Sir I shall no longer detain you from the ensuing Discourse but subscribe my self Yours in all Truth and Faithfulness J. C. THE DOCTRINE OF Iustification Explained and Vindicated c. CHAPTER I. Of the Doctrine of Iustification and the Neonomian Opposition thereto Section 1. The Article of the Assembly § 2. How opposed in the universality of Grace and qualification of the person justified § 3. How Neonomianism agrees with Papists and Quakers in Justification by Infused Righteousness § 4. How they oppose in Pardon of Sin and Imputing Righteousness § 5. Their agreement with the Papists in Justification by Works § 6. The Papists Talk of a New Law § 7. Quakers Doctrine of Justification § 8. The Socinian Doctrine of Justification § 9. The Arminian Justification § 10. Inference § 11. They assert Justification not for Christ's sake alone 12. Neonomians affirm Imputation of the Act of Faith § 13. They deny the Imputation of Christs Obedience and Satisfaction § 14. How they account Faith a qualifying Condition § 15. Conclusion Sect. 1. ASsembl conf cap. 11. § 1. Those whom God effectually calleth he also freely justifieth not by infusing Righteousness into them but by pardoning their Sins 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 nor by imputing Faith it self the Act of believing nor any other Evangelical Obedience to them 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 To this Doctrine here delivered with the greatest Exactness according to the Word of God is the Doctrine of Neonomianism diametrically opposite as will abundantly appear § 2. They say Whom God effectually calleth he justifieth Mr. B. saith God justifieth all the World and he and Mr. H. ' That Christ redeemed all the World in which there are Millions that were never or will be effectually called 2. That God freely justifieth This is fuller expressed in the Larger Catechism Q. 70. Justification is an act of God's free grace unto Sinners Rom. 3.21 23 24. for the free Grace is demonstrated in the Object that Justification falls upon Justification considered in it self is an act of Justice but the Free Grace lies in bringing Justification upon a Sinner as such not as qualified by righteousness of his own under any Denomination whatsoever Christ died for the ungodly for enemies while yet sinners Rom. 5.6 7 8 9. it is such chap. 3. that are said to be justified chap. 4.5 by free Grace it is such that have sinned and come short of the glory of God as all he saith have both Jews and Gentiles such as are described from v. 10. of whom none are righteous no not one but full of all sin and wickedness as expressed with the highest aggravation unto v. 19. Now our Neonomians say it s of Free Grace because Justification is an Instance of Grace but by Mr. Cl's favour it must be in the Justification of a Sinner not of a just one and therefore it s said freely by Grace because he hath nothing nor brings any thing in or from himself 2. He saith It s in respect of what is required of us or in us Faith is wrought in us and it s of Free Grace that he accepts of Faith and imputes it to us for righteousness This by the Assembly is rejected as False Doctrine altho Faith and all the Graces of the Spirit are of Grace yet neither Faith or any of them are our righteousness for Justification neither doth God accept it as such nor impute it Mr. Cl. mightily perverts Rom. 4.16 therefore it is of faith ' i. e. the righteousness before spoken of is such as he received by faith he saith not therefore it is faith that it might be of grace because as Grace gives freely so Faith receiveth freely and is not so proud as to call it self righteousness but gladly humbly and thankfully receives the gift of righteousness which Grace bestows and Justice accepts and imputes to Justification § 3. Not by infusing righteousness into them The Assembly doth here exclude the Popish Justification at which Mr. H. inveighs and so doth J. G. for indeed there 's but a pair of Shears between the Papists and Neonomians for the Papists mean only That we have the righteousness for Justification by infusion and so says the other they say indeed Infusion is of Sanctification and it is so and we say Justification is only a relative Grace as it finds nothing in the justified so it puts nothing but the Neonomians say It must find a righteousness infused and there implanted in the justified for which he is justified or by which it s all one as we shall make appear anon in a word tho the Neonomians say The infusion of grace is not justification yet they say Grace infused is our righteousness for Justification and here they do concur with the Papists Quakers and others in confounding Justification and Sanctification together § 4. But by pardoning their sins The Neonomians will not have Pardon to be any part of Justification but an effect of it only we affirm it to be an essential part of Justification By accounting and accepting their persons as righteous The Neonomians say it s by accounting and accepting their imperfect obedience for righteousness God's Justification is first of the Person and then of their Services as Abel's but their Justification is first of their Services and so it is always in legal Justification never in that of Free Grace for in a meer Legal Justification Persons cannot be accepted before the Work done but the Person is accepted for the Work sake Not for any thing wrought in them or done by them The Papists Neonomians Quakers Socinians Arminians all say its for or by what 's wrought in us or done by us Pap. Cons Trid. There is one only formal cause of Justification and that is the righteousness of God not that whereby he is righteous but whereby he makes us righteous with which we being endowed are renewed in the spirit of our minds and are truly called righteous and are righteous c. Upon which Bellarmine saith the State of the whole Controversie may be reduc'd to this plain Question Whether our inherent righteousness be the formal cause of our own absolute Justification which he maintains in the Affirmative and this is the Question in Controversie exactly which our Neonomians plead for in the like manner tho some more obscurely and sophistically but others more honestly in speaking out plainly what they mean such as Mr. B. Mr. H. and Mr. Cl. Bellarmine also blames Kemnitius for dealing fraudulently in not distinguishing between propter and per saying with the Council of Trent That Christ's Righteousness is the propter the cause for which we we are justified and our own inherent
of all the elect a slander and imposed expression that none ever said the reatum culpae or guilt of fault and so he bore the sins of all the Elect by real imputation this is truth which Mr. B. chargeth as one of his hundred Antinomian Errors Er. 18. p. 10. Again being made sin for us is meant a sacrifice for sin so Mr H. and used as a sinner why should he be used as a sinner if sin was not charged upon him sure very unjustly If God imputed sin to Christ or accounted Christ a sinner he must be by sin hateful to God c. and Christ suffered for his own sins c. Scr. G. d. p. 30 31. If Christ had bin a sinner in his individual person these consequences might have held but Christ being by Law-imputation made sin in order to the Salvation of Sinners it s otherwise therefore doth my Father love me because I lay down my life for my sheep Is a rich person and honourable hated in the Court and detested because he enters himself Debtor for some Ludgate Prisoners Socin The meaning of these words 2 Cor. 5.21 is not that he was made sin for us by God's imputation but that he was made a sacrifice for sin the word made is a word of Election and Ordination Pinct Dial. to which Mr. Norton answers thus He was made sin for us as we are made righteousness i. e. by judicial imputation without the violation yea with establishing of Justice as he was made curse Gal. 3.13 because he was the sin-offering in truth therefore be was made sin by real imputation Nort. against Pinch Quak. We deserved those things that Christ endured and much more for our sins but that God ever reputed him a sinner is denied neither did he ever dy that we should be reputed righteous by his being made sin for us must be understood his suffering for our sins that we might be made partakers of the grace purchased by him by the working whereof we are made the righteousness of God in him Barch Apol. of Just p. 376. Thus you see how Sister Sects run hand in hand together Thus far of Imputation here which should have bin continued to imputation of Righteousness The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness being the main Point which the Neonomians oppose but because it will be the main subject of our ensuing Discourse we pass it over in this Chapter CHAP. V. Of Imputation of Righteousness unto the Iustification of a Sinner Sect. 1. Righteousness imputed and what § 2. Cardinal Bellarmine a Middle-way-man and so Quakers too and Socinians § 3. How consonant Neonomians are to that Fraternity § 4. They make inherent Holiness to be our Righteousness § 5. Why pardoned after justified and of subordinate righteousness § 6. Of Legal and Evangelical Guilt § 7. Of Mr. Cl's definition of Justification and of incompleat Justification in this life Sect. 1. THat Righteousness is imputed to the Justification of a sinner before God is held on all sides but the great Controversie lies here What Righteousness is it Is it our own inherent righteousness or the righteousness of another the Neonomians with the Papists say it s our own which is the formal cause of our Justification we say that Christ's Righteousness is the material cause of our Justification and Imputation the formal Mr. H. excludes the Merits of Christ from any of the essential causes and makes it only modum efficientis something in the hand of the efficient it may be an instrument but at the best it s but causa ministrans by way of efficiency but enters not that effect as any essential Cause Mr. H. would find out some little Difference between the Papists and himself but it s so little that he can hardly render it visible The Counsel of Trent saith thus There is only one formal Cause of Justification which is the Righteousness of God not whereby he is Righteous but whereby he makes us Righteous viz. which he hath bestowed on us whereby we are renewed in the Spirit of our minds and are not only reputed Just but are truly called Righteous and are so and it follows In this is the Justification of the Vngodly whilst for the Merit of that most Holy Passion the Love of God is shed abroad by the Holy Ghost in the Hearts of them that are justified and inherent in them whence in Justification it self with Remission of Sins this is together with it infused c. Sess 6. c. 7. Mr. H. agrees with them that our inherent Righteousness is the formal Cause and that it is for the Merits of Christ that this Righteousness is wrought in us that therefore it 's called the Righteousness of God Bellarmine in Defence of the Doctrine of the C. of Tr. says the State of this whole Controversie may be reduced to this one Question Whether or no the formal Cause of Absolute Justification be Righteousness inhering in us Which he endeavours to maintain in the Affirmative Mr. H. would have some difference from the Papists in that they say Justification is by Infusion of Righteousness whereas he saith Infusion of Grace is Sanctification but Justification is by Grace infused of the two I take the Papist to be rightest in constitutive Justification and to have less of Merit in it whereas Mr. H. Justification is by Sanctification wrought first which carries more of Merit and less of Grace for here Justification appears at first sight to be ex condigno the good qualification of the Subject Yea the Papists go further then Mr. H. for he will not have Imputation of Christs Righteousness nor Remission of Sins to have any place in Justification which the Papists own to be Parts of our Justification for the Council of Trent do Anathametize those only that teach that a Man is justified only by Imputation of Christs Righteousness and Remission of Sins without inherent Grace and Charity yea I do not find that this Neonomian Doctrine comes any whit short of the Popish Doctrine of Justification nay it out-does it in daring Contradiction to the the Gospel § 2. See what a Middle-way Man the Cardinal is if he go far enough He gives his Sense of Rom. 3.24 Justified freely i.e. from his mere liberality as to our Merits for we cannot deserve to be justified by any Work of ours and this Bounty of God is the efficient Cause but we are justified by his Grace i. e. by a Righteousness given and infused by him is not this Mr. H. exactly what doth he trifle for about Infusion and this is the formal Cause we are justified also by the Redemption of Christ and this is the meritorious Cause Lastly we are justified by Faith in the Blood of a Propitiator and this the disposing Cause from hence we may learn that every sincere Neonomian is a Papist in the Point of Justification and that the Popish Doctrine of Justification is the Middle-way between the Calvinists and Arminians See but a
sanctified but where there is the cause working there is the effect wrought and the justified is but the effect and constitutes no distinct species of it But we say the Grace of Justification of a Sinner proceeding from Grace is wholly in and from God and hath no cause in a Sinner material or formal nor is there any cause external of that Grace the moving cause only is the good will and pleasure of God he is gracious to whom he will graciousness pardoning Iniquity is only from his Grace and for the glory of his Grace which cannot be in the Justification of a righteous person but because not simply Grace but also Justice shall be glorified in a sinner's justification and God in his pardon will not clear the guilty he hath graciously provided and bestowed on the sinner a righteousness accepted by the Law and imputed to him that he may appear therein just and so just in administration of righteousness as not to infringe his Justice in the least but to the highest honor of the Law standing in its full force against the sinner without the least Relaxation This is done quite contrary to the Neonomian Doctrine therefore Gods Justification falling upon a Sinner makes actually a correlate to Gods justifying and faith is no more than the Sinners reception of this Grace no part of that righteousness by which faith or for which the Sinner is justified neither is it a grain of that righteousness which is imputed to him § 9. Mr. H. also hath another distinction between condition and duty which I will not stay upon because its frivolous and it is because he will have the duties of the Law to be performed by us tho we be not justified by them he insists upon a Relaxation of the old Law but not a total Abolition Mr. Bax. Opinion is that its abrogated as much as the Ceremonial Law wherein both penalty and duty is taken away and indeed Mr. B. is in the right according to his notion for the introduction of a New Law in the room of it and for the ends that the old Law was establisht is certainly the nulling of the said old Law but how then can Mr. B. be secured from a just charge of Antinomian viz. that moral duties are not required of us which is more Antinomian than I ever saw in any he chargeth with it he hath one poor shift which is that the duties of the old-Law are taken or spunged up in the conditions of the New but however the broken pieces are pickt up the Law it self is gone and there 's no transgression upon that account Mr. H. saith the Law 's only relaxed but his relaxation is no better than a Crack in the middle of a Glass and heart of it and he hath not told us how far this relaxation goes and every man will be ready to plead for his own sin that the Law in that respect is relaxt But he would have us believe that the moral duties still remain how relaxt or not If relaxt then at least to an indifferency a man may do them or not without any sin but he saith they are re-established in the New-Law if so they are re-established without the Relaxation and then the New-Law is as strict as the Old or with the relaxation and then all duties are required with abatement as to quality and quantity with an allowance of sin our posse or velle and what is more Antinomianism But saith he the Conditions are not Duties It was never affirmed by men of reason that the Condition of a Law is not a Duty for that which is required of us upon pain of punishment is always a Duty and to the Condition of the New-Law the highest because it hath the Sanction of a Law of the Highest he that continueth not in all things by way of performance that it requireth is cursed by it if it be but imperfect obedience it saith he that continueth not in imperfect obedience is cursed by it therefore when the Saints come to Heaven and fall into perfect obedience they fall under the Curse of the new law or else it s out of doors before they come there or the last day and the World can't be judged by it Lastly What are the conditions of imperfect obedience are they not Duties of Righteousness by the performance whereof Mr. H. will have us justified Yes this cannot be denied but the distinction will hold with a quatenus as they refer to the absolute relaxed Laws they are Duties i. e. as they respect no Law or a lawless Law and as they refer to the New Law they are Conditions and are not Duties Hence it s no Duty to perform the Conditions of the New Law for Justification thereby and this is the Truth which we stand by though infer'd truly from Mr. H's Logick and Divinity CHAP. IX An Answer to Mr. H's Arguments against Imputation of Christs Righteousness Section 1. Arguments Artificial or Inartificial § 2. His First Argument against the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness answered § 3. His Second Argument Answered § 4. His Third Argument Answered § 5. Mr. H's Argument for Faith and Obedience being the formal part of Justification First Answer § 6. The Assumption by parts § 7. Argument the Second Answered § 8. Mr. H's Third Argument Answered with his Fourth Argument § 9. Of Constitutive Justification Sect. 1. NOw it is time to come to Examine the grounds of Mr. H. and Mr. C's Doctrine in this Point of Justification And First I shall treat of them that are the reasoning Arguments Artificial as called in Logick the weakest in Divinity and then those that are pretended from Scripture which in Logick are called inartificial but if grounded upon Divine Testimony the best and strongest § 2. Against the Imputation of Christs Righteousness he argues thus How can God account our Sins to be Christs and his Righteousness ours when really they are not so and Gods Judgment is according to Truth Resp this is used again and again by Mr. B to which I shall Answer 1. By retorting the Medium and not so tedious to put it into any other form how can God account our own New Law righteousness to be justifying righteousness when in its own nature it s no righteousness Mr. H. saith so over and over and Gods judgment is according to Truth now see the honesty of these Men God must not make a Judgment according to Truth in imputing Christs perfect righteousness to us because it was not personally performed by us and imputing our Sins to Christ because they were not actually committed by him and yet God makes a judgment according to Truth in imputing our own paultry sinful righteousness to us for our righteousness when they themselves say its really no righteousness 2. Is not his righteousness ours The Scripture saith it is and our Sins made his they say it doth not that we will try God willing but for the present we ask what if
justified it is not imputed that we may have it but because we have it it is imputed Mr. H. herein goes against himself Or else if we have it it must be imputed to some other end than to have it Answ Yes it s imputed legally that we may be justified we have it by gift prius natura by gift of Grace for we must have the righteousness before the Law can judge we have it because legal Judgment is according to Truth Mr. H's Justification runs thus far that we must have a righteousness before it is imputed nay and he saith its by Gift too Now if Christ did obey or suffer in our persons or as our legal person so as in law sence we have and are accounted to have obeyed and suffered in him then can his righteousness consisting of his Obedience and Sufferings be neither imputed to us that we may have it or be made ours or reckoned to us as ours seeing we have it already it is ours it is reckoned as ours in that it was performed in our persons nor can it be imputed to us to any other end or thing but ad justitiam which is to the same end and for the same thing and can be no other Resp Mr. H. thinks this Argument irrefrigable and that it will carry all before it but poor men as most opposers of truth have the unhappiness to smite with the backs of their Swords and cut themselves with the edge Mr. H. argues if we have Christ's righteousness we cannot have it by Imputation We do not say we have it by imputation any other than a legal allowance that we have it having it is antecedent to the legal allowance it is not so in their Principles we have our own righteousness before it is imputed to us But if in a law-sence we are accounted to have obeyed and suffered in Christ then his righteousness cannot be imputed unto us cujus contrarium verum yea therefore it s imputed unto us for one man's payment is not reckoned and imputed to another unless the payment be made in his person in a law-sence it is ours and reckoned as ours in that it was performed in our persons he saith therefore as such it is reckoned and imputed to us nor can it be imputed to us for any other end than for righteousness we say and you say § 5. Mr. H's Arguments for Faith and Obedience being the Formal Cause of our Justification we shall examine in the next place they are as Mr. Cl. hath gathered them up By the consent of all Divines That righteousness which denominates us righteous in the sight of God must be the form or formal part of our Justification But neither Regeneration nor Christ's Righteousness nor Pardon is that which justifies per modum causae formalis and therefore it must be Faith Resp 1. He should have added imputed to the things enumerated in the minor for he saith to Mr. C. he means so 2. If he doth mean so he putteth the material and formal cause together and therefore I shall deny his Minor under the term of essential causes which takes in his formal As to the major I except that all the Divines do not hold that righteousness that denominates us righteous before God is the formal cause but insist on the minors denial that the righteousness of Christ doth not denominate us righteous before God for so should the assumption be the Syllogism as it stands is false having one medium in Major another in the Minor Dare Mr. H. be so scandalous as to speak out his Minor as he ought by his Medium That Christ's Righteousness doth not denominate us righteous in the sight of God its plain that he shifts it off by a wrong Assumption and according to that fault makes his Proof And I only say that there 's no righteousness can denominate us righteous in the sight of God but what is fully satisfactory to the Law that condemns us but there 's no righteousness fully satisfactory to the Law that condemns us but Christ's let Mr. H. shew any other if he can and as for the righteousness of the New Law which he pleads for he acknowledgeth that it s no righteousness in its own nature that it needs Pardon at the Bar of the Old Law and therefore it cannot denominate us righteous in the sight of God § 6. He proceeds to prove his false Assumption by parts 1. That Christ's righteousness is not that righteousness whereby we are denominated righteous in the sight of God why because saith he it is the meritorious case I answer therefore it is for no righteousness makes any one righteous coram Judice but a meritorious righteousness not regenerating grace see how he shifts he said in his Minor not regeneration i. e. inherent renovation which he all along asserts for our justifying righteousness and now he has brought it to the active infusion of Grace as he quibbles with the Papists and why not Regenerating Grace because that must precede Justification and must not the righteousness precede the Justification by his own Doctrine and doth not the formalis ratio precede the effect but what doth regenerating Grace preceed Is it not regeneration it self it being the working cause of it but as for the Grace of regeneration wrought that 's the very righteousness which he means and yet saith in his Assumption not regeneration this is but juggling it is not plain dealing He goes on not pardon for that comes after it Mr. H. saith so I know no better authority for it and I will believe it ad Graecas calendas I have shewed the absurdity and folly of it yea and of his pardon preceeding Justification And if none of these be the formal cause i. e. the Essential causes denominating us Righteous in Gods sight it must be something else What 's that The righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel i. e. Faith and Obedience Mr. Cl. saith something else Imputation it s that which is the form one essential cause in this they differ but as to the matter they agree that Faith and imperfect Obedience is the righteousness whereby we are denominated righteous in the sight of God and is not the Grace of regeneration inherent whether Faith be the righteousness of God shall be examined anon by its self because Mr. H. puts so much stress upon it § 7. Arg. 2. Adam if he had perfectly obeyed his Obedience had been his formal Righteousness in regard to the Law so is this ours in regard to the Gospel Again works were the formal righteousness in regard to the Law therefore Faith is the formal righteousness of Justification by the Gospel And two things go to this formal Righteousness Faith and the imputation of it Resp It seems Mr. H. understands formal cause matter formed and that is an effect not a cause the materia formata is the formal cause I must tell him his Notion is neither Divinity nor Logick 2. What
it which is not to get life by our own works but living by and upon the righteousness of another by faith and thus he argues from Moses's Law to every Law that works of neither cannot justifie and when he speaks of Moses his law he seldom understands the meer Ceremonial Law but the Moral also as recognized under Moses and that of Gal. 5.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye are abdicated from Christ whoever of you are justified by the works of a law in Mr. Cl's sence it is whoever of you are justified by the works of some law only so Paul opposeth Christ himself to the works that are of a Law Phil. 3.9 His own righteousness he saith is such viz. this he desires to be found out of but in Christ viz. his righteousness by Faith which he opposeth to his own as that which he calls the righteousness of God in opposition to the righteousness of Man He saith indeed in one place Works are mentioned in general Rom. 4.2 It s true but he takes not Notice how often Law is mentioned in general and so the works of a Law are general where-ever spoken so of But he saith these words must be understood with a limitation too and be meant of the same kind of works Resp And therefore the words import thus if Abraham were justified by some kind of works he hath wherein to Glory but why should some kind of works give Abraham more cause of boasting than others He will say because some are great and perfect others little and imperfect but I say there 's no specifick difference between great and little of the same kind besides he that attains a great End by a small work hath more cause of boasting than he that attains it by great work and Labour therefore a Man may rather boast of the works of the New Law than of the Old and then they are all works opposed by him to Faith for he saith the reward is to him that worketh not that that Expression excludes all works for Paul could not be so absurd to express works by not working § 8. If Paul understood himself c. We must grant and conclude that Paul disputes only against the works of the Law Resp No doubt he knew his own Mind and was consistent with himself and if such plain Expressions are intelligible he excludes all works of any Law what ever but he gives his reason why he means we are justified by works when he saith positively we are not justified by works and that he that worketh not but is ungodly Because they were such works as did frustrate and evacuate the undertakings of Christ Rom. 4.14 Gal. 5.4 Resp So do all works of a Law brought in for righteousness for if the great End of Christ's undertaking was to be our Justifying-righteousness then any works brought into the room thereof frustrate Christ's righteousness but that was the chief End of Christ's undertaking Rom. 4.25 2 Cor. 5.21 The words of Rom. 4.14 are if they that be of a Law be Heirs i. e. such as claim by the works of a Law performed by them Faith is made Void i. e. it s to no purpose to believe on another for righteousness Faith is made empty of the righteousness of another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Promise or Gospel is abdicated for the same thing cannot be Law and Promise or Gospel and the reason is given because you see the law of Moses worketh wrath and where there 's no law there 's no transgression the law determines the transgression and the sinner to wrath for it and this doth every law whatever The other Scriptures were spoken to before 2d Reason They are such works as he opposeth every way to faith and also to Grace Gal. 4.4 therefore they are not faith or any inherent grace Gal. 5.4 But he never opposeth faith and Gospel-Works Resp He always opposeth Faith and all Works in the Point of Justification because Works justifie by themselves but Faith by its Object only Because Gospel-works suppose Faith or Grace being the fruit of Faith and product of Grace Resp A pitiful Reason because a man that runs apace is supposed to see therefore a man runs by his eyes and after this manner he applies 1 Cor. 15.10 by the Grace of God I am what I am and laboured more abundantly than they all ergo Paul was justified by works is not this a very learned consequence I grant saith he faith and works of the law are frequently opposed by the Apostle Resp Then faith and works of a law are not the same in this he gives us the Cause Let us see his Concessions further I grant saith he a meer profession of faith is opposed to works James 2.14 Resp True Faith fruitful in good works is opposed to false faith that has no fruits 3. I grant that even Gospel-works are opposed to Grace tho not to faith both in Election Rom. 11.5 6. and in Vocation 2 Tim. 1.9 Resp Works of a law by which a man claims Justification are not Gospel-works but Legal and they are opposed to Grace both in Election Vocation and Justification but as Election is not on the foresight of any works or righteousness no not of Christ's and Vocation is not upon our performance of any works no more is Justification I grant God chooseth not upon foresight of good works or faith in us neither call any because they have faith or good works but that they may have them his Grace is antecedent to any good in us but now the case is otherwise in reference to those priviledges which follow Vocation for God justifies and glorifies us yet not as the meritorious cause thereof but only as a way means and qualification c. Resp Well now the Case is altered Grace goes no further than Vocation there it makes a stand and man does the rest himself but let us enquire a little into this Mystery Is a man effectually called and made holy and yet not justified for he that is made holy in order to Justification suppose qualified and conditionated for it is in order of Nature holy before justified i. e. hath the Spirit of Holiness the Gift of Grace and inherent righteousness whilst a child of wrath and actually under the curse of the law 2. All Justification for Holiness because it is the work of a law is meritorious righteousness for there 's no law justifies but because the performance of the condition deserves it in Justice Hence all Qualifications and Means made legally conditionally to the remunerative part of the Law are deserving thereof and meritorious and undeniably so for if the absence of the Qualification and the Means or Non-performance of the Condition doth merit or deserve the Wages of the Sin from the Law enjoyning the said Qualifications or Conditions then having and performance thereof doth upon the same Reason merit and deserve the Reward of Righteousness but the Antecedent is true therefore the
Righteousness is the pâ—r the formal cause by which we are justified This Distinction Mr. H. having taken up from Bellarmine makes very much of More of it anon § 5. Take one or two for all to avoid tediousness to the Reader Mr. H. in Medioc p. 42. Herein doth appear the ground of reconciliation between the Papists and us in this point the sum of what he saith is Provided they say that the works they plead for our righteousness be the works of the new law and not of the old we are agreed and then tells us That Gods judging a man to have performed the condition of the Covenant i. e. the New Law is the accounting and declaring him righteous That righteousness which makes a man righteous and denominates him righteous is that righteousness which does make God account him righteous and that is the righteousness which he doth Note it for it is express and this he saith is not the righteousness of the law of works but of the law of grace which he saith is a righteousness which he doth but not work in doing which is pretty absurd that a man should do works of righteousness and not work but the meaning is he doth not work perfect works I will not wrong him But do not those that work imperfect works work Yea saith he they that do absolutely sinful works are called workers of iniquity A little after he tells us Christ's Redemption was to bring in a New Law for when Man fell it was impossible he should be righteous any more unless there were a new Law brought in by performance whereof he might attain to that again which he lost now this was the main business of Christ's Redemption the procuring a new law or another law with lower Terms which some men performing they do thereby become righteous and so have righteousness according to that Law imputed to them for Remission and life eternal And thus you see what everlasting righteousness Christ brought in Dan. 9. and in his Piece Of Righteousness which comes forth with Episco Approbation p. 3. It is true against the Papists there is no such righteousness inherent as to render God appeased with the sinner or that the Conscience can rest on it then it is good for nothing as that propter quod he is forgiven or saved by his favour Bellarmine doth not say it is but that Christ's righteousness is the propter quam Therefore the Papists and they are agreed in this sence It is true also against the common Protestant therefore the Neonomians are not Protestants unless such as have causa formalis of Papists that there is not any righteousness without us that can be made ours so as we should be accounted righteous in another's righteousness or be that thing per quod we are justified there is no such matter in reality but in notion only This righteousness as imperfect as it is wrought by the Spirit is that and must be that which is the form per quam he is accepted and justified we grant the righteousness of Christ is the meritorious cause per quam we are pardoned and saved § 6. About the New Law there 's little difference between the Papists and Neonomians tho the Papiste are on the surer side of the Notion Mr. Fox Mart. about the difference between Ancient Rome and present p. 34. tells us The Church of Rome teach the People that there 's no difference between Moses and Christ save only that Moses was the giver of the old law but Christ the giver of a new and more perfect law And it s most rational that the new law should be a more perfect law and not a law of imperfection we do not mend perfect things and if there be any reason for particular ends it s with those things that more perfectly answer those ends and therefore their remedying law ought to be perfecter and most compleat § 7. Next a-kin to these men are the Quakers in their most refined Doctrine put out in the name of Barclay but I heard Mr. Keath that was a Neonomian Quaker say Barclay's Book was chiefly his work Works are necessary to Justification as well as Faith James 2. both equally required to Justification works of the Law are excluded as done by us Tit. 3.5 6 7. this is Mr. H. just To be justified by Grace is to be justified or saved by Regeneration which cannot exclude Works wrought by Grace and by the Spirit 1 Cor. 6.11 The law gives not power to obey and so falls short of Justification but there 's power under the Gospel by which the Law comes to be fulfilled inwardly Rom. 8.3 4. Works are the Condition upon which Life is proposed under the New Covenant Tho we place Remission of Sins in the Righteousness and Obedience of Christ performed in the Flesh as to what pertains to the remote procuring cause and that we hold our selves formally justified by Christ formed and brought forth in us yet can we not as some Protestants have done unwarily exclude works from Justification for tho properly we are not justified for them yet are we justified in them c. § 8. The Socinians say No other Imputation is in our eternal Salvation than that whoever sincerely obeys the Commands of Christ is from them accounted of God righteous Socin de serv When God is said to impute Faith for Righteousness the meaning is that God hath so great a value for Faith that he esteems it for a Righteousness to Justification Crel on Gal. 3.6 And Mr. B. saith I abhor the Opinion that Christ's righteousness given us is all without us Preface to Doct. of Chr. p. 3. but more of this in what follows § 9. The Arminians bring up the Rear and I shall name the Man from whom I can prove Mr. B. hath taken up most of his corrupt Notions about General Redemption and Justification and its J. G. The Question in precise Terms is this Whether the Faith of him that truly believes in Christ or whether the righteousness of Christ himself be that which God imputes to a Believer for righteousness or unto Righteousness in his Justification J. G. of Justification p. 7. he concludes it is faith As a Merchant that grows rich by such a Commodity i. e. he grew rich by the Gain and Return he made of that Commodity So we may be said to be justified by the righteousness of Christ and yet not have the righteousness it self upon us by Imputation or otherwise but only a righteousness procured or purchased by it really and essentially differing from it p. 12. This Righteousness of Christ is not that that is imputed unto any man for righteousness but is that for which righteousness is imputed to every man that believeth Paul neither eat his Fingers nor spun out the flesh of his hands into cloathing and yet was both fed and cloathed with them Here 's the true sense of being justified by the effects of Christ's Righteousness So may a
because Christs Obedience is said to be per quam when it is intended thereby to be the very righteousnes unto Justification ergo per quam and propter quam are of the same import in a juridical sence but that which our Nâ—onomâ—ans and Papists aim at is an immediate and mediare righteousness that we are justified by one as immediate for the sake of Christ's the mediate § 3. The Papists by this distinction would make way for a double righteousness in our Justification for the Council of Trent doth anathematize those that say a man is justified only by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ or only by remission of sins without inherent Grace and Charity To this purpose our Neonomian Mr. Cl. p. 35. That the merit of Christ's Death and Sufferings he excluding his active obedience hath purchased this priviledge for us among others that sincere faith should be accounted for righteousness and that God will account us righteous if we be possest thereof Resp In both these we see Christ's righteousness is made the propter quam and our own the per quam Christ's the meritorious of our Justification by our own righteousness whereby the ascribing any essential causality to Christ's righteousness is out of doors For 1. The Justification by our own ' is entire in all essential causes without Christ's for our righteousness imputed must be the material as well as the formal part of our Justification 2. It must be first imputed and we justified by it for they make not only the Condition but the Imputation thereof and Justification thereby ' to be conditional of our pardon and acceptance by Christ's Righteousness 3. The very righteousness of our own is imputed not Christs Righteousness at all only the effects cause and effects are opposita therefore if the effects only then not the righteousness it self 4. To say that Christ purchased Justification by our own righteousness is but to make Christ such a remote cause of Justification as Election is Now to talk that the condition by which we are justified is a formal cause and yet to be no cause is non-sence for a formal cause altho it be sine qua non and so is every cause yet the four immediate causes are not only so and this distinguisheth them as propter immediate causes whose vis caters the effect when causa sine qua non as to the effect is only antecedent or causa causae and enters not the effect spoken of But Mr. H. saith it s a cause as well as a condition it is both if we made our works to justifie us sub genere causae efficientis procatarct and so the meritorious cause it were to bring our works into the office of Christ's Righteousness and derogate from Grace Resp So they do notwithstanding all they say for if they thrust out Christ's Righteousness from any essential part of our Justification as they do not allowing it materiality or formality therein they put our own Works into Christ's Office and nothing can be more derogatory to the Grace of God they say they make it medus efficientis causa procatarchtica an external motive to the efficient the effect then in that respect falls on the efficient but the effect of the efficient is another thing Supposing God justifies as Judge Christ's Righteousness by way of Merit falls upon him and procures of him that he takes our righteousness in payment We may use this Similitude a Man is prosecuted before a Judge for an hundred Pounds a Friend of the Defendant tampers with the Jury and Judge and procures of them that the Debtor pay but 10 l. I pray whether is he justified by paying the 10 l. in Court or by that which the Judge and Jury received which is not brought in Plea at all so that all meritorious righteousness is brought in Plea coram Judice and accordingly being imputed or not Judgment passeth The Righteousness of Christ whatever it may purchase out of the Court of the New Law it s not allowed there as a Plea and is never nay cannot be imputed these men say though pleaded therefore no Justification thereby for no man is justified legally but by what is imputed § 4. But when we make it the formal cause only of our passive Justification we do nothing thereby but advance God's Grace and Christ's Merits as having obtained for us not only that God should require of us no othâ—r condition but our Faith or inchoate Righteousness unto life but also that he should corstitute by his New Law this condition performed to be our righteousness in the room of that perfect one required of the old p. 47. of right Resp Note 1. They do something besides advancing the Grace of God because it makes Justification due to us upon Debt for he that hath a formal right-ousness of his own legally imputed to him he may demand Justification as due to him by the law it self and this is not to advance Grace but contrary if the Apostle speak sence Rom. 4. 2. It is not an advance of Christ's Merits for it casts it out of Imputation and Justification and makes it but a causa sine quanon it casts them out of the essential causes and it makes them but an adjuvant cause or con-cause a co-ordinate according to Mr. H. it makes not Christ's Merits the only righteousness it makes our own righteousness the inchoate and foundation righteousness the Corner Stone of our Justification and whereas the Scriptures make Christ's it makes Christ's Righteousness but to belong to another law whereby they say we are not justified and our own to that which justifies and the only justifying righteousness of the new law it makes Christ's Righteousness and our Pardon by it to be a consequent of Justification by our own and that without imputation thereof extra-judicial but our own very righteousness to be imputed to us it makes that righteousness within its self and own nature saith Mr. H. again and again to be righteousness legal for our Justification and rejects Christ's perfect Righteousness as to Imputation and Justification which is contrary to the Holiness and Justice of God 3. He makes the Grace of God to consist in constituting a Law for Justification which is but part of distributive Justice the exercise of a Legislative Power and not of Grace to Sinners 4. The constitution of this inchoste righteousness is harder terms than the constitution of the righteousness of the Covenant of Works for Reasons before given 5. We see what their meaning is of Christ's Merits its only that he purchased a new Law and we see what is the Neonomian Commutation that they have of late made such a stir about they are for a Commutation what 's that its a commutation of our righteousness i. e. bringing into the room of the righteousness of the law i. e. Christ's in Justification they deny it in Dr. C's sence i. e. that our sins were imputed to Christ and his
consequence is there in this Argument works were the formal cause of Justification as to the Law of Works therefore works must be the formal cause in relation to the Gospel it follows not but vice versa and if the consequence be true then there 's no formal difference between Law and Gospel 3. Hereby he yields that New Law conditions are Old Law works and consequently his Gospel is no Gospel but a Law of works which is contrary to Scripture and accordingly Mr. Cl. saith Gospel works must merit the reward as works should have done in Adams Covenant Mr. H's reply is so weak that it s not worth taking Notice of § 3. Argum. 1. Justification hath a form and that must be some righteousness Resp It may have a form and yet Righteousness be the matter What righteousness is it whereby we are justified I answer against Mr. Cl. and him that it s no righteousness inherent in the justification of a sinner He saith it s not regenerating grace infused but imputed Answer What makes the difference then between Sanctification and Justification its nothing but the divers respect in Mr. H's Divinity and wherein lies that respect is it not in imputation and this Logick he yields in his Notes Argument 4. Divines generally fix it upon some righteousness Resp If some Divines speak improperly it doth not justifie Mr. H. to do so but he saith a distinction is made of a genus and differentia and therefore righteousness must be the form Resp Non sequitur for genus is the matter and but part of the form at most sometimes but the differencing part of the Definition is the form distinct from the genus Mr. Cl. saith the most plausible Argument of all because it is Scripture you have omitted we are justified by faith This saith Mr. H. is my id per quod that runs through all my Books its true and what would Mr. H. have done to support his Notion if the Cardinal had not helpt him to this id per quod and id propter quod he takes himself safe enough between the Cardinal and Bishops Well Mr. Cl. is not so well pleased I find with his formalis causa but rather than break with Mr. H. he will comport with him especially finding him very uncertain and unsettled sometimes our righteousness is the formal cause and sometimes the material and imputation the formal Mr. Cl. hath another denomination for our own righteousness he calls it our subordinate righteousness Our Justification by Faith or accounting it to us for righteousness will be considered anon § Cl. also gathering and applauding Mr. H's constitutive Justification let it be a little inspected Mr. Cl. saith That Mr. H. doth clearly distinguish his Opinion from the Papists in that he makes infused righteousness only Sanctification and imputation of the same to be Justification its only to distinguish up our own righteousness several ways I would ask these Gentlemen whether they do not hold the infusion of their righteousness and Justification upon it imputed if they do so do the Papist for if the Papist did hold making a man's righteousness inherent to be Justification then must they hold some merit of condignity to precede in the natural man for a meer free gift as such is an infusion cannot be Justification I do not see but Mr. H's constitutive Justification and the Papists is all one for if they say God infuseth righteousness and imputeth righteousness it s the same thing and God cannot constitute any just by infusion but he must impute him so I have said this constitutive Justification as they take it can be no other than Imputation if they will make it differ from declarative Justification 2. The constituting us as just doth in order of nature go before accounting or using us as just Resp God neither constitutes any man just in and by his own righteousness nor accounts them so But we can say God first gives us Christ's righteousness by his Grace then accounts us righteous therein Constitutive Justification consists in three things in making us just accounting us just and using us as just all these the Papists have Therefore more fully Justification is a judicial act and that by the law of Grace God by that Law and the act of God's law makes pronounces and by pronouncing makes a Believer a righteous person and being so made accounts him so Resp The Scripture speaks of Justification of a Sinner and therefore saith it s an act of free Grace Indeed Mr. H's Justification can be no other than a judicial Act it s no way consistent with Grace because he saith its by a Law and Act of it whereby it makes and pronounceth a believer righteous and it seems he is first declaratively justified and after imputed righteous when God hath pronounced him righteous then accounts him so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Cart before the Horse Our righteousness wrought in us by Vocation and is the same materially but not formally with this righteousness of Justification Resp Now here 's the reason why he sticks so hard for our righteousness being the formal part of our Justification so that the same righteousness as he saith materially the same Sanctifies us materially and Justifies us formally So as that as Sanctifying it hath no form and as Justifying no matter Now this is a Quatenus with a witness so in Mr. Cl's sence he doth well making the matter real and the form relative These things Mr. H. in his several middle-way Pages and Letters repeats a hundred times you cannot look into a Page hardly but you have the sum of his Doctrine therefore it must not be expected that I should follow him Page by Page unless I should Tautologize as he doth CHAP. X. Whether Faith be our justifying Righteousness Section 1. Whether the Saints before Christs did not look upon themselves as righteous by their own righteousness § 2. Abraham considered § 3. Abraham considered § 4. Abraham 's Justification further considered § 5. Of Subordinate righteousness § 6. Mr. Cl's defence of a Subordinate righteousness § 7 Opposition of Faith and Works in Justification Mr. Cl's 2d and 3d. Arg. § 8. Mr. Cl. fourth Argument Answer'd § 9. Argument 5 6. § 10. More to Mr. H 's challenge Sect. 1. MR. H's Enquiry about the Saints before Christs coming is He would know of any Man who is most Orthodox in his Complexion whether he does or is able to think that Enoch Noah Job who were before the Law Samuel the Kings and Prophets under the Law or any Man or Woman whatsoever before the coming of Christ did ever imagine that they were righteous or accepted with God for the Obedience which the Messiah should perform on their behalf when he came into the World and believing this was an Instrument of making him to be theirs c. And whether they did not look upon themselves righteous by their own righteousness their doing righteoâ—snâ—ss and to obtain favour by
Evangelical But alas Mr. Cl. to prevent misconstruction after he hath bin disputing for the work of Faith to be our righteousness yet we must not expect Mercy Justification Pardon Reconciliation or Favour with God upon the account of our sincerity Faith or Obedience as the procuring cause but we are to look up to Christ confessing our best works to be but filthy rags in strict justice c. Resp One may see how frail a righteousness these men have feigned to themselves it is as the Spider's Web that they dare not lean upon it tho they will swagger and vapour with it to out-dare them whom they call Antinomians who will cleave immediately to Christ's righteousness alone as their only righteousness without the intervention of these filthy Rags their righteousness must have Christ stand behind the Curtain to patch their ragged raiment their House cannot stand without Bellarmine's propter quod their Pageantry is all dead Images unless one behind the Curtain move them which no body must see here is no Mercy Pardon and Reconciliation for and by their Righteousness but Christ procured something of it I know not what but Christ's Procurement was long ago the Law is in their own hands now he only procured the New Law they must shift as well as they can to perform the Conditions Christ did not purchase those neither died he to forgive any fault in their righteousness but oh their righteousness comes not up to the old Law what need they trouble themselves about that Christ hath fetcht them from under that faulty Perfection and brought them under a faultless unrighteousness of the Remedial Law and faults their Righteousness must have or else it would be an adequate condition but they must acknowledge their unworthiness and desert of all evil and when we have done God looks upon us as righteous in a Gospel sense I had thought in the beginning of this Paragraph Christ had bin to have pardoned and mended the faults of our remedial righteousness but it seems here is some pretence to it only that Christ may not think he is put off with nothing but the compleating of these rough Garments to deceive lies in their own doings if we do this God looks upon us as righteous in a Gospel-sense and pardons us first justified and not pardoned and then pardoned and not justified VVhat a great matter of Lamentation is it to see the corrupt minds of men thus vainly and mischievously sport themselves with the rich Grace of God and his strict Justice § 9. Before I leave this Chapter let us talk a little further with Mr. Humph. about his great challenge if it be as he saith that no Man or Woman before Christ coming did Imagine they were righteous before God or accepted for the Obedience of Christ it must follow that they had a hard task under the New Law for they wanted the propter quod and both Mr. Cl. and he saith their righteousness wants pardon and they must go to the id propter quod for pardon and acceptance Now I would Query whether if they could not imagine Christs Obedience to be their righteousness how could they imagine that Christs Obedience could be the procuring cause so that they were altogether destitute of the id propter quod I would know whether the Faith of Gods Children before Christ had no Eye unto Christ and his righteousness in the Sacrifices and sin Offerings which they offered daily did they not look at them as shadows and types of a better and more perfect Sacrifice the Apostle saith that the righteousness of God which we shall by and by shew to be the righteousness of Christ was witnessed by the Law i. e. the Law of Moses and the Prophets and if so its strange that they should have no imagination of it when as the Apostle Peter 1 Ep. c. 1.10 Saith the Prophets have Enquired after and searched diligently for this Salvation prophesied of Searching what and what manner of times the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signifie when it testified before hand the sufferings of Christ and the glory which should follow The Apostle Peter was clear in this Point Acts 2.31 He saith that David foresaw the Resurrection of Christ and spake of it and Christ himself affirms this after his Resurrection to the two Disciples going to Immaus that he ought thus to suffer and enter into Glory beginning at Moses and all the Prophets he expounded unto them in all the Scripture the things concerning himself Now if Moses and all the Prophets yea all the Scriptures should so eminently and expresly foretel Christs sufferings and resurrection and why it was viz. to bear Sin and satisfie Gods justice as the Prophet Isa c. 53. and David and Jer. and all the Sacrifices of old and his Redemption was also for them to the transgressions under the first Testament Heb. 9.15 It is strange that none of them from Adam to Christ should in the least imagine their acceptance with God should be for his righteousness but that they should look for Justification by their own righteousness only and none others § 10. Mr. Cl. in the conclusion of his Book undertakes to disprove the Imputation of the Active righteousness of Christ when as all a long his Book he holds that Christ's righteousness Active or Passive is not imputed but as to Effects now he can mean nothing by the non-imputation of Either but as to Effects So that he must intend by the non-imputation of Christs active Obedience of the Effect and then either it had no effects or no effects pro bono nostro now sure if I mistake not he grants that whatever Christ was it was for our good and therefore have some benefit by it and God reckons it a benefit for that 's their Imputation when we have a benefit God reckons it so i. e. Imputes it to be what it is surely if Christ active Obedience did but fit him to redeem us by passive it was a benefit to us His Incarnation was it not a benefit In their way of Imputation they may say after Mr. B. because he did not obey that we should not obey Resp Neither did he suffer that we should not suffer but Christ suffered that we might not suffer penally and obey that we might not obey legally and its strange that the second Adam should have actual righteousness for us as well as the first had actual sin that all should not be repaired as to the preceptive as well as the vindicative part of the Law which was fallen upon us in the first Adam by the second Adam Why was he made under the Law Was it not for active as well as passive Obedience CHAP. XI Of Iustification by Works Section 1. The Neonomian Doctrine opposed § 2. Who it is God justifies § 3. More fully Answer'd § 4. Arguments against Justification by Works § 5. Mr. Cl's Proposition § 6. Of the Jews Opinion about Justification § 7. Whether
Consequent § 9. He proceeds with Confidence 2dly I do absolutely deny that a true Gospel justifying Faith and Gospel-Works are ever opposed to one another and do confidently affirm the contrary because I have examined all Places where Faith and Works are mentioned and do not find them if any affirm let him prove it R. Mr. Cl's Confidence is no Proof and his searching the Scriptures and not finding so plain a Truth as that Justification by Faith is opposed to Justification by Works argues but judicial blindness whereby God hath hardned his Heart and blinded his Eyes 1. As was said before all Gospel-works as he calls his New Law Works brought into Justification by a Law are legal not Gospel not accepted of God but leaves a Man under a Curse 2. Those that are gospel-Gospel-works are Fruits of the Spirit thro' the Gift of Grace and Fruits of Faith as they are Fruits of Christ's Righteousness believed in to Justification and no cause of Justification in the least neither doth the Believer claim Justification thereby and hence called Gospel-Works but if he claim Justification by them they are Works and opposed to Faith but loose the Name of Gospel are Legal dross and dung and stink in the Nostrils of God neither are any such Works the gracious Gifts of the Spirit or true Faith or the good Fruit of it For such seek Righteousness as it were by the Works of the Law and obtain it not 3. Now whereas Mr. Cl. here throws down his Gantlet in an Ambiguous manner we take it up in the true State of the Difference and confidently affirm that Justification by Faith is positively opposed by the Apostle Paul to Justification by any Works of a Law whatever performed by us the proving of which is the drift of this whole Dispute as now managed 4. He saith there was no Coutroversie about any other Works but the Works of the Law Resp There was no Controversie about any Works but the Works of a Law no more is there now Gal. 5.4 The Apostle saith They are abdicated from Christ and fallen from Grace that are justified by a Law so say we § 10. Proposition 4. This Law was the whole Body of the Mosaical Law consisting of precepts Moral Ceremonial and Judicial what he saith under this proposition about the acceptation of the term Law I think will not hold all of it with his other Doctrine for he saith its taken 1. For any written Declaration or Revelation of the Will of God concerning our Duty 2. It s frequently taken for the Moral Law as Rom. 7.12 and Ch. 3.31 Mat. 5.17 Luke 16.17 3. It s used Indefinitely for the whole Body of the Law given to Moses and therefore he mentions it in such general Terms R. Because Law is used in so many Senses in Scripture and those that would introduce Justification by Works are apt to slip from one Law to another and say as Mr. Cl. doth that though the Apostle deny Justification by one Law yet he intends Justification by Works of another Law therefore the Apostle excludes our Works of any Law whatever as frequently in his Epistles as hath been shewed so in that express and plain Place Gal. 3.21 If there had been a Law given which could have given Life verily Righteousness should have been by the Law And why is it spoken It 's spoken as a Reason that the Law of Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not against the Promise i. e. against Justification by the Promise and Gift of Righteousness no the Law of Moses taken together was so far from being against this way of Justification without the Works of a Law that it witnessed to it as the Apostle expresly speaks Rom. 3.21 It did not appropriate the Grace of the Promise to it self but by the whole Tenor of it witnessed to the Promise and Righteousness The Law of Moses taken as a Law did justifie none Gal. 3.11 For saith the Apostle the Law i. e. as such is not of Faith ver 12. The Condition of it being Works and therefore Justification by the Law is not Justification by Faith the Apostle saying further ver 18. If the Inheritance be of a Law than no more of Promise ver 19. For what end served the Law given by Moses Answ It was added because of Transgression till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made i. e. Christ but why added for two Ends. 1. That Sin might be distinctly known by the Moral Part as the Apostle by the Knowledge of Sin 2. That by the Ceremonial Law there might be a Typical Redemption and Satisfaction held forth unto them through which they might have a sight of Faith and of the true Sacrifice held forth unto them § 11. Proposition 5. The Law was looked upon by the Carnal Jews as a Covenant of Werks Mat. 19.16 Granting that it was yet not to be fulfill'd by a perfect Obedience but by imperfect as appears by his Words What good thing shall I do that I may inherit Eternal Life As much as to say I have done Good and Evil I would know what that good thing is whereby I may be righteous to Life Eternal He depreciates the Law calling it a Ministration of Death and Condemnation 2 Cor. 3.7 9. It was the true Sense of the Apostle that the Law of Moses or any other Commands of God understood used and applied as a Law for Justification by the Works of it is a Ministration of Death and not of Faith and as a Ceremonial Law which Heb. 6.19 is made nothing and by it self perfect it being Typical and the Type absolutely considered could not purifie them as to Conscience The Apostle saith it was weak through our weakness Rom. 8.3 We being not able to come to the Terms of this nor of any other and Rom. 6.14 saith we i. e. Believers are not under a Law but under Grace for Justification as much as to say you take the Doctrine of Grace to be a licentious Doctrine but believe it it s the legal Doctrine that leads to Sin not the Doctrine of Grace besides the Apostle shews plainly that to look for Justification by the Law of Moses or of any other is to be Married to it which he shews Rom. 7. is quite contrary to our Marriage to Christ by Faith while we are in expectation of Justification by a Law we are held in Bondage but being by the true Sence of the Nature of it Dead to it it becomes Dead to us Now we are delivered from the Law that being Dead wherein we were held and there 's no other Husband comes in the room of the Dead Law no new Law but Christ only And the Opposition saith Mr. Cl. is only between the Law of Works and the Law of Faith if he make the Law of Faith to be a Law of Works then it s no Opposition at all because both are a Law of Works and why I pray is Justification by Faith Justification by
Justified by this Law here 's Christs law causa sine qua non with a Witness As to the consequence if Justification be an effect of Merits and it be a Juridical effect then Merits which is the cause must be imputed to the person on whom these effects must fall What moves the Court or Judge to justify this or that person his own Merits or the Merits of another Not his own but the Merits of another Then these Merits are imputed for it quickly and plainly appears what is imputed to any whether merits of Condemnation or merits of Justification for Justice goes by nothing but Merit and therefore mens own righteousness cannot justify-because it cannot Merit And do not our Neonomians speak as the Socinians in this point and mumble as if their mouths were full of plumbs Now therefore if Christs Merit be brought into Court as a meritorious cause of the Sinners Justification they are imputed to him for his Justification as if he had merited himself § Arg. 5. They say Christs Merits cannot be Imputed but the Effects are Imputed And I Argue If Christs Righteousness be Imputed its Imputed as a cause of Justification or in the Effect It should be as an Effect or the Disjunction is ridiculous but it s not Imputed in the Effect Ergo. In and as the Cause for the Effect is not the Cause but contrary it s another thing so that to say Christs Merits are imputed and so imputed to the person Justified is nonsense But what are the effects imputed All the Benefits purchased by Christ For is Justification an effect imputed Sure not Is Justification imputed to Justification Sure that 's most absur'd Is Mortification imputed to Justification That looks very odd Is Vocation and Adoption or Glorification all or any of them Imputed to Justification for they are Effects of Christs Merits But suppose they say some of these or all are to us imputed for righteousness unto Justification I then Query Whether the Righteousness perform'd by us in the new law Justification be merited by Christ as an Effect Do not I see them sneak away now and give no Answer but upon another Subject they will tell you that Faith and the condition of the New law was not purchased by Christ but are by the gift of Election only And now I pray what 's become of Justification by Effects of Christs Merits They will say we are Justified by Imputing the Spirits operations to us for righteousness Now this cannot be 1. The Spirit never was incarnate nor his Office to work a Righteousness for Justification this was peculiar to Christ 2. The fruits of the Spirit when they come to be exerted are called our works and justly so because Graces exercised or Duties performed by us are so these are all renounced as such by the Apostle Paul Phil. 3.8 and elsewhere 3. What the Spirit doth in Justification its office is by way of Application it takes of Christs and gives it to us it applies and brings home to a sinner the Impetration of Christ as Righteousness unto his Justification hence the Spirit is said to justifie 1 Cor. 6.11 in bringing to the Soul the Grace of Justification and enstating him therein by faith as he sanctifies by bringing in the Grace of Sanctification Now then if Christ's Righteousness cannot be imputed in the effect and is imputed at all then as the cause meritorious of Justification But they say God cannot impute Christs Righteousness to us because we did not perform it and God is a God of Truth he cannot impute that to us which we did not To which I answer 1. That God doth not reckon we performed Christs Righteousness 2. God may give us his Son for righteousness Rom. 8. and give us this righteousness Rom. 5.5 3. He may accept it for us on law terms as our righteousness to Justification and all this is according to Truth and Righteousness imputing it to us in a Law Sense 4. The Argument will fall upon Neonomian Justification for that 's to call that righteousness which is unrighteousness and not according to Truth as hath been shewed Mr. Cl. makes it a great Argument that the active righteousness of Christ must not be imputed because Christ did not obey that we should not obey and where 's the Antinomian that says so but we say that Christ did and suffered all that the law required of him as a Second Adam and our Surety and his obeying in doing is no hindrance but a Gospel ground and reason of our doing and obeying As Christ did not suffer that we should not suffer but not suffer the Penally so Christs doing was not that we should not obey Evangelically but that we should but not obey legally with expectation of our Justification by our works or from a law for that is to be under a Law and not under Grace and to sin instead of obeying Rom. 6 c. Lastly If Christ's righteousness be taken as a meritorious cause in a sinner's Justification it is imputed as such to the person justified the effect of this cause is the sinner's Justification which is his proper Discharge and this is not Imputation but Judgment upon it and Delivery in Law and suppose the effects of Merit could be imputed the cause and reason thereof must be first imputed for the Law doth nothing in way of Condemnation or Justification but upon a meritorious cause imputed unto Condemnation or Justification and how absurd is it to say Condemnation is imputed but its proper to say the sin that merits it is imputed § 6. Arg. 6. That Righteousness which is accepted in law unto Justification is imputed to the person justified but Christ's Merits are accepted of God to the Sinner's Justification The major must be owned for Truth by the Neonomians otherwise they could not assert their Justification by Works The minor hath been counted sound Divinity by most Protestants and many Papists but whether it be or be not the Scripture affirms it roundly see for a taste Eph. 5.2 chap. 1.6 for an acceptation in law must be an imputation of Merit to Justification and can be upon no other account either of a man 's own or of another's for him the law looks at the value of his Money or Works that he brings into Court not how he came by either whether by Gift or otherwise § 7. Arg. 7. That righteousness through which Sin is not imputed to condemnation is the righteousness through which a man is imputed righteous unto Justification But Christs righteousness is that through which sin is not imputed to condemnation Ergo. The minor is very clear from Rom. 8.1.34 who is he that condemneth it is Christ that died chap. 4.6 7 8 Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven to whom God doth not impute sin and this is told us is a righteousness without works that which comes on Jews and Gentiles that which covers Sin from the Eye of God's Justice therefore that which
Righteousness to us for they expresly deny both the one and the other § 5. Mr. H. So as Adam if he had perfectly obeyed his obedience had been his formal righteousness in regard of the law Resp His Obedience had bin his material Righteousness and this imputed to Justification had bin his Righteousness clothed with the Form and End and unless we have a material and formal righteousness in regard to the same law we can never be justified So is this ours in regard to the Gospel Resp The Gospel is not a new Law neither doth it allow our own righteousness for any in our Justification and is therefore Gospel because it doth not He tells us both Protestant and Papist are both out in saying the Law is the rule of that Righteousness which both say is the formal reason of their Justification Resp It is the Neonomians are out and worse than the Papists in this Point in that they will bring any other rule of Righteousness for Justification the Law of Works is only norma officii judicii for Righteousness and Justification They are both out for the Papists speaks for inherent Grace and his Works so as he would have them meritorious and perfect pleading for Merit and Perfection but can never bring them to answer the law but must still pray forgive us our trespasses Resp The Papists are righter and more rational here than Neonomians if they differ from them in Merit they ought not and Mr. B. asserts it in his End of Controversies but whereever the performance of the condition of a law requires Justification by the law there is Merit and must be for such a Performer deserves and merits Justification and the remuneration thereof as much as Adam's standing and performing the condition of the Law of Works had merited Justification thereby Likewise as to Perfection they are right for that is a man's Perfection which the Law makes so and justifies a man by the Law matters not what other laws make perfect performance the Old Law is no rule to the New Law that 's a man's Perfection which the Law that justifies him saith is the performance of the condition Mr. H. quotes Mr. B. for saying the New Law acquits a man from non-performance of the condition and what need such an one pray for Pardon any more than they that say they are justified in Christ's Righteousness the great Cry they make against Justification in Christ's Righteousness what need such an one pray for Pardon for if their Justification in and by their own righteousness be not as perfect discharging from guilt by Pardon as ours is in Christ's Righteousness it s not worth a Fig we desire no such trifling Justifications § 6. The Protestants on the other side plead for Christ's righteousness which arswers the Rule but this being without us though it be upon the account thereof id propter quod or cujus merito we are justified the Papists say stiffly it can never be made formally ours so as to be propter quod we are justified â—â—d I must say the same for the Truth is Truth Resp Here you have Mr. H. plainly confessing himself a Papist in the Point of Justification and hence it s no wrong to him to say he is a Papist upon his own Confession and the truth is the truth He saith with the Papists that this being without us cannot oâ— imputed can nothing but what is personally done by us be Imputed to us I find no Proof that he makes any where that one man's righteousness cannot be imputed to another and here it is only because it is without us What is more common than Sureties to pay the Deâ—ts of insolvent Persons and that Christ made Payment and Satisfaction for Sinners is most plain from Scriptures though these men will deny that the Scripture saith any thing thereof which denial will be tried by us whether there is any weight in it There are two great Points to be cleared in this Controversie 1. Whether the Scripture excludes all inherent righteousness from the Justification of a Sinner before God 2. Whether the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to a Sinner for his Justification before God These Questions shall be maintained by us in the Affirmative God willing in their due place § 7. Whereas Mr. H. Prides himself exceedingly in the singularity of his Notion of our Righteousness being the formal cause of our Justification any one may see it in Cardinal Bellarmine and J. Goodwyn from both whom its easie to shew how the Neonomians have taken up their Doctrine as for the Notion it self it labours under many weaknesses 1. That Righteousness in it self is not the formal but the material reason of Justification that which induceth the form is a legal Imputation for if a man be never so innocent and righteous if the Court do not impute him so he shall not be justified and if a man be never so unrighteous if the Court impute righteousness to him he shall be justified so it s here Imputation is the legal form of Justification and righteousness is but the material only 2. He makes a formal reason without material for if our own righteousness be the formal reason where 's the material he will not make Christ's Merits the material for he brings in them sub genere causae efficientis besides he cannot for it would be very absurd to place the matter in one subject and the form in another therefore his formal reason is immaterial and it s indeed but an imagenary Chymaera both his New Law and his Formal Righteousness 3. Our Righteousness if it be the formal reason of our Justification it s such as per quam homo justus est and that is in law always propter quod for no law justifies any one but because he is righteous his righteousness must constitute him just and the law esteeming him so he is justified as legally meritorious thereof the noise Mr. B. J. G. and others make of the distinction between constitutive and declarative Justification is Popish and hath nothing in it constitutive Justification is no more than Imputation it is that which in law constitutes any one just and meritorious of declarative Justification § 8. Mr. H. makes a distinction of Justification that its active and passive whereas Justification is but one and it doth not constitute properly a physical effect but a legal relation it doth neither find nor make any sinner inherently righteous for Justification of a righteous person finds him inherently so this Justification we speak not of but Mr. H. will have a passive Justification upon this account because it finds the sinner righteous inherently he saith indeed the infusion of this preceeding righteousness is not his Justification according to the Papists but his Justification is for the righteousness which it finds infused and so it s the formal cause of Justification He might with much better reason say that Sanctification is double active sanctifying and passive