Covenant or Decree of God and at the time appointed most fully make whence it is that the Apostle says He gave himself A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a counter-price a satisfaction instead of a satisfaction 1 Tim. 2.6 2. The second Law or Covenant is that wherein we sinners are the Restipulators and which in Scripture is styled The Promise The Law of Faith The Gospel The new Covenant wherein God through Christ doth promise remission of sin upon certain conditions upon performance whereof he doth accordingly bestow it upon us 3. Remission of sin may be styled Justification in respect of the profit or benefit thereof and this both special and general 1. Special In that it doth prevent remove or take away the obligation to condemnation which is due to sinners which condemnation is the direct opposite to Justification as is apparent by many Scriptures 2. In general In that it is equivalent unto or will prove to be of like universal benefit priviledge or emolument to a sinner with that kind of Justification which is the justification of a person who in himself is altogether just and never was obnoxious Thus have I replyed to the whole of what Mr. Ferguson hath said in his second Chapter concerning a sinners Justification and the imputation of Christs Righteousness unto him But before I proceed to reply to any other passage in his Book which concerns the matter in hand I will answer a Question that will come in fitly to be proposed by occasion of what hath been said upon this last namely That the justification of a sinner is By a Law CHAP. XIV Q. How is the justification of a sinner to be denominated whether Evangelical or Legal Answ Rather Evangelical and the reason assigned The Arguments of those on the contrary side both answered and retorted who acknowledge that the justification of a sinner is Evangelical ex parte principii but would not have it absolutely to be so styled but rather a Legal justification The reason why this Question is debated and answered Q. HOW is the Justification of a sinner to be denominated whether Evangelical or rather Legal Answ I propose this Question not for the satisfaction of Mr. Ferguson but for the sake of some other Brethren who may need a due information therein And my answer is That forasmuch as that Law by which a sinner is justified is The Law of Faith of Grace or of the Gospel it is therefore to be denominated not a Legal but an Evangelical Justification Herein by not Legal I must not in reason be understood to mean Not in any sence so or by no Law at all but not by the Law of works or as the word Legal is opposed to or contradistinguished from the word Evangelical And there cannot be as I think a more convincing Argument to prove That Evangelical in the case or question in hand is the fittest name than by alledging that The Law of works is not the Law By which but a Law From which i. e. by an appeal from which to the Law of grace a sinner is and is to be justified which will be granted by all viz. That the Law by which a sinner is justified is an Evangelical Law the Law of the Gospel For forasmuch as the Law by which a man was and is to be justified is two-fold 1. The Law of God Creator commonly styled Lex originalis or Law of works 2. The Law of God Redeemer called Lex remedians or the Law of grace or faith and forasmuch as the former Law was enacted as the Rule of justifying an innocent person and the latter of a sinner how can we better express the difference betwixt the justification of an innocent and a sinner than by styling the former a Legal and the latter an Evangelical Justification The peculiar species of the Law by which a person is justified is that which doth specificate the justification it self and is therefore most apt and fit to give it its peculiar denomination I desire That the answer here given may the rather be duely weighed and observ'd because it may serve to rectifie the mistake of a certain learned Author perhaps also of some other Brethren who albeit he doth allow a sinners justification to be Evangelical ex parte principii Evangelical Grace in Christ being the fountain of it and so to be called with a respect thereunto nevertheless he will not allow it roundly and absolutely to be denominated Evangelical but rather Legal for these two reasons Because it is Legal ex parte termini medii 1. Ex parte termini because it is minated in the satisfaction which is to be made or performed to the Law He hath freed me from the Law of sin and death To this I answer What he means here by the satisfaction to be made to the Law upon which the justification of a sinner is by him said to be terminated I do not know nor will I take upon me so much as to guess lest I should mistake his meaning only I will say as followeth 1. That by the Law of the Spirit of life Rom. 8.2 is meant the Evangelical Law the Gospel of Christ or Law of Faith 2. That Justification is one part at least of that saving benefit which the Apostle comprizeth under the expression of his being by that Law made free from the Law of sin and death it being as well the guilt of sin as the power of sin which by that Law he was made free from 3. Consequently I say That that Scripture proves not the Author's purpose but the direct contrary viz. That because it is by the Law of the Gospel that we are made free or justified from the guilt of our sins therefore our Justification is to be called Evangelical and not Legal 2. Respeciu medii in respec̄i of the means says he which is the Legal Righteousness of Chrifr by or through faith imputed to us To this I answer 1. As in some respect the Righteousness of Christ may be styled Justitia Legalis the Law of his Mediatorship requiring it and it being the rule thereof so in another respect it may be fitly said to be Justitia pro-Legalis it being to us instead or standing us instead of a perfect legal Righteousness so also in another respect it may very fitly be styled and so I find it styled by some Authors our evangelical righteousness and an evangelical righteousness it may I say be very fitly styled 1. Because the Gospel is it and it alone not the light of nature by which it is revealed and made known to the world 2. Because it was of Gods grace to appoint it 3. To accept it also and this for gracious or Gospel-ends viz. the pardon or justification of sinners And for this reason I may well conclude That the justification of sinners is to be denominated not a legal as the Author contends for but an evangelical Justification 2. As for his saying That this
pass such an harsh judgment upon you But be of good chear For if to be moved to serve God for this end to fly from wrath present and to come be to be made indeed a Gibeonite then for your comfort be it known to you that St. Paul was a Gibeonite for he was induced to preach the Gospel upon consideration of that Woe that did hang over his head if he did not preach it 1 Cor. 9.16 And he did mortifie the deeds of the flesh lest himself having preached to others should at last prove to be a cast-away 1 Cor. 9.27 Yea he professeth for others as well as himself that the end of all his and their Christian strivings was to obtain for themselves an incorruptible Crown v. 25. Briefly as David said to scoffing Micol I will yet be more vile so let us resolutely answer to the iterated scoff of this Doctor If to do as aforesaid be indeed to be a Gibeonite In the Name of God let there be more Gibeonites Let them be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Church There are many other dangerous evils which do naturally flow from the Imputation of Christs righteousness in the sense here opposed but because I have enlarged my self in the premises beyound my first intention I will not so much as mention them I will only conclude this long Chapter with the words of Mr. Truman in his Book styled The great Propitiation p. 94 95. wherein he suggesteth that mischievous consequence of the Imputation of Christs righteousness which hath in this Chapter been specified and insisted upon and I do the rather think meet to transcribe the words of that Author because some Readers may peradventure regard them as proceeding from his Pen rather than mine for notwithstanding every way whether by means of one Author or another my labour of love in this Treatise or the labours of any other in theirs so the truths of the Gospel be entertained I desire to be affected as was the Apostle saying in another case I therein do rejoice yea and will rejoice Phil. 1.18 If Christ says that Author fulfilled the Law for us in this sence so as it is to be imputed to us as if we had fulfil'd the Law our selves then we should be freed altogether from any obligation from the Law to obedience just as we are freed from the condemnation of the Law because Christ underwent it as a satisfaction for us we should not then sin in not obeying the Law and we could not be pardoned by Christ for our sins in not obeying the Law for they are no sins according to this Hypothesis If there be a Law that if a servant hired for a year shall refuse to serve his years service if his Master require he shall lye in the prison for a year Suppose one hired did not serve a year but another served a year good and faithful service for him must this hired man also serve a year for himself or he is too blame and must this man accepted to serve a year for him also lie in prison for him What if I did not serve a year yet another served for me and better service than I can perform What need is there may he say that I should serve it my self Do I think I can mend his work do it better my self than I have done it in him I am almost ashamed to lay open the weakness of them that hold these things after such multitudes of learned protestants have shewn their absurdity The other two Arguments of this Author in the same and the precedent page are for the weightiness of them well worthy to be here transcribed but I shall refer the Reader to the perusal thereof in his Book it self CHAP. XXX Q. May Believers be truly or fitly said to be clothed with the Robe of Christs Righteousness or the like form of words Four Reasons why the said Question is proposed and answered The Answer it self 1. That there are no such express sayings in Scripture nor any Scripture wherein Christs Righteousness is set forth under the Metaphor of Rayment 2. That our own personal Righteousness in the several branches thereof doth go under the Metaphorical expressions of Robes comely rayment and splendid array Several Scriptures objected to the contrary answered In what sence 't is true and in what false to say that we are clothed with the Robe of Christs Righteousness And that it is more fitly and intelligibly said that it purchaseth or procureth Clothing for us than that it is it self our Clothing Q. MAY Believers be truly or fitly said to be clothed with the Robe of Christs Righteousness To have Christs Righteousness put upon them That their persons or sins are covered with the Righteousness of Christ or the like expressions Answ I have thought meet to propose and make answer to this Question for three or four Reasons 1. Because such expressions have been very usual in the Sermons and Books of some Divines 2. Because the mis-understanding of the true sence wherein Christs Righteousness is imputed to us and the asserting of a sence contrary to truth hath been I doubt not the sole cause or occasion of such expressions one un-scriptural phrase frequently begetting another and the daughter doth sometimes happen to be more deformed than the mother 3. Because such expressions have occasioned strange and gross conceptions in the minds of many people as if by the Righteousness of Christ put upon them by Gods Imputation all their sins were so covered and hidden from the sight of God as that the eye of divine justice sees not the least spot of sin in those who are cloathed with it Such sayings as these have been already recited out of certain Writers 4. Because several Scriptures have been very frequently perverted to contenance or authorize such expressions which I will therefore take occasion to vindicate whereby to restore them to their true sence and meaning I shall therefore return a more copious Answer to the said Question and say 1. I do not remember any place in all the Bible where the said expressions are used or where Christs Righteousness is mentioned under the Metaphor of a Robe or Garment which Believers are to put on or wherewith they are or are to be clothed I do indeed well remember the Scripture where Christ is set forth his flesh and blood under the Metaphor of food meat and drink but no place where his Righteousness is mentioned under the notion or Metaphor of Rayment 2. But on the other side I find many places of Scripture where our own personal righteousness even in the several branches thereof doth go under the said Metaphorical expressions for which see Job 29.14 I put on righteousness and it clothed me My judgment was as a robe and a diadem What righteousness doth Job there mean surely not Christs Righteousness but his own as appears both by the precedent and subsequent verses 11 12 13 15 16 17. viz. Justice pity mercy
it being his right to have the Preheminence in all things Certainly St. Peter's eyes were not opened to see this as his priviledg when he said to our Saviour Depart from me for I am a sinful man O Lord for had he owned any such glorious priviledg or been sensible of the excellency thereof he would in all reason have mated his Lord and Master as I may so say or have set himself cheek by chole with him and have said Abide by me keep not at distance from me for I am as perfectly Righteous as thou art The same Author doth further amplifie and illustrate the said priviledg of the Saints saying p. 12. This Priviledg is not only negative but positive as they are uncloathed and stript of their own filthy garments Zech. 3.4 so they are cloathed upon with the immaculate robe of Christs Righteousness adequate and commensurate to the Law of God by the obedience of one says the Apostle Rom. 5.19 many are made righteous i. e. perfectly and compleatly righteous more than if they had kept the Law in their own persons hereby we come to have boldness and confidence in the sight of God his infinite purity and holiness doth not daunt or discourage us from going to him for as Christ is before him so are all they that do believe in him through that Righteousness of his that is put upon them see Eph. 3.12 Rom. 5.2 But the meaning of those words By the obedience of one many are made Righteous is not as this Author expounds it perfectly and compleatly Righteous more than if they had kept the Law in their own persons but the meaning is They are for the meritoriousness sake of Christs obedience made Righteous with another kind of Righteousness than is that which doth consist in their personal perfect and compleat performance of the Law of God yea with such a kind of Righteousness as is not competible with it viz. with the pardon of their sins or that kind of evangelical justification which is styled The gift of grace v. 15. and the free gift of many offences to justification v. 16. and the gift of Righteousness v. 17. For sinners to be made or constituted Righteous is in the sence of the Apostle as appears by the context to be justified out of the abundance of Gods grace in Christ or to be freely pardoned which no persons can be or be said to be who are as perfectly and compleatly Righteous as if they had kept the Law in their own persons For those who are as perfectly and compleatly righteous and more righteous than if they had kept the Law in their own persons are not justified of grace at all or are they capable of a gracious pardon And as for the boldness and confidence which the Apostle speaks of in Eph. 3.12 and Rom. 5.2 it is an holy boldness and confidence grounded upon their pardon of sin and justification through Gods grace in Christ mentioned in the foregoing Paragraph and not upon any such mis-construction of the sacred Scriptures as this Author was so extreamly over-bold and confident to suggest And whether Believers may be truly As for that in Zech. 3.4 the true sence whereof is here perverted by Mr. Will. Eyre I shall vindicate it from his abuse in Ch. 34 in answer to Dr. Owen by whom it is in like sort perverted also or fitly said to be cloathed with the Righteousness of Christ or to have Christs Righteousness put upon them I shall speak my thoughts more at large in a peculiar Chapter and in answer to that Question purposely put In the mean while I shall presume to say That it is not only false but as I am perswaded blasphemous to say as doth this Author That as Christ is before God so are all they that do believe in him through his Righteousness For Jesus Christ is before God a Saviour of sinners and whereas Believers in Christ are before God sinners still i. e. Rei culpae guilty persons and as such however pardoned they do still stand before God and shall so stand to all eternity Christ is before God the Son of God by nature and Righteous without a pardon whereas Believers in Christ are before God his sons by the adoption of grace and Righteous by or with a gracious pardon in the blood of Christ The next to Mr. Eyre I will quote is the Author of the Book styled The Marrow of Modern Divinity who says p. 127. That God the Father in that voice from heaven Mat. 3.17 and Joh. 12.30 doth chear the hearts of poor sinners and greatly delight them with singular comfort and heavenly sweetness assuring them that whosoever is married unto Christ and so in him by faith he is as acceptable to God the Father as Christ himself according to that of the Apostle He hath made us acceptable in his beloved Eph. 1.6 Wherefore if you would be acceptable to God and be made his dear child then by faith cleave unto his beloved Son Christ and hang about his neck yea and creep into his bosom and so shall the love and favour of God be as deeply insinuated into you as it is into Christ himself and so shall God the Father together with his beloved Son wholly possess you and be possessed of you and so God and Christ and you shall become One entire thing according to Christs prayer That they may be One in us as thou and I are One. I need say little more to the words of this Author than was said to those of Mr. Will. Eyre it being enough for me to say to every Reader of these lines as the High-Priest said to the by-standers at Christs arraignment he indeed causlesly but I justly Ye have heard their blasphemy Only I desire the Reader to observe further 1. How he doth wrong the Apostle by bringing him in to abett him in his said blasphemy I mean by alledging that in Eph. 1.6 as if the Apostle in saying That God hath made the believing Ephesians accepted in the Beloved had said That they were as acceptable to God as Christ himself whereas it will appear That the Apostle did intend by that very expression to insinuate a peculiarity of the Fathers Love to that his only begotten Son who lay in his bosom from all eternity 2. Observe how like a canting Familist he speaks in saying That upon our hanging about Christs neck and creeping into his bosom i.e. upon our believing in Christ God the Father together with his beloved Son will wholly possess us and be possessed of us and so God and Christ and we shall become One Entire Thing 3. Observe how notoriously he doth abuse the words of our Saviours Prayer and our Saviour Christ himself in them as if in praying That Believers might be one as the Father and he were one he had requested That they all may become One entire thing To pray That Believers may keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace
that they may accord and continue uniformly in one faith and doctrine that this agreement of all God the Father Son and Believers may be a powerful means of convincing the world that Jesus was the Christ sent by God To pray I say to this or the like purpose is this to pray That God and Christ and Believers may become One entire thing Thus have I cited a second Author or Authors should I say forasmuch as there are so many who by their several Epistles do applaud the Divinity of his Book no less than five names The third Author is brought to my hand by Mr. Samnel Rols a zealous Asserter of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sence here challenged in his late Book styled Prodromus who informs me that the words following are the words of the most excellent Mr. Richard Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity or in some of his Writings annexed thereunto p. 4. alias 38. But the Righteousness wherein we must be found if we will be justified is not our own therefore we cannot be justified by any inherent quality Yet even the man that is in himself full of sin being found in Christ by faith and having his sin remitted through repentance him God beholdeth with a gracious eye putteth away his sin by not imputing it and accepteth him in Jesus Christ as perfectly righteous as if he had fulfilled all that was commanded him in the Law shall I say more perfectly righteous than if himself had fulfilled the whole Law I must take heed what I say but the Apostle saith 2 Cor. 5.21 That we might be made the Righteousness of God in him Such we are in the sight of God the Father as is the very Son of God himself To this my reply is He calls it his own righteousness not because it was his at what time he spake those words but because it was his at what time he was a Jew and before a Convert to the faith of Christ 1. That Judaism or a Judaical Righteousness is that Righteousness which St. Paul doth call his own and this in opposition to Christianity or the practical knowledg of Christ wherein alone he did desire to be found and therefore it doth not follow from thence that a sinner cannot be justified or freed from condemnation upon the account of any inherent Christian grace or graces 2. A man may be said to be justified by the Righteousness of another and not by his own in a three-fold sence 1. By way of merit 2. By way of form 3. By way of a condition In the first sence it's most true that the Righteousness by which we must be justified is the Righteousness of another even of Jesus Christ the Righteous and not our own 2. But in both the other sences it is altogether untrue For 1. That Righteousness by or to speak more accurately with which a sinner is formally justified or made righteous is alwayes a mans own viz. his pardon or the remission of his sins 2. That Righteousness by which as a condition of his discharge a sinner is justified is always his own and not anothers viz. His own faith It 's true indeed that in respect of procurement both these Righteousnesses with and by which a sinner is justified are Christs and in respect of collation they are Gods but in respect of possession or performance they may be well said to be our own Righteousness they being freely given us of God for the sake of Christ Act. 5.31 And that sinners are in this last sence of the phrase justified by some inherent quality or grace of their own certainly Mr. Hooker would not deny for he in that Citation saith That it is through repentance that our sins are remitted which is as much as to say That by or through repentance a sinner is pardoned justified or not condemned by God 3. The Apostle in saying We are made the Righteousness of God in Christ doth not say either expresly or constructively That we are made more perfectly righteous than if our selves had fulfilled the whole Law no more than he says the same thing in Rom. 5.19 which was for that purpose alledged by Mr. W. Eyre but to no purpose as I have manifested 4. As for the closing words Such we are in the sight of God the Father as is the very Son of God himself I have said enough already declaring how such sayings are not to be justified but to be abominated as most false if not blasphemous there being nothing to be alledged for the excuse thereof save the innocent intention of the Authors I will close this Chapter with a request That the foresaid distinction touching the several sences wherein a man may be said to be justified by the Righteousness of another and not by his own may the rather be observed because it may serve for a two-fold purpose 1. It may be subservient to us how to give a ready and satisfactory answer to that passage of Dr. Owen with certain others in his often cited Book wherein he says p. 167. Christ is made of God to the Saints Righteousness and they will own nothing else to that purpose To this I answer 1. For Christ to be made of God Righteousness to the Saints is not for God to impute Christs Righteousness immediately in it self to them as the Doctor would have it he saying to that purpose as in other places so p. 110. That that perfection of obedience which we have in Christ is imputed to us but in the saving effects of it according to that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 1.30 He is of God made unto us Wisdom and Righteousness and Sanctification and Redemption i. e. he is causally efficiently or effectually made all these unto us And one would think that this Doctor should content himself with that sence of the phrase Christ his being made of God Righteousness unto us for he says p. 104. That in the Covenant God becomes our God and we his people and thereby all his Attributes are ours i. e. as to the benefit of them as else-where he interprets it The Doctor doth not say That upon our being in Covenant with God Gods Attributes are imputed to us nor doth he barely and simply say Gods Attributes are ours but he explicates that saying in these words that is as to the benefit of them so that there is just cause to think that the Doctor of any man should rest satisfied with that explication which others do give of such phrases touching the manner of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness or its being made ours they saying of Christs Righteousness as he says of Gods Attributes 2. Though the Saints will own nothing as the meritorious cause of their righteousness pardon or justification but the Righteousness of Christ nevertheless they may and ought to own evangelical obedience i. e. their return to God in faith and repentance as the condition without which the said saving effect or benefit of Christs
Righteousness shall not be theirs Where by the way observe the unjustifiableness of those Antinomian sayings of the Doctor p. 118. That Christ himself is the Righteousness that he requires at our hands And p. 166. It will one day appear that God abhors the janglings of men about the place of their own works and obedience in the business of their acceptation with God To these sayings I reply 1. Christ himself is our Righteousness in such a sence as he is said to be our Life i. e. not in a formal but in a causal sence the predication in such Propositions not being Formalis or Essentialis but Causalis as is the manner of Logicians to express such matters 2. As it is not truly said in a literal but only in a tropical sence that Christ himself is our Righteousness so it is not true in any sence I know to say That Christ himself is the Righteousness which he requires at our hands neither do I remember any such saying in Scripture but rather that Christs Righteousness or Obedience How many disputes have been managed says Dr. O. p. 166 167. how many distinctions invented how many shifts and evasions studied to keep up something in some place or other to some purpose or other that men may dally withal Hereby it appears that the Doctor will not suffer evangelical obedience to have any manner of place one or another in order to our acceptance with God was a thing required at his hands and not at ours 3. As Christs Righteousness was a thing required at his hands so it is apparent by the Scriptures that there is a personal evangelical Righteousness required at our hands in order to our acceptation with God by through or for the Righteousness sake of Christ and without which evangelical Righteousness the unrighteous shall not be accepted with God Mat. 5.20 and 25. last 1 Cor. 6.9 4. It will one day appear how God abhors the vain janglings that I may not say also the juglings of men who not perceiving or acknowledging the consistency or subordination of our own personal Righteousness to Christs in the business of our acceptation with God would thrust either of them out of their proper place i. e. either Christs Righteousness out of the place or office of the alone meritorious cause or our own evangelical Righteousness i. e. our return to God by faith and repentance from the office or place of a condition of our acceptation What God said to Cain Gen. 4.7 If thou dost well shalt thou not be accepted the same in effect doth God in his Gospel say to every sinner If thou dost well i. e. If thou dost believe in Christ if thou dost repent and convert thou shalt be accepted through Christ if otherwise sin lies at the door and will obstruct thy acceptation with God Again Observe from the premisses the unreasonableness of that other saying of the Doctor p. 219. where having quoted 1 Cor. 1.30 he says Not that Christ is this or that part of our Acceptation with God but he is all he is the whole To this I answer as the very truth is 1. Although Christ be the whole and sole meritorious cause of our acceptation with God yet he is not the whole nor any the least part of our acceptation it self For Christ being altogether a cause extrinsecal to our acceptation with God he cannot possibly be any part of or ingredient into the thing it self For this were to make Christ to be a cause intrinsecal to it and consequently either the formal or material cause thereof for these only are Causae or Partes Constitutivae which do Ingredi naturam rei neither of which he can be said to be but the meritorious cause 2. As was afore said so I say again That in order to our acceptation with God both Christ hath his part and we have our part to act both of them being severally and joyntly assigned us of God So that if by the whole of our acceptation with God the Doctor doth mean that Christ and his Righteousness is all that God requires in order to our acceptation with him his saying is to be rejected as false and a branch of Antinomian doctrine 2. I desire that the foresaid distinction may the rather be observed because it may serve to discover the maleyolence or in-sincerity or at least to speak most favourably and with the utmost of charity the ignorance of those who say That the dispute here is Whether we are justified before the Just and Holy God by our own righteousness or by the Righteousness of a Mediator These are the very words of the Author of the late Book styled ‖ In the last Page of the Preface to his Book Anti-Sozzo who should either have had more wit to know or more grace to acknowledg the contrary viz. That the Dispute between Protestant and Protestant is not Whether sinners be justified before God by their own Righteousness or by the Righteousness of Christ our Mediator but whether there be not also an evangelical Righteousness consisting in a return to God by faith and repentance required of every sinner in order to his being justified for the sake of Christs Mediatory Righteousness as the alone meritorious cause thereof And this is that which however some Protestants do dispute and seem to gainsay yet others do not but do professedly maintain among whom I shall instance in the late Assembly of Divines as appears by the Confession of their Faith and Catechism they professing Ch. 15. Sect. 3. of their Confession That although repentance be not to be rested in as a satisfaction for sin or any cause of the pardon thereof which is the act of Gods free grace in Christ nevertheless it is of such necessity to all sinners that none may expect pardon without it And as appears also by the express answer which they do instruct every Catechumen to make unto this Question What doth God require of us that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us by reason of the transgression of the Law the answer put into their mouths being this That we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us by reason of the transgression of the Law he requireth of us repentance towards God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ and I might also instance in the judgment of our own Church touching the necessity of a personal Righteousness in sinners that so they may be justified before God through the Righteousness of Christ or for his sake absolved from their sins This appears by the tenor of that discharge or absolution which after the general Confession in the Liturgy every Minister is in Gods Name and as his Commissioner to pronounce saying He pardoneth and absolveth all them that do truly repent and wherefore let us beseech him to grant us true repentance and so that at the last we may come to his eternal joy through Jesus Christ our Lord. I do well remember
they do in a passive sence of the word receive it i. e. they by means of their believing do enjoy the righteousness or obedience of Christ in the saving fruits and effects thereof 2. The Doctor doth errâ— grosly in thinking That by the righteousness of the Law the Apostle means his own evangelical righteousness or obedience to the gospel-Gospel-Law and that this is it which heopposes to Christs personal righteousness or to Christs obedience to the Law For it is plain both by the Text it self and Context That by the Law he means the Jewish Law and that by his own righteousness he means that which was his own when a Jew not that which was his own when a Convert to the Christian faith and that the things there opposed are Judaism and Christianity or Judaical observances and the practical knowledg of Christ So that our own evangelical righteousness is neither in the same kind nor in any other kind there opposed to the obedience of Christ nor is it either in that Scripture or in any other excluded from such an end which Christs Righteousness doth obtain I mean the salvation of a sinner For in order to this end our evangelical righteousness stands not in any opposition but in a due subordination to Christs As Christs Righteousness doth after a manner peculiar to it self so doth our own righteousness in its manner tend to our obtaining that which St. Peter styles The end of our faith even the salvation of our souls Whence that command of the Apostle So run that ye may obtain 1 Cor. 9.24 It is by running that through by or under Christ we do obtain 3. The Doctor perverts the sence of 1 Cor. 1.30 that Scripture in no fort proving the thing for the proof whereof it is alledged by him For the Apostle doth not there say as he would have him That Christ is made Righteousness unto us by Gods reckoning or imputing Christs perfect and compleat obedience of the Law unto us this being the thing undertaken by him to be proved by that Scripture which as that Scripture doth not prove for it proves only that Christ was of God made Righteousness unto us so another place of Scripture 2 Cor. 5.21 doth most convincingly disprove it it being there asserted that we are made in Christ the Righteousness of God i. e. very righteous by God the abstract being put for the concrete as is very usual in the language of Scripture and particularly so used Esa 60.17 where God promiseth to his Church that he will make all their Exactors Righteousness i. e. very just honest or righteous it being I say there asserted that we are of God made in Christ most righteous by means of his being made sin i. e. a sin-offering for us not by Gods reckoning to us Christs perfect and compleat obedience to the Law In the same Page again he abuses that Text in Rom. 5.10 saying The issue of the death of Christ is placed upon reconciliation that is a slaying of the enmity and restoring us into that condition of peace and friendship wherein Adam was before his fall But is there no more to be done Notwithstanding that there was no wrath due to Adam yet be was to obey if he would enjoy eternal life Something moreover there is to be done in respect of us if after the slaying of the enmity and reconciliation made we shall enjoy life being reconciled by his death we are saved by that perfect obedience which in his life he yielded to the Law of God Answ 1. I have already vindicated that Scripture from the same abuse put upon it by the Doctor having manifested that by the life of Christ is there meant the life which he now lives in glory interceding for us at the right hand of God not the life which he lived on earth 2. Had the Apostle meant the life which Christ lived on earth it will not thence follow that his meaning was that we are saved by Gods reckoning to us the perfect and compleat obedience of that his life i. e. imputing his obedience it self unto us 3. Though being reconciled to God there is somewhat to be done by us i. e. in order to the continuing of our friendship with God nevertheless there needs no more to a sinners salvation at present than his present reconciliation nor doth there need more to his future and final salvation than the continuance of his reconciliation and friendship with God For if being reconciled to God he and we do continue friends we shall as certainly be saved as it is certain that Christ at the right hand of God ever liveth to make intercession for us 4. It is salsly insinuated by the Doctor That Christ hath done more or that it is needful that he should do more for our salvation than for our reconciliation I mean for the beginning continuing or perfecting of the one than of the other salvation from the guilt of sin whether it be initial progressive or consummate being in effect the same benefit with Reconciliation with God in its being begun continued and made perfect in the fruit thereof 5. If there was no wrath due to Adam nothing could ever have obstructed his entrance into life the contrary whereunto is presumed by the Doctor 6. As it was once already said so I say again That Adam was to obey not that he might enjoy a right to eternal life which he had not antecedently to that his actual obedience but that his title thereunto might be continued and he thereupon might be brought at last to the full enjoyment thereof The Doctor proceeds in the same Page to abuse the Scriptures by whole clusters which I will endeavour to manifest in the next Chapter CHAP. XXXIII The Doctor 's allegation of several Scriptures to no purpose That we are no otherwise justified than we are reconciled or pardoned through the Imputation of Christs Righteousness the contrary whereunto is pretended by Dr. O. That none of those Scriptures alledged by him to prove the Imputation of Christs obedience it self unto us do evince the same His error in attributing our justification to the Life of Christ whereas the Apostle doth Rom. 5.9 expresly attribute it to his Death however it is not to be understood as excluding the obedience of his Life HE saith p. 186. There is distinct mention made of Reconciliation through a non-imputation of sin as Psal 32.1 Luk. 1.77 Rom. 3.25 2 Cor. 5.19 and justification through an Imputation of righteousness Jer. 23.6 Rom. 4.5 1 Cor. 1.30 although these things are so far from being separated that they are reciprocally affirmed of one another which as it doth not evince an identity so it doth an eminent conjunction And this last we have by the life of Christ Answ 1. There is no mention at all so much as of the word Reconciliation in three of the four recited Scriptures viz. Psal 32.1 Luk. 1.77 Rom. 3.25 And by perusing the places the Reader may know