a Law Transaction for he saith it was to satisfie Divine Justice and can Justice be satisfied by the Sufferings of a Person no way guilty in the Eye of Justice That 's strange Justice But still saith the Bp. They are consider'd as our Sins and not his true our Sins originally but his by a Law Transmission else he could not be punished by the Law But now see how the Bp. after his brandishing by way of Opposition is necessitated to fall into rank and file with us They are not Christ's Sins any further than by consent he took upon himself to bear the guilt which relates to Punishment and so they come to be justly charged upon him Now I pray what is it that the Bp. saith in the winding up of the Matter more than what we say for he saith 1. The Sins were ours not his originally and primarily and the guilt remains in all those for which Christ died not 2. These Sins of all saved ones become Christ's in the guilt of them thro' his free and voluntary Intervention 3. That he took upon himself that guilt which relates to punishment i. e. it s proper law relation 4. And so they come to be justly charged upon him here the Bp hath given us the whole Point for 1. He allows guilt to be distinct from Punishment for Relata are contraria affirmantia and it 's a true notion that guilt and punishment are proper relata constantia ex mutua alterius affectione and therefore distinct 2. That Christ took upon him to bear the guilt that relates to punishment it came not from the Sinner that Christ bore the guilt but from God's Ordination and Christ's Submission to law proceding and thence wrote himself Debtor to the Law and Justice of God instead of Sinners and was accepted as plenary Paymaster 3. He owns that Sin came justly chargeable on him the charge of Sin on the Sinner is that whereby he becomes guilty before God Rom. 3.19 for he that 's justly punished is justly charged as he saith charged upon him must be in a way of Law proceeding and tho' God hath made him to confess the Truth in Words yet it fully appears by his after Discourse that he believes not a word of it in sano sensu § 3. The third thing wherein our Sins have relation to the Sufferings of Christ he saith As to the personal Guilt of our Sins which he denies and decries after he had in the same Breath own'd Christ's bearing the guilt of our Sins now he will have Christ to bear the guilt of our Sins but not the personal as if there were or could be any guilt that is not of one person or another or if there were some generical guilt found in individual Persons his Exceptions are 1. The fault of the Sins are not laid on Christ 1. Then its Law Relation was not laid on Christ and Christ being punished for no fault of himself or others was unjustly punished nay he saith he was justly charged Is any justly charged when charged with no fault 2. He excepts against saying that laying Sin upon Christ makes Christ really a Transgressor but how is that said It is in a legal Sense not physical therefore Christ is said to be made Sin viz. Such he was not before nor was in his own Natures but was really accepted instead of the guilty Sinner not Romantickly and Fabulously the Transaction was real according to the nature of it As to the denial of Imputation it 's a gross Error in whoever it is Dr. Crisp or Mr. B. the first mistakingly denies the sense of the word but Mr. B. denies the thing it self the very Doctrine of Imputation of Sin to Christ as the Bp. the Righteousness of Christ to us having these invective Words As the Papists have by no means more alienated the reformed from them irreconcileably than by obtruding as an Article of Faith the Impossibilities and Contradictions of Transubstantiation so some erroneous Protestants have no way Men made the Papists irreconcileable to us than by holding forth the Impossibilities and Absurdities of imputed Righteousness as a most necessary part of the Gospel Meth. Theol. Part iii. Ch. 27. Page 322. The great Argument propounded by Dr. Crisp very unwarily he not seeing how far it would run but sufficiently improved by Mr. B. is this That God hath no other Thoughts of things than as they are So doth he esteem and think of things and consequently of Sin in Knowledge we must distinguish between Things and Relation and between one Relative and another God thinks of things as they are under divers respects God thinks and knows what we are by Nature yea the most eminent Believer is by Nature a Child of Wrath as well as the other but he knows also what he is through Grace what under a Covenant of Works and what under a Covenant of Grace Sinners in the first Adam Righteous in the second God calls things that are not as though they were God calls his Son Sin in a Law-sence who never Sinned and a Sinner Righteous in Christ who never was Righteous in himself He sees him as acceptable in his sight he having cloathed him with his Righteousness as if he were perfectly Righteous in himself God knows and sees all things as he is Omniscient but yet doth not see reconciled Ones in their Sins and Guilt of them by the Eye of his Justice God saw Christ under Sin by the Eye of his Justice when he was under the charge of Sin and his Person absolutely considered most pleasing to him It is no way inconsistent with the Nature of God to know what any thing is in its absolute Being and what it is in this or that relation to know a Creature is a Man and to know him to stand under the relation of a Father or a Son to know what he is Naturally and what Morally for this is not inconsistent with Man's knowledge much less with God's therefore when God knows a thing what it is in one respect and calls it another it is to be supposed that he really puts that respect or relation upon it as when God calls a Man a Sinner in
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
Believer be said to be cloathed with the Righteousness of Christ and yet the righteousness of Christ not be his cloathing but only that which procured this cloathing unto him Chap. 7. p. 88. is to evince That that which God imputes for Righteousness in Justification is not the Righteousness of Christ himself in the sense refused in the First Chapter ' but faith in Christ In the conclusion of the Chap. he says If God in the New Covenant of the Gospel i. e. the New Law requires Faith in Christ for our Justification instead of the righteousness of the Law in the old and this faith will not pass with him in account for such righteousness both his Commandment and Covenant for believing and the Obedience it self of believing will become void and of none effect § 10. You see by these instances that by this Doctrine the Neonomions fall into that Sink of Errour that the highest opposers of the Gospel of Christ have professed it s no doubt but they will cease inveighing against the Quakers as introducers of Popery but rather applaud them and bring them into their Pulpits § 11. But for Christ's sake alone This they deny and say Our Justification passively taken that which we do our selves thro Grace is this our formal righteousness and that is the condition of our Justification actively taken i. e. the righteousness of Christ the meritorious cause So that in a large sense here is two righteousnesses for our Justification Christ's and ours p. 6. Mr. Cl. hath a Chapter to prove how the Righteousness of Christ concurs to our Justification the sum of all is this That by the Merits of Christ's Death he has 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 p. 35. Christ hath done his part but hath appointed us a necessary part which must be done by our selves this is not to supply any deficiency in Christ i. e. he hath done well enough for the part alotted him but it is that which subordinately is required of us as the condition of Pardon and Life by his own Law or Covenant of Grace and so far as a part ' it is imputed to us for righteousness Scr. G. p. 35. From what hath been quoted before it is plain the rest also do hold that Christ's Righteousness at best doth but concur to our Justification it is not that only whereby we are justified See Mr. Cl. Chap. 13. § 12. Not by imputing faith it self the act of believing or any other Evangelical Obedience to them for righteousness All this the Neonomians in all their Writings deny Mr. B. in his S. G. def p. 32. quaeries Whether Faith be imputed to us for righteousness or Christ's Righteousness believed on A. A strange and bold Quaery Read over the Text and put but Christ's Righteousness every where instead of the word Faith and see what a scandalous Paraphrase you will make to have righteousness imputed plainly signifieth to be reckoned or judged righteous and it is strange that it must not be our own righteousness that is imputed and reckoned to us as our own The same say Mr. H. and Mr. Cl. This Faith that is our righteousness they will have the same with our Evangelical Obedience as containing all in it So Mr. B. Faith by which we are justified is one moral act containing many physical acts even our fiducial consent to the Baptismal Covenant and Dedication of our selves to God the Father p. 42. Mr. Cl. Faith is our subordinate Gospel-righteousness he gives his reasons p. 64. Mr. H. When a man performs the Evangelick Condition it is the Evangelick Law or God by it as his instrument makes him or constitutes him righteous and being thereby so made God must account him so this constitutive Justification preceeds Pardon and Life in order of nature J. G. denys that Faith justifies in relation to its Object tho it cannot be separated from it but by vertue of the intervention of some Law Covenant or Decree i. e. as a condition of the new Law in the Neonomian sense Mr. H. in his right of God p. 54. Our Effectual Calling doth enter our Justification for the Works of it Faith Repentance new Obedience are imputed to us for that righteousness that justifies us and our Justification and inchoate righteousness does enter and is the infancy of Glory I need not blot Paper by quoting the Council of Trent briefly they damn any man that saith that a man is justified without the righteousness that Christ did merit for us whereby he is formally just and damn such as say that a man is justified only by the righteousness of Christ or Remission of Sins without inherent Grace and Charity § 13. But by imputing the Obedience and Satisfaction of Christ unto them Mr. H. in his Right c. p. 34. says to this part of the Assemblies descript of Justification and seems to flatter them a little and thinks their Catechism may serve the People yea that a grosser sort of the knowledge of the Principles of Religion is better for ordinary People than more exact whereby you may see what high thoughts and apprehensions he hath of the exactness of his gross Divinity In Justification I acknowledge a forgiveness and an imputation of Christ's Obedience but I do not acknowledge either as our formal righteousness Forgiveness is a benefit we receive but not the formal reason I acknowledge Christ's righteousness imputed sub genere causae efficientis modum meriti received by faith but in the merit of it only And I give notice that thinking More doth say that Christ's righteousness in se is made ours legally tho he disowns it as physically and morally that man must make it justifie us sub ratione causa formalis which is an unadvised Position which I look upon as that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of our former great Divines which gave the rise to Antinomianism Now what a happiness is it that so great a Divine is risen up to find out such an Error in the very heart of our Reformation in our great Divines and indeed in our Protestant Religion that we have been all under a Cheat and Delusion in this grand Point of Life and Salvation building upon a wrong righteousness for Justification Again he saith That we should be justified by faith was obtained by Christ's Righteousness or Performance but it is our Faith not Christ's Performance is imputed unto us for righteousness in our sâ—astification Christ's righteousness is that for which not that by which causa propter quam not per quam we have this benefit that upon believing we are justified to the same purpose he hath words above an hundred times Mr. R. B. God never judgeth falsly but knoweth all things to be what they are and therefore he reputeth Christ's Mediatorial Righteousness and Sacrifice to be the meritorious cause for which we are
of Eternal State Where are we now what a Justification is this by the New Law wherein our eternal state is not concerned Well! but our Justification in this life is not yet perfect not by Christ because he takes off only eternal punishment but temporal he hath left to us to remove by Repentance performing the righteousness of the New Law I hope this righteousness falling in to help Christ's it will produce perfect Justification No it wont this righteousness takes away our Sins and Punishment wholly but sometimes and sometimes only in part and what 's the reason where 's the fault why it falls upon this New Law which is always fulfilling and never fulfilled it will never justifie any one till the last day and it cannot do it then without the perfect righteousness of the Old Law § 7. Let 's take Mr. Cl's Definition of Justification into consideration a little He saith The Definition of Justification so far as it relates to God is thus Justification is an act of God whereby he accounts us righteous at present and treats us as such and will solemnly declare and pronounce us so at the last day of Judgment Resp He should have told us what act of God whether immanent or transient whether an act of Grace or Justice or both he should have told us the object of that act whether a meer sinner or a righteous person he will tell us anon it s a righteous person and he saith accounting him so at present if this accounting him be in a law sense it s but Imputation at most and this is that and all that he doth at present he finds them holy and righteous and judgeth them to be as they be but doth not God declare them righteous at present neither in foro Legis nor in foro Evangelii nor in foro conscientiae in none of these at present when then the very Sentence of Justification is not till the last day so that indeed there is none justified till then for a suspended sentence keeps the person whatever Opinion the Judge hath of him under the Law in Prison and in continual fear of Condemnation so that they are all the day long for fear of Death subject to Bondage § 8. Hence he infers two things 1. That Justification while we are in this life is but partial imperfect and incompleat and that we shall not obtain fully compleat entire and final Justification for all the effects of sin till the Day of Judgment To which I answer Where there is but an imperfect partial Justification there must be a partial Condemnation it cannot be denied but the Apostle denys it and saith there 's no condemnatien to them that are in Christ Jesus 2. The law knows no such thing a man is either perfectly justied for the same thing or perfectly condemned there 's no Medium betwixt Justification and Condemnation 3. If the New Law do not perfectly justifie a person then it condemns too at the same time that when ever the Parator of righteousness takes himself to be justified he is bound to believe himself condemned also and whether will stand good at the last Day he knows not either his Justification or Condemnation CHAP. VI. Of Pardon Section 1. Whether Remission of Sin belongs to Justification § 2. Remission distinguished by Mr. H. § 3. Of general Remission § 4. Conditional Pardon antecedent to a mans Justification § 5. Actual Pardon subsequent to a mans Justification Sect. 1. MR. Cl's Second Inference is That Justification doth not properly consist in Pardon afterward he saith a man is first righteous and then pardoned to which we have spoken something Mr. H. makes a fearful pudder about this Point we will a little inspect his Notions Mediocr p. 44 55. Our Divines do generally place Justification in remission of Sins and so do the Papists and so did I my self Resp Remission of Sins is upon good grounds placed in Justification as an essential part of the Justification of a Sinner and I can boldly deny that sinner to be justified whose sins are not forgiven and to separate them is as possible as to separate homo animal rationale The Law any Law nay your New Law cannot justifie a sinner and declare him righteous unless in that very act of declaring him righteous his sins are taken away in foro legis and this is God's Remission tho not Man 's for his ways are not as mans and whereas Mr. H. makes remission of sins to be a benefit after Justification as an effect of it we say it is a benefit in Justification and the first thing in it in Nature for its impossible any one should stand righteous in the eye of any Law that stands chargeable as a transgressor thereof But remission must not saith Mr. H. be the formal reason of Justification Resp The form of an Act and the formal reason of that Act are two things the material reason of Justification is righteousness and the formal cause is imputation of that righteousness Justification comes in as the acquitting Sentence opposed as Mr. B. saith to condemnation which ex natura rei must formally carry in it forgiveness of sins He proceeds To forgive a mans sins and declare him rigeteous are two inconsistencies one with another in the same respect Resp Cujus contrarium verum in Justification of a Sinner they are most consistent and inseparable that in declaring a sinful man righteous his sins are also done away its true in mans way of Pardon there is some inconsistency because his is by dispensing with his Law but God's way of forgiveness is in and through the satisfaction of his Law but I must tell him that here no Man is looked upon as righteous in the eye of man's law that hath transgressed it till he is first pardoned and therefore when God pronounceth a man just it is according to the law of faith when he pardons his sins it is in respect of the law of works Resp Here are two Bars now he saith elsewhere he likes not two bars I would fain know now at which of these Bars a sinner is most justified either by the law of Works where all his sins are forgiven and therefore consequently must be made righteous or at the Bar of the New Law where he saith the man is declared just but imperfectly so and therefore goes away with his sins upon his Back to the Law of Works to have them pardoned Is it not pretty Divinity then to say a man is declared righteous first at the Bar of the Law of Faith and then all the Bed-role of his sins are pardoned at the Bar of the Law of Works § 2. He comes to distinguish of Remission It s either conditional and universal as it lies in the Covenant and is the purchase of Christ or actual as it lies in application thereof to particular persons upon performance of the conditions Resp This Distinction is a great Point among the Neonomians Mr. B.
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
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
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
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
Consequent § 9. He proceeds with Confidence 2dly I do absolutely deny that a true Gospel justifying Faith and Gospel-Works are ever opposed to one another and do confidently affirm the contrary because I have examined all Places where Faith and Works are mentioned and do not find them if any affirm let him prove it R. Mr. Cl's Confidence is no Proof and his searching the Scriptures and not finding so plain a Truth as that Justification by Faith is opposed to Justification by Works argues but judicial blindness whereby God hath hardned his Heart and blinded his Eyes 1. As was said before all Gospel-works as he calls his New Law Works brought into Justification by a Law are legal not Gospel not accepted of God but leaves a Man under a Curse 2. Those that are Gospel-works are Fruits of the Spirit thro' the Gift of Grace and Fruits of Faith as they are Fruits of Christ's Righteousness believed in to Justification and no cause of Justification in the least neither doth the Believer claim Justification thereby and hence called Gospel-Works but if he claim Justification by them they are Works and opposed to Faith but loose the Name of Gospel are Legal dross and dung and stink in the Nostrils of God neither are any such Works the gracious Gifts of the Spirit or true Faith or the good Fruit of it For such seek Righteousness as it were by the Works of the Law and obtain it not 3. Now whereas Mr. Cl. here throws down his Gantlet in an Ambiguous manner we take it up in the true State of the Difference and confidently affirm that Justification by Faith is positively opposed by the Apostle Paul to Justification by any Works of a Law whatever performed by us the proving of which is the drift of this whole Dispute as now managed 4. He saith there was no Coutroversie about any other Works but the Works of the Law Resp There was no Controversie about any Works but the Works of a Law no more is there now Gal. 5.4 The Apostle saith They are abdicated from Christ and fallen from Grace that are justified by a Law so say we § 10. Proposition 4. This Law was the whole Body of the Mosaical Law consisting of precepts Moral Ceremonial and Judicial what he saith under this proposition about the acceptation of the term Law I think will not hold all of it with his other Doctrine for he saith its taken 1. For any written Declaration or Revelation of the Will of God concerning our Duty 2. It s frequently taken for the Moral Law as Rom. 7.12 and Ch. 3.31 Mat. 5.17 Luke 16.17 3. It s used Indefinitely for the whole Body of the Law given to Moses and therefore he mentions it in such general Terms R. Because Law is used in so many Senses in Scripture and those that would introduce Justification by Works are apt to slip from one Law to another and say as Mr. Cl. doth that though the Apostle deny Justification by one Law yet he intends Justification by Works of another Law therefore the Apostle excludes our Works of any Law whatever as frequently in his Epistles as hath been shewed so in that express and plain Place Gal. 3.21 If there had been a Law given which could have given Life verily Righteousness should have been by the Law And why is it spoken It 's spoken as a Reason that the Law of Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not against the Promise i. e. against Justification by the Promise and Gift of Righteousness no the Law of Moses taken together was so far from being against this way of Justification without the Works of a Law that it witnessed to it as the Apostle expresly speaks Rom. 3.21 It did not appropriate the Grace of the Promise to it self but by the whole Tenor of it witnessed to the Promise and Righteousness The Law of Moses taken as a Law did justifie none Gal. 3.11 For saith the Apostle the Law i. e. as such is not of Faith ver 12. The Condition of it being Works and therefore Justification by the Law is not Justification by Faith the Apostle saying further ver 18. If the Inheritance be of a Law than no more of Promise ver 19. For what end served the Law given by Moses Answ It was added because of Transgression till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made i. e. Christ but why added for two Ends. 1. That Sin might be distinctly known by the Moral Part as the Apostle by the Knowledge of Sin 2. That by the Ceremonial Law there might be a Typical Redemption and Satisfaction held forth unto them through which they might have a sight of Faith and of the true Sacrifice held forth unto them § 11. Proposition 5. The Law was looked upon by the Carnal Jews as a Covenant of Werks Mat. 19.16 Granting that it was yet not to be fulfill'd by a perfect Obedience but by imperfect as appears by his Words What good thing shall I do that I may inherit Eternal Life As much as to say I have done Good and Evil I would know what that good thing is whereby I may be righteous to Life Eternal He depreciates the Law calling it a Ministration of Death and Condemnation 2 Cor. 3.7 9. It was the true Sense of the Apostle that the Law of Moses or any other Commands of God understood used and applied as a Law for Justification by the Works of it is a Ministration of Death and not of Faith and as a Ceremonial Law which Heb. 6.19 is made nothing and by it self perfect it being Typical and the Type absolutely considered could not purifie them as to Conscience The Apostle saith it was weak through our weakness Rom. 8.3 We being not able to come to the Terms of this nor of any other and Rom. 6.14 saith we i. e. Believers are not under a Law but under Grace for Justification as much as to say you take the Doctrine of Grace to be a licentious Doctrine but believe it it s the legal Doctrine that leads to Sin not the Doctrine of Grace besides the Apostle shews plainly that to look for Justification by the Law of Moses or of any other is to be Married to it which he shews Rom. 7. is quite contrary to our Marriage to Christ by Faith while we are in expectation of Justification by a Law we are held in Bondage but being by the true Sence of the Nature of it Dead to it it becomes Dead to us Now we are delivered from the Law that being Dead wherein we were held and there 's no other Husband comes in the room of the Dead Law no new Law but Christ only And the Opposition saith Mr. Cl. is only between the Law of Works and the Law of Faith if he make the Law of Faith to be a Law of Works then it s no Opposition at all because both are a Law of Works and why I pray is Justification by Faith Justification by
as well the last as the first and it should have been rendred thus if there had been a Law given which could have given Life then Righteousness had been by a Law therefore this place is fully exclusive of justifying righteousness by a new Law and God never made such a Law The consequence is clear if all other Law righteousness but Christ's be excluded then Christ's righteousness is that alone by which a Sinner is Justified These Arguments are strong and enough to prove what we assert and against all the World if the Scripture and Reason enlightned thereby may take place The Scripture is so full of proof that these Sixteen might be made Sixty but brevity is call'd for by the circumstances that attend Printing CHAP. XVII Of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness Section 1. Christ's Righteousness is Imputed to us and Paul saith so § 2. Argument 1. § 3. Arg. 2. and 3. § 4. Arg. 4. § 5. Arg. 5. § 6. Arg. 6. § 7. Arg. 7. § 8. Arg. 8. § 9. Arg. 9. § 10. Arg. 10.11 Section 1. OUr Adversaries say they own the Imputation of Righteousness to Justification but they say it s there own not Christ's Now we shall prove that Christ's Righteousness is Imputed They say it s no where said that Christ's Righteousness is Imputed We say it is in all that is said by the Apostle Paul so plain that all but he that will shut his Eyes perversly must see it I shall but give brief hints of it 1. The Apostle Paul Rom. 4. speaking so often of Imputation gives us plainly to understand that he means no Imputation but of Christ's Righteousness to Justification for his Discourse in the 4th chap. is continued from ver 25. of the 3d to prove the Doctrine of Justification by the Propitiation Blood and Righteousness of Christ and shews how Faith honours this Righteousness and wrongs not the law by it but establisheth it In the 4th ch he goes on to exclude all Justification by any works and shews in Abraham and David they took Christ's Righteousness viz. that spoken ch 3.25 by Faith for their Imputed righteousness unto justification and remission and covering of them from the Eye of God's justice wherefore Christ is call'd our Propitiation in allusion to the Golden cover of the Ark that hid the Law and was the mercy seat now briefly to shew that by Imputation so often mention'd in this chap. he meant the Righteousness of Christ to our Justification he tells us ver 22. that what God had promised to Abraham viz. the Righteousness of Christ which he was fully by Faith perswaded of was Imputed to him for Righteousness now saith the Apostle it was not written for the sake of Abraham only but for us also to whom it shall be Imputed i. e. the Righteousness in the Promise if we believe on him that raised up the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead who was delivered for our offences and raised again for our Justification i. e. if we believe in God thro' the full perfect and compleat righteousness of Christ for our Righteousness could not have been full and compleat without his Resurrection and his Justification as a publick head of all the Elect who raised was Justified as having wrought out a full and compleat Justifying righteousness for them they are incouraged and invited to take it for their Righteousness by Faith and they might assure themselves of the Imputation thereof and proceeds in the next chap. to say that having taken this Imputed righteousness by Faith they are said to be justified by Faith and to have peace with God and access unto the grace of God thro the said righteousness § 2. Arg. 1. Now then I Argue if Christ in the promise be Imputed for Righteousness to Abraham and every believer and the Apostle saith so then the Imputation here spoken of is the Imputation of Christ's righteousness but the antecedent is true from Gal. 3.21 22. its plain that it was what God had promised to him was Imputed to him The consequence needs no proof for it was Christ was promised and he saw Christ's day in that promise and the Promise of Christ was the Gospel preached to him Again to prove the Apostle means the Righteousness of Christ is imputed If the delivery of Christ for our sins and raising him again for Justification was the Righteousness of Christ for Justification then this is that which was imputed not to Abraham for righteousness only but also to every Believer by the Text and therefore the minor is fully there proved and I think as to the major that none can deny the Life Death and Resurrection of Christ to be his compleat Righteousness § 3. Arg. 2. He that was made of God righteousness to us is made by imputation of his righteousness to us but Christ is made so of God 1 Cor. 1.30 but saith Mr. Cl. he is made righteousness as he is made Wisdom So Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption but it follows not only that he be made of great advantage to a Christian but these several ways that he is not one thing as the other he is not a Prophet as a Priest and if he should mean made righteousness in Mr. Cl's sence then he should be but made sanctification twice taken for Mr. Cl's justifying righteousness is but Sanctification it s he is made the Spring Head and Root of Sanctification and legally made righteousness to us Arg. 3. Again If we be made the righteousness of God in Christ where its plain this righteousness of God is in Christ then the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us but we are made the righteousness of God in him Ergo. the antecedent is proved by 2 Cor. 5.21 as to the major the Neonomians say the righteousness of God is our own righteousness We say nay the righteousness of God is said to be in Christ and we are made so by imputation for Christ could not be made Sin for us but by Imputation and if it is meant of a Sacrifice for Sin even such were made Sin by Imputation and therefore we are made the righteousness of God in Christ by Imputation § 4. Arg. 4. Again If Christ hath merited our Justification Christs Merits are imputed in themselves to Justification but Christ hath merited our Justification The minor is granted by these Gentlemen They tell us that Christs Merits are id propter quod we are justified for the sake or rather by reason of Christs Merits but they mean not that Christ purchased the Sinner's perform'd condition of the New law but that he procured of God a new law for man to perform the condition of Now this is no more to be the cause of Justification than God in making a Law was a cause of Sin for sin is not Imputed where there 's no law and where there is a Law there will be Justification or Condemnation Christ merited a Law and made one therefore for the sake of Christ we are