to the righteousness of the law but to his own righteousness in the largest consideration any thing of his own now What he saith to Rom. 10.1 is answered before The Christians Faith and new Obedience out of doubt by God's help are his righteousness Resp These men will hold their Conclusion let the Scripture say what it will Then the import of the Apostle must be thus That I may be found in Christ not having mine own righteousness which is of the old law but my righteousness of the New Law through faith the righteousness which is of God by faith Paul's righteousness as a Jew and Pharisee was one thing and Paul's Faith and Obedience which is his righteousness as a Christian is another To which I answer 1. That Paul's righteousness after Conversion is here directly opposed to the righteousness of Christ for he would not be found in his own but this righteousness of Christ to be found in it i. e. by judicial Enquiry his own righteousness can't be holiness or the having it for he doth not nor would say he would not be found having of holiness 2. There can be no Gospel-righteousness of our own that stands in competition with the righteousness of Christ for Justification for then its legal and fleshly 3. A man 's own righteousness whether before or after pretended Conversion is his own of the same nature and kind whatever he himself may think of it 4. If it was Paul's Judgment that his works was only chang'd from one law to another and thought that he was now to be justified by his Gospel-Works he was as far from the Kingdom of Heaven as before for one law can no more justifie a man by his own works than another therefore rejects all righteousness of a law 5. He is very full in expressing what righteousness he would be found in in no righteousness of his own for all such is legal in the righteousness of Christ in him this he tells us is the righteousness which faith lays hold on and this is the righteousness of God which God imputes to Justification and the sinner receives by faith 6. He intends not any thing here of Sanctification in this v. but speaks singly and by it self of it in the next neither doth he call it his righteousness but in this ver sets aside all his works tho he shews his value of them in their place yet as for any place in Justification he counted them but Dross and Dung He adds the Words of our Saviour except your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees which is against him for no mans righteousness exceeds theirs which stand in his own for Justification before God It must not be our own that can it must be Christs alone for no other exceeds theirs § 7. Mr. Cl. The next Text is by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous Rom. 5.19 Here Mr. Cl. and Mr. H. both exclude Christ's active obedience as having nothing to do Mr. H. saith this is perfect Antinomian Faith and excludes Repentance quite out of this life I must tell him I am sorry he understands Repentance no better those that he calls Antinomian knows how to reconcile Christs Perfections and their Duties together I see better than he doth as if Christ being a perfect Second Adam did exclude Grace from us where it is of his fulness for righteousness and holiness that we receive and exercise Grace but so much only by the way as a Mark upon the Dirt that he often throws on the Protestants and Reformers and upon the Lord Jesus Christ himself I must confess that I answer him with more mildness than he deserves As to the exclusion of the active obedience of Christ there 's no ground for it in the Text but quite contrary the design of the Apostle in the 2d part of the Chapter from v. 12. is to shew how Sin and Death entered by the First Adam and how Righteousness and Life entered by the Second Adam He accordingly compares them together as contraries shews that the first was a Figure of the other in his general nature but after shews notwithstanding their agreement in a general nature how greatly they differ specifically sin entred into the World by the First Adam by imputation of his Sin and by Propagation so Righteousness by Imputation and Life as the Promise annexed unto the Second Adam The First Adam was a Type or Figure of the Second 1. In that the First was a Publick Foederal and Seminal Head to all his Posterity so the Second was to all his and therefore upon the Fall of Man from the Perfection of the Law the Second is made under the Law and stands in all the Perfection of it as a Publick Head to all his spiritual Seed Now that Christ's active obedience is not excluded in the Text appears by the plain Antithesis of the First Adam's disobedience to the Second's obedience for where disobedience and obedience are set one against another then as the one is actual sin so the other is positive obedience for if only passive obedience be here meant then it should be said as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the Sufferings or Satisfactions of one many were made righteous 2. The First in the Figure was a Publick Person in respect of his actual obedience or disobedience to the Law of God therefore the Second Adam must be a Publick Person also in respect of his active obedience or else he answers not to the Figure 3. Christ could not be without active obedience as the Head and Root of his Church the Root must be actually holy or else the Branches cannot be so 4. It was essential to his High-Priesthood to be holy harmless c. as such and a High Priest is a Publick Person and stands for the People I could be very large in proving that Christ's active obedience belongs to that righteousness of Christ by which we are justified but I shall not have room here Mr. Cl. makes as if he would exclude Christ's active obedience only from righteousness but it is the passive also which both he and Mr. H. strikes at for he saith As by Adam's sin all his posterity were brought into a state of sin so that by the Merits of Christ's sufferings they are brought into such a state as that they may be made righteous Resp i. e. They are brought into such a capacity by Christ's purchasing a new law that they may possibly be righteous by their own righteousness So that Adam by his sin brought his into a state of sin but Christ by his righteousness doth procure a possibility of a righteousness for his so that the Second Adam comes short of the First in Conveiance whereas the Apostle hath much more Rom. 5.17 If by one mans offence death reigned by one much more the grace of God and the gift by grace hath abounded unto many v. 15. So if by the
at God's hand seeing God can be a debtor ex pacto regimine gratiae paterno Resp God can be a Debtor to sinful Man ex pacto but then 1. It s upon pactum absolutum not such a Covenant as makes man's works meritorious 2. It is in and through Christ only that God is a Debtor in the way of Justice 3. It s meerly Free Grace that hath brought about the Sinners Salvation by Christ and not purchased by himself 4. God is not nor ever will be a Debtor to sinful Man to justifie him for or by any works done by him either here or hereafter 5. Therefore whatever is the fruit of Free Grace in us is free in respect of us on whom it is bestowed we do not merit or deserve it in the least neither doth God reward any of his Children regimine foederis operum such as the New Law is and must be which rewards us upon our own fulfilling the condition But upon the account here mentioned before refuted which is a most direct answer because we have shewed the indirectness and falsity of it And I declare that God's Abatement of Terms and requiring a new Condition is that which therefore makes it free seeing it is tendred and obtained without performance of the old Resp The changing of Terms in a covenant doth not make it free if God had changed the terms of the old covenant from perfect obedience to imperfect it had not made it free because the condition is Works still for here the change is but a change from one compact to another viz. Abatement of terms and requiring new terms in the room What if a man gets his Creditor of whom he complains he hath a hard Bargain to make another Bargain upon easier terms this is a favour indeed but its justice considering he had brought him under too hard terms before but yet he doth not therefore give the commodity to him because he allows him easier terms but makes another Bargain upon other terms So here the new law is as much a Bargain as the other tho upon easier terms which cannot be admitted He proceeds to refute Augustine about the works of the law according to Paul's sense which we shall examine when we come upon that Point § 14. We shall here gather the sum of what according to truth is to be asserted and defended against Mr. H. and the rest 1. That the covenant of Works was not made with Man upon equal Terms for his perfectest Obedience could never be equal with the promised Reward 2. That the New-law Covenant is upon as equal Terms according to the nature of the Law and they differ not in nature from the old covenant being works if they differ in degree it s the covenant which hath made it so and the Promise is as much a reward to the imperfection as it was in the old to a perfect condition by God's constitution 3. God is free and can be bound by none but himself and it s his Grace to covenant with the creature any way but when God hath freely without purchase covenanted upon Terms of the creatures performance he maketh himself a Debtor thereupon let the Terms be perfect or imperfect 4. In the pretended new-law covenant where faith and obedience are the conditions Man merits ex pacto and God become a Debtor to him as much as he should have bin to Adam if he had stood hence the Apostle cannot mean justifying freely by grace in Mr. H's sense But when we are said to be justified freely by Gods grace is meant 〈◊〉 That it is of the pleasure of God's Will not upon any external Motive no not of Christ's Death that God exerts the Grace of Justification he is gracious to whom he will 2. It is free in that the Object of it upon whom it falleth is a sinner every way undone and miserable without Works or Qualifications much less deserving of this Grace and this is the chief meaning of the Apostle in Rom. 3. 3. The providing giving and bestowing Christ and his righteousness is an high act of Grace that a sinner may be justified at the Bar of Divine Justice that a sinner according to the Mystery of his Will and gracious Dispensation may be fully acquitted thro Christ from the fiery Law and discharged from all the charges thereof by the highest Justice 4. That as it was Free Grace every way to us considered in our selves therefore a Covenant of Promise without conditions required on our part hence absolute so it was a higher Covenant of Works to the Second Adam than ever the First was under and whereas Mr. H. objects and says then we are justified by the law I answer 1. Where did he ever see Justification but by a Law 2. He makes his to be by the new Law which law we deny to be in rerum natura 3. As we are justified by the Grace of God so it is in Christ Jesus and a Believer in Christ needs no New Law to justifie him he is justified by the Law in Jesus Christ and yet freely by Grace CHAP. III. Of Righteousness Sect. 1. Righteousness what and of what kinds § 2. Of Distributive Justice § 3. Distinctions in respect of Justice § 4. God's Justice in Efficiency § 5. No Justifying Righteousness but perfect § 6. Of the way of God's Execution of his Justice § 7. Righteousness again distinguished § 8. Righteousness of Justification and Sanctification Sect. 1. JVstitia est suum cuique tribuere to give every one his due so Cicero The Spirit of God tells us it s to render every one their due or right Rom. 13.7 Prov. 27. And it s either commutative or distributive commutative when persons mutually perform their Duty to each other which they are bound to by any Law Covenant or Agreement whether they be superiors to inferiors or inferiors to superiors or equals to one another a due conformity in obedience to a Law is commutative Justice Rom. 13. done for Conscience sake giving the Legislator his due but if he is pleased not only to bind me to Duty but promise a Reward upon performance as I am bound to Obedience so on the performance thereof God is bound to Reward whence if Man had stood the Covenant had bin fulfilled by way of commutation it s so between Magistrate and People being bound together by Covenant and each observing his Duty to other it s done by commutative Justice and yet without any derogation from the Authority and Grandeur and just Prerogative of the Magistrate § 2. Distributive Justice or Righteousness is Magistratick for the maintaining commutative Justice by awarding it where it s refused or punishing the breach thereof or in vindicating just persons which are falsly accused upon that account to render to men judicially according to their works All first conformity to Laws and Covenants is by commutative Justice but upon complaint of the breach of the Rules thereof Distributive Justice takes place Hence
as the Law hath to do with him 3. A Man is not charged by one Law and acquitted by another but his imputation is always according to that law where he was charged and therefore his Justification or Condemnation by the same if a Man be found guilty by one Law he cannot be acquitted by another tho requiring milder Terms § 3. Not to impute a fault is to acquit and of the same import as to impute righteousness and therefore where the Spirit of God speaks of non imputation of sin Psalm 32.2 Rom. 4.8 1 Cor. 5.19 it always therein asserts imputation of righteousness for he that is a sinner and hath no sin imputed to him or charged upon him by the Law is righteous and found so by the Law and indeed all proper imputation is by the Law for Sin is not imputed where there is no law therefore it s properly the voice of the Law that imputes Sin or Righteousness where Actions or Claims of Right come to be questioned and tried what the law saith is saith to them that are under it for judgment and condemns therefore all transgressors and makes them guilty before God Rom. 3.19 § 4. To attribute or ascribe are larger Terms than to impute when any thing is imputed to a person it s attributed and ascribed but every thing attributed or ascribed is not said to be imputed because it s spoken of in a Law-sense e. gr we attribute Holiness Justice Power c. to God but do not say we impute them to God we attribute Heat to Fire hardness to Iron but do not say we impute Heat to Fire or hardness to Iron because it s naturally in them § 5. Legal Imputation of Sin or Righteousness is either of that which is a Man 's own unto himself or of that which primarily is his own and imputed unto another The first is when a Man bears his own Sin or stands legally in his own righteousness upon the first the law condemns him upon the other it justifies him he is upon the first Judgment of the Law found guilty or not to have right to the Claim that he makes or to have no right to his Claim to the Promise in a Law-Covenant Hence imputation of righteousness fixeth his right to the promised reward Imputation of sin cuts off his right to the said reward and brings him under the curse of the Law § 6. The second sort of legal Imputation is of a Man 's own Sin or Righteousness unto another It s by way of translation and it s either of Sin or of Righteousness Imputation of Sin by translation is when the Law imputes Sin to any other than the Sinner so that by that Imputation those others are legally made Sinners And this Imputation is twofold by way of Attainder or by way of Suretiship § 7. Imputation by way of Attainder is when the whole Blood is charged with and stained by the Sin of the actual transgressor Such was Achan's Sin such also Adam's First Sin his sin was imputed to himself and all his Posterity he being not only a single person but a Publick Person 1. Naturally containing all Mankind in him 2. Foederally Because God when he covenanted with him covenanted with a Kind he covenanted but with individuals when he covenanted with Angels As Adam was when he stood in respect of Mankind sohe was when he fell Hence it was that all the Kind must needs fall in him when Angels fell each one fell but for himself as each stood for himself but it was not it could not be so with Man Adam therefore was the greatest Representative in respect of the number represented by him that ever was and all Mankind sinned in him Sin did not come upon us by Propagation only tho a sinner can propagate none but a sinner but by imputing Adam's First Sin to all his Posterity for judgment of imputation came upon all to condemnation of the whole kind else Adam's First Sin should affect us no more than any other of his sins and Adam's sins no more than the sins of any other of our Progenitors Hence Adam's sin came upon us federally and by way of Imputation as well as by Propagation and seminal Descent for the Privation of the Image of God by Adam's Sin which was his moral Death was a Publick Loss never to be regained by any that have their standing only in him Hence every Natural Man is in him stands under that first Privation and therefore under that first Guilt and as every Man by Nature stands under that Guilt he also is under the condemnation Wrath and Curse of the Law Death passed upon all men in that all have sinned the Apostle speaks but of Adam's sin Rom. 5.12 16. and of death passing upon all by that sin imputed by the law as appears by the following word that all died in Adam the Apostle is express 1 Cor. 15.22 Undestand it of which Death you please spiritual or corporal that in Adam all died it infers necessarily that Adam was a Publick Person for we cannot be said to live or dy in another's life or death but as he is a Publick Person vers 49. we are said to bear the image of the earthly i. e. in his Fallen State which shews that his Image was of a Publick Nature to all his Posterity and his loss of God's Image a Sin imputed to the whole kind § 8. I cannot stay to insist largely on the proof of the Imputation of Adam's Sin but is a Point of so great concern that the denial of it overthrows the Gospel in the true state thereof I shall only acquaint the Reader That the Neonomians together with the Socinians and Quakers lay this denial in the foundation of their rotten Doctrine Neonomian We were not in Adam as a Publick Person or Representative by a Covenant standing nor his sin imputed to us further than we are guilty by a natural in being or derivation Scr. G. D. p. 86 87. 112 113. End of Controv. 95. See his daring confidence We were not in Adam as a publick Covenanter I would ask whether God covenanted with Adam as the comprehender of all the Kind if he did then Adam was a Publick Covenantee instead of the whole Kind and it appears in that the Covenant reached Eve then in him when the covenant was made Gen. 2 and if the covenant was made with her in him then why not by the same reason with all Mankind in him He saith Adam's sin is imputed no further than we are guilty we say we are not guilty any further than his sin is imputed its imputation of Sin makes us guilty not guilt that makes imputation He saith also no further than by a natural in-being what then doth not a natural in-being in Adam at the time of his Covenant make him a publick Covenanter when the whole Nature was in him and so we were federally in him because naturally but see how the Socinians concur
Socin They are greatly deceived who gather that all the posterity of Adam sinned in Adam the Parent and truly to have deserved the punishment of death for sins and merits such as are meerly personal go not out of the person which hath sinned neither do Parents represent their Children Altho there may be some hurt and that not a little to Children by their Parents sin as indeed it fell out in Adam 's sin but the very Sin and Merit of Adam was not communicated in nor imputed to Adam's Posterity and hence the Posterity of Adam was not truly punished for Adam's sin unless they imitated their Parents Schlicting on Heb. 7.10 Whereas it appears plainly by Rom. 5.12 that the merit passed upon all by Adam's sin for death passed upon all and the merit of Death cannot be without imputation of sin and it passed upon all that have not finned actually even Infants before they are capable of imitation of their Parents Quakers We do not ascribe any whit of Adam 's guilt to men till they make it theirs by the like acts of disobedience Barchl This is also Pelagian Doctrine That Adam 's sin is not imputed to his Posterity § 9. Imputation is also by way of Suretiship and it is when the Sins or Debts of one person are by law charged upon or imputed to another in order to the Salvation of the Principal or personal transgressor Here it is always understood that the payment of a Surety is as good and acceptable to the Law as that of the Principal 2. That the Surety cannot become Pay-master in Law unless he take the Debt or Sin upon him instead of the proper transgressor he must be charged as transgressor else the Law can make no demand upon him 3. He must freely offer himself to be a Surety no person can be forced in any case to be Surety for another 4. When he hath engaged himself in Suretiship the law takes him person for person the principal Debt becomes his and his righteousness and payment becomes the Principals in a real legal commutation here is no natural or moral Change but sponsorial and legal nay no logical change i. e. one relation is not changed into another the Surety into the Principal nor Principal into the Surety but in the Judgment of the Law the Principal Debt becomes the Surety's and the Surety's Payment is the Principals whereupon the Principal in respect of that Sin or Debt for which Satisfaction is made hath the discharge in full and is as perfectly righteous as to that as the Surety himself he is not it may be so rich and honourable as his Surety but in respect of the Debt satisfied the Law hath no more to say to him than to the Surety An Alderman fetcheth a Prisoner and with him many more out of Ludgate owing Five or Ten Pounds a piece this little money being all that 's owing in the World by the poor Man when discharged the Law hath no more to say to him than to the Alderman and he is as righteous in the eye of the Law tho he will not pretend to be so great and so rich or a ransomer of others out of Prison as the Alderman himself is § 10. He that bears the sins of others must be a Representative and Publick Person that must personate or bear the persons of them whose sins he bears and must be either substituted by the Court or if by some other he must be allowed to be capable and able to make Payment must be accepted and dealt with in the name and upon the account of the other and becomes a Debtor or Transgressor in and for the person he doth represent in Court and becomes a Delinquent in the eye of the Law the Law imputing sin to him makes him sin because he is supposed to owe nothing on his own account he that doth in foro represent one or more and stands not nor acts for himself but others is a publick Person and Representative as a Burgess or Citizen in Parliament and they that he represents are said to act in and by him It s a contradiction to common sense and reason to say that he that stands legally or civilly in the place of another to act his part and in his name should not be a publick Person but men will throw down common sense and reason to establish their own fond Conceits and Errors § 11. The difference between Imputation by way of Attainder and by way of Suretiship is that this Imputation is in order to the Salvation of the Sinner but that is as to legal single effects only to the Sinners Destruction 2. That in this Imputation in the way of Suretiship as there is Imputation of the sinners sin to the Surety so there is a re-imputation of the Surety's righteousness to the sinner but in Imputation of Sin by way of Attainder there 's no re-imputation of righteousness to the first sinner 3. The Imputation doth differ in the manner of transaction In Imputation of sin by way of Attainder sin is transferred from the Representative to the Represented but in Imputation by way of Suretiship sin is transferred from the Represented to the Representative and that 's the reason that tho we are fitly said to sin in Adam because he was our Representative yet it s not so fitly said that Christ sinned in us because that we were never Representatives to Christ but it s fitly said we are righteous in Christ because he is our Representative and that we satisfied in Christ which saying doth not rob Christ of his Glory of Satisfaction but gives it him affirming that Christ satisfied and for us and that God is well pleased with us through him If a man that hath owed Money to A. and paid him by his Surety B. be charged that he owes A. so much Money he denys it and saith I paid you by B. doth he speak true or false doth he not speak properly doth he hereby say I paid you by my own Money No he only saith that B. paid for me my Debt with his Money But we see how Neonomians will pick quarrel with common sense and reason as they do in their denial of this high and fundamental Point Of Imputation of Sin to Christ and charge it for an Error to say we satisfied in Christ § 12. Neonom Christ neither was a Sinner nor reputed a Sinner by God R. B. End of Contr. p. 122. Christ took not reatum facti nor reatum culpae as if there were any difference between them He took reatum poenae the guilt of punishment that 's always in the fault for nothing deserves punishment but faults Scr. G. d. p. 89. They dangerously affirm meaning those he calls Antinomians that Christ took not only the punishment of our Sins and that guilt and reatum paenae which is an assumed obligation to suffer the punishment deserved by us but all our very sins themselves the very essence of the sins
faulty that will serve the turn God never abandoned nor relaxed his original Law though others as branches in positive laws for a time being may be but that was perfectly fulfilled in Christ § 3. Arg. 2. That Righteousness which merits the Justification of a Sinner before God is that righteousness only by which and for which he is justified before God but the Righteousness of Christ is such Ergo. For the minor our adversaries grant it that Christ merited and purchased our Justification i. e. by works of our own and that our Righteousness and Justification are effects thereof and therefore there needs no further Proof here but we must come to the major which pincheth hard upon them but it appears to be true 1. Because there is no legal Discharge of an accused person without a meritorious righteousness appearing Now these men with the Socinians say some at least and others do but lisp at it Mr. B. says it downright he knowing it to be inseparable from the Popish Doctrine that their righteousness is not meritorious being imperfect if it be not it s no justifying righteousness I will stand by it that there is no righteousness can claim Justification but upon the merit of their action in the performance of the preceptive part and if they be justified by the new law they must be justified by the merits thereof but we assert that the righteousness must answer the old law broken and it must be as in Justice it doth so satisfie that law that it lays claim to Justification by vertue of those merits and no other righteousness will pass there but what is such § 5. Arg. 4. The righteousness typified by the Priests Sacrifices of old was the righteousness whereby a sinner is justifi d in the sight of God but the righteousness of Christ a-alone is such Ergo. For the major our adversaries Mr. Bellarmine and Mr. H. say that Christs Righteousness is the thing for which id propter quod not as the End but as an Instrument of the Efficient and a meritorious cause and our Faith and Obedience is the per quam which they say doth not denote Merit and in the Protestant sence per quam denotes only instrumentality but indeed here 's these mens Commutation they make Christ's Righteousness the Instrument and that remote enough too and our own righteousness the Formal Cause of Justification which in truth is their meritorious cause upon their own Positions the major must be granted The minor will be very demonstrable upon these reasons That the Righteousness of Christ is only such the id propter quod and per quod a sinner is justified in Gods sight 1. i. e. The righteousness by which we are justified is not two but one and Christs is that as the Scripture affirms 2. That for which a man is meritoriously justified in tribuno legis is that by which he is justified so the law knows no difference in those terms for it doth nothing by any righteousness but it doth it for that righteousness 3. The Spirit of God therefore useth the Greek Prepositions promiseuously in this case as hath in part been shewed 4. No Sinner therefore can stand in Judgment but by and for this Righteousness of Christ § 5. Arg. 4. The Righteousness typified by the Priestly Sacrifices of old was the righteousness whereby a sinner is justified in the sight of God but this was the Righteousness of Christ only Ergo. The major and minor are so clear that no Christian that hath read the Scripture with any understanding can deny either if any shall say it s not easie to defend it there 's the whole Epistle to the Hebrews yea the whole Scripture to prove them all the Devils in Hell cannot cast down this Fortress and I leave it therefore to the intelligent Reader let him search the Scriptures they testifie of it § 6. Arg. 5. That Righteousness which is a ransoming and redeeming righteousness from a legal Bondage is the justifying righteousness of a sinner before God but Christ's Righteousness is that alone which is a redeeming and ransoming righteousness Ergo. The minor is true none that call themselves Christians dare to fly so audaciously in the face of Christ and deny plain Scripture to deny this if they do there 's enough to prove it to the meanest Christian The major therefore I will prove beyond all contradiction That righteousness which meritoriously dischargeth the sinner from his Bondage under the Law the condemnation and curse of it is justifying Righteousness but Christs Righteousness is such Rom. 8.34 Gal. 3.13 and divers places for a discharge of a person from under the Bonds Imprisonments and Curse of the Law is his Justification and the righteousness for which he is discharged is his Justification § 7. Arg. 6. That Righteousness which only can justifie a Sinner against the Law is the Righteousness whereby a Sinner is Justifyed in the sight of God but Christ's Righteousness is such Ergo I suppose the major is undeniable except men will cavil at the Sun at noon day and will any have the face to say as to the minor 1. That God hath not purer Eyes of Justice than to behold Iniquity 2. That he exerciseth justice by halves and not in the strictest and exactest manner 3. Will they say their righteousness is so perfect as to answer Gods Law The Neonomians say no. How will they dare to say then they are justifyed by a Righteousness which is not answerable in perfection to the Law but they will be justifyed by another Righteousness the worst they can think of by a Law coined adequate to Antinomian and licentious Principles 4. A Sinners unrighteousness is such that the Law could never look upon him for to be righteouss in the sight of God in his own righteousness because he hath been once a transgressor James saith If a man transgress but in one Point he is guilty of all The Saints in Heaven tho glorified with Perfection yet having been sinners and transgressors of the Law they could not stand Justifyed out of Christ's righteousness It is one thing to have perfection of Sanctification as to the present standing and performances and another thing to have perfection of Justification wherein the least believer here on Earth are as perfectly Justifyed and as righteous before God as the glorifyed Saints in Heaven See Col. 1.22 Eph. 6.27 Rev. 14.4.5 § 8. Arg. 7. That Righteousness which repairs all our unrighteousnesses lost in the first Adam is the only righteousness whereby we are Justifyed before God but Christ's righteousness is such and no other righteousness Ergo as to the major for all other righteousness comes short of what we lost in the first Adam our unrighteousness was our breach of the preceptive part of Gods Law this was our unrighteousness our loss and punishment was also very great in respect of moral original righteousness and coming under the wages of sin which is death or liableness thereto by
the Law in all acceptations Now Christ as a second Adam brought in a righteousness upon both these accounts 1. His perfect compleat active Obedience in opposition to Adam's Sin obedience to disobedience Rom. 5.14 If thro the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace which is Christ's obedience which is by one man hath abounded unto many So in every v. to the end of the chapter Christ's obedience was not only to save us from punishment but to take of all the spots of sin in the sight of God Will Neonomian righteousness take away Original sin in the sight of God bring us into the perfection of the Law in the sight of God repair the preceptive part of God's Law Nay will it do any thing to take us of from punishment No they say not if not its worth nothing § 9. Arg. 8. That Righteousness whereby a Sinner is at peace with God reconciled to him and hath access unto his presence with boldness is the Righteousness whereby he is Justified but the Righteousness of Christ is such the minor is evident Rom. 5.1 2. Eph. 2.13 14. Rom. 5.10 Col. 1.20 The major appears Justification is our reconciling peace with God Ground of boldness of access in Faith and Prayer Rom. 5.1 Heb. 4.15 16. § 10. Arg. 9. That Righteousness which Christ pleads in Heaven for us is our Justifying righteousness but it is his own righteousness which he pleads in Heaven for us Ergo This righteousness is our Justification righteousness Doth Christ plead our righteousness or his own Not ours sure he pleads for acceptance of our services thro' his righteousness he entred into the holyest of all with his blood What was it to procure A Justifying righteousness of ours for him to plead before his Father § 11. Arg. 10. If there be no name of any other nor Salvation in any other among men besides Christ's than there 's no righteousness for Justification of a Sinner but Christ's but the antecedent is true Acts. 4.12 the place so full and express there 's no disputing it But our Neonomians will deny the antecedent for this is the stone that is set at naught by our new Gospel builders they will say that there 's justification righteousness in men and in the name of themselves and their own righteousness they shall be Justified but then I say there 's another name and salvation in some other among men if that justifying righteousness is our salvation only For what is in Christ is it not in them And tho Christ purchased it the salvation is in them not in Christ § 12. Arg. 11. If Christ be the end of the law for Righteteousness to every one that believeth then his righteousness is the only Justifying righteousness but Christ is so the Antecedent is true Rom. 10.4 all the aim and design of God in his law in making it is that it may be answered in righteousness Christ is this end as to all saved ones and as to believers he said not that we are the end of the law by our own righteousness or that Christ merited that we should be the end of the law or shou'd be the righteousness of a new law but Christ is so if their had been any other end for righteousness he would have told us of it The consequence needs no proof for whatever fully answer the end of the law in active and passive obedience for us is justifying righteousness in the eye of the law it looks for no more but the Neonomians will say here is the old law meant and Christ answered that I say then if he did justify us as to Old law righteousness a fig for the New law and the pretended Justification thereby § 13. Arg. 12. That righteousness which in a lively manner is held forth in the seals of the Covenant and as seals of the righteousness of faith is justifying righteousness but that is the righteousness of Christ Ergo. For the minor that 's plain the washing with water held forth his washing us from our sins in his blood the eating the bread and drinking the wine it is to signify our feeding upon the Body of Christ by Faith on which he bore our sins and drinking of his Blood which he shed for the remission of Sins As to the major its plain they hold forth Christ to be our justifying righteousness Act. 2.38 and that we live upon this righteousness as the Lord's Supper holds forth in a spiritual eating the Body and drinking his Blood do we shew forth our own death or life of works or his that they should be seals of our own righteousness and not of Christs § 14. Arg. 13. If no righteousness but a Suretiship and Preistly righteousness can justify a Sinner before God then Christ's righteousness alone can do it but nothing but a Suretiship and Priestly righteousness can c. The minor is proved because we are Bankrouts have nothing to pay neither in our selves by nature nor bestowed on us that which the holiest man hath in sanctification bearing no proportion to our sins and God's demands therefore it must be the righteousness of a Surety that 's holy harmless c. that pays a righteousness for us adaequate to the demands of the Law The consequence will hold because there was no other Surety to God for Sinners but Christ he hath engaged to pay for us and hath paid and his payment accepted His Blood was shed for many for the remission of sins he was the great high Priest and as such he was a Surety Heb. 7.21.22 ch 2.17 § 15. Arg. 14. If there be no Gospel righteousness in respect of a Sinner but Christ's righteousness then Christ's righteousness is our Justifying righteousness but there 's no Gospel righteousness The minor is thus proved The righteousness by which a Sinner is Justified is Gospel 1. Because it s not wrought by himself but by another for him 2. Because it s given to him freely it s a Law righteousness in respect of Christ Now when by our graces and duties we claim Justification as due to us upon performing conditions we make all our works legal and put them in the room of Christ's righteousness for Justification The consequence is clear because a Sinner can be saved only by a Gospel righteousness that of Christ that is offer'd him and he receives as the Gospel glad tidings for its good news and Gospel to any man to hear of one that is able and willing to pay his debt for him § 16. Arg. 15. If there be no life to be given to a Sinner by the righteousness of any law perform'd by him then the righteousness of Christ is the only righteousness that he is justified by but there is no life to be given to any Sinner by the righteousness of any law perform'd by him Ergo. The antecedent is fully proved by the Gal. 3.21 where Law is used indefinitely in both parts of the Texts
between God and him thro this Imputed and believed righteousness 8. The justified one as he draws his first breath of the new man in believing unto righteousness so he lives upon this righteousness in all his Christian course in that Christs righteousness may be called the righteousness of Faith for Meat and Drink John 6.51 53. 9. Faith hath hereby all justifiable ways to God Christ is thereby his way unto the Father he can have access to the grace wherein he stands comes thro this righteousness with boldness to the Throne of grace and receives remission of sins and every good and perfect gift God having not spared his Son but given him for us hence he will not withhold any good thing 10. As it receives all grace in and with justifying grace so it gives and ascribes all to free grace in the Father Son and Holy Spirit both the gift of righteousness and faith it self and the life eternal given to such a poor wretch in and thro Jesus Christ 11. In that this grace being filled with Christs righteousness is leading to all fruits of Christs righteousness imputed and believed all which appear in the exercise of all holy affections graces and duties to the mortification of sin and growth in obedience and conformity to Christ § 14. Now having shewed the Excellency of this Grace in its Nature and Kind we must shew you that it is not Christ nor must not take his Throne or Crown from him yea abhors nothing more if true but will keep a Believer always a poor humble broken and contrite hearted Sinner Therefore we assert and Christ with his whole Word will stand by us in it that our Faith as a Grace of the Spirit or Work of ours is not imputed for Righteousness to Justification I shall but Name a few Arguments convincing enough and shew thereby the way to others to do the same 1. Faith is for the Honour of Christ our High-Priest upon the Throne if it takes to it self justifying Righteousness it takes the Crown from his Head and sets it upon his own for the great end of Christ's Humiliation and Exaltation was the working out of this Righteousness 2. If Faith be our Righteousness then Faith is its own Object when you bid Men believe unto Justification you must bid them believe in themselves and bid them by Faith go to their Faith for Righteousness and Life what 's Absurder 3. If God impute Faith it self as a Work to Justification then Faith must be imputed as meritorious of Justification For 1. Christs Righteousness is so imputed 2. No Righteousness can be imputed otherwise to Justification but such as is meritorious of it Justification being a Law-act 4. Faith making it self Righteousness for Justification by a Law makes it self altogether Legal as much as any Works whatever insomuch that it is not an evangelical Work so that it ought not to justifie as a Work by their own Rule that we are not justified by the legal works but we have proved all their Works legal 5. That that can't cover Sin and take off the Imputation of it can't be justifying Righteousness and take off the the Imputation of Sin for faith did not die for Sin or was made a Sacrifice for it to bear the Sin of many 6 The Priests and Sacrifices of Old were Types of Christs Righteousness for Justification of a Sinner not of the Sinners righteousness and the faithful looked upon themselves as sinners Typically justified in the Righteousness Typified and not in their Faith as a Work done 7. If our Faith in it self be our Righteousness then our unbelief is for that Faith must believe that Christs Righteousness is not imputed to us for Justification this his high unbelief according to the Scripture 8. If Faith say it justifie as a Work then Faith excludes it self the very Nature of it the Neonomian say the Law of Faith is the New-law if so then it excludes it self for the Law of Faith excludes boasting and Works of a Law i. e. the very Nature of Faith if it be good is so 9. If Faith justifie as a Work then Faith justifies not without Works for if it be a Work it self and justifying as such then it justifieth not without Works because it is a Work contrary to Rom. 4.6 10. If Faith be Imputed for Righteousness then the Blood of Christ is not but we are to be justified by the Blood of Christ and the Scripture saith we are by Faith in his Blood 11. If Faith Justifies as a Work then no more is ascribed to Faith than to other Graces in the concern of our Justification but the Apostle ascribes more concern to Faith than other Graces and then why doth he oppose Faith to Works Is it not that its more the Office of Faith as to Justification the Neonomian say it is the same with other Graces c. So Mr. Cl. Justifying Faith is the same thing in Substance with Effectual Calling Repentance Regeneration forming Christ in the Soul the new Creature c. Is not a great deal of the Scripture in vain hath not Paul wrote two Epistles in vain where he makes it his Main Business to beat down Justification by Works and oppose them to one another and now he tells us that Faith and Gospel Works i. e. legal are all one 12. That which justifies as a Righteousness justifies eternally Dan. 9. but Faith can't justifie eternally because Faith ceaseth in Heaven but justifying Righteousness doth not yea all the Righteousness of the New-law must cease 1 Cor. 13.10 14. That which is not the faederal Condition of the Covenant of Grace can't be our Righteousness in it self but Faith is not the faederal Condition because Faith is promised in the Covenant given by Grace purchased by Christ part of Eternal Life a means to lay hold of the Condition but I shall not enlarge upon this now only make one Quotation at last Mr. R. Capel who wrote of Temptation saith speaking of the Conditions of the Covenant In this Matter I am of the Opinion of Kendal that the Covenant he means of Grace was not made with us but with Christ this was the Assembly's Judgment for us and for the main I am clear of Opinion that the Covenant of Grace cannot stand with any Condition of ours at all for that I wish the Learned to consult Junius To deliver my Opinion Adam casting himself out of his Estate the Covenant of Works fell void Then it pleased God to fill up this Room with a New Covenant commonly called his last Testament wherein he bequeathed Grace and Glory on no other Condition that I know of out of the Scriptures but the Death of the Testator i. e. Jesus Christ that as the First Covenant was built on the Righteousness of the first Adam so the Second was built on the Righteousness of the second It is beyond my Brain to conceive that God should immediately make a Covenant with us who were Children of Disobedience and of Wrath who could not be capable of any such Covenant or Conditions but it was with Christ for us Adam lost his Righteousness the Foundation of the first Covenant but the Righteousness of Christ the Second can never be lost and therefore the second Covenant or rather Testament can never be broken or disanulled Condition of the Covenant p. 260. Errata PAge 38. line 2. read partaker p. 39. l. 32. r. relaxed p. 42. l. 23. r. Justice p. 43. l. 36. r. we could not p. 46. l. 17. r. per quam p. 48. l. 16. r. Is it by Imputation p. 49. l. 22. r. God justifies p. 50. l. 34. r. their sins p. 57. l. 34. r. the only p. 64. l. 23. dele r. bottom they must be Pelagians p. 66. l. 2. r. is it not so p. 72. l. 27. dele ◠p. ibid. l. 28. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 73. l. 40. r. Christs righteousness and us p. 78. l. 27. r. would not be p. 79. l. prope antep dele no. p. 85. l. 16. r. Gal. 3.21 p. 86. l. 21. r. Gal. 3.21 p. 87. l. 3. ab ult r. for Saviour self p. 88. l 23. r. Gal. 3.21 l. 37. r. is manifest p. 99. l. 16. dele not p. 100. l. 3. dele and l. 6. r. yea 123. l. 13. r. addicted to it l. 35. r. should not be p. 126. l. 10. r. righteousness twice p. 133 l. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 31. false Hebrew p. 134. l. 20. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 148. l. 17. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 29. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 34. dele the before events p. 149. l. 5. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 155. l. 6. a fine r. unprofitable p. 158. l. 6. ab ult r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 159 false Hebrew p. 160. l. 6. ab ult r. Arg. 3 The righteousness for which and by which a sinner is justified
Alexipharmacon OR A FRESH ANTIDOTE AGAINST Neonomian Bane and Poyson TO THE Protestant Religion Being a Reply to the late Bishop of Worcester's Discourse of Christ's Satisfaction in Answer to the Appeal of the late Mr. Steph. Lob. And also a Refutation of the Doctrine of Justification by Man's own Works of Obedience delivered and defended by Mr. John Humphrey and Mr. Sane Clark contrary to Scripture and the Doctrine of the first Reformers from Popery If there had been a Law given which could have given Life verily Righteousness had been by the Law But the Scripture hath concluded all under Sin that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe Gal. 3.21 22. By ISAAC CHAVNCY M. A. London Printed for and Sold by W. Marshall at the Bible in Newgate-Street 1700. THE PREFACE TO THE READER THE Points Controverted in this small Treatise are not of the least moment to the Christian Religion all Reducible to these two great Questions 1. Whether our Lord Jesus Christ in his Suffering bore the Personal guilt of any or no 2. Whether our Inherent Obedience to the New Law be the Righteousness by which a Believer is Justified before God The first Question comes to be discussed upon the Controversie about change of Persons Mr. Lob asserting That the change of Persons between Christ and Believers consisted in Christ being made sin for us by the Imputation of our sins to him in a legal Sence and a Believers being made the Righteousness of Christ by Imputation and both by transaction of our Personal guilt and punishment due to us for Sin to Christ and of his righteousness in bearing sin and punishment to us This change of Persons the Scripture asserts in plain Words 2 Cor. 5.21 This Mr. Lob asserts Report p. 13. and the Bishop denies and saith That the change was not in respect of the guilt of Sin because Christ bore the Personal guilt of none and whatever Christ did or suffered the personal guilt of sin remains on Believers and can never be taken away But he tells us of a kind of Change that he is for viz. That Christ was punisht that we might not be punisht and this is all our stead that Christ stood in now if Christ stood not in our stead as Sinners and he was not made Sin for us it s to assert that which is Expresly contrary to Scripture and most irrational to men of Vnderstanding as shall be made appear And the Change which is pretended by the Bishop is no change in the sence of the Spirit of God at best it can be but a partial change neither as a Publick person nor in the Room of the Sinner as such It is such a change as when three persons are condemned and they are thro' the mercy of the Legislator to cast Lots for their lives one only to die now be on whom Deaths Lot falls dieth that in the event the other may not die yet this Person dieth but in Relation to his own Sins not upon the account of the others Sins Many Instances might be given of the like Nature where a Man does or suffer for another that the other may not and here is a change of Persons in respect of Punity and Impunity but Note that it s no true Change if Desert remains on the Original Transgressor and the Sufferer suffer under no Desert neither is such Sufferings Punishment in any Law Sence neither can that Person be ever Righteousness that standeth in the Personal Guilt of his Sin unremoved but this is not the Place to enlarge on this Point I shall only Note that in one thing the Bishop got the Weather-gage of Mr. Lob Mr. Lob having in express Terms renounced that Change of Persons which Dr. Crisp Asserts The Bishop very honestly proves that Dr. Crisp asserted no other Change of Persons then what Mr. Lob contends for and therein he hath done Justice both to Dr. Crisp and Mr. Lob and truly its but a sorry Business of any Man of Learning and Ingenuity to inveigh highly against the Opinion of another as erroneous when he himself is necessitated by his Principles to hold the same thing only a little differing in way of Expressions Neither let the Reader think that I appear to Justifie Mr. L's appealing to the Bishop for I was always against it and declared to him how much I and others was offended at it and at his nauseous fawning and flattering of him as if he intended to lay down his Faith at his Feet for he could not but know the Bishops settled Opinion in this Point as I told him by the Letters he wrote to Mr. H. and Mr. W. yea and to himself before his Appeal and then if so what a piece of Pageantry was it in him to Appeal to the Bishop but it must be done it seems the Wind of his Phantasie without any Reason hurrying him this Way the Issue whereof is that were Mr. L. alive he would see he is inevitably run a ground and therefore although I can't get him off as to that matter yet I hope to see the Truth safe the main Thing which the Good Man contended for for I am not to defend Men who will have their Imprudencies and Imperfections but the good Cause he defended The Second great Thing I contend for is the Righteousness of Christ that it is the only Righteousness that a Believer is justified by Mr. Humphr and Mr. Clerk Assert our Justification by a Believers own inherent Righteousness i. e. by their Works of Obedience to the New Law a Tenent that hath an inseparable Connexion unto the former I shall not detain the Reader any longer therein but refer him to the Treatise it self Lastly I finding in the Bishops Treatise a Presentation of the Independants brought in by the Presbyterians for holding several Antinomian Principles which the Rebuker calls Bane and Poyson in that Form of Prayer which he hath taught his Disciples I have thought it requisite to Entitle my Book accordingly Alexipharmacon and though I take the Rebuker to be of too haughty a Constitution abounding in Choler to be my Patient yet I am not discouraged from exposing this Preparation to Publick Advantage not doubting but some may reap Benefit thereby and hence I have endeavoured also to correct the Druggs which the unskilful Rebuker hath cast away with his prophane Faugh for Bane and Poyson and shew that if they be but a little scraped and wip'd from the Dirt and Filth which he and his slovenly Apothecary hath put upon them they will become a Christians wholesome Food and substantial Medicine being the Fruit and Leaves of the Tree of Life for the healing of the Nations Rev. 22.2 A Catalogue of Mr Isaac Chauncy's Books Printed for and Sold by William Marshall at the Bible in Newgate Street 1. NEonomianism Vnmask'd Or the Ancient Gospel pleaded for against the other called a new Law or Gospel in a Theological Debate
Blood of Christ is purged from all his Sins and is perfectly Righteous in the sight of God in Christ though not in himself notwithstanding all the inherency of remaining corruption in him after he is partaker of Regenerating and Sanctifying Grace Bp For God may see cause to forgive a Sinner and receive him into favour although he still continues to hate and abhor the Sin A. What cause can God have to forgive a Sinner and receive him into favour besides his Free-Grace and the Satisfaction of his Son which he hath made to his Justice in bearing his Sin and suffering for it And this God doth and yet hates and abhors Sin for though Christ bore Sin it was not in kindness to it but to condemn it in his Flesh And though God loves and saves the Person of the Sinner yet he always hated Sin both of the Elect and Reprobate § 13. Bp As to the Guilt of Sin as it relates to Punishment these things are to be considered He should have told us what Guilt of Sin he means for obligation to Punishment he told us is in the Law not in the Delinquent therefore his Guilt is not of Sin but of the Law I have not much to say to the three particulars provided they be rightly meant viz. 1. Although a Divine Justice require satisfaction for Sin it is not necessary the actual Transgressors should undergo the Punishment which they have deserved i. e. if another undergo their deserved Punishment by a substitution legally in their stead in regard of Desert and Punishment for then there would be no room for Grace and Favour which is not shewed by God to any absolutely in a dispensation with Justice but in such a way as may glorifie Divine Justice 2. That it is consistent with the Wisdom and Justice of God to accept of a Mediator such an one as is a Surety to interpose between the Severity of the Law and the Punishment of the Transgressor upon terms agreeable to Divine Wisdom and Mercy A. 1. The Mediator ought to be between God and Man in respect of Sin especially the cause of Punishment for it's Sin that 's contrary to God's Law Punishment of the Sinner is agreeable to God's Law 2. He speaks of terms upon which God accepted of a Mediator I cannot understand what he means by it for Christ's Mediatorship was the condition of God's acceptance of us Christ in respect of himself was absolutely accepted not upon any previous conditions performed by him or after-conditions to be performed by us Which latter I find he intends 3. That such a Mediator undertaking to make Atonement for our Sins by Suffering in our stead and Place as Sinners may truly and properly be said to undergo the Punishment of our Sins and our Sins to be the Meritorious cause of it By no means in Suffering only upon an occasional remote reason from Sin but he must suffer judicially taking upon him a Legal Charge of Merit and Desert in the place and stead of the Sinner Now he seems to suspect himself in this Doctrine of his to fall upon the Shelves of marvellous inconsistency and therefore indeavours to forestall the following Objection If Desert adhere to Personal Guilt inseparably as before asserted how can our Sins be the Meritorious cause of another's Punishment The Argument against his Doctrine he can't Answer for where there 's no Guilt there 's no Desert and where there 's no Desert there 's no Punishment in legal Sense He riggles up and down under the pressure of this Objection but can't get it off I answer that a meritorious cause may be considered two ways 1. In a Natural Course of things and so Desert follows the Fact so that the Sinner always deserves Punishment and no interposition nor forgiveness can take off the Desert c. A. The subject Act to Sin is Natural but the formal Nature of Sin as Guilt is Moral as it stands in Relation to the Law So that supposing that Ordine naturae the Guilt or Desert follows the Fact yet it 's not in a Physical course of things 2. His after Assertion implies that no Sin is pardoned in and through the Satisfaction of Christ that whether the Sin be Pardon'd in a way of Grace or satisfied for in a way of Justice the Sin remains in its full strength upon the Sinner for ever for he that deserves Punishment doth so by the Law for the strength of Sin is the Law and therefore must of necessity for fear of Death the Wages of Sin be all the Day long subject unto Bondage this is a sad Gospel 2. He saith As Desert implies only a just reason of Punishment and so there may be a Meritorious cause in extraordinary Cases when the Legislator consents that another bear the Punishment which others have deserved Immerito quemque punire est injuste punire as Johns out of Cret Immerito is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 merito 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Cic. Jure merito are most commonly put together A. Here we have the cause given The Question is in plain terms whether Christ Died merito for our Sins He here plainly grants those things 1. That Desert implies a just reason of Punishment then I argue if Christ was punished justly then he Died with a just reason thereof and there can be no just reason of Punishment but Desert and if this was on Christ it came from Christ's own Personal Sins or from ours The Bp would not say from his therefore from ours 2. He grants there may be a meritorious Cause in extraordinary Cases when the Legislator consents that another shall undergo the Punishment What 's that 1. Was any Case more extraordinary than this we are speaking of 2. He must needs mean that when the Legislator consents that another shall undergo the Punishment that then the said Person so undergoing stands under the Desert of that Person for whom he is punished 3. He grants the truth and none can deny it that Immerito aliquem punire est injuste punire it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 punire sine ratione in juditio Nothing of Suffering can be reasonable in Judicial Proceedings unless there be a desert therefore he saith that Cic. puts jure merito together Now this is the Mystery that the Bp is to reveal to shew how Christ was Punished for a meritorious Cause and yet stood not under any of our Personal Deserts § 14. He comes now to Answer what is said for Christ's bearing our Personal Guilt and the most that he saith is to resay what he said before and is sufficiently Answered already but to do him right we will briefly weigh his strength The first is The injustice of Punishing any immerito this is the summ of it His Answer lyes chiefly in asserting that this is the Socinian way of Arguing and so we see the Antinomians join with the Socinians But how the same way of Arguing May not one and the
expacto now then if he concede that our Works are not meritorious of a Reward he gives us all we contend for provided he yeild that the Condition of a Covenant compact is meritorious of the Reward which all Men of Sense will acknowledge well then what Place after all this noise is Works to have He saith They are only Means which God hath appointed in order to an end A. If this be rightly meant we will grant it and yet hold our Assertion untouch'd for tho' all Foederal Conditions are Means yet all Means are not Covenant Conditions antecedent things are Means of coming to consequent but not always Foederal Conditions Now if he will say eternal Life is that end I will say more that he hath not Eternal Life who hath not such a Faith which hath its Fruits unto Holiness and that this Holy Life belongs to and is that Eternal Life begun in us Bp. As a Son that hath an Estate promised him of the free Gift of his Father but yet he requires some Conditions to be performed by him before he comes to the Possession of it can any one think this to be Bargain and Sale between Father and Son A. The Comparison is too short to illustrate much less to prove the thing For 1. In this the Father will not enjoin any Conditions but such as the Son hath Ability to perform As for Example He will not enjoin a poor lame Cripple to leap over a Hedge first nor a Stone-blind illiterate Son to read a Chapter in the Hebrew Bible Now to say that our Case runs parallel it 's false for if God promise Eternal Life upon the condition of our good Works who are dead in Trespasses and Sins it 's to do it on an unperformable condition which becometh not the Wisdom of God 2. And he saith Can any one think this to be Bargain and Sale A. Yes sure there are such Fools in the World If all be so who believe not as the Bp. saith I would ask the Bp. if his Father should tell him Child if thou wilt resign up thy Bishoprick of Worcester to thy Brother I will give thee the Bishoprick of Durham would not the Bp. demand the Bishoprick of Durham as due to him from his Father upon his Resignation let the Father be Pater Patriae the King or any other § 24. Now he saith If these be Theological Measures they had need to seek for new ones No sure for the Bp. hath saved us that Labour he hath found them for us but such as are but Trash by the Standard of Scripture and Reason Now he reckons he hath paid off Theological Measures but faith he hath not yet done with them Sure we may most safely take our Theological Measures from our Saviour yes surely there 's no doubt of it for he knew best how far and in what Sense the Guilt of our Sins was transferred upon him and whether there followed an immediate Discharge upon it without regard to Conditions on our parts the Question of the highest Import being put to him what shall I do to inherit Eternal Life A. Where lyes the Force of this Argument It must be here If Christ had this Question twice put to him What shall I do to inherit Eternal Life And his Answer was Keep the Commandments and thou shalt live then the Guilt of our Sins were not laid on Christ non sequitur so he saith as to him Luke 10.25 28. Had our Saviour only a mind to banter him No what was it then He himself tells us It was to convince him of the Impossibility of his doing what was necessary for Eternal Life He should have added under the Covenant of Works and therefore of performing a Covenant Condition answerable to the Covenant of Works whereby the Jews expected a merited Reward they sought Life by the Righteousness of the Law and he acknowledgeth That it is not improbable that our Lord intended to convince him of his Folly who supposeth he had kept those Commandments in the Jewish Sence of them And this is the true meaning of the Text why therefore is this Text brought to prove that Christ bore not the Guilt of Sins Baculus stat in Angulo ergo pluit There 's as iittle consequence from the other Mark 10.17 The same or like Answer may serve which he suggests himself There was an immoderate Love to the World in his Heart which he was not aware of till our Saviour put him upon a severe Trial of himself Go sell what thou hast c. Upon this Trial he shewed himself and went away sorrowful notwithstanding all his seeming Desire for Heaven this was the true Reason and no other and Christ intended not thereby to establish a Covenant of Works and what he saith after is to little purpose it 's only to wrest the Sense of a Text from what he thought in his Conscience it would bear And so Luke 16.9 Make to your self Friends of the Mammon What doth he say of that Not by way of Merit or any foolish Imagination of that sort but in Obedience to the Will of God who hath made it a necessary Duty Do they speak otherwise who hold Christ bore their Personal Guilt I wonder a Bp. should trifle so shamefully Again he saith If these be Theological Measures what doth our Saviour mean when he saith Luke 13.24 Strive to enter c. A. He means not that he did not bear the Guilt of Sin or any should strive in his own Strength or strive as a Foederal Condition for he saith Many shall strive i. e. falsly in such a manner and shall not be able and who interprets striving here of faint and weak Endeavours Certainly he would render all them that holds that Christ bore the Guilt of Sin to be a pitiful sort of Christians that have little or no regard to the Command of Christ Sure if they were so they would not many of them so joyfully have suffered the spoiling of their Goods by the Bishops in the late time of Persecution and what led them to it but a Conscience of Obedience to the Commands of Christ He saith One would think it impossible to enter into a Man's Head to suppose that a Man 's own Righteousness should be excluded from being conjunct with the Righteousness of Christ if he look to V. 21 and 24. A. Christ doth not in the least oppose Man's Righteousness to his nor make it conjunct with his but gives only a Character of such as be sincere Believers and Professors of his Name and will be found so at the last Day What he says of immediate Discharge hath been spoken to before that the immediate Effect of Christ's Death was a Right to a Discharge the Discharge it self could not be before they have a Natural and Spiritual Being § 25. Bp. If there be no condition how can they be satisfied that the Guilt of their Sins are laid on Christ A. In answer to this it 's said
against the Socinians and Mr. B. 2. That Christ bore not the Personal Guilt of any Legally but that all Personal Guilt remains on the Sinner and was not legally transferred to Christ For this he saith P. 167. Bp. 1. We say that Punishment may be justly inslicted where there was a Translation of Guilt by Relaxation of the Law as to personal Offenders and admitting a Mediator to suffer in their stead R. No Guilt is translated by Relaxation of a Law for that dispenceth only 2. If the Law be relaxed as to Personal Offenders the doing of those things aster the relaxation is not Sin which was so before what needs a transferring to another 3. If the Precept be not relaxt which they will be loath to say it is then the Penalty must and if so either to a part only or to the whole If to the whole what need is there of a Translation If to a part only then part of the Sin only is transferred and Christ Died only for some part of our Sin not all Hence one part of our Salvation is owing to the relaxed Law and the other to Christ Hence Christ did not satisfie the Law in the proper and strict Nature of it and Christ's Sufferings were improper Punishments according to Mr. B. And here the Bp runs on ground Bp. He saith 2. Absolute Promises of the New-Covenant on which so much weight is laid without comparing them with other places speak no more of Christ's Sufferings than they do of any Conditions in us Here our own Qualifications and Performances are made to have an equality of conditionality foederally with Christ's Sufferings and if Christ's Sufferings be meritorious so are they too Bp. 3. The notion of Satisfaction lays the Foundation of Antinomianism which attributes unto God such a sort of vindictive Justice which requires an absolute and perfect Satisfaction in the same kind for the Sins of Mankind R. How much this kind of satisfaction borders upon Socinianism in the true meaning of it it 's easie to judge and what little reason the Bp had to reject the Principles that Mr. B. built upon is manifest being a firmer Foundation for his building And after all that he hath said against them as too much favouring Socinianism he is fain to lay hold on them to support his own Fabrick See here the pitiful shifts Men are put to that wander from the way of truth Arguments to prove that Christ bore the Personal Guilt of all them for whom he Suffered THAT the less intelligent Reeader may not be at loss for the truth not so easily finding it among the Controversal Difficulties of a Dispute I have thought good to make plain proof of this great Question in the affirmative And that we may prevent enlargements I premise 1. That by Personal Guilt is meant the Guilt of every particular Person for whom Christ Died as of Noah David and Peter c. 2. I take Guilt and Sin and the merit and desert of Sin to be equivalent terms in the sense of the Spirit of God and though the Scripture use the word Sin and we most commonly say Guilt this is exegetical to shew that we mean not that the Subjective Physical Act of Sin was transferred to Christ nor the inherent Moral Pollution But whatever is in either that is a Transgression of the Law the Law-relation of all Sin so far as the Law condemns the Sinner for it was charged on Christ i. e. Legally and Juridically in the Just God's distribution of Justice Then I argue Arg. 1. He that was punisht for Sin bore Sin in the Personal Guil i. e. the Legal Charge of it as the reason of his Punishment but Christ was punisht for it by the Concession of our opposites Ergo The Major is true 1. Because God is Just 2. Punishment without a Reason is very unjust 3. There was no reason in Christ absolutely considered for his Punishment therefore in some others therefore the Personal Sin of some or other 4. Without a bearing of Sin in the legal desert of some or other he could not be justly punished by the Law Arg. 2. He that was made Sin for us was made so by charging our Sins upon him bare Personal Guilt for he was made that which he was not in himself Now how could he be made so but by an imputation of the Sins of others to him a legal proceeding with him in judicature which could be no other than by Judging and Punishing him for some Guilt that merits the Wages of Death The Answer the Socinians and others make to 2 Cor. 5.21 is that he was made Sin as the Sacrifices were because a Sin-offering is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I answer 1. It was essential to the Sin-offering to have the the Personal Guilt of the Sinner charged upon it 2. When 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for a Sin-offering it 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. The Prophet Isa doth only use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he speaks of Christ's bearing Sin which last word is never used for Sin-offering 4. He was made Sin as we are made Righteous now we are not made Righteous by being made Sacrifices for Sin but by imputation Arg. 3. He that bore the Curse of the Law to Redeem us from it bore also the Personal Guilt of our Sins but Christ bore the Curse of the Law Gal. 3.13 For the Major it 's as clear as the Sun because Curse is inseparable from Sin the Law curseth no where but where it finds Personal Guilt Let these Men tell me where a Curse falls upon the head of any one but of such wherein there is Sin in some legal sense or other Arg. 4. If the Priests and Sacrifices of old the Types of Christ and his Sufferings had the Personal Guilt of Sin laid upon them then Christ the Antitype in his Sufferings had Personal Guilt laid upon him But the Antecedent is without contradiction yea and the Consequence because the Antitype is to answer the Type in all things wherein it is a Type Arg. 5. If they that were Punished by the Law did bear their Personal Sins by the Law then if Christ was Punished by the Law he also bore Sin by the Law But the Antecedent is true by the Scripture both in them that are recorded to have been Punished in Person for their own Sins Lev. 20.20 and 22.9 and 24.15 Numb 9.13 and 14.34 and 18 22 32. Ezek. 23.49 and in such as are recorded to have been Punished or Suffer for others Isa 53.11 Ezek. 4.4 5 6. The Consequence must be true if Christ was Punished by Law and was one that Suffered for others the proof whereof the Scripture is full of Arg. 6. If Christ bore not Personal Guilt but every one's Personal Guilt still remains then the Spirit of God taught David to pray after his Sin in vain Deliver me from Blood guiltiness O God But David's Prayer was
of Eternal State Where are we now what a Justification is this by the New Law wherein our eternal state is not concerned Well! but our Justification in this life is not yet perfect not by Christ because he takes off only eternal punishment but temporal he hath left to us to remove by Repentance performing the righteousness of the New Law I hope this righteousness falling in to help Christ's it will produce perfect Justification No it wont this righteousness takes away our Sins and Punishment wholly but sometimes and sometimes only in part and what 's the reason where 's the fault why it falls upon this New Law which is always fulfilling and never fulfilled it will never justifie any one till the last day and it cannot do it then without the perfect righteousness of the Old Law § 7. Let 's take Mr. Cl's Definition of Justification into consideration a little He saith The Definition of Justification so far as it relates to God is thus Justification is an act of God whereby he accounts us righteous at present and treats us as such and will solemnly declare and pronounce us so at the last day of Judgment Resp He should have told us what act of God whether immanent or transient whether an act of Grace or Justice or both he should have told us the object of that act whether a meer sinner or a righteous person he will tell us anon it s a righteous person and he saith accounting him so at present if this accounting him be in a law sense it s but Imputation at most and this is that and all that he doth at present he finds them holy and righteous and judgeth them to be as they be but doth not God declare them righteous at present neither in foro Legis nor in foro Evangelii nor in foro conscientiae in none of these at present when then the very Sentence of Justification is not till the last day so that indeed there is none justified till then for a suspended sentence keeps the person whatever Opinion the Judge hath of him under the Law in Prison and in continual fear of Condemnation so that they are all the day long for fear of Death subject to Bondage § 8. Hence he infers two things 1. That Justification while we are in this life is but partial imperfect and incompleat and that we shall not obtain fully compleat entire and final Justification for all the effects of sin till the Day of Judgment To which I answer Where there is but an imperfect partial Justification there must be a partial Condemnation it cannot be denied but the Apostle denys it and saith there 's no condemnatien to them that are in Christ Jesus 2. The law knows no such thing a man is either perfectly justied for the same thing or perfectly condemned there 's no Medium betwixt Justification and Condemnation 3. If the New Law do not perfectly justifie a person then it condemns too at the same time that when ever the Parator of righteousness takes himself to be justified he is bound to believe himself condemned also and whether will stand good at the last Day he knows not either his Justification or Condemnation CHAP. VI. Of Pardon Section 1. Whether Remission of Sin belongs to Justification § 2. Remission distinguished by Mr. H. § 3. Of general Remission § 4. Conditional Pardon antecedent to a mans Justification § 5. Actual Pardon subsequent to a mans Justification Sect. 1. MR. Cl's Second Inference is That Justification doth not properly consist in Pardon afterward he saith a man is first righteous and then pardoned to which we have spoken something Mr. H. makes a fearful pudder about this Point we will a little inspect his Notions Mediocr p. 44 55. Our Divines do generally place Justification in remission of Sins and so do the Papists and so did I my self Resp Remission of Sins is upon good grounds placed in Justification as an essential part of the Justification of a Sinner and I can boldly deny that sinner to be justified whose sins are not forgiven and to separate them is as possible as to separate homo animal rationale The Law any Law nay your New Law cannot justifie a sinner and declare him righteous unless in that very act of declaring him righteous his sins are taken away in foro legis and this is God's Remission tho not Man 's for his ways are not as mans and whereas Mr. H. makes remission of sins to be a benefit after Justification as an effect of it we say it is a benefit in Justification and the first thing in it in Nature for its impossible any one should stand righteous in the eye of any Law that stands chargeable as a transgressor thereof But remission must not saith Mr. H. be the formal reason of Justification Resp The form of an Act and the formal reason of that Act are two things the material reason of Justification is righteousness and the formal cause is imputation of that righteousness Justification comes in as the acquitting Sentence opposed as Mr. B. saith to condemnation which ex natura rei must formally carry in it forgiveness of sins He proceeds To forgive a mans sins and declare him rigeteous are two inconsistencies one with another in the same respect Resp Cujus contrarium verum in Justification of a Sinner they are most consistent and inseparable that in declaring a sinful man righteous his sins are also done away its true in mans way of Pardon there is some inconsistency because his is by dispensing with his Law but God's way of forgiveness is in and through the satisfaction of his Law but I must tell him that here no Man is looked upon as righteous in the eye of man's law that hath transgressed it till he is first pardoned and therefore when God pronounceth a man just it is according to the law of faith when he pardons his sins it is in respect of the law of works Resp Here are two Bars now he saith elsewhere he likes not two bars I would fain know now at which of these Bars a sinner is most justified either by the law of Works where all his sins are forgiven and therefore consequently must be made righteous or at the Bar of the New Law where he saith the man is declared just but imperfectly so and therefore goes away with his sins upon his Back to the Law of Works to have them pardoned Is it not pretty Divinity then to say a man is declared righteous first at the Bar of the Law of Faith and then all the Bed-role of his sins are pardoned at the Bar of the Law of Works § 2. He comes to distinguish of Remission It s either conditional and universal as it lies in the Covenant and is the purchase of Christ or actual as it lies in application thereof to particular persons upon performance of the conditions Resp This Distinction is a great Point among the Neonomians Mr. B.
he always had and would deal with them that stood upon their own righteousness according to the tenor of the law if you are able to stand the test of your own righteousness you shall be tried by it yea I will deal not only righteously with you according to my law but condescendingly if you are able to turn from sin to righteousness and abide in it and not turn to sin again but all this is to shew them their folly in trusting to their own righteousness and ability to perform it for he saith v. 31. cast away all your transgressions i. e. there 's not the guilt of any must ly upon you and make you a new heart and a new spirit where he challengeth them to do that which no natural man can do but because they stood upon their own righteousness and natural abilities God brings them to the test for their Conviction that they might fly to his Grace both for Justification and Sanctification which fully appears by the Promise chap 36.25 26 27. where both are said to be of God and not of our selves He alledgeth also the tenor of the Law he that doth them shall live in them i. e. saith he he shall be justified in them Resp Now its strange a man should be so absurd to bring the express tenor of the Covenant of Works to be that of the Covenant of Grace when it s positively affirmed that this tenor of the law is not of faith directly opposed to that righteousness of faith Gal. 3.12 Nay he is not content with this downright contradiction to the Spirit of God he goes on If you make a question there is another Text must convince you The just shall live by faith to live by our faith is to be justified by it Resp The man I suppose said these things by roat not minding the Text he says there 's another Text but names not where but it s applied to the matter in hand Gal. 3.11 the very reciting whereof will be answer enough to him The Apostle was proving a man is not justified by the works of the law perfectly or imperfectly performed is evident for the just shall live by faith i. e. he that is righteous is righteous by the righteousness of faith and this is the righteousness which his faith as its food feeds upon during his life of Justification § 2. His second Argument is Medioc p. 19 20. When this very Phrase of the imputation of Christs righteousness is not found in Scripture So saith Mr. Cl. Resp That imputation of righteousness is found in Scripture it cannot be denied as in the instance of Abraham Rom. 4. Now our adversaries will grant us this Dilemma that either it was Christ's righteousness was imputed to him or his own not his own because he was ungodly when justified for when he was ungodly saith the Text faith was imputed to him for righteousness what of faith sure it was no other than the thing he believed Jesus Christ and his righteousness whose day of expiation he saw this was imputed to him for righteousness For if Abraham saw Christ's day it was the day of his Sacrifice and Expiation for this end he came into the world and the Good News or Gospel preached unto him was Christ in the Promise Gal. 3.8 and the same righteousness the heathen was to be justified by Ibid. Faith wherever it s said to be accounted for righteousness or wherever we are said to be accounted righteous it s to be understood objectively and put for the righteousness that it does eye and lay hold upon But 2dly Is not Christs righteousness said in Scripture to be imputed to us let us a little examine Scripture First whether it s not in Rom. 4. where Imputation is often mentioned The Apostle Rom. 4.21 22. observes Abraham believing the promise viz. of Christ saith therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness viz. the thing promised and the thing believed for he believed that God was able to perform what he promised therefore the thing promised was that which was imputed to him Now saith the Apostle do not believe you are told this because it was peculiar to Abraham and none had it but Abraham but it s written not for him only but for us that have the same Faith Righteousness and Imputation to us to whom it shall be imputed if we believe i. e. receive that righteousness by faith which Abraham received embracing the promises viz. believing on him that justifies and on the righteousness of Christ by which we are justified and then the Argument stands thus The death of Christ for our sins and resurrection for Justification is the righteousness of Christ this none can deny but the death of Christ for our sins and his resurrection for or because of our Justification is imputed to every believer as is plain in the Text chap. 4.24 25. and hence it follows that all the Justification spoken of and imputation of righteousness throughout the Chapter is Christs righteousness the Apostle asserting here and Gal. 3. that the Gentiles should be justified by faith as Abraham was 3. The Scripture saith we are justified by his blood Rom. 5.9 and through faith in his blood Rom. 4.28 therefore They that be justified by the blood of Christ are justified by the imputation of his righteousness but we are so justified by the places mentioned Now then none cna deny that Christs shedding his blood is his righteousness and we cannot be justified by it unless it be imputed to us and if any thing else be imputed then not that if Mr. Humph. will say its effective only its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his blood as in the blood of a Sacrifice shed for us where in the blood of the Sacrifice is accepted as if it were the very blood of the Sinner 4th That by which we have redemption is the righteousness of Christ but the death and satisfaction of Christ is that whereby we have redemption and therefore that redeeming righteousness is imputed to us Rom 3.25 26. Col. 4.14 but more of this by and by for the Scripture is full of it blessed be God Neonomian Doctrine I am fully assured is far from Gospel as far as Darkness is from Light § 3. His third Argument against the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness is If the righteousness of Christ be imputed to us as if it were ours in it self it must be the righteousness of his active or passive obedience or both But it s neither Resp We say both He goes to prove his active obedience is not imputed If it be then must we be looked upon in him as having committed no Sin nor omitted no Duty and then what need will there be of Christ's Death Resp The same consequent may be corruptly drawn upon imputation of his passive as he doth But the consequent follows not for the Imputation of Christs active obedience is upon supposal that the Law of God is not nor cannot be perfectly
kept by us for if we were perfect in our selves there would not need the Perfection of another to be imputed to us for all Imputation by Transaction supposeth the person not to be that personally and in himself which he is made to be by Imputation so Imputation of our Sins to Christ supposeth Christ was not Sin in himself but made so by imputation of ours therefore the Imputation of Christs active obedience supposeth us to be sinners in our selves 2. As Christ was the Second Adam and made under the law in all respects for us so he was to come under it for us as to active obedience and to answer that way as well as the other for it was needful that he fulfil all righteousness for us and the first and chief thing the Law required was active obedience the Law is not satisfied without a performance of the righteousness which it requires there must be therefore a fulfilling of the Law as to active obedience else the righteousnes of Christ is lame and imperfect It s true if the righteousness imputed were inherent according to the Neonomian Doctrine then the inference might hold if we are imputed righteous for our internal righteousness that would bring us under this consequence but our Imputation is of the active righteousness of another which makes us compleat in Christ and without spot in the eye of God's Justice Let me return the Argument upon him If our active obedience to the new Law be imputed to us for justifying righteousness then must we he lookt upon in this righteousness as such as have committed no sin I hope Mr. H. will not say that the righteousness of the new law is not active obedience I say is it imputed or not if imputed the consequence follows but to see the baseness of these men to draw odious consequences upon the Mystery of Christ when the same would follow with much more odium upon their own Doctrine that they set up against Christ their active obedience must be imputed to them for righteousness but Christ's must not be imputed to us They say then what need would there be of Christ's Death We say as much as there is of paying the wages of sin where the law is actually broken The law requires two things 1. The death of the sinner 2. The obedience of the sinner to the preceptive part of the law both which Christ hath performed and a Believer in him as his Representative Priest and Surety and whereas he saith we must be looked upon as such as have committed no sin we must not be lookt upon as such by our selves but there is no true Believer but is lookt upon by God in foro Justitiae as if he had committed no sin for if our sins stand in the light of God's Countenance in the eye of his Justice we must needs be odious to him whence is it then that the sins of Gods children are cast behind his back and that they stand without spot before the Throne and to conclude this Point now let him consider only one verse of Rom. 5.19 As by the disobedience of one many were made sinners so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous I would know of him what will become of so plain an Antithesis if obedience be not active obedience there meant § 4. If Christs passive obedience be imputed then must we look on our selves as such who in Christ have suffered and satisfied the law and born the curse of it and then how shall there be room for any pardon a man that pays his full debt by himself or Surety cannot be forgiven by the Creditor Resp And here he would cover himself not to be seen a Socinian we shall see how well by and by 1. He lays it down as a gross absurdity to say we satisfied in Christ here and elsewhere often to which we answer that it is not absurd for any man to say I paid my Debt by another viz. a Surety for the law looks upon it as the payment of his Debt and he is discharged by it 2. He makes not himself the Surety for he ascribes the payment to the Surety and the Debt to himself so the words are not honouring himself but honour to the Surety therefore to say Believers have satisfied the law in their Surety Christ is giving glory to him and a proper usual Speech But he infers with the Socinians that then there 's no room for Pardon indeed it is easie to see how their mouths water at a plain Denial of Christ's Satisfaction though they do it interpretatively as much as the Socinians you may likewise see the Design in dividing Justification and Pardon one from the other It s true when a righteous person is justified by his own righteousness as in the Neonomian Justification there 's no room for Pardon for he hath paid all his due and by his own Money but it is otherwise in God's Justification of a sinner 1. That is his Pardon God pardons none but in Justification we have forgiveness through the blood of Christ tho Man pardons often with injury to Justice but God declares his righteousness for the remission of sins Rom. 3.25 and without shedding of blood there is no remission Heb. 9. 2. God's justifying sinners ungodly c. by a righteousness given unto them is a pardon of them 3. It is the highest noblest Pardon in the World where sins are nailed to the Cross of Christ when it is to the Satisfaction of Justice as Grace so Justice are magnified therein A true Believer and broken-hearted sinner will not speak in the proud Socinian or Neonomian Dialect O Lord we thank thee not for or expect Pardon if Christ hath died to satisfie with them either Gods Pardon or the Sinners Justification must fall to the ground but bless God for the noblest Pardon in the World § 5. But methinks this Argument is purely Socinian for they say there 's nothing more contrary to Gods forgiving freely than Satisfaction But Mr. H. that he might not seem to run a Tilt against Satisfaction saith indeed The Argument of the Socinian from Pardon against Christ's Satisfaction is not valid but it is good against imputation of it to us as if we had satisfied Resp And why is it not good against Satisfaction in the Socinian sence he gives no reason for he saith that he that pays the full Debt by himself or Surety there 's no room for pardon and will not Mr. H. say that Christ hath not paid the full Debt for him if he will let him pay what remains or try for Pardon for that which is not paid another way than by remission through his blood but what do they Socinians say more if God be satisfied where is Pardon we say God's Pardon is by way of Satisfaction to his Law No saith Mr. H. it is good against Imputation so the Socinians hold too I pray did Christ satisfie at all if he did was it
offence of one death reigned by one much more they which receive abundance of Grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ § 8. Mr. Cl. Christ is called the Surety of a better Covenant Heb. 7.22 Whence some infer that he hath paid the debt of obedience to God for us Interpreters generally assign two ways wherein Christ is a Surety 1. By undertaking for God to us or his becoming Security for God that he should make good his Covenant to us on his part 2. By undertaking for us to God that we should perform the Condition of the Covenant the first the Polonian Merchants Grotius and Hammond are for the Protestants generally stick to this latter that Christ is our Surety by undertaking for us to God that we shall fulfil the Condition of the Covenant by yielding that obedience that is required of us therein Resp Mr. Cl. tells of the Merchants that they the Neonomians do trade with and indeed most of their Commodities have Polonian stamps not to treat so large as to handle all that might be said of the Suretiship of Christ it being the very Hinge of our Salvation though the Neomonian as well as the Polonian Merchants make very slight of it and Mr. H. in Particular because he saith it s but once used in the New Testament I say it is therefore a Pearl of great Price for I could Instance in several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Spirit of God hath used in the Old and New which do express singular Truths and Mysteries not common I shall only Note some things generally that are Truths I will stand by as 1. That Christ is not a Metaphorical Surety but the most proper Surety that ever was and the Exemplar of all Sureties 2. That the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Surety for Debt 3. That is a Surety of the better Covenant i. e. of the Covenant of Grace not that he was a Surety of the Performance of that Covenant but that he is the Surety in that Covenant that is bound to pay the Debt that we owe to the Justice of God in the Covenant of Works which we have broken and he is not such a Surety as to be bound to the Justice of God that we should pay the Debt the Lord have Mercy on Neonomians but he hath undertaken to pay the whole Debt for us every Farthing if he had been such a Surety as Mr. Cl. speaks of we were in a miserable Condition I know the Neonomians do mostly incline to be with their Polonian Merchants in Mr. Cl. first Point mentioned as to God's Suretiship to us but it 's no great Matter where they be the second Particular being worse than the former for Christ to be engaged to God that we shall pay the Debt that we owe to the Law of God by Adams fall and our Sin i. e. that we shall satisfie Gods Justice for the wrong done and that we shall perform perfect Obedience to the Law thus much Man must pay tho a poor insolvent wretched Creature and Christ hath engaged to see it done but not to pay any thing of the Debt himself And indeed I can prove this to be the true Account of their Doctrine for they say Christ hath procured and merited of God a new Law whereby the old Law is relaxed or repealed not paid or satisfied a new one is set up the Condition whereof we performing we shall be justified but procured not nor merited the Condition to be performed by us Now I would fain know whether Christ was a Surety for that which he never Purchased is Christ a Surety that we shall perform the Condition of the Covenant and never merited Faith and Obedience what a kind of Surety will they have Christ to engage for our Performance and not take care that we should have the cum quo But Mr. Cl. seems not to be quite satisfied with this second Way He adds a Third to mend the Matter a little at least to put a gloss upon it viz. 3. To discharge that Debt of Suffering which we did owe the Law for the Transgressing of it Resp Ay Sir now you say something you bring a Surety with Mony in his Hands we use indeed to say that a Man should never be bound for another unless he resolve to pay the Debt Christ knew well enough how Poor we should be when he undertook this Suretiship Well let us see whether Christ clears the score for us or whether he doth leave a considerable part of the Debt for us to pay our selves It may be that which the Law is primarily and mostly concern'd at and that for a wise Neonomian End viz. That if he should pay all the Sinner would prove an Idle Antinomian and Shabby-fellow having nothing to do himself and nothing to pay therefore Christ indeed paies some of the Debt but laies up the Sinner in a Work-house to pay the rest at his Fingers ends For saith Mr. Cl. Now take it in which of these Three Ways you will yet there 's nothing of his paying the Debt of Active Obedience Resp A very sad Story indeed a great noise of a Surety that would pay the whole Debt of the poor Man in Prison and when the Matter is strictly enquired into he hath only prevailed that he should not be whipt so often in Bridewel though agreed that he should have the Lash too pretty severely sometimes but as for the greatest Part of the Debt he must Work it out at least so far as a new Law of his which he hath procured and made doth require Well when all comes to all here 's nothing done to free the Sinner but he must pay all the good Money by the Sweat of his Brows for Active Obedience to the Law is indeed that which the Law sets a High value upon being the first and main Thing that it designs and aims at and it doth expect not only to be satisfied for Disobedience but must be obeyed yea and it must be paied by perfect Obedience too not by imperfect Now saith our Neonomian Christ was no Surety to pay any of our Debt of Active Obedience how then hath he made no Provision in this Case Yes truly he hath done something that may help a little He hath taken down the old strict Law that kept the Sinner at continual hard-work and brought in a new easie remedying Law then he makes choice of his own Work and business and his own Time and work at leisure only must have the Lash now and then and besure that he Work when he is going to Die and the Condition shall be performed and the Debt paid Now I only briefly argue if Christ was a Surety it was to pay all our Debt in Active and Passive Obedience or none for Christ paid not by halves though the Passive Obedience is hardest yet the active is hardest to do the damned can suffer and shall but can pay
lies in the Death and Resurrection of Christ v. 24 25. likewise 2 Cor. 5.15 God was in Christ reconciling the world i. e. justifying for God reconciles none but by Justification reconciliation is essential to it and therefore non imputation of sin for while a man lies under a law charge of sin he is unrighteous till he be imputed righteous by the law The major is evident from what is said in proof of the minor for non imputation of sin to a sinner is essential to his Justification which can be no otherwise then by a covering righteousness and when a law imputes sin the same law must justify by imputing to him an adequate and satisfactory righteousness § 8. Arg. 8. The Sins of Sinners under the old Testament were Imputed Typically to the High-Priest and Sacrifices which is very easie to make appear Ergo. The Sins of all sav'd sinners are Imputed really to Christ and his righteousness to them See 1 Cor. 5.21 Rom. 3.25 Heb. 9.15 § 9. Arg. 9. That which cannot be pleaded for Pardon or Justification unless it be Imputed is when it s pleadibly imputed unto Justification But Christs very righteousness is pleadible c. Ergo. The minor I suppose these Gentlemen dare not deny for I find tho they will not have it their immediate righteousness by imputation yet they will have it for some remote and as a reserve at a dead lift when conscience sees that neither the New Law nor the righteousness thereof will serve the turn Now that Christs righteousness is not pleadible without Imputation to us neither by Christ in heaven nor by us on earth its plain for if Christ be never so righteous his plea is answerered in saying thou art righteous for thy self I never imputed thy righteousness to these let them plead for their own Justification If they plead it with God the answer is Christ is righteous for himself his righteousness not imputed to thee no more then the righteousness of one of the Angels and therefore Christs righteousness being pleadible its imputed without Imputation it s not pleadible for us or by us § 10. Arg. 10. That righteousness which is a Suretiship righteousness must be imputed else it s of no value to the offender but Christs righteousness is a Suretiship righteousness he being a Surety his righteousness must be such And as for the major its plain that the justice that accepts one person to be Surety for another doth impute or account the righteousness of the Surety to that other or else it accepts not the Surety is rejected now that Christ was accepted as a Surety is beyond all question Heb. 7.22 § 11. Arg. 11. The righteousness of the second Adam is an Imputed righteousness for 1. as Adam was a Publick person that had a Covenant standing for all his Seed so the 2d Christ was and had for his 2. As Adam 's Sin came by Imputation upon his Seed so Christs righteousness on his as fully appears from Rom. 5. But this I must not now enlarge upon the Apostle is so full and plain therein that I never could see any thing said to oppose that could have weight with any learned and rational Interpreter if unprejudiced against Truth CHAP. XVIII What Interest and concern Faith hath in our Iustification Section 1. Of the Nature of Faith as spoken of § 2. What this Faith is § 3. And how we are said to be Justified by Faith § 4. Arg. To prove that Faith is not our Righteousness Section 1. HAving proved Christ's Righteousness to be the only Righteousness for a Sinner's Justification in Gods sight and that this Righteousness is certainly Imputed to every one that believes we shall in the last place enquire what concern and intrest Faith hath in our Justification I shall not speak of Faith accompanying Salvation at large as the Apostle doth Heb. 11 Wherein he also comprehends Justifying among the other Senses there spoken of but only of Faith as it referrs to Justification and the righteousness thereof § 2. Justifying Faith is a gift of God whereby a poor sinner believes in God unto eternal life thro Jesus Christ 1. It is a gift of God in respect of the grace of God and the work of the Spirit Eph. 2.8 2. It is a purchased benefit for an Elect person 2 Pet. 1. 3. It 's a Gift to a Sinner there 's no grace lives tell Faith then Christ lives in him it s to a poor undone broken Sinner 4. This is a gift of grace to believe in God and Christ 1. To be perswaded of the truth of the Law his certain curse under it impossibility of coming to the works thereof That its a saying worthy of all acceptance that Christ came into the world to save Sinners whereof Paul saith he was one of the chiefest not that he was righteous subordinately to Christ's to qualify him for it This is that which is properly call'd fides but its hard to distinguish this from the Faith of a natural man and hipocrite therefore 2. There is believing in i. e. resting upon God and Christ resting on the faithfulness of God in his promise of a good thing to us as for eternal life and for righteousness in Christ now faithfulness belongs to persons truth unto things when the Soul doth not only believe the thing promised true but believes him faithful who hath promised and from thence doth stay himself and his Soul acquisce in it This is properly fiducia trusting in God 3. There 's a particular application of Christ in the promise and the Soul unto God in Christ believing that all the promises especially those that concern eternal life and justification by Christ's righteousness are yea and Amen in him made and perform'd in him § 3. Hence by Faith we are said to be justified 1. Because the righteousness of Christ is the object of our Faith it is that we believe to and come unto believing Rom. 10.10 We believe unto righteousness 2. By Faith a man is devorced from the Law and legal righteousness and comes into a new marriage relation to Christ for righteousness and life Rom. 7.3 Because its that grace only whereby a man can go out of himself and fetch in the righteousness of another 4. It is that grace which from the very law of its nature which it hath thro grace doth always deny it self any thing of righteousness for Justification and gives all the glory of righteousness unto Christ alone 5. In that it doth fiducially rest and depend thereon believing 6. It dwells upon an object of righteousness which is not seen by sence or reason yea it is the hypostasis of Christ's righteousness in the Soul Christ lives as it were in our Faith take away Christ from it and you leave it a dead nothing or worse it returns to unbelief 7. Because by this Faith the Soul sees God at peace with him and he hath peace in himself and the controversy is at an end