Calvin So must you too if you understand Wrath in the same Sence that he doth For Christ cannot bear their Sins and the Wrath of God for their Sins and yet they bear it themselves too Shall not the Judge of all the World deal Righteously And you say They continue Objects of his gracious good Will and full Atonement made God cannot be wroth with a Person with whom full Attonement is made Neonom But what if they should die before they should believe Calvin He doth not say They shall be saved if they die before they believe or under the Dominion of Sin c. You fasten that Charge without Ground and never fear that for you say their Justification and Adoption is certain there 's no doubt then but they shall certainly believe Neonom But they are actually Vnpardoned and not Adopted to Life which the Dr. saith they are Calvin The Doctor speaks not here of the Elect's Actual Pardon or Adoption He saith indeed their Sins are laid on Christ and therefore God hath nothing to lay to their Charge And you say Christ hath made full Atonement for them I pray what difference is here He saith They have a secret hidden Right to Life You say by vertue of Election and Christ's Merits they shall certainly have Justification Adoption Glorification So that you own your Jus ad rem He doth not say an unregenerate Man is Adopted or hath received the Spirit of Adoption any where as I know Neonom But the Elect while dead in Sin and Vnbelief are Children of Wrath condemned by the Law not justified by the Promise This I affirm and the Doctor denies Calvin The Doctor in this point for ought I know affirms and denies but as you do He saith a Sinner in respect of his Visible Estate is under the Law-Sentence and dead in Sin and Unbelief He will not deny this but that an Elect Person as such hath a hidden Relation Standing and Right not only in respect of Election Satisfaction and Procurement but a secret passing over of Grace So that to be a Child of Wrath in regard of the Law-Sentence and a Child of Mercy are not contradicentia they may be predicated of the same Subject in divers respects A Man may be a Child of Wrath in one respect and of Mercy in another A Man may be poor in one respect and rich in another as the Church of Smyrna condemned in one respect and secured from it in another Wrath is understood two ways in Scripture 1. For the Sentence of the Law that all the World is under as having sinned and come short of the Righteousness of God 2. For the real Execution of the Sentence of the Law by Essential Vindicative Justice This the Elect are abundantly freed from and the Wrath of God shall never fall upon them as such Neonom But he saith the Elect have right to the Inheritance Calvin Yes a secret and hidden Right but true and certain though not Possession or Claim till Grace embraceth them and this Grace manifested to them A Child that hath a good Right to an Inheritance may be taken Captive in Infancy and remain in Algiers a Slave many Years and never know of any Estate belonging to him But upon his return to his Native Country finds by Writings and Court-Rolls that he hath had Right all this while though kept out of Possession and knew no Ground of a Claim A Man may be Heir to a Crown and yet during the King's Life be no King yea it may be out in Rebellion against his Father many Years and yet come to possess the Crown upon his previous Right A Man may have a good Right to an Estate in one Court where it is enrolled whenas another Court knows nothing of it Every Elect Person is enrolled by Name in God's Book of Election and the Lamb's Book of Redemption while there 's nothing of this to be sound in Foro Conscientiae nor in Foro Mundi And your own Assertion at first cuts you off from all Pleas to the contrary For you say ch 1. p. 1. It 's certain from God's Decree of Election that the Elect shall in time be Justified Adopted and Saved in the way God hath appointed then they are Heirs of Justification Adoption and Salvation upon some ground of right or other and the whole meritorious Cause and Price of Justification Adoption and Eternal Life were perfect when Christ finished the Work of Satisfaction So now it appears here is a compleat Right adjusted for them the Estate is bought and the Money all paid and the Title is enrolled in their Name what hinders them from being Heirs in Law and having a Right of Inheritance belonging to them Neonom I will prove the Elect before they are effectually called to be Children of Wrath Eph. 2.2 3. Col. 1.21 Calvin As Elect Persons the Scripture no where faith but as Sinners and as dead in Trespasses we acknowledge they are under the Law Sentence imprisoned in their naturall Estate in a State of Bondage and Darkness But this hinders not the Foundation of God in Election and Redemption they have a hidden Safety and Security from Wrath by your own Confession Neonom The Gospel barrs all Vnbelievers and dead Sinners from Pardon and Adoption and denounceth a continuance of Condemnation against them limiting it's Benefits to such as believe John 3.18 ver 36. 1 Cor. 16.22 1 Cor. 6.11 D. W. p. 4. Calvin If the Gospel barrs all Unbelievers and those that are dead in Sin from Gospel Benefits who shall be saved it must barr them from Life for Life is the first and greatest Benefit a Dead Man can receive nay you say it declares continuance of Condemnation against them It 's certainly therefore impossible they should ever be saved And are not Regeneration and Faith Gospel-Benefits And are Unbelievers for ever barred from them This puts a Barr upon their possibility of Salvation and keeps them from ever being Believers The places you quote are nothing to prove your Assertion for the most they say is That whilst a Person is in a state of Unbelief he is in a state of Condemnation under the Law but the Gospel doth not put a Barr to his Salvation but rather take off the Barrs opens the Prison-doors gives him Life gives him a Door of Hope brings him to Christ who is the Resurrection and Life Neonom If it were not so neither the Spirit nor the Word of God would have any Influence in the Saving of Sinners Calvin Non sequitur Can't the state of the Elect be secured by Election and yet Redemption have it's place Why notwithstanding both may not the Spirit have it's place and Influence Neonom Gospel-Benefits imply that there is a time when we are actually guilty and miserable Rom. 7.4 Col. 2.12 Calvin Grant it there is such a time when we are so in our selves but yet quoad Deum Election and Redemption is not in vain they have their Force
transferring of Sin from us to Christ and this being done before Christ made Atonement we are discharged not for the Atonement of Christ nor by any Act of Forgiveness for the sake of this Atonement I need not add that by this Notion Heathens may be in a pardoned State and there 's no need of the Gospel or Knowledge of Christ to bring them out of a state of Wrath. Antinom I hope by this time you have pretty well spent your Powder and Ball. I told you before when we spake of laying Sins on Christ we understand his offer to bear them the Charge and Imputation laid on him and the payment he made of our Debt all which is the Atonement for bearing of our Sins was an Essential part of it as shedding his Blood was of the Payment this payment and bearing Sin was in the Eye of God from Eternity as if already done hence the Patriarchs were Actually and Personally Justified by it and doth it follow that they were Justified without Christ's Atonement And whereas you talk of God's Acts of Forgiveness you should tell us what you mean if Immanent there 's but one Act of Forgiveness there 's no new Acts arise in God and it was the Promise of Eternal Life before the World began Tit. 1. If you mean a Transient Act it 's but one viz. the performance of that Promise to Christ our Surety and Head and to us in him Virtually and Fundamentally 1 John 5.11 This is the Record that he hath given us Eternal Life and this Life is in his Son and from him derived to us terminates in and upon us by the same Effectual Grace of God in Christ towards us so that the same Forgiving Act of God terminates in Christ and in us and therefore you must allow our Life of Forgiveness first in Christ and then bestowed upon us in and through him whereby we are as Sinners brought in to him and receive of his fulness both for Justifying and Sanctifying Grace Whereas you say Heathens by this Notion may be in a pardoned state you foist in another term to impose upon us as if we had said that immediately upon laying Sins on Christ all the Elect were in a pardoned state there 's none can be in a pardoned state before a being natural nor before a being Spiritual at least beginning but what hinders but that the Eternal Life which is given me should be in Christ before I was Born and inferrs not that therefore when I come into the World there will be no need of Gospel or Knowledge of Christ to bring me out of my Natural Estate into Christ See Colos 1.25 26 27. Ephes 3.3 4 5 6. And are not Gentiles as well as Jews pardoned through Christ Neonom The Assemblies at Westminster and the Savoy are both against you Antinom They say in a manner but as we do if you distinguish between a Forgiveness in Christ and Forgiveness bestowed between Impetration and Application Justification and Justified Neonom I will shew you your mistake Mr. Antinomian because it was God's Act to appoint Christ to suffer for our Sins that we might in his way and time be discharged therefore you think we are immediately discharged by that Act. Antinom You take greatly upon you to tell what I think and makes me think contrary to what I have exprest you take upon you to make me speak what you please and to think what you please I take you to be a fit Man to be a Guide was there nothing but God's appointing Christ to suffer for our Sins was there not God's accepting of his Sufferings for us Was not Christ Justified from the Sins of the Elect for when he rose was there not a Radical Justification of all the Elect in Christ If there had not been so they could never have been personally Justified but you would have Christ only purchase our Justification by something else but I must believe and say that he wrought out our Justification which being in him is the same that we do partake of and that our Discharge is begun and carried on in Christ and is compleated in him and received by Faith in his Blood Neonom Because Christ's Atonement is the Sole Meritorious Cause of Forgiveness therefore he thinks God suspends not Forgiveness till he works any thing else in the Soul which he made requisite to our being Forgiven though not as a Meritorious Cause Antinom No you mean Christ shall have the Honour of being the Meritorious Cause but it is that way of Justification intended that Christ hath merited that though we have broken the Law and cannot be Justified by it that a new way of Justification should be set up not through his Blood but by something else a peculiar qualification that shall make us meet to be forgiven that there may be some reason found in the Sinner why he should be forgiven this is now the new Divinity to sham off the Satisfaction of Christ from the Justification of a Sinner and you think you have been very kind to Christ to say this new Qualifications are not Meritorious Causes but Christ's Suffering was though they must stand afar off and look on upon a Justification by something else Calvinist I think as you said Mr. Antinomian's Ambiguity lyes in the word Discharge concerning which you must distinguish there 's liberatio in Christo liberatio à Christo though Mr. Antinomian hath abundantly cleared himself as to his Intention and Meaning but you Mr. Neonomian are so harsh in your Censures that nothing but the worst Interpretation of his words can be admitted by you My Opinion is that as Christ bore our Sins by Imputation so he made full payment of our Debt and had a Discharge so far as concerned himself and us represented by him and in him and hence through this Discharge and the perfection of the New Nature in freedom from all Original and Actual Sin and perfection of all Righteousness our Eternal Life which God hash given us is fully and compleatly in him both for Grace and Glory I say fully Fundamentally Originally and as in a Fountain or Root and of this fulness we do receive even Faith the first Vital Act and by Faith all discharge in Justification and all conformity to him in Sanctification through the operation of the Spirit of Holiness so that it was impossible but Christ must be discharged bearing our common Nature and standing in our stead and that we were in our measure discharged in him but it is also as impossible that we should be discharged personally and in ours till we had our Personal Beings and were first in that State and under that Wrath in some regard from which we were to be delivered and brought into the New Nature by Reconciliation and Actual Union on our part and till then we are Prisoners of the Law without God without Hope Aliens to the Covenant of Promise This account I trust may give both
in it's own Nature and needs a continued flux of Supply as our Graces in Sanctification As thus a Traytor pardoned by the King is not unalterably pardoned but shall be kept by the King's Care in a pardoned state Neonom Or whether God hath decreed that the Elect shall certainly believe and so be justified Antinom But hath he decreed that the Elect shall never be justified in any Sence before they believe or that Faith should be wrought as a qualifysng Condition for Justification Neonom Nor whether true Faith be an infallible sign of Justification Antinom But you make it nothing else to us if it justifies as a Condition if your Condition doth not foederally merit the Promise it 's nothing to God but an infallible Sign whereby he sees when to justifie us and to us that we are justify'd by him And what is this better than a manifestation you making it only a manifesting Condition You 're excellent good to multiply Whethers to no purpose You might bring in a 1000 Whethers more and say it 's not the Question Whether it be further to the East or West Indies nor whether Brittain be an Island or Continent Neonom I 'll come to the Point and tell you the Truth Tho' Faith be no way a meritorious Cause of a Sinners Justification yet God hath promised to justifie all such as truly believe Antinom That 's true so he hath promised to Sanctifie and glorifie them Neonom And requires Faith as an Indispensible Qualification in all whom he will justifie for Christ's merits Antinom This now is to the purpose now we see how Faith justifies as an indispensible Qualification a greater Condition than was laid upon Adam a thousand-fold For a clearer understanding the Justification of a Sinner by Faith Norton Evang. p. 110. let these Three Acts be considered the one looked at to succeed the other in Order not in Time First God actually imputes the Active and Passive Mediatory Obedience of Christ unto a Believer Rom. 4.6 therein God is freely given Secondly The Soul having before in order of Nature not in Time received Christ as its Head and Saviour by the same Faith receiveth his Obedience as the matter of it's Righteousness herein the Soul is taking Rom. 1.17 Ch. 6.11 Gal. 3 13. Thirdly God hereupon in the Court of Conscience Judicially declares and pronounceth the Sinner to be righteous and to have right unto Eternal Life by vertue of the Promise John 5.4 Rom. 3.22 30. By this Act of Grace the Person of a Sinner is Justified in himself really yet not inherently but imputatively c. Faith acknowledges 1. That we are Justified for the Righteousness sake of another viz. Christ God Man 2. Acknowledgeth our Justification is free 3. Renounceth our own Righteousness You see the Justifying Nature of Faith is Metonimically ascribed to it as the Eye is said to be the Light of the Body because it lets in the Light so Faith as the Spiritual Eye sees the glory of Christ as the Ear lets in the Justifying Promise declaratory Hence it 's said this is Life Eternal to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent which is to acknowledge him by Faith as he is revealed Mr. Norton tells you We are justify'd by Faith alone i. e. Faith as it is justifying is not a work Rom 4.5 Nort. Evang. p. p. 208. 2 Because we are not justified by our own Righteousness i. e. The Righteousness whereof we are the Subjects 3. Because we are justified by the Righteousness of another sometimes called God's Righteousness whereof God is the Ordainer and whereof he who is God-Man is both the Worker and Subject 4. Because we are justified by a Righteousness that 's made ours by Imputation not by Infusion but as Abraham was justified 5. Because we are justifyed by a Righteousness that is actually procured before we believe our Righteousness is compared to a Garment which we put on by believing Rev. 19.8 Rom. 13.14 Gal. 3.27 yet Faith never took stitch in it Calvin That Faith justifies not as a Qualifying Condition is manifest 1. Faith as a Quality is a Work of the Law The Law commanded Faith a leading Duty in it But no Man is justified by the works of the Law Rom. 3.28 So Wolleb Willet This Proposition we are justified by Faith understood legally with the Papists is not true but blasphemous but understood correlatively is true Vosin Cat. p. 2. Q. 63. 2. That which cannot stand with Grace in Justification cannot have any Influence on Justification as such but for Faith to have any causal Influence as a Work on Justification is inconsistent with Grace The Minor is prov'd Eph. 2.8 Ergo. 3. That which gives no more to Faith in the business of our Justification than to other Works of Sanctification cannot be true but to make Faith to Justifie as a Qualification gives no more to Faith than to other Works of Sanctification Ergo. The reason is because the Scripture doth peculiarly attribute our Justification unto Faith and in a way of Opposition to all Works of Sanctification Rom. 3.28 Gal. 2.16 Chap. 3.11 4. If you say That Faith justifies only as an antecedent Condition not at all meritorious Virtute eompacti then it 's no more a Condition than our coming into the World or Acts performed by us before Faith and it gives no more to Faith than to the Works of Nature as Worldly carnal Sorrow Legal Repentance and such moral Acts as carnal and unregenerate Men daily perform such as you call your Preparatory disposing Conditions and they are the cause of Faith as much as Faith of Justification and consequently the causes of Justification Causa causae est etiam causa causati and are in in eodem genere causarum 5. Whatever justifies as a Foederal Condition is meritorious but Faith justifying as a qualifying Condition upon which Life is promised justifies as a Foederal Condition The Major is true in the account of all for the Condition need not to be adequate to the Reward in Intrinsick Value tho' it be never so small yet upon Performance of the Condition the Reward is due Debt And indeed all Conditions in Contracts and Covenants are proper meritorious Causes by vertue of the Compact and Agreement made between the Covenanters For the Minor If it justifies as a qualifying Condition it must justifie as a Foederal Condition or meer Antecedent Condition And if you say as an antecedent Condition it 's at best but Causa sine qua non which we call No Cause 6. The Scripture doth sufficiently explain it self in what it says of Justification by Faith when it says we are redeemed saved justified by Christ by his Blood by his Death c. That the Spirit of God when it says we are justified by Faith intends not any Moral or Physical Causality in Faith as a Qualification but only by vertue of it's Object Mr. Bradford the Holy Martyr reasoneth thus
As the Israeiltes were healed by beholding the Brazen Serpent so are we saved by believing in Christ Fox p. 1659. but the Looking up of it self did not procure Health to the Israelites but the Promise made in the Object which was the Brasen Serpent therefore in the same manner are we saved by our Faith and Spiritual looking upon the Body of Christ Crucified not that the Action in it self of Believing as it is a quality in Man doth so deserve but because it taketh that Dignity and Vertue from the Object Jesus Christ Augustine compares our Souls to Lanthorns that hath no Light in them of themselves till Christ shines there The latter Helvetian Confess saith c. 11. Because Faith doth apprehend Christ our Righteousness and doth attribute all to the praise of God in Christ in this respect Justification is attributed to Faith chiefly because of Christ whom it receiveth and not because it is a work of ours Belgia Artic. 22. We do justly say with St. Paul We are Justified by Faith without the Works of the Law yet to speak properly we do not mean that Faith by it self and of it self doth justifie us which is but only as an Instrument whereby we apprehend Christ who is our Justice But if we say it justifies Conditionally we must say it justifies of it self What was accounted to Abraham for Righteousness Zanch. on Phil. 3. not the Action by which but that which he did believe or Faith not in respect of it self apprehending but in respect of the Object apprehended Faith taken as a Quality doth not Justifie us c. Rivet Cathol Orthod Bellarm. l. 1. de Justific c. 17. Rhem. in Annot. Rom. 3. The Papists tell us That Faith doth not justifie as an Instrument in apprehending the Righteousness of Christ but as a proper and true cause it actually justifieth by the Dignity Worthiness and Meritorious Work thereof and say these words in Scripture justificari ex fidem per fide do betoken an Actual force and power in Faith to Justification and then saith the Jesuite Faith is a Work we are justified by Faith Ergo by a Work To this he adds That Faith is our Justice it self Ergo not the Apprehension only of Righteousness This he Builds on Rom. 4.5 They tell us That Faith justifies us per modum causae efficientis Meritoriae as a Proper Efficient and Meritorious Cause And Bellarmine tells us That if we could be perswaded that Faith doth justifie Impetrando promerendo suo modo inchoando Justificationem then we would never deny that Love Fear Hope and other Vertues did justifie as well as Faith Now to avoid the Absurditities they are forced upon by the Protestant Arguments they have two shifts 1. That this Merit is not from us but from God because Faith is the Gift of God's Grace and therefore though we be justified by Merit we are justified by Grace too and that it is of Grace that our Faith Merits 2. They say That Faith Merits Justification non ex condigno of the worthiness of it but de congruo of the fitness of it and this is that which our Neonomians say That it qualifies and disposeth us to Justification so that the justifying a Believer is the doing a thing that is fit and meet to be done the Person being disposed and qualified thereunto It 's sad that Protestants should now come to lick up the Papists Vomit and re-assert those gross Errours in Fundamental Truths that all our Orthodox and Famous Opposers of the Popish Heresie have refuted and decryed by one Consent But that this Errour might the better be swallowed by Protestants the subtle Enemy of Truth and Mankind forgeth it again gives it a good heat and brings it upon his Anvil polisheth it and makes it much more plausible to look upon The Arminians say Faith justifies sensu proprio the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Credere the very Act of believing is imputed to us for Righteousness being accepted of God and accounted to us as the whole Righteousness of the Law So we are justified by Faith in the sight of God not by its Merit for they ascribe all the Merit of Justification to Christ but only they ascribe to it a conditional subordinate Righteousness by vertue of the Ordination of God For Arminius saith Armin. in declar sentent ad ordines Holland Westfris Ipsa fides tanquam Actus juxta Evangelii Mandatum prestitus Imputatus coram Deo in sive ad Justitiam idque in gratia cumque non sit ipsamet justitia legis i. e. Faith it self as an Act performed according to the command of the Gospel is Imputed before God in or unto Righteousness and that in Grace when it is not the very Righteousness of the Law * J. Goodw. Treatise of Justif p. 22. I shall give the refined and sublimed Notion of this Arminian Doctrine from a Man of no small dexterity in pleading for it He saith That that which God precisely requires of Men to their Justification instead of the Works of the Law is Faith or to believe in the proper and formal signification he doth not require of us the Righteousness of Christ for our Justification this he required of Christ himself for it that which he requires of us for this purpose is our Faith in Christ himself not in the Righteousness of Christ i. e. in the Active Obedience of Christ if Paul had certified and said to Men That the Righteousness of Christ should be Imputed to Men for their Righteousness it had been quite beside his Scope which was plainly to make known the Counsel and Pleasure of God concerning that which was to be performed by themselves though not by their own strength for their Justification which he affirms from place to place to be nothing else but Faith or Believing To have said thus unto them That they must be justified by Christ or by Christ's Righteousness and withal not to have plainly signified what it is that God requires of them to give them part in Christ's Righteousness without which they could not be justified had been to cast a Snare upon them rather than open a Door of Life and Peace and hence proceeds to prove that Abraham's Faith or Believing it self was Imputed unto him for Righteousness and he palliates it thus That he understands it but as a means of coming at the Righteousness but he defends this Proposition That we are justified by Faith sensu proprib non Metonymico Now see what the Neonomian says expresly of your indispensible Qualification though you Sir always will look one way while you row another The Question in one of you is plainly asked and answered by a great Leader and Guide among you Con. 13. When it is said that Faith is Imputed to us for Righteousness Is it Faith indeed that is meant or Christ's Righteousness believed on Mr. B. Scripture Gospel Defended p. 32. Contr. 13. Answ A strange and bold
is Actually and Absolutely procured for the Elect before Faith and shall infallibly be applyed to them all in time seemeth to reach the Scope intended by the Godly Learned whose Spirits have more particularly laboured to hold forth the whole Truth in this precious part of Soul-Reconciling Doctrine and Soul-Supporting Mystery of the Gospel To say That we are Justified by vertue of a singular Promise in the Court of Conscience and in our own Persons in which sence the Scripture constantly saith We are Justified by Faith is not that I know of affirmed by any And for this he quotes Chamier Cham. Tom. 3. lib. 12 13. Sect. 18. Nobis persuasissinum est remissa esse peccata antequam Credidimus We are verily perswaded that our Sins are forgiven before we believe for we deny that Infants do believe And Perkins Perkins on Gal. 3.16 who saith Christ is first Justified i. e. Acquit of our Sins and we Justified in him And Dr. Ames saith The Transaction between God and Christ was a certain previous application of Redemption and our discharge unto our Suâ—ety Ames Medul lib. 1. c. 24. § 3. and unto us in him which to that secondary Application to be performed in us hath the respect of a kind of Efficacious pattern so that that the Application to him is the Representation of this Application to us and this is produced by vertue of that And he saith § 3. Hence our discharge liberatio nostra from Sin and Death was not only established in God's Decree but also in Christ and granted and communicated to us in him before it could be perceived by us Rom. 5.10 11. Hence the Father and the Son are said to send the Spirit to the performing of this Application John 14.16 and 16.7 And in the Chapter of Justification Am. Med. c. 27. §. 9. He tells us what the sentence of Justification is 1. It was in the Mind of God as it were conceived by him by his Decree of Justifying Gal. 3.8 2. It was in the Christ our Head pronounced when he rose from the Dead 2 Cor. 5.19 3. Virtually pronounced in that first relation which ariseth from Faith ingenerated in the Heart Rom. 8.1 4. Expresly pronounced by the Spirit witnessing with our Spirits our Reconciliation with God Rom. 5.5 Hence it appears that the Doctrine of our Justification before Faith is not an Errour but a Great and Glorious Truth and it is no prejudice to the Doctrine of Justification by Faith but the Foundation Ground and Reason of it neither is it any Door opened to Licentiousness an unbeliever having no more Confirmation or Encouragement to persist in Sin thereby than by the Doctrine of Election which gives none but as Mr. Norton saith It 's no small part of the Ministry of Reconciliation that God Imputed to Christ the Sins of the Elect before they did believe and will never Impute them unto the Elect. Neither is my speaking of Faith's taking hold of Christ's Righteousness and saying That it brings not Christ's Righteousness to us but presupposeth it given and granted such an absurdity as you would make it For Dr. Ames saith very distinctly Justifying Faith precedes Justification it self as a cause of its Effect but Faith apprehending Justification necessarily presupposeth and follows Justification as the Aâ—â— doth the Object about which it is Conversant and this I take to be the true Notion of Justification That Great Man for Holiness and Learning Chamier saith I deny that Faith is the cause of our Justification for then our Justification would not be of Grace Cham. Parstrat Tom. 3. l. 13. c. 10. Sect. 18. but of our selves but Faith is said to justifie not because it effecteth Justification but because it is effected in the Justified Person and in another place he saith Faith doth neither merit obtain or begin our Justification Lib. 22. c. 12. Sect. 5. and Sect. 9. for if it did then Faith should go before Justification both in nature and time which may in no wise be granted for Faith it self is a part of Sanctification now there is no Sanctification but after Justification which really and in its own nature is before it I think Sir I have cleared my self sufficiently from the Charge of Errour in this Point viz. That our Justification is in being before Faith And now Sir before we proceed to the other part of your Charge concerning the manner of Faith's Justifying let us hear your Arguments against Justification in any sense going before Faith Neonom One Real Difference between us is Whether we are Justified before we believe Which I deny for 1. We are Justified by Faith is the common Language of the Holy Ghost Rom. 5.1 Gal. 2.16 D. W. p. 105. Antinom We own it and say too that we are Justified by Faith and this doth not prejudice but confirm what we assert Neon Faith is enjoyned as an effectual means of Justification by Christ Antinom We deny not that Faith required in the Gospel and wrought by the Spirit is as an effectual means of Application of Justification but therefore it follows not that it 's in being before That which is not in being cannot be applyed Neonom The Gospel denounceth and declareth all condemned till they do believe Antinom The Gospel declares only their state of Condemnation under the Law the Gospel properly condemns not and we own that every one by nature is a Child of Wrath and in the sense of the Law is a condemned Person and every one is shut up under the Law as the Apostle saith till Faith comes his New-Covenant Blessedness belonging to him is not yet made manifest nor is his Nature and State changed Neonom Vnbelief is the Cause why men are barred from Justification and remain obnoxious to Misery Antinom It is God that justifies and no Sin can barr God's Act of free Mercy in pardon of a Sinner in the Pardon of Unbelief as well as of other Sins when God will justifie It 's very absurd to say Sin barrs God's Act of Pardon It 's true Unbelief influenceth a Sinner as to his own Acts and will be charged upon him as his Fault and will aggravate that Condemnation which he hath under the Law because from his own corrupt Will and Affection he will not receive Pardon and Life that is offered in the General and Indefinite Tender thereof made in the Gospel And therefore Christ saith John 5.40 Ye will not come to me that you may have Life Heb. 3.18 19. They could not enter by reason of unbelief Unbelief on our part doth keep us from Christ but hinders not on God's part that effectually draws all the Elect justifying of them and working Faith in them Rom. 8.29 30. Eph. 1. The whole Unregenerate state is a Barr till God break it by Regeneration which is a free Work of Grace as Justification is an Act of Grace and must be found where-ever a Sinner is Justifyed by Faith and that in
order thereunto Neonom The other Question in difference between us is Whether the Vse of Faith in Justification be only to manifest our Justification which we personally had before This you affirm and I deny And add That Faith justifies by receiving Christ and therein answers the Ordination of God who hath promised to justifie the Believer by application of Christ's Righteousness in this gracious effect of it upon a guilty Soul D. W. p. 105. Antinom You alter the Terms of my Expression to make for your own turn My Words were these Quest What doth Faith serve for Dr. C. p. 85. Answ It serves for the manifestation of that Justification which Christ puts upon a Person by himself alone that you by believing on him may have the Declaration and Manifestation of your Justification And I say That it is not the Condition without which we receive no benefit from Christ but rather a manifestation thereof My Words are not That the use of Faith is only a manifestation but I say Rather a manifestation of Benefits received than a condition of receiving benefits And I say it is a Declaration and Manifestation And what is the Promise in the hand of Faith but a Declaration of the Grace of God in Justification of a Sinner and thereby a manifestation of it unto the Conscience Whereby Justification comes to be in foro Conscientiae For I say Where the Condemnation of a Sinner is by the Law there the Absolution of the Sinner is by the Gospel but Condemnation of a Sinner is in Conscience by the Law therefore there his Absolution is by the Gospel and that 's by a Gospel-Sentence pronounced and believed which Sentence is God's Declaration and Faith sealing to the Truth of it applies it and is the Eccho of the said Declaration in the Soul And you say Faith justifies as receiving Christ and you say well Christ is received in the believing of the Gospel-Declaration The Declaration in the Gospel is Life by Christ See 1 John 2.25 This is the Promise that he hath promised us evrn eternal Life 1 John 5.11 And this is the record that God hath given to us eternal life and this life is in his Son and this is the witness of God which he hath testifi'd of his Son Ver. 10. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself It should be Testimony 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This very believing is a Testimony of the Truth of the Promise and his part in it as by the latter part of the 10th Verse appears He that believeth not makes God a Liar and as the truth of the Promise concerns himself ver 12. He that hath the Son hath Life this believing he saith is having the Son as declared in the Promise and Record that takes in the Declaration believingly And this is apprehending and applying and relying on the Promise and Christ in it both as Truth and Goodness Believing is our modus recipiendi or manner of receiving and we do believe that we may receive and apprehend him unto Justification You add and say first Faith justifies by receiving of Christ but you say it 's Application of Christ's Righteousness as to gracious Effects you mean only You do not deal above-board you are not for the application of Christ's Righteousness it self imputed to us and put on by us in believing We have noted your Error in this kind already you 'll not have Christ's Righteousness imputed to us for our Righteousness according to all the Language of the Scripture but only the Effects given us as effectual Calling Sanctification and Glorification So that the Righteousness of Christ justifies no otherwise than it sanctifies and glorifies for it doth these as Effects But I pray express your self more clearly how Faith Justifies or what part Faith hath in Justification according to your Sense without so much ambiguity Neonom The difference is not Whether Faith or any other Grace be a Jot of the meriting Righteousness for which we are justified D.W. p. 104. Antinom But it is whether Faith or any other Grace be a qualifying Condition for Justification if it be so let me alone to prove it a meriting Righteousness whether you call it so or no. Neonom Nor whether Faith or any Grace add any thing to the vaine of Christ's Merits These I deny D. W. p. 104. Antinom No wonder for you have rated Christ's Merits S. Clara dicit omnes convenire scientium de causa efficicate meritorià Justificationis efficiens est Deus meritoria Christus solum ergo controversitur de formuli De Justif Peccatoris how much their Value shall be Valeant quantum valere possunt But there are other things quasi merita at least that must give right to the Benefits procured by Christ's Merits which you call your subordinate Righteousness Neonom Yea I add that if Christ's Righteousness could be applyed for Pardon to the vilest Sinner before he believes it would justifie him but God hath declared that it shall not be applied to Vnbelievers Antinom That 's not for God hath declared the contrary that he justifies the ungodly and if Justification as God's Act be not applied to us first before we are Believers there would never be any Believers for Justification is the cause of Sanctification and not Vice versa But Justification by Faith i. e. Justification as applied by a sensible gracious Act of ours is after Sanctification and we must distinguish in Application of Righteousness between Gods Acts and ours for God must apply Grace before we can partake of it Neonom Nor whether we are Justified the same Moment as we truely believe in Christ and the Blessing is not suspended for any time longer This I affirm because God justifies us by the Promise as his Instrument and this Promise declares that he will justifie him that believes Antinom You 'll own then that we shall not stay for the Benefit if we perform the Condition God will pay ready Mony but the Qualification must be first in us by Nature But why I pray Is it not manners at least to give God the Honour of being first in this Work and say We believe in that moment we are justified 2. I find now you will not have Faith to be the Instrument of Justification but have found out another whereas you find fault with me that I will not have Faith the Instrumental Cause of Justification in its being no more than a passive receiving Instrument and you 'll have the Promise to be the Instrument declaring Justification and what can Faith do but receive this Declaration and thereby declare to the Conscience of the Sinner what the Gospel-Instrument declares Neonom Nor whether an Elect Person once justified by Christ shall be kept by Christ's Care in a justified state Antinom You do not suppose then that Justification is certainly durable in it's one Nature that it is an everlasting Righteousness but that it is loosable
the New Testament are so often repeated which shew Justification to be sought only in the Person of Christ John 1.12 and 3.15 16. and 6.40 47. and 14.1 54. Rom. 4.5 and 3.26 Acts 10.43 and 25.18 Rom. 3.26 A Sinner is justified by Faith not properly as it is a Quality or Action Pemble of Justific ch 11. § 2. which by its own Dignity and Merit deserves at God's Hands Remission of Sins or is by God's favourable Acceptance taken for the whole and perfect Righteousness of the Law which is otherwise required of a Sinner but only in Relation unto the Object of it the Righteousness of Christ which it embraceth and resteth upon Justification is a Gracious Act of God upon a Believer whereby for the Righteousness sake of Christ Imputed by God Nortons Eang p. 300. and applyed by Faith he doth freely discharge him from Sin and Curse and accept him as Righteous in the Righteousness of Christ and acknowledge him to have a Right unto Eternal Life Q. 73. How doth Faith justifie a Sinner in the sight of God A. Faith justifies a Sinner in the sight of God not because of those other Graces that do always accompany it Assemb Large Catech. or of good Works which are the Fruits thereof nor as if the Grace of Faith or any Act thereof were Imputed to him for Justification only as it is an Instrument by which he receiveth and applyeth Christ and his Righteousness Q. 32. What is Justification A. Justification is an Act of God's Free Grace whereby he pardoneth all our Sins Shorter Catech. and accepteth us as Righteous in his sight only for the Righteousness of Christ received by Faith alone Whom God effectually calleth he freely justifieth not by Infusing Righteousness into them but by pardoning their Sins Confess c. 11. and by accounting and accepting their Persons as Righteous not for any thing wrought in them or done by them but for Christ's sake alone not by Imputing Faith it self the Act of Believing nor any other Evangelical Obedience as their Righteousness but by Imputing the Obedience and Satisfaction of Christ unto them they receiving and resting on him and his Righteousness by Faith which Faith they have not of themselves it is the Gift of God We are accounted Righteous before God only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith Artic. 11. of the Church of Engl. and not for our own Merits and Deservings wherefore that we are Justified by Faith only is a most wholesom Doctrine and very full of Comfort c. The Righteousness of Christ as it 's Christ's and performed by him so it is ours as it 's Meritorious of Grace Efficacious of Faith it self that is to be wrought in us it 's ours therefore I say by way of Right because by the Decree of the Father and Purpose of the Son it 's wrought for us tho' not in our Possession as to Sense and Acknowledgment of so great a Benefit bestowed Haec enim agnitio this Acknowledgment ariseth from Faith The Righteousness of Christ is said to be Imputed to us and his Merits to be applyed by Faith not before God but in our Consciences as there is a Sense of it begotten in our Hearts by Faith and an Acknowledgment of the Saving Application from the Love of God which we taste by Faith and Spiritually perceive Justifying of us and Adopting us to be his Sons from whence ariseth Peace of Conscience Whence the Righteousness of Christ is said to be Imputed to us by Faith because it is not known but by Faith that it is Imputed to us by God and then at length we are said to be Justified by that kind of Justification and Absolution from our Sins which begets or produceth peace of Conscience Dr. Twiss C. 1. p. 2. de Elect. He speaks of Justification in a double Acceptation 1. As the Righteousness of Christ is applyed to us before Faith and Repentance by reason of which Righteousness we obtain Efficacious Grace to believe in Christ and Repent 2. He understands Justification to be that Notification that is by Faith made to our Consciences or in the Court of Conscience and this is saith he that Imputation of Christ's Righteousness Remission of Sin Justification and Absolution which follows Faith There 's none of us saith he say that wicked vitious Person allowing themselves to live in their Sins are bound to believe Christ dyed for them for my part I think otherwise that whilst all are commanded to believe in Christ they are not bid presently to believe that Christ dyed for them but rather to rest themselves upon Christ by Faith to renounce themselves and their own Works and cast themselves down at the Feet of Mercy this is only properly called Faith on Christ fides in Christum the other is only Faith concerning Christ Hence Mr. Norton hath these words Orthod p. 315. These are both Truths 1. Justification hath a Being before the Elect do believe 2. That the Elect are not Justified before they do believe Justification is the Object Faith is the Act or being actually Justified is an Effect Faith is the Instrumental Cause the Cause is before the Effect Maccovius Disput XVI distinguishes Justification into Active and Passive Active Justification signifies God's Absolution of a Guilty Person from Guilt for the sake of Christ's Satisfaction and accounting him Righteous for his Righteousness Imputed The Differences between this and Passive Justification by Faith are 1. This is one undivided Act of God Absolution by Faith is repeated 2. Active precedes Faith Passive follows c. A Digression concerning the Necessity of Repentance to Forgiveness Neonom GEntlemen if you please for a Diversion after this Arduous Attempt that I have made to bring in the true Doctrine of the Catholick Church let us make a little digression for our Recreation and treat upon a Point that hath not so much difficulty in it for having got in Faith to justifie as a qualifying Act I doubt not now but to pleasure some of its Relations and find them a place in Justification too Antinom Stay not so hasty I do not find you have yet attained your End about Faith festina lentè cry not Victoria yet but however Gentlemen seeing he is for a digression let him have it for he hath been in digression from Truth all along I know not how he can digress from the way he hath been in hitherto but by coming into Truth Neonom You judging we are justified before we do believe it 's no wonder if you tell us We are forgiven before we confess Sin p. 255. and repent and therefore I would enquire of the necessity of Repentance to Forgiveness D. W. p. 113. Antinom As a Qualifying Condition Gentlemen this is no digression for it 's the Right Line and Method that Bellarmine and all the Papists have taken in handling the Doctrine of Justification first to bring in Faith to justifie as
a Work and then to bring in other Graces and Duties in the like manner only Faith shall have the honour to lead the way Whosoever saith That a Man is justified only by Faith and that nothing else is required to our Justification Trident. Conc. § 6. Chap. 2. let him be Accursed Faith is not the only cause of our Justification but there are others also as Hope Charity Alms-deeds c. Bellarm. de Justific ib. c. 13. c. 16. The Apostle excludeth not all Works for then Faith it self should be excluded from Justification because it is a Work and if justifying Faith do except every Law then the Law of Faith also should be excepted Looky you see Bellarmine hath got your Remedial Law by the End I thought I should find indeed all your Doctrine in the Original Neonom But he doth not speak fully to the case in hand Antinom But he shall speak fully to your Mind For He adds further Such Works therefore only are excluded which go before Faith which are done only by the Knowledge of the VVord Chap. 19. and by the Power of Free-will without Grace not such Works as are of Faith and proceed of Grace But all I fear is that you may not allow us so much as Bellarmine you will have some Qualifying Condition before Faith to Justifie us whereas he doth in a measure exclude all Works before Faith and he calls not that a Merit in plain English though it 's so in some Countreys I cannot tell how your Language expresseth it Neonom You 're a Pragmatick my Business in this Digression is with Men of more Orthodox Principles who yet seem too doubtful in this Point I shall state the Point between these Calvin Then Sir I find the Province will fall upon me wholly to discuss this Point with you unless the Board will be pleased to appoint an Abler Person Board No Sir by no means Neonom I shall state the Point then and shew you wherein the difference is not Calvin I pray Sir be briefer in stating Points for I find you bring your Adversary out of Breath in stating of Points and when you have stated them no body can tell but by Conjecture where you are in this way of stating Points you may run over the Enclycopeidia Artium in telling us where the Point is not for it can be but in one place Neonom But you must look where a thing is not as well a where it is before you find it I 'll tell you It is not 1. Whether Faith or Repentance be any part of the Meriting Righteousness for which we are Justified Antinom True Bellarmine will not allow Faith and Repentance to be any part of Christ's Righteousness for which we are Justified but only a Meriting Righteousness by which we are Justified .. Neonom I told you Gentlemen I would have nothing to do with this Heterodox Fellow Calvin It is a strange thing Mr. Antinomian that you cannot leave this business to me Antinom I am willing to give you ease that you may keep your Lungs till he comes to the Question for he will tire you before you come at it Neonom Nor is the Question Whether the Habits of Faith and Repentance be wrought at the same time in the Regenerating Principle D. W. p. 113. Antinom You mean you will not discuss this Point and therefore tell us not whether you affirm it or deny it and what you mean by the Regenerating Principle is very doubtful whether a Principle within us or without us Whether a Principle by Nature or by Grace It 's a new term to say We are Regenerated by a Principle it must be sure some Principle in our Nature that Regeneration must spring from Neonom Nor whether Convictions of a lost Estate and some degree of Humblings and Sorrow are necessary to drive a Soul to Christ Antinom The Law is a School-master to bring Men to Christ to cast them into a desperate condition that a Saviour may be acceptable to them that 's Christ's end but it 's no Federal Condition of Justification by Christ nor the Effects of it being the Condemnation of a Sinner which Condemnation and Sin it self are alike Conditions Causae sine quâ non that 's none at all in the sence of Logicians Convictions Humblings Sorrow for Sin before Regeneration and Justification are splendida peccata you have subscribed the Doctrinal Articles and Bellarmine excludes such Works which are before Faith done by the Knowledge of the Law and the Power of Free-will Neonom Nor whether there be an Assenting Act of Faith before there be an Exercise of Repentance under the Power of the Word which must be believed in some degree before it operate such Effects Antinom You should have put in this Question and said Nor whether there should be hearing of the Word before there is Repentance under it and you should tell what Faith you mean whether Historical or common Credulity or Saving Faith c. And whether you do not mean that Natural Men do grow up from a Regenerating Principle under the Word into Saving Grace by degrees Neonom Nor whether Ingenuous Sorrow for Sin in the sense of Actual Pardon be after that Pardon Antinom That need not be brought in to prevent our mistaking of the Question for none that hath any Brains can blunder so as to think a Man can be sorry for Sin in the sence of Actual Pardon before it is it must be after that this whether is next a-kin to a Bull. Neonom Nor whether Repentance as it consists in Fruits meet for it as External Reformation a Fruitful Life and the like must follow Pardon it being against the Tenour of the Promise that Forgiveness should be suspended so long after a Man believes and repents in his Heart Antinom You had better have put the Whether thus Whether Pardon is not to come in between Repentance and its Fruits Or whether Repentance with Fruits appearing or Repentance without Fruits appearing be the condition of Pardon and to what degrees of growth Repentance ought to arise before a Man is qualified for Pardon and how long in an ordinary way a truely Repenting Sinner must expect to continue unjustified And what time is limited in the Tenour of the Promise for suspension of Forgiveness after Faith and Repentance For there 's some time it seems with you that Forgiveness is suspended after Faith and Repentance Neonom Nor whether Justification be equally ascribed to Faith and Repentance For we are said to be Justified by Faith which imports that Repentance is but a disposing Condition and Faith a receiving Condition Repentance without Faith is unavailable as Faith without Repentance is impossible Faith seems to compleat all and in a manner to comprehend all These things the Orthodox Divines are agreed on Antinom That is Orthodox Neonomians of which none are Orthodox in these Points But Mr. Calvinist now he begins to bear up towards the Question I
find it otherwise c. Answ There is not one Fit of Sadness in any Believer whatsoever but he is out of the way of Christ to which I add as follows which he mentions not I mean in his Fits of Sadness in respect of his jealousness of his present and future State he is out of the way of Christ he enjoys not him as he ought while he is in such fits therefore the Apostle puts Believers upon rejoycing always Phil. 4.4 There is matter of nothing but joy in him while theâ—e is mournings in Believers there is meltings in those mournings and more joy in mourning of a Believer than in all the mirth of a wicked Man Believers weep for joy according to the Proverb and never mourn more kindly than when they see the joy of the Holy Ghost in the freeness and fulness of the Lord Christ poured out upon them there is never any more kindly mourning for sin than that mourning when the Soul is satisfied of forgiveness of sins I say the Soul is first satiâ—fied with forgiveness of sins i. e. it ought to mourn in the faith of forgiveness if the mourning be kindly and of a Gospel-nature before there is that real kindly mouring in those that are Believers Gentlemen I crave your Pardon that I give you the trouble of hearing me repeat so much of my former Discourses but I am fain to do it for my vindication he having so rent and tore my Sermons in sunder on purpose to expose them and my Name yea I wish that were all that it be not the very Gospel-grace itself that he bears such a spleen to else sure he would never make such a scorn of solemn and serious Truths of Christ Neonom I shall not spare you for your Whining you say God doth no longer stand offended nor displeased though a Believer after he is a Believer sin often Dr. C. p. 15. Antinom I was shewing from John 14.6 that Christ is the way the only and effectual and infallible way from all the wrath of God to all that do receive him 1. From the affection of Wrath Let me tell you would to God you could receive it according to the manifest evidence of Scripture God doth no longer stand offended with a Believer tho' a Believer after he be a Believer doth sin often And where is the Believer that doth not sin often when he hath once received Christ and unto them God saith Anger is not in me Isa 47.4 and Isa 53. He shall see of the travel of his soul and he shall be satisfied i. e. pacified The travel of the Soul of Christ makes God such amends for the sinfulness of all Believers that he can no longer stand offended and displeased with them if God remain offended with them there is yet some of their sinfulness to be taken away Except God will be offended where there is no cause to be offended which is Blasphemy to speâ—k he will not be offended with Believers for I say he hath no cause to be offended with a Believer You must understand always quoad Deum as to God he being satisfied because he doth not find the sin of a Believer to be the Believer's own sin but he finds it the sin of Christ i. e. by way of Imputation so I always mean He was made Sin for us he laid the Iniquities of us all upon him the Blood of Christ cleanseth us from all Sin he bear our Sins in his own Body on the Tree but if he bear our Sins he must bear the displeasure for them nay he did bear the Displeasure the Indignation of the Lord and if he did bear the Indignation of the Lord either he did bear all or but a part if he did not bear all the Indignation of the Lord then he doth not save to the uttermost those that come to God by him Heb. 4. I say not to the uttermost because here is some offence some indignation left behind and for lack of taking of this indignation upon himself it lights and falls upon Believers so that you must say Christ is an imperfect Saviour and hath left some scattering Wrath behind that will light on the head of a Believer c. Calvin I pray Mr. Neonomian what is the Truth in this Point It is you must set us right and shew us all our Mistakes Neonom Truth The Sins of Believers have the loathsomness of Sin adhering to them which God sees and accounts the committers guilty thereby D. W. p. 170. Antinom What do you mean by the loathsomness of Sin Is not Sin in all its respects loathsom and is it not loathsom as it is contrary to the preceptive part of the Holy Law Is there any fine sweet precious part of Sin Did not Christ bear Sin of the deepest die most loathsom Sins Is it any otherwise loathsom than as a Transgression of the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this was that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Christ took away 1 Joh. 3. But how not that they were subjectively removed from us but that the inherency of them in great measure remains in us and God knows it but before the eye of Justice all sin of a Believer as he stands under the Sanction of the Law is taken away i. e. as to the Condemnation and Wrath that belongs unto him he is freed from it by the Blood and Satisfaction of Christ Neonom And they ought to charge themselves with it so as to stir up themselves to repentance and renew their actings of Faith on Christ for forgiveness Antinom They ought to be always sensible of and humbled for the constant indwelling and frequent breaking forth of their Sins and Corruptions but always beginning in the Faith of the Blood and Satisfaction of Christ and therefrom exercise Repentance and Humiliation or else their Humiliation and Repentance will not be of a right nature nor attain a right end and we own such Actings of Faith and Repentance ought often to be renewed by the best of God's Children Neonom Nevertheless they ought not thereby to fear their being out of a justified state Antinom Therefore to believe they are in a justified estate and not to cast off the spirit of adoption and betake themselves to a spirit of bondage and if they ought to believe their justified state then they ought to believe their freedom from condemnation for a justified state and a state of condemnation are the highest in opposition indeed privantia the one totally expels the other Neonom They must not fear their justification further than their faults give them just cause of suspecting that sin hath dominion over them and that their first believing on Christ was not sincere Antinom As to suspicion of the truth of believing our way is not to charge sin upon ourselves as lying under the Wrath of God for it this will work in us the highest despair or such degrees of unbelief as tend thereto but in case of such
the Stomach and that the whole Mass of Blood is infected with ill Humours or the Morbid Constitution of some Parts Out of the abundance of the Heart the Mouth speaketh saith our Saviour our great Physician Is it not sad when there is a poysonsom Juyce under the Lips and a Mouth full of Bitterness Rom. 3. You first charge the Ministry of some and most hereabout know what sort of Men you mean with being the Cause of Men's Security in Sin And why Because they preach the Doctrine of the Gospel in a free Justification of a Sinner by Faith without the Works of a Law according to the Apostle Paul and preach down your Doctrine of Justification by Works But you express the Effects of this dangerous Doctrine to lie in these things 1. Security in Sin A Doctrine that quickens Men that are dead in Trespasses and Sins one part of which Death is Security in Sin doth not cause Security in Sin But the Doctrine of Free Grace in Justification of a Sinner without Works of any Law doth so Eph. 2. I shall not now enlarge upon you 2. Another ill Effect is you say That it causes the mistaking the Motions of sensible Passions for Conversion This is rather the Effect of your own Doctrine wherein you lay the whole Stress of Justifying and Saving Grace upon Sensible Passions and set Men wholly to judge of their State thereby It 's marvellously to be wondred at that any Man should have the Impudency to charge those Effects upon an opposite Doctrine to his which are the natural and palpable Effects of his own and he sees so to be 3. You charge upon it the general Abatement of an exact and humble walking This Charge is likewise of the same Nature Whereas the Spirit of God hath disclaimed any true Cause of exact walking beside the Grace of God that brings Salvation and then teacheth it as hath been proved As for Humble walking what is a greater Inducement thereto than the Doctrine of Faith which ascribes all to the Gift of Grace empties us of every high Imagination and Thought It exalts Christ and makes him all and in all Whereas yours is the contrary no Doctrine tends more to the lifting up of the Creature than that of Neonomianism next to that of the Papists And no wonder say you when so many affirm such and such things Where are the many or the any that you can charge with saying these things in the same Sence you put upon them Many Expressions that taken together with their Connexion in the explained Sence of him that speaks are not only true but safe and sound but abstracted and wrested may be made to look as black as Hell You may say David saith That there is not an honest Man upon the Face of the Earth Psal 12. That he saith There is no God Psal 14. That Moses affirms God to be a Man Exod. 15.3 And in a Thousand Places in your way and manner it 's easie to charge Blasphemy upon the very Scriptures And how often Lying if Hyperbole's be not allowed to be used without Wrong to the Truth As to the particular Charges I shall speak to each in it's proper place and lay open your Prevarications Errors and false Imputations to the World Neonom In this present Testimony to the Truth of the Gospel I have studyed Plainness Pref. D. W. p. 3. and to that end oft repeated the same things in my Concessions to prevent the Mistakes of the less Intelligent tho' I could not think it fit to insist anew upon all Antinom Your Testimony is against the Truth as shall be made appear and is not to be accounted a Testimony For a Testimony is a credible Witness or Evidence As the Apostle Paul saith Our Testimony among you was believed 2 Thes 1.10 And this Testimony is with a good Conscience 2 Cor. 1.12 And Paul testified the Gospel of the Grace of God Acts 2.24 1. Your Testimony is not to the Gospel of the Grace of God but against it and therefore not materially true 2. Your Testimony is formally naught it being not accompanied with a good Conscience but with a purpose and design to deceive You pretend to do Good but you manifestly design Evil to blast the Honour of God's Free Grace as if it were a Sin-teaching Doctrine and blacken a Holy Servant of Christ who is now in Glory for Preaching the Gospel your Testimony can't be believ'd because of your manifold Prevarications Equivocations and False Teachings in this Treatise of yours And whereas you say you have studied Plainness if you mean that in some places is no better than plain Falshood in others plain Error it 's true enough Or if you mean Plainness in respect of Style it 's homely enough and hardly plain Sence But if you mean Plainness of Simplicity without double-tonguedness I utterly deny it For when you speak of things that one would think at first Glance you intend Truth by it 's nothing so No Jesuite in the World can out-do you at Equivocation and there lies your Natural Excellency You have impertinent Repetition enough your Concessions every where fall about your own Ears in your glozing Oppositions to the Truth you deny You design the rectifying the Mistakes of the Non-intelligent This is false it 's manifest you design the blinding of them more else why do you quote Dr. Owen and the Assembly for countenancing those Errors which you know they directly oppose Let but the Mistakes of the less Intelligent be removed their Stomachs will rise sufficiently against you and your Book too Neonom I have in nothing misrepresented Dr. Crisp 's Opinion nor mistaken his Sence Antinom This must be true or false and here is the turning Point of the whole Book Either Dr. Crisp was or you must be If you have not misrepresented him then according to your Representation he was so If you have misrepresented him and unjustly blackened him what are you But that which we have in hand is Falshood and Lying As to this Assertion of yours we shall prove you guilty of Falshood throughout the Book that though you have repeated some of Dr. Crisp's Words from time to time yet you have only repeated such part of his Words as might render him odious not those that give a true and can did Sence of what he intended and herein you misrepresented him and that on purpose Now the Spirit of God lays the Formal Nature of a Lie upon an Intention to deceive or to deal injuriously with others as in the Case of Doeg Though I do not design now to come to Particulars I will give one Instance wherein you in your Book and your Party do frequently expose Dr. Crisp and his Abettors such as you call Divers as also Crispians and Antinomians that he and they do assert Sin can do no hurt and you would have Men understand that he means That no Person in Christ need fear to commit Sin and that Sin
be Punishment yet it 's not so by necessity of Nature 7. Hence obligation to Punishment is from the Will of the Law-giver and the Nature of the Law not from the Sinner the Law hath tyed Sin and Punishment together and it 's not Sin to be obliged to Punishment but it is for Sin obligation to Punishment is part of the Wages of Sin and not Sin in it self nor the guilt of Sin a Murderer that is cast he is guilty before Sentence or Execution not because the Law will Sentence him but because he hath committed the Fact which the Law hath forbid and therefore hath annexed a Penalty to it There 's a Privative Nature in Sin which is a contrariety to the Goodness of the Law which is the Fault therefore the Law to avenge it self makes it worthy or deserving such a Punishment and upon Tryal binds over the Sinner to it there 's hardly to be found a difference between reatus culpae poenae as Dr. O. saith but Sin committed or justly charged upon some account or other is in it self by vertue of the Constitution of the Law an obligation to Punishment being the Meritorious Cause thereof Neonom I own Christ was esteemed by Men a Transgressor and Arraigned as such Antinom If it were only so he bore Sin no otherwise than the Saints and Martyrs who also were accounted Transgressors by Men Arraigned and Condemned as such but it seems you will not own him accounted a Transgressor by God and therefore no Sin was laid upon him nor any Punishment and here you fall in roundly with the Socinians Neonom We grant also that Christ's Sufferings were as Effectual to put away Sin as if our very Sins had been transacted on him Antinom I doubt not but you will ascribe as much to your Gospel as Paul did to his there was never any Coyners of new Doctrine Papist Quaker Socinian or Arminian all Well-wishers to your Divinity in some part or other of it but will still each of them cry up your Doctrine and decry the Truth for Error and this Truth of laying Sin on Christ as vehemently as you especially in the Sence that you do Neonom But I say he became obliged as Mediator to bear the Punishment of our Iniquities Antinom If as Mediator then to take up the difference between God and us for it's Sin makes the difference and not punishment this is but the effect of the difference the High-priest the Typical Mediator was to bear the Iniquities of the People and offer a Sacrifice on which they were charged Neonom He did bear those Punishments to the full satisfaction of Justice Antinom Unless Sin be taken away in a Law sence Justice is not satisfied bearing Punishment only doth not satisfie for Sin the Law will have the Sinner or the Sin taken away therefore the Damned must suffer to Eternity because they cannot take away Sin by Suffering but Christ did more than suffer he put an end to Sin by the Sacrifice of himself Neonom Yea and to our Actual Remission when we believe Antinom It seems there 's Fundamental Potential Remission before and I doubt you will not suffer this Remission to take place without a new Law and the Righteousness thereof Neonom The Real difference lyes in these things 1. Whether Sin it self as to its filth and fault was transacted on Christ This you affirm and I deny 2. Whether Christ was made and accounted by the Father the very Transgressor the Adulterer the Blasphemer This you affirm and I deny D. W. p. 10. Antinom You might have put the Questions into one and stated it as it lyes between the Apostle Paul and you Whether God Imputed Sin to Christ at all Neonom I go on to confirm my Positions 1. To transact our Sins on Christ as opposed to Guilt is impossible for it would argue either a mistake in the Divine Mind to account him the Committer of our Sins or a Propagater of our corrupt Qualities to him which is impossible and any other way besides Imputing the guilt there is none Antinom This Argument I judge is to prove both Positions As to the First it runs thus That which is impossible cannot be done but to transact Sin as to it's Fault is impossible Ergo. As to the Major I judge the Impossibility is meant in respect of the Nature of God or the Constitution of God otherwise I know not why a Fault may not be taken away as well as Obligation to Punishment when as Fault is that for which a Man is obliged to bear Punishment For if the Fault remain the Punishment is still due The Minor you prove thus It would argue a mistake in God or suppose him a Propagator of Sin 1. It doth argue a Mistake in you to say that 's transferred from us which was never in us For the Obligation to Punishment in it's active consideration is subjectively in the Law and that cannot be taken from it it 's the Debt which the Law owes to the Sinner by reason of it's Sanction and the Punishment is the Payment 1 Joh. 3.3 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Wages of Sin is Death For Punishment is not the Sinners Debt but the Law 's Debt and the Sinner's Due The Sinner's Debt is doing the Duty the Law requires His Disobedience is an Offence to the Law a Fault blamed by the Preceptive part of the Law and this is Guilt Reatus culpae to which Meritum poenae doth by vertue of the Constitution belong There 's two respects in Sin 1. To the preceptive part of the Law and that is Fault 2. To the Penal part and that is Meritum Now these by reason of the Justice of the Law and the Connexion made by it's Institution between the Accusing and condemning part are inseparable before God and being but two different respects of the same individual Act it is a Fault and a Merit and a Merit because it is a Fault the Merit is a Result from the Fault and are such relata that they cannot be parted in Judgment Now then will not your Argument rebound upon your self Would it not argue a Mistake in God to lay the Merit of Punishment upon a Person that hath not any meritorious Cause of it in no respect If the Fault be not imputed how can the Merit There can be no Merit without a meritorious Cause and this is our Sins and not Christ's by way of Perpretation In laying Sin on Christ there are these things 1. The Spirit of God says it's Sin and doth not confound Sin and Punishment And it 's absurd if it should for Punishment is not Sin 2. It saith It 's our Sins not Christ's 3. That these Sins are Juridically imputed and accounted to Christ The Payments by Christ's Sufferings is his own Money not ours the Debt is imputed not the Payment A Surety is charged with and takes upon him the principal Debt but doth not take Money from him to pay
by the offering of Christ without Spot to God This spotless Sacrifice whereon he bore Sin and was not defiled And hereby the Conscience of Sin i. e. the Guilt of Sin which is no other than Sin charged upon the Conscience is taken away and thence the Levitical Services could not make any perfect as pertaining to Conscience but it 's the Blood of Christ that sprinkles from an evil Conscience Heb. 10.22 2. A condemning Conscience without which we stand but loathsomly before God yea while for want of Faith we apprehend God deals with us out of Christ we are very loathsom and all our Works and Services dead God loaths and abhors them Is not the Vertue of Christ's Blood compared to a Fountain to wash us in and intended especially of Justification and Pardon and the Saints to betake themselves to it under the Notion of it's cleansing Vertue in that Sence 1 John 1.7 Rev. 1.5 Guilt of Sin then is as great a Pollution as belongs to Sin It 's no other than Sin lying upon the Conscience with an Accusation 1 John 3.20 21. Greg. Nysson saith He bore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Filth of our Sin Dr. O. p. 42. Again Wherever Sin is to be purged out by Sanctification it is to be rid away by Justification but all Filth is to be rid by Sanctification that indwells Now it is manifest that the cleansing Vertue of the Blood of Christ applyed by Faith is the first Gospel-effectual Means of Sanctification and it must be the great Cause of Mortification wherein we are planted together in the likeness of his Death Rom. 6. And what did Christ in his Death but destroy the Body of Sin by carrying it away 2 Tim. 1.10 He hath by carrying away sin abolished Sin and Death slain the Enmity that lay in Hatred of God Pravity and Dominion of sin Whence was it that David was cleansed from Blood-guiltiness Was it not from it's being laid on Christ Was it not that very Filthiness of his Sin Psal 51.14 Doth he not pray to God to be washed throughly from his sin and to be cleansed from it Was not that by the Application of the Blood of Christ Doth he not mention all his Pravity Original as well as Actual from which he would be purged as with Hyssop and made whiter than Snow And wherein lies this Washing Is it not in respect of sin not in respect of Punishment he mentioneth not he explains what he means it is that radical Washing ver 9. Hide thy Face from my Sins and blot out mine Iniquity i. e. From the Face of God's Justice Then follows the Creation of a clean Heart He gave himself for us to redeem us from all Iniquity Tit. 2.14 There is no Pravity Defilement Pollution of Sin what-ever that is so but because of it's contrariety to the preceptive part of the Law must first have it's Foundation of cleansing from Christ's bearing of it away and this Faith applying purifies the Heart from the indwelling Macula in us Whence that Promise Ezek. 36.25 The clean Water there is the Spirit working in Application of the Blood of Christ and therefore Gospel-cleansing lies chiefly in Application of Promises 2 Cor. 7.1 Neonom He took care his Body should not see Corruption Acts 2.3 he would much more abhor to take in our Pollution He was holy harmless undefiled c. Antinom All this we say over and over that he bare Sin but was not defiled with Sin nor corrupted in his Nature but the Spirit of God is not to be believed See Christ's taking away of Sin by Atonement is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 1.3 Neonom It was Condescension enough that he agreed to be treated as a Sinner But how odious is it to load him with Sin it felf To spit that in his Face that the worst of Men abused him with and it would justifie his Persecutors who punished him if he was really the Person your Principles renders him to be Antinom The Spirit of God renders him to be the Person that my Principles renders him to be It saith he bore our Sins in his Body on the Tree the Lord laid Iniquities on him he was made Sin for us and yet how dare you reproach the Spirit of God in such a manner To say that it 's an odious thing To say be bore the Load and Weight of all the Sins of the Elect that it is spitting in the Face of Christ doing that which the worst of Men did to him and justifying his Murderers I am surprized with great horrour to hear such things out of the Mouth of a Man that is called a Gospel Minister I pray God give you Repentance and lay not these things to your Charge But Sir you have here declared your defiance of the Date of the Imputation of our Sins to Christ and yet would pretend you hold that Doctrine by saying God laid the Punishment of Sin only upon Christ The meer Punishment of Christ I must tell you was not the bearing our Sin for the bearing the Punishment was the payment of the Debt and was his Righteousness which is Imputed unto us if Imputation of our Sins to Christ lay in nothing else they were not Imputed at all to him Punishment was laid upon him and he bore it by way of Suffering in his Humane Nature and was that Righteousness that is Imputed to us in Justification the Argument against you is this That which is Imputed to us was not Imputed to Christ but Punishment of Christ to Satisfaction for our Sins is his Righteousness Imputed to us Ergo not the Imputation of our Sins unto him If your rooted prejudices will suffer you to consider I pray weigh well that Argument you will have more by and by But you still say if Christ bore Sin he must be polluted with Sin Ans It argues not that Sin was his by perpetration or Infusion but only by Imputation they were our Sins by Perpetration and Inhesion which he bore by Imputation The Spirit of God tells us he was a Sinner in one respect and no Sinner in another as the Church of Smyrna was Poor in one respect and Rich in another Omnia diversa natura sua abstractâ sunt opposita as Poverty and Riches Sin and no Sin tamen eidem attributa ratione tantum dissentiunt as a Man may be Rich and Poor Wise and Foolish in divers respects And as to the filthiness of Sin it could not stain him he remained untouched in his Holy Nature but yet I must tell you as bearing Sin by the Sacrifices caused a Typical Uncleanness insomuch as the Bodies were Burnt without the Camp and they that Burnt them and gathered up the Ashes became Unclean such a Judicial uncleanness was Jesus Christ our Sacrifice under wherein he answered those great Types and we are not without ample proof of it especially from Heb. 13.11 Neonom Arg. 2. Had he been Esteemed the very Transgressor his
Atonement had been unavailable for he could not Atone for himself D. W. p. 11. Antinom You should have said had he been the very Transgressor he was a reputed Transgressor and stood instead of the actual Transgressor he therefore was a becoming High-priest because he needed not to Offer for his own Sins but did at once Offer for us when he Offered up himself Heb. 7.25 27. All the places you mention are against you that especially 1 Pet. 3.18 and that of Heb. 9.14 above all as we have shewed before Neonom Christ then suffered for his own Sins Antinom So far as they became his own by Imputation To conclude because you will have it that in pleading for the Imputation of our Sins to Christ I must hold that Christ was the very Transgressor See what I said There is a certain transacting of Sin on Christ so real that indeed a Believer though an Actual Transgressor is as absolutely and truely discharged of his Sins as if he himself had not committed them As a Debtor when a Surety hath taken the Debt on him and the Debtor receives an Acquittance and Discharge he is as free of the Debt now as if he never run into the Debt So I say it is with a Believer Christ being made a Surety of a better Testament and thereby becoming really and truely the Debtor instead of the Believer he so bears all the Debts himself that they are altogether released and discharged as if they had never been in Debt Still I say this hinders not but there is an Acting of Sin and Committing of Sin every day by a Believer but still the vertue of Christ's Suretiship takes off the Sin as soon as it is committed nay he hath a Proviso or Stock in Bank to satisfie it as soon as it is Committed Dr. Cr. p. 289. Calvinist If this be Mr. Antinomians Judgment I see not but it is sound and according to the Scriptures and you have little reason to make such a noise as you have done and load him so invidiously with your loathsom Consequences and misrepresent him so hideously to the World as if he were a Person of no Divinity Logick Religion Brains or common Sense I must confess I think you have given a great deal of Ground of just offence in wresting the words and sence of so good a Man besides your taking advantage to insinuate to us Errours for I apprehend your Spleen is most especially vented at the Doctrine of Imputation it 's that which you principally aim at to Wound and cast to the Ground Laying Sin on Christ no other than that whereby Christ becomes accountable to God for our Sins and there is in it these things very easie and plain to be understood 1. Christ's Offering himself freely to be accountable to God for our Sins because none can be forced to be accountable for the defaults of another 2. His answering the Will and Pleasure of the Law-giver the Judge of all therein being called thereunto and accepted in so doing in the room and stead of the Delinquents 3. Hence it is for our Sins and not his own that he is accountable 4. Our Sins are the Material and Meritorious Cause of his Sufferings which he takes upon him our very Faults in non-conformity to the Law our Sins in the delinquency our very Sins in opposition to Punishment our Sins in their greatest foulness under the greatest Aggravations they are the very offending meritorious Causes and whereas when we are without Christ they are accounted the offending and the meritorious Cause of Suffering to us so Christ being substituted in our room they are the very offending meritorious Causes of Suffering to him Sin hath a double respâ—ct as a Fault and Demerit but as a fault is a demerit To be accountable is to stand under the demerits of Sin and indeed that is Guilt or reatus culpae which the Orthodox mean when they say Christ bare the guilt of Sin and it 's no other than the charge of Delinquency Dignitas poenae obligatio ad poenam is the same thing and there 's little weight in the distinction between Reatus Culpae and Reatus Poenae for Reatus Culpae is nothing else but Dignitas Poenae propter Culpam D. O. 280. And hence they say there 's no difference between Guilt and the Sin it self for Sin is no positive thing but privative and that which is remaining besides the Physical Act of that which is a Moral Guilt or just Charge of Abberration from the Rectitude and Duty required in the Law for which Men must be accountable to God and according to the sanction of the Law give satisfaction and that is in this case by receiving the Wages of Sin and in so doing the Payment is made And I shall now prove by many Arguments that it 's our Sins and our Sins in the highest degrees and aggravations that Christ was accountable to God for and that he bore them in this sence by way of Imputation though none of the macula or stain by way of Inherent pollution or defilement fell upon him nor could cleave unto him And we defend the Position as the Spirit of God every where states it That it was Sin as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Christ bore and in bearing took away from before God it 's said to be laid on Christ as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. That which is the Radical Cause of God's displeasure against a Sinner was laid upon Christ to take away but Sin was the Radical Cause of God's displeasure Ergo Sin in the radical Nature of it as it 's a Fault and blamed of God as such Now obligation to Punishment is not the Cause of God's displeasure but the effect of it that which renders a Person abominable in the sight of God is Sin as it 's against the preceptive part of the Law as to the Major it 's plain unless the Radical Cause of God's manifesting displeasure be taken away God cannot be reconciled to us it 's called the Enmity Eph. 2. even on God's part which is upon the default of Sin and it's Enmity on ours 2. That which Christ bore in his Body on the Tree was Sin it self our Blame as well as Demerit for there 's no demerit where there 's no blame He that suffers for a fault bears the fault the fault stands and claims the Meritoriousness of Sufferings The Apostle is express in it That he bore our Sins on the Cross 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 2.24 This is the Punishment only you will say but the Holy Ghost will tell you he bore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Nature of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not the Punishment of Sin but Sin it self 1 John 3.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and mark what follows ver 5. and ye know that he was manifest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might bare away Sin in bearing it and notwithstanding this saith
when we are Pardoned the whole Meritorious Cause of Pardon be that Atonement and what is required of Sinners is only a meetness to receive the Effects of it Antinom What do you mean by the whole Meritorious Cause Do you exclude Christ's Active Obedience from the Meritorious Causes And do you mean the Merit of Satisfaction or Procurement There 's a great deal of difference in the Case before us and what is the meetness whether it be not a meetness of Congruity if not of Condignity And whether this meetness be not of the Effects of Christ's Merits and if not from what other Cause it ariseth Neonom Nor whether this Atonement is the only way of Forgiveness which we can apprehend Antinom I had thought a meetness to be forgiven had been with you one way to be forgiven which you make to be distinct from Atonement and the Meritorious Cause of Forgiveness Now Sir you say these things are not the Question but they are questionable to me you might have told us of a Thousand more Questions which are not ours for there is no one thing but in genere disparatorum is separate from all other things in the World But after Sir you have freed our Brains from the mixture of all Impertinent Questions I pray put your Finger upon the very Spot Neonom The Real Difference lyes in two Things 1. Whether the Elect were Actually discharged of all their Sins at the time that Christ made Atonement D. W. p. 16. Antinom The Question is whether a Believer is not to look upon the laying of his Sins on Christ his full Release for I speak of an Elect Believer I say not that any other can whether Elect or no for all the burden and load of Sin was long ago laid on Christ it is not now to do Neonom Having spoken to the Question before I insist now only upon this Whether the very Act of laying Sin upon Christ on the Cross be the discharge of the Elect from all Sin Antinom You state your Questions still with great Ambiguity for what mean you by the Act of laying Sin on Christ The laying Sin on Christ must suppose and imply all things that conduced to the making him a compleat Sacrifice for Sin God's Acts and his own on God's part it 's to be supposed there was not only a charge of Christ but a discharge on Christ's part not only a Subjection to the Charge but a Suffering by way of Satisfaction not only an undertaking of the Debt but a payment I suppose you mean whether the Atonement that Christ made was in any sence a discharge unto the Elect for no wise Person will give a Discharge to a Debtor till the Money be paid or Suretiship accepted now then we distinguish of Pardon it was perfect and compleat by way of Impetration for all the Elect but it hath not an Actual Application till the Persons are in being to whom it is to be applyed and that Application in regard of the time of their Lives is according to the dispensation of Grace Now all this you seem to grant and need not put to any further Question you say Christ made full Atonement for Sin and it shall be certainly applyed you say only that a Sinner is not discharged till Application we distinguish of Discharge 1. There 's that which is Vertual and Fundamental and Real in Christ or else he could not have rose for the Charge upon him was our Sins and he must have a Discharge as a Surety and it was the Elects Discharge in the Mind of God and of Christ and really transacted But 2ly There 's a personal sensible Discharge which is at or by Application Now then in the same sence that Christ bore our Sins by Imputation as a Representative in that sence we were Discharged for the Discharge must be as large and full as the Charge to the very Person of Christ and all he undertook for or else he is bearing Sin still and the Sins of some of the Elect must be still upon him And 3ly If Christ obtained what he bore our Sins for then he had a Discharge not only for his own Person but for all he undertook for and represented and Christ having made good and full payment cannot remain undischarged for he finished the work which his Father appointed him to do Neonom But we can claim no Interest in his Atonement till we Believe Antinom A Sinner's first Ground of Claim is the Promise and free Offer of Christ in the Gospel and Faith is a laying hold upon him and receiving of him in whom is full Atonement and Pardon It is one thing to have Jus ad rem and another to have Jus in re a Child new Born or to be Born Heir of an Estate hath a good Right to the Inheritance else he could not be Heir which is previous and lyes dormant until the time of Claim and Possession and therefore the Apostle seems to speak in this way of Allusion Eph. 1.11 He saith In whom we have obtained an Inheritance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it 's grounded upon what he said ver 7. in whom we have Redemption And Dr. Goodwin saith That the Apostle speaks not there of the Redemption that we have here i. e. the Fruits of Redemption but of the Work of Redemption which Christ himself hath wrought which is the cause of all the Redemption we receive And 2dly We have Redemption in Christ as in a common Person and we have it not only when it is applyed to us but we have it in him as we had Condemnation in Adam before we were Born into the World so we had Redemption in Christ when he dyed So Dr. Goodwin on Eph. 1. Neonom It was not that Will or Purpose of God or Christ that the laying our Sins on Christ should be the Immediate Discharge of the Elect John 6.40 1 Pet. 1.2 D. W. p. 17. Antinom It was the Will and Purpose of God and Christ that upon Christ's Satisfaction for Sin he should have an immediate Discharge and all the Elect Vertually and Really in him a general Discharge but not manifested and personally applyed to particular Persons and in this sence the Elect are Discharged at and by Application and the places mentioned hold forth no more than this and this is all the Dr. saith That the Church had a general Discharge in Christ not a particular Application till Being Neonom This overthrows the whole Scheme so wisely contrived for the distribution of the Effects of his Death Antinom It may overthrow your Scheme but it overthrows no true Scheme of the Gospel Mystery Antinom Things are so adjusted that forgiving the Elect should be the Effect of Christ's Kingly Office as well as his Priestly Office Acts 5.31 1 Cor. 6.11 Acts 26.18 Antinom Christ wrought out our Forgiveness by way of Atonement as a Priest and God was Atoned and Appeased thereby and therein he also Gloriously Triumphed in his
Justitia Mediatoris not Justitia Mediatoria 2. You say this Righteousness is so Imputed to a true Believer as for the sake thereof he is pardoned I am sure by your so you mean another sence than we mean that we are only pardoned effective and that 's no more than we are sanctified and glorified for it's sake and this appears by your second Difference p. 39. where you say the difference is not Whether our Justification and all other Benefits when we are partakers of them be the Fruits of this Righteousness as the only Meritorious Cause So that you have no reason to quarrel with me for saying That through Christ's bearing of Sin we appear in perfect Holiness speaking there of Glory for you say Justification and all other Benefits flow from it therefore in the same manner as we are Justified by the Righteousness of Christ in the same manner we are sanctified and glorified i. e. effective in your sence 3. You say also pleadable for these Uses i. e. for all Uses in a like manner 4. As if they had personally done and suffered what Christ did as Mediator for them your meaning is That it 's as well done as if they had done it themselves A Man may do a thing as well as another that he doth not for another in his stead yea a Man may do a thing for another and not do it in his stead as a Taylor makes a Minister a Suit of Cloaths but doth not do it in his stead because it 's not his Business to make his Cloaths but it 's another thing for a Man to come and preach for him that is to do it in his stead because it 's his proper Work Profession and Business 5. And hereby you say they are delivered from the Curse What mean you by the Curse We shall find this Curse is not the whole Vindicative Wrath of God only Eternal Curse And for our Comfort you tell us this is all the Attonenement or meriting Price of saving Benefits that God can demand of us It 's so in our stead as that God can exact no other Atonement and so a Security from God's hurting us In a Word the Description of Imputation here that you have given is but a meer piece of Sophistry that Imputed Righteousness may be any thing for all this and we shall see by and by what you will have it be Neonom Nevertheless this Mediatorial Righteousness is not subjectively in them nor is there a Change of Person betwixt them and Christ neither are they as righteous as he but there remain Spots and Blemishes in them until Christ by his Spirit perfect that Holiness begun in all true Believers which he will effect before he bring them to Heaven Antinom Now you come to the Negative part of your Description which should have been first and having said nothing of the thing at first you tell us it 's nothing at last 1. You say this Mediatorial Righteouscess Sir is not subjectively in us I know no Judicious Divine ever talked so nor would you if you understood mediatorial Righteousness as it 's apparent you do not 2. You say there 's no change of Person betwixt Christ and them You mean that the Believer becomes not Christ nor Christ the Believer We mean so too 3. You say too that Believers are not as righteous as he you mean such a Righteousness Mediatorial 4. You basely insinuate that their Righteousness in Justification is imperfect for the Spots and Blemishes we speak of is in respect of Righteousness Neonom I question not whether Christ by his Righteousness merited for all the Elect that they should in his time and way be certainly Partakers of it's saving Effects and did not only purchase a conditional Grant of those Effects viz. That Proposition He that believeth shall be saved P. 39. Antinom It seems Christ then merited a certainty of Salvation only of the Elect I thought their Salvation was made certain by Election the Foundation of God stands sure 2 Tim. 2.19 Your meaning is Christ's Merits made our Salvation certain which in respect of Election was uncertain 2. And but certain in another way viz. Of a Conditional Grant that is not yet performed and belongs to the Non-elect as well as to the Elect and there 's yet an Uncertainty remaining notwithstanding the Certainty purchased 3. It 's very odd to say Christ purchased a Proposition and a conditional one too the Condition whereof must be something not purchased to be performed by us that we may have the Gift promised For if the Certainty depend upon the Merit and Purchase then both the Condition and Promise is purchased and then the Purchase is absolute I would know whether the certainty of the Salvation of the Elect be purchased conditionally or absolutely if purchased conditionally then this Proposition The Elect shall be saved is yet uncertain in respect of the Purchase of Christ and is but a contingent Proposition and not certain which is a Contradiction If you say Christ purchased absolutely the Salvation of the Elect all your contingent Purchase falls to the Ground But Christ purchased Persons absolutely not conditional Propositions and is he that believes shall be saved a conditional Proposition indeed Neonom Nor whether besides these Effects being made ours the very Righteousness of Christ be imputed to true Believers as what was always undertaken and designed for their Salvation and is now effectual to the actual Pardon and Acceptance to Life yea is pleadable by them for their Security and is as useful to their Happiness as if themselves had done and suffered what Christ did Antinom Gentlemen you would think that Mr. Neonomian had here owned the Doctrine of Imputation but it is nothing so he doth but sham it still Mark he says Besides the Effects of Christ's Righteousness the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed as to Effects or Effectualness i. e. Pardon and Acceptance is the Effects but he tells you not that it is the proper and immediate Righteousness he will have the Righteousness of Christ to have some Effects and is imputed as to such So that Sanctification and Glorification being Effects are as much the Imputation of the very Righteousness of Christ It 's a strange thing to confound the Cause and Effects to tell us the very Cause is imputed and presently to tell us he means the Effects This is to talk Daggers for Cause and Effect are opposita But he saith the Righteousness of Christ is what was undertaken and designed for their Salvation and is effectual and in that Sense imputed Very good so that it was a subordinate means to accomplish that end as was also Creation which was by Christ Col. 1. preaching the Gospel their Calling Sanctification hence the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness is but to give it a place in the order of means for our Salvation and in that order of means hath it's Effects But he saith there is a Priviledge by it as
stood bound for Onesimus to Philemon and unless Philemon had accounted Paul's Payment or Obligation to Onesimus in respect of any Wrong sustained by him Onesimus is still peccant and an unreconciled Offender in the Eve of Philemon Now the Effects of Righteousness is the Benefits received by Imputation not Imputation it self Suppose the nearest Effects of Christ's Righteousness as Satisfaction Reconciliation Justification Adoption Imputation is cause of those Effects God is satisfied and reconciled and justifies the Sinner because he imputes and reckons to him the payment or appeasing Act of the Surety I argue then 1. That which is a Benefit received by vertue of Imputed Righteousness is not imputed Righteousness it self but God's being satisfied reconciled and Justifying us is the Benefit only of Imputed Righteousness Ergo. As to the Major That thiâ—g which is received by vertue of something else is not the same with it nay they are contraria affirmantia Now God's giving us the Benefit of Imputed Righteousness is that which doth in a way of Justice result from the said Righteousness imputed The Imputation is the Gift of Grace therefore Christ's Righteousness is first imputed and graciously reckoned ours to all intents and purposes Hence results in a way of Justice God's Satisfaction Reconciliation and the Sinners Justification Hence it will needs follow if there be no more in Imputation than God's being satisfyed reconciled Justifying I will say how comes it to pass You 'll say Through Christ's Righteousness it 's an Effect of it I say so too But how come we to have these Effects if God never reckoned and accounted Christ's Righteousness unto us either we are righteous some way or other before God declares us righteous or we are not If not it 's not a true Sentence If we are righteous we are so by our own Righteousness or anothers if by anothers it must be some way or other ours either by Communication of it essentially or by reckoning and esteeming it unto us as if it were ours but to reckon the Effect only is not Imputing of it at all Arg. 2. To say the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness is only the bestowing of the Effects is to ascribe Justification to the Righteousness of Christ in no other sence than we do Sanctification and Glorification for it is to say that Justification is but a Meritorious Benefit and so is Sanctification and Glorification for all those are purchased and procured by him Now there 's a vast difference between payment of a Debt owing and making a purchase of a new Estate it 's true Christ did both he satisfied and he purchased as for the purchase Money there 's no need it should be Imputed to us if the Estate being purchased be bestowed freely it is enough but as for Satisfaction made for our Wrong or Debt this must be reckoned and accounted to us before we can come at a Legal Discharge or procured Riches Arg. 3. To say Christ's Righteousness is Imputed to us only as to Effects is to say That there is some other Righteousness besides this for us to be Justified by for it implies that we are become Righteous by another Righteousness the Priviledge of having whereof is only procured by Christ's Righteousness and the plain truth of it the Original Rise of this Notion is only to open way for another Righteousness to come in to our Justification which is another Gospel yea not only contrary to Sound Doctrine but Radically Destructive to the true Grace and Gospel of Jesus Christ Arg. 4. If we cannot have the Effects of the Righteousness of Christ unless the very Righteousness of Christ be Imputed to us then the Righteousness of Christ is Imputed otherwise than in Effects but we cannot have the Effects of the Righteousness of Christ c. The Consequence of the Major is so clear it needs no proof I prove the Minor we cannot have the Effects of the Righteousness of Christ unless his very Righteousness be Imputed The Reasons are 1. Because our Offences will stand in the Eye of Justice and we shall remain unrighteous having no Righteousness of our own nor any of another reckoned to us For we can be Righteous no other way but by our own or by anothers and Christ's Righteousness signifies nothing as to us if it be not placed to our account and hence being not made Righteous by it can never be Sanctified c. 2. We can have none of the Effects because they all proceed from Love of Reconciliation unto Sinners now the Enmity being not taken away by Satisfaction there is no Reconciliation and therefore we cannot possibly partake of the Effects of Christ's Righteousness Arg. 5. To say we have only the Effects Imputed is to deny Imputation for the Effects are not ours by Imputation but Personally and Really as suppose Justification God doth not Justifie us by Imputing Justification but really upon Imputed Righteousness 2. If Christs very Righteousness be not Imputed or Accounted to us in Justification some other Righteousness must for God cannot Justifie a Sinner without accounting him Righteous by some very Righteousness either of his own or of anothers 2. I prove that the very Righteousness of Christ is Imputed Arg. 1. That Righteousness that satisfied the Justice of God for our Offences is Imputed unto us but the very Righteousness of Christ satisfied the Justice Ergo The Major is very evident for if A do pay Money for B and D to whom it is due accepts it in discharge of B's Debt then D doth place it to B's Account and gives a Receipt accordingly to A as having paid him so much for the use of B. As for the Minor that the very Righteousness of Christ satisfied the Justice of God for us it appears 1. By his Intention in giving himself for us and God's accepting of us in him as his Beloved 2. Because if God be satisfied for our Breach of the Law it can be no other Righteousness that could do it it must also be the very Righteousness and not the Effects now that which God was satisfied with upon our account is accounted to us for if it be not accounted to us it is not accepted for us our Debt stands still and the Hand-writing against us 3. If the very Righteousness of Christ do not satisfie no Effects of Righteousness can for nihil dat quod non habet Arg. 2. That Righteousness which Christ our Advocate pleads for us is Imputed to us But Christ our Advocate pleads his very Righteousness for he entred in with his own Blood and pleads those very Sufferings and that payment upon our very account Heb. 9.14 C. 10.19 20. C. 7.25 Arg. 3. That Righteousness which answers all the demands of the Law on behalf of a Sinner is Imputed to Justification but it was Christ's very Righteousness answered all the demands of the Law in Active and Passive Obedience Rom. 10. Ergo Minor there 's nothing that the Law expects expresly as to
God unto Salvation but not as the Cause this were to change the Covenant of Grace into a Covenant of Works our good Works are the effects of Grace the Reward of good Works are a Reward of Grace Good Works are necessary to Salvation as the Way not as an Instrument or Cause Faith is necessary to Salvation as an Instrument The Active and Passive Obedience of Christ is necessary as a meritorious Cause Calvin Mr. Antisozzo I pray do you now speak impartially to this Point Antisozzo I think I have met with his Scheme before now and as I take it it runs thus and the Question that lies before us is this What Influence the Sacrifice of Christs Death and the Righteousness of his Life have upon our acceptance with God The Gentleman that I once disputed with stated the Question so and resolved it as follows Antisozzo p. 580. All that I can find in Scripture about this is That to this we owe the Covenant of Grace That God being well-pleased with the Obedience of Christ's Life and the Sacrifice of his Death for his sake entred into a new Covenant with Mankind wherein he promises pardon of Sin and eternal Life to those who believe and obey the Gospel I think this is exactly your Scheme Mr. Neonomian Neonom Yes and something more D. W. p. 8. viz. That the Gospel barrs all Vnbelievers and dead Sinners from Pardon and Adoption and denounceth the continuance of Condemnation against them limiting it's Benefits to such as believe Antisozzo This Scheme contains three things 1. A Description of the Covenant of Grace 2. An Assertion that this Covenant of Grace is owing to the Sacrifice and Righteousness of Christ 3. A Supposition that this Righteousness and Sacrifice of Christ hath no other Influence upon our acceptance with God but that for his sake he enrted into such a Covenant with Mankind 1. His Description is this A Promise of the pardon of Sin and Eternal Life to those who believe and obey the Gospel Neonom You will not I hope deny this to be a true Description of the Covenant of Grace Antisozzo But I will for all your hast It is a Description so liable to Exceptions that it describes neither the whole of the Covenant nor a New Covenant nor upon the matter any Covenant at all Neonom If you prove what you say Eris mihi magnus Apollo I 'll strike out your Name from my Book and if I can be convinced I must subscribe yours Antisozzo You shall see what I can do presently 1. This Description gives us very little of a true Covenant of Grace For 1. Tho you think to put us off with a Promise of Pardon and Life to those that believe and obey the true Covenant of Grace hath given us a Promise of that Faith whereby we may believe and of that New Heart whereby we are enabled to obey the Gospel And First We have the Promise of the right Faith in the true Covenant John 6.37 Eph. 1.8 And least it should be said Faith is a common Gift as other things are the Apostle hath his reply ready Eph. 1.19 Secondly We have a direct and express Promise too of that New Heart from which we give to God new Obedience Ezek. 36. Ver. 26 27. c. 2. This Description gives but very little of the true Covenant of Grace there 's a Promise of Pardon and Life to them who believe and obey but Perseverance in Faith and Obedience is left to the Desultory and Lubricous Power of Free Will whereas in the true Câ—venant of Grace there 's an Undertaking that the Covenant shall be immutable both on God's part Jer. 32.38 4. God hath said He will not turn away from doing them good And 2ly He hath promised That they shall not depart from him c. p. 583. 2. As it describes not the whole of the Covenant so it describes not the Nature of a new Covenant 1. It describes no New Covenant in opposition to the Old Covenant of Works The Covenant with Adam promised Life upon condition of Oâ—edience and those Commands as easie as those now given to Mankind and much easier too if we consider Adam's Natural Strength 2. We are told by you that Christ hath added to the Moral Law i. e. to the Moral Duties required by the New Law Faith and Repentance which is to lay more Load on those that were overcharged before So that as you make Covenants Adam's was much the better Covenant of the two but you have wisely shuffled in a Promise of the Pardon of Sin which may seem to give this Covenant a Preheminence above that of Adam But that will not mend the matter both because it 's better to have no Sin in our Natures than such a Remedy better to have no Wound than such a Plaister and also because the Promise of Pardon as you say is suspended upon the condition of Faith and Obedience which without a Supernatural real Influx of immediate Divine Power reduceth the Promise to an impossibility of Performance 2ly This Covenant described is no new Covenant in opposition to the Old Administration of the Covenant of Grace there were the same Promises then that we have now the same Moral Precepts that we have now Though the Word Gospel come in for a Blind yet the Apostle assures us the Gospel was preached to Abraham 3. Upon the matter it 's no Covenant of Grace at all p. 584. For 1. A Promise of Pardon and Life upon condition of believing and obeying is neither better nor worse than a Threatning of Condemnation and Death to them who believe not and obey not It may with equal right be called a Threatning of Death as a Promise of Life It 's no more of Grace than a Covenant of Wrath And therefore 2ly If it be lawful to consider Man as the Word of God describes him dead in Sins and Trespasses It 's no Covenant at all to him For what is the nice difference betwixt the Promise of Life to him that obeys when it 's certain before-hand he cannot obey and no Promise at all c. Neonom Well Sir pray let us call another Cause Do you argue like a Voucher to my Book Mr. Calvinist he is a sharp Man and he doth this only for Argumentation sake he is of my mind for all this Antisozzo No do not you believe that you wheadled me in to vouch for your Book I know not how but I shall stick the closer upon your Skirts for that I have not done with you yet Calvin I will then propound one Question to Mr. Antisozzo Whether the Covenant of Grace be owing to the Sacrifice of Christs Death and so be distinct from that he calls the Covenant of Redemption Because our time now is up speak only what your Judgment is in this Point Antisozzo Mr. Neonomian I must tell you I have narrowly pryed into this Paradox That the Covenant of Grace is owing to procured by and
Question if it be not Faith it self that is meant The Context is so far from relieving our Understandings that it contributeth to our unavoidable Deceit and Ignorance Read over the Texts and put but Christ's Righteousness every where instead of the word Faith and see what a Scandalous Paraphrase you will make the Scripture is not so audaciously to be corrected Calvin Now I shall shew you how by the Orthodox Protestants this Doctrine of Neonomanism hath been opposed as Antichristian and Destructive to the Grace of God Pemble's Treat of Justif c. 2. p. 164. fol. The Learned Mr. Pemble gives the Anatomy of this Doctrine after that he had shewed that Faustus Socinus Michael Servetus Christophorus Ostodorus and Arminius were the Forgers next to the Jesuits and Propagators of this Doctrine Armin. saith he branches out his Opinion in three distinct Propositions 1. Justitia Christi Imputata nobis Christ's Righteousness is Imputed to us 2. Justitia Christi non Imputata in Justitiam the Righteousness of Christ is not Imputed for Righteousness 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Credere Imputatur in Justitiam Believing it self is Imputed for Righteousness We now meddle with the last more roundly expressed Ipsum fidei Actum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Credere Dito Imputari in Justitiam Armin. Epist ad Hippolitum idque sensu proprio non Metonymecè The same is the Opinion of his Fellows the Remonstrants of Voetius Peter Bertius Episcopius c. with whom Bellarmine agrees in the Interp. of Rom. 4. de Justific c. 17. lib. 1. In summ their Opinion runs thus God in the Legal Covenant required exact Gbedience of his Commandment but now in the Covenant of Grace he requires Faith which in his gracious estimations stands instead of that Obedience to the Moral Law which we ought to perform Which comes to pass by the Merit of Christ for whose sake God accounts our imperfect Faith to be perfect Obedience This Assertion exactly Neonomianism and in place thereof we defend this Proposition God doth not Justifie a Man by Faith properly imputing unto him Faith in Christ for his perfect Obedience to the Law and therefore accounting him Just and Innocent in his sight which we prove by these Reasons I 'll but name them 1. We are not Justified by any Work of our own though given by Grace but believing is an act of our own Ergo not by believing The Major is manifest by Scripture which teach we are saved by Grace Eph. 2.5 Tit. 3.6 Rom. 11.6 The Minor is evident that Faith is a Work of ours for though John 6.29 Christ saith this is the Work of God c. yet our Adversaries will not conclude thence that Faith is God's Work within us and not our Work by his help for they 'l say It 's not God believes and Christ repents c. They have two shifts 1. We are not Justified by any Work of our own done by our own strength but by the Aid of Grace A. This distinction of Works done without Grace and Works done by Grace was devised by one that had neither Wit nor Grace being a trick to elude the force of such Scriptures as exclude them indefinitely to our Justification c. Wherefore it s without all ground in Scripture thus to Interpret these Propositions A Man is not Justified by Works i. e. by Works done by the Power of Nature before and without Grace A Man is Justified by Grace i. e. by Works done by Aid of Grace 2. They say We are not Justified by any Works of our own i. e. by any Works of the Law but by a Work of the Gospel such as Faith is we may be Justified by there 's no ground in Scripture for this distinction nor in reason for both tell us that Works commanded in the Law and in the Gospel are one and the same for the substance of them Luke 10.27 Deut. 6.5 What Sin against the Gospel that is not a Transgression of the Law Is Charity one doth not the Law command it Is Faith one doth not the Law enjoyn the same Obj. But it commands not Faith in Christ A. It doth for that which commands us in general to believe commands us to believe whatever God shall make known to us Arg. 2. God only accounts that perfect Righteousness of the Law which is so in deed and in truth but Faith is not the perfect fulfilling of the Law Ergo Here our Neonomians will except and say They differ from the Arminians in saying That Christ only hath merited that our Imperfect Righteousness shall be accepted instead of perfect which hath worser absurdity in it as shall appear Arg. 3. We are not Justified by two Righteousnesses existing in two divers Subjects but if we are Justified by Christ's Righteousness and the VVork of Faith we are Justified by two Righteousnesses existing in two Subjects Ergo. I shall only leave with you the Opinion of the Orthodox Protestants concerning Justification by Faith who have strenuosly opposed the Papists Socinians Arminians and Neonomians in this Point He is Justified by Faith who excludes the Righteousness of VVorks Calv. Instit lib. 3. c. 111 de Justific fidei and apprehends the Righteousness of Christ wherewith being cloathed in the sight of God he appears not as a Sinner but Justified So that we Interpret Justification simply an Acceptance whereby God doth account us for Righteous Ones who are received into his Favour and we say That it i. e. Acceptio Acceptance is placed in the Remission of Sins and Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ Justification hath two parts Remission of Sins and Imputation of Christ's Righteousness Mr. Perkins in the Order and Causes of Salv. c. 37. p. 81. Remission of Sins is that part of Justification whereby he that believes is freed from the Guilt and Punishment by the Passion of Christ Colos 1.21 22. 1 Pet. 2.24 Imputation of Righteousness is the other part of Justification whereby such as believe having the Guilt of their Sins covered are accounted Just in the fight of God through the Righteousness of Christ 2 Cor. 5.21 Psal 32.1 Rom. 4. tot cap. Phil. 3.8 9. The form of Justification is as it were a kind of Translation of the Believers Sins unto Christ and again Christ's Righteousness unto the Believer by a Reciprocal and Mutual Imputation Justification is the Gracious Sentence of God whereby for the sake of Christ apprehended by Faith Ames Medul c. 27. he absolves a Believer from Sin and Death and counts him Righteous Rom. 3.22 24. § 17 18. Christ is the adequate Object of Faith as it justifies Faith also upon no other account justifies but as it apprehends that Righteousness for which we are justified and that Righteousness is not in the Truth of any Axiom to which we give Assent but in Christ alone who was made Sin for us that we may be the Righteousness of God in him 2 Cor. 5.21 Hence those Sermons in
Antinom Very good then sure if the Spirit be an Earnest of Glory it 's an Evidence of Glory for what is a greater Evidence of a state than an Earnest Yea you say it 's also a Witness of our state if it be a Witness it is by a Testimony and if it bear Testimony and such an one as we take to be a Witness to our state it is something to this purpose Christ is thine thy Sins are Forgiven it must witness something that may beget in the Soul a joyful sence of its reconciled state there contrary to you Assurance must come in the immediate objective Revelation of the Spirit by the Spirits speaking in the Promise believed God is thy God Christ is thine thy Sins are taken away or something to this purpose Neither is this absurd to say the Spirit speaks thus ordinarily by a Voice because it is so interpretatively the Lord speaks when he causeth his Word to speak effectually unto the Heart and whatever Truth of God is made efficacious by the Spirit the Spirit speaks by it If any word of Promise become a truely comforting Word the Spirit as Comforter speaks by it you have granted us here in a manner as much as we can desire in this Point excepting an Equivocating Expression viz. as a Worker of Grace and whatever Evasion you have there this I will say that you make the Spirit an Evidence in its Efficiency it self as an Efficient whereas Signs and Marks are but Evidences as Effects And is not the Spirit received in its first sensible Efficiency in and by the Promise a great Evidence Gal. 3.3 2 Pet. 1.3 Neonom Nor whether the Spirit witnesseth by and with the Conscience in the manifestation of our Graces for Assurance Calvin It is a strange thing that you should make such a loud Cry in the World against a Man for Errour when you in a manner say the same thing and the Word of God asserts it so positively that the Spirit is the Comforter and witnesseth with our Spirits that we are his Children and you say as the Worker of Grace i. e. of all Grace and therefore of this Grace and if it works it must be by some Word of Peace that it speaks and is believed and you say it witnesses by and with the Conscience the Conscience speaking in and by the Spirit and how is the Conscience made to speak Peace more than by the sprinkling of the Blood of Christ whereby an Evil Condemning Conscience is taken away what manifestation of Grace works Peace most the manifestation of the Grace of Christ or of our Graces And these must appear to be the Graces of Christ and slow from him or else they are no Graces the Witness of the Spirit and the Intelligible believed Voice of the Spirit particularly applying the Declaration of the Gospel of Peace must be in all and is the most settled ground of all comfortable Assurance Neonom Nor whether the Spirit of God may in some Extraordinary Cases give an immediate Testimony by a Voice or some Equivalent Impressions D. W. p. 164. Antinom 1. You grant that sometimes the Spirit may witness by Voice or Equivalent Impressions 2. The Extraordinary Cases you here speak of must be meant of some not so usual in an ordinary way 3. I would know whether then the Spirit is to be believed and how its Voice may be distinguished from the Voice of a False Spirit 4. Whether when you speak of a Voice you mean an Articulate sound or such a still Voice as the Spirit speaks by which is an Impression of Gospel Truth with a particular application to the Soul this as you say is Equivalent to a Voice and it is the Eccho of the Word of Promise in the Heart and this is not an Extraordinary nor unusual way bringing Souls to settled Peace and Comfort Neonom But then there was the Truth of Grace though it was doubted before and nothing utterly inconsistent with true Grace either in the Heart nor then appeareth to the Conscience Antinom So that there is first a Witness from our selves before there 's Witness from the Spirit but how comes it that this Witness from our selves hath not Credit enough with it to be believed For if it hath whence comes doubting Here 's truth of Grace and nothing appears to the contrary and yet the Person doubts Doth any Man doubt of any thing when he apprehends nothing to the contrary And you say there 's the Truth of Grace before the Spirit witnesseth who wrought this truth of Grace do you not say that it witnesseth to our state as a Worker of Grace Neonom I will tell you where the true difference lyes 1. Whether none attain Assurance but by the Inward Voice of the Spirit pronouncing the Actual Forgiveness of Sins without manifesting their true Grace and Sanctification This you affirm and I deny Antinom You should have made the first Question whether any Assurance is attainable till Death because Perseverance is one of your Infallible Marks and all others signifie nothing unless we can take up upon that and that must run out to the last moment before we can 2. We affirm that there can be no Assurance without knowledge that our Sins are Forgiven assign an Assurance without it if you can and your Assurance from marks must come to this if it be Assurance 3. This must be by the Spirits pronouncing of it or no way when you have found all that you can it 's God must speak peace or else it will never be and Peace of Reconciliation however you Banter God's Reconciling the World and the Spirits bringing home the Word of Reconciliation 4. Who ever spake of the Spirits manifesting Forgiveness without manifestation of the whole Grace of God that brings Salvation in Sanctification as well as Justification both comes under the Witness of the Spirit and therefore you are besides the Question and state it not right Neonom The next Question is Whether the usual way of attaining Assurance is by the Conscience upon Tryal discerning and concluding through the help of the Spirit that a Man hath those Graces or Signs which describe a Man Blessed and Pardoned according to the Gospel This I affirm and you deny Antinom 1. That I deny Sanctification to be a sign of Justification is false for that which is an undoubted Effect is a sign of the Cause and an Argument of it to conclude it by 2. It 's not the Question whether it be not the usual way of attaining Assurance de facto such Gospel Preachers as you are still putting them upon this way and telling them there 's no other safe way 3. The Question is whether this be the only way Whether another way ought not to go first Neonom I will now confirm the Truth by some Arguments 1. This is the way that God appoints to attain Assurance 2 Cor. 13.5 2 Pet. 1.10 Antinom This is one way who denies it and a Duty
he must have a new justification upon the commitment of some sins which the first did not reach 2. Whether the general Exercise of Faith and Repentance so far as to answer the Gospel-rule be a sufficient Condition for Justification from some Sins and not from all Calvin Well now Gentlemen we have danc'd pretty fairly about this Point with your Whethers let us dance back again or else we shall be giddy and the World turn round with us Neonom My Brains are more setled than so I will lead him another dance yet Mr. Antinomian come dance with me again you know little of my mind yet I will tell you the real differences 1. Whether an elect sinner be at any time a guilty person in God's esteem This you deny and I affirm I have proved it in our Debate 1 3 7 12. D. W. p. 174. Antinom This is not fair you have taken a great leap back to begin with from a Believer to an Elect Person which you say you have proved in former Debates we have answered and therefore need not harp always on one string Neonom Whether the Remains of Sin defile us This I affirm and the Doctor denies against all Protestants who prove it of Original Sin against the Papists Antinom If you understand defilement as to our Justification I say the remains of Sin do not defile us if it be understood in respect of Sanctification you 'l see Gentlemen that I shall assert Sin 's defilement of the best of our Duties so much that it makes them as Dung and yet this Neonomian is so audacious as to say this he affirms and the Doctor denies and that he goes with the Protestants when every ordinary Christian may see that he goes with the Papists in every thing and opposeth me in this point of the Saints defilement by sin Neonom Whether a justified person falling into gross Enormities is defiled thereby and contracts guilt upon himself thereby This the Doctor denies and I do affirm Antinom You have not proved one word that was said of the guilt of a justified person i. e. it 's one thing to contract guilt of Conscience and another thing to be judicially condemned Said you not but just now that God may present to a Christian's view former sins for further humblings where he doth not judicially charge sin a Believer may have guilt then upon his Conscience and not be guilty before God 2. Do you not say a Believer ought not to question his Justification but upon such causes as make him question his state and truth of Faith 3. Where is it that I say any sin doth not defile especially gross Enormities if they need the fresh applications of the Blood of Christ by Faith they do defile and defile Conscience too but the Blood of Christ reaching the Conscience in believing washeth away this guilt and defilement where your humblings and resolves will not Neonom Whether God esteems the repeated Abominations of Believers not to be their own Crimes and they not to be sinners but they are Christ's sins This the Doctor affirms and I deny Antinom Your affirmation and negation is not worth troubling ourselves about were it not to undeceive such as are deluded by you we have told you our minds already sufficiently about that we do affirm That all Sins and Abomination of every Elect Person was laid on Christ by God and accounted his Judicially and that in justification the Justified Person hath not his sins not one from the first moment of his justification imputed unto him before God whatsoever contracted guilt he may have upon his Conscience at any time by reason of relapses is but God's presenting former or present sins to his view for his humbling without judicial charging of him in the Court of Heaven Neonom Whether a justified person upon new Provocations is charged by God and ought to charge himself as guilty and defiled so as in God's appointed way to repent believe and renew his Covenant and be earnest with God for forgiveness This the Doctor denies and I affirm Antinom In part I deny it and in part I do not 1. A justified Person upon new Provocations is not charged by God as under and liable to the condemnation of the Law under Wrath and Curse 2. It 's one thing to confess guilty to the Fact and confess a Man's self under the Sentence the former ought to be but the other ought not A Man that 's a Felon may come to the Bar and confess himself guilty when he hath the Pardon in his Pocket Do we not assert that it 's our duty to confess sin repent c. but these things must flow from Faith fix'd on the pardoning Mercy of God in Christ or else all our Humblings and Resolves what do they signifie Do we not assert Faith and Repentance renewing our Covenant is exerted in God's way and not yours Neonom Whether all Sins past present and to come are actually pardoned at once This you affirm and I deny Antinom Among all these Enquiries about the state of the Question I think you are nearest to it now for now you speak plainest and I shall speak my mind as plainly that all a justified Persons sins are pardoned at once as well those that are to be committed as they that are committed already Neonom Whether God hath required new Exercises of Faith and Repentance for their actual Pardon This you deny and I affirm Antinom He requireth not new Exercises of Faith and Repentance as federal Conditions of actual Pardon it is always in and through and for the sake of Christ at first and afterward and by Faith renewed this Grace is manifested anew unto the Soul and Repentance follows thereupon as a Fruit thereof Pardon renewed to justified ones is but in taking of the present view of their sins as you say that God hath set before them he makes them to hear joy and gladness Psal 5.8 i. e. a repeated manifestation of their Pardon in believing Neonom Whether a Believer ought to be assured of the Forgiveness of his repeated Provocations just when he hath committed them and before he hath humbled himself renewed actings of Faith on Christ repeated his Covenant prayed for Pardon for Christ's sake as after he hath thus done This you affirm and I deny Antinom This that I affirm is That there is the same ground of believing Pardon in Christ to a justified one before his Confessions and Humblings as after 2. That his assurance of Pardon after these Humblings is not grounded upon them but the Promise and his free and full Justification 3. That he is to betake himself to these Humblings in Faith of the Promise of Pardon or else all the rest will leave him as they find him 4. And after you have muddied and confounded the clear Gospel as much as you can you tell us there must be a renewing our actings of Faith in Christ and praying for Pardon for Christ's sake which
of the Gospel is the Righteousness of another the Righteousness of God in him of another in another 2 Cor. 5. last Now take this for a Rule What Righteousness soever it be that justifieth a Man with God it must be perfect whether it be a Righteousness of the Law or the Gospel Again it must be his own Now that it is our own it is not meant as if the Gospel Righteousness was not ours tho' it be not our own originally yet it must be ours derivatively from Christ it is not our own being in us but it is ours by Imputation imputed or accounted to us it is not our own by Works but it is ours by Faith it is not our own of our selves but it s ours of God Neonom Hold not too much of that Doctrin you make us to be as Righteous as Christ This Doctrin of imputing the very Righteousness of Christ to us I cannot down with it 's Christ's Righteousness but it cannot become ours but in the effect Mr. R. V. But I say the Righteousness we stand upon must be perfect and it must be ours legal Righteousness is perfect if a Man fall by one Sin whether in doing or misdoing the Ladder is broken On the other side the Righteousness of Christ it is perfect if it be not perfect it cannot be Righteousness 't is made a Sinners by Imputation by Faith in Christ p. 162 163. Neonom My whole Book is to prove this Man's Doctrin to be false Mr. R. V. Come on then Mr. Reonom I will come to the Demonstration That there are but two sorts of Righteousnesses and by this Point I must drive you and every Man up into a corner for a Man must be brought to a choice of one of them and if he standeth upon one of them which is by the Law he falleth the Point will drive you to a necessity of Christ and Faith Now that there are but two will appear thus The Righteousness of the Law and the Righteousness of God are described named distinguished Rom. 10.6 7 8 9. and Chap. 11.3 Now mark in Scripture you find these Phrases and Expressions Grace free Grace Christ or Redemption of Christ the Promise or the Gospel Faith the Righteousness of God you may find all these upon one File ranked together Neonom Ay but I value one if joined with a Duty and Benefit before all those according to my Logick Mr. R. V. On the other side you shall find the Law Works our own Righteousness Debt our Wages by Debt Boasting and Glorying these make another File There 's no third all must come under one of these Files if it be one it 's the Righteousness of God by Faith of Christ if it be the other it 's the Righteousness of the Law by our own Works By this 't is plain that there are but two sorts of Righteousness And consider the two Adams were certainly but two common Roots and the foundation of two Covenants the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace Neonom Stay there I deny all that Doctrin Mr. R. Vines But I 'll go on The Adams being two consequently the Covenants are two and consequently the Righteousnesses are of two sorts and no more p. 164 165 166. You confound Law and Gospel learn the difference between Law and Gospel it is of the greatest Consequence most useful to the Conscience of Man in the World to the settlement of an Estate in regard of Life and Salvation to his Soul Law promiseth Life and Salvation to the Doer upon condition of perfect and perpetual Obedience The Gospel freely promiseth Justification to every one that believeth in Christ Neonom But this believing is doing Mr. R. V. This Gospel Righteousness excludeth Works as any cause in the World by which you should be justified with God Many will be looking for good Tidings from the Law which is only brought to you as the Olive-leaf in the Mouth of the Gospel p. 167 168. Doct. These two sorts of Righteousnesses are inconsistent and opposite the one to the other not having mine own but having the Righteousness of God The Scripture is full of their Oppositions and Contrarieties for if you mark it 's said to be of the obedience of one by which we are made Righteous not the obedience of two viz. mine own and Christ's together but one directly see Rom. 5.21 And do you see every where a plain Opposition between Faith and Works the Law and Faith Works and Grace Doth there not come a But Rom. 10.5 Gal. 3.12 16. chap. 5.4 Rom. 9.31 32. See how they are opposed 1. It is excluded as Matter of our Righteousness with God for that which is the Matter of our Righteousness with God is the Obedience of Christ Now to bring your own Righteousness into this place as the Matter of your Righteousness with God is to mingle your Obedience with Christ's So it 's not the Obedience of one but the Obedience of two 2. It 's excluded as the Motive to move God if you bring your own Righteousness into this place you mingle it with free Grace Rom. 3.24 if you make it any Motive you must bring it into the place of Jesus Christ 3. It 's excluded as the Instrument which should receive the Righteousness of God if you bring it into this then you bring it into the place of Faith for Faith is only the Hand that taketh hold of the Gospel Righteousness therefore he saith the Righteousness of God which is by the Faith of Jesus Christ Now if there be no room for these three it followeth 't is thrust out a Doors pag. 171 172. Neonom Then you may thrust me and my Book both out of Doors for it hath been my Design wholly throughout my Book to establish this Righteousness of our own these three ways 1. To join it with the Righteousness of Christ in Justification under the Name of subordinate Righteousness and a Condition c. 2. To foist it into the Grace of God as a Motive under the Name of Meetness 3. To give it the same place and nature in Justification as Faith in that I make Faith to justifie as its doing and as a working Condition Mr. R. V. Out of this Description we shall take up four Points 1. They that are in Christ have Righteousness with God there 's an Emphasis in the words they that are in Christ have the Righteousness the only Righteousness c. The Papists say We have Righteousness by Works we say we have it by Imputation yet they that have this Righteousness by Imputation have it truly and they are made Righteous by it pag. 176. They have this Righteousness with God mark they have that which sets them right with God into a state of favour and acceptation that which dischargeth all Guilt and Condemnation They have that which freeth them from every Charge every Endictment every Sentence of the Law of God they have that which setteth them into Friendship and