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
not be the end of the law of works for righteousness to a Believer but that a believer's performance of obedience to the new law should be the end of the law of works for righteousness which is a direct contradiction to the Text. For he faith Christ is the end of the law what law of all law of works in way of Satisfaction of the Moral and concurring Ceremonial as an Antitype he and his righteousness is shadowed forth thereby he saith not that Christ is the end of a law for a righteousness of our performing for that would be a contradiction to fay the end of a law is righteousness and then Christ is the end of it for another righteousness and not his own he should have said believing is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth Lastly What righteousness is it to take us from under a law or relax it or procure that it shall not be satisfied at all and that the offender shall be justified by another Law § 15. The next Text is He hath made him sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him 2 Cor. 5.21 i. e. saith Mr. H. the immaculate lamb made a Sacrifice for our sins that we may become righteous with the righteousness of God which he accepts through him Christ as a Sacrifice redeems us from a Law of Sin and purchaseth for us a law of grace according to that law we have a righteousness which is a righteousness accepted unto life through Christ Medioc p. 28. R. So that Mr. H's meaning must be That Christ was made Sin under the old law that we might have righteousness by him under the new law and that what Christ did under the old law amounted to no righteousness to us But he must be righteousness to us under the New Law and then Christ was made under the New Law which these men will deny and be our righteousness there no say they not himself be our righteousness but procure that we should be our own righteousness then the true meaning is here That Christ was made Sin for us that we should be our own righteousness but how our righteousness in Christs is our righteousness Christs then it is that we may be made Christs righteousness becoming ours by Imputation Christ being made sin for us he glosses upon as the Socinians i. e. Christ the immaculate Lamb was made a sacrifice for sin It is true Christ is expresly said to be a sacrifice for sin but how 1. As the true Sacrifice not as a typical Heb. 9.26 2. As a Sacrifice to bear Sin not less but more than all the Sacrifices of Old and therefore it is said to be made sin for us he was not a sinner by nature neither was his nature corrupted by his being made Sin for us therefore he was made sin by legal imputation made sin because put under the law the Priests and Sacrifices of old had the sins of the People laid upon them sin was charged on them their own first for which they sacrificed then the sins of the People but Christ did not only bear Sin as the Sacrifice that was slain but as Scape Goat also for one Type could not hold forth the fulness of Christ's Righteousness therefore the Apostle saith he did not only bear sin but bore it away Heb. 9.26 28. Now it s a strange thing that these men should spit at this Doctrine of Christ's bearing Sin one of late calling it Poyson another saying he bore not our very sins and all that he bore only suffering for sin I would know how any can suffer for Sin in Law or Justice and not legally bear the charge of sin And how Christ came to be a Curse if he bore not Sin 2. He bore Sin because he bore the Curse of the Law he was made a curse doth curse come upon any but for sin Is there any in the World but for Sin therefore whatever subject hath the curse of the law hath also the charge of sin for they are inseparable 3. How dare any man be so audacious as to give the Spirit of God the lie in that it hath so often and peremptorily asserted We have gone astray and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all he hath caused them to meet upon him will you say that is the punishment of us all when the Spirit of God speaks so distinctly of punishment v. 5. and tells us the reason because he bore sin he was wounded for our transgression because sin was laid upon him so v. 8. for the transgression of my people was he stricken and least you should be at a stand in this Point about Christ's bearing sin it s exprest again as the reason of Christs justifying many v. 11. for he shall bear their iniquities Nay it s added the third time and he bare the sins of many so that Christs bearing Sin distinct from Punishment is no less than three times in this Chapter It is also fully exprest in the New Testament totidem verbis Heb. 9.28 Christ was once offered there 's his suffering for what to bear the sins of many and 1 Pet. 2.24 He his own self bare our sins in his body on the tree and in multitude of places in expressions that are tantamount to these and now to say that Christ did not bear sin and all things that the Law calls Sin let it be as filthy and as vile as you will for it s so because its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we know he was manifest to take away all sin now is there any thing which you call the filth of sin is it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is it not then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the transgression of the law if it be Christ bore it if he did not then it stands yet in Gods sight and the hand-writing of the law is against you and you are not justified and why is Christ's Sacrifice said to be the purging of sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many things might be said to shew how properly it s spoken see Dr. Owen I must for brevity sake only say that it imports Christ's purging us by Sacrifice from all that the law of God calls filthy in sin Then it s objected Christ was unclean Answ Not morally polluted but legally unclean while he was under our sins as the Sacrifices were and therefore he suffered without the camp Obj. Then the Saints have no sin who give sufficient evidence that sin remains in them Answ The Saints are without spot before God in Point of Justification they are justified from all sin and filthy spot in Gods sight 2. Sin remains in them and will do in Point of Sanctification which is not perfect in this life but all in their sins that is a burden to them that is odious and filthy was laid on Christ by
covenant having but two parts the condition and promise made upon the performance of the condition by the party required so to do whereby the good thing promised upon the said performance of the condition is demandable by the performer as due debt to him Hence it 's the faederal nature of the condition not the greatness or smallness of the condition that makes it meritorious If God had said unto man in Paradice Take up this leaf or that straw and thou shalt live for ever eternal life had been his due upon his doing thereof and demandable by him and the covenant made it so viz. a due debt ex pacto i. e. legally so for a due debt is due in a law sense § 2. Now what hinders this desirable accommodation It is the B's opinion that there is a greater mischief in Antinomianism a Snake in the Grass which ought to be laid open to prevent the mischief of it Antinomianism the B. knows in true notation of the word and according to the sense of the Apostle Paul is a denial of the Justification of a sinner by our own works of the law the mischief that attends it is only occasional by reason of men's corruption viz. The vileness of corrupt and reprobate minds in the abuse of the grace of God therein to embolden themselves to sin because grace abounds which the Apostle was aware of and warns us against Rom. 6. It is not any fault in the doctrine it self Well but what is the mischief the B. finds It is saith he this all this dispute about conditions on our part depends upon another and if that hold this must follow as a consequence of it and several other things which Dr. Crisp saw very well had a necessary connexion with each other like a fair dealer in controversie owned them all Here I cannot but acknowledge the greet ingenuity of the B. beyond many others in not only owning him a fair dealer in this controversie that he opposeth him in but in his after vindication of him from those false imputations which others of his adversaries would fasten upon him so far that he leaves him a mere Calvinist and no worse § 3. p. 74. B. I come therefore to the next thing in the first Paper wherein you say i. e. Mr. L. clears the dissenting brethren from the charge of Antinomianism Report p. 13. Rem p. 11. Your words are i. e. Mr. L. 's That touching a Change of Persons between Christ and believers there is no physical change whereby Christ and believers do in stance become one another nor a moral change whereby Christ should become inherently sinful and Believers thereby become immediately innocent and sinless but the change is only in a legal sense by consent between the Father and him putting on the person and coming into the room and stead of sinners c This is laid down for the truth of this change by Mr. L. but yet Mr. L. peremptorily disowns Dr. Crisp's change of Persons as well as Mr. W. Now the B. doth very fairly shew and prove that Dr. Crisp intended no other change of Persons than what Mr. L. asserts to be the truth and a clearing the assertors from the charge of Antinom Now saith he I shall make it appear that you have not herein disowned Dr. Crisp 's sence of the change of persons so far I cannot but say that the B. hath done right to Dr. Crisp and Mr. L. and it 's no other than what I ever thought of the controversie when on foot I shall not give my self the trouble of transcribing what the B. hath done out of Dr. Crisp's Sermons to prove his assertion See p. 2. p. 75 76 77. § 4. This seems to be a great Mystery but is really the foundation of Antinomianism That Christ had the personal guilt of our transgressions charged upon him and so he was as sinful as we He should have added legally or in the eye of the law the guilt of our sins the personal guilt of every saved one being charged upon him the Reatus Culpae non perpetratio culpae the debt non contractio debiti This is the truth of the Gospel which will stand as a pillar of brass when all the wit and malice of the opposers and banterers thereof will be driven away as chaff before the wind Here are two assertions that we must stand by and defend the truth of against the B. and all other opposers In the B.'s first Letter he tells us what the Report saith p. 5. That if there be no change of persons between Christ and us there can be no translation of the guilt nor a just infliction of the punishment of our sins on Christ i. e. there can be no proper satisfaction which is truth without exception But the B. answers That there is a twofold translation of guilt to be considered 1. Of the personal guilt which results from the acts of sin committed by such persons Now the translation of this guilt of sin on Christ the B. all along denies and endeavours to disprove 1. Personal guilt can be no other than the guilt of the Person that had committed the sin for which he is arraign'd at the Bar of God's Law e. gr John hath stolen Thomas hath committed murder and neither the guilt of John's theft nor of Thomas's murder was transferred to Jesus Christ David's murder and adultery in the guilt thereof was not transferred to Jesus Christ nor the guilt of Peter's sin in denying his Master This is the meaning of the B. doctrine 2. He gives his reason If this guilt be translated Christ must become the very person who committed the sins and so become an actual Sinner yea as the Person that committed all the sins of those for whom he died I wonder so learned a man saw not the absurdity of this arguing which he took up from Mr. B. who never stuck at any gross arguments to bespatter the most glorious Gospel truths The force of the argument is thus unfolded and made very plain If a debt be translated from one man to another then he to whom it is translated must be looked upon as the person that contracted the debt but the B. saith We must not look upon sins as debts which we shall speak to in its place but let us use another instance If a thing done by one man be accounted to another e. gr a Representative in Parliament is that thing to be thought to be actually and personally performed by the persons to whom it 's accounted The Representatives of the people in Denmark gave up the liberties of the people to the King's prerogative the people by them are accounted to have done it by the Representatives must therefore every Subject be said actually and personally to have done it when doubtless Hundreds of lovers of the country hated and detested the Action tho' as necessarily included therein as if they had actually done it Many Instances of the like nature
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
God may freely forgive them without disparagement to his wisdom and justice without any Satisfaction But what if God will not He hath revealed this in his word that he will by no means acquit the guilty without satisfaction we are not speaking of God's absolute Power but of his ordinate neither are we speaking of God's acting by his soveraign dominion but by his acting in a way of justice because where there 's sin there is a law transgressed and God's dealing with the sinner must be in a way of justice unless God repeal his law or dispense with it as the Neonom will have it but we can't admit thereof But 2. Why can't God upon the same reason forgive a criminal by his prerogative as well as a debtor An earthly King may why not the King of Kings 3. And why is not sin a debt in a proper sence enough Is it not a debt to God's justice and made so by God's law and treated as such in the very point of Satisfaction It 's such a Debt as must be satisfied 1 Pet. 1.18 19. 1 Cor. 6.23 and 7.23 and elsewhere must it of necessity be a money debt and no other He saith I can't but wonder at the learned author that he doth at the same time assert our sins to be considered as debts and the necessity of vindictive justice for what vindictive justice belongs to a creditor I have rather wondred at the learned Author that he should be taken with such a Delirium as to suppose B. Stillingfleet to be for a Commutation of Persons in sano sensu having been sufficiently informed by his Letters of his Neonom principles before he appeal to him and flattered him so offensively as he did But ad rem 1. The B. knew that similitude or metaphorical expressions are not to be forc'd to run on four feet for tho' sins be most fitly called debts to the justice of God yet God is not therefore a money creditor but with necessity of Vindictive Justice to a creditor sure imprisonment is vindictive justice or seizing on all that a man hath doth not God in justice seize on all a sinner hath by his curse and cast him into prison till he hath paid the utmost Farthing Matth. 5.26 Sure Christ's own Phraseology might be admitted by us but it seems not by this B. and some others see further his Neonom spirit he calls Christ's language in calling sin debts to God and ascribing Vindictive Justice to such an adversary rude and inconsistent and he can hardly think such ever penetrated into these matters but took up with a sett of phrases I always found these Neonom great boasters of their own wit and deep penetration into things answer their adversaries still more by contemptuous and approbrious language than by any fair way of argumentation tho' I must confess I do not find this learned B. so addicted to this foul way of treating those that dissent from him as many others of the Neonom kidney that are far short of him in learning and gentility The main design of this discourse in answer to Mr. Lob's Appeal is to shew how much the good man was mistaken as to believe that he the B. was for Commutation of persons in his sence but he was for Commutation in Mr. W. and the Neonom sence The meaning of all that there hath been such a sputter about and so much foul language unbecoming Christians much more Ministers lyes in this one Question whether Christ was made of God sin and curse for sinners And whether the said sinners believing become the righteousness of God in him The Commutation according to scripture lyes here that Christ instead of the guilty sinner became sin and curse and that the Sinner in Christ becomes righteous and guitless Now saith the B. That the change was not in respect of sin asserting that Christ bore no personal guilt but that he bore only punishment that we should not be punish'd upon our Faith and Repentance so that he must hold the Commutation of persons is not in respect of sin and righteousness for that person that is taken from the guilt of sin in foro justitiae can never be righteous but only in respect of punishment and impunity 4. That Christ was punish'd that the sinner might not but that this change was not absolute but conditional and to be future upon terms to be performed by one party when he should have an actual Being in the world when he should perform the fixed conditions of Faith Repentance and good Works Again he will not have it such a change as is between the surety and debtor but such a change as is between two private persons one doing a good turn for on the behalf and so instead of the other denying Christ to be a publick person to be in his Mediatorship a surety or legal Representative before God's Tribunal of Justice and this I find every where to be the Neonom Doctrine But I shall assert that the B's change of persons is none at all for if it be not of persons as standing in relation to the law it 's none at all in a law sence Christ bearing no guilt by law obligation and the sinner being freed from none thereby this is enough to say of it here my design being to be short I can't fill up my paper with rehearsal of the very Words which I have tired my self too much in already nor enter upon a tedious Litigation about Words or Sense of them and if Dr Crisp or the Bp. have not well express'd themselves I leave those Words to themselves and apply my self only to the true sense and meaning of the Bp. in that point which he mainly prosecutes in this treatise Bp. p. 79. My business at present is about transferring our very faults upon Christ which Dr. Crisp calls the guilt of the fact A. I need not here tell the Reader that the Assertor doth distinguish between the fact and the guilt of the fact the Culpa reatus culpae the Bp. himself hath vindicated him from the charge of saying that the fact it self was charged on Christ p. 77. Dr. Crisp denies Christ to be the actual transgressor but asserted that he had the personal guilt of our Sins upon him and built his whole Hypothesis upon it This then is the Question in short to be discussed Whether Christ in his sufferings bare upon him the personal guilt of Sin The affirmative is the truth in our judgment let who will assert it the Bp. holds the negative throughout his treatise as being the vertical point upon which the whole controversie of change of persons doth turn § 2. I desire to speak as plainly in this matter as may be and as briefly and shall pass over all the proofs that the Bp. hath made that this was the Dr's judgment with this concession that it was so yea and all the needless remarks interpretations and banters that he hath upon what the Doctor hath
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
Blood of Christ is purged from all his Sins and is perfectly Righteous in the sight of God in Christ though not in himself notwithstanding all the inherency of remaining corruption in him after he is partaker of Regenerating and Sanctifying Grace Bp For God may see cause to forgive a Sinner and receive him into favour although he still continues to hate and abhor the Sin A. What cause can God have to forgive a Sinner and receive him into favour besides his Free-Grace and the Satisfaction of his Son which he hath made to his Justice in bearing his Sin and suffering for it And this God doth and yet hates and abhors Sin for though Christ bore Sin it was not in kindness to it but to condemn it in his Flesh And though God loves and saves the Person of the Sinner yet he always hated Sin both of the Elect and Reprobate § 13. Bp As to the Guilt of Sin as it relates to Punishment these things are to be considered He should have told us what Guilt of Sin he means for obligation to Punishment he told us is in the Law not in the Delinquent therefore his Guilt is not of Sin but of the Law I have not much to say to the three particulars provided they be rightly meant viz. 1. Although a Divine Justice require satisfaction for Sin it is not necessary the actual Transgressors should undergo the Punishment which they have deserved i. e. if another undergo their deserved Punishment by a substitution legally in their stead in regard of Desert and Punishment for then there would be no room for Grace and Favour which is not shewed by God to any absolutely in a dispensation with Justice but in such a way as may glorifie Divine Justice 2. That it is consistent with the Wisdom and Justice of God to accept of a Mediator such an one as is a Surety to interpose between the Severity of the Law and the Punishment of the Transgressor upon terms agreeable to Divine Wisdom and Mercy A. 1. The Mediator ought to be between God and Man in respect of Sin especially the cause of Punishment for it's Sin that 's contrary to God's Law Punishment of the Sinner is agreeable to God's Law 2. He speaks of terms upon which God accepted of a Mediator I cannot understand what he means by it for Christ's Mediatorship was the condition of God's acceptance of us Christ in respect of himself was absolutely accepted not upon any previous conditions performed by him or after-conditions to be performed by us Which latter I find he intends 3. That such a Mediator undertaking to make Atonement for our Sins by Suffering in our stead and Place as Sinners may truly and properly be said to undergo the Punishment of our Sins and our Sins to be the Meritorious cause of it By no means in Suffering only upon an occasional remote reason from Sin but he must suffer judicially taking upon him a Legal Charge of Merit and Desert in the place and stead of the Sinner Now he seems to suspect himself in this Doctrine of his to fall upon the Shelves of marvellous inconsistency and therefore indeavours to forestall the following Objection If Desert adhere to Personal Guilt inseparably as before asserted how can our Sins be the Meritorious cause of another's Punishment The Argument against his Doctrine he can't Answer for where there 's no Guilt there 's no Desert and where there 's no Desert there 's no Punishment in legal Sense He riggles up and down under the pressure of this Objection but can't get it off I answer that a meritorious cause may be considered two ways 1. In a Natural Course of things and so Desert follows the Fact so that the Sinner always deserves Punishment and no interposition nor forgiveness can take off the Desert c. A. The subject Act to Sin is Natural but the formal Nature of Sin as Guilt is Moral as it stands in Relation to the Law So that supposing that Ordine naturae the Guilt or Desert follows the Fact yet it 's not in a Physical course of things 2. His after Assertion implies that no Sin is pardoned in and through the Satisfaction of Christ that whether the Sin be Pardon'd in a way of Grace or satisfied for in a way of Justice the Sin remains in its full strength upon the Sinner for ever for he that deserves Punishment doth so by the Law for the strength of Sin is the Law and therefore must of necessity for fear of Death the Wages of Sin be all the Day long subject unto Bondage this is a sad Gospel 2. He saith As Desert implies only a just reason of Punishment and so there may be a Meritorious cause in extraordinary Cases when the Legislator consents that another bear the Punishment which others have deserved Immerito quemque punire est injuste punire as Johns out of Cret Immerito is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 merito 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Cic. Jure merito are most commonly put together A. Here we have the cause given The Question is in plain terms whether Christ Died merito for our Sins He here plainly grants those things 1. That Desert implies a just reason of Punishment then I argue if Christ was punished justly then he Died with a just reason thereof and there can be no just reason of Punishment but Desert and if this was on Christ it came from Christ's own Personal Sins or from ours The Bp would not say from his therefore from ours 2. He grants there may be a meritorious Cause in extraordinary Cases when the Legislator consents that another shall undergo the Punishment What 's that 1. Was any Case more extraordinary than this we are speaking of 2. He must needs mean that when the Legislator consents that another shall undergo the Punishment that then the said Person so undergoing stands under the Desert of that Person for whom he is punished 3. He grants the truth and none can deny it that Immerito aliquem punire est injuste punire it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 punire sine ratione in juditio Nothing of Suffering can be reasonable in Judicial Proceedings unless there be a desert therefore he saith that Cic. puts jure merito together Now this is the Mystery that the Bp is to reveal to shew how Christ was Punished for a meritorious Cause and yet stood not under any of our Personal Deserts § 14. He comes now to Answer what is said for Christ's bearing our Personal Guilt and the most that he saith is to resay what he said before and is sufficiently Answered already but to do him right we will briefly weigh his strength The first is The injustice of Punishing any immerito this is the summ of it His Answer lyes chiefly in asserting that this is the Socinian way of Arguing and so we see the Antinomians join with the Socinians But how the same way of Arguing May not one and the
all this he will not give up Mr. B. to the Socinians why Because he hath writ of the Doctrine of the Trinity that he might do and yet be a Socin in the Doctrine of Satisfaction But he hath written of the Doctrine of Satisfaction yes he hath retained the word to make his Doctrine go down the better but hath endeavoured to destroy the thing to all intents and purposes Bp. These may be said for his Vindication 1. By laying all the passages together he must mean something more by his promeritous Cause than meerly a remote occasional Cause A. This supposition is very unreasonable when the Bp hath told us from Mr B's own Mouth what he means by his promeritorious Cause It is not hard to conceive what Mr. B. meant by promeritorious it is only that Sin Antecedently to Christ's Death was meritorious of Death but this merit terminated there and never reached as a Cause meritorious of the Sufferings of Christ This merit the Bp saith is antecedent to the Legislator's act in accepting a Sponsor and is but an occasional Cause and what saith he of an occasional Cause It 's really no Cause at all c. just as if a Man said the Fire of London was the occasional Cause of the Monument p. 169. Bp. Now no Man can say the fault antecedently was any more than an occasional cause of the innocent Person 's Suffering A. This is true in Mr B's sense that the fault of the Offender makes him only guilty and deserving of Punishment in general but is not transferred to the Sponsor to be any Guilt or desert of his Punishment which is truly Mr. B's meaning of his term promeritorious And therein Mr. B. is consonant to himself in saying it's but an occasional Cause and that Sin is a remote impulsive Cause viz. remote from Christ tho' immediate and impulsive to Punishment 2. This is true in the Bp's Sense who saith Christ suffered Punishment for Sin and bear the Personal Guilt of none is to make the Sin of Man no more than an occasional Cause But the consistency of the assertion lyes more on Mr. B's side because he knew it to be a great inconsistency to say that Christ bore proper Punishment when he bore the guilt of no Sin Bp. But taking all together when he is admitted to suffer in the place of the Guilty the Law with the Punishment makes the impulsive Cause become meritorious and it is the immediate Reason of his Sufferings R. This the Bp speaks as the truth and intimates as if he would have it Mr. B's Sense but gives no proof that it is so neither is it likely he should being not consonant at all to what Mr. B. every-where maintains and what if the Bp saith so it 's not consonant at all to the Tenet he defends that Christ bore no Personal Guilt For then how can the Guilt of any become the meritorious and immediate reason of his Sufferings Bp. The only question then is whether this can properly be called a meritorious cause A. That may be taken in two Senses 1. In a strict and proper sence so your self deny that Christ merited by his own Sin 2. In the sense of the Law i. e. Sin was legally charged on Christ and so that which was the near impulsive cause the fault of the Transgressor may be truly said to be meritorious as to his sufferings because they made it an act of Justice which otherways had been an act of Power and Dominion R. See now the Bp's clear concession 1. That what is here spoken of Christ it 's in the sense of the Law not in a Physical or Moral sense 2. He makes the near impulsive cause Sin and here Sin in its merits or deserts the immediate reason of Christ's suffering can that be any thing but the Guilt of Men's Persons 3. Sin is such a reason as may distinguish Christ's Punishment from an Act of Dominion and make it an Act of Justice How is it possible that any Man that saith this can say that the guilt of Man's Sin was not charged on Christ as our Representative in a legal Sense i. e. in a way of Judicial proceeding Now doth the Bp lay down this as Mr. B's sense No he dare not for if he did Mr. B. were he living would say he had laid therein the Foundation of Antinomianism Bp. The question between us and the Socinians is not about meritorious and promeritorious Cause R. I wonder the Bp should insinuate so great a falshood when he knows the question between us and the Socinians is whether our Sins were the meritorious cause of Christ's sufferings or occasional And it 's that which hath been at present under hand Promeritorious being a word of Mr. B's bringing in it may be they might not think of it to hide occasional under it as he doth to make Men think he did not deny all merit in this Case Bp. But the question is whether Christ did really undergo the Punishment of our Sins in order to be a Sacrifice of Atonement for them And in this we have Mr. B 's consent express'd on all occasions R. I wonder the Bp can speak thus why doth he not acquaint us then with his consent in one passage if he hath any such passage doth he mean as he speaks No no more than the Bp who could not as long as he held that Christ bore the personal guilt or desert of none It is now evident the Bp hath said nothing to the purpose for vindication of Mr. B. what hath been said hath been for a greater confirmation of the Charge and wounding his own Cause He saith little further but to excuse 1. Liberty must be given to Metaphysick Heads 2. Tells a Story of Lubbertus and Mcacovius 3. He tells us of favourable interpretations that are to be given to Persons that keep to the main point as if this were but a trifling matter between the Socin and us 4. Mr. L. argues that Mr. B. speaks after the Unitarians That Christ did not undergo punishment properly so called but in a popular sense of Punishment The Bp in answer doth fill up p. 162 163 164 165 166. in shewing what slippery Gentlemen the Writers of the Unitarian Doctrine are but nothing to Mr. L's Charge of Mr. B. therefore yields the truth thereof and agrees with Mr. L. in these words Bp. you say Rectoral Justice doth essentially respect the Law in its distributions Whatever a Soveraign may do in acts of Dominion A Rector cannot justly inflict Sufferings on an innocent person as such Here I grant you have come up to the true state of the Case between the Socin and us and therefore we shall leave it and let the Reader judge who is cast at the Bp's Bar. But before I end it 's necessary to consider how the Bp. doth reconcile his two Principles 1. That the Sin of Man was the immediate impulsive and meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferigns This he holds
not in vain but was he delivered from his Personal Guilt of Blood Or else he must at this day be a Blood-guilty Murderer in Heaven Arg. 7. A Surety to God for Sinners bears their Sins in being Punished for them but Christ was a Surety Heb. 7.22 There 's no fence against such a Flail as this one express place 2. The Minor is quarrelled by our Adversaries but not Universally denied yet they would make a seeming Evasion that they will have Christ a Surety for God to us and not for us to God and that Christ was no Money-Surety for us we being Criminals and that Sin must not be lookt on as a Debt the folly of all which hath been made sufficiently manifest Arg. 8. If the Personal guilt of Sin was taken away by Jesus Christ then Christ must bear Personal Guilt But the Guilt of Personal Sins was taken away by Christ as appears by 1 John 3.5 Heb. 9.26 He took away Sin by the Sacrifice of himself Sin cannot be said to be taken away if it be not taken away in the Personal Guilt The Major appears from the Type of the Scape-Goat Levit. 16. Arg. 9. Where there 's no Condemnation there Personal Guilt is taken away nor nothing to be laid to the Charge of a Person but there 's no Condemnation i. e. Reason of Condemnation in the Eye of the Law in a Believer Rom. 8. for there 's no Reason of Condemnation but Guilt of Sin and none takes off the reason of our Charge of Fault to Law Condemnation but Christ by bearing Sin unto Punishment and Satisfaction Rom. 8.33 34. For where there is the Personal Guilt of Sin there 's Condemnation Now this Freedom from Condemnation was fully obtain'd and procured by Christ's Sacrifice but the purchased Right is not received and possessed till Application till then a Sinner is shut up and imprisoned under the Law as to State and Conscience but when he is in Christ Jesus by Faith he is fully instated in the purchased Possession Arg. 10. If Christ's Punishment was without his bearing of our Personal Guilt there was no change of Persons between Christ and us according to 2 Cor. 5.21 for as we were so we remain to be guilty Sinners and so long as we are so we cannot be righteous we can't be made the Righteousness of God in Christ so long as we remain guilty Sinners in our selves Arg. 11. Where Personal Guilt remains there 's no Acceptation with God for all our Acceptation either of Persons or Services is in Christ God professing he will not clear the Guilty Arg. 12. I might argue from all those places of Scripture that speak out this Truth fully and expresly which cannot have any rational Sense put upon them no less than three times in Isa 53. and 1 Pet. 2.24 who his own self bare our Sins in his Body on the Tree There 's no one Truth in the Scripture that is more fully and plainly recorded in the Old Testament and New The Spirit telling us of a Believer's Sin covered not imputed Psal 32. Rom. 4. Of our being made nigh to God and Christ being our Peace Eph. 2.13 14 15. Likewise Christ died the just for the unjust to bring us unto God 1 Pet. 3.18 But this is enough to confirm the weak and to convince Gainsayers and to lead all the Lovers of Truth into the Mind of the Spirit in this great Article of our Faith The Presbyterian Articles against the Dissenting Brethren Answered I Had thought when I began this Task to have passed over the first part altogether for tho' I found it a very false History yet I knowing from whose Hands the Bp. had it I did not think he was chargeable so much with the falshood as with an unjust unwariness and partiality to take up the Report of a Difference and to publish the History of it to the World from one Party only concerned therein I deem'd therefore enough to refer the Reader to the true History of the Union and Breach but upon the review of the said false Historical Account and finding a fresh Presentment brought in against the Dissenting Brethren from the late Union by the grand Rebuker under divers Articles for holding and publishing many poysonsome dangerous Heresies of so mischievous a Nature that he teacheth his tractable Reader a form of Prayer to use still before he reads them to wit that he may not suck in the Bane and Poyson thereof And finding the Bp. received the said Presentment very much like a Gentleman and sends forth his very Christian Summons for our Appearance to the high Charges in these Words The Accusation being now publick and the Nation is concern'd as to the Dishonour done to Religion thereby altho' I had seen the said Reproaches in the Presbyterians Hands and found they had brought the said Brethren under their Censure in their unrighteous way of proceeding without any hearing I thought more expedient to slight than answer their unreasonable Clamours being abundantly conscious of my own Innocency in those Matters my great Mistake was in mistaking them being at my Concurrence with them in the Union for which I have deeply repented but a meer Stranger to their Persons Ways and Actions And before I come to the particular Articles it 's necessary to premise a few things that now 1. I think it necessary for my self to appear to the Accusations and make publick Answer to them but do not undertake that all I say is the Sense of my Brethren in every Particular I suppose they may concur with me so far that some different Apprehensions will make no Breach in our mutual Love and Affections 2. I apprehend it very unreasonable as well as unchristian and ungenteel to charge those things for dangerous Errors upon a whole Party which are pretended to be taken from the Writings or Sayings of one or two only 3. It is very traducing and slanderous 1. Not to prove the Words charged for Error in the Sense they represent them on the Party that wrote or spake them but to make an Accusation at large and at random 2. That they publish these for Errors before they had disputed them with such as they charge and proved them so 4. Let me ask our angry Brethren a few Questions for my Information 1. Whether they think in their Consciences and in the sight of God they have dealt uprightly and sincerely with the Truth and with their Brethren in this Controversie 2. Whether it becomes the Saints to appear such publick bitter Accusers of their Brethren as appears by the foul-mouth'd Rebuker and others whoso have been employ'd and applauded in this dirty Service 3. Whether it be for the Honour of the Nonconformists thus to bewray their own Nests 4. Whether they think not in their Consciences that many things they charge for Errors are great Truths in some Sence or other Therefore is it not very unfair to charge in general and dubious terms without any
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.
nothing of the sinner's deserving that brought Christ's suffering for the sinners but the substitution of Christ for this end by the Father and himself tho' the sinner deserves punishment § 7. The second thing according to the B. implied in Legal guilt is obligation to undergo the deserved punishment but because the execution of punishment depends on the wisdom and justice of the Legislator therefore here a change of person may intervene A. It behoves us to be exact with the B. here because he acquaints us with a curiosity in this point of change of persons that of late men have so shittlecock'd it up and down that it 's hard to find what either side would have but what they both agreed in that they would not have it to be what Dr. Crisp said it was 1. What is the reason the B. distinguisheth the obligation to undergo the deserved punishment and execution of punishment Why saith he not execution of deserved punishment To me it seems to be a very smatch of Socinianism as if Christ did not undergo any deserved punishment but only a punishment without desert i. e. only suffering and not punishment in any proper sence 2. If obligation to undergo the deserved punishment be the guilt only transferred to Christ then it will follow it 's only the guilt of the law is charged on Christ not of the sinner and it 's plain the B. means so for he denies that the guilt of any person is charged on Christ 3. He saith this obligation to punishment is only in the law and its truth therefore he means that this law obligation falling on Christ is all the guilt that falls upon him and here may be no change of persons for tho' the law obligation may fall upon John and Thomas and John be never the better that it falls on Thomas because it falls not on Thomas for the sake of John But he saith that here a change of persons may intervene how between two persons to undergo punishments If so it must be under one and the same law not a change from being under one law to a being under another 2. It must be a change in respect of deserved punishment for punishment cannot be without desert it becomes not the wisdom and justice of God that it should be be so 3. If the change be in respect of deserved punishment we have gained as much as we expect for then the desert of the sinner which is of his fault and his guilt is translated to Christ because his punishment was deserved e. gr he bore the deserved punishment of sin of what or whom of the law nay the law never deserved punishment of any persons nay quoth the B. he bore no personal guilt then there is no change in respect of deserved punishment Christ suffer'd for us but was not punished for any he suffered no deserved punishment Hence no punishment at all for all just punishment is due § 8. He saith The execution of punishment depends on the wisdom and justice of the Legislator It is true therefore ought not the execution of punishment answer the obligation to it Is it wisdom and justice in God to oblige in his law to any punishment not deserved And is it wisdom or justice in God to oblige in his law to deserved punishment and not to execute deserved punishments For if Christ's punishments were not deserved they were meer sufferings and if so no more to us than the suffering of a Martyr to us if deserved suffering then 1. According to some rule of justice 2. Deserved by himself or some others not by himself and his own individual person you will say therefore by some other Hence if Christ bore deserved punishments of others he bore the guilt of sin the Reatus culpae that being the formal desert of punishment the law making it so either of God or Man He saith By the wisdom and justice of God a mediator may be accepted in such a manner as himself hath determined and upon acceptance of his Sacrifice the offenders may be pardoned and received into grace and favour of God on such terms as he hath declared in the Gospel and in this sence is the guilt of sins charged on Christ c. A. It is much that these men can take upon themselves a power of directing God and telling him what he may do when God hath never said that he did or would do so the true Explanation of the B's sence in this paragraph is by the new-coin'd law but we will take him in his own terms And I say in God's execution of punishment it becomes the wisdom and justice of God to do it according to a promulgated law which the Legislator hath in his wisdom and justice made a manifest Norma Justitiae to shew forth his justice and that God may be justified as Judge of all the world to deal righteously and therefore not to accept of a Sinner or a Mediator for them upon other terms than is in his law express'd and not upon other secret and unknown terms 2. How may God accept of a Mediator Is it not in satisfying for the sinner in bearing the sinners deserved punishment and therein taking off the laws obligation of the Sinner to punishment God can't otherwise do in wisdom or justice 3. He makes God's acceptance of a sacrifice to be an antecedent of pardon only not a satisfying and meritorious reason thereof 4. How doth God accept Christ's sacrifice as a single noble act done by him wherein none is concern'd but himself or a qualifying act to God himself to make him able to pardon Or doth he accept his sacrifice for sinners deserving punishment under the law Taking their deserts and punishment upon himself then he is a mediatorial sacrifice otherwise if the guilt lyes upon persons unremoved he is neither a sacrifice for their sins nor accepted of God as such 5. Is it according to the justice of God to accept a sacrifice for sinners whose personal guilt he never took away thereby and pardon and receive them into favour upon other terms afterwards Sure then the mediator is not accepted till they have performed those conditions upon which their pardon and acceptance is laid § 9. In answer to the Reporter p. 8. he takes occasion to tell him that the Consideration of sins as debts is a wrong notion and gives up the point of Satisfaction to the Socinians If it do it doth but as the B. and his right Reverend Father Mr. B. hath done from whom he took up this divinity It seems the spirit of God did not so well consider of it as the B. hath done nor our master the Lord Jesus when he taught his disciples to pray so I know it sticks cruelly in the Neonom stomachs that our Lord Jesus was so rash and inconsiderate to make use of this word debt for sin but why doth this give away the cause to Socinians Because if sins be considered as debts
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
Righteousness is the pâ—r the formal cause by which we are justified This Distinction Mr. H. having taken up from Bellarmine makes very much of More of it anon § 5. Take one or two for all to avoid tediousness to the Reader Mr. H. in Medioc p. 42. Herein doth appear the ground of reconciliation between the Papists and us in this point the sum of what he saith is Provided they say that the works they plead for our righteousness be the works of the new law and not of the old we are agreed and then tells us That Gods judging a man to have performed the condition of the Covenant i. e. the New Law is the accounting and declaring him righteous That righteousness which makes a man righteous and denominates him righteous is that righteousness which does make God account him righteous and that is the righteousness which he doth Note it for it is express and this he saith is not the righteousness of the law of works but of the law of grace which he saith is a righteousness which he doth but not work in doing which is pretty absurd that a man should do works of righteousness and not work but the meaning is he doth not work perfect works I will not wrong him But do not those that work imperfect works work Yea saith he they that do absolutely sinful works are called workers of iniquity A little after he tells us Christ's Redemption was to bring in a New Law for when Man fell it was impossible he should be righteous any more unless there were a new Law brought in by performance whereof he might attain to that again which he lost now this was the main business of Christ's Redemption the procuring a new law or another law with lower Terms which some men performing they do thereby become righteous and so have righteousness according to that Law imputed to them for Remission and life eternal And thus you see what everlasting righteousness Christ brought in Dan. 9. and in his Piece Of Righteousness which comes forth with Episco Approbation p. 3. It is true against the Papists there is no such righteousness inherent as to render God appeased with the sinner or that the Conscience can rest on it then it is good for nothing as that propter quod he is forgiven or saved by his favour Bellarmine doth not say it is but that Christ's righteousness is the propter quam Therefore the Papists and they are agreed in this sence It is true also against the common Protestant therefore the Neonomians are not Protestants unless such as have causa formalis of Papists that there is not any righteousness without us that can be made ours so as we should be accounted righteous in another's righteousness or be that thing per quod we are justified there is no such matter in reality but in notion only This righteousness as imperfect as it is wrought by the Spirit is that and must be that which is the form per quam he is accepted and justified we grant the righteousness of Christ is the meritorious cause per quam we are pardoned and saved § 6. About the New Law there 's little difference between the Papists and Neonomians tho the Papiste are on the surer side of the Notion Mr. Fox Mart. about the difference between Ancient Rome and present p. 34. tells us The Church of Rome teach the People that there 's no difference between Moses and Christ save only that Moses was the giver of the old law but Christ the giver of a new and more perfect law And it s most rational that the new law should be a more perfect law and not a law of imperfection we do not mend perfect things and if there be any reason for particular ends it s with those things that more perfectly answer those ends and therefore their remedying law ought to be perfecter and most compleat § 7. Next a-kin to these men are the Quakers in their most refined Doctrine put out in the name of Barclay but I heard Mr. Keath that was a Neonomian Quaker say Barclay's Book was chiefly his work Works are necessary to Justification as well as Faith James 2. both equally required to Justification works of the Law are excluded as done by us Tit. 3.5 6 7. this is Mr. H. just To be justified by Grace is to be justified or saved by Regeneration which cannot exclude Works wrought by Grace and by the Spirit 1 Cor. 6.11 The law gives not power to obey and so falls short of Justification but there 's power under the Gospel by which the Law comes to be fulfilled inwardly Rom. 8.3 4. Works are the Condition upon which Life is proposed under the New Covenant Tho we place Remission of Sins in the Righteousness and Obedience of Christ performed in the Flesh as to what pertains to the remote procuring cause and that we hold our selves formally justified by Christ formed and brought forth in us yet can we not as some Protestants have done unwarily exclude works from Justification for tho properly we are not justified for them yet are we justified in them c. § 8. The Socinians say No other Imputation is in our eternal Salvation than that whoever sincerely obeys the Commands of Christ is from them accounted of God righteous Socin de serv When God is said to impute Faith for Righteousness the meaning is that God hath so great a value for Faith that he esteems it for a Righteousness to Justification Crel on Gal. 3.6 And Mr. B. saith I abhor the Opinion that Christ's righteousness given us is all without us Preface to Doct. of Chr. p. 3. but more of this in what follows § 9. The Arminians bring up the Rear and I shall name the Man from whom I can prove Mr. B. hath taken up most of his corrupt Notions about General Redemption and Justification and its J. G. The Question in precise Terms is this Whether the Faith of him that truly believes in Christ or whether the righteousness of Christ himself be that which God imputes to a Believer for righteousness or unto Righteousness in his Justification J. G. of Justification p. 7. he concludes it is faith As a Merchant that grows rich by such a Commodity i. e. he grew rich by the Gain and Return he made of that Commodity So we may be said to be justified by the righteousness of Christ and yet not have the righteousness it self upon us by Imputation or otherwise but only a righteousness procured or purchased by it really and essentially differing from it p. 12. This Righteousness of Christ is not that that is imputed unto any man for righteousness but is that for which righteousness is imputed to every man that believeth Paul neither eat his Fingers nor spun out the flesh of his hands into cloathing and yet was both fed and cloathed with them Here 's the true sense of being justified by the effects of Christ's Righteousness So may a
Justification must be before any person can receive it the Assembly do most accurately tell us what Justification by faith is We say not that no man that says he believes not his Justification is not justified nor every one that says he believes it is justified but we say That every one that believes truly is justified and every one that 's justified shall believe God's Justification of a Sinner is his Juridical Sentence concerning his Eternal State and Condition which admits not of majus and minus in God but admits of different times of application and of degrees of manifestation it finds nothing in the creature nor makes any change but relative wherein God is first in relation justifying and applying that Grace to us and therefore we are wholly passive till by vertue of Union with Christ by the Spirit the Spirit of Life raising us from the dead we are enabled to believe whereby we make a sensible re-application of the Grace of Justification to our selves and being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ But more of this infra § 8. The Judge of all the World must judge righteously i. e. according to his righteous Law for as that is norma officii to us so it is of judicii to him now here is the Mystery How God can justifie a sinner according to most perfect law and do it freely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. H. in his Medio p. 5. hath this Quaery The Gospel requires Faith Repentance new Obedience how then are we justified and saved by Grace how is it free when it is not vouchsafed but upon condition This difficulty hath made some run into the Extream that the Covenant of Grace is without conditions Resp It is such an extream Argument against the Neonomian Doctrine that all their Skill and Sophistry neither hath nor can answer and the Argument stands thus If nothing doth essentially distinguish a Covenant of Works from a Covenant of Grace but the Conditionality of it then a Covenant of Grace must have no Condition and whatever Covenant hath a Condition is a Covenant of Works but there 's nothing can distinguish because the Antecedent is true therefore the Consequence There can be nothing in sense to invalidate either Proposition for the distinguishing formal difference between the one Covenant and the other must be Condition and no Condition where the true Opposition lieth for the promise of both Covenants are life therefore the special and formal difference lieth in conditionality none now to say it lies in the nature of the condition will appear most absurd 1. If it be the littleness of the Condition makes a Covenant of Grace this I deny for the promulgated Covenant of Works was laid upon the least condition imaginable the forbearing to eat in Apple but let us hear what Mr. H. will say to make a Covenant of Works a Covenant of Grace p. 5. I say readily the Grace of God and of the Gospel is free and therefore not conditional well but how wherein is the freedom In that it accepts of the sinners Faith and Repentance when he needs not or when according to the law he was not tied to it Resp Was the Man awake or asleep when he said this he says its free because God accepts of his Faith and Repentance that 's the same freedom whereby I may be said to give a Man a Horse when I accept of Money which he was to pay me for it Is not a Covenant a Bargain Was it not so to Adam Was it possible he should say he need not accept it What doth he make of his New-Law-Covenant need not God keep it where was God's Faithfulness and Truth when he made that Covenant doth not that bind him to accept our Faith and Obedience as the Condition According to the law he is not tied Why will an honest Man speak so equivocally to justifie a cause his Conscience tells him or ought to do that it is nought he says according to the law I pray what law the Old or New Doth he not say that Faith and Repentance is the Condition of the New Law and is not God bound to accept of them by that Law Oh but he is not bound to accept of them by the old law It is just as if a Man brings the Money that I sold such a Commodity for and I tell him I will not take the Money unless he will confess I gave him it freely no saith he I make a tender of the Money with which I bought it I will neverly for the Bargain and say you gave it me when I bought it to which I reply I am not bound by law to accept the Money What law the law that the King and Parliament made for the Pole-Tax H. Unless Man's Obedience were perfect but he is bound by the new law to accept imperfect Obedience H. our Divines say usually because it s not of merit but this labours with some defect of light if man had performed the condition of the covenant of Works it might have bin said upon this reason that Life and Salvation had bin still of Grace and Free as not merited while these considerations hinder merit How might Man's Obedience in the Covenant of Works be said to be of Free Grace because his were not proportionable to the reward no more are good Angels works to this day there was Grace in making the Covenant on easie Terms but when the Covenant is made the Reward is merited ex pacto by the performed Conditions Hence the Apostle's reasoning remains unshaked they that are justified of debt are not of grace § 9. Mr. Humphry makes a fearful bungling about this business and lends us for our help a distinction about merit and saith There is a debt or merit of Commutative Justice and of distributive it is impossible that any should engage the Almighty in the former Resp But the Almighty may engage himself in it to the creature may there not be place for commutative Justice between a superiour and inferiouur between a King and People all obligatory Covenants upon terms of mutual performances are primarily fulfilled in a way of commutative Justice distributive Justice comes in for redress in case of non-performance of mutual agreements or upon complaint thereof Of the latter i. e. distributive Justice there is a merit or debt upon compact or strict retaliation it is true that there is nothing Man does or can do in the state of innocency could merit upon strict retaliation Resp I suppose he means by his term of strict retaliation rewarding just so much as the value of the work more i. e. to reward man just as much as the value of not eating an Apple but the reward promised was infinitely more and it was promised upon so small a Condition therefore upon the performance of the condition the reward as great as it was would have become due ex pacto and hence a true debt But
makes much use of it in his Vniversal Redemption the Story is this They feign that God finding the inconvenience of the law of works by reason of the Fall his Son satisfied not the law broken but compounded with God as Lord above Law that this law should be relapsed saith Mr. H. Mr. B. saith that it might be abrogated which is more rational tho it is more downright Antinomianism which scares Mr. H. Christ accordingly dies to purchase a New Law with condition of imperfect obedience instead of the perfect the propounding or promulgating this New Law to all the world is universal remission it being the offer of Remission on the condition of imperfect obedience to all the World in this sence all the world they say is redeemed justified and forgiven before they perform that condition Now if any others besides Neonomians should talk at this rate they would be in danger of being taken up and sent to Bethlem for Madmen As if a Company suppose the E. India set up their Bills for a Sale at a certain time after prefixt with the respective Prizes if one or all should run about the City before the day of Sale prefixt and say they had sold their Goods at such and such Prizes all men will call them Liars or Madmen So because God proffers eternal life upon performance of a condition therefore all men are redeemed justified and forgiven i. e. say they conditionally and that 's not at all till they perform the condition but Neonomians may talk non-sence and contradict by the New Law yea and assert Justification before Faith while they call others Antinomians who do it when they are the greatest Antinomians themselves in the World Now the noise that they make about the Merit and Purchase of Christ it s no more than his purchasing the New Law of Works and they are justified by the performing the condition of the new law for the sake of Christ's Merits its only because as Mr. H. tells us that Christ by his Merits was an efficient of the New Law so that generally in all they talk of Christ's Satisfaction and Merits there 's some cheat or Amphibology Mr. H. indeed speaks out most honestly in as good as telling us that Neonomians are Papists in the Point of Justification But to proceed § 3. When Divines say we can do nothing our selves for procuring reconciliation and remission it is to be understood of conditional universal remission Resp What Divines understand so they are not the Protestants it s only the Neonomians who are no Protestants in the Point of Justification These Divines understand only that we cannot purchase the conditional universal Remission the Purchase of that it seems was peculiar to Christ but as for particular Remission these men purchase and Reconciliation too Christ purchased that we might purchase and tho he purchased the new law and promulgation of it yet he purchased not the performance of the Condition for such hard terms they will keep Christ too that he may not entrench on their Dignity § 4. Conditional Pardon is antecedent to a mans Justification and contained in our redemption in whom we have redemption through his blood the forgiveness of sins Resp Conditional Pardon is none it s no more than the offer of a Bargain to any that will come to the Terms As if I should offer to Lett my House for so much Money by a Bill over the Door and then say I have Lett my House to all the men in London And its strange that all men should be pardoned and redeemed and not justified but I think R. B. saith they are justified and I am sure they may be as well justified as pardoned However he owns Pardon in Redemption and this antecedent to Faith sure then Justification which with us is inseparable from Faith is not Antinomianism And is it possible any Divine should abuse the Scripture so as to wrest it to such a sense that the Apostle should by Remission there mean such as is contained in universal Redemption Col. 1.14 whereas the Apostle speaks of Redemption in particular application for the words preceeding v. 13. are who hath delivered us from the power of darkness and hath translated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son verse 14. In whom we have redemption § 5. Actual Remission is subsequent to Justification for we must be supposed first to have performed the condition and be pronounced righteous and then pardoned when there is no remission then but doth go before or follow Justification it cannot be made the very act it self of Justification Resp Let us try a little for it 1. He saith actual remission is subsequent to Justification now we are come into Mr. Cl's road he seems not to be so well acquainted with the Mystery of the antecedent remission and it s so indeed for it seems it is but potential remission it s not actual nay it s a contingent potentia there is pardon and none pardoned the meaning is that the New Law made all the world pardonable upon a contingent condition 2. We find a pretty odd invention here 's Justification beset with Remission before and behind and yet no Remission in it a man pardoned and not justified and then justified and not pardoned and truly if this subsequent Pardon be no better than the antecedent the Neonomian Justification is destitute of Pardon before and behind too I wonder all Protestant Divines do not nauseate such Whims as these 3. But is it possible that he should say that pardon cannot be made the act of Justification surely these forget what they are talking of is it not conditional Pardon the New Law promiseth how can there be Justification by the New Law of him that performs the condition but by pardon in the act of Justification for if the New Law saith believe and thou shalt be pardoned the new law when it justifies the Believer must pardon him and now we have help at a dead lift just now it was that tho our new law could justifie yet it could not pardon but we are fain to go to the old Law Bar to fetch a Pardon and trouble Christ about it too but we have found now that the new law can pardon for if it pardon all the World conditionally it can pardon particular persons actually when they perform the conditions CHAP. VII The Neonomian Doctrine of Iustification Examined Section 1. Mr. H's Definition of Justification § 2. Imperfect Obedience not to be accepted by God to Justification § 3. Justification not without Life § 4. Of the Form of Justification 5. What is the account of Christ's righteousness § 6. Christ's Merits put to account are imputed § 7. Distinction between Pardon and bearing with our defects § 8. A Pardon general becomes absolute § 9. Justification by Infusion and by Imputation distinguished § 10. Of Justifying the Vngodly § 11. Whether Old Law Righteousness or New be best § 12. Mr. H's Mystery which he saith
passively taken this we deny and for Justification is active but the justified is the passive where Justification it self is the form Again we deny that our righteousness is the formalis ratio of Justification Remission indeed belongs to the form it self but the formalis ratio of Justification is external to the form and therefore to be considered apart from it This only by the way § 5. I add at last upon the account of Christs Merits or through Christ or for Christs sake because this faith of ours or Evangelick Righteousness hath so many defects in the best Christians that if thro the sacrifice of Christ they were not pardoned and through his Merits those imperfect duties which are done accepted it could not be imputed to us for Righteousness Resp Christ is beholden to him to bring him at last tho but at the fagg end of Justification But how comes Justification to be at last upon the account of Christ for we are formally justified upon the account of our own righteousness i. e. perfectly so for what is formally existent is perfectly so and that by our own righteousness i. e. upon the account of it for the effect quod è causis existit is such upon the account of all the causes but especially upon account of the form now he that is formally thus justified must be upon all accounts justified and needs nothing to be added to it Why then upon the account of Christ's Merits why because Christ purchased a law of righteousness which could not justifie perfectly but leaves the person justified in a need of further righteousness for Justification if the Merits and Sacrifice of Christ must come in upon the account of which a man is justified then he is not justified before and Christ's righteousness is the justifying righteousness only for our own leaves us unjustified by Mr. H's own confession i. e. it leaves us in such a case that no man of sense can say we are justified for by his own words the righteousness of the new law is not cannot be imputed to us for righteousness unless it be pardoned and accepted in Jesus Christ and therefore this law cannot justifie any one upon his inherent righteousness for its most absurd to say it can justifie when it cannot impute its own righteousness by reason of the defects thereof § 6. I find Mr. H. is at a great loss in establishing his Notion upon a right bottom he seems to suspect that Christ may come off a loser by it and he will most fearfully I do more especially signifie thereby that Christs righteousness which cannot be imputed to us as a formal cause of our Justification is and must be very carefully brought to our account and granted to be imputed and the meritorious cause of our acceptation Resp I am glad to see this saying wherein he hath overthrown his own Doctrine tho uttered in a great contradiction for he saith Christ's cannot be imputed and then it must be imputed but why cannot it in the first place That which is put to our account in Justification whether as to the part or to the whole of our righteousness is imputed but according to Mr. H. the Merits of Christ's is put to our account and therefore the Merits of Christ to speak more distinctly thus put to our account are the materialis formalis ratio of our Justification for if the merits of Christ be put to our account in Justification it s but trifling to say it s only the effects if one man pay for another in part or whole it s the money it self paid that is put to his account and therefore imputed to him in Court and indeed he ingeniously confesseth he learned of Mr. B. to mend his Notion and allowed Christ's Merit to be the material cause of our Justification but that which he amends with one hand he spoils with another and thereby runs into grosser logical Absurdities saying Because I make our faith the formal in Justification Resp Very good The matter is in one subject in Christ and the form in us another Causa per qua res est id quod est is in us ex qua in Christ in a legal act Christ's righteousness is but generical matter which is as much for all the world as a Believer but the formal part the proprium differentia is in the subject Man this in law is always the meritorious part Money in general turns no Cause there but it s the Propriety that this or that man hath that doth it now it s not Christ's righteousness in special that doth the business but righteousness in general that Christ hath brought in as a material part but its mans righteousness in special that is the principal essential cause according to Mr. H. § 7. After this I distinguish between this pardoning and bearing with the defects of our Faith Repentance and new Obedience which are the condition of the Gospel Covenant and so our Gospel Righteousness or that which is Imputed for Righteousness and that General or Total Pardon c. Resp If Justification be upon performing these as a law condition what need all this talk about bearing with our defects If the Gospel Covenant run in these Terms he that doth what he can shall live therefore Man doing what he can leaves no room for bearing with defects he fulfils the Law in doing what he can Again if this be imputed to us for righteousness by the law and we discharged and declared righteous thereon it is enough Where also observe what imputation the Neonomians owns its imputation of our own righteousness to our selves And such a righteousness as is none because imperfect and sinful but yet imputed for righteousness to us as if it were perfect what 's the reason then that it s found defective after imputation if imperfect by imputation comes in the room and doth as well as perfect Nay what 's the reason that this righteousness that is such a paultrey one which can do nothing by their own concession in Justification without Christs must have the honour of being imputed to us but Christ must not cannot be imputed and why I pray Because tho' its acknowledged to be perfect and compleatest righteousness yet it may not be imputed to us for ours because performed by Christ and not by us I pray let me ask whether it would not more comport with the honour of God the nature of a Gospel and common Reason to impute legally to a delinquent the payment of another which is perfect full and compleat then to impute to him the payment of his whole debt for 10 per Cent. or 6 d. or 4 d. Nay after this acceptance how honourable would it be to the Court to sue to the King for the pardon of the Prisoner for paying so little § 8. But let us come to the other part of the distinction And that general and total Pardon which the Covenant promises and becomes Absolute upon performing
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
because Christs Obedience is said to be per quam when it is intended thereby to be the very righteousnes unto Justification ergo per quam and propter quam are of the same import in a juridical sence but that which our Nâ—onomâ—ans and Papists aim at is an immediate and mediare righteousness that we are justified by one as immediate for the sake of Christ's the mediate § 3. The Papists by this distinction would make way for a double righteousness in our Justification for the Council of Trent doth anathematize those that say a man is justified only by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ or only by remission of sins without inherent Grace and Charity To this purpose our Neonomian Mr. Cl. p. 35. That the merit of Christ's Death and Sufferings he excluding his active obedience hath purchased this priviledge for us among others that sincere faith should be accounted for righteousness and that God will account us righteous if we be possest thereof Resp In both these we see Christ's righteousness is made the propter quam and our own the per quam Christ's the meritorious of our Justification by our own righteousness whereby the ascribing any essential causality to Christ's righteousness is out of doors For 1. The Justification by our own ' is entire in all essential causes without Christ's for our righteousness imputed must be the material as well as the formal part of our Justification 2. It must be first imputed and we justified by it for they make not only the Condition but the Imputation thereof and Justification thereby ' to be conditional of our pardon and acceptance by Christ's Righteousness 3. The very righteousness of our own is imputed not Christs Righteousness at all only the effects cause and effects are opposita therefore if the effects only then not the righteousness it self 4. To say that Christ purchased Justification by our own righteousness is but to make Christ such a remote cause of Justification as Election is Now to talk that the condition by which we are justified is a formal cause and yet to be no cause is non-sence for a formal cause altho it be sine qua non and so is every cause yet the four immediate causes are not only so and this distinguisheth them as propter immediate causes whose vis caters the effect when causa sine qua non as to the effect is only antecedent or causa causae and enters not the effect spoken of But Mr. H. saith it s a cause as well as a condition it is both if we made our works to justifie us sub genere causae efficientis procatarct and so the meritorious cause it were to bring our works into the office of Christ's Righteousness and derogate from Grace Resp So they do notwithstanding all they say for if they thrust out Christ's Righteousness from any essential part of our Justification as they do not allowing it materiality or formality therein they put our own Works into Christ's Office and nothing can be more derogatory to the Grace of God they say they make it medus efficientis causa procatarchtica an external motive to the efficient the effect then in that respect falls on the efficient but the effect of the efficient is another thing Supposing God justifies as Judge Christ's Righteousness by way of Merit falls upon him and procures of him that he takes our righteousness in payment We may use this Similitude a Man is prosecuted before a Judge for an hundred Pounds a Friend of the Defendant tampers with the Jury and Judge and procures of them that the Debtor pay but 10 l. I pray whether is he justified by paying the 10 l. in Court or by that which the Judge and Jury received which is not brought in Plea at all so that all meritorious righteousness is brought in Plea coram Judice and accordingly being imputed or not Judgment passeth The Righteousness of Christ whatever it may purchase out of the Court of the New Law it s not allowed there as a Plea and is never nay cannot be imputed these men say though pleaded therefore no Justification thereby for no man is justified legally but by what is imputed § 4. But when we make it the formal cause only of our passive Justification we do nothing thereby but advance God's Grace and Christ's Merits as having obtained for us not only that God should require of us no othâ—r condition but our Faith or inchoate Righteousness unto life but also that he should corstitute by his New Law this condition performed to be our righteousness in the room of that perfect one required of the old p. 47. of right Resp Note 1. They do something besides advancing the Grace of God because it makes Justification due to us upon Debt for he that hath a formal right-ousness of his own legally imputed to him he may demand Justification as due to him by the law it self and this is not to advance Grace but contrary if the Apostle speak sence Rom. 4. 2. It is not an advance of Christ's Merits for it casts it out of Imputation and Justification and makes it but a causa sine quanon it casts them out of the essential causes and it makes them but an adjuvant cause or con-cause a co-ordinate according to Mr. H. it makes not Christ's Merits the only righteousness it makes our own righteousness the inchoate and foundation righteousness the Corner Stone of our Justification and whereas the Scriptures make Christ's it makes Christ's Righteousness but to belong to another law whereby they say we are not justified and our own to that which justifies and the only justifying righteousness of the new law it makes Christ's Righteousness and our Pardon by it to be a consequent of Justification by our own and that without imputation thereof extra-judicial but our own very righteousness to be imputed to us it makes that righteousness within its self and own nature saith Mr. H. again and again to be righteousness legal for our Justification and rejects Christ's perfect Righteousness as to Imputation and Justification which is contrary to the Holiness and Justice of God 3. He makes the Grace of God to consist in constituting a Law for Justification which is but part of distributive Justice the exercise of a Legislative Power and not of Grace to Sinners 4. The constitution of this inchoste righteousness is harder terms than the constitution of the righteousness of the Covenant of Works for Reasons before given 5. We see what their meaning is of Christ's Merits its only that he purchased a new Law and we see what is the Neonomian Commutation that they have of late made such a stir about they are for a Commutation what 's that its a commutation of our righteousness i. e. bringing into the room of the righteousness of the law i. e. Christ's in Justification they deny it in Dr. C's sence i. e. that our sins were imputed to Christ and his
Righteousness to us for they expresly deny both the one and the other § 5. Mr. H. So as Adam if he had perfectly obeyed his obedience had been his formal righteousness in regard of the law Resp His Obedience had bin his material Righteousness and this imputed to Justification had bin his Righteousness clothed with the Form and End and unless we have a material and formal righteousness in regard to the same law we can never be justified So is this ours in regard to the Gospel Resp The Gospel is not a new Law neither doth it allow our own righteousness for any in our Justification and is therefore Gospel because it doth not He tells us both Protestant and Papist are both out in saying the Law is the rule of that Righteousness which both say is the formal reason of their Justification Resp It is the Neonomians are out and worse than the Papists in this Point in that they will bring any other rule of Righteousness for Justification the Law of Works is only norma officii judicii for Righteousness and Justification They are both out for the Papists speaks for inherent Grace and his Works so as he would have them meritorious and perfect pleading for Merit and Perfection but can never bring them to answer the law but must still pray forgive us our trespasses Resp The Papists are righter and more rational here than Neonomians if they differ from them in Merit they ought not and Mr. B. asserts it in his End of Controversies but whereever the performance of the condition of a law requires Justification by the law there is Merit and must be for such a Performer deserves and merits Justification and the remuneration thereof as much as Adam's standing and performing the condition of the Law of Works had merited Justification thereby Likewise as to Perfection they are right for that is a man's Perfection which the Law makes so and justifies a man by the Law matters not what other laws make perfect performance the Old Law is no rule to the New Law that 's a man's Perfection which the Law that justifies him saith is the performance of the condition Mr. H. quotes Mr. B. for saying the New Law acquits a man from non-performance of the condition and what need such an one pray for Pardon any more than they that say they are justified in Christ's Righteousness the great Cry they make against Justification in Christ's Righteousness what need such an one pray for Pardon for if their Justification in and by their own righteousness be not as perfect discharging from guilt by Pardon as ours is in Christ's Righteousness it s not worth a Fig we desire no such trifling Justifications § 6. The Protestants on the other side plead for Christ's righteousness which arswers the Rule but this being without us though it be upon the account thereof id propter quod or cujus merito we are justified the Papists say stiffly it can never be made formally ours so as to be propter quod we are justified â—â—d I must say the same for the Truth is Truth Resp Here you have Mr. H. plainly confessing himself a Papist in the Point of Justification and hence it s no wrong to him to say he is a Papist upon his own Confession and the truth is the truth He saith with the Papists that this being without us cannot oâ— imputed can nothing but what is personally done by us be Imputed to us I find no Proof that he makes any where that one man's righteousness cannot be imputed to another and here it is only because it is without us What is more common than Sureties to pay the Deâ—ts of insolvent Persons and that Christ made Payment and Satisfaction for Sinners is most plain from Scriptures though these men will deny that the Scripture saith any thing thereof which denial will be tried by us whether there is any weight in it There are two great Points to be cleared in this Controversie 1. Whether the Scripture excludes all inherent righteousness from the Justification of a Sinner before God 2. Whether the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to a Sinner for his Justification before God These Questions shall be maintained by us in the Affirmative God willing in their due place § 7. Whereas Mr. H. Prides himself exceedingly in the singularity of his Notion of our Righteousness being the formal cause of our Justification any one may see it in Cardinal Bellarmine and J. Goodwyn from both whom its easie to shew how the Neonomians have taken up their Doctrine as for the Notion it self it labours under many weaknesses 1. That Righteousness in it self is not the formal but the material reason of Justification that which induceth the form is a legal Imputation for if a man be never so innocent and righteous if the Court do not impute him so he shall not be justified and if a man be never so unrighteous if the Court impute righteousness to him he shall be justified so it s here Imputation is the legal form of Justification and righteousness is but the material only 2. He makes a formal reason without material for if our own righteousness be the formal reason where 's the material he will not make Christ's Merits the material for he brings in them sub genere causae efficientis besides he cannot for it would be very absurd to place the matter in one subject and the form in another therefore his formal reason is immaterial and it s indeed but an imagenary Chymaera both his New Law and his Formal Righteousness 3. Our Righteousness if it be the formal reason of our Justification it s such as per quam homo justus est and that is in law always propter quod for no law justifies any one but because he is righteous his righteousness must constitute him just and the law esteeming him so he is justified as legally meritorious thereof the noise Mr. B. J. G. and others make of the distinction between constitutive and declarative Justification is Popish and hath nothing in it constitutive Justification is no more than Imputation it is that which in law constitutes any one just and meritorious of declarative Justification § 8. Mr. H. makes a distinction of Justification that its active and passive whereas Justification is but one and it doth not constitute properly a physical effect but a legal relation it doth neither find nor make any sinner inherently righteous for Justification of a righteous person finds him inherently so this Justification we speak not of but Mr. H. will have a passive Justification upon this account because it finds the sinner righteous inherently he saith indeed the infusion of this preceeding righteousness is not his Justification according to the Papists but his Justification is for the righteousness which it finds infused and so it s the formal cause of Justification He might with much better reason say that Sanctification is double active sanctifying and passive
God give us this Righteousness What is freer than Gift and what makes a better propriety than Free Gift Is not Gods Judgment according to Truth when he imputes that to us which he hath given It s the Gift of Righteousness Rom. 5. E. gr A poor debtor is sued in Court for an 100 l. and upon Trial he is found insolvent and Verdict is going to be given against him the Judge throws him a Bag of 100 l. in Court and bids him pay the debt shall not the Court impute this to him a lawful Payment and give him a discharge and is not the Judgment according to Truth on the other hand another hath the like Tryal but is found insolvent the Judge or some other gives him a Bag of Counters and bids him to pay his Creditor he refuseth the Money saith its Brass well saith the Judge we will impute it to him for a lawful tender and good Payment we will make that which is no righteousness by our imputation to be a legal righteousness so the Creditor may take the Bags of Counters and go shake his Ears we call it good Money now I appeal to these Men whether this be a Judgment according to Truth And let them weigh it well and make application thereof and if they can't make a rational reply let them lay their Hands on their Mouth and hold their peace for ever hereafter § 3. A second great Argument taken from Mr. B. is That if it be so that Christs righteousness is imputed to us for Justification then should the Elect be immediately freed from punishment and immediately justified before they believed and repented for no Terms could be Imposed on them in order to their Justification and Glory if they be accounted already to have fulfilled the Law of Christ And this is one as he saith of the Antinomian consequences Resp Let it be so we say then First If it be an Antinomian consequence what is the reason Mr. B. and Mr. H. are such Antinomians to say all the World are pardoned before Faith and Repentance yea whether they believe or no Why doth Mr. B. assert two Justifications before Faith 2. We reckon it no Antinomianism to say that Election perfectly freed the Elect from coming under the execution of the Vindictive Wrath of God and Curse of the Law Why else should the Scripture say who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect and whereas it may be said before Conversion the Law will charge for they are under the Law it s replied its Christ that died yea rather is risen having fully satisfied the Law of God that they shall not fall under the Execution of the Curse of it and they are secured before God both by Election and Redemption or else Christ died and rose again in vain and as they have this security so they have an immediate right in Christ to the Life of Grace and Glory They want the application and the receiving of this righteousness and a possession thereof which reception is by Faith that is not their own but purchased and given by Christ which was never purchased and given for their righteousness but as an Organ of Spiritual Life whereby a Man created in Christ Jesus may be sensible and have the comfort of what is freely given to him of God for by Faith a Man takes up the Peace which Christ hath made and hath access into the justifying Grace of God wherein he stands and therefore comes from under the Law in his own Conscience and rejoiceth in the hope of the glory of God 3. As for imposing of Terms its Idle to think that Christ should do what he did for Sinners in his Priestly Office their Justification and Salvation and then to impose an impossibility upon them without the performance of which all that he hath done should be nothing to them and do Men talk Sence when they talk of imposing Terms upon Sinners for Eternal Life the Terms should be put upon them to be performed before they have Spiritual Life in their meer natural Estate and then to make their notion to stand on its right bottom they must be Pelagians its Eternal Life that is begun in Justification applied to the Believer and his Person by the Spirit and it s received Vitally and Sensibly by Faith when the Sinner is made a live by the Sanctifying work of the Spirit his Life of Faith is part of the Eternal Life purchased Can any Terms of Life be imposed on a dead Man what Terms were imposed upon Lazarus if the roling away the Grave-Stone was the Term it was not imposed on him it was on them that stood about the Grave if they say God will give these Terms as they must say to save themselves from Pelagianism then the Term lies upon God and its Idle to say they are imposed upon incapable Subjects neither is that Imposed upon me as a Term that cannot be expected from me unless by the donation of another by any rational Man 4. The clause follows not according to Mr. H.'s Principles who saith Christ satisfied the Law tho I know what the Neonomians talk of they intend no true satisfaction did Christ satisfie the Law in what Sence they will Was it for himself or for us if for himself then he offended it this they will not say then for us if for us our Offence was taken of before God thereby God was in him by reason of his satisfaction not imputing our Trespasses how can it be otherwise but we must be accounted by God to have fulfilled the Law in Christ if Gods judgment be according to Truth and why may not this satisfaction be and our fulfilling in Christ be before we had a being in the World this was actually performed for the Saints before his coming long after most of them were dead why not for those that are to come before they have life and why may they not be called to a fellowship with Christ and participation of the righteousness of Christ in Satisfaction by Faith when the day of their Regeneration comes This is the dangerous Doctrine that these poor blind men are so afraid of § 4. There is another Argument of Mr. H's which he takes to be Herculean and admires and it looks as if it were out of his own Forge and he chargeth Mr. L. to hearken to it Animadv p. 67. There is nothing can be imputed to us but either that which we have not and then it is that we may have it that is to have it made ours or reputed as ours Resp There is nothing can be imputed to a Sinner for righteousness but that which he hath not first but is given so saith Mr. H. and here 's the difference he saith inherent Grace is given for righteousness we say the obedience of Christ is given for our righteousness which the Scripture saith now it is given that it may be imputed ours legally and it s imputed that we may be
their upright walking and no otherwise in the World Resp If Mr. H. means Men of the Orthodox complexion in his Eye Neonomian complexions I believe but few if any for ought I know but are of the Opinion Mr. B. hath declared himself and divers others of that Orthodoxy but if he means the true Protestant Calvinistical complexion there 's enough of them 2. I would know whether or no they did ever hear of a New Law and if they expected to be justified by their own righteousness or whether they thought of any other Law to be justified by than the Law of Works For there was not the least Word of any other Law before the Flood or after none can be pretended to be till Abrahams time at furthest 3. Whether there was one Word of a conditinal promise to Adam after the fall and whether he thinks not that Adam Abel Enock c. Were not saved by Faith in that absolute promise that the seed of the Woman c. who is the Messiah tho' not under the Name of Messiah till Ages afterwards did they not believe in his righteousness as that which should break the Serpents Heads i. e. all the power he had got over Man by the unrighteousness he had brought him into 4. If they did look upon themselves as righteous without the Obedience of the Messiah or by the Name which the Spirit of God reveal'd him to them why did they offer Sacrifice for Sin did they look at no Significancy or typicalness in them were they not taught of God so to do and did he not shew shew them that they were typical of the great Sacrifice the seed of the Woman should offer in the end of the World Was it not by Faith they offered them Heb. 11. And what was that Faith was it not in a righteousness for Noah believed in a righteousness and became heir of righteousness which is by Faith what was he Heir of his own Righteousness did they believe in themselves The Apostle 's design is not to prove that Faith is the Evidence of things not seen the Substance of those things hoped for that those worthys lived in Faith and Hope and dyed so not having received the promise in performance but saluted and embraced it by Faith 5. Had Job and his friends such Principles tho' not of the Jews Church chap. 19.27 I know that my Redeemer liveth was there no Faith in his Words is there no righteousness in a Redeemer and what were the Sentiments of his Friends in this Doctrine sure they were not Neonomians Job 25.4 How can Man be justified with God or how can he be clean that is born of a Woman Saith Bildad A Neonomian would have easily resolved this Question by performing of the conditions of the New-Law but alas they heard not of this New-Law this Nor-West passage to Heaven § 2. Let us consider Abraham whether he did imagine himself righteous by his doing righteously or looked to obtain favour of God thereby and no otherways and whether his Faith was not Eminently carried forth to the Eying of Christ in the promise Christ saith Abraham rejoiced to see my Day and saw it and was glad he saw it and saw it and rejoiced and was glad John 8.58 And where and how did he see it was it not in the promise of his Seed and what did he see in it was it not the blessedness promised Gen. 12. and the Salvation by Redemption and Righteousness did he see nothing in Christ for his own Soul yes you say he saw him as a Neonomian Cypher to stand by his Justification by his own Works to the magnifying his own righteousness but the Spirit of God saith he was not justified by Works how come Men to say he was James saith he was how by approving the Truth of his Faith for he was in a justifyed State long before the offering up his Son but his Faith was proved and approved of by God and witnessed to by this eminent Act of Obedience God testified to his particular Acts of Obedience which the World was ready to Condemn and so to Rabab so to Phineas his Act that whatever the World judged of these Actions yet they were approved of God as righteous and true Obedience Abel was an accepted person of God before his offering then because his person was justified God witnesseth to his gifts that they were accepted as being done in Faith whereas Cain was an unjustified person there 's no Sinner justified by his Works but a Believers Works are accepted because their persons are accepted in another righteousness in which their Works are accepted afterward Abel was first accepted and then his Service § 3. Now we are upon Abraham let us consider him a little further did he imagine himself righteous without the Obedience of Christ and no other way than by his own righteousness What do these Men make of the Gospel preached is it not the preaching of Christ for righteousness for Christ is made Righteousness to us 1 Cor. 1. The Gospel was preached to Abraham what was that The Apostle tells us Gal. 3.8 It was in the first promise whereby he was converted to God in Vr of the Chaldees Gen. 12. In thee shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed and that this contained in it that blessing of righteousness which is after more particularly Explained he was justified as the Heathen and believing Gentiles were to be justified afterwards and the Apostle saith these that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. of that kind of Justification are blessed with faithful Abraham ver 9. but such as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that expect justification from the Works of a Law are under a curse for the Law i. e. Justification by the works of the Law is not of justifying Faith their 's none under Abraham's blesssing expect Justification by the Works of the Law Indeed the Mystery was not so distinctly understood Eph. 3.5 Yet they were saved even as we Acts 15. And how are we Gentiles saved by becoming fellow Heirs of the same Body i. e. mystical and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel Eph. 3.6 The which participation the faithful before Christ was the Gospel had preached to Abraham § 4. The great cry is that Faith i. e. our working Faith our Faith and Obedience is our Subordinate Righteousness or co-ordinate or Supream which our Neonomians please for Justification because it is said Abrahams Faith was imputed to him for Righteousness i. e. say they his Gospel Works not Mosaical or not according to the Old Law but according to the New This assertion is most false for these reasons 1. There was no Mosaical Law in Abraham's days 2. There was no New Law exhibited to Abraham for their promise was absolute Gen. 12. And cannot be pretended to be conditional 3. It s not consistent with the nature of Faith which is the Evidence of something not seen or present but Works
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
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-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
that law which convicted all the world as guilty is the righteousness of Christ but such is the righteousness here spoken of as is apparent by the whole Text. 2. That righteousness which we have by faith in another to justification is the righteousness of Christ but this righteousness is that which we have by and in another for faith is said to act upon what is without us and not on that which is within us 3. That which is imputed to Sinners devoid of any righteousness by the law or by any law is the righteousness of Christ but this righteousness of God is so ergo the Propositions of these Syllogisms lies plainly proved in the Text. 4. If all righteousness be here peremptorily rejected which is performed by us in obedience to any law then the righteousness here introduced the righteousness of God is Christ's righteousness but the Antecedent is true v. 20. 5. If the righteousness of Christ is our justifying righteousness which the Apostle intends throughout this Discourse then God's righteousness is Christ's but ergo the Minor which is the Antecedent is proved The redemption and propitiation of Christ is the righteousness by which we are justified v. 24.6 That righteousness which the law of Moses witnesseth to being the reason and sign thereof is the righteousness of Christ as such For what did the sacrifices for sin but witness to Christ's great propitiatory sacrifice but the sacrifices of the law all held forth Christ offering himself a sacrifice for sin and the Gospel was therein preached Now it 's plain the Apostle brings in the law of Moses witnessing to this righteousness of God § 13. The next place is Rom. 10.3 The Jews had a zeal for God and a blind devotion but were extreme ignorant of Gospel-Mysteries being ignorant of the righteousness of God being ignorant of God ' righteousness in the law viz. the perfection thereof and going about to establish their own imperfect righteousness unto justification they submitted not to justification by God's righteousness being ignorant of Christ's righteousness for it 's expresly said to be the righteousness of God v. 4. Submitted not to the righteousness of God for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth Take the Argument then that Christ's righteousness is God's 1. That righteousness which is directly opposed to our own in justification is Christ's righteousness but God's righteousness here is so 2. That righteousness which a man being ignorant of tho' he know his own righteousness falls short of justification is Christ's righteousness but the righteousness of God in the Text is such ergo 3. That which is the end of the law for righteousness i.e. answers the law is the righteousness of God but Christ is the end of the law This Argument is so plain and fall in the Text that it cannot be answered with any fair pretence tho' they make a blundering at it to no purpose and you shall see the Apostle opposeth it v. 5. to the righteousness of the law consisting in doing and at once tells us the righteousness of God the righteousness of Christ and the righteousness of Faith is but one righteousness and opposed to the righteousness of the law which the Jews established thinking as our Neonomians do that it was sufficient to justification to have some imperfect sincere obedience to Moses's law For I bear them record saith the Apostle they have a zeal of God that 's their sincerity which was the new law for if they were saved by the law of Grace this was dispensed to them in Moses's law they knew not that God's law required perfect right and its perfect right must answer it Hence it appears that they had the same opinion that the Neonomians now have that Moses's law was a new law requiring only obedience to the moral part of it so far as they could and for their sins to offer sacrifice according to the ceremonial part and resting therein without faith in the Antitype they reckoned themselves fully righteous for justification Hence upon the annual day of atonement they reckoned themselves as innocent as Adam in his innocency i. e. as free from guilt propitiation being made till they had contracted more guilt Therefore the Apostle saith Heb. 10.1 That the law being a shadow of good things to come could never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year make the comers thereto perfect and the most carnal of them reckoned themselves perfected by those sacrifices but for a time Therefore it 's most absurd to assert that the carnal Jews whom the Apostle writes against did endeavour after a perfection of the law of works 1. Because they offered sacrifices and made atonement for sin 2. Because when they did make atonement they reckoned they contracted new guilt and were perfect but for a time Therefore the Apostle saith Rom. 9.30 31 32. they attained not to the righteousness of faith because they sought their righteousness as it were by the works of the law not directly by perfect obedience but by such as they had and not by faith in Christ's obedience for the Apostle is express in it for they stumbled at that stumbling stone which was Christ as the Apostle proves Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling stone c. 3. When they offered they confessed Sin § 14. Mr. H. gives his Explication of this place Rom. 10.4 thus For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness i. e. as I construe it Christ by his satisfaction hath procured that we should not he judged by the law of works and consequently that righteousness or justification be attained if we do perform the terms of the Gospel Resp Can Mr. H. be so irrational as to think in his Judgment and Conscience that this is a genuine Interpretation Here lies in the Text very fairly these two things 1. That the righteousness of God is explained by him particularly to be the righteousness of Christ have not submitted to i. e. accepted the righteousness of God What is that the righteousness of Christ for Christ is the righteousness that answers the righteousness of the law and this is the righteousness of God 2. The Design and great End of the Law was righteousness and perfect righteousness unto Justification of Man perfect cannot be performed by fallen man therefore God hath provided a perfect righteousness in Christ and he is this end of the law to every one that believeth and herein by justifying him by this righteousness God is just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus and it s the righteousness of faith because it s not for Justification by any thing that evacuates or relaxeth the law of God but establisheth it in seeking for and laying hold upon Justification by a righteousness that fully answers the law How will it hold in Mr. H's sence That Christ by his Satisfaction hath procured that we should not answer the law of works or that he should
plainly mean the exclusion of his own works then he must mean some righteousness of another and not his own as appears by this Psal 31. and also 51. Now we shall prove that David means the Righteousness of Christ and not of the New Law 1. That righteousness by which sin is forgiven is not New-Law righteousness but Christ's and without our works but the righteousness is such here The major is proved from the Neonomians themselves who say there 's no forgiveness in Justification by Works but forgiveness is consequent of it for that they go to the old Law Bar that the righteousness whereby sin is forgiven is the righteousness of Christ because it s expressed by blood remission is not without blood and forgiveness being one Medium by which the Apostle proves Justification without works 2. That righteousness which covers from the eye of God's Justice in the law is a righteousness without our works and anothers and no◠of the New Law but such is the righteousness here spoken of such as covers sin from the eye of God's Justice in the Law such covering David meant as appears Psal 51.9 Hide thy face from my sin and blot out all mine iniquity now it s such righteousness as will take off the Eye of Divine Justice from our sins yea cancel and blot out iniquity Now as to the major it appears by the Neonomian Doctrine that their righteousness in Justification doth not cover sin for they say it s a sinful righteousness and needs pardon therefore their righteousness cannot cover sin which is sinful in it self and there can be no righteousness but Christ's that can cover sin Mens own righteousnesses are far from being such covering 3. That righteousness through which God imputeth not sin to any chargeable therewith is a righteousness of another but this righteousness without works is such Ergo. The minor is plain by the Apostle for what the Apostle rehearseth from the Prophet is David's description of this righteousness without works The major is clear from what went before no man hath righteousness enough to cover his own sin Neither can God not impute sin where he sees sin to be more than righteousness God must impute Sin where Sin is seen uncovered by righteousness therefore if there be a righteousness through which God imputeth not sin its certain it s not ours but Christ's only 4. That Righteousness through which God imputeth not Sin is justifying Righteousness and Christs alone but the Apostle speaks of such a Righteousness Now the major is plain that Christ's Righteousness is that through which God imputes not sin for he saith Cor. 5.9 God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses § 4. And so likewise Phil. 3.9 is of the same import they have one answer for all This Place should have been handled in the former Chapter but Mr. Cl. missing it there led me out Here Mr. Cl. saith Paul disclaims only his legal righteousness which he had before Conversion not his Gospel Righteousness viz. his Repentance Faith Love Humility c. And it s the same thing Mr. H. saith Med. 31. and tells us the Protestants are mistaken in their interpretation 1. Because the righteousness of God is not the same with the righteousness of Christ as hath been observed R. That we have disproved and proved it a false Assertion and proved that the righteousness of God is the righteousness of Christ in all the forementioned places and is as easily proved here for the righteousness which he opposeth to his own righteousness indefinitely without any exception is Christs that I may be found in him in Christ not having mine own righteousness therefore in Christ is anothers which righteousness of mine own working is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 legal as all righteousness of our own by which we seek Justification is legal it cannot in any sence be called Evangelical therefore Paul would be found in Gospel righteousness which is Christs only and this is God's righteousness which we receive by believing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. You are to know that this righteousness which Paul calls his own in this Text is the righteousness of a Jew and Pharisee not his own as a Christian this appeareth from the Verses before v. 4. and this appears further from Rom. 10.1 2. R. The righteousness of a Jew or Pharisee was a new-law righteousness for they were all Neonomian Paul could not look upon himself as Perfect but as to his moral conversation comparatively blameless he was sincere for he had great zeal and verily thought he did God good Service in persecuting the Church But Mr. H. should have looked to the beginning of the Chapter where he bids them beware of absolutely prophane of evil workers that carry on mischievous Designs under fair Shews and lastly of the concision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that were so fond of their new-law Notions so as to cast off Christ or cut themselves off from him but we are of the true circumcision whereby all our fleshly Conceits are cut off and worship God in the Spirit rejoicing in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh a fleshly conceit of our own righteousness in which I had more ground to rejoice than any and accordingly he tells how exactly he had conformed to Mose's Law and performed the condition of it as much as any Pharisee of them all and had as much reason to expect Justification by this new imperfect righteousness as any that now do but Christ had now taught him better things what then I counted gain I now count loss for Christ I find I had nothing that advantaged while I was ignorant of Christ and therefore I find now that not only my Pharisaical righteousness was loss to me but any present self-righteousness even now at this time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do now esteem all things to be damage for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord c. and account them dung that I may gain Christ and he tells us what he means by that that I may be now found in him what in respect of holiness yea especially in respect of righteousness not having now my own righteousness viz. that of the works of the law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is legal for so all his righteousness that a man seeks Justification by is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is of a law but what is the righteousness he would be found in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that righteousness which I have by the faith of Christ the righteousness which is of God for such is that by faith the righteousness which God giveth and Christ hath in whom it is and I do receive by faith this whole verse treats of his Justification and the righteousness thereof and the following verses treat of the the Sanctification he looks after in Christ and v. 9. there it s certain that Paul opposeth the righteousness of Christ not only
as well the last as the first and it should have been rendred thus if there had been a Law given which could have given Life then Righteousness had been by a Law therefore this place is fully exclusive of justifying righteousness by a new Law and God never made such a Law The consequence is clear if all other Law righteousness but Christ's be excluded then Christ's righteousness is that alone by which a Sinner is Justified These Arguments are strong and enough to prove what we assert and against all the World if the Scripture and Reason enlightned thereby may take place The Scripture is so full of proof that these Sixteen might be made Sixty but brevity is call'd for by the circumstances that attend Printing CHAP. XVII Of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness Section 1. Christ's Righteousness is Imputed to us and Paul saith so § 2. Argument 1. § 3. Arg. 2. and 3. § 4. Arg. 4. § 5. Arg. 5. § 6. Arg. 6. § 7. Arg. 7. § 8. Arg. 8. § 9. Arg. 9. § 10. Arg. 10.11 Section 1. OUr Adversaries say they own the Imputation of Righteousness to Justification but they say it s there own not Christ's Now we shall prove that Christ's Righteousness is Imputed They say it s no where said that Christ's Righteousness is Imputed We say it is in all that is said by the Apostle Paul so plain that all but he that will shut his Eyes perversly must see it I shall but give brief hints of it 1. The Apostle Paul Rom. 4. speaking so often of Imputation gives us plainly to understand that he means no Imputation but of Christ's Righteousness to Justification for his Discourse in the 4th chap. is continued from ver 25. of the 3d to prove the Doctrine of Justification by the Propitiation Blood and Righteousness of Christ and shews how Faith honours this Righteousness and wrongs not the law by it but establisheth it In the 4th ch he goes on to exclude all Justification by any works and shews in Abraham and David they took Christ's Righteousness viz. that spoken ch 3.25 by Faith for their Imputed righteousness unto justification and remission and covering of them from the Eye of God's justice wherefore Christ is call'd our Propitiation in allusion to the Golden cover of the Ark that hid the Law and was the mercy seat now briefly to shew that by Imputation so often mention'd in this chap. he meant the Righteousness of Christ to our Justification he tells us ver 22. that what God had promised to Abraham viz. the Righteousness of Christ which he was fully by Faith perswaded of was Imputed to him for Righteousness now saith the Apostle it was not written for the sake of Abraham only but for us also to whom it shall be Imputed i. e. the Righteousness in the Promise if we believe on him that raised up the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead who was delivered for our offences and raised again for our Justification i. e. if we believe in God thro' the full perfect and compleat righteousness of Christ for our Righteousness could not have been full and compleat without his Resurrection and his Justification as a publick head of all the Elect who raised was Justified as having wrought out a full and compleat Justifying righteousness for them they are incouraged and invited to take it for their Righteousness by Faith and they might assure themselves of the Imputation thereof and proceeds in the next chap. to say that having taken this Imputed righteousness by Faith they are said to be justified by Faith and to have peace with God and access unto the grace of God thro the said righteousness § 2. Arg. 1. Now then I Argue if Christ in the promise be Imputed for Righteousness to Abraham and every believer and the Apostle saith so then the Imputation here spoken of is the Imputation of Christ's righteousness but the antecedent is true from Gal. 3.21 22. its plain that it was what God had promised to him was Imputed to him The consequence needs no proof for it was Christ was promised and he saw Christ's day in that promise and the Promise of Christ was the Gospel preached to him Again to prove the Apostle means the Righteousness of Christ is imputed If the delivery of Christ for our sins and raising him again for Justification was the Righteousness of Christ for Justification then this is that which was imputed not to Abraham for righteousness only but also to every Believer by the Text and therefore the minor is fully there proved and I think as to the major that none can deny the Life Death and Resurrection of Christ to be his compleat Righteousness § 3. Arg. 2. He that was made of God righteousness to us is made by imputation of his righteousness to us but Christ is made so of God 1 Cor. 1.30 but saith Mr. Cl. he is made righteousness as he is made Wisdom So Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption but it follows not only that he be made of great advantage to a Christian but these several ways that he is not one thing as the other he is not a Prophet as a Priest and if he should mean made righteousness in Mr. Cl's sence then he should be but made sanctification twice taken for Mr. Cl's justifying righteousness is but Sanctification it s he is made the Spring Head and Root of Sanctification and legally made righteousness to us Arg. 3. Again If we be made the righteousness of God in Christ where its plain this righteousness of God is in Christ then the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us but we are made the righteousness of God in him Ergo. the antecedent is proved by 2 Cor. 5.21 as to the major the Neonomians say the righteousness of God is our own righteousness We say nay the righteousness of God is said to be in Christ and we are made so by imputation for Christ could not be made Sin for us but by Imputation and if it is meant of a Sacrifice for Sin even such were made Sin by Imputation and therefore we are made the righteousness of God in Christ by Imputation § 4. Arg. 4. Again If Christ hath merited our Justification Christs Merits are imputed in themselves to Justification but Christ hath merited our Justification The minor is granted by these Gentlemen They tell us that Christs Merits are id propter quod we are justified for the sake or rather by reason of Christs Merits but they mean not that Christ purchased the Sinner's perform'd condition of the New law but that he procured of God a new law for man to perform the condition of Now this is no more to be the cause of Justification than God in making a Law was a cause of Sin for sin is not Imputed where there 's no law and where there is a Law there will be Justification or Condemnation Christ merited a Law and made one therefore for the sake of Christ we are
Justified by this Law here 's Christs law causa sine qua non with a Witness As to the consequence if Justification be an effect of Merits and it be a Juridical effect then Merits which is the cause must be imputed to the person on whom these effects must fall What moves the Court or Judge to justify this or that person his own Merits or the Merits of another Not his own but the Merits of another Then these Merits are imputed for it quickly and plainly appears what is imputed to any whether merits of Condemnation or merits of Justification for Justice goes by nothing but Merit and therefore mens own righteousness cannot justify-because it cannot Merit And do not our Neonomians speak as the Socinians in this point and mumble as if their mouths were full of plumbs Now therefore if Christs Merit be brought into Court as a meritorious cause of the Sinners Justification they are imputed to him for his Justification as if he had merited himself § Arg. 5. They say Christs Merits cannot be Imputed but the Effects are Imputed And I Argue If Christs Righteousness be Imputed its Imputed as a cause of Justification or in the Effect It should be as an Effect or the Disjunction is ridiculous but it s not Imputed in the Effect Ergo. In and as the Cause for the Effect is not the Cause but contrary it s another thing so that to say Christs Merits are imputed and so imputed to the person Justified is nonsense But what are the effects imputed All the Benefits purchased by Christ For is Justification an effect imputed Sure not Is Justification imputed to Justification Sure that 's most absur'd Is Mortification imputed to Justification That looks very odd Is Vocation and Adoption or Glorification all or any of them Imputed to Justification for they are Effects of Christs Merits But suppose they say some of these or all are to us imputed for righteousness unto Justification I then Query Whether the Righteousness perform'd by us in the new law Justification be merited by Christ as an Effect Do not I see them sneak away now and give no Answer but upon another Subject they will tell you that Faith and the condition of the New law was not purchased by Christ but are by the gift of Election only And now I pray what 's become of Justification by Effects of Christs Merits They will say we are Justified by Imputing the Spirits operations to us for righteousness Now this cannot be 1. The Spirit never was incarnate nor his Office to work a Righteousness for Justification this was peculiar to Christ 2. The fruits of the Spirit when they come to be exerted are called our works and justly so because Graces exercised or Duties performed by us are so these are all renounced as such by the Apostle Paul Phil. 3.8 and elsewhere 3. What the Spirit doth in Justification its office is by way of Application it takes of Christs and gives it to us it applies and brings home to a sinner the Impetration of Christ as Righteousness unto his Justification hence the Spirit is said to justifie 1 Cor. 6.11 in bringing to the Soul the Grace of Justification and enstating him therein by faith as he sanctifies by bringing in the Grace of Sanctification Now then if Christ's Righteousness cannot be imputed in the effect and is imputed at all then as the cause meritorious of Justification But they say God cannot impute Christs Righteousness to us because we did not perform it and God is a God of Truth he cannot impute that to us which we did not To which I answer 1. That God doth not reckon we performed Christs Righteousness 2. God may give us his Son for righteousness Rom. 8. and give us this righteousness Rom. 5.5 3. He may accept it for us on law terms as our righteousness to Justification and all this is according to Truth and Righteousness imputing it to us in a Law Sense 4. The Argument will fall upon Neonomian Justification for that 's to call that righteousness which is unrighteousness and not according to Truth as hath been shewed Mr. Cl. makes it a great Argument that the active righteousness of Christ must not be imputed because Christ did not obey that we should not obey and where 's the Antinomian that says so but we say that Christ did and suffered all that the law required of him as a Second Adam and our Surety and his obeying in doing is no hindrance but a Gospel ground and reason of our doing and obeying As Christ did not suffer that we should not suffer but not suffer the Penally so Christs doing was not that we should not obey Evangelically but that we should but not obey legally with expectation of our Justification by our works or from a law for that is to be under a Law and not under Grace and to sin instead of obeying Rom. 6 c. Lastly If Christ's righteousness be taken as a meritorious cause in a sinner's Justification it is imputed as such to the person justified the effect of this cause is the sinner's Justification which is his proper Discharge and this is not Imputation but Judgment upon it and Delivery in Law and suppose the effects of Merit could be imputed the cause and reason thereof must be first imputed for the Law doth nothing in way of Condemnation or Justification but upon a meritorious cause imputed unto Condemnation or Justification and how absurd is it to say Condemnation is imputed but its proper to say the sin that merits it is imputed § 6. Arg. 6. That Righteousness which is accepted in law unto Justification is imputed to the person justified but Christ's Merits are accepted of God to the Sinner's Justification The major must be owned for Truth by the Neonomians otherwise they could not assert their Justification by Works The minor hath been counted sound Divinity by most Protestants and many Papists but whether it be or be not the Scripture affirms it roundly see for a taste Eph. 5.2 chap. 1.6 for an acceptation in law must be an imputation of Merit to Justification and can be upon no other account either of a man 's own or of another's for him the law looks at the value of his Money or Works that he brings into Court not how he came by either whether by Gift or otherwise § 7. Arg. 7. That righteousness through which Sin is not imputed to condemnation is the righteousness through which a man is imputed righteous unto Justification But Christs righteousness is that through which sin is not imputed to condemnation Ergo. The minor is very clear from Rom. 8.1.34 who is he that condemneth it is Christ that died chap. 4.6 7 8 Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven to whom God doth not impute sin and this is told us is a righteousness without works that which comes on Jews and Gentiles that which covers Sin from the Eye of God's Justice therefore that which