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
might be given tho' these are enough to demonstrate the falseness of the B's odious consequence and we may as well wonder that any that bear any reverence to our blessed Saviour should not abhor such dirty and irrational consequences as these are especially when so expresly contrary to the word of God and common reason Isa 53. 2 Cor. 5. 3. Hence these men dare not but say there is a guilt translated to Christ I pray what guilt Is it not personal Is there any guilt in the world besides what is of one Person or another But our B. will find out a guilt that 's not personal which we will examine § 5. The other branch of his division of translation of guilt is of Legal Guilt which he saith lyes in an obligation to Punishment by virtue of the Sanction of the Divine Law Now this guilt implies two things 1. The desert of Punishment which follows personal guilt and cannot be transferred by change of persons c. 2. The obligation to undergo the deserved punishment here may intervene a change of persons c. Reader Now observe what kind of guilt the B. will have Christ to bear 1. He saith it 's legal guilt but what 's that according to him It 's the obligation to punishment and that 's in the sanction of the law i. e. it 's subjectively in the law hence it 's the guilt of the law that Christ must bear and not the guilt of any person It 's true that obligation to punishment is formally in the law and therefore obligation to punishment cannot be called guilt but guilt is of a person transgressing the law not in the law transgressed 2. He saith this guilt implies two things What is the meaning of implies Is it that the laws obligation of a transgressor to punishment essentially contains in it those two things 1. An actual desert of punishment and obligation of some Person to undergo it Surely not for if the law had never been transgressed it had contain'd this in it that if ever any do deserve it they shall be obliged to punishment 2. Doth it imply these integrally their desert of punishment and obligation to punishment are the parts of the forenamed legal guilt then the desert of punishment as well as obligation to punishment i. e. no other than the fault must lye in the law for it can't be in more subjects than one and the B. must come under the force of this Dilemma if he will allow any such thing as guilt that it is subjectively in some person and so personal or in the law it self Now there 's no fault in the law therefore no guilt 3. He saith desert of punishment follows personal guilt but by his favour it is personal guilt it self the merit of punishment is in the fault the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for what deserves punishment but sin to which the law makes the wages of Death due not continuing in all things written in the law The law enquires no further than it finds the fault wherein it hath found the desert it 's formally and essentially in it it 's true the sentence follows this but the desert lyes in the essential moral contrariety of the action to the obedience of the law required it the wisdom of God saith the taking away of guilt is to take away sin 4. He asserts but hath not proved That personal guilt can't be transferred by change of persons His strong reason is For no man can cease to deserve punishment for his own faults nor deserve that another should be punished for them The assertion is that personal guilt can't be transferred then certainly no guilt at all for there is no guilt but is personally contracted and personally adhering and therefore Christ bore no guilt of Sin at all most contrary to Scripture and the very known nature of a surety which always is in bearing the sin of the transgressor by change of persons 2. He argues to prove it That no man can cease to deserve punishment for his own faults An excellent assertion If so I am sure God can't cease to punish him for he renders to every one according to his deserts he is a just God 2. This position throws down the whole satisfaction of Christ at one blow for if Christ hath not taken off the personal desert of sin from any he hath not satisfied the law for if according to the B. he takes off the legal obligation of any to punishment he takes off the desert by the law 3. It will follow that not only believers but the glorified Saints in Heaven are still under the personal guilt and desert of punishment and if so they can't be in the favour of God they can't be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without spot before the Throne they are under the personal guilt of all their sins and this is no spot of God's Children but an essential form of a Hellish State The B. here hath very inconsiderately run himself upon the rocks tho' with the rest of the Neonomians he doth so frequently charge those that are contrary minded with Shallowness Illiterateness c. It is one thing to sin and contract a personal guilt and another thing to lye under this personal guilt sure bare pardon of sin by him that hath power to pardon takes off personal guilt in the B's sence the obligation of the person to punishment else after pardon the law may take him up again and would even in mens proceedings by law but in God's there 's not only the pardon of the sinner but a just satisfaction to the law Rom. 8.1 § 6. The B. adds Nor deserve that another should be punish'd for them What will not men of perverse minds say Whoever asserted that sinners deserved that Christ should suffer for them I wonder men are not asham'd of such gross impositions quite contrary to the known minds of others but to the nature of the thing for where did any debtor or criminal deserve that another should suffer for him either by his good works to deserve so much good of another or by his evil works to make another that is neither criminal nor accessory guilty How much less may it be said of us that we deserved that Christ should be punished for us The B. saith Christ was punished for us the obligation of the law binding us over to punishment and that Christ took the punishment in our stead was it because we deserv'd it or not If it was not because we deserv'd if it was not in our stead we say not that it was in the nature of our sins to deserve his punishment but in the grace wisdom and justice of the Legislator As the B. saith it was of grace of God to find a ransom it was of the grace of the Son to give up himself unto justice for this end it was to the honour of divine justice to accept of his glorious satisfaction in the sinners room and stead here 's
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
agreeing with but essential to the Analogy of Faith If we must look on this received Doctrine to be a mistaken Notion then surely notwithstanding the Revelation that God hath given us in his Word he hath left us under Chymerian Darkness and inextricable Laborinths in the great Points of Life and Salvation but what hath he to say against this received Doctrine by the dissenting Brethren and all true Protestants If once it be supposed that we perfectly obeyed the Law in Christ there can be no room for Remission of Sins for how can Sins be forgiven to them that have obeyed the Law I cannot answer this Argument better than in the very Words of Mr. R. Capel whom none I suppose will call an Antinom in Vindication of Dr. Twiss on this Point There is a double Acception of the Term Remission of Sins 1. There is a meritorious Justification or Remission of Sins this is of Sins before they are committed 2. There 's an actual Justification or Remission of Sin and this is not till after our Sin is committed and we do believe all this none of these Exceptors do or can question Those that lean much to the Doctrine of Arminius and Vortius in this point may see all this expressed in clear terms by Vortius So that it is one thing for all the Sins of all the Elect to be pardoned to Christ for them that was done before we were or our Sins were another thing to be pardoned to them Christ was made a Curse for us by Imputation for that the Father did impute all our Sins as a Judge to Christ as a Surety and did exact all of him as guilty by that Law and this is I conceive all the meaning of Dr. Twiss and is or at least ought to be the meaning of us all and this a learned Man calls a mystical Justification because all the Sins of all the Elect are as laid upon Christ so remitted unto Christ our Head and Husband which Pardon and Absolution he took in our Name and keeps for our Use See Capel of Repentance p. 257 258. For Brevity-sake I shall add nothing further to the Answer of this Argument of the Bp. § 19. He adds It doth not follow because a Debt may be transferred to a Surety that our Sins may be transferred to Christ and his Reasons are 1. Because Sins cannot be transferred as Money A. But doth not the Spirit of God sufficiently acquaint us that it 's a moral Debt Sin is the Debt our owing and not paying Obedience to the Law and that Christ paid not Silver and Gold but his Precious Blood but he saith That altho' the Sinner be said to owe a Debt to the Law yet that Debt lyes in an Obligation to Punishment which he is liable to by the Guilt of the Fact A. Now he owns the Sinner owes a Debt to the Law but that 's not Obedience but Punishment But believe it Punishment is the Debt of the Law to the Sinner the Wages of Sin by the Law is Death But that whereby the Sinner becomes a Debtor to the Law is his Failure in giving due Obedience to the Preceptive Part of the Law for its Obedience the Law doth naturally and primarily enjoin and expect from the Subject Punishment may be transferred by the Legislator's Consent A. Punishment without Merit is but suffering and not legally inflicted and can't be done by a Legislator without Dispensing with his Law Object This Debt ariseth from Guilt of Fact how then can any discharge the Debt without taking the fault I answer That taking the fault can signifie no more than being answerable to the Law for it which must respect the Debt of Punishment Reader But doth not this quite overthrow all the Bp. hath been doing For if Punishment as always it is be answering the Law for Sin this always implies that the punished Person bears the just Demerit of his Sin else why do the Law inflict Punishment It 's not because that Man hath not obeyed but disobeyed wherein the Punished is only passive in suffering tho' active in contracting the Guilt wherein lyes the Demerit of Punishment and makes the Wages due from the Law And he that takes away the Guilt of Punishment doth satisfie the Justice of the Law A. The satisfying the Justice of the Law lyes in inflicting deserved Punishment for Guilt is not in the Law as the Bp. hath said but in a Person whom the Law hath found guilty therefore the Law is not satisfied by afflicting in general but afflicting some Person that is found guilty and faulty by the Law As to the Objection That nothing is the Merit of Punishment but Reatrus culpae he answers so little that it 's not worth our Cognizance and that little is but a Rehearsal of what hath been replied to already § 20. Bp. Suppose the Fault could be transferred as a Debt may how comes it to pass that upon this Translation there must be a present Discharge A. There must be such to him that pays the Debt and this given to him for the Benefit and Use of the Prisoner when he will please to give it Christ must be justified from our Sins and discharged or else not raised from bearing them when he had satisfied Justice all our Sins were pardoned to him but another Act of Grace is shewed in bringing home and applying Pardon to and therefore for discharging us from the Law as Prisoners of Hope thro' what Christ hath fully done and suffered B. This Doctrine tends to incourage Men to neglect or careless Performance of strict Obedience which they owe to God A. This is the Objection against the Doctrine of the Grace of God which Enemies to it made and the Apostle Paul answers Rom. 6. But the Bp. will not take his Answer there he saith it naturally disposeth Men's Minds to a passive careless Temper and wait for Supplies from above A. The Grace of God never enclines the Heart to so ill a Temper but quite contrary Tit. 2.11 12. It is one thing what a Man is by Nature and what by Grace Men by Nature are naturally enclined to abuse the Grace of God but are not so by effectual Grace Bp. They depend upon Gord's working in them to will and to do of his own good Pleasure without setting themselves to work out their own Salvation with fear and trembling A. The Bp. should have known that the Abuse of the Grace of God is no just Argument against it and if some Men do so will he censure all as such God's working in Men to will and to do and their working out their own Salvation are not Contradictions if rightly understood but to shew us that the Grace of God is first in all we do that teacheth and worketh in us to work both to begin and continue to serve God with all our Might but with Fear lest we should give the Glory of all unto our selves in leaning and depending on our own Strength The
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
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
is it fittest and to which doth it suit best Paul Rom. 4. argues strenuously against justification by works and therefore against Justification by Faith as a Work To this kind of Justification he opposeth that of Faith its being accounted for righteousness if faith be understood as a work of righteosness then the Apostle contradicts himself and maketh justification by faith to be justification by works and so disputes vainly making no opposition but if in Justification by Faith the righteousness is imputed to us and that be the drift of it then his Argumentation hath the greatest weight the righteousness of Faith is Christ's righteousness and the righteousness of works our righteousness inherent wrought by us or in us utterly excluded from Justification § 6. Mr. Cl's Second Argument Because the Apostle frequently opposeth working and believing faith and works Works as a perfect obedience to the Law Faith as a sincere obedience to the Gospel Resp Then the Apostle should have opposed works and works and distinguished between Law-works and Gospel works or when he had opposed Faith unto Works in two Epistles so largely he should have excepted Gospel-works or said I do not mean Faith as a work but to be short for I shall not need to be long on the remaining Arguments We say only that this Argument is against Mr. Cl. because the Apostle still makes so clear an opposition betwixt Faith and Works without any Exception Arg. 3. It is expresly called the righteousness of faith Rom. 4.11 13. chap. 9.30 chap. 10.16 by faith Gal. 5.5 Heb. 11.5 Resp This affects us not The righteousness of faith is but as the light of the eye the righteousness which is the object of faith Rom. 4.11 he received the sign of circumcision called the covenant of Circumcision by a plain Trope not cruel at all the seal of the righteousness of faith Is this a Seal only that we are righteous or is it a Seal of the righteousness of Christ promised to Abraham v. 13. there 's a positive denial that the Promise was to Abraham and his Seed through a Law any Law Old or New but thro the righteousness of faith the proper and peculiar object in Justification Rom. 9.30 the righteousness of Faith is opposed to the righteousness of Works the Jews depended on By Faith is but righteousness received by Faith or waited for in faith Gal. 5.5 we by the Spirit i. e. its assistance wait for the hope of righteousness i. e. the righteousness hoped for by faith or from faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it s not called the righteousness of faith there to what purpose quoted I know not and Heb. 11.5 where it is said by faith Enoch was translated what 's Enoch's Translation here to his Justification which was three hundred years before § 7. Argument 4. Because Faith is a conformity to the rule of the promise wherein the nature of righteousness doth consist viz. the Gospel or Covenant of Grace which requires only sincere believing not perfect doing Rom. 10.8.10 and therefore tho it be not righteousness in strict Justice according to the law of nature i. e. works yet it is righteousness according to the favourable construction of the Gospel i. e. God upon the account of Christ's righteousness is pleased to accept of this for righteousness so as to account it whence it s called the righteousness of God Resp The rule of the promise is an uncouth Term which I have examined elsewhere and therefore shall not now stand upon it only A rule of the promise must be either by which it is made or upon which it is performed there 's no Rule God makes any Promise by but his own good Will and Pleasure but it s the Rule it s performed by that must be a Rule in us by which God walks i. e. the condition of the New Law performed by us a Law indeed hath such a Rule but no Gospel hath do and live do is the Rule and live the Promise to be performed upon our doing and this is these mens Gospel or Govenant of Grace a downright Law and where is it proved that Faith is a conformity to this Rule of the Promise or legal Condition Rom. 10.8 there 's something said of a believing the Word preached but what 's that to the Rule of the Promise and verse 10. with the heart man believes unto righteousness c. who denies Faith if it be true to be as sincere as any other Grace but this proves it not to be our righteousness the words of the Text are against it it believes unto righteousness it goes out of it self for righteousness takes not its self for righteousness v. 11. the object believed on where this righteousness is is told v. 11 whosoever believeth on him but these men will have believing unto righteousness to be faith believing it self unto righteousness VVell when Faith hath done its do to make its self righteousness yet it is not righteousness in the sense of the law of works which is the true Rule of a Law-righteousness that God never abates in the least of yet it is Gospel-righteousness according to the favourable construction of the Gospel God forbid that that should be our justifying-righteousness which strict Justice will not allow to be righteousness Here they bring in God's dispensing with Justice and make him a favourer of unrighteousness in making it such for Justification this is Antinomianism with a witness for God to favour sin and justifie him for that which a just Law and strict Justice condemns for unrighteousness the righteousness of the new Law is condemn'd at the Bar of the old law hence it can be no better than the law of Sin and Death and yet this unrighteous condition must be father'd on God's favourable construction yea on Jesus Christs Undertaking and Performance he undertook and died for this end that our unrighteousness should have the honour of justifying us his was but subservient to that end it seems God would have it so that his Son should be made a Sacrifice to purchace the imputation of our own righteousness for righteousness unto justification and therefore it is called the righteousness of God why because it s ours and not Christs Of this in another place § 8. That Faith is our Gospel-righteousness appears further from Rom. 10. this being the same with the Fourth and answered there I need say nothing to it Argument 6. There are but two sorts of righteousness Legal and Evangelical but this is not legal righteousness and therefore it must be Evangelical Resp There is but one sort of righteousness and that is legal and its a legal righteousness though graciously bestowed that we are justified by and its impossible that it should be otherwise it s only the legal righteousness of Christ made ours which is our Evangelical Christ's own righteousness as it respects the Justice of God and his Law is Legal as it respects a Sinner is graciously bestowed its
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
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
respect of the Old Covenant and Righteous in respect to the New it is to be supposed that the said Person hath those opposite relations really upon him first and last and that the said relations are real and not feigned in their respective way and manner of existing So Christ Jesus in respect of Sinners in whose stead he stood relatively as a Surety was made truly Sin and Curse in a Law-sense reckon'd by God to be really in that Relation not feignedly And this is imputation of Sin to Christ which term ought not to be rejected whoever it is that makes light of it Dr. C. or Mr. B. or any other but most excellently expressive of the Gospel Mystery as not imposing any thing on God but what is most consistent with his Perfections For as God can and hath brought his Son under a Law-relation as a Surety Mediatorial and as such to stand instead of Sinners under a charge of Sin for the Guilt of their Sins he judgeth as things are when he accounts him and calls him what he hath made him Sin and Curse in this Law-respect and relation how pleasing soever his Person is to him being singly and abstractly considered from the said relation § 6. The Bp. excepts against the taking of the immediate discharge of a Sinner upon Christ's bearing of Sin A. It is easie by general and indistinct charges to make Men's Opinions look very absurd if one Man speak not so exactly in a loose and popular Discourse are all the Drs. in the World to look upon it as their great Renown to carp at his Words that are Printed but just as taken from him and not Corrected by him I think Learned Drs. do much undervalue themselves in so doing But to the Point in Hand it is absurd indeed to say that all Sinners have an actual discharge in themselves from the Dominion of the Law immediately upon the Death of Christ most being not then in Being in a Natural Sense much less in a Spiritual But the Bp. knew well enough the distinction of the Protestants that Redemption is considered in Impetration and Application that though the Sacrifice and Propitiation of Christ was compleated and perfect in its self in its Nature and to all intents and purposes Justifying and Pardoning and Sanctifying Grace being fully treasured up therein Yet this Grace is not Applied neither can it be Received actually by the Sinner till 1. He hath a Being Naturally And 2. Till he hath a Spiritual Being whereto he is Created by the Spirit in Christ and made capable of a Reception by a Spiritual Organ bestowed on him 2. He was not ignorant of this Question lately disputed What is the immediate Effect of the Death of Christ We say the great Effects of the Death of Christ are two in General 1. A Right to Life in Christ 2. The Application Reception or Possession of the Life purchased by Christ The 1. We say is the immediate Effect of the Satisfaction and Purchase of Christ all Redeemed Ones have a Right in Christ i. e. latent and hid in Christ and his Fulness even before they are or do Believe from which Pristine Fulness all received Grace doth flow even Faith in it self in us 1. Being in the Soul and acting on its Object and those that have this hidden Right a jus ad rem yet they have not presently jus in re they have not yet received and possessed the Grace of Justification or Sanctification till they Believe through Grace but are in themselves under the Law the Charge and Sentence thereof This Doctrine I know Mr. B. Disputes with all his might against but was fully Answered by Dr. O. § 7. Another thing the Bp. Answers to Is on the Nature of Guilt that Guilt of a Sinner is most truly reatus culpae and not reatus penae reatus culpae being that which is accounted Guilt in all Courts of Judicature To which he answers there 's a twofold Guilt to be considered 1. Guilt of the Fact as it is a Transgression of the Law 2. A Guilt consequent to the Fact by Vertue of the Sanction of the Law Those which are the Foundation Assertions that the Bp. builds all upon are two 1. That Guilt which was charged on Christ was reatus penae or Obligation to Punishment not reatus culpae alicujus not the Guilt of any Fault or of any Person committing it 2. He asserts that the Guilt of a Personal Fault can never be taken away by Transmission no not by Pardon it self Hence we are necessitated to enter the Lists with him upon these two great Points though something hath been said before concerning them § 8. We have shewed before that the first distinction is between the Fact and Guilt of the Fact The Fact is meerly Physical is inherent and inseparable from the Agent not transferrible at all e. gr The Act of borrowing Money is inherent in the borrower and not a Transgression of any Law but to borrow and not to pay is a Transgression of the Law enjoined by commutative Justice Now this is the Guilt of the Fact when the Fact stands as a Fault in the Eye of the Legislator by the preceptive part of the Law 1. The first Relations of an irregular Action is to the preceptive part of the Law being Disobedience Hence it 's a great mistake to place the Sanction of the Law only in its Obligation to Punishment this is but a part of the Sanction consequent to its Obligation to Obedience therefore the primary guilt of a Sinner lies in Disobedience his Fact standing in that Relation to the Law it becomes formally the Reason why the Sinner is obliged to Punishment he in the said relation of the Fact deserving it 2. The Bp. is in the right when he saith That Obligation to Punishment is that which is in the Law and only the exprest Will of the Legislator therefore it can in no true sense be called the Guilt of the Sinner And hence I must needs argue that the Bp. placing all the Guilt charged upon Christ in the Laws Obligation of him to Punishment doth totally renounce the Doctrine of Christ's being made Sin for any Sinner For if he was not made Guilty but only Punished he bore only the Law 's Obligation which must be only the Sin of the Law and not of the Sinner But is the Law Sin God forbid Yet this Doctrine plainly makes the Law Sin because it obligeth a Person to Punishment who in no sence deserves it § 9. For the overthrowing this Hypothesis of Imputation of a Sinner's Guilt of Fact to Jesus Christ he examines how far guilt is separable from the Act of Sin p. 87. 1. As to the Guilt of the Fact for he that hath been an actual transgressor can never be made not to have been so and so the guilt of the Fact must remain A. But methinks a Bp. should not impose such a fallacy upon us that every School-Boy can look through
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.
Consequent § 9. He proceeds with Confidence 2dly I do absolutely deny that a true Gospel justifying Faith and Gospel-Works are ever opposed to one another and do confidently affirm the contrary because I have examined all Places where Faith and Works are mentioned and do not find them if any affirm let him prove it R. Mr. Cl's Confidence is no Proof and his searching the Scriptures and not finding so plain a Truth as that Justification by Faith is opposed to Justification by Works argues but judicial blindness whereby God hath hardned his Heart and blinded his Eyes 1. As was said before all Gospel-works as he calls his New Law Works brought into Justification by a Law are legal not Gospel not accepted of God but leaves a Man under a Curse 2. Those that are Gospel-works are Fruits of the Spirit thro' the Gift of Grace and Fruits of Faith as they are Fruits of Christ's Righteousness believed in to Justification and no cause of Justification in the least neither doth the Believer claim Justification thereby and hence called Gospel-Works but if he claim Justification by them they are Works and opposed to Faith but loose the Name of Gospel are Legal dross and dung and stink in the Nostrils of God neither are any such Works the gracious Gifts of the Spirit or true Faith or the good Fruit of it For such seek Righteousness as it were by the Works of the Law and obtain it not 3. Now whereas Mr. Cl. here throws down his Gantlet in an Ambiguous manner we take it up in the true State of the Difference and confidently affirm that Justification by Faith is positively opposed by the Apostle Paul to Justification by any Works of a Law whatever performed by us the proving of which is the drift of this whole Dispute as now managed 4. He saith there was no Coutroversie about any other Works but the Works of the Law Resp There was no Controversie about any Works but the Works of a Law no more is there now Gal. 5.4 The Apostle saith They are abdicated from Christ and fallen from Grace that are justified by a Law so say we § 10. Proposition 4. This Law was the whole Body of the Mosaical Law consisting of precepts Moral Ceremonial and Judicial what he saith under this proposition about the acceptation of the term Law I think will not hold all of it with his other Doctrine for he saith its taken 1. For any written Declaration or Revelation of the Will of God concerning our Duty 2. It s frequently taken for the Moral Law as Rom. 7.12 and Ch. 3.31 Mat. 5.17 Luke 16.17 3. It s used Indefinitely for the whole Body of the Law given to Moses and therefore he mentions it in such general Terms R. Because Law is used in so many Senses in Scripture and those that would introduce Justification by Works are apt to slip from one Law to another and say as Mr. Cl. doth that though the Apostle deny Justification by one Law yet he intends Justification by Works of another Law therefore the Apostle excludes our Works of any Law whatever as frequently in his Epistles as hath been shewed so in that express and plain Place Gal. 3.21 If there had been a Law given which could have given Life verily Righteousness should have been by the Law And why is it spoken It 's spoken as a Reason that the Law of Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not against the Promise i. e. against Justification by the Promise and Gift of Righteousness no the Law of Moses taken together was so far from being against this way of Justification without the Works of a Law that it witnessed to it as the Apostle expresly speaks Rom. 3.21 It did not appropriate the Grace of the Promise to it self but by the whole Tenor of it witnessed to the Promise and Righteousness The Law of Moses taken as a Law did justifie none Gal. 3.11 For saith the Apostle the Law i. e. as such is not of Faith ver 12. The Condition of it being Works and therefore Justification by the Law is not Justification by Faith the Apostle saying further ver 18. If the Inheritance be of a Law than no more of Promise ver 19. For what end served the Law given by Moses Answ It was added because of Transgression till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made i. e. Christ but why added for two Ends. 1. That Sin might be distinctly known by the Moral Part as the Apostle by the Knowledge of Sin 2. That by the Ceremonial Law there might be a Typical Redemption and Satisfaction held forth unto them through which they might have a sight of Faith and of the true Sacrifice held forth unto them § 11. Proposition 5. The Law was looked upon by the Carnal Jews as a Covenant of Werks Mat. 19.16 Granting that it was yet not to be fulfill'd by a perfect Obedience but by imperfect as appears by his Words What good thing shall I do that I may inherit Eternal Life As much as to say I have done Good and Evil I would know what that good thing is whereby I may be righteous to Life Eternal He depreciates the Law calling it a Ministration of Death and Condemnation 2 Cor. 3.7 9. It was the true Sense of the Apostle that the Law of Moses or any other Commands of God understood used and applied as a Law for Justification by the Works of it is a Ministration of Death and not of Faith and as a Ceremonial Law which Heb. 6.19 is made nothing and by it self perfect it being Typical and the Type absolutely considered could not purifie them as to Conscience The Apostle saith it was weak through our weakness Rom. 8.3 We being not able to come to the Terms of this nor of any other and Rom. 6.14 saith we i. e. Believers are not under a Law but under Grace for Justification as much as to say you take the Doctrine of Grace to be a licentious Doctrine but believe it it s the legal Doctrine that leads to Sin not the Doctrine of Grace besides the Apostle shews plainly that to look for Justification by the Law of Moses or of any other is to be Married to it which he shews Rom. 7. is quite contrary to our Marriage to Christ by Faith while we are in expectation of Justification by a Law we are held in Bondage but being by the true Sence of the Nature of it Dead to it it becomes Dead to us Now we are delivered from the Law that being Dead wherein we were held and there 's no other Husband comes in the room of the Dead Law no new Law but Christ only And the Opposition saith Mr. Cl. is only between the Law of Works and the Law of Faith if he make the Law of Faith to be a Law of Works then it s no Opposition at all because both are a Law of Works and why I pray is Justification by Faith Justification by
dwells in Eternity there 's no Time nor Succession Christ was set up from Eternity Prov. 8. as Surety a Thousand Years are to God but as one Day and much less therefore Christs Execution of his Suretiship on Earth in the Days of his Flesh was Eternally before the Lord hence he is said to be slain from the Foundation of the World hence the faithful before his coming had a full 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Remission of Sin through this Covenant Relation of Christ there was not a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or passing them by for Remission till Christ was actually Slain but they had the Vertue of his Death as fully as we Heb. 4.15 7. He continues our Surety that hath paid standing and pleading his full Satisfaction for us therefore is our Surety now since Payment carrying his own Blood into the Holiest of all and there making Intercssion for us CHAP. XV. More Places of Scripture Vindicated from False Glosses Section 1. Of Daniel 9.24 § 2. Of Ephes 1.4 § 3. 2 Cor. 5.19 examined § 4. Of Gal. 5.7 8. § 5. The Sence of the Apostle James § 6. Mr. H. and Mr. Cl. Answered Section 1. MR. Hum. interprets Daniel 9.24 thus He shall make reconciliation for iniquity and so shall bring in an everlasting righteousness i. e. he should by his death procure a Covenant or Law of Grace by our performance whereof without the law we are righteous and must be saved 'T is that is our righteousness if Christ had not procured for us this New Law we could not be saved Resp Let us see how Mr. H's Gloss will hold with the Text for I am sure it holds not with the Analogy of Faith Seventy weeks shall be distributed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which word lies the Key of the Prophesie not to our purpose now to speak to upon thy People i.e. the Church of the Jews here and upon the City of thy Holiness or Holy City to finish transgression to make an end of sin these Events seem in our English to be the same but they are not in the Original the first is most agreeable to the Margent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to restrain transgression i. e. by the Reformation of Ezra and Nehemiah in the compass of these 72 Weeks but to make an end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make an end of sins or sin-offerings by the offering up of Christ within the 72 Weeks and to make expiation for sin true not typical and perfect Expiation by the Expiation made by the Blood of Christ and to bring everlasting righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bring in eternal righteousness or the righteousness of ages Lxx 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We shall go no further in the Prophecy This Prophecy is generally owned to belong to the first coming of Christ and in this Verse the time is set in a mysterious manner to the coming of Christ his offering up and erecting the Gospel Church the Angels the Events that should fall out in this compass of time especially toward the latter end in the Sacrifice of Christ wherein he should make an end of sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the abolishing Sin by the sacrifice of himself Heb. 9.26 wherein he also finished all sin-offerings 2. He should put it away by making atonement and Expiation Lxx. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to blot out and attone for transgression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in pih signifieth to make Expiation and Atonement by Sacrifice even to the blotting them out and full satisfaction to Divine Justice for then sin is expiated when the Debt-Book is cancell'd thus the bloud of the Sacrifice was sprinkled on the Book of the Law and on all the People so that there is plenary satisfaction in the bloud of Christ and thereby a righteousness everlasting brought in i. e. preached called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rev. 14.6.2 Thereby revealed and made manifest freed from the Vails and Shadows of the Old Testament for tho it was given us in Christ before the World began and lay obscured long under the Old Testament Types yet now was made manifest by the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ who hath abolished Death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nulling or abandoning death and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel the Apostle seeming plainly to allude to these expressions of Daniel the bringing in of righteousness is plainly no more than the bringing the sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ for everlasting righteousness opposed to the righteousness of the legal Sacrifices which was but temporary offered every year but this Expiation of Christ was one offering and the righteousness of Ages or if it carry any thing distinct from preceding Events that it be not to be understood of the passive obedience of Christ the Spirit of God expresseth to all the fulness thereof he adds this to signifie the active obedience of Christ which is also everlasting and to be understood always as a complement of that perfect righteousness of Christ In Answer to Mr. H. I say 1. Christ himself is the everlasting righteousness it s not procured but it s that which procures 2. The Righteousness of Christ is here prophesied of not the righteousness of our selves 3. It s the Righteousness that expiates the old transgressions and therefore here is nothing of a New-Law spoken of 4. Justifying righteousness is such as satisfies the Law broken and therefore there must be at least Expiation in it 5. It s very absurd and contradictio in adjecto to talk of a Law of Grace if thereby be meant a law for Justification and again absurder to talk of performing the condition of a law without law 6. How is new-law-righteousness for it s but imperfect obedience and therefore will be quite wipt away at death for when things that are perfect are come those that are imperfect are done away you will say it may last in a perfect righteousness than the New Law will turn into he old for they make imperfection to be a proper adjunct of the works of the New-Law and appropriate to it to distinguish it from the old law So that here they are justified by the New Law and in Heaven by the Old Law What a stir do these men make with the Law and how do they shift and shirk from one law to another swerving from Faith and Truth to laws singly making themselves great teachers of the laws but understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm I would fain know whether Daniel was justified by his own New Law righteousness it seems he did not understand that that kind of Justification was then a-foot and its a Wonder the Angel Gabriel could come to tell him that in a few years hence the Messias should come and bring in old self righteousness again for Justification which is so choice and precious a Commodity that it shall cost him his blood to purchase Would not Daniel be amazed at it that a man so
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