Consequent § 9. He proceeds with Confidence 2dly I do absolutely deny that a true Gospel justifying Faith and Gospel-Works are ever opposed to one another and do confidently affirm the contrary because I have examined all Places where Faith and Works are mentioned and do not find them if any affirm let him prove it R. Mr. Cl's Confidence is no Proof and his searching the Scriptures and not finding so plain a Truth as that Justification by Faith is opposed to Justification by Works argues but judicial blindness whereby God hath hardned his Heart and blinded his Eyes 1. As was said before all Gospel-works as he calls his New Law Works brought into Justification by a Law are legal not Gospel not accepted of God but leaves a Man under a Curse 2. Those that are Gospel-works are Fruits of the Spirit thro' the Gift of Grace and Fruits of Faith as they are Fruits of Christ's Righteousness believed in to Justification and no cause of Justification in the least neither doth the Believer claim Justification thereby and hence called Gospel-Works but if he claim Justification by them they are Works and opposed to Faith but loose the Name of Gospel are Legal dross and dung and stink in the Nostrils of God neither are any such Works the gracious Gifts of the Spirit or true Faith or the good Fruit of it For such seek Righteousness as it were by the Works of the Law and obtain it not 3. Now whereas Mr. Cl. here throws down his Gantlet in an Ambiguous manner we take it up in the true State of the Difference and confidently affirm that Justification by Faith is positively opposed by the Apostle Paul to Justification by any Works of a Law whatever performed by us the proving of which is the drift of this whole Dispute as now managed 4. He saith there was no Coutroversie about any other Works but the Works of the Law Resp There was no Controversie about any Works but the Works of a Law no more is there now Gal. 5.4 The Apostle saith They are abdicated from Christ and fallen from Grace that are justified by a Law so say we § 10. Proposition 4. This Law was the whole Body of the Mosaical Law consisting of precepts Moral Ceremonial and Judicial what he saith under this proposition about the acceptation of the term Law I think will not hold all of it with his other Doctrine for he saith its taken 1. For any written Declaration or Revelation of the Will of God concerning our Duty 2. It s frequently taken for the Moral Law as Rom. 7.12 and Ch. 3.31 Mat. 5.17 Luke 16.17 3. It s used Indefinitely for the whole Body of the Law given to Moses and therefore he mentions it in such general Terms R. Because Law is used in so many Senses in Scripture and those that would introduce Justification by Works are apt to slip from one Law to another and say as Mr. Cl. doth that though the Apostle deny Justification by one Law yet he intends Justification by Works of another Law therefore the Apostle excludes our Works of any Law whatever as frequently in his Epistles as hath been shewed so in that express and plain Place Gal. 3.21 If there had been a Law given which could have given Life verily Righteousness should have been by the Law And why is it spoken It 's spoken as a Reason that the Law of Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not against the Promise i. e. against Justification by the Promise and Gift of Righteousness no the Law of Moses taken together was so far from being against this way of Justification without the Works of a Law that it witnessed to it as the Apostle expresly speaks Rom. 3.21 It did not appropriate the Grace of the Promise to it self but by the whole Tenor of it witnessed to the Promise and Righteousness The Law of Moses taken as a Law did justifie none Gal. 3.11 For saith the Apostle the Law i. e. as such is not of Faith ver 12. The Condition of it being Works and therefore Justification by the Law is not Justification by Faith the Apostle saying further ver 18. If the Inheritance be of a Law than no more of Promise ver 19. For what end served the Law given by Moses Answ It was added because of Transgression till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made i. e. Christ but why added for two Ends. 1. That Sin might be distinctly known by the Moral Part as the Apostle by the Knowledge of Sin 2. That by the Ceremonial Law there might be a Typical Redemption and Satisfaction held forth unto them through which they might have a sight of Faith and of the true Sacrifice held forth unto them § 11. Proposition 5. The Law was looked upon by the Carnal Jews as a Covenant of Werks Mat. 19.16 Granting that it was yet not to be fulfill'd by a perfect Obedience but by imperfect as appears by his Words What good thing shall I do that I may inherit Eternal Life As much as to say I have done Good and Evil I would know what that good thing is whereby I may be righteous to Life Eternal He depreciates the Law calling it a Ministration of Death and Condemnation 2 Cor. 3.7 9. It was the true Sense of the Apostle that the Law of Moses or any other Commands of God understood used and applied as a Law for Justification by the Works of it is a Ministration of Death and not of Faith and as a Ceremonial Law which Heb. 6.19 is made nothing and by it self perfect it being Typical and the Type absolutely considered could not purifie them as to Conscience The Apostle saith it was weak through our weakness Rom. 8.3 We being not able to come to the Terms of this nor of any other and Rom. 6.14 saith we i. e. Believers are not under a Law but under Grace for Justification as much as to say you take the Doctrine of Grace to be a licentious Doctrine but believe it it s the legal Doctrine that leads to Sin not the Doctrine of Grace besides the Apostle shews plainly that to look for Justification by the Law of Moses or of any other is to be Married to it which he shews Rom. 7. is quite contrary to our Marriage to Christ by Faith while we are in expectation of Justification by a Law we are held in Bondage but being by the true Sence of the Nature of it Dead to it it becomes Dead to us Now we are delivered from the Law that being Dead wherein we were held and there 's no other Husband comes in the room of the Dead Law no new Law but Christ only And the Opposition saith Mr. Cl. is only between the Law of Works and the Law of Faith if he make the Law of Faith to be a Law of Works then it s no Opposition at all because both are a Law of Works and why I pray is Justification by Faith Justification by
said and only take notice of the things of weight But first it is necessary to shew how we understand this Question 1. In what capacity Christ stood when he bore sin and punishment 2. In what sense he bore sin 3. What personal guilt is 4. How Christ came to bear personal guilt A. As to the first that Christ stood in the capacity of a publick person representing the whole body of the Elect under the consideration of the lapsed Estate and Condition in the first Adam As to the second when we say Christ bore Sin it 's neither treason or blasphemy as our Adversaries would have it because we speak in the language of the Spirit of God however to prevent cavilling we will vouchsafe to yeild to the Bp's term personal guilt which can import nothing but the committed Sin remaining on the sinner's person and conscience as a forbidden and condemned fault by the law neither do we say that Christ committed these Sins or was made to have committed them when our Sins were laid upon him neither that his Nature was physically or morally corrupted thereby Lastly We cannot but adore the wisdom of God in calling personal guilt Sin because 1. A bare physical Act as such is not Sin and as all killing is not sin but Sin is a physical Act cloathed with a moral Exorbitancy arising from its relation to and comparing with the law of God therefore to say the substratum of the physical act or defect is transferred from one subject to another is most absurd but the guilt of this fact and its moral relation to the law may be transferred and taken away from the subject transgressor as we shall make it appear As to the third the Bp. tells us what he means by personal guilt and it 's very plain David's personal guilt was of Murder and Adultery so Peter's of denying his Master Now the Bp. will not have personal guilt ever to be taken off from any but that David continues in Heaven under personal guilt of Murder and Adultery to this Day and for ever Lastly Christ came to bear Sin 1. By God's call and his acceptance voluntarily obeying his Father's command 2. In submitting himself to a legal way of proceeding with him when he came under the same law the transgressor was under 3. By a legal accounting and imputing our Sin to him he coming in forum Justitiae and writing himself debtor in the room and stead of all the insolvent debtors to the Law of God Justice accepts of him as a sufficient Paymaster Hence in the law sense Christ was called by God what he was not in a natural sense Rom. 4. He was made Sin who knew no Sin and God calls things that are not as tho' they were both in calling Christ Sin and us Righteous § 3. Now we say that Commutation of Persons was so far and no more nor less than God hath made it to be in his legal way of proceeding in this great mystery That Christ should according to the Preordination and Constitution of the Father freely put himself under a judicial Process for the Sins of all the Elect under the same law that they transgressed and that Justice should deal with him as if he had been the original transgressor and in the stead thereof in transferring the charge upon him and punishing him for Sin Hereupon follows the change that he is made Sin and we Righteousness in him Justice receiving full satisfaction for our Sins Hence we shall not much trouble our selves with the many odious Inferences that the Neonom would draw upon this glorious Mystery nor the dirty Reflections on the unsearchable Wisdom of God the Truth being as fully and plainly made manifest in Holy Writ as any doctrine of Godliness 1. It is plain that Sin was laid on Christ in some sence or other the Scripture being so express in it 2. It 's granted on all hands the physical part of the Act was not transferred to Christ after which that which remains on the Sinner is the guilt of it which is his relation to the law in the moral sense as a transgressor and must be his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the laws condemnation of the Fact making his guilt or desert of punishment 3. The Spirit of God calls this Merit or Desert Sin and shall we call it contrary to Scripture Where doth the Scripture say it was not It saith again and again that it was and what if contrary to the Bp's reason Are we to believe God or Man Is the Bp's reason the rule of our Faith What if the same word be used in Scripture for Sin and Punishment I grant that one word in Hebrew is used for Sin and the Sacrifice for Sin sometimes but when it 's used for the Sacrifice it 's therefore used because Sin was judicially transferred to the Sacrifice that it bore the Sin of the Transgressor so that it became the formalis ratio of its Suffering and therefore it 's denominated from its most essential cause To say it 's a tropical word is not much to the purpose it being such as expresseth the very nature of the thing as often in Scripture by a Metonimy Sensus pornitur pro sensili a Grace of the Spirit put for the Object Faith for the Object and Hope for its Object so here Sin for the personal guilt of Sin the Subject put for an essential or proper Production It 's a Metan of another nature from that this is my Body where Signum is put for Signatum and its true the Scripture doth always denote the guilt of Sin by Sin and the Bp. doth concede that Punishment is not Sin but a Consequent of guilt we say it 's more than a mere Consequent it is a merited effect and Sin always deserves and merits Punishment tho' no Sinner merited that a Surety should be punished for him this is by Gracious Surrogation or Substitution And it 's to contradict Scripture to make Punishment separable from guilt and for good reason to for no just Law punisheth any one but the guilty whereby it 's always said that Sin lyes upon him i. e. the just charge of Sin § 4. Bp. Obj. But Punishment must have relation to Sin as to the same Person This is true it must and always hath Sin is inseparable from Punishment in the same Person according to the just Terms and Constitution of any Law by which any Person is punished To this the Bp. saith he answers distinctly that there are three ways our Sins are said to have relation to Christ's Sufferings 1. As an external impulsive cause no more than occasional no proper reason of Punishment and so for the Socinians This I suppose he leaves to the Socinians with whom Mr. B. is one in this point 2. As an impulsive cause becomes meritorious by the voluntary Act of Christ's undertaking to satisfie Divine Justice for our Sins and not as his own 3. As to the Personal guilt of our
I suppose because he lookt upon us as Men very shallow and of no penetration into matters For though he that hath been an actual Transgressor cann't be said not to have been because it 's past and cann't be made otherwise than that it hath been Doth it follow from this that therefore now he is a Transgressor His Argument doth run thus A Man hath been an Actual Transgressor therefore now he is and ever will be a Man hath been actually Sick or Poor and therefore he is so now and ever will be It 's a truth unalterable that this or that thing hath been but it follows not that therefore it 's now and always will be so It is a truth that all the Saints in Heaven have been guilty of Sin but are they therefore so now Then Heaven is full of guilty Sinners He alledges the absurdity of making a Fact past not to be past there 's none asserts it but that the Law may be fully satisfied for the obliquity of Fact we assert and in that sense God is said to take away our transgressions for what is the end of Christ's satisfaction in being a Sin-offering Is it not to satisfie the Justice of God in a Law-sense for the exorbitancy of that Fact for unless this obliquity be taken away before God the Sinner must be bound over to Punishment And hence no Flesh could be saved but all the World must remain Guilty Unjustified and Unpardon'd § 10. He excepts against considering Sins as Debts which he saith when once paid are no longer Debts but there 's difference between the guilt of a Fact and contracting a Debt for a Debt consists in a thing real whose property may be altered and transferred but in criminal matters there 's nothing capable of being transferred which is a thing real but the obliquity and guilt of the Fact is a privative and personal thing A. If Christ hath directed us to consider of Sin as a Debt such consideration is most regular and justifiable 2. If Obedience be that which is due to the Law of God in the strictest consideration of Justice then Disobedience is a Debt erg Sin is a Debt 3. If a Debt be no more a real thing but a Privation then other transgressions of the Law then the obliquity may be transferred in one as well as in another but it is so Erg. For a Debt is a defect of Payment and Privation of it there 's nothing but the Payment is real 4. In criminal matters no wrong subject is capable to be Punished in a way of Justice but he that is guilty § 11. He saith the Desert of Punishment which follows the transgression cannot be separated from it A. That which is meer consequent to a thing may be separated from the Essential Nature of the thing at least in Consideration but we have shewed that the Desert of Punishment is in the formal Nature of Sin For Sin as such is made by the Law to deserve Punishment and that is absolutely false if the Scripture be true which he saith Let what Grace or Favour soever be shewed the desert of Punishment remains still A. 1. In Man's Proceedings a Man that is Pardon'd is taken from desert of Punishment for it 's a slander punishable to call a Pardon'd Thief a Thief and the Law is silenced from dealing with himas such or calling him so But here God's ways are not as Man 's when he Pardons he also Justifies He provides as well for a full satisfaction of his Law for the very obliquity and exorbitancy of the Fact But he saith a Privation can't be transferred A. It 's true a Physical privation can't but a Moral may and a Debt may by his own Concession but a Debt is a Privation of the Creditor's Money I wonder an Ecclesiastical Man should not know it as well as others unless they call Men Debtors that owe them nothing Again the B. saith No Sinner can deserve that one that was not a Sinner should suffer for his faults A. It is true no Sinner can deserve that Christ should suffer for him no nor any ordinary Principal Debtor can deserve that any Man should be his Surety but another in kindness to him may put himself under Obligation to Pay and Write himself Debtor in his stead so tho' Sinners deserved Punishment yet not that Christ should be Punished for them and therefore that Christ is punished for their Sins flows from the love of God and kindness of the Lord Jesus from which he putting himself under Law-Proceedings and Suffers in a way of Justice for Sin i. e. taking upon him the Deserts of Man's Sin Bp Nor can the Law or Act of any Person transfer the desert of Punishment from him that was the actual Transgressor A. Here 's miserable Divinity it 's time sure to come to our Litany Lord have Mercy upon us A. 1. Cann't a Law transfer a deserved Punishment to another that fully satisfies it Why doth any one fully satisfie the Law for another but that the Law should have nothing to say to him to Charge or Accuse him which if so his desert is taken away If a Child or Wife commit a great Theft doth not the Guilt in Law fall on the Father or Husband and is not the Personal Desert taken away by the Father or Husband 's satisfying the Law 2. Can no Person Cann't God transfer the Guilt It 's strange that the Scripture should be so mistaken in saying Jehovah laid upon him the Iniquities of us all All the Answers to this are so frivolous that they are not worth our trouble of Answering them § 12. B. The Turpitude as to the Act of Sin cann't be re moved from it A. All these things being inseparable Sin remains in the best yea glorified Saints for Personal Guilt remaining and a Turpitude inseparable as it must needs so long as Personal Guilt remains there can be no Sanctified one on Earth or Heaven for Guilt and Filth is permanent ever never to be removed according to this Doctrine Bp Where-ever the Act of Sin is it must be displeasing to God but the Turpitude as it affects the Person of a Sinner must have another consideration A. Is Sin displeasing to God And can the Sinner be pleasing to him so long as he lies under the fault of Sin the desert and guilt thereof For suppose he is taken off from Punishment can he be received into favour with God Doth God accept Sinners in all their Guilt and Turpitude 2. I understand not how Turpitude of Sin is distinguish'd from the Guilt of Sin the said Guilt being the Turpitude the Law finds punisheth for it and condemns it even in Man's Law And although Sin carries an inherent Privation of good and an internal pravity yet there 's none of this that hath not personal guilt in it which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so far at least was charged on Christ and so far a believer washed in the
Socin They are greatly deceived who gather that all the posterity of Adam sinned in Adam the Parent and truly to have deserved the punishment of death for sins and merits such as are meerly personal go not out of the person which hath sinned neither do Parents represent their Children Altho there may be some hurt and that not a little to Children by their Parents sin as indeed it fell out in Adam 's sin but the very Sin and Merit of Adam was not communicated in nor imputed to Adam's Posterity and hence the Posterity of Adam was not truly punished for Adam's sin unless they imitated their Parents Schlicting on Heb. 7.10 Whereas it appears plainly by Rom. 5.12 that the merit passed upon all by Adam's sin for death passed upon all and the merit of Death cannot be without imputation of sin and it passed upon all that have not finned actually even Infants before they are capable of imitation of their Parents Quakers We do not ascribe any whit of Adam 's guilt to men till they make it theirs by the like acts of disobedience Barchl This is also Pelagian Doctrine That Adam 's sin is not imputed to his Posterity § 9. Imputation is also by way of Suretiship and it is when the Sins or Debts of one person are by law charged upon or imputed to another in order to the Salvation of the Principal or personal transgressor Here it is always understood that the payment of a Surety is as good and acceptable to the Law as that of the Principal 2. That the Surety cannot become Pay-master in Law unless he take the Debt or Sin upon him instead of the proper transgressor he must be charged as transgressor else the Law can make no demand upon him 3. He must freely offer himself to be a Surety no person can be forced in any case to be Surety for another 4. When he hath engaged himself in Suretiship the law takes him person for person the principal Debt becomes his and his righteousness and payment becomes the Principals in a real legal commutation here is no natural or moral Change but sponsorial and legal nay no logical change i. e. one relation is not changed into another the Surety into the Principal nor Principal into the Surety but in the Judgment of the Law the Principal Debt becomes the Surety's and the Surety's Payment is the Principals whereupon the Principal in respect of that Sin or Debt for which Satisfaction is made hath the discharge in full and is as perfectly righteous as to that as the Surety himself he is not it may be so rich and honourable as his Surety but in respect of the Debt satisfied the Law hath no more to say to him than to the Surety An Alderman fetcheth a Prisoner and with him many more out of Ludgate owing Five or Ten Pounds a piece this little money being all that 's owing in the World by the poor Man when discharged the Law hath no more to say to him than to the Alderman and he is as righteous in the eye of the Law tho he will not pretend to be so great and so rich or a ransomer of others out of Prison as the Alderman himself is § 10. He that bears the sins of others must be a Representative and Publick Person that must personate or bear the persons of them whose sins he bears and must be either substituted by the Court or if by some other he must be allowed to be capable and able to make Payment must be accepted and dealt with in the name and upon the account of the other and becomes a Debtor or Transgressor in and for the person he doth represent in Court and becomes a Delinquent in the eye of the Law the Law imputing sin to him makes him sin because he is supposed to owe nothing on his own account he that doth in foro represent one or more and stands not nor acts for himself but others is a publick Person and Representative as a Burgess or Citizen in Parliament and they that he represents are said to act in and by him It s a contradiction to common sense and reason to say that he that stands legally or civilly in the place of another to act his part and in his name should not be a publick Person but men will throw down common sense and reason to establish their own fond Conceits and Errors § 11. The difference between Imputation by way of Attainder and by way of Suretiship is that this Imputation is in order to the Salvation of the Sinner but that is as to legal single effects only to the Sinners Destruction 2. That in this Imputation in the way of Suretiship as there is Imputation of the sinners sin to the Surety so there is a re-imputation of the Surety's righteousness to the sinner but in Imputation of Sin by way of Attainder there 's no re-imputation of righteousness to the first sinner 3. The Imputation doth differ in the manner of transaction In Imputation of sin by way of Attainder sin is transferred from the Representative to the Represented but in Imputation by way of Suretiship sin is transferred from the Represented to the Representative and that 's the reason that tho we are fitly said to sin in Adam because he was our Representative yet it s not so fitly said that Christ sinned in us because that we were never Representatives to Christ but it s fitly said we are righteous in Christ because he is our Representative and that we satisfied in Christ which saying doth not rob Christ of his Glory of Satisfaction but gives it him affirming that Christ satisfied and for us and that God is well pleased with us through him If a man that hath owed Money to A. and paid him by his Surety B. be charged that he owes A. so much Money he denys it and saith I paid you by B. doth he speak true or false doth he not speak properly doth he hereby say I paid you by my own Money No he only saith that B. paid for me my Debt with his Money But we see how Neonomians will pick quarrel with common sense and reason as they do in their denial of this high and fundamental Point Of Imputation of Sin to Christ and charge it for an Error to say we satisfied in Christ § 12. Neonom Christ neither was a Sinner nor reputed a Sinner by God R. B. End of Contr. p. 122. Christ took not reatum facti nor reatum culpae as if there were any difference between them He took reatum poenae the guilt of punishment that 's always in the fault for nothing deserves punishment but faults Scr. G. d. p. 89. They dangerously affirm meaning those he calls Antinomians that Christ took not only the punishment of our Sins and that guilt and reatum paenae which is an assumed obligation to suffer the punishment deserved by us but all our very sins themselves the very essence of the sins
intervening Righteousness between Christ and us what to call it Mt. Cl. calls it subordinate and so doth Mr. B. but Mr. H. liking not that Name so well had rather call it co-ordinate but I know not from the Notion of the thing duly considered why they may not go one step further and call it the Principal or supream justifying righteousness for that which hath the principal place in any thing ascribed to it is the principal but our own righteousness hath the principal place in the thing ascribed to it which is Justification therefore it s the chief and supream righteousness For they say we are justified by the imputation of this righteousness only and by no other therefore all conducing righteousnesses to the introducing this are subordinate to it Again That which hath its place only in the external causes and in the modality of their operation as to the production of the effect is much inferiour to the essential causes that enter the very effect and are constitutive to it but Christ's Righteousness by these men is no more and therefore must be a subordinate righteousness to ours ours being causa formalis justificationis an essential cause Christ's being but causa protarch a remote cause adjuvant to the efficient therefore the righteousness of Christ can have no more than a remote causality in purchasing the New Law by the righteousness whereof we are justified which is no better indeed than causa sine qua non it s in ordine ad the justifying righteousness therefore subordinate to it 2. He saith This subordinate Gospel Righteousness is an imperfect righteousness Truly I am sorry for it that Gospel Righteousness should be imperfect I doubt there 's little dependance upon it since the righteousness of the law that condemns us is perfect its little likelihood that an imperfect righteousness should save us from it ay but they will say it s Christ's perfect righteousness must save us from the perfect righteousness of the law condemning us Say you so and therefore why should not this righteousness of Christ have the honour of justifying us it seems we are saved by Christ's righteousness and justified by our own as if Justification were not Salvation But is our Gospel-righteousness imperfect this is no Gospel for its ill News I must tell these men its a rotten foundation they build upon and their Building will drop not being built on Christ the Corner Stone in Justification 3. He saith It s imperfect consistent with many failings and infirmities Resp I pray how comes this to pass is it from the Legislator that constituted such a Law whose condition is obedience consistent with sin or is it from the Operator or Worker under this Law if from the former then the Law makes it in fault if there be any but if he hath made a law with such condition of obedience consistent with sin then performance of such is no sin nor needs a Pardon for sin is the transgression of the law the subject is under Now if Believers are under the New Law for Justification and perform there what 's required what need have they of a Pardon from a righteousness borrowed from another law If it be from the last viz. the fault and defect of the operator of righteousness that his righteousness is not the performance of the condition of the New Law as required then this New Law cannot justifie him our Neonomians in this Point will be on Scilla or Charybdis in spite of the World In a word 1. That righteousness that cannot justifie us at the Bar of the old Law or Covenant of Works is no justifying righteousness but none of our own righteousness New Law or other will not justifie us at the Bar of the Covenant of Works by the Neonomians own confession therefore we cannot be justied by any such righteousness 2. Again that righteousness which needs pardon is no justifying righteousness but is condemned by the law for whatever is pardoned is condemned by the law first neither is that person justified who by the law is unpardoned Pardon being an essential part of Justification in Mens Courts where many Indictments ly against a Man if he be quitted of some and not of all he is not discharged as justified but here it s worse I do not find that at the New Law Bar a man as they say justified is quite discharged from any Indictment at all for there 's none fully pardoned wherefore our Neonomians say that their Justification is not perfect in this life So Mr. Cl. Our Justification in this world is not perfect and compleat c. p. 18. § 6. Mr. Cl. saith There 's a twofold guilt Legal and Evangelical Legal Guilt is an obligation to eternal punishment this is fully pardoned in Justification and can never return again because Christ hath taken it all upon himself and made full satisfaction to his Father's Justice for it but Gospel-guilt which is an obligation to Gospel-Punishment i. e. fatherly chastisements for sins after Justification returns upon commission of new sins and is removed upon repentance sometimes wholly sometimes in part This is also Mr. H's Doctrine Resp The distinction is naught for we deny any Evangelical Guilt Evangelical Guilt Threat or Punishment is a Bull a downright Contradiction if we know what Gospel is and they that will be ignorant and call this Assertion Antinomian Poyson let them be ignorant still I thank God for the knowledge of the Gospel so far as that it is quite contrary to Guilt Threat and Punishment or Obligation to it in the true legal sense thereof Likewise he should have distinguished of Guilt as usual reatus culpae and reatus paenoe the first properly Guilt and that in judicio legis vel judicio conscientiae if a Man be sub reatu culpae judicio legis as they say the justified ones are he is unjustified for the law cannot justifie a man and declare him guilty i. e. not guilty and guilty at the same time Obligation to Punishment is not Guilt in the true sense of it for we say a man cast in Court is guilty of the charged Fault and therefore the Law binds him over to Punishment We never say a Man is guilty of the punishment but deserves he is found guilty and therefore the Sentence of the Law binds him to Punishment but he saith Legal Guilt is fully pardoned in Justification Pardon is always of a fault and includes not punire but is sin pardoned fully in Justification as to an obligation to eternal punishment then 1. Pardon is included in Justification contrary to what he asserts in the foregoing Page 2. Justification is perfect and compleat so far as the taking off eternal punishment 3. He cannot but own this to be the main part of Justification at least and this it seems is owing to the full satisfaction made by Christ to the Justice of God our righteousness of the New Law hath nothing to do here in the matter
of Eternal State Where are we now what a Justification is this by the New Law wherein our eternal state is not concerned Well! but our Justification in this life is not yet perfect not by Christ because he takes off only eternal punishment but temporal he hath left to us to remove by Repentance performing the righteousness of the New Law I hope this righteousness falling in to help Christ's it will produce perfect Justification No it wont this righteousness takes away our Sins and Punishment wholly but sometimes and sometimes only in part and what 's the reason where 's the fault why it falls upon this New Law which is always fulfilling and never fulfilled it will never justifie any one till the last day and it cannot do it then without the perfect righteousness of the Old Law § 7. Let 's take Mr. Cl's Definition of Justification into consideration a little He saith The Definition of Justification so far as it relates to God is thus Justification is an act of God whereby he accounts us righteous at present and treats us as such and will solemnly declare and pronounce us so at the last day of Judgment Resp He should have told us what act of God whether immanent or transient whether an act of Grace or Justice or both he should have told us the object of that act whether a meer sinner or a righteous person he will tell us anon it s a righteous person and he saith accounting him so at present if this accounting him be in a law sense it s but Imputation at most and this is that and all that he doth at present he finds them holy and righteous and judgeth them to be as they be but doth not God declare them righteous at present neither in foro Legis nor in foro Evangelii nor in foro conscientiae in none of these at present when then the very Sentence of Justification is not till the last day so that indeed there is none justified till then for a suspended sentence keeps the person whatever Opinion the Judge hath of him under the Law in Prison and in continual fear of Condemnation so that they are all the day long for fear of Death subject to Bondage § 8. Hence he infers two things 1. That Justification while we are in this life is but partial imperfect and incompleat and that we shall not obtain fully compleat entire and final Justification for all the effects of sin till the Day of Judgment To which I answer Where there is but an imperfect partial Justification there must be a partial Condemnation it cannot be denied but the Apostle denys it and saith there 's no condemnatien to them that are in Christ Jesus 2. The law knows no such thing a man is either perfectly justied for the same thing or perfectly condemned there 's no Medium betwixt Justification and Condemnation 3. If the New Law do not perfectly justifie a person then it condemns too at the same time that when ever the Parator of righteousness takes himself to be justified he is bound to believe himself condemned also and whether will stand good at the last Day he knows not either his Justification or Condemnation CHAP. VI. Of Pardon Section 1. Whether Remission of Sin belongs to Justification § 2. Remission distinguished by Mr. H. § 3. Of general Remission § 4. Conditional Pardon antecedent to a mans Justification § 5. Actual Pardon subsequent to a mans Justification Sect. 1. MR. Cl's Second Inference is That Justification doth not properly consist in Pardon afterward he saith a man is first righteous and then pardoned to which we have spoken something Mr. H. makes a fearful pudder about this Point we will a little inspect his Notions Mediocr p. 44 55. Our Divines do generally place Justification in remission of Sins and so do the Papists and so did I my self Resp Remission of Sins is upon good grounds placed in Justification as an essential part of the Justification of a Sinner and I can boldly deny that sinner to be justified whose sins are not forgiven and to separate them is as possible as to separate homo animal rationale The Law any Law nay your New Law cannot justifie a sinner and declare him righteous unless in that very act of declaring him righteous his sins are taken away in foro legis and this is God's Remission tho not Man 's for his ways are not as mans and whereas Mr. H. makes remission of sins to be a benefit after Justification as an effect of it we say it is a benefit in Justification and the first thing in it in Nature for its impossible any one should stand righteous in the eye of any Law that stands chargeable as a transgressor thereof But remission must not saith Mr. H. be the formal reason of Justification Resp The form of an Act and the formal reason of that Act are two things the material reason of Justification is righteousness and the formal cause is imputation of that righteousness Justification comes in as the acquitting Sentence opposed as Mr. B. saith to condemnation which ex natura rei must formally carry in it forgiveness of sins He proceeds To forgive a mans sins and declare him rigeteous are two inconsistencies one with another in the same respect Resp Cujus contrarium verum in Justification of a Sinner they are most consistent and inseparable that in declaring a sinful man righteous his sins are also done away its true in mans way of Pardon there is some inconsistency because his is by dispensing with his Law but God's way of forgiveness is in and through the satisfaction of his Law but I must tell him that here no Man is looked upon as righteous in the eye of man's law that hath transgressed it till he is first pardoned and therefore when God pronounceth a man just it is according to the law of faith when he pardons his sins it is in respect of the law of works Resp Here are two Bars now he saith elsewhere he likes not two bars I would fain know now at which of these Bars a sinner is most justified either by the law of Works where all his sins are forgiven and therefore consequently must be made righteous or at the Bar of the New Law where he saith the man is declared just but imperfectly so and therefore goes away with his sins upon his Back to the Law of Works to have them pardoned Is it not pretty Divinity then to say a man is declared righteous first at the Bar of the Law of Faith and then all the Bed-role of his sins are pardoned at the Bar of the Law of Works § 2. He comes to distinguish of Remission It s either conditional and universal as it lies in the Covenant and is the purchase of Christ or actual as it lies in application thereof to particular persons upon performance of the conditions Resp This Distinction is a great Point among the Neonomians Mr. B.
it which is not to get life by our own works but living by and upon the righteousness of another by faith and thus he argues from Moses's Law to every Law that works of neither cannot justifie and when he speaks of Moses his law he seldom understands the meer Ceremonial Law but the Moral also as recognized under Moses and that of Gal. 5.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye are abdicated from Christ whoever of you are justified by the works of a law in Mr. Cl's sence it is whoever of you are justified by the works of some law only so Paul opposeth Christ himself to the works that are of a Law Phil. 3.9 His own righteousness he saith is such viz. this he desires to be found out of but in Christ viz. his righteousness by Faith which he opposeth to his own as that which he calls the righteousness of God in opposition to the righteousness of Man He saith indeed in one place Works are mentioned in general Rom. 4.2 It s true but he takes not Notice how often Law is mentioned in general and so the works of a Law are general where-ever spoken so of But he saith these words must be understood with a limitation too and be meant of the same kind of works Resp And therefore the words import thus if Abraham were justified by some kind of works he hath wherein to Glory but why should some kind of works give Abraham more cause of boasting than others He will say because some are great and perfect others little and imperfect but I say there 's no specifick difference between great and little of the same kind besides he that attains a great End by a small work hath more cause of boasting than he that attains it by great work and Labour therefore a Man may rather boast of the works of the New Law than of the Old and then they are all works opposed by him to Faith for he saith the reward is to him that worketh not that that Expression excludes all works for Paul could not be so absurd to express works by not working § 8. If Paul understood himself c. We must grant and conclude that Paul disputes only against the works of the Law Resp No doubt he knew his own Mind and was consistent with himself and if such plain Expressions are intelligible he excludes all works of any Law what ever but he gives his reason why he means we are justified by works when he saith positively we are not justified by works and that he that worketh not but is ungodly Because they were such works as did frustrate and evacuate the undertakings of Christ Rom. 4.14 Gal. 5.4 Resp So do all works of a Law brought in for righteousness for if the great End of Christ's undertaking was to be our Justifying-righteousness then any works brought into the room thereof frustrate Christ's righteousness but that was the chief End of Christ's undertaking Rom. 4.25 2 Cor. 5.21 The words of Rom. 4.14 are if they that be of a Law be Heirs i. e. such as claim by the works of a Law performed by them Faith is made Void i. e. it s to no purpose to believe on another for righteousness Faith is made empty of the righteousness of another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Promise or Gospel is abdicated for the same thing cannot be Law and Promise or Gospel and the reason is given because you see the law of Moses worketh wrath and where there 's no law there 's no transgression the law determines the transgression and the sinner to wrath for it and this doth every law whatever The other Scriptures were spoken to before 2d Reason They are such works as he opposeth every way to faith and also to Grace Gal. 4.4 therefore they are not faith or any inherent grace Gal. 5.4 But he never opposeth faith and Gospel-Works Resp He always opposeth Faith and all Works in the Point of Justification because Works justifie by themselves but Faith by its Object only Because Gospel-works suppose Faith or Grace being the fruit of Faith and product of Grace Resp A pitiful Reason because a man that runs apace is supposed to see therefore a man runs by his eyes and after this manner he applies 1 Cor. 15.10 by the Grace of God I am what I am and laboured more abundantly than they all ergo Paul was justified by works is not this a very learned consequence I grant saith he faith and works of the law are frequently opposed by the Apostle Resp Then faith and works of a law are not the same in this he gives us the Cause Let us see his Concessions further I grant saith he a meer profession of faith is opposed to works James 2.14 Resp True Faith fruitful in good works is opposed to false faith that has no fruits 3. I grant that even Gospel-works are opposed to Grace tho not to faith both in Election Rom. 11.5 6. and in Vocation 2 Tim. 1.9 Resp Works of a law by which a man claims Justification are not Gospel-works but Legal and they are opposed to Grace both in Election Vocation and Justification but as Election is not on the foresight of any works or righteousness no not of Christ's and Vocation is not upon our performance of any works no more is Justification I grant God chooseth not upon foresight of good works or faith in us neither call any because they have faith or good works but that they may have them his Grace is antecedent to any good in us but now the case is otherwise in reference to those priviledges which follow Vocation for God justifies and glorifies us yet not as the meritorious cause thereof but only as a way means and qualification c. Resp Well now the Case is altered Grace goes no further than Vocation there it makes a stand and man does the rest himself but let us enquire a little into this Mystery Is a man effectually called and made holy and yet not justified for he that is made holy in order to Justification suppose qualified and conditionated for it is in order of Nature holy before justified i. e. hath the Spirit of Holiness the Gift of Grace and inherent righteousness whilst a child of wrath and actually under the curse of the law 2. All Justification for Holiness because it is the work of a law is meritorious righteousness for there 's no law justifies but because the performance of the condition deserves it in Justice Hence all Qualifications and Means made legally conditionally to the remunerative part of the Law are deserving thereof and meritorious and undeniably so for if the absence of the Qualification and the Means or Non-performance of the Condition doth merit or deserve the Wages of the Sin from the Law enjoyning the said Qualifications or Conditions then having and performance thereof doth upon the same Reason merit and deserve the Reward of Righteousness but the Antecedent is true therefore the
in a law-sence if so was it for himself or for us if for us then the law saith so for us For the Law of God doth not take Satisfaction in so blind a manner as that God in his Law knows not for whom it is if God in his Law knows for whom it is and accepts it for us then it is accounted to us and imputed to us as to all the ends thereof in Law The taking Satisfaction in Law for any offence against it for any one is the Laws Imputation or accounting it to him for whom it is made whether the satisfaction be given by himself who transgressed or any one for him therefore if Christ satisfied for us and this Satisfaction accepted by God for us God imputes it to us as if we had done it our selves therefore Mr. H. must either renounce the Doctrine of Satisfaction with the Socinians or own its imputed to us as fully yea in this case we may say more fully than if we had made it our selves § 6. Let us see how Mr. H. would avoid the Socinian Rock he saith Christ may have wrought with the father or made him that satisfaction as to procure new Terms so that a man may be justified as a fulfiller of them and yet need pardon for non-performance of the old R. Behold the Neonomian Satisfaction 1. He makes not Satisfaction a payment of a Debt owing to the Law by us but only a procurement a buying something of God whereas Satisfaction is for a wrong done I may purchase a thing of a person whom I never injur'd or if I have the Money whereby I purchase a new thing that refers not to the injury I did before but to the new Purchace observe then he makes Christ's Satisfaction only a New Purchace 2. This New Purchace is of New Terms of Justification hence God is not to stand upon satisfaction to the Old Law but to drop it and bring the Sinner under a New Law Christ died not to satisfie the Law but to translate us from one Law to another whence the old hath no more to do with us and thus all the world are translated therefore the Old Law is gone to all the World unsatisfied 3. A Man is justified on the new Terms they being fulfilled by his own righteousness but not pardoned on these terms by the New Law and this is one of the greatest inconsistencies in the World to say a man is justified by a Law and not pardoned how is he just in the eye of that Law that doth not free from the charge of any transgression of it But 3. He saith he needs Pardon for non-performance of the old if so 1. The New Law is not an Act of Indemnity in respect of sins against the old for if a man condemned by one law be taken from under it to a new law he is indempnified from the old else all pretence of advantage by the said translation is gone for he that stands under the terms of one law condemned by it and brought under new terms to another come now to be liable to the lash of two Laws whereas before he was under but one 2. He saith this Pardon must be had at the Bar of the Old Law I would know of Mr. H. how If he saith and will stand to it according to his own Argument he cannot or else he must deny Christs Satisfaction which is this That Law which is satisfied for the breach of it admits no Pardâ—n from the Legislator but the Old Law say Neonomians in words was satisfied for us therefore there can be no Pardon yea it was satisfied for us in our stead and the satisfaction accepted for us yea therefore imputed to us Here I have the Neonomian fast in this Dilemma from their own Doctrine let them free themselves how they can For if Pardon and Satisfaction imputed are not consistent as to our Doctrine then not in theirs but they say notwithstanding their justification by their New Law they must have Pardon for the breach of the Old and how Not at all in their sence if the Old be not satisfyed or that Satisfaction not imputed as much as to say it is Money laid down in Court indefinitely but not accepted in Court for this and that Mans Sins hence Christ hath satisfyed for none for all satisfaction as such is accepted as such we come now to his attempt to prove that neither the Active or Passive Obedience of Christ is imputed § 7. For saith he If that his Active and Passive Obedience be imputed then must God be made to deal with Man according to the Covenant of Works Resp See how this Gentleman in all his Arguings runs his Head against a Post and Pillar of Gospel Truth his Argument is this if Christ's Active and Passive Obedience be accepted for us as satisfaction for the Law then God deals with Sinners in their justification after the tenor of the Covenant of Works now he may assume either by taking away the Antecedent or by taking away the Consequent he indeed intends both first by taking away the Antecedent viz. But Christ's Active and Passive Obedience is not accepted for satisfaction therefore he doth not deal with Sinners in Justification according to the Covenant of Works therefore Christ hath not satisfied the Covenant of Works for us the Law lies unsatisfyed I would know how the Pardon he speaks of is Subsequent to the New Law Justification is had is it by dealing with us upon the account of satisfaction to the Old Law He suggests that it is then pardoned Sinners are dealt with according to the Old Law if not justified But to have him in his Consequences he assumes that God deals not with Sinners in Justification upon the Terms of the Old Law or Covenant of Works To Answer he deals with them in Christ according to the Terms of the Covenant of Works but in themselves as sinners justifying them in Christ according to the Tenor of the Covenant of Works it is meer Grace the Mystery of Grace is to save sinners in such a way as may not only magnifie rich Grace but Exalt Grace and that in the highest manner Now the Exaltation of Justice cannot be but in the justifying a Sinner in the Eye of the strictest Law by the highest and most acceptable Satisfaction thereof on this account Christs Obedience was the most Legal both active and passive that ever was but that a sinner is brought under this Obedience of Christ unto Justification is meer free Grace he being thereby partaker of the distinguishing Grace of God and the free Gift of Christ and his Righteousness without the intervention of any Mediator or Subordinate Righteousness of his own hence it is that his Faith makes not void the Law but Establisheth it in the highest degree in Exalting Christ as his only and most compleat Righteousness most legal in satisfying the Law for us as a Covenant of Works he saith when nothing is
more apparent in Scripture then that by Grace it is that we are justified and by Grace saved Resp But will Mr. H. affirm that Grace doth justifie us without Justice Doth not the Apostle say a sinner is justifyed by Grace in and through Christs Redemption that God may be just Doth not Mr. H. say Justification is an Act of Justice again and again Doth not this setting up our own righteousness in performance of the Condition of the New Law make his Justification an Act of Justice yea and without Grace What do these Men mean so often and positively to contradict the Scripture and themselves to draw their dirty Inferences upon the Truth with holding it in unrighteousness § 8. If nothing less then a Righteousness as doth Answer and satisfie the Law fully will suffice for the sinners Plea to flee from Condemnation he is not judged by the Law of Grace but by the Law of Works R. The inference hath no danger in it for 1. We know of no Judgment in freeing any from Condemnation but a Discharge in Christ from the Law of Works before which every Believer is discharged here and hereafter through Grace 2. We know of no New Law either to quit or condemn a Law of Grace in that sense is a Bull Grace and a Law are directly opposite 2. He here insinuates as if Christs satisfaction were compleat and imperfect If nothing else will suffice for a Plea 1. What can be better than a perfect satisfaction for a Plea 2. Either Christs is not perfect or else perfect will not do without an imperfect added to it which indeed he means that Christs perfect satisfaction must have our Imperfect added to make our Plea compleat 3. What is freeing from condemnation but Pardon of Sin I pray what righteousness doth a Neonomian flee to for the pardon of Sin Do they tell us its Christs tho' they be justified by their own I would know whether they esteem Christs Righteousness full and compleat for the pardon of Sin Or do they plead for some of their pardon at the Bar of the New Law where they are justifyed and some of their pardon at the Bar of the Old Law where they are condemned But this imputed righteousness is a mistake of the Protestants poor Man I pitty him and he hath found the mistake so it seems indeed by his Writing § 8. Christ came into the World to procure and tender a New Law and in this regard he is called our Law giver not that he hath given any other Moral rules of Life to us but that he hath given the same Precepts with Indulgence Resp Now mark the Neonomian Spirit but Two or Tree Lines off he was for Justification only by Grace without Law that he might dethrone Christ but now again that he may Enthrone Mans Righteousness he is altogether for Law his Language is half Ashdod take him where you will 1. He tells you what he means by Satisfaction which he saith is procurement Christ came into the World not to satisfie the Law of God which we had broken but to procure a Law a remedial Law a better Law to answer Gods Ends than the First it was a great mistake sure in Divine Wisdom to make such a Law at first as would not do 2. It was another oversight at least that Christ did not come to procure a right law at first 3. It s very strange that God would not afford a right law without procurement Laws are not used to be purchased or procured Legislators make Laws according to their pleasure without procurement 4. And whâ—t's the World the better Christ hath procured the putting the World under New-Law Terms and not satisfied the Old Law and now they must perform the condition of the New Law and be pardoned by the old Law unsatisfied else they cannot be saved 5. After all the noise about saving by Grace it s but by a law which requires personal obedience in fulfilling the condition this is the Grace of the Law and Law of Grace a Law of Grace it is such wherein Grace is no more Grace and the Law is no more a Law that indeed a law of Grace is a Contradiction in proprio adjuncto a meer Hobgoblin But how is these mens New Law compounded It is they say of Grace and a Law and it lies In that he hath not given new Moral Laws of life to us other than what was contained in the old law before but that he hath given the same precepts with indulgence Answ Well Christ is not our Lawgiver according to purchase for these Men make Christ to have died for himself to make himself a Lawgiver to devise and constitute any new Moral Precepts but first to pluck down the old house and then to take the broken and scattered pieces and make a new one he takes the Moral Materials of the old Law cuts and hews them pretty much makes the Duties more indifferent the sins forbidden Venial and allowable yea necessary to come into the righteousness of the new law for if the Condition be not mixt of Morality and Immorality its good for nothing it will not serve this turn therefore the old law with indulgence of sin is the New Law I pray let me know from the Wits of our Age whether this be not Antinomianism Now he tells us this is a law of indulgence c. the plain English of it is that its a Law of Dispensation with a Law of Justice i. e. a lawless law that all the Satisfaction he means is Gods Dispensation with Law and Justice and a law to call Sin by one law Sin and righteousness by another the truth is the whole Doctrine tends to deny God in his glorious Properties and to change him into the similitude of an Ox that eateth Hay interpretativè and if God doth not act now and at Judgment by this lay of Dispensation with Law and indulgence of Sin he says the main business of Christ's coming and Redemption is lost that can be no other in his sence than to be Minister of Sin § 10. You shall hear a Protestant i. e. Neonomians they are Papists according to the Profession of this downright Papist in his Prayer appealing from the Tribunal of Gods Justice to the Throne of his Grace yet in his Sermon telling the People that it is nothing else but the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ imputed to them that saves them which is to bring them back from the throne of Grace to the Bar of his Justice to be judged Resp I am ashamed to read such a Banter of Christianity from any man that professeth himself a Christian tho a Papist and Socinian 1. Is it a good Appeal or no for a sinner to make from the Tribunal of Justice i. e. meer Justice where God beholds the Sinner as he is in himself by his most righteous law a condemned transgressor to the Throne of Grace not that God hath two Thrones Rev. 4.
might be given tho' these are enough to demonstrate the falseness of the B's odious consequence and we may as well wonder that any that bear any reverence to our blessed Saviour should not abhor such dirty and irrational consequences as these are especially when so expresly contrary to the word of God and common reason Isa 53. 2 Cor. 5. 3. Hence these men dare not but say there is a guilt translated to Christ I pray what guilt Is it not personal Is there any guilt in the world besides what is of one Person or another But our B. will find out a guilt that 's not personal which we will examine § 5. The other branch of his division of translation of guilt is of Legal Guilt which he saith lyes in an obligation to Punishment by virtue of the Sanction of the Divine Law Now this guilt implies two things 1. The desert of Punishment which follows personal guilt and cannot be transferred by change of persons c. 2. The obligation to undergo the deserved punishment here may intervene a change of persons c. Reader Now observe what kind of guilt the B. will have Christ to bear 1. He saith it 's legal guilt but what 's that according to him It 's the obligation to punishment and that 's in the sanction of the law i. e. it 's subjectively in the law hence it 's the guilt of the law that Christ must bear and not the guilt of any person It 's true that obligation to punishment is formally in the law and therefore obligation to punishment cannot be called guilt but guilt is of a person transgressing the law not in the law transgressed 2. He saith this guilt implies two things What is the meaning of implies Is it that the laws obligation of a transgressor to punishment essentially contains in it those two things 1. An actual desert of punishment and obligation of some Person to undergo it Surely not for if the law had never been transgressed it had contain'd this in it that if ever any do deserve it they shall be obliged to punishment 2. Doth it imply these integrally their desert of punishment and obligation to punishment are the parts of the forenamed legal guilt then the desert of punishment as well as obligation to punishment i. e. no other than the fault must lye in the law for it can't be in more subjects than one and the B. must come under the force of this Dilemma if he will allow any such thing as guilt that it is subjectively in some person and so personal or in the law it self Now there 's no fault in the law therefore no guilt 3. He saith desert of punishment follows personal guilt but by his favour it is personal guilt it self the merit of punishment is in the fault the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for what deserves punishment but sin to which the law makes the wages of Death due not continuing in all things written in the law The law enquires no further than it finds the fault wherein it hath found the desert it 's formally and essentially in it it 's true the sentence follows this but the desert lyes in the essential moral contrariety of the action to the obedience of the law required it the wisdom of God saith the taking away of guilt is to take away sin 4. He asserts but hath not proved That personal guilt can't be transferred by change of persons His strong reason is For no man can cease to deserve punishment for his own faults nor deserve that another should be punished for them The assertion is that personal guilt can't be transferred then certainly no guilt at all for there is no guilt but is personally contracted and personally adhering and therefore Christ bore no guilt of Sin at all most contrary to Scripture and the very known nature of a surety which always is in bearing the sin of the transgressor by change of persons 2. He argues to prove it That no man can cease to deserve punishment for his own faults An excellent assertion If so I am sure God can't cease to punish him for he renders to every one according to his deserts he is a just God 2. This position throws down the whole satisfaction of Christ at one blow for if Christ hath not taken off the personal desert of sin from any he hath not satisfied the law for if according to the B. he takes off the legal obligation of any to punishment he takes off the desert by the law 3. It will follow that not only believers but the glorified Saints in Heaven are still under the personal guilt and desert of punishment and if so they can't be in the favour of God they can't be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without spot before the Throne they are under the personal guilt of all their sins and this is no spot of God's Children but an essential form of a Hellish State The B. here hath very inconsiderately run himself upon the rocks tho' with the rest of the Neonomians he doth so frequently charge those that are contrary minded with Shallowness Illiterateness c. It is one thing to sin and contract a personal guilt and another thing to lye under this personal guilt sure bare pardon of sin by him that hath power to pardon takes off personal guilt in the B's sence the obligation of the person to punishment else after pardon the law may take him up again and would even in mens proceedings by law but in God's there 's not only the pardon of the sinner but a just satisfaction to the law Rom. 8.1 § 6. The B. adds Nor deserve that another should be punish'd for them What will not men of perverse minds say Whoever asserted that sinners deserved that Christ should suffer for them I wonder men are not asham'd of such gross impositions quite contrary to the known minds of others but to the nature of the thing for where did any debtor or criminal deserve that another should suffer for him either by his good works to deserve so much good of another or by his evil works to make another that is neither criminal nor accessory guilty How much less may it be said of us that we deserved that Christ should be punished for us The B. saith Christ was punished for us the obligation of the law binding us over to punishment and that Christ took the punishment in our stead was it because we deserv'd it or not If it was not because we deserv'd if it was not in our stead we say not that it was in the nature of our sins to deserve his punishment but in the grace wisdom and justice of the Legislator As the B. saith it was of grace of God to find a ransom it was of the grace of the Son to give up himself unto justice for this end it was to the honour of divine justice to accept of his glorious satisfaction in the sinners room and stead here 's
respect of the Old Covenant and Righteous in respect to the New it is to be supposed that the said Person hath those opposite relations really upon him first and last and that the said relations are real and not feigned in their respective way and manner of existing So Christ Jesus in respect of Sinners in whose stead he stood relatively as a Surety was made truly Sin and Curse in a Law-sense reckon'd by God to be really in that Relation not feignedly And this is imputation of Sin to Christ which term ought not to be rejected whoever it is that makes light of it Dr. C. or Mr. B. or any other but most excellently expressive of the Gospel Mystery as not imposing any thing on God but what is most consistent with his Perfections For as God can and hath brought his Son under a Law-relation as a Surety Mediatorial and as such to stand instead of Sinners under a charge of Sin for the Guilt of their Sins he judgeth as things are when he accounts him and calls him what he hath made him Sin and Curse in this Law-respect and relation how pleasing soever his Person is to him being singly and abstractly considered from the said relation § 6. The Bp. excepts against the taking of the immediate discharge of a Sinner upon Christ's bearing of Sin A. It is easie by general and indistinct charges to make Men's Opinions look very absurd if one Man speak not so exactly in a loose and popular Discourse are all the Drs. in the World to look upon it as their great Renown to carp at his Words that are Printed but just as taken from him and not Corrected by him I think Learned Drs. do much undervalue themselves in so doing But to the Point in Hand it is absurd indeed to say that all Sinners have an actual discharge in themselves from the Dominion of the Law immediately upon the Death of Christ most being not then in Being in a Natural Sense much less in a Spiritual But the Bp. knew well enough the distinction of the Protestants that Redemption is considered in Impetration and Application that though the Sacrifice and Propitiation of Christ was compleated and perfect in its self in its Nature and to all intents and purposes Justifying and Pardoning and Sanctifying Grace being fully treasured up therein Yet this Grace is not Applied neither can it be Received actually by the Sinner till 1. He hath a Being Naturally And 2. Till he hath a Spiritual Being whereto he is Created by the Spirit in Christ and made capable of a Reception by a Spiritual Organ bestowed on him 2. He was not ignorant of this Question lately disputed What is the immediate Effect of the Death of Christ We say the great Effects of the Death of Christ are two in General 1. A Right to Life in Christ 2. The Application Reception or Possession of the Life purchased by Christ The 1. We say is the immediate Effect of the Satisfaction and Purchase of Christ all Redeemed Ones have a Right in Christ i. e. latent and hid in Christ and his Fulness even before they are or do Believe from which Pristine Fulness all received Grace doth flow even Faith in it self in us 1. Being in the Soul and acting on its Object and those that have this hidden Right a jus ad rem yet they have not presently jus in re they have not yet received and possessed the Grace of Justification or Sanctification till they Believe through Grace but are in themselves under the Law the Charge and Sentence thereof This Doctrine I know Mr. B. Disputes with all his might against but was fully Answered by Dr. O. § 7. Another thing the Bp. Answers to Is on the Nature of Guilt that Guilt of a Sinner is most truly reatus culpae and not reatus penae reatus culpae being that which is accounted Guilt in all Courts of Judicature To which he answers there 's a twofold Guilt to be considered 1. Guilt of the Fact as it is a Transgression of the Law 2. A Guilt consequent to the Fact by Vertue of the Sanction of the Law Those which are the Foundation Assertions that the Bp. builds all upon are two 1. That Guilt which was charged on Christ was reatus penae or Obligation to Punishment not reatus culpae alicujus not the Guilt of any Fault or of any Person committing it 2. He asserts that the Guilt of a Personal Fault can never be taken away by Transmission no not by Pardon it self Hence we are necessitated to enter the Lists with him upon these two great Points though something hath been said before concerning them § 8. We have shewed before that the first distinction is between the Fact and Guilt of the Fact The Fact is meerly Physical is inherent and inseparable from the Agent not transferrible at all e. gr The Act of borrowing Money is inherent in the borrower and not a Transgression of any Law but to borrow and not to pay is a Transgression of the Law enjoined by commutative Justice Now this is the Guilt of the Fact when the Fact stands as a Fault in the Eye of the Legislator by the preceptive part of the Law 1. The first Relations of an irregular Action is to the preceptive part of the Law being Disobedience Hence it 's a great mistake to place the Sanction of the Law only in its Obligation to Punishment this is but a part of the Sanction consequent to its Obligation to Obedience therefore the primary guilt of a Sinner lies in Disobedience his Fact standing in that Relation to the Law it becomes formally the Reason why the Sinner is obliged to Punishment he in the said relation of the Fact deserving it 2. The Bp. is in the right when he saith That Obligation to Punishment is that which is in the Law and only the exprest Will of the Legislator therefore it can in no true sense be called the Guilt of the Sinner And hence I must needs argue that the Bp. placing all the Guilt charged upon Christ in the Laws Obligation of him to Punishment doth totally renounce the Doctrine of Christ's being made Sin for any Sinner For if he was not made Guilty but only Punished he bore only the Law 's Obligation which must be only the Sin of the Law and not of the Sinner But is the Law Sin God forbid Yet this Doctrine plainly makes the Law Sin because it obligeth a Person to Punishment who in no sence deserves it § 9. For the overthrowing this Hypothesis of Imputation of a Sinner's Guilt of Fact to Jesus Christ he examines how far guilt is separable from the Act of Sin p. 87. 1. As to the Guilt of the Fact for he that hath been an actual transgressor can never be made not to have been so and so the guilt of the Fact must remain A. But methinks a Bp. should not impose such a fallacy upon us that every School-Boy can look through
and his Distinction is a Chimaera and if Dr. O. did not trouble his head with such Whims his Consideration is not to be blamed But he tells us that which is not ours comes after imputation as an effect the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ but they become not ours by imputation therefore one leg of his distribution is dropt off for he saith there 's an imputation of a thing ours and a thing not ours this thing not ours which is Christ's satisfaction he saith is not imputed but comes in as an effect of this imputation of our own righteousness but why must Christ's Satisfaction come in the rear because a man must be justified first and then Christ's Satisfaction must come in to mend the faults of his Justification as a remedying righteousness the formal part of his Justification must be pardoned and accepted and before his Justification hath released the man from condemnation and unacceptableness to God he must have the effect of his Justification hence this imputation of ours is the cause of our pardon and acceptation by Christ's Merits an imputation of our immoral righteousness the cause of a perfect But how can we have pardon through the Satisfaction of Christ and acceptance through his merits without God's imputation of them to us for if by the rules of Justice in the New Law Court our righteousness is imputed to us how comes it to pass that when we come sinners into the old law Court we can there become righteous free from condemnation and accepted by Satisfaction and Merit and yet not have it imputed to us this is most extra-judicial for a Court always imputes that satisfaction and merit to the person discharged which is paid into Court for it It were easie to run endlesly upon shewing the gross absurdities of this Divinity for they will have the New Law to impute righteousness which they say is no righteousness and the Old Laws righteousness to be good and perfect but not imputed so that indeed according to their Doctrine the sinner is ruin'd for want of righteousness Under the New Law is no righteousness and under the Old Law good righteousness but no imputation without which a sinner can never be justified now if they would permit these two laws to meet and agree the matter something might be done then the New Law might borrow the Old Laws righteousness and the Old the New Laws Imputation CHAP. VIII Of the Formal Cause of Iustification Section 1. Mr. H's Distinction of by and for according to Bellarmine § 2. The Distinction considered § 3. Justification purchased by Christ. § 4. They advance not God's Grace in Justification § 5. Papists truer than Neonomians in the Doctrine § 6. They say the same with the Papists and confess it § 7. The Errors and Weaknesses of their Opinions § 8. Of Active and Passive Justification § 9. Of Condition and Duty Sect. 1. MR. H. for the better establishment of the Neonomian Doctrine hath taken up a distinction from his friend Cardinal Bellarmine The Protestants saith Mr. H. have denied that Faith is our formal Righteousness Righ p. 46. the reason of the denial hath bin much because they have confounded the causa per quam propter quam by Faith saith the Scripture we are justified by is id per quod causa formalis but Christs Righteousness is id propter quod Let us see out of whose Shop he took this Distinction Bellarmine de just lib. 2. c. 2. having stated the Question Whether Righteousness inherent in us be the formal cause of absolute Justification or not In order to his defence of it in the Affirmative hath this distinction and chargeth Kemnitius with fraudulent dealing in stating the Question because he put id propter quod instead of per quam saith If one will speak properly he must not use the Word propter but per when he will point out the formal cause of Justification If any one ask by what doth a Man live By what do the Stars shine By what is the Fire hot It will be answer'd by his Soul by the Light by the Heat which are the formal causes but if any ask wherefore did the Emperour Triumph wherefore did the Souldiers fight It will be answered not by giving the formal cause but the meritorious and final the Souldiers fight that they may overcome the Emperour triumphs because he overcame so Kemnitius if he had spoken without fraud and properly should have said what is that by which a Man is Justified whether the Righteousness given to him of God and inherent through the Merits of Christ or the Merits of Christ from without him imputed Now Bellarmine having so fully acquainted us with the distinction according to the full sense of Mr. H. I think it will be but loss of Paper and Time to transcribe what Mr. H. saith of it again and again being but all to the same intention of the Cardinal § 2. This distinction duly considered is but one of the Papists shifts and Evasions for First In all juridical proceedings causa per quam est causa propter quam for a Mans righteousness is that by which and for which he is justified and so his transgression is that by which and reason wherefore he is condemned and if meritorious righteousness of a Man 's own or of anothers is brought into Plea and be admitted he is said to be justified by it if it be enquired how came such an one to be acquitted the Answer will be by his Innocency how came such an one to be condemned the Answer will as soon be by as for Wickedness all Righteousness by which any one is Justified is propter quam it s that by Reason whereof he is Justified why doth the New Law justifie him that hath performed the condition is his Righteousness the Justifying condition is not the Justification propter conditionem if it doth refuse to Justifie because the condition is not performed then it justifies not because it is not performed in all conditional Covenants the promise is performed by reason of the performance of the condition 2. Again if this Distinction were True as applied then we should be said to be justified or reconciled still propter sanguinem Christi but we are said to be justified by his Death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred ' by ' not for Rom. 5.9 Are reconciled to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the Death of his Son for dia with a Genitive Case signifies per with an Accusative propter ver 10. So we have Redemption 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Colos 1.14.20 Is rendred through but they that have knowledge of the prepositions know by or through are the same when a thing is done by it s done through See Acts 20.28 the Church of God which he hath purchased 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that its evident that the distinction will not hold to make Evangelick Obedience causa per quam and Christs Obedience propter quam
sanctified but where there is the cause working there is the effect wrought and the justified is but the effect and constitutes no distinct species of it But we say the Grace of Justification of a Sinner proceeding from Grace is wholly in and from God and hath no cause in a Sinner material or formal nor is there any cause external of that Grace the moving cause only is the good will and pleasure of God he is gracious to whom he will graciousness pardoning Iniquity is only from his Grace and for the glory of his Grace which cannot be in the Justification of a righteous person but because not simply Grace but also Justice shall be glorified in a sinner's justification and God in his pardon will not clear the guilty he hath graciously provided and bestowed on the sinner a righteousness accepted by the Law and imputed to him that he may appear therein just and so just in administration of righteousness as not to infringe his Justice in the least but to the highest honor of the Law standing in its full force against the sinner without the least Relaxation This is done quite contrary to the Neonomian Doctrine therefore Gods Justification falling upon a Sinner makes actually a correlate to Gods justifying and faith is no more than the Sinners reception of this Grace no part of that righteousness by which faith or for which the Sinner is justified neither is it a grain of that righteousness which is imputed to him § 9. Mr. H. also hath another distinction between condition and duty which I will not stay upon because its frivolous and it is because he will have the duties of the Law to be performed by us tho we be not justified by them he insists upon a Relaxation of the old Law but not a total Abolition Mr. Bax. Opinion is that its abrogated as much as the Ceremonial Law wherein both penalty and duty is taken away and indeed Mr. B. is in the right according to his notion for the introduction of a New Law in the room of it and for the ends that the old Law was establisht is certainly the nulling of the said old Law but how then can Mr. B. be secured from a just charge of Antinomian viz. that moral duties are not required of us which is more Antinomian than I ever saw in any he chargeth with it he hath one poor shift which is that the duties of the old-old-Law are taken or spunged up in the conditions of the New but however the broken pieces are pickt up the Law it self is gone and there 's no transgression upon that account Mr. H. saith the Law 's only relaxed but his relaxation is no better than a Crack in the middle of a Glass and heart of it and he hath not told us how far this relaxation goes and every man will be ready to plead for his own sin that the Law in that respect is relaxt But he would have us believe that the moral duties still remain how relaxt or not If relaxt then at least to an indifferency a man may do them or not without any sin but he saith they are re-established in the New-Law if so they are re-established without the Relaxation and then the New-Law is as strict as the Old or with the relaxation and then all duties are required with abatement as to quality and quantity with an allowance of sin our posse or velle and what is more Antinomianism But saith he the Conditions are not Duties It was never affirmed by men of reason that the Condition of a Law is not a Duty for that which is required of us upon pain of punishment is always a Duty and to the Condition of the New-Law the highest because it hath the Sanction of a Law of the Highest he that continueth not in all things by way of performance that it requireth is cursed by it if it be but imperfect obedience it saith he that continueth not in imperfect obedience is cursed by it therefore when the Saints come to Heaven and fall into perfect obedience they fall under the Curse of the new law or else it s out of doors before they come there or the last day and the World can't be judged by it Lastly What are the conditions of imperfect obedience are they not Duties of Righteousness by the performance whereof Mr. H. will have us justified Yes this cannot be denied but the distinction will hold with a quatenus as they refer to the absolute relaxed Laws they are Duties i. e. as they respect no Law or a lawless Law and as they refer to the New Law they are Conditions and are not Duties Hence it s no Duty to perform the Conditions of the New Law for Justification thereby and this is the Truth which we stand by though infer'd truly from Mr. H's Logick and Divinity CHAP. IX An Answer to Mr. H's Arguments against Imputation of Christs Righteousness Section 1. Arguments Artificial or Inartificial § 2. His First Argument against the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness answered § 3. His Second Argument Answered § 4. His Third Argument Answered § 5. Mr. H's Argument for Faith and Obedience being the formal part of Justification First Answer § 6. The Assumption by parts § 7. Argument the Second Answered § 8. Mr. H's Third Argument Answered with his Fourth Argument § 9. Of Constitutive Justification Sect. 1. NOw it is time to come to Examine the grounds of Mr. H. and Mr. C's Doctrine in this Point of Justification And First I shall treat of them that are the reasoning Arguments Artificial as called in Logick the weakest in Divinity and then those that are pretended from Scripture which in Logick are called inartificial but if grounded upon Divine Testimony the best and strongest § 2. Against the Imputation of Christs Righteousness he argues thus How can God account our Sins to be Christs and his Righteousness ours when really they are not so and Gods Judgment is according to Truth Resp this is used again and again by Mr. B to which I shall Answer 1. By retorting the Medium and not so tedious to put it into any other form how can God account our own New Law righteousness to be justifying righteousness when in its own nature it s no righteousness Mr. H. saith so over and over and Gods judgment is according to Truth now see the honesty of these Men God must not make a Judgment according to Truth in imputing Christs perfect righteousness to us because it was not personally performed by us and imputing our Sins to Christ because they were not actually committed by him and yet God makes a judgment according to Truth in imputing our own paultry sinful righteousness to us for our righteousness when they themselves say its really no righteousness 2. Is not his righteousness ours The Scripture saith it is and our Sins made his they say it doth not that we will try God willing but for the present we ask what if
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
a Law from Justification and yet all this while intend that we are justified by the works of a Law and that he should never tell us he doth not mean works of the New Law nor so much as mention it § 4. From the forementioned places these Arguments will arise against Justification by our works 1. Justification of a sinner or ungodly one as such cannot be by any works of a Law performed by him but Gods Justification of any fallen Man is such for the Major its plain against Neonomian Justification unless they will say that a natural Man may be godly while such or that which the old law calls ungodliness the new law calls godliness yea a man must be sanctified in their sense before justified while under condemnation and bound over to wrath Again the Text is clear that Abraham was ungodly when justified both by History and the Apostles for he could not do any good and all his obedience was after his Justification by Faith Now the Minor is as Evident that Gods Justification of fallen Man is such for if we be justified by the works of a Law it s not consistent with Grace for justification singly considered speaks nothing but Justice And Justification by the works of a Law performed by us speaks nothing but Justice but Justification by Grace is only as the Apostle saith when it s without the deeds of the Law performed by us 2. That Doctrine that excludes the works of every Law by which is the knowledge of Sin excludes the works of every Law performed by us but the Apostles Doctrine excludes the works of every Law that gives the knowledge of Sin Ergo the works of every Law Old New and Moral Law are excluded This Argument stands firm from Rom. 3.20 3. If the holiest Men have not expected to be justified by their own righteousness who have lived by Faith then justification is not by works of a Law But the Antecedent is true therefore the consequence The consequence appears in that David had lived long by Faith and in Holiness when he penned Psal 143.2 And if he thought to be justified by New Law works he need not have said Enter not into Judgment with thy Servant unless he had added by the Old Law but Enter into Judgment with thy Servant by the New Law for in thy sight New-Law works will justifie any Flesh Minor David Job Paul expected not to be justified by New Law Works 4. Those works that will not make a sinner clean and pure in the sight of God cannot justifie him but no New Law righteousness will take away Moral Pollution in the sight of God so as to make him clean Ergo the Major is so clear as none can deny for by Justification the justified is purged and clean from Sin in the sight of God he can Enter into Judgment with God upon the account of the righteousness he is justified by The Minor is true 1. From the confession of our Adversary that its a sinful righteousness it s condemned by the Moral Law it s not adequate to exact Justice therefore it will not cover Sin from the Eve of Gods Justice 2. From so many express Places of Scripture Job 15.4 He that is righteous before God must be clean before God Imperfect righteousness can never make us clean in the sight of God Job 15.4 It s not to be found of man born of a Woman i. e. meer man nor in any flesh living Believers are flesh living and born of women Job saith chap. 9.30 If I wash my self in snow water and make my self never so clean yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch and mine own cloaths shall abhor me now will Job's new-law-works justifie him he had been long a holy man yet he often pleaded his uprightness towards God and his integrity against his friends charge and yet you see what his new-law-righteousness amounted to chap. 40.4 42 6. 5. Let me add a Fifth Argument before I leave his Negative If there was never any Law given to fallen Man that could give Life upon the Terms thereof then there could be no righteousness to Justification by a Law but the antecedent is true therefore the consequent and both from Gal. 3.1 the Apostle's unanswerable Argument against Justification by any Law The words are very plain and full to any one that can construe Greek § 5. He proceeds to his further Proof in divers Propositions which are many so little to the purpose that it would be lost time to follow them particularly but that there 's in them many places of Scripture perverted from their true Interpretation His first Proposal is The whole scope of the Apostle is to assert and establish Justification by faith as the only way of Salvation to lapsed men Resp What if so Doth it therefore follow that the Apostle teacheth that Faith is the way of Justification by Works or quite contrary that Justification by Faith is not by the works of righteousness which we have done but by these that Christ hath done This I gather saith he from that place Rom. 1.17 The righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith which words I paraphrase thus That the Gospel alone discovers the method and way appointed by God whereby we may become righteous in his account viz. by faith in Christ and by continuance increase and exercise thereof Resp It s the Office of the Gospel to teach Sinners the way the truth and life who is Christ there 's no other righteousness that the Gospel can teach a sinner to Justification John 14.6 and that Faith lays hold on that way is the Gospel to teach a man that he is to be justified by the works of a law is it Good News to a sinner That this Text is grosly abused appears 1. Because the righteousness of God here spoken of is a righteousness revealed and therefore not in us for things already in us are not said to be revealed to us 2. It s the righteousness of God and not of Man 3. It s an objective righteousness that is here spoken of such as is made known to our Faith by Revelation therefore not Faith it self 4. It appears by the Proof in that the life of a just one is by faith feeding upon another's righteousness not his own In a word according to Mr. Cl's sence it should be this The Gospel is the Method of God unto Salvation for therein is the righteousness of man revealed from faith to faith viz. the more a man believes in Christ the more he believes he is justified by his own works and this is that he lives by he lives by faith i. e. by believing his faith to be works He disproves Justification by works of a law as inconsistent therewith because all are sinners and therefore none can be justified by their works and on the other hand that they must be justified by faith Resp One would think this man spake now good Divinity but his
faith and works in Justification he should have said in the Neonomian sense knowing we are not justified by the works of a law but by the works of the law of faith we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ now least any should say this faith in Christ is a work of the new law he saith and not by the works of a law for in thy sight shall no flesh living be justified by them Now I pray were any saved under the Old Testament they will say presently yes by the works of the New Law nay but the Spirit of God saith positively no flesh living was ever justified no not by a new law VVill any man dare then to venture his Justification upon works of a law old or new Doth the Apostle say we have believed in Jesus that we may be justified by the works of the law of faith So he should have said to have expressed his meaning in these mens sence No he saith to prevent all mistakes in this kind not by the work of a law and he proves it And he adds for Conviction of Peter of his Error in complying with the Judaizing Christians if we i. e. you and I seek to be justified by Christ we are worse are found transgressors by endeavouring by our practice to build People up in Justification by their own righteousness the works of a law which we have destroyed by our Ministry § 22. Arg. 7. The opposition is full Rom. 2.20 21 22. where the righteousness of a law is directly opposed to the righteousness of faith as two righteousnesses opposite in Justification there is an opposition But in the Justification of a sinner the righteousness of faith and works are so opposed in the said place for by the righteousness of a law he said shall no flesh living be justified in the sight of God he should have added his exception if he had intended men were to be justified by the righteousness of the new law and his reason is that by a law is the knowledge of sin i. e. conviction of sin but no remedy for the law only makes a sinner guilty before God and his own Conscience but how then justified Answ It is by another righteousness the gift of God which we have not performed but which is received by faith therefore called the righteousness of God which is by faith without our law-performances but the righteousness of Christ who fulfilled the law this is that which is in and upon every Believer But saith Mr. Cl. I infer we are not justified by the active righteousness of Christ p. 46. or his obedience to the law of works imputed to us for then we are justified by the law or Covenant of works c. Resp The same inference will hold if only the passive obedience of Christ be imputed for what was that but fulfilling the Covenant of Works in Satisfaction All that Christ did or suffered was obedience to the Covenant of Works and his righteousness is justifying to us before God in foro legis the difference of Law and Gospel lying here in the Covenant of Grace That our righteousness for Justification is not of our own performance of obedience to the law for that is legal only but our Gospel-righteousness is Christ's perfect performance of the most legal righteousness and this freely bestowed on us and received by faith CHAP. XII Of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness Section 1. Mr. H. insists on Justification by Works § 2. He saith the Imputation of Christ's righteousness is not found in Scripture § 3. His Third Argument against Imputation of Christ's Righteousness § 4. Of Imputation of Christ's passive Obedience § 5. How far his Argument agrees with Socinus § 6. He seeks to avoid the Socinian Rock § 7. Active and passive Obedience of Christ imputed § 8. His further inference § 9. Christ came to procure a New Law § 10. Of the Protestant's Appeal Sect. 1. I Shall here take Mr. H. in hand because I find he is most positive in the denial of it upon all accounts only he tells us of imputation of effects which are not imputable and besides is a total denial of Imputation of Christ's Righteousness it self His Arguments are 1. Taken from the places of Scripture that seem to evince the imputation of our own righteousness to us for Justification VVhat he saith of boasting and merit hath bin spoken to already the latter he doth after many Good Morrows in a manner grant whereby his Doctrine is eradicated by the Apostle He tells us the large extent of Christ's righteousness to all the world in procurement of a law of Grace which Doctrine I have shewed the absurdity and vanity of elsewhere It is manifest in Scripture Mediocr p. 20. that good works holy duties and performances are accepted of God and rewarded Resp It is true but acceptation of good works doth not prove justification of their persons by them nor the rewarding them for Abel's person being justified by faith his services were also accepted in the same righteousness he was justified by and rewarded graciously in Christ yea his works were witnessed to by God before the World but such approbation of works as the fruits of faith is not Justification in God's sight in the strict eye of his Justice That place of Matth. 19.17 If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments where Christ answers him according to the true tenor of his question which was what good may I do that I may inherit eternal life Mr. H. and Mr. Cl. must needs say that he sought for righteousness by an old-old-law righteousness which doth appear by Christ's Answer and his Reply Indeed the whole of Christ's Discourse seems clearly to evince that Christ confuted his Confidence in his own righteousness and convinced him of it because Christ gave him a Command that put him to the non-plus and sent him away sorrowful and therefore is no proof of Justification for he was not justified The Apostle Rom. 2.7 speaks after the tenor of the Covenant of Works which requires perseverance in good works not at all of works or doing as justifying righteousness that of 2 Tim. 4.7 8. speaks of Gods acceptation of the services of the Apostles and rewarding them in Christ but nothing of his righteousness for Justification which was Christ's only that he desired to be found in that of Matth. 25.34 hath the same import come ye blessed c. it holds only God's owning and declaring the acceptance of the works and services of the Saints as performed by faith in Christ alone for the accepting their Persons and Services besides it appears sufficiently by the context they never brought their works to account for Justification He brings in also Ezek. 18.26 27. which is as little to the purpose The Lord there answers a charge the People had against him in not dealing uprightly equally and justly with them v. 25. which the Lord answers That
Counsels and Covenant-Compact with the Son as the Apostle saith expresly 1 Pet. 1.19 20. Christ as redeemer by his precious bloud as of a lamb without spot this is his righteousness who verily i. e. really as such was fore-ordained of God before the foundation of the world It was then the Plot and Contrivance of God and therefore may well be called the righteousness of God This Purpose and Grace to poor Sinners was first given us in the Person and Righteousness of Christ before the World began but was manifested since and especially at the first appearance of Christ in the flesh actually to work out this righteousness in abolishing Death and bringing Life and Immortality to Light in the said Gospel of Christ which he was a Preacher of this Head I might be large in insisting on from other places as Eph. 1.6 7 8 9. Prov. 8 30. Heb. 10.8 9. 2. It is the Righteousness of the Person who is God Acts 20.28 3. It s the only righteousness that God is well pleased with a sinner for and in which he makes his law honourable Isa 42.21 3. God hath called and anointed Christ thereto in righteousness Isa 42.6 i. e. to answer my law and righteousness therein and to perform the work of righteousness the Condition of the Covenant I have given thee for so Heb. 8.3 chap. 5.5 9.12 4. It s a Righteousness becoming the Grace of God as the gift of righteousness Rom. 5. and becoming the Perfect Justice and Law of God and therefore magnifies his Law c. and becoming the Wisdom of God therefore Christ is called the Wisdom of God and answers all the ends of God's Glory in Man's Salvation 5. It s the Righteousness of God in regard of the stateliness and highness thereof as the Trees of Lebanon were called the Trees of Jehovah Psal 104.16 6. In a way of opposition to all mens inherent righteousness which is humane mans righteousness only this is God's righteousness and be hath made Christ to be righteousness to us 1 Cor. 1.30 § 10. Now here is reason enough why Christ's Righteousness should be called the righteousness of God and that its plainly so intended in the Text appears 1. Because its a revealed righteousness that Man saw not before they can easily see their own own righteousness without Revelation they are addicted 2. It s the righteousness of Christ that is the righteousness of the Gospel of Christ the Gospel of Christ is called so because its the preaching Christ and him crucified 1 Cor. 3. and because it s his Gospel whereby he cometh and preacheth peace through his righteousness Eph. 2.14 15. 3. It s the righteousness of Christ because its the great object of Faith in Justification for its absurd to say our faith is the object of faith it s something without a man first that he believes upon faith is the evidence or Hypostacy of things not seen 4. It s opposed to the Anger and Wrath of God revealed in the Law v. 18. as that righteousness which answers it 5. The Apostle throughout this Epistle casts off and abandons all righteousness of ours as insufficient therefore this must be the righteousness intended 6. The Text is plain that the righteousness of God is spoken of objectively as to faith for a thing is revealed that it may be seen it s revealed from one act of faith to another and it is confirmed by the words of the Prophet the just shall live by faith on this righteousness believing in it and feeding upon it as their food of life and therefore is not in themselves but in the Gospel there as revealed for the import of the words should be according to those men I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ it is the power of God to Salvation for therein i. e. in the Gospel preached not in our selves is the righteousness of God revealed from one act of faith to another to be seen by it it is not said that faith is revealed to be the righteousness of God but the righteousness of God in the Gospel because it is the power of God to Salvation is revealed to our faith and to be that righteousness which is Gospel righteousness therefore not in our selves 3. The preaching thereof is the power of God to Salvation and that which a believers faith lives upon § 11. The next place Rom. 3.21 22. The Apostle in the 9th verse saith he proved both Jews and Gentiles under sin viz. under the transgression of the Moral Law as plainly appears by his Proof unto v. 19. now saith he they are under the law in that they are convict by the law even the whole World by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that law not the Ceremonial but Moral against which all the forementioned transgressions are committed and Gentiles who were never under the Ceremonial Law as well as Jews Now saith the Apostle seeing that by this Moral Law the World is condemned its impossible that any works of obedience to any law whatever should for if any other law comes to milder terms unless this law be rescinded its impossible any man can be righteous before God hence he concludes therefore by the deeds of the law i. e. any law no flesh can be justified in Gods sight whatever Law men may pretend to God will judge and try all by the Moral Law for a sinner and transgressor of God's law can have the knowledge of sin by it i. e. Conviction but no Salvation by any righteousness of his performance What then must all the World perish therefore for want of a righteousness No God hath provided a righteousness he doth not say God hath repealed his Law and made a new one the righteousness of God without a new law is evident or made manifest in the Gospel which is witnessed by the Law i. e. of Moses in the Doctrine of Sacrifices and by the Prophets that have prophesied of Christ v. 22. even the righteousness of God which is by the faith of Jesus Christ viz. the righteousness of Christ which faith lays hold on which is by faith i. e. which we receive by faith for it may be said what is this righteousness of God saith the Apostle it is in Christ how have it we in Christ by faith Now saith he it s unto all i. e. imputed unto all and upon all as a covering or robe of righteousness by the faith of every Believer by the least as well as the greatest by a Gentile Believer as well as a Jew there 's no difference in the degree of righteousness nor in the imputation of it nor application of it all Believers are equally and alike righteous in Christ's righteousness which is the righteousness of God and the reason added for all have sinned and justified freely by Gods grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ § 12. Now it appears that the righteousness of God is Christ's righteousness That righteousness that fully and compleatly satisfied
offence of one death reigned by one much more they which receive abundance of Grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ § 8. Mr. Cl. Christ is called the Surety of a better Covenant Heb. 7.22 Whence some infer that he hath paid the debt of obedience to God for us Interpreters generally assign two ways wherein Christ is a Surety 1. By undertaking for God to us or his becoming Security for God that he should make good his Covenant to us on his part 2. By undertaking for us to God that we should perform the Condition of the Covenant the first the Polonian Merchants Grotius and Hammond are for the Protestants generally stick to this latter that Christ is our Surety by undertaking for us to God that we shall fulfil the Condition of the Covenant by yielding that obedience that is required of us therein Resp Mr. Cl. tells of the Merchants that they the Neonomians do trade with and indeed most of their Commodities have Polonian stamps not to treat so large as to handle all that might be said of the Suretiship of Christ it being the very Hinge of our Salvation though the Neomonian as well as the Polonian Merchants make very slight of it and Mr. H. in Particular because he saith it s but once used in the New Testament I say it is therefore a Pearl of great Price for I could Instance in several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Spirit of God hath used in the Old and New which do express singular Truths and Mysteries not common I shall only Note some things generally that are Truths I will stand by as 1. That Christ is not a Metaphorical Surety but the most proper Surety that ever was and the Exemplar of all Sureties 2. That the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Surety for Debt 3. That is a Surety of the better Covenant i. e. of the Covenant of Grace not that he was a Surety of the Performance of that Covenant but that he is the Surety in that Covenant that is bound to pay the Debt that we owe to the Justice of God in the Covenant of Works which we have broken and he is not such a Surety as to be bound to the Justice of God that we should pay the Debt the Lord have Mercy on Neonomians but he hath undertaken to pay the whole Debt for us every Farthing if he had been such a Surety as Mr. Cl. speaks of we were in a miserable Condition I know the Neonomians do mostly incline to be with their Polonian Merchants in Mr. Cl. first Point mentioned as to God's Suretiship to us but it 's no great Matter where they be the second Particular being worse than the former for Christ to be engaged to God that we shall pay the Debt that we owe to the Law of God by Adams fall and our Sin i. e. that we shall satisfie Gods Justice for the wrong done and that we shall perform perfect Obedience to the Law thus much Man must pay tho a poor insolvent wretched Creature and Christ hath engaged to see it done but not to pay any thing of the Debt himself And indeed I can prove this to be the true Account of their Doctrine for they say Christ hath procured and merited of God a new Law whereby the old Law is relaxed or repealed not paid or satisfied a new one is set up the Condition whereof we performing we shall be justified but procured not nor merited the Condition to be performed by us Now I would fain know whether Christ was a Surety for that which he never Purchased is Christ a Surety that we shall perform the Condition of the Covenant and never merited Faith and Obedience what a kind of Surety will they have Christ to engage for our Performance and not take care that we should have the cum quo But Mr. Cl. seems not to be quite satisfied with this second Way He adds a Third to mend the Matter a little at least to put a gloss upon it viz. 3. To discharge that Debt of Suffering which we did owe the Law for the Transgressing of it Resp Ay Sir now you say something you bring a Surety with Mony in his Hands we use indeed to say that a Man should never be bound for another unless he resolve to pay the Debt Christ knew well enough how Poor we should be when he undertook this Suretiship Well let us see whether Christ clears the score for us or whether he doth leave a considerable part of the Debt for us to pay our selves It may be that which the Law is primarily and mostly concern'd at and that for a wise Neonomian End viz. That if he should pay all the Sinner would prove an Idle Antinomian and Shabby-fellow having nothing to do himself and nothing to pay therefore Christ indeed paies some of the Debt but laies up the Sinner in a Work-house to pay the rest at his Fingers ends For saith Mr. Cl. Now take it in which of these Three Ways you will yet there 's nothing of his paying the Debt of Active Obedience Resp A very sad Story indeed a great noise of a Surety that would pay the whole Debt of the poor Man in Prison and when the Matter is strictly enquired into he hath only prevailed that he should not be whipt so often in Bridewel though agreed that he should have the Lash too pretty severely sometimes but as for the greatest Part of the Debt he must Work it out at least so far as a new Law of his which he hath procured and made doth require Well when all comes to all here 's nothing done to free the Sinner but he must pay all the good Money by the Sweat of his Brows for Active Obedience to the Law is indeed that which the Law sets a High value upon being the first and main Thing that it designs and aims at and it doth expect not only to be satisfied for Disobedience but must be obeyed yea and it must be paied by perfect Obedience too not by imperfect Now saith our Neonomian Christ was no Surety to pay any of our Debt of Active Obedience how then hath he made no Provision in this Case Yes truly he hath done something that may help a little He hath taken down the old strict Law that kept the Sinner at continual hard-work and brought in a new easie remedying Law then he makes choice of his own Work and business and his own Time and work at leisure only must have the Lash now and then and besure that he Work when he is going to Die and the Condition shall be performed and the Debt paid Now I only briefly argue if Christ was a Surety it was to pay all our Debt in Active and Passive Obedience or none for Christ paid not by halves though the Passive Obedience is hardest yet the active is hardest to do the damned can suffer and shall but can pay
beloved as he was was ignorant of it but that very day as v. 16. According to thy righteousness I beseech thee let thy anger and thy fury be turned away a Neonomian will Gloss thus i. e. according to our righteousness of the New Law v. 18. We do not present our supplications to thee for our righteousness i. e. say the Neonomians the righteousness of the Old Law not of the New but for thy great mercy that say they is the Law of Grace so they will have their Belly-full of law shortly § 2. Mr. H. gives a wild Gloss upon Eph. 1.4 According as he hath chosen us in Christ before the Foundation of the World he saith the Election of Grace is the Election of Grace and Gods choosing us is the taking the Way and Method of Grace and not of Works a choice way of saving Resp Ay indeed it s a choice way to save by Grace and not by Works but to save by Grace and yet by Works is a Contradiction in Paul's Logick Election is in Christ how according to common Notion of Election is over hard to conceive but take it in this Notion and here is even Day-light if you take it for the Law of Grace the Law is the Will of the Law-giver and that 's all one with the Gospel there 's no difficulty in it Resp This Man is so fond of his New Law that ask him of what Place of Scripture you will what it means and he will tell you its the New Law what is Election The New Law what is Redemption Purchase of the New Law How are you justified by the Righteousness of the New Law how shall you be judged by the New Law what 's the Gospel the New Law may not these Men be fitly call'd Neonomian that thus New Law it its hard to conceive how Election is in Christ why Because he cannot conceive Christ to be a common Person or Head of the Elect and that Christ as such was chosen and the whole Body in him but tell him that we are chosen in the New Law and the Difficulty is removed and you see what he makes of the Gospel it is the Law-giver I think its Time to give over talking with Men whose Wits go a Wool-gathering once more though § 3. 2 Cor. 5.19 God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself not imputing their Trespasses and hath committed to us the Word of Reconciliation the Word is the Gospel declaring to the World this purchased Pardon the Pardon is General a standing Pardon an Act of Grace yet if any will have Benefit by it he must look into the Act and see how he is to be qualified Resp The Gospel he saith is the Declaration of the New Law the making of which was an Act of general Pardon for all the World and for this Pardon Christ atoned none could obtain this but Christ and here all the Rogues and Whores in the World continuing so are pardoned at once now the silly Antinomian talks only of the Pardon of Believers before Faith now a Neonomian doth Antinomize to Purpose and Mr. H. is willing Christ shall have the Honour of saving Peter so far as he saved Judas and so far it 's from the Love of the Father in sending his Son to fulfil the Law how By no Obedience to it or Satisfaction for wrong done to him in it and in this Sence he will allow Grace is without Condition i. e. as much as Creation is Grace and God's giving a Law at first it 's true whatever Act God puts forth at first to a Created Being in a way of Nature or Jurisdiction or Mercy it may be said to proceed from his Sovereignty but it cannot shine forth in a way of Grace unless it be the bestowing some good Thing in a way of Speciality Peculiarity and in Distinction from others not to do something in general for all the World in common this is not that which will bear the Name of Grace likewise considering that what he calls a Law of Grace is but an Exhibition of a Law of Works for it is but do believe God had made the first Law as much a Law of Grace as this had the World been as full of People as since and more for it had been easier to perfect Man to perform than now an un-performable condition is to lapsed man This is Grace without conditions he saith even as much as the first Covenant for God made that Covenant without Man's causing it the Condition was lege constitura in the law enacted the previous causes of a law whether it proceed from the meer pleasure of the Legislator or obtained from him by Petition or Purchace are not considered in the law by the Subject it s the tenour of it that he looks at and is concerned in it therefore the making a law the proper nature whereof is to be conditional and promulgatting of it to all the world is no Pardon therefore he soon trips up the heels of his General Pardon in saying If any come to look for benefit by this Pardon Act of Grace Law Covenant Testament any thing a declaration of the will of God as he saith which being a law is not therefore Grace he must read it and see the conditions or terms that God requires And are not these conditions required of all the World are they therefore pardoned because they are required of them its required of every man he saith to believe repent walk sincerely in order to the benefit if these be the conditions of the Covenant then not free because working conditions are required of all the World which by the World are unperformable The main of the Text he cannot see he is so dazled with his New Law v. 18. All things are of God even the reconciliation of the World as well as its new Creation and therefore the righteousness by which reconciliation is made is of God and therefore saith reconciling us by Expiation and Satisfaction for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying reconciling by an Expiatory Sacrifice to himself the enmity was between the Sinner and God and God in this Grace is the first mover of Reconciliation by or in Jesus Christ in whom the righteousness of Satisfaction is giving to us the word of reconciliation i. e. the Gospel in which this reconciliation is preached whereby the Sinner seeing the preventing love of God in the mystery of Reconciliation by the Impetration of Christ he may have the application of this Grace also by Faith for this is the great doctrin that reconciles the heart and brings him to believe This he repeats v. 9. shewing only exegetically that we who are to be saved are the world in the sense of the Scripture in this truth by an usual synecdoche of the choice part being put for the whole and the whole for the better part not imputing their Trespasses shew which is the great thing done in reconciliation of a Sinner to
the Law in all acceptations Now Christ as a second Adam brought in a righteousness upon both these accounts 1. His perfect compleat active Obedience in opposition to Adam's Sin obedience to disobedience Rom. 5.14 If thro the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace which is Christ's obedience which is by one man hath abounded unto many So in every v. to the end of the chapter Christ's obedience was not only to save us from punishment but to take of all the spots of sin in the sight of God Will Neonomian righteousness take away Original sin in the sight of God bring us into the perfection of the Law in the sight of God repair the preceptive part of God's Law Nay will it do any thing to take us of from punishment No they say not if not its worth nothing § 9. Arg. 8. That Righteousness whereby a Sinner is at peace with God reconciled to him and hath access unto his presence with boldness is the Righteousness whereby he is Justified but the Righteousness of Christ is such the minor is evident Rom. 5.1 2. Eph. 2.13 14. Rom. 5.10 Col. 1.20 The major appears Justification is our reconciling peace with God Ground of boldness of access in Faith and Prayer Rom. 5.1 Heb. 4.15 16. § 10. Arg. 9. That Righteousness which Christ pleads in Heaven for us is our Justifying righteousness but it is his own righteousness which he pleads in Heaven for us Ergo This righteousness is our Justification righteousness Doth Christ plead our righteousness or his own Not ours sure he pleads for acceptance of our services thro' his righteousness he entred into the holyest of all with his blood What was it to procure A Justifying righteousness of ours for him to plead before his Father § 11. Arg. 10. If there be no name of any other nor Salvation in any other among men besides Christ's than there 's no righteousness for Justification of a Sinner but Christ's but the antecedent is true Acts. 4.12 the place so full and express there 's no disputing it But our Neonomians will deny the antecedent for this is the stone that is set at naught by our new Gospel builders they will say that there 's justification righteousness in men and in the name of themselves and their own righteousness they shall be Justified but then I say there 's another name and salvation in some other among men if that justifying righteousness is our salvation only For what is in Christ is it not in them And tho Christ purchased it the salvation is in them not in Christ § 12. Arg. 11. If Christ be the end of the law for Righteteousness to every one that believeth then his righteousness is the only Justifying righteousness but Christ is so the Antecedent is true Rom. 10.4 all the aim and design of God in his law in making it is that it may be answered in righteousness Christ is this end as to all saved ones and as to believers he said not that we are the end of the law by our own righteousness or that Christ merited that we should be the end of the law or shou'd be the righteousness of a new law but Christ is so if their had been any other end for righteousness he would have told us of it The consequence needs no proof for whatever fully answer the end of the law in active and passive obedience for us is justifying righteousness in the eye of the law it looks for no more but the Neonomians will say here is the old law meant and Christ answered that I say then if he did justify us as to Old law righteousness a fig for the New law and the pretended Justification thereby § 13. Arg. 12. That righteousness which in a lively manner is held forth in the seals of the Covenant and as seals of the righteousness of faith is justifying righteousness but that is the righteousness of Christ Ergo. For the minor that 's plain the washing with water held forth his washing us from our sins in his blood the eating the bread and drinking the wine it is to signify our feeding upon the Body of Christ by Faith on which he bore our sins and drinking of his Blood which he shed for the remission of Sins As to the major its plain they hold forth Christ to be our justifying righteousness Act. 2.38 and that we live upon this righteousness as the Lord's Supper holds forth in a spiritual eating the Body and drinking his Blood do we shew forth our own death or life of works or his that they should be seals of our own righteousness and not of Christs § 14. Arg. 13. If no righteousness but a Suretiship and Preistly righteousness can justify a Sinner before God then Christ's righteousness alone can do it but nothing but a Suretiship and Priestly righteousness can c. The minor is proved because we are Bankrouts have nothing to pay neither in our selves by nature nor bestowed on us that which the holiest man hath in sanctification bearing no proportion to our sins and God's demands therefore it must be the righteousness of a Surety that 's holy harmless c. that pays a righteousness for us adaequate to the demands of the Law The consequence will hold because there was no other Surety to God for Sinners but Christ he hath engaged to pay for us and hath paid and his payment accepted His Blood was shed for many for the remission of sins he was the great high Priest and as such he was a Surety Heb. 7.21.22 ch 2.17 § 15. Arg. 14. If there be no Gospel righteousness in respect of a Sinner but Christ's righteousness then Christ's righteousness is our Justifying righteousness but there 's no Gospel righteousness The minor is thus proved The righteousness by which a Sinner is Justified is Gospel 1. Because it s not wrought by himself but by another for him 2. Because it s given to him freely it s a Law righteousness in respect of Christ Now when by our graces and duties we claim Justification as due to us upon performing conditions we make all our works legal and put them in the room of Christ's righteousness for Justification The consequence is clear because a Sinner can be saved only by a Gospel righteousness that of Christ that is offer'd him and he receives as the Gospel glad tidings for its good news and Gospel to any man to hear of one that is able and willing to pay his debt for him § 16. Arg. 15. If there be no life to be given to a Sinner by the righteousness of any law perform'd by him then the righteousness of Christ is the only righteousness that he is justified by but there is no life to be given to any Sinner by the righteousness of any law perform'd by him Ergo. The antecedent is fully proved by the Gal. 3.21 where Law is used indefinitely in both parts of the Texts
meaning is only that Justification of a sinner by the works of the old law is inconsistent but not Justification by the works of a new law whereas the design of the Apostle throughout is to disprove the Justification of a sinner by the works of a law any law he specifies not any one law in particular unless where he led to it but when he opposeth Works to Faith in Justification he speaks of law indefinitely excluding all works of any law whatever signified to us Gal. 3.2 If there had been any law given whereby life is given then righteousness had been by a law but there was no such law given § 6. The Apostle insists largely on this Dispute against Justification by works because it was a received Opinion among the Jews that a man might be justified by the works of the law and it was retained by many of them even after they were converted to the faith of Christ as appears Acts 21.20 Resp The Apostle insisted largely and strenuously on this Dispute in making and proving the direct opposition between Justification by the works of any law performed by us and Justification by faith in the righteousness of another 1. Because the Jews were generally bigotted to a righteousness of some law to be performed by them for Justification 2. Because they were generally ignorant of the righteousness of Christ which made them go about to establish their own righteousness in Point of Justification 3. What he writes to the converted Jews he doth 1. In order to convince them of the danger of joining their own righteousness in obedience to any law in Justification with the righteousness of Christ and this was the danger of the Galatians 2. He warns them of the vanity of the continuance of the works of Moses's law in order to Salvation Now Mr. Cl. brings the words of James to Paul Acts 21.20 to prove that the converted Jews sought Justification by the works of the Law of works To which I answer 1. That the unconverted Jews did none of them expect Justification by the works of the law of works for 1. They did not look upon their works as perfect works though they took the external obedience to be what the law mainly looked for which Christ refutes for they owned that their external works were mixed with much imperfection and sin Else 2dly They could not own the Doctrine of Sacrifices for sin wherein they saw the sinfulness of their works and were convinced at least thereof whether they saw by faith the Antitype signified by them or no and therefore could stand upon their works in themselves perfect in answer to the righteousness of that law but the Justification by works which they looked for was by an imperfect righteousness as the Neonomians do in obedience to the law of Moses which they made their new law as the Neonomians do the Gospel and therefore the Apostle saith that they sought it as it were by the works of the law it was Justification by works in their sence the Apostle preacheth accordingly against works as taken by themselves Rom. 9. Ans 2. As for the converted Jews spoken of Acts 21. they where for the observations of some things in the Obedience of Moses his Law as necessary means of Salvation not abolish'd by Christs coming in the Flesh and as the Apostles did not press harder upon them in that Point than only to leave them under an indifferency of using them or not provided they laid not the stress of their Justification thereon as appears by Acts 15. So here the charge against Paul which the Apostle James would have him clear himself of was that he contradicted the Apostles at Jerusalem in permitting the use of some Jewish Ceremonies as indifferent for the present by reason of the Jews weakness thou teachest the Gentiles to forsake Moses Now he shewed by his complying with James that whatever he taught the Gentiles yet he was not against complying with the Jews so far as to use yet some of Moses his appointment provided they made not such Actions of theirs the righteousness of Justification therefore tells the Galatians running on that Point that if they were circumcised Christ could profit them nothing Now this is clearly the Point he withstands Peter in and opposeth the Galatians in that he made his Saviour a Transgressor by his practice in judaizing contrary to the Doctrine he had preached in Justification by Christs righteousness alone As for the others they brought in another Gospel not one whatever they called it Hence the complaint against some believing Pharisees Acts 15.5 was that they taught the necessity of keeping Moses's Law unto full justification the conjoining our righteousness with his or that his righteousness meritted ours and therefore they were to observe Moses his Law as their own righteousness the New Law with them this Doctrine Peter opposeth in his speech unto ver 11. to which James agrees and proposeth an expedient ver 19 20. so that what the Pharisees attempted at Antioch and what the Galatians were seduced to was only the necessity of the works of a New Law as a sole or social righteousness with Christs for Justification Pro. 9.3 § 7. When he disputes against Justification by Works he means only the Works of the Law Resp He should have told us what Law the Apostles means Moral or Ceremonial or New Law or whether works of any Law whatever which we confidently affirm and if he make Gospel works Law works he disputes against them And this proposition of his he is large in proving with little Proof 1 It appears he saith by the Apostles wary close and restrictive way of speaking Rom. 3.20 The restrictiveness of that place we have spoken to and shewed the place is positively against all works of any Law Again we have shewed that Gal. 2.20 Is an absolute exclusion of the works of a Law any Law for as Mr. C. observes che works of a Law are three times excluded we shall not actum agere as near as may be Gal. 3. The design of the Apostle in that Chapter is to shew 1. That a believer of the Gentiles is blessed i. e. Justified by Faith with faithful Abraham ver 9. to prove this he argues thus either by Faith or by Works not by works of a Law any Law for saith he he that is a sinner and under a Law for Justification is under a Curse nor cannot come from under it by the works of it And that you may take an instance of the Voice of any Law take that of Moses ver 10. cursed is every one that abideth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moses his Law Because by a Law any Law no flesh living is justified with God or before God manifest because the just shall live by faith and shall draw the first breath of the life of Justification by faith and live that life always by
kept by us for if we were perfect in our selves there would not need the Perfection of another to be imputed to us for all Imputation by Transaction supposeth the person not to be that personally and in himself which he is made to be by Imputation so Imputation of our Sins to Christ supposeth Christ was not Sin in himself but made so by imputation of ours therefore the Imputation of Christs active obedience supposeth us to be sinners in our selves 2. As Christ was the Second Adam and made under the law in all respects for us so he was to come under it for us as to active obedience and to answer that way as well as the other for it was needful that he fulfil all righteousness for us and the first and chief thing the Law required was active obedience the Law is not satisfied without a performance of the righteousness which it requires there must be therefore a fulfilling of the Law as to active obedience else the righteousnes of Christ is lame and imperfect It s true if the righteousness imputed were inherent according to the Neonomian Doctrine then the inference might hold if we are imputed righteous for our internal righteousness that would bring us under this consequence but our Imputation is of the active righteousness of another which makes us compleat in Christ and without spot in the eye of God's Justice Let me return the Argument upon him If our active obedience to the new Law be imputed to us for justifying righteousness then must we he lookt upon in this righteousness as such as have committed no sin I hope Mr. H. will not say that the righteousness of the new law is not active obedience I say is it imputed or not if imputed the consequence follows but to see the baseness of these men to draw odious consequences upon the Mystery of Christ when the same would follow with much more odium upon their own Doctrine that they set up against Christ their active obedience must be imputed to them for righteousness but Christ's must not be imputed to us They say then what need would there be of Christ's Death We say as much as there is of paying the wages of sin where the law is actually broken The law requires two things 1. The death of the sinner 2. The obedience of the sinner to the preceptive part of the law both which Christ hath performed and a Believer in him as his Representative Priest and Surety and whereas he saith we must be looked upon as such as have committed no sin we must not be lookt upon as such by our selves but there is no true Believer but is lookt upon by God in foro Justitiae as if he had committed no sin for if our sins stand in the light of God's Countenance in the eye of his Justice we must needs be odious to him whence is it then that the sins of Gods children are cast behind his back and that they stand without spot before the Throne and to conclude this Point now let him consider only one verse of Rom. 5.19 As by the disobedience of one many were made sinners so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous I would know of him what will become of so plain an Antithesis if obedience be not active obedience there meant § 4. If Christs passive obedience be imputed then must we look on our selves as such who in Christ have suffered and satisfied the law and born the curse of it and then how shall there be room for any pardon a man that pays his full debt by himself or Surety cannot be forgiven by the Creditor Resp And here he would cover himself not to be seen a Socinian we shall see how well by and by 1. He lays it down as a gross absurdity to say we satisfied in Christ here and elsewhere often to which we answer that it is not absurd for any man to say I paid my Debt by another viz. a Surety for the law looks upon it as the payment of his Debt and he is discharged by it 2. He makes not himself the Surety for he ascribes the payment to the Surety and the Debt to himself so the words are not honouring himself but honour to the Surety therefore to say Believers have satisfied the law in their Surety Christ is giving glory to him and a proper usual Speech But he infers with the Socinians that then there 's no room for Pardon indeed it is easie to see how their mouths water at a plain Denial of Christ's Satisfaction though they do it interpretatively as much as the Socinians you may likewise see the Design in dividing Justification and Pardon one from the other It s true when a righteous person is justified by his own righteousness as in the Neonomian Justification there 's no room for Pardon for he hath paid all his due and by his own Money but it is otherwise in God's Justification of a sinner 1. That is his Pardon God pardons none but in Justification we have forgiveness through the blood of Christ tho Man pardons often with injury to Justice but God declares his righteousness for the remission of sins Rom. 3.25 and without shedding of blood there is no remission Heb. 9. 2. God's justifying sinners ungodly c. by a righteousness given unto them is a pardon of them 3. It is the highest noblest Pardon in the World where sins are nailed to the Cross of Christ when it is to the Satisfaction of Justice as Grace so Justice are magnified therein A true Believer and broken-hearted sinner will not speak in the proud Socinian or Neonomian Dialect O Lord we thank thee not for or expect Pardon if Christ hath died to satisfie with them either Gods Pardon or the Sinners Justification must fall to the ground but bless God for the noblest Pardon in the World § 5. But methinks this Argument is purely Socinian for they say there 's nothing more contrary to Gods forgiving freely than Satisfaction But Mr. H. that he might not seem to run a Tilt against Satisfaction saith indeed The Argument of the Socinian from Pardon against Christ's Satisfaction is not valid but it is good against imputation of it to us as if we had satisfied Resp And why is it not good against Satisfaction in the Socinian sence he gives no reason for he saith that he that pays the full Debt by himself or Surety there 's no room for pardon and will not Mr. H. say that Christ hath not paid the full Debt for him if he will let him pay what remains or try for Pardon for that which is not paid another way than by remission through his blood but what do they Socinians say more if God be satisfied where is Pardon we say God's Pardon is by way of Satisfaction to his Law No saith Mr. H. it is good against Imputation so the Socinians hold too I pray did Christ satisfie at all if he did was it