Bp. might have spared the rest of his Banter it 's not worth Paper and Ink to spend about it § 21. He makes a great Clutter against the dissenting Brethren as if in their Doctrine of the Free Grace of God they would allow no Conditions upon any Account and saith here is something beyond meer Gratitude and Service and what 's that It 's a Connexion in away of Duty and Means in order to the end and not meer Connexion in a way of Event so that those to whom God will give Glory he will give Grace to fit Persons for it A. Hereby it 's easie to see what strange Monsters the Opposers of the Doctrine of Christ do ignorantly or maliciously represent the Professors and Defenders thereof to be Do they deny a firm Connexion between Grace and Glory Do they deny the Necessity of Holiness Indeed not as a Faederal Condition of Happiness but a Condition of necessary Connexion and as he gallops along he is pleased to fall upon some Expressions of mine Some may perhaps say What is' t but to make that Promise to secure Life upon doing of our Duties And if this be not to make the Gospel a more overgrown and swinging Covenant of Works than ever the old Law was I have lost not they my Theological Measures Neonom p. 3 and 296. Reader Upon these few quoted Lines pick'd up at a distance not truly quoted neither he makes a large Harangue about Theological Measures which Words I applied not to any but to my self and say they The Standard of Theological Measures is the Scripture And so I say And saith he St. Paul was as little suspected of setting up a Covenant of Works as any Penman in the New Testament I think so too But he hath said 2 Tim. 1.19 God hath saved us and called us with an holy Calling not according to our Works c. I subscribe to the Apostles Doctrine heartily and it 's expresly against the Bp's Doctrine who would have our Works the Foederal Condition of the Covenant of Grace when the Apostle says who hath called us not according to our Works and what is the Genuine Meaning thereof but that tho' God hath called us to Holiness yet it 's not according to our Works as a Covenant Condition thereof so Tit. 3.5 but it 's the manner of these Men to quote Places for themselves which are Diametrically opposite to them He makes a needless Sputter about working out of our Salvation and saith we are told Neon part 3. and 296. No more is meant by this than a continual maintaining a holy Jealousie of our selves lest we should fail of the Grace of God by trusting in our selves c. Now doth it become a Bp. to be so false in representing what he would expose there 's not a word of No more is meant by this but that this is meant it may contain more but this is every Believer's Duty laboriously to continue in all ways of Holiness and new Obedience but fear and tremble in Suspicion of his corrupt Heart which is apt to make his Obedience Hay and Stubble in ascribing it to his own Strength and in making it his Righteousness for his Justification and if any will rationally argue against this Doctrine I am ready to defend it as I am other Truths which I have asserted that some have snarl'd and banter'd at but have not made any fair shew of proving them Errors and till they do that I shall not honour them so far as to blot Paper about them § 22. What remains is only to draw odious Consequences upon this Doctrine of laying our Sins on Christ or his bearing the desert of Punishment for our Sins 1. There 's nothing for us to do but only to sit still and expect when God will work in us A. Doth the Text say we must sit still Doth any one say so But the Scripture saith and the Saints have practiced to be continually waiting upon God in the Prayer and all the means of Grace to work in them to will and to do and as God works it in them he works them to it knowing that of themselves they are not able to think a good Thought but herein being enabled by Divine Assistance to do a good Work they must keep a Watch over their own Hearts that they rob not God of the Glory of his Efficiency and take it to themselves Bp. Paul gives another Sense when he perswades rich Men to do Good 1 Tim. 6.18 How another Sense Doth not the Grace of God perswade and teach Men to do good Works Doth not the same Apostle tell us that the Grace of God that brings Salvation teach Men to deny Ungodliness and to live holily c. Again Is laying hold of Eternal Life by good Works a swingeing Covenant of Works No who said so But there 's a twofold laying hold of a thing one is by way of Right that is not in our Works themselves but in Christ and a laying hold by way of Participation and Possession that is an effect of the Covenant right in Christ and so all Believers by the exercise of Faith and Holiness are continually maintaining their hold of Christ and Eternal Life given them in Christ and the Theological Measure holds here that Paul hath not by this Text thrown down what he taught of the Efficacy of the Grace of God but only prosecutes that Doctrine that where it brings Salvation it teacheth Men to do good Works therefore he exhorts Timothy to teach by the Word what God's Grace works by the Word and Spirit neither doth he accommodate himself to rich Men as if he intended they should be saved in a Covenant of Works which would be no better than Bargain and Sale of Eternal Life Bp. The Foundation of the Covenant it self was certainly nothing but the Grace of God thro' Christ A. Foundation here 's very ambiguous I know the Neonom and Papists and all will say so when they say Christ purchased the Covenant of Grace i. e. the new Law and deny him to be the Condition of it and therefore he speaks always in their Dialect cunningly yea and the Foundation of our Hopes as to our obtaining the Benefits A. If so then how is Christ the Foundation of such Hopes Is it not Christ believed in as the great Obtainer of Right to Eternal Life and the great Bestower of effectual Grace for without this Faith there can be no Hope nor any purifying our self as he is pure § 23. Not as Works meritorious of a Reward so say the Socinians too but as Means which God hath appointed in order to an end A. I pray who denies all this of the Calvenists All which he calls Antin but doth he not trip up his own Heels by this Concession I say and I am sure can prove that the Condition of a Covenant compact let the thing required be little or more it 's meritorious of the covenant Reward promised and is meritum
Believer be said to be cloathed with the Righteousness of Christ and yet the righteousness of Christ not be his cloathing but only that which procured this cloathing unto him Chap. 7. p. 88. is to evince That that which God imputes for Righteousness in Justification is not the Righteousness of Christ himself in the sense refused in the First Chapter ' but faith in Christ In the conclusion of the Chap. he says If God in the New Covenant of the Gospel i. e. the New Law requires Faith in Christ for our Justification instead of the righteousness of the Law in the old and this faith will not pass with him in account for such righteousness both his Commandment and Covenant for believing and the Obedience it self of believing will become void and of none effect § 10. You see by these instances that by this Doctrine the Neonomions fall into that Sink of Errour that the highest opposers of the Gospel of Christ have professed it s no doubt but they will cease inveighing against the Quakers as introducers of Popery but rather applaud them and bring them into their Pulpits § 11. But for Christ's sake alone This they deny and say Our Justification passively taken that which we do our selves thro Grace is this our formal righteousness and that is the condition of our Justification actively taken i. e. the righteousness of Christ the meritorious cause So that in a large sense here is two righteousnesses for our Justification Christ's and ours p. 6. Mr. Cl. hath a Chapter to prove how the Righteousness of Christ concurs to our Justification the sum of all is this That by the Merits of Christ's Death he has purchased this Priviledge for us among others that sincere Faith should be accounted for righteousness and that God will account us righteous if we be possest thereof p. 35. Christ hath done his part but hath appointed us a necessary part which must be done by our selves this is not to supply any deficiency in Christ i. e. he hath done well enough for the part alotted him but it is that which subordinately is required of us as the condition of Pardon and Life by his own Law or Covenant of Grace and so far as a part ' it is imputed to us for righteousness Scr. G. p. 35. From what hath been quoted before it is plain the rest also do hold that Christ's Righteousness at best doth but concur to our Justification it is not that only whereby we are justified See Mr. Cl. Chap. 13. § 12. Not by imputing faith it self the act of believing or any other Evangelical Obedience to them for righteousness All this the Neonomians in all their Writings deny Mr. B. in his S. G. def p. 32. quaeries Whether Faith be imputed to us for righteousness or Christ's Righteousness believed on A. A strange and bold Quaery Read over the Text and put but Christ's Righteousness every where instead of the word Faith and see what a scandalous Paraphrase you will make to have righteousness imputed plainly signifieth to be reckoned or judged righteous and it is strange that it must not be our own righteousness that is imputed and reckoned to us as our own The same say Mr. H. and Mr. Cl. This Faith that is our righteousness they will have the same with our Evangelical Obedience as containing all in it So Mr. B. Faith by which we are justified is one moral act containing many physical acts even our fiducial consent to the Baptismal Covenant and Dedication of our selves to God the Father p. 42. Mr. Cl. Faith is our subordinate Gospel-righteousness he gives his reasons p. 64. Mr. H. When a man performs the Evangelick Condition it is the Evangelick Law or God by it as his instrument makes him or constitutes him righteous and being thereby so made God must account him so this constitutive Justification preceeds Pardon and Life in order of nature J. G. denys that Faith justifies in relation to its Object tho it cannot be separated from it but by vertue of the intervention of some Law Covenant or Decree i. e. as a condition of the new Law in the Neonomian sense Mr. H. in his right of God p. 54. Our Effectual Calling doth enter our Justification for the Works of it Faith Repentance new Obedience are imputed to us for that righteousness that justifies us and our Justification and inchoate righteousness does enter and is the infancy of Glory I need not blot Paper by quoting the Council of Trent briefly they damn any man that saith that a man is justified without the righteousness that Christ did merit for us whereby he is formally just and damn such as say that a man is justified only by the righteousness of Christ or Remission of Sins without inherent Grace and Charity § 13. But by imputing the Obedience and Satisfaction of Christ unto them Mr. H. in his Right c. p. 34. says to this part of the Assemblies descript of Justification and seems to flatter them a little and thinks their Catechism may serve the People yea that a grosser sort of the knowledge of the Principles of Religion is better for ordinary People than more exact whereby you may see what high thoughts and apprehensions he hath of the exactness of his gross Divinity In Justification I acknowledge a forgiveness and an imputation of Christ's Obedience but I do not acknowledge either as our formal righteousness Forgiveness is a benefit we receive but not the formal reason I acknowledge Christ's righteousness imputed sub genere causae efficientis modum meriti received by faith but in the merit of it only And I give notice that thinking More doth say that Christ's righteousness in se is made ours legally tho he disowns it as physically and morally that man must make it justifie us sub ratione causa formalis which is an unadvised Position which I look upon as that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of our former great Divines which gave the rise to Antinomianism Now what a happiness is it that so great a Divine is risen up to find out such an Error in the very heart of our Reformation in our great Divines and indeed in our Protestant Religion that we have been all under a Cheat and Delusion in this grand Point of Life and Salvation building upon a wrong righteousness for Justification Again he saith That we should be justified by faith was obtained by Christ's Righteousness or Performance but it is our Faith not Christ's Performance is imputed unto us for righteousness in our sâ—astification Christ's righteousness is that for which not that by which causa propter quam not per quam we have this benefit that upon believing we are justified to the same purpose he hath words above an hundred times Mr. R. B. God never judgeth falsly but knoweth all things to be what they are and therefore he reputeth Christ's Mediatorial Righteousness and Sacrifice to be the meritorious cause for which we are
justified by the law of Grace so he truly reputeth our Faith and Repentance and Covenant-consent to be our moral qualification for the gift and our holiness and perseverance to be our moral qualification for final Justification which qualifications being the matter of the Law of Grace and Condition of its Promise is so far our righteousness therefore God may be said in this sense to impute Righteousness to us i. e. our own and to impute Christ's Righteousness to us i. e. as to the effects 'to impute our faith to us for righteousness See the end of Controv. p. 257 258. and 260 261. Scr. G. d. p. 61.70 71. Socinus No other imputation is in our eternal Salvation than that whosoever sincerely obeys the Commands of Christ is from them accounted of God as righteous De Serv. This is the express sense of the Neonomians § 14. They receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith The Neonomians say to be justified by it as that which God hath promised Justification on as the qualifying condition and saith the quae quâ is a quibbling and juggling about a meer sound of words in a ludicrous Disputation he saith it justifies not instrumentaliter for that is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere in specie Faith in Christ doth not justifie qua talis as that Faith but it is that qualifying condition which the Promise annexeth Justification to Scr. G. d. p. 42 43. Mr. Cl. chap. 12. § 8. From hence I infer that justifying Faith is the same thing in substance with Effectual Calling Repentance Regeneration Conversion Sanctification Renovation c. J. G. It is the common Plea that Faith justifieth in relation to its Object it s not receiving but lawful receiving that justifieth and therefore it justifieth by vertue of that law or agreement men are under i. e. as a Covenant-condition therefore he peremptorily denys that Faith justifies in relation to its Object and our Neonomians are one with him see him Of Justification Bellarmine also spendeth much Paper That Faith alone doth not justifie but that Fear Hope Love and every Grace doth the same § 15. Those Points wherein the Neonomians declare themselves diametrically opposite to the Assembly and other Protestants in the Doctrine of the Obedience and Satisfaction of Christ must be matter of another Treatise it being too much to come within the compass of these Sheets likewise there are two Points which I have already publickly insisted on 1. In shewing the Nullity of any New Law with Sanction 2. To disprove their Vniversal Redemption and shew the Absurdity thereof tho more may be said of both God willing hereafter And the Assembly and we with them asserting the Imputation of the active and passive Obedience of Christ to the Justification of a Sinner and the Neonomians denying the active righteousness to have any influence on our Justification no further than as to the fitness of his Person to the exercise of his Mediatorial Office falling in with Piscator Gataker and others in this Point and cannot be handled here but must be matter of after-consideration in treating of Satisfaction Let not the Reader take it for granted that we grant Mr. Clark that Point viz. the denial of the active righteousness of Christ in our Justification wherein he hath spent a great part of his Treatise CHAP. II. Of Iustification § 1. Wherein we are agreed § 2. Justification what in Scripture acceptation § 3. What it supposeth § 4. God justifies actions § 5. Such a fruit of Justification before God § 6. Of Rahab § 7. Of Justification in foro Conscientiae § 8. Of the Conditions § 9. Of Commutative Justice § 10. Of a Compact § 11. Of Grace purchased § 12. Of the Purchase of the Covenant § 13. Whether God be a Debtor § 14. Particularly asserted against Mr. H. § 1. I Shall not detain the Reader in criticizing on the signification of Justification in the Hebrew and Greek Language it amounting to what our English word means and our adversaries in a great measure agreeing with us therein tho differing enough in the modus as appears in the foregoing Chapter that Justification is directly opposed to Condemnation That it is a forinsick or Law-Term and that properly it is a Law-Sentence distinctly and per se understood That God is the great Justifier That the Person justified is always upon the account of some righteousness of that Law that justifieth That this righteousness must be legally his that is justified i. e. imputed to him without denial of it self and that Justification is the sentential pronouncing a person righteous and accepted by the Lawgiver free from condemnation righteous in his sight and enstated in all advantages that this righteousness of his brings him into Thus far I take it we are agreed what little wordy differences there is we shall not concern our selves about nor trouble the Reader with § 2. Justification in Scripture and in our usual and common acceptation is any Vindication of a Person or Action from a Charge or Accusation brought in or alledged against them and this in the largest sense wherein a man is said to justifie God Psal 51.4 It s one mans justifying another or vindicating their actions and this done by pleading for or defending them Job 27.5 and 33.32 or practically by doing the same thing or worse Ezek. 10.51.55 Or a man is said to justifie himself Job 32. Luke 10.29 § 3. Justification being allowed to be a Forinsick Term it must always suppose a Forum or Court where it is And all Justification must be supposed to be in one at least or all these Courts Forum Dei Mundi Conscientiae a true Believer is sometimes justified in all as to his State and Actions sometimes in one and not in another The Court or Forum Dei is where God sits as Law-giver and righteous Judge of his Law where every one that is saved must find Acquittance and Acceptance Forum Mundi is of two kinds 1. Common wherein the actions of men are judged of either by Vogue and Reports of the Vulgar or by the Courts of Judicature among men 2. It is more special in Ecclesiis to be tried and judged in a Church of Christ 3. Forum Conscientiae where God sits a Judge and brings the Sinner to the Bar and Trial and accordingly Sentence of Condemnation or Justification passeth upon a man or on his Actions As to the first of these all men are tried as unto their State and they are there juridically acquitted or condemned in foro Dei i. e. legis either by a Judgment on their own righteousness which is called legal righteousness or upon a Judgment on them according to the righteousness of another called Evangelical because it s of absolute promise to a Sinner and the freest Gift in the World As to the second Forum the Courts of the World the World many ways call Courts of Judicature and will have Judgment upon men in the
Justification must be before any person can receive it the Assembly do most accurately tell us what Justification by faith is We say not that no man that says he believes not his Justification is not justified nor every one that says he believes it is justified but we say That every one that believes truly is justified and every one that 's justified shall believe God's Justification of a Sinner is his Juridical Sentence concerning his Eternal State and Condition which admits not of majus and minus in God but admits of different times of application and of degrees of manifestation it finds nothing in the creature nor makes any change but relative wherein God is first in relation justifying and applying that Grace to us and therefore we are wholly passive till by vertue of Union with Christ by the Spirit the Spirit of Life raising us from the dead we are enabled to believe whereby we make a sensible re-application of the Grace of Justification to our selves and being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ But more of this infra § 8. The Judge of all the World must judge righteously i. e. according to his righteous Law for as that is norma officii to us so it is of judicii to him now here is the Mystery How God can justifie a sinner according to most perfect law and do it freely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. H. in his Medio p. 5. hath this Quaery The Gospel requires Faith Repentance new Obedience how then are we justified and saved by Grace how is it free when it is not vouchsafed but upon condition This difficulty hath made some run into the Extream that the Covenant of Grace is without conditions Resp It is such an extream Argument against the Neonomian Doctrine that all their Skill and Sophistry neither hath nor can answer and the Argument stands thus If nothing doth essentially distinguish a Covenant of Works from a Covenant of Grace but the Conditionality of it then a Covenant of Grace must have no Condition and whatever Covenant hath a Condition is a Covenant of Works but there 's nothing can distinguish because the Antecedent is true therefore the Consequence There can be nothing in sense to invalidate either Proposition for the distinguishing formal difference between the one Covenant and the other must be Condition and no Condition where the true Opposition lieth for the promise of both Covenants are life therefore the special and formal difference lieth in conditionality none now to say it lies in the nature of the condition will appear most absurd 1. If it be the littleness of the Condition makes a Covenant of Grace this I deny for the promulgated Covenant of Works was laid upon the least condition imaginable the forbearing to eat in Apple but let us hear what Mr. H. will say to make a Covenant of Works a Covenant of Grace p. 5. I say readily the Grace of God and of the Gospel is free and therefore not conditional well but how wherein is the freedom In that it accepts of the sinners Faith and Repentance when he needs not or when according to the law he was not tied to it Resp Was the Man awake or asleep when he said this he says its free because God accepts of his Faith and Repentance that 's the same freedom whereby I may be said to give a Man a Horse when I accept of Money which he was to pay me for it Is not a Covenant a Bargain Was it not so to Adam Was it possible he should say he need not accept it What doth he make of his New-Law-Covenant need not God keep it where was God's Faithfulness and Truth when he made that Covenant doth not that bind him to accept our Faith and Obedience as the Condition According to the law he is not tied Why will an honest Man speak so equivocally to justifie a cause his Conscience tells him or ought to do that it is nought he says according to the law I pray what law the Old or New Doth he not say that Faith and Repentance is the Condition of the New Law and is not God bound to accept of them by that Law Oh but he is not bound to accept of them by the old law It is just as if a Man brings the Money that I sold such a Commodity for and I tell him I will not take the Money unless he will confess I gave him it freely no saith he I make a tender of the Money with which I bought it I will neverly for the Bargain and say you gave it me when I bought it to which I reply I am not bound by law to accept the Money What law the law that the King and Parliament made for the Pole-Tax H. Unless Man's Obedience were perfect but he is bound by the new law to accept imperfect Obedience H. our Divines say usually because it s not of merit but this labours with some defect of light if man had performed the condition of the covenant of Works it might have bin said upon this reason that Life and Salvation had bin still of Grace and Free as not merited while these considerations hinder merit How might Man's Obedience in the Covenant of Works be said to be of Free Grace because his were not proportionable to the reward no more are good Angels works to this day there was Grace in making the Covenant on easie Terms but when the Covenant is made the Reward is merited ex pacto by the performed Conditions Hence the Apostle's reasoning remains unshaked they that are justified of debt are not of grace § 9. Mr. Humphry makes a fearful bungling about this business and lends us for our help a distinction about merit and saith There is a debt or merit of Commutative Justice and of distributive it is impossible that any should engage the Almighty in the former Resp But the Almighty may engage himself in it to the creature may there not be place for commutative Justice between a superiour and inferiouur between a King and People all obligatory Covenants upon terms of mutual performances are primarily fulfilled in a way of commutative Justice distributive Justice comes in for redress in case of non-performance of mutual agreements or upon complaint thereof Of the latter i. e. distributive Justice there is a merit or debt upon compact or strict retaliation it is true that there is nothing Man does or can do in the state of innocency could merit upon strict retaliation Resp I suppose he means by his term of strict retaliation rewarding just so much as the value of the work more i. e. to reward man just as much as the value of not eating an Apple but the reward promised was infinitely more and it was promised upon so small a Condition therefore upon the performance of the condition the reward as great as it was would have become due ex pacto and hence a true debt But
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
God's execution of distributive Justice takes place upon the Fall of Men and Angels § 3. Again Righteousness is to be distinguished in regard of the subject It s either the Righteousness of God or the Righteousness of Man the Righteousness of God is that which peculiarly belongs to himself and that in his Sufficiency or Efficiency the Justice appertaining to God in his Sufficiency is his Essential Attribute whereby he is eternally infinitely and unchangeably righteous this is not a righteousness imputed unto us in Justification but a justifying righteousness it is the just God that justifieth § 4. God's Justice in Efficiency is the execution thereof that his essential Justice may shine forth to his Praise and Glory The Execution of his Justice is a transient Act and is either Legislation or execution of his Laws God's Legislation is his acting from his Sovereign Will and Pleasure in laying what Laws he pleaseth on the creature Laws are not purchased of God any more than Grace therefore they that talk in that manner seem neither to understand Law or Grace In God's Legislation he hath given Man but one Law for Life in the fulfilling where for not Man is liable to be eternally saved or condemned and God never made nor Christ purchased any Remedying Law to amend the faults thereof never abrogated or relaxt it but it stands in its full Sanction preceptive remunerative or vindictive § 5. There neither is nor ever was any justifying righteousness to Man but what is the perfect and compleat righteousness of this Law as imperfect righteousness is renounced and condemned by this Law so it will not stand for Justification with any of God's Laws neither is it Grace in God to relax his Law he cannot deny himself in the perfection of Justice § 6. The execution of this Law upon Man since the Fall is in a way of meer Justice or in a way of exact Justice in consistency with Grace and Mercy In a way of meer Justice to the Glory thereof on the Vessels of Wrath in a way of Justice in consistency with all the designs of Grace and Mercy by setting up a Second Adam and providing such a righteousness in him as might fully answer all the demands of the Law which the Law should accept and and impute to the Sinner the Mediatorial and Surety Righteousness of Christ and this is called the righteousness of God that we are made in Justification Mr. H. denys it but we shall endeavour to prove it § 7. Righteousness of Man is to be distinguished Either as it is of his own performance for Justification and so it s the righteousness of the Law and rejected by the Apostle Or as it s performed by another by Jesus Christ for us and this is called Our Righteousness and is so by real Imputation and Free Gift This is our only Evangelical Righteousness § 8. It s also considered in respect of Justification before God In this respect all Fallen Man's imperfect Righteousness is filthy Rags in respect of Sanctification they are the fruit of the Spirit and accepted in Christ the person being justified and therefore Believers are often denominated righteous in Scripture CHAP. IV. Of Imputation Sect. 1. What Imputation imports § 2. How it differs from Justification § 3. Not to impute is to acquit § 4. To attribute or ascribe what § 5. Legal Imputation § 6. The Second Sort. § 7. Imputation by Attainder § 8. Neonomians deny Imputation of Adam 's Sin § 9. Imputation by way of Suretiship § 10. A Surety a Representative § 11. The difference of Imputation by way of Attainder and by way of Suretiship § 12. Neonomians deny Imputation of Sin to Christ Sect. 1. IMputation for the most part in Scripture is a Forinsick or Law Term as Justification is the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is the accounting things or actions to Persons which they did not do or plead they did not do when a man's action comes to be lis coram Judice the first Enquiry is de facto whether he he guilty of it or not guilty the Judgment of the Court by the Jury is the Imputation or laying Guilt upon him or the acquitting him which is not only non-imputation of Fault to him but imputing righteousness unto him The Sentence of the Judge on the Verdict of Guilty is Condemnation on the Verdict of Not Guilty is Justification I find the word so used 1 Sam. 22.15 when Abimelek is accused by Doeg to Saul for enquiring of the Lord concerning David he saith Let not the King impute any thing unto his servant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let not the King lay it upon or ascribe it to his servant as a fault LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let not the King lay any thing to the charge of his servant This is rendred impute by our Translators so 2 Sam. 19.19 Shimei pleading with David for his Pardon saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let not my lord impute sin to me Likewise in the Plea of a righteous action Lev. 7.18 If the Priest shall eat the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day God saith it shall not be accepted neither shall it be imputed to him that offers it the Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LXX is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So in offering any where but at the Door of the Tabernacle blood shall be imputed * To impute is to lay any thing to the charge so Minst Lat. Imputare aliquid alicui Plin. Caedem alicui imputare So Quint. to that man that doth it Lev. 17.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now these are the words used for imputing in the Old Testament and as the Sept. renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the forequoted places in the same sense the Apostles use it in the New Testament whence it appears that Imputation is a Law Term and it s used when it comes to be argued in Law whether this thing or action whether righteousness or unrighteousness is to be ascribed to a person whereby he stands just or unjust in the eye of the Law and what the Judgment of the Court is is Imputation Such Trials do especially concern two things Right or Actions in matters of Right or Claim the Judgment of the Court imputes it to the Plaintiff or Defendant in matters of Fact the Judgment of the Court determines it or imputes it as righteousness or unrighteousness § 2. Hence 1. Imputation differs from Justification because it s of right or fact It s a Judgment concerning things or actions according to law Justification in this legal sense or Condemnation is of Persons according to Imputation 2. Guilt is the imputation of fault to the charged person in the most proper sense reatus culpae and the acquitting a person from Guilt when charged is the making him righteous by removal of unrighteousness from him so far
of all the elect a slander and imposed expression that none ever said the reatum culpae or guilt of fault and so he bore the sins of all the Elect by real imputation this is truth which Mr. B. chargeth as one of his hundred Antinomian Errors Er. 18. p. 10. Again being made sin for us is meant a sacrifice for sin so Mr H. and used as a sinner why should he be used as a sinner if sin was not charged upon him sure very unjustly If God imputed sin to Christ or accounted Christ a sinner he must be by sin hateful to God c. and Christ suffered for his own sins c. Scr. G. d. p. 30 31. If Christ had bin a sinner in his individual person these consequences might have held but Christ being by Law-imputation made sin in order to the Salvation of Sinners it s otherwise therefore doth my Father love me because I lay down my life for my sheep Is a rich person and honourable hated in the Court and detested because he enters himself Debtor for some Ludgate Prisoners Socin The meaning of these words 2 Cor. 5.21 is not that he was made sin for us by God's imputation but that he was made a sacrifice for sin the word made is a word of Election and Ordination Pinct Dial. to which Mr. Norton answers thus He was made sin for us as we are made righteousness i. e. by judicial imputation without the violation yea with establishing of Justice as he was made curse Gal. 3.13 because he was the sin-offering in truth therefore be was made sin by real imputation Nort. against Pinch Quak. We deserved those things that Christ endured and much more for our sins but that God ever reputed him a sinner is denied neither did he ever dy that we should be reputed righteous by his being made sin for us must be understood his suffering for our sins that we might be made partakers of the grace purchased by him by the working whereof we are made the righteousness of God in him Barch Apol. of Just p. 376. Thus you see how Sister Sects run hand in hand together Thus far of Imputation here which should have bin continued to imputation of Righteousness The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness being the main Point which the Neonomians oppose but because it will be the main subject of our ensuing Discourse we pass it over in this Chapter CHAP. V. Of Imputation of Righteousness unto the Iustification of a Sinner Sect. 1. Righteousness imputed and what § 2. Cardinal Bellarmine a Middle-way-man and so Quakers too and Socinians § 3. How consonant Neonomians are to that Fraternity § 4. They make inherent Holiness to be our Righteousness § 5. Why pardoned after justified and of subordinate righteousness § 6. Of Legal and Evangelical Guilt § 7. Of Mr. Cl's definition of Justification and of incompleat Justification in this life Sect. 1. THat Righteousness is imputed to the Justification of a sinner before God is held on all sides but the great Controversie lies here What Righteousness is it Is it our own inherent righteousness or the righteousness of another the Neonomians with the Papists say it s our own which is the formal cause of our Justification we say that Christ's Righteousness is the material cause of our Justification and Imputation the formal Mr. H. excludes the Merits of Christ from any of the essential causes and makes it only modum efficientis something in the hand of the efficient it may be an instrument but at the best it s but causa ministrans by way of efficiency but enters not that effect as any essential Cause Mr. H. would find out some little Difference between the Papists and himself but it s so little that he can hardly render it visible The Counsel of Trent saith thus There is only one formal Cause of Justification which is the Righteousness of God not whereby he is Righteous but whereby he makes us Righteous viz. which he hath bestowed on us whereby we are renewed in the Spirit of our minds and are not only reputed Just but are truly called Righteous and are so and it follows In this is the Justification of the Vngodly whilst for the Merit of that most Holy Passion the Love of God is shed abroad by the Holy Ghost in the Hearts of them that are justified and inherent in them whence in Justification it self with Remission of Sins this is together with it infused c. Sess 6. c. 7. Mr. H. agrees with them that our inherent Righteousness is the formal Cause and that it is for the Merits of Christ that this Righteousness is wrought in us that therefore it 's called the Righteousness of God Bellarmine in Defence of the Doctrine of the C. of Tr. says the State of this whole Controversie may be reduced to this one Question Whether or no the formal Cause of Absolute Justification be Righteousness inhering in us Which he endeavours to maintain in the Affirmative Mr. H. would have some difference from the Papists in that they say Justification is by Infusion of Righteousness whereas he saith Infusion of Grace is Sanctification but Justification is by Grace infused of the two I take the Papist to be rightest in constitutive Justification and to have less of Merit in it whereas Mr. H. Justification is by Sanctification wrought first which carries more of Merit and less of Grace for here Justification appears at first sight to be ex condigno the good qualification of the Subject Yea the Papists go further then Mr. H. for he will not have Imputation of Christs Righteousness nor Remission of Sins to have any place in Justification which the Papists own to be Parts of our Justification for the Council of Trent do Anathametize those only that teach that a Man is justified only by Imputation of Christs Righteousness and Remission of Sins without inherent Grace and Charity yea I do not find that this Neonomian Doctrine comes any whit short of the Popish Doctrine of Justification nay it out-does it in daring Contradiction to the the Gospel § 2. See what a Middle-way Man the Cardinal is if he go far enough He gives his Sense of Rom. 3.24 Justified freely i.e. from his mere liberality as to our Merits for we cannot deserve to be justified by any Work of ours and this Bounty of God is the efficient Cause but we are justified by his Grace i. e. by a Righteousness given and infused by him is not this Mr. H. exactly what doth he trifle for about Infusion and this is the formal Cause we are justified also by the Redemption of Christ and this is the meritorious Cause Lastly we are justified by Faith in the Blood of a Propitiator and this the disposing Cause from hence we may learn that every sincere Neonomian is a Papist in the Point of Justification and that the Popish Doctrine of Justification is the Middle-way between the Calvinists and Arminians See but a
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
Paul means only Works of Moses's Law § 8. Whether Paul disputes only against some Works § 9. Mr. Cl's Denial and Challenge § 10. What Law the Apostle means § 11. How the Jews looked upon the Law § 12. Of the Law of Faith § 13. What Deeds of the Law § 14. What Works to be boasted of § 15. Of meritorious Works § 16. Of justifying Works § 17. Of the Jews Conceit of Perfect Obedience § 18. 1 Cor. 4.4 considered § 19. Mr. Cl. unfair in his Challenge § 20. Of Rom. 4.5 § 21. Of Rom. 2.20 Sect. 1. OUR Neonomians affirm we are justified by works not of the Old Law which the Apostle Paul every were excludes but of the New Law this is that which we oppose and say the Apostle doth exclude all our works even in the state of Regeneracy from Justification and in this Point we shall take Mr. Cl. because he seems to be most full in the handling of it and take up that Mr. H. saith in a more scattered manner here and there § 2. Chap. 10. He tells us who it is that God Justifies not ungodly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Rom. 4.5 No saith Mr. Cl. the Spirit of God means the godly and he brings against the position of the Spirit of God in this place that of Exod. 23.7 Where the LXX useth the same words Resp To which I shall answer 1. That Mr. Cl. knows the LXX doth not translate the words according to the Heb. Text but rather speaks to the drift of the Text which is to enjoyn unto Men an impartial Execution of distributive Justice and therefore it renders it Thou shalt not justifie the wicked for a reward and that is the plain Drift of the Text by what precedes v. 6. Thou shalt not wrest judgment and thou shalt take no gift v. 8. and the Hebrew in the 7th verse is I will not justifie i. e. will not have thee to justifie for thou art but my Deputy and I sit in the Assemblies and Courts of Earthly Judges and whatever Judgment contrary to Justice and Right thou passest I will call thee to an account for it Then 1. This Text speaks of Man's Judgment not of God's immediately but as supervising the actions of men 2. He might as well or better alledged Exod. 34.7 where God proclaiming himself a sin-pardoning God saith he will by no means clear the guilty but in pardon of sin God doth clear the guilty and so the ungodly in Justification of them by the imputed righteousness of Christ which takes off the ungodliness in that kind tho man cannot provide for the Justification of an unrighteous person by gifts or partiality in a way of Justice yet God can by gracious and just ways and means provide for the acquitting the guilty and justifying the ungodly justly 2. It must be understood Rom. 4. according to the words in a strict sence God justifies the ungodly while such not to remain such For Abraham there spoken of was such an ungodly vile Idolater Josh 24. Had Abraham performed any New-Law righteousness before he came out of Vr Mr. C. will understand it he saith in a strict Law sence i. e. that he was a transgressor of the law of works so will I and that 's therefore to be ungodly and I know no ungodliness but such and while he was such God justified him and he did no New-Law works before he was justified for Heb. 11.8 for by faith when he was called of God to go forth he went so that he had faith and was justified before he obey'd the Call 3. It s most consistent with the Grace of God to justifie the ungodly and not in the least derogatory from his Justice to justifie a sinner in Gods way of Justification 4. As God justifies none to be ungodly nor justifies ungodliness but that sinners may be godly so there 's none can be godly before he is justified he cannot perform one godly Act nor have the Spirit the natural Man being a stranger to God and Enemy to him 5. Why may not God justifie the ungodly as well as sanctifie the ungodly if God may give one gift to the rebellious why not another if he may give Grace why not all Grace they will have Men justified by works who works in them to will or do Who gives them this righteousness Doth not this gift of God find them ungodly They will say yea undoubtedly then I will say why may not God give Christ to an ungodly one the gift of righteousness and justifie him thereby I hope if God can give one righteousness he can give another unless they will limit his Sovereign Grace § 3.1 But more fully And first Negatively not by the Law Gal. 2.16 viz. the Law of Moses and why so is there any the least word of the Law of Moses its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the works of a law any law when the Apostle speaks of Moses's law he annexeth the pre-positive Article So Rom. 3.20 it s a law from the works of a law no flesh living can be justified now this is not the Ceremonial Law by v. 19. but that law whereby all the world became guilty Jews and Gentiles v. 9 c. for the Gentiles were not guilty by Moses Law neither could the works of the New Law admit of an exception here for its any law that gives the knowledge of sin Now if the New Law gives the knowledge of sin the works of it are here excluded for that is no law that gives no knowledge of sin Hence all works of all Laws are here excluded i. e. such as the righteousness thereof required is our obedience performed by us whence its plain that the Law of VVorks the Ceremonial Law and the New Law are equally excluded Now the next Verse hath it that the righteousness of God is manifested without these excluded works this is no new Notion but witnessed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the law i. e. of Moses and the Prophets VVhat Gal. 3.16 is brought in for I know not I find it not among the Errata's but I think it must be one Hitherto also do belong these places Job 15.14 chap. 25.4 Psalm 143.2 which Places plainly and peremptorily deny righteousness in Man to be found unto Justification Mr. Cl. says according to strict Justice according to the law of works as Paul expounds it Gal. 2.16 Resp The Apostle there doth peremptorily protest against Justification by the works of a Law any Law whatever and if he hath an eye upon the Psalmists words he explains them so far as to us why the Psalmist denies Justification to any man living is because all works that Man can perform must be referred to some law by the works of a law no flesh living could be justified Let me add what the Apostle saith If righteousness be by a law then Christ died in vain It s strange the Apostle should so expresly and positively exclude the works of