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
the Promise the Lord Jesus Christ and his righteousness that he believed 2. The Scripture saith his faith worked by love therefore it was not a dead faith he was called the friend of God he was from the greatness of love he had to God ready to yield any obedience to God thence the Apostle denies not that he was justified by faith only as to his Person but that God declared and witnessed also to his obedience as approved of by him which in the sence the Apostle is speaking of was a Justification as to his Faith and the goodness of it in his particular acts of obedience v. 24. you see therefore that a man is justified by works a man may have an approbation of his works and a commendation from God for them and not of his faith only God may commend and approve of a mans works as well as his faith for indeed it is a Justification by way of commendation and approbation of a mans faith and works which the Apostle James here speaks of Likewise v. 25. Rahab the harlot was she not justified by works i. e. did she not approve her self to be a true Believer when she received the messengers and had sent them out another way The World would be apt to condemn this action of Rahab as treachery to her Native Country and therefore God justifies her in this particular action that it was good being done in faith God witnesseth to it in his Word and justifies her as a Believer in foro mundi by this eminent act of her v. 26. whence having given these instances he concludes as a body without a spirit is dead so is faith without works dead and that was the thing which he undertook to prove that faith i. e. supposed or professed is dead if it be fruitless hence he saith Believers have been justified to be so by God in giving Testimony to their works as true fruits of saving faith Wherefore we may conclude that James and Paul are agreed in all 1. That James speaks of faith in general a Profession of Christian Faith and that such Profession is empty and profitable to our selves and others as also dead in it self if it is not justified by good works so the Apostle Paul often speaks of saving faith and our Saviour Christ that we can have no better Argument of each others truth of faith than the fruit growing upon the tree this is without question to v. 19. 2. He proves it in that they were true Believers had a double Justification 1 By Faith only and here he concurs with Paul concerning his Justification before God v. 23. and yet he had such a faith as wrought by love for the Scripture calls him the friend of God 2. That there is a Justification of a Person as to a particular act as well as his Person and State and therefore the instance of Abraham's offering his Son and Rahab is brought in and this is that Justification which the Apostle Paul speaks not so much of but the Spirit of God doth in several cases as Abel and Enoch God testifying some way to their Services in foro mundi and so Job whom God justified against the unjust charges of his Friends so Phineas his zeal for the glory of God in the matter of Cosbi that seemed a rash and mutinous piece of Usurpation God justified him in it declared his high approbation thereof Hence James speaks of faith that accompanies salvation at large and condemns that as false and hypocritical that is not fruitful 2. He speaks of Justification at large which is by faith in foro divino before God and in foro humano before Men by works and fruits of faith that in foro divino is by faith only without works 1. In that he saith no works of ours can answer God's law v. 10. He that keeps or pretends to keep the whole law and offends in one point is guilty of all whence ariseth this unanswerable Argument They that cannot keep the whole law of God without offending in out point can never be justified before God by works but none can do so Ergo. 2. He asserts Justification by faith before God in the instance of Abraham's faith using the same Expression and doth not deny this to be true Justification and full before God but only Abraham brought forth the fruits before Men from his faith working by love he is called the friend of God thus God justified him in his obedience as a true Believer Ergo he concludes as all true faith so true justifying faith hath such fruit 3. James shews how God often bears witness and approves of particular actions which men are ready to condemn such as Abraham's offering up his Son and Rahab's giving up the City and such a Testimony that they performed it by faith in Christ and his Righteousness for no other are approved of by God as Gospel-Works and thus you have the full scope of James not contradicting the Apostle Paul at all but speaking only of another Justification in foro humano in the effects that Men see and the approbation that God gives § 6. Hence I answer Mr. Cl. who saith the same Justification is intended by Paul and James I say James intends the same Justification before God in foro Dei aut â—egis when he speaks of Justification by Faith but he intends not the same when he speaks of Justification by works he intends as Paul doth so far as he speaks of Justification by Faith but when he speaks of the same persons justification by works it intends only Gods declaration of his approbation of the particular Acts of obedience and bearing witness thereto of the true faith in foro humano by word or evidences as in that whole of Hebr. 11. And in divers other Scripture James speaks of Justification of a mans person It is true and here it s ascribed to his faith the righteousness he receives by faith is imputed to him but the faith is not all the approbation that he hath not all his Justification he is also justified coram hominibus He doth not say works were imputed to him for righteousness But he and his works for his person then his obedience being accepted by God in Christ God witnesseth before men to his faith and obedience and to his faith by owning his obedience So that he speaks both of the Justification of his person and of his faith too but in divers respects 2. Can his faith save him Implying that tho faith without works cannot save yet faith with works will for Saved and Justified both belong to the same Subject R. True but that doth not prove that Justifying and Saving is in all respects the same for there may be works as well as faith in that respect saving because both accompany Salvation but it s not therefore that Saving in all respects is Justifying for there 's saving in sanctification and glorification and tho faith without it be such as in time
between God and him thro this Imputed and believed righteousness 8. The justified one as he draws his first breath of the new man in believing unto righteousness so he lives upon this righteousness in all his Christian course in that Christs righteousness may be called the righteousness of Faith for Meat and Drink John 6.51 53. 9. Faith hath hereby all justifiable ways to God Christ is thereby his way unto the Father he can have access to the grace wherein he stands comes thro this righteousness with boldness to the Throne of grace and receives remission of sins and every good and perfect gift God having not spared his Son but given him for us hence he will not withhold any good thing 10. As it receives all grace in and with justifying grace so it gives and ascribes all to free grace in the Father Son and Holy Spirit both the gift of righteousness and faith it self and the life eternal given to such a poor wretch in and thro Jesus Christ 11. In that this grace being filled with Christs righteousness is leading to all fruits of Christs righteousness imputed and believed all which appear in the exercise of all holy affections graces and duties to the mortification of sin and growth in obedience and conformity to Christ § 14. Now having shewed the Excellency of this Grace in its Nature and Kind we must shew you that it is not Christ nor must not take his Throne or Crown from him yea abhors nothing more if true but will keep a Believer always a poor humble broken and contrite hearted Sinner Therefore we assert and Christ with his whole Word will stand by us in it that our Faith as a Grace of the Spirit or Work of ours is not imputed for Righteousness to Justification I shall but Name a few Arguments convincing enough and shew thereby the way to others to do the same 1. Faith is for the Honour of Christ our High-Priest upon the Throne if it takes to it self justifying Righteousness it takes the Crown from his Head and sets it upon his own for the great end of Christ's Humiliation and Exaltation was the working out of this Righteousness 2. If Faith be our Righteousness then Faith is its own Object when you bid Men believe unto Justification you must bid them believe in themselves and bid them by Faith go to their Faith for Righteousness and Life what 's Absurder 3. If God impute Faith it self as a Work to Justification then Faith must be imputed as meritorious of Justification For 1. Christs Righteousness is so imputed 2. No Righteousness can be imputed otherwise to Justification but such as is meritorious of it Justification being a Law-act 4. Faith making it self Righteousness for Justification by a Law makes it self altogether Legal as much as any Works whatever insomuch that it is not an evangelical Work so that it ought not to justifie as a Work by their own Rule that we are not justified by the legal works but we have proved all their Works legal 5. That that can't cover Sin and take off the Imputation of it can't be justifying Righteousness and take off the the Imputation of Sin for faith did not die for Sin or was made a Sacrifice for it to bear the Sin of many 6 The Priests and Sacrifices of Old were Types of Christs Righteousness for Justification of a Sinner not of the Sinners righteousness and the faithful looked upon themselves as sinners Typically justified in the Righteousness Typified and not in their Faith as a Work done 7. If our Faith in it self be our Righteousness then our unbelief is for that Faith must believe that Christs Righteousness is not imputed to us for Justification this his high unbelief according to the Scripture 8. If Faith say it justifie as a Work then Faith excludes it self the very Nature of it the Neonomian say the Law of Faith is the New-law if so then it excludes it self for the Law of Faith excludes boasting and Works of a Law i. e. the very Nature of Faith if it be good is so 9. If Faith justifie as a Work then Faith justifies not without Works for if it be a Work it self and justifying as such then it justifieth not without Works because it is a Work contrary to Rom. 4.6 10. If Faith be Imputed for Righteousness then the Blood of Christ is not but we are to be justified by the Blood of Christ and the Scripture saith we are by Faith in his Blood 11. If Faith Justifies as a Work then no more is ascribed to Faith than to other Graces in the concern of our Justification but the Apostle ascribes more concern to Faith than other Graces and then why doth he oppose Faith to Works Is it not that its more the Office of Faith as to Justification the Neonomian say it is the same with other Graces c. So Mr. Cl. Justifying Faith is the same thing in Substance with Effectual Calling Repentance Regeneration forming Christ in the Soul the new Creature c. Is not a great deal of the Scripture in vain hath not Paul wrote two Epistles in vain where he makes it his Main Business to beat down Justification by Works and oppose them to one another and now he tells us that Faith and Gospel Works i. e. legal are all one 12. That which justifies as a Righteousness justifies eternally Dan. 9. but Faith can't justifie eternally because Faith ceaseth in Heaven but justifying Righteousness doth not yea all the Righteousness of the New-law must cease 1 Cor. 13.10 14. That which is not the faederal Condition of the Covenant of Grace can't be our Righteousness in it self but Faith is not the faederal Condition because Faith is promised in the Covenant given by Grace purchased by Christ part of Eternal Life a means to lay hold of the Condition but I shall not enlarge upon this now only make one Quotation at last Mr. R. Capel who wrote of Temptation saith speaking of the Conditions of the Covenant In this Matter I am of the Opinion of Kendal that the Covenant he means of Grace was not made with us but with Christ this was the Assembly's Judgment for us and for the main I am clear of Opinion that the Covenant of Grace cannot stand with any Condition of ours at all for that I wish the Learned to consult Junius To deliver my Opinion Adam casting himself out of his Estate the Covenant of Works fell void Then it pleased God to fill up this Room with a New Covenant commonly called his last Testament wherein he bequeathed Grace and Glory on no other Condition that I know of out of the Scriptures but the Death of the Testator i. e. Jesus Christ that as the First Covenant was built on the Righteousness of the first Adam so the Second was built on the Righteousness of the second It is beyond my Brain to conceive that God should immediately make a Covenant with us who were Children of Disobedience and of Wrath who could not be capable of any such Covenant or Conditions but it was with Christ for us Adam lost his Righteousness the Foundation of the first Covenant but the Righteousness of Christ the Second can never be lost and therefore the second Covenant or rather Testament can never be broken or disanulled Condition of the Covenant p. 260. Errata PAge 38. line 2. read partaker p. 39. l. 32. r. relaxed p. 42. l. 23. r. Justice p. 43. l. 36. r. we could not p. 46. l. 17. r. per quam p. 48. l. 16. r. Is it by Imputation p. 49. l. 22. r. God justifies p. 50. l. 34. r. their sins p. 57. l. 34. r. the only p. 64. l. 23. dele r. bottom they must be Pelagians p. 66. l. 2. r. is it not so p. 72. l. 27. dele ◠p. ibid. l. 28. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 73. l. 40. r. Christs righteousness and us p. 78. l. 27. r. would not be p. 79. l. prope antep dele no. p. 85. l. 16. r. Gal. 3.21 p. 86. l. 21. r. Gal. 3.21 p. 87. l. 3. ab ult r. for Saviour self p. 88. l 23. r. Gal. 3.21 l. 37. r. is manifest p. 99. l. 16. dele not p. 100. l. 3. dele and l. 6. r. yea 123. l. 13. r. addicted to it l. 35. r. should not be p. 126. l. 10. r. righteousness twice p. 133 l. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 31. false Hebrew p. 134. l. 20. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 148. l. 17. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 29. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 34. dele the before events p. 149. l. 5. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 155. l. 6. a fine r. unprofitable p. 158. l. 6. ab ult r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 159 false Hebrew p. 160. l. 6. ab ult r. Arg. 3 The righteousness for which and by which a sinner is justified
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
Distinctions or Explications Doth this become learned Divines The Rebukers Articles which he brought into Court were I find to the number of 21 but it seems the judicious Bp. contracted them to Six which he hath called us to appear to looking upon the rest I suppose as frivolous illiterate or spiteful the Six with my respective Answers are as follows Er. 1. That Pardon is rather the Condition of Faith having a causal Influence thereunto then Faith and Repentance are of Pardon A. The Words were mine in transitu of a Discourse and therefore it is very unfair to expose them without shewing their Dependance 1. I have shewn and proved and will stand by it that Pardon Faith and Repentance belong not to the conditional Part of the new Covenant but to the Promisory 2. That Pardon Faith and Repentance altho' they are not Foederal Conditions yet being connected in the Promise may have a Connexion conditional given to them as if a Man believe he receiveth Pardon in believing if he repent he will believe if he repent and believe he shall be saved and I renounce not the Scripture Language in anything but desire to understand and explain it in its true and genuine Sense 3. I say that if we talk of the Foederal Conditionality of Faith to Pardon Pardon is rather a Foederal Condition of Faith and Repentance than Faith of Pardon I say not that it is but rather because distinguishing Pardon aright into Active and Passive I say Pardon Passive received can't be without Faith to receive it but Pardon Active must be before Faith 1. Because the Object that the Hand receives must be before the Instrument that receives it 2. The Grace of Pardon is in God to be bestowed before we receive it 3. There is Pardon in Christ for all that shall believe Jo. 17.20 See what Mr. Capel saith on this point It is one thing for all the Sins of all the Elect to be pardoned to Christ for them that was done before we were or our Sins were another thing to be pardoned to them Christ was made a Curse for us by Imputation for that the Father did impute all our Sins as a Judge to Christ as our Surety the true notion of Imputation that it is not an Act of Grace but a Judicial Act and God did exact all of him as guilty by that Law c. 3. Pardon in God and in Christ hath a causal Influence on Faith and Repentance 1. Pardon is an essential cause of a pardoned Person the Abstract being the formal cause of the Concrete pardoning Grace doth effectually work all Graces of the Spirit in us the pardoning Grace of the Father Son and Spirit 2. The Gospel preached to Sinners which is Pardon of Sin the Gospel preached to Abraham is that which works Faith thro' the effectual Operation of the Spirit Act. 13.39 Rom. 10.15 And it was preached to David by Nathan 2 Sam. 12.17 as done before his particular Repentance express'd Psal 51. therefore if we talk of Foederal Conditions Pardon is rather such than Faith and Repentance because it 's in Nature as well as Time antecedent and such an antecedent as hath a causal Influence And hence I also assert that every necessary antecedent tho' with causal Influence upon the consequent is not a Foederal Condition Er. 2. That Sin it self as opposed to Guilt was laid on Christ and Christ was reputed a Criminal not only by Man but God A. As to the first clause they should have pointed out the Person that said it If I spake it or writ it I was asleep then for when we say Sin was laid on Christ we speak not of it by way of Opposition unto Guilt but by way of Identity or Sameness with Guilt in the Dialect of the Spirit of God our use of the Word Guilt being but an apt Exegetical Term to express the meaning of Sin in this Point because the Physical Substratum of Sin can't be transferred to another but the Law Relation may As to the second charge 1. It will be easily granted by the Accusers that a Sinner's Debts to the Law are Crimes 2. To say he was a reputed Criminal in Law only is by a received Sense to justifie the personal and absolute Innocency of Christ in himself 3. I suppose they will not deny that if Sin was charged on Christ for the delivery of Sinners it was done by God as his Act and not by the false Accusation of Satan or his Instruments for the Salvation of Sinners by his bearing Sin was never their Design and it 's said God laid upon him the Iniquity of us all Isa 53.4 The term Criminal might possibly be used by some or other with a good Meaning but I look not upon it as proper and I don't know that I have used it if I have I have better considered of it 1. Because tho' the Scripture saith Sin was laid on Christ and that he was made Sin yet it saith not that he was a Sinner or a Criminal 2. Because his bearing Sin and being made so it plainly implies that he was not so in himself but made so by Law Imputation and by standing in a Surety relation to the Law for us 3. A Sinner or Criminal doth in an ordinary and common Acceptation import a Committer or Perpetrator of Sin which Christ never was not reputed by God so to be Therefore herein God shews his wonderful Wisdom in teaching us to speak of Christ in this great Mystery with so much Exactness Er. 3. That the Doctrine of Justification before Faith is not an Error but a great and glorious Truth and therefore we believe that we may be justified declaratively A. It is an Error and it is not an Error it is an Error to say Justification by Faith is before Faith in time and a contradiction in Adjecto therefore I never said so for Justification by Faith can't be before Faith is in the Receiver to receive it by But that Justification is before Faith is a glorious Truth and this I must affirm for Truth that there is Justification before Faith if we distinguish of Justification aright as of Pardon and say it 's actively and passively to be understood active Justification is in God that justifieth Rom. 8. the Grace of Justification a Gift to us 2. Christ as the Head and Representative of the Elect was justified and all the Elect fundamentally in him else Jesus Christ's suffering as a publick Person could not have been he was taken from Prison and Judgment 3. Justification in Application is by Nature before Faith because all Grace apprehends the Sinner before he apprehends it and is the immediate cause of a Sinner's apprehending it Again the Grace of Justification is in nature before Sanctification and the Foundation of it by the consent of Protestants and therefore it 's said in that Sence that God justifies the ungodly not that we should be ungodly but that he finds and takes us in that
Taste how the Quakers and Socinian fall in with this Doctrine of Justification by Works Quakers Works and Faith are equally required to Justifie Works of the Law are excluded as done by us to be justified by Grace is to be justified by Regeneration which cannot exclude Works wrought by Grace since the Law gives not Power to obey and so fall short of Justification there 's Power under the Gospel whereby the Law comes to be fulfilled inwardly Works through the Power of the Spirit is a Condition upon which Life is proposed under the New Covenant It appears from divers Scriptures that the Apostle excludes only our own Righteousness as being the Righteousness of the Law from being necessary to Justification Barcl Socinian There was never but one way of Justification by Faith This Faith is nothing else but under the hope of Eternal Life to obey the Commands of Christ and this we apprehend to be understood in Scripture where-ever we read of Salvation promised to them that believe in Christ Socin de offic Chr. Them 42.43 To believe in Christ is nothing else than to obey God according to the Rule and Prescription of Crist and in doing it to expect of Christ a Crown of Eternal Lise Socin de Servatori To the attaining Eternal Life not any Merits are required but the obeying Christs Precepts to which Eternal Life is the constituted Price or Reward not that Obedience it self deserved it but because it hath pleased the most gracious God to deal so with Mankind Socin Respon ad Obj. cut § 3. Now let us see how Consonant our Neonomians be to this Fraternity in the Doctrine we 'll take it from Mr. H. one of the honestest of the Pack and freest from Juggling Medeocr p. 16 17. Our Works do not Merit because they are not perfect i. e. therefore do not Merit as related to the Old-Covenant but Merit notwithstanding ex pacto in relation to the New-law-Covenant but we are justified by Works as we are by Faith because Faith justifies only as productive of Works thence you see he placeth the Righteousness of Faith in it self as a Work done and that it justifies only so and hath no more justifying Nature or End then the Fruits thereof It is Faith as productive of Works that receive the Reward of perfect Righteousness in that this imperfect stands in the Room of perfect but we are still to remember for Christs sake Bellarmine remembred that and the Council of Trent God judgeth and will judge all Men according to the Gospel those who perform the Condition of it he accounts and pronounceth righteous those whom he accounts righteous are justified I will add that the righteousness of Christ which is the meritorious cause of our Justification and always comes under the efficient cannot by the same reason be the formal and material cause of it It is not infusion of righteousness with the Papist which is our Sanctification nor the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness with the Protestant which is not to be understood in genere causae efficiente nor Remission of Sin with Protestant and Papist you see here how far he goes beyond the Papist but to impute to a person his performance of the New Covenant for Righteousness or pronouncing him righteous according to that Covenant is the formal cause of his Justification Med. p. 46. Here is to be remarkt that Mr. H. doth peremptorily exclude from our Justification the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness and Remission of Sins and places the whole of it in imputation of our own works for righteousness as active obedience § 4. These Men do as the Papists and the rest make our inherent Holiness in Sanctification to be that very righteousness by which we are justified Take Mr. Cl's words wherein he fully expresseth Mr. H's sense in differing from the Papist about Infusion Herein lieth the true difference between Justification and Sanctification In Sanctification we are made holy righteous and good by the infusion of those Graces into us but in Justification we are only accounted and declared such in the one the change is but relative and in the other real Come in Quakers and shake this Friend by the hand as one of you you have quarrelled with the Pulpits a great while and now you may ascend them your selves when you please and be not so angry at them for you shall not hear these men call your Doctrine Popish any more but you 'll hear them call all men that are not of your Opinion Antinomians briskly See now the depth of this distinction Justification is not by infusion of Sanctification but yet Justification is by Sanctification infused Is it not much more rational to say that Justification is by making a man righteous that was not so before for Justification of a sinner must be such Besides is it not much more Evvngelical as to justifying the ungodly as Bellarmine saith But these Men say We are first made righteous that is godly and then pardoned he should have said justified for his Justification comes in between his sanctifying Righteousness and Pardon and not on the contrary first pardoned and then righteous Mr. C. p. 19. Resp Were ever such Absurdities asserted by Men of Reason 1. We are first made righteous and quatenus made so are sanctified and not justified therefore Justification makes no man righteous but finds them so but it declares Men what what it finds them i. e. sanctified Hence to declare a Man sanctified is his Justification and I pray now how comes in Mr. H's causa formalis how doth Justification differ formally nam ad formam pertinet proprium differentia from Sanctification when Imputation or God's accounting a man holy and sanctified is his Justification Is not God's Judgment according to Truth Is it not certain that God accounts every thing to be as it is a holy man holy If this be all your Justification it s no more than as God justified at the Creation he saw that every thing was good 2. If we are first made righteous and then justified because we are so its meritum ex condigno whereon we are justified all the World cannot hinder it 3. First righteous and then pardoned What sense is in that for a righteous person needs no Pardon in that thing wherein he is righteous for therein to be righteous and want Pardon is to speak Daggers and the absurdest contradiction in the World § 5. Well But why must our Neonomians be pardoned when righteous and justified before because indeed their Righteousness and Justification by it is not worth a Fig by their own confession for Mr. Cl. saith for since subordinate Gospel Righteousness is an imperfect righteousness consistent with manifold failings and infirmities therefore notwithstanding that there 's need of pardon and that continually This is also Mr. H's Doctrine therefore I need not transcribe his very words which are to this purpose in many places Resp I find they are not fully agreed about the
and Faith as such is both seen in us and present with us 4. If Faith be the very righteousness then Faith believes in Faith as righteousness Doth the Scripture bid us believe in our selves or believe in another Faith believes in Faith for our very righteousness by these Men which is most absurd when they preach they should bid Men believe in themselves did Abraham believe in his Faith Was that his believing or did he believe that which was held out in the Promise the same thing that God imputes to us for righteousness we do make the Object of our Faith for Righteousness Now then if God imputes our believing to us then we believe in our believing these are inevitable Rocks this Doctrine will bring these Men unto 5. God cannot impute Faith as a Work and in the Neonomian sence for righteousness it being as Mr. H. confesseth again and again no righteousness sinful in need of pardon for 1. This would not be according to truth to call evil good nor to do it in a way of administration of Justice as in Justification would it be just But most unjust God is a God of Truth and Holiness and the Judge of all the World and therefore must deal righteously for tho' he pardons Iniquity yet will by no means clear the Guilty 2. It s contrary to their own assertions that Justification is an Act of Justice whereas such an Imputation and Justification as they speak of would be far from an Act of justice and is a meer dispensation with justice for where a Law must be abrogated or relaxed there is an absolute dispensation with Justice and without one of these they confess there cannot be Justification by their New Law 6. This cannot be justification because Sin is not pardoned in it nor the person accepted Imputation of righteousness to the work before it s to the person and if the person must do good works before he 's justifi'd which is absurd because the works he doth are imputed to him and he is justified by 'em as they say § 5. But let us hear what Mr. Cl. hath to say for the Proof of this Position that Faith is our Subordinate righteousness i. e. in his sence an interveening righteousness coming between Christs righteousness whereby we are justified before we come at Christ or pardon both being consequent to our Justification by this New-Law-Righteousness which he calls Faith see p. 64. His reason are these 1. What else can be the plain and proper meaning of that Phrase it was accounted to him for righteousness Without putting it upon the Rack of Tropes and Figures and the like Engines of Cruelty c. Resp Doth Mr. Cl. pretend to be an interpreter of Scripture and will not allow the use of a Trope or Figure but to call them Engines of Cruelty is to say where a Trope is said to be used in a Scripture there is a wresting of Scripture I must tell him that a Tropical sence of many Places of Scripture is the true plain and proper sence and meaning of the Spirit of God in many most eminent Expressions and for this he must expect to be watched in the adjusting his New-found righteousness whether he doth no where interpret Scripture Tropically What answer will he give the Papist in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation founded on This is my Body Mr. B. saith it s as credible as the Doctrine of imputation of Christs Righteousness And what saith Mr. Cl. to the Covenant of Circumcision Well let us make a little Impartial Examination of this Expression If Abraham were justified by works Rom. 4.2 he hath boasting but not before God not in the Presence of God for his Justification yea he may rejoice that through Grace he hath performed any action by faith which God witnesseth to as James speaks of but he dare not plead it before God for Justification of his Person Now he brings in Justification by Faith in diametrical opposition to it for the Scripture saith Abraham believed in God and it was accounted to him for righteousness so translated the words in the Hebrew may run thus He believed on Jehovah and he accounted it i. e. what he believed of him for righteousness to him the Words are rendred by the Septuagint and the New Testament Abraham believed God it was accounted to be unto righteousness The Seed promised before was the thing believed by Abraham the blessing unto all Nations which Seed was to proceed from his and Sarah his Wife's Loins this was the promise of God to him and this was accounted to him for righteousness he believed Jehovah graciously promising and the thing promised Jehovah imputed to him for righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he accounted the thing believed not the Faith it self therefore the Targum hath its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he believed the word of promise and the thing promised was imputed to him in this sense the Apostle takes it Rom. 4.3 Gal. 3.6 where in both places he opposeth a righteousness of faith i. e. which is believed on unto a righteousness within which is no object of faith for it is within us and an object of sense he believed God in the Promise of Christ and this that he believed was reckoned to him he argues presently that this imputation was not to Abraham as a work of any kind for to him that worketh as much as if he should say O do not mistake me I do not nor doth the Scripture speak of Abraham's Faith as a work the reward should not be of grace but debt but to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly as Abraham was when first justified Josh 24. his faith is esteemed to be unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. he believes upon the righteousness which is imputed to him And why may not Faith be taken objectively by a Metonomy for the thing believed for 't is not unusual in Scripture Christ is said to be our hope the object of our hope 1 Tim. 1.1 and so the hope laid up for us in Heaven i e. the things hoped for Coloss 1.5 so looking for that blessed hope Tit. 2.14 the things hoped for what 's more frequent than these Metonomies yea proper plain and elegant in matters of sense or perception its most frequent to put the object for the sence and sence for the object Matth. 6.22 the light of the body is the eye and there the light is for the eye and after the eye for the light besides it s a rule that when a word in Scripture taken in the direct sense will cross other Scriptures and the signification lies fair for the Analogy of Faith then the true sense lies in the Trope as here we are justified by faith but how as it lays hold on the justifying blood of Christ or else we contradict Rom. 5.9 being now justified by his blood now either Faith or the justifying Blood of Christ must fall into a Trope for which
a Law from Justification and yet all this while intend that we are justified by the works of a Law and that he should never tell us he doth not mean works of the New Law nor so much as mention it § 4. From the forementioned places these Arguments will arise against Justification by our works 1. Justification of a sinner or ungodly one as such cannot be by any works of a Law performed by him but Gods Justification of any fallen Man is such for the Major its plain against Neonomian Justification unless they will say that a natural Man may be godly while such or that which the old law calls ungodliness the new law calls godliness yea a man must be sanctified in their sense before justified while under condemnation and bound over to wrath Again the Text is clear that Abraham was ungodly when justified both by History and the Apostles for he could not do any good and all his obedience was after his Justification by Faith Now the Minor is as Evident that Gods Justification of fallen Man is such for if we be justified by the works of a Law it s not consistent with Grace for justification singly considered speaks nothing but Justice And Justification by the works of a Law performed by us speaks nothing but Justice but Justification by Grace is only as the Apostle saith when it s without the deeds of the Law performed by us 2. That Doctrine that excludes the works of every Law by which is the knowledge of Sin excludes the works of every Law performed by us but the Apostles Doctrine excludes the works of every Law that gives the knowledge of Sin Ergo the works of every Law Old New and Moral Law are excluded This Argument stands firm from Rom. 3.20 3. If the holiest Men have not expected to be justified by their own righteousness who have lived by Faith then justification is not by works of a Law But the Antecedent is true therefore the consequence The consequence appears in that David had lived long by Faith and in Holiness when he penned Psal 143.2 And if he thought to be justified by New Law works he need not have said Enter not into Judgment with thy Servant unless he had added by the Old Law but Enter into Judgment with thy Servant by the New Law for in thy sight New-Law works will justifie any Flesh Minor David Job Paul expected not to be justified by New Law Works 4. Those works that will not make a sinner clean and pure in the sight of God cannot justifie him but no New Law righteousness will take away Moral Pollution in the sight of God so as to make him clean Ergo the Major is so clear as none can deny for by Justification the justified is purged and clean from Sin in the sight of God he can Enter into Judgment with God upon the account of the righteousness he is justified by The Minor is true 1. From the confession of our Adversary that its a sinful righteousness it s condemned by the Moral Law it s not adequate to exact Justice therefore it will not cover Sin from the Eve of Gods Justice 2. From so many express Places of Scripture Job 15.4 He that is righteous before God must be clean before God Imperfect righteousness can never make us clean in the sight of God Job 15.4 It s not to be found of man born of a Woman i. e. meer man nor in any flesh living Believers are flesh living and born of women Job saith chap. 9.30 If I wash my self in snow water and make my self never so clean yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch and mine own cloaths shall abhor me now will Job's new-law-works justifie him he had been long a holy man yet he often pleaded his uprightness towards God and his integrity against his friends charge and yet you see what his new-law-righteousness amounted to chap. 40.4 42 6. 5. Let me add a Fifth Argument before I leave his Negative If there was never any Law given to fallen Man that could give Life upon the Terms thereof then there could be no righteousness to Justification by a Law but the antecedent is true therefore the consequent and both from Gal. 3.1 the Apostle's unanswerable Argument against Justification by any Law The words are very plain and full to any one that can construe Greek § 5. He proceeds to his further Proof in divers Propositions which are many so little to the purpose that it would be lost time to follow them particularly but that there 's in them many places of Scripture perverted from their true Interpretation His first Proposal is The whole scope of the Apostle is to assert and establish Justification by faith as the only way of Salvation to lapsed men Resp What if so Doth it therefore follow that the Apostle teacheth that Faith is the way of Justification by Works or quite contrary that Justification by Faith is not by the works of righteousness which we have done but by these that Christ hath done This I gather saith he from that place Rom. 1.17 The righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith which words I paraphrase thus That the Gospel alone discovers the method and way appointed by God whereby we may become righteous in his account viz. by faith in Christ and by continuance increase and exercise thereof Resp It s the Office of the Gospel to teach Sinners the way the truth and life who is Christ there 's no other righteousness that the Gospel can teach a sinner to Justification John 14.6 and that Faith lays hold on that way is the Gospel to teach a man that he is to be justified by the works of a law is it Good News to a sinner That this Text is grosly abused appears 1. Because the righteousness of God here spoken of is a righteousness revealed and therefore not in us for things already in us are not said to be revealed to us 2. It s the righteousness of God and not of Man 3. It s an objective righteousness that is here spoken of such as is made known to our Faith by Revelation therefore not Faith it self 4. It appears by the Proof in that the life of a just one is by faith feeding upon another's righteousness not his own In a word according to Mr. Cl's sence it should be this The Gospel is the Method of God unto Salvation for therein is the righteousness of man revealed from faith to faith viz. the more a man believes in Christ the more he believes he is justified by his own works and this is that he lives by he lives by faith i. e. by believing his faith to be works He disproves Justification by works of a law as inconsistent therewith because all are sinners and therefore none can be justified by their works and on the other hand that they must be justified by faith Resp One would think this man spake now good Divinity but his
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
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
and Effects and therefore as such in their due place they are not opposite one to another but let the Question be stated right and we will receive the Challenge Whether the Scripture doth not oppose faith and works as such of all sorts in the point of Justification We affirm that it doth and a little Logick-Light here is not amiss to consider that distinguishing Properties of Opposites for dissentaneous Arguments are diversa vel opposita diversa's dissent only in a certain respect may be in the same subject at the same time a man may be rich and wise too in a different respect at the same time But as for opposites they do disagree both in respect and indeed really in their nature and must have their proper distinguishing Properties which are that they cannot be attributed to the same thing to the same place and in the same respect nor at the same time so that one of the opposites being affirmed the other must be denied Now then according to the true logical acceptation of faith and works in Justification they are opposed expresly and they are contraria opposita unum uni adversa contraria affirmantia quae inter se velut è regione perpetuò adversantur Now then Arg. 1. If Faith and Works of a Law are not opposed in Justification then a Man may be justified by Faith and Works in the sense of the Apostle and in the same respect But the consequence is not true the minor is proved that Paul doth not intend that any Man is justified at the same time and in the same respect by Faith and Works too for then all his dispute against one and for the other would be very unfair to say a Man is not justified by the Works of a Law and yet that he is justified by the Works of a Law let us take Rom. 3.28 a conclusion drawn from the Exclusion of the deeds of a Law from Justification therefore we conclude that a Man is justified by Faith without the deeds of a Law Let Mr. Cl. construe it better if he can yes saith he his meaning is without the deeds of the Law of Innocency but not without the deeds of the New Law i. e. the Law of Faith It s strange the Apostle should speak then Exclusively of all works indefinitely the Apostle might as well have said therefore we conclude a Man is justified by the deeds of a Law and it had been a more probable conclusion seeing he just before had mentioned the Law of Faith by which might be understood only the Nature and Ordination of Faith as a receptive Grace of the objective Grace of Justification It is plain the Apostle hath not the least intention to understand the Fruit of Faith nor Faith as a Work of a Law for if he had he would not have said so positively therefore we conclude that a Man is justified by Faith without the deeds of a Law and its impossible to speak any thing as opposites if these are not so spoken they are not spoken as diversa but one is affirmed of the Subject and the other absolutely denyed a Man cannot be justified by Faith in the Apostles sence and by Works at once but if Faith justifie as works then Works and Faith are the same in the Apostles sense and to be justified by Faith and by Works the same and so the Apostle speaks non-sense Arg. 2. That which excludes Works of a Law in Justification is opposed to Works of a Law in Justification but Faith excludes Works of a Law in Justification Ergo and Minor It s the Law Nature and Ordination of Faith to exclude Works or it self as a Work yea Faith becomes useless in Justification it s abdicated from Justification if it puts in as a work of a Law yet it cannot be a Gospel work nor can any other work be so that puts in for Justification it is impossible any thing should have a jot of Gospel in it that is a deed of a Law for Justification it is a legal work it makes it so It is the greatest contradiction in the world to say we are justified by our Gospel works Again to prove the Minor further That which excludes the deeds of a law by an essential proparty is opposite to works but the law nature or ordination of faith excludes the deeds of a law by an essential property viz. boasting in claiming the reward for the work done this faith or the law of faith doth it renounceth all self-righteousness and renounceth it self as such it comes to Christ and for his righteousness naked and empty it s not true faith unless it be so unless it take Christ only for himself and his righteousness alone to Justification § 20. Arg. 3. Faith also is opposed to works Rom. 4.5 where the righteousness of faith is imputed to him that worketh not but is ungodly there faith is opposed to works but in the Justification of Abraham it was so and is so in every Believer according to the Apostle for Justification cannot be there by faith as a work for then it were false to say righteousness is imputed to him that worketh not viz. for Justification for if faith justifieth as a work then God justifieth him that worketh Arg. 4. If faith and works in the point of Justification evacuate one another then they are opposed but faith and works do thus evacuate each other Ergo c. The consequence cannot be denied where one destroys another they cannot be together in the same subject therefore contrary for the Minor the Apostle is clear Rom. 4.14 if they that be of the law be heirs i. e. those that are of the works of the law for Justification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faith is evacuated and the promise abdicated for faith making it self a work is felo de se and throws off the free promise and takes the reward as Debt and not of Grace § 21. Arg. 5. That which is not of faith in Justification is opposed to faith in Justification at least in genere disparatorum but the law and deeds of it is not of faith i. e. he that works for Justification on legal terms is not one that 's justified by faith And what 's these terms the man that doth them shall live in them now then if it s of faith to say I am of the works of a law and I shall live in my faith because its the term of a law if so the law should be of faith and faith of the law contrary to the Apostle Galatians 3.12 Arg. 6. There 's nothing more plain than the opposition the Apostle makes between Justification by faith and works Gal. 2.16 The Apostle says it was a known thing to Peter and the Apostles that a man is not justified by the works of a law if he meant an exception of the law of faith why did he not express it but by the faith of Jesus wherefore is this Antithesis if no opposition between
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
beloved as he was was ignorant of it but that very day as v. 16. According to thy righteousness I beseech thee let thy anger and thy fury be turned away a Neonomian will Gloss thus i. e. according to our righteousness of the New Law v. 18. We do not present our supplications to thee for our righteousness i. e. say the Neonomians the righteousness of the Old Law not of the New but for thy great mercy that say they is the Law of Grace so they will have their Belly-full of law shortly § 2. Mr. H. gives a wild Gloss upon Eph. 1.4 According as he hath chosen us in Christ before the Foundation of the World he saith the Election of Grace is the Election of Grace and Gods choosing us is the taking the Way and Method of Grace and not of Works a choice way of saving Resp Ay indeed it s a choice way to save by Grace and not by Works but to save by Grace and yet by Works is a Contradiction in Paul's Logick Election is in Christ how according to common Notion of Election is over hard to conceive but take it in this Notion and here is even Day-light if you take it for the Law of Grace the Law is the Will of the Law-giver and that 's all one with the Gospel there 's no difficulty in it Resp This Man is so fond of his New Law that ask him of what Place of Scripture you will what it means and he will tell you its the New Law what is Election The New Law what is Redemption Purchase of the New Law How are you justified by the Righteousness of the New Law how shall you be judged by the New Law what 's the Gospel the New Law may not these Men be fitly call'd Neonomian that thus New Law it its hard to conceive how Election is in Christ why Because he cannot conceive Christ to be a common Person or Head of the Elect and that Christ as such was chosen and the whole Body in him but tell him that we are chosen in the New Law and the Difficulty is removed and you see what he makes of the Gospel it is the Law-giver I think its Time to give over talking with Men whose Wits go a Wool-gathering once more though § 3. 2 Cor. 5.19 God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself not imputing their Trespasses and hath committed to us the Word of Reconciliation the Word is the Gospel declaring to the World this purchased Pardon the Pardon is General a standing Pardon an Act of Grace yet if any will have Benefit by it he must look into the Act and see how he is to be qualified Resp The Gospel he saith is the Declaration of the New Law the making of which was an Act of general Pardon for all the World and for this Pardon Christ atoned none could obtain this but Christ and here all the Rogues and Whores in the World continuing so are pardoned at once now the silly Antinomian talks only of the Pardon of Believers before Faith now a Neonomian doth Antinomize to Purpose and Mr. H. is willing Christ shall have the Honour of saving Peter so far as he saved Judas and so far it 's from the Love of the Father in sending his Son to fulfil the Law how By no Obedience to it or Satisfaction for wrong done to him in it and in this Sence he will allow Grace is without Condition i. e. as much as Creation is Grace and God's giving a Law at first it 's true whatever Act God puts forth at first to a Created Being in a way of Nature or Jurisdiction or Mercy it may be said to proceed from his Sovereignty but it cannot shine forth in a way of Grace unless it be the bestowing some good Thing in a way of Speciality Peculiarity and in Distinction from others not to do something in general for all the World in common this is not that which will bear the Name of Grace likewise considering that what he calls a Law of Grace is but an Exhibition of a Law of Works for it is but do believe God had made the first Law as much a Law of Grace as this had the World been as full of People as since and more for it had been easier to perfect Man to perform than now an un-performable condition is to lapsed man This is Grace without conditions he saith even as much as the first Covenant for God made that Covenant without Man's causing it the Condition was lege constitura in the law enacted the previous causes of a law whether it proceed from the meer pleasure of the Legislator or obtained from him by Petition or Purchace are not considered in the law by the Subject it s the tenour of it that he looks at and is concerned in it therefore the making a law the proper nature whereof is to be conditional and promulgatting of it to all the world is no Pardon therefore he soon trips up the heels of his General Pardon in saying If any come to look for benefit by this Pardon Act of Grace Law Covenant Testament any thing a declaration of the will of God as he saith which being a law is not therefore Grace he must read it and see the conditions or terms that God requires And are not these conditions required of all the World are they therefore pardoned because they are required of them its required of every man he saith to believe repent walk sincerely in order to the benefit if these be the conditions of the Covenant then not free because working conditions are required of all the World which by the World are unperformable The main of the Text he cannot see he is so dazled with his New Law v. 18. All things are of God even the reconciliation of the World as well as its new Creation and therefore the righteousness by which reconciliation is made is of God and therefore saith reconciling us by Expiation and Satisfaction for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying reconciling by an Expiatory Sacrifice to himself the enmity was between the Sinner and God and God in this Grace is the first mover of Reconciliation by or in Jesus Christ in whom the righteousness of Satisfaction is giving to us the word of reconciliation i. e. the Gospel in which this reconciliation is preached whereby the Sinner seeing the preventing love of God in the mystery of Reconciliation by the Impetration of Christ he may have the application of this Grace also by Faith for this is the great doctrin that reconciles the heart and brings him to believe This he repeats v. 9. shewing only exegetically that we who are to be saved are the world in the sense of the Scripture in this truth by an usual synecdoche of the choice part being put for the whole and the whole for the better part not imputing their Trespasses shew which is the great thing done in reconciliation of a Sinner to
God its non-Imputation of sin which contains Imputation of righteousness for wherever sin is not Imputed to condemnation righteousness is Imputed to Justification so here its manifest that it s not our own righteousness that is Imputed to Justification but his only by which reconciliation is made and sin not imputed whence it follows also that our sins were Imputed to Christ or else there could not be the non-Imputation of them unto us § 4. Mr. Cl. makes a long Discourse to acquaint us that Paul and James do both mean Justification by Faith to be Justification by Works that Paul in denial of Justification by works only means works of the law then I say he excludes all works for all works performed for Justification are works of the law and to say that such are Gospel-works is to say the Sea burns And that James speaks of Abraham's Justification before God by Faith in conjunction with Works That Paul makes a perfect exclusion of all works of any law from Justification i e. works of our own performance hath been sufficiently made to appear what he alledgeth for Paul's meaning p. 70. may be a little spoken to and undertakes to tell us from Gal. 5.5 6. compared with chap. 6.15 that Paul intends works as well as faith when he rejects works from Justification I must say as I have said If Paul was of their mind it is strange that in Two Epistles he had not acquainted us what he meant when he shall only intend Jewish Services which the Gentiles are not concerned in and perfect works of the Moral Law which none ever performed since the Fall but Christ alone that he should mean Gospel-works and not tell us what were the Gospel-works which he meant when Gospel-works whereby any man seeks Justification are law-works and therefore contradictio in adjecto The Apostle to the Galatians v. 4. makes a solemn Protestation that whoever is i. e. professeth to be justified by law by his own works of a law hath abdicated Christ and fallen from Grace where there cannot be a law of Grace for to assert a law in our Justification by our performance of the works of it is to fall from Grace now it is strange that he did not specifie the Law and Works that he intended we are justified by Mr. Cl. saith he did in his specifying Love and the New Creature Verse 6. in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but faith that worketh by love the Apostle had said before as for us our expectation of righteousness is only by faith for it s nothing that availeth at all in Christ but a true faith and that is true which worketh by love which bringeth forth goodfruits and one of the more eminent is instanced in which is love now he doth here set by all the other Graces and Duties in comparison of faith because it hath a peculiar nature of receiving a justifying righteousness from without and in denying and rejecting it self or any doing by us for that end hence he saith it s not any works of the circumcision that is of those that profess Justification by Works in the Jewish Religion nor of the works of the uncircumcision i.e. works of the Christian Religion that signifies any thing but true Faith only this is the plain meaning of the Apostle As for Chap. 6.15 it signifies nothing as to our adversaries v. 14. He shewed how his glorying was always in the Cross of Christ both unto Justification and Sanctification for to be in Christ implies both and he desires and looks for no other ground of rejoicing than the Cross of Christ neither is there any other ground to any one Jew or Gentile there is nothing in either that is to be valued but the new Creature which is the life of Justification and Sanctification both which is by being in Christ Jesus he being to every Believer whatever he is for Righteousness and Life so that here is nothing to exalt the new creature to righteousness for Justification but to exalt Christ Jesus to be all and in all to the new creature for righteousness in Justification and as the Head and Root of Holiness in Sanctification § 5. And now it will appear what the sence of James is The main Scope of the Apostle in chap. 2. is to exhort to the impartial exercise of Charity to the Saints and after many Arguments v. 14. he tells us not to exercise Love and Charity is a sign of a false Faith such as will not save us as plainly appears by v. 15.16 17. Even as the Apostle Paul saith true faith is that which worketh by love so he saith that which doth not work by love in the exercise of true and faithful charity is dead faith being alone i. e. having no fruits but an outward Name and Profession only and further v. 18. How saith he wilt thou demonstrate to another person that thou hast faith thou saist to another I have faith but saith that other demonstrate it to me by thy works that it may appear to me by thy works I will shew thee my works whereby thou shalt conclude I have faith and justifie me and my profession before all men that have a question or doubt thereof Thou believest it may be by an historical or dogmatical faith as to some things so do the Devils But v. 20. wilt thou know O vain man that faith without works is dead i. e. wilt thou have demonstration of it how dead It is not justifying faith and therefore not saving for all true saving faith is justified against all objections men can make against it 1. He instances in Abraham the obedience of Abraham to God was a ground of mens justification of Abraham as a true Believer provided his action was good obedience which seemed so unnatural wherefore God himself witnesseth to his obedience as good and an eminent effect of true Faith therefore he was justified by works not as to his state before God for he was in a justified state before but first provided his obedience were good all men must justifie Abraham to be an eminent Believer Again God bore witness to Abraham's obedience as good therefore Abraham was justified to be a true Believer from his works So that Abraham was justified as to his faith as true good and eminent by his or from his obedience therefore the Apostle saith thou seest how his faith co-works with his works i. e. he did these actions in faith and faith carrying him on to such works his faith was perfected thereby i. e. as a Tree that hath its fruits growing upon it all true faith thriving and flourishing in that manner He insists upon Abraham's again and tells us That the Scripture was fulfilled or is proved to be true in two great things 1. That it saith he was justified by faith i. e. he believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness what was imputed his faith No it was the blessing in
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
justified by the law of Grace so he truly reputeth our Faith and Repentance and Covenant-consent to be our moral qualification for the gift and our holiness and perseverance to be our moral qualification for final Justification which qualifications being the matter of the Law of Grace and Condition of its Promise is so far our righteousness therefore God may be said in this sense to impute Righteousness to us i. e. our own and to impute Christ's Righteousness to us i. e. as to the effects 'to impute our faith to us for righteousness See the end of Controv. p. 257 258. and 260 261. Scr. G. d. p. 61.70 71. Socinus No other imputation is in our eternal Salvation than that whosoever sincerely obeys the Commands of Christ is from them accounted of God as righteous De Serv. This is the express sense of the Neonomians § 14. They receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith The Neonomians say to be justified by it as that which God hath promised Justification on as the qualifying condition and saith the quae quâ is a quibbling and juggling about a meer sound of words in a ludicrous Disputation he saith it justifies not instrumentaliter for that is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere in specie Faith in Christ doth not justifie qua talis as that Faith but it is that qualifying condition which the Promise annexeth Justification to Scr. G. d. p. 42 43. Mr. Cl. chap. 12. § 8. From hence I infer that justifying Faith is the same thing in substance with Effectual Calling Repentance Regeneration Conversion Sanctification Renovation c. J. G. It is the common Plea that Faith justifieth in relation to its Object it s not receiving but lawful receiving that justifieth and therefore it justifieth by vertue of that law or agreement men are under i. e. as a Covenant-condition therefore he peremptorily denys that Faith justifies in relation to its Object and our Neonomians are one with him see him Of Justification Bellarmine also spendeth much Paper That Faith alone doth not justifie but that Fear Hope Love and every Grace doth the same § 15. Those Points wherein the Neonomians declare themselves diametrically opposite to the Assembly and other Protestants in the Doctrine of the Obedience and Satisfaction of Christ must be matter of another Treatise it being too much to come within the compass of these Sheets likewise there are two Points which I have already publickly insisted on 1. In shewing the Nullity of any New Law with Sanction 2. To disprove their Vniversal Redemption and shew the Absurdity thereof tho more may be said of both God willing hereafter And the Assembly and we with them asserting the Imputation of the active and passive Obedience of Christ to the Justification of a Sinner and the Neonomians denying the active righteousness to have any influence on our Justification no further than as to the fitness of his Person to the exercise of his Mediatorial Office falling in with Piscator Gataker and others in this Point and cannot be handled here but must be matter of after-consideration in treating of Satisfaction Let not the Reader take it for granted that we grant Mr. Clark that Point viz. the denial of the active righteousness of Christ in our Justification wherein he hath spent a great part of his Treatise CHAP. II. Of Iustification § 1. Wherein we are agreed § 2. Justification what in Scripture acceptation § 3. What it supposeth § 4. God justifies actions § 5. Such a fruit of Justification before God § 6. Of Rahab § 7. Of Justification in foro Conscientiae § 8. Of the Conditions § 9. Of Commutative Justice § 10. Of a Compact § 11. Of Grace purchased § 12. Of the Purchase of the Covenant § 13. Whether God be a Debtor § 14. Particularly asserted against Mr. H. § 1. I Shall not detain the Reader in criticizing on the signification of Justification in the Hebrew and Greek Language it amounting to what our English word means and our adversaries in a great measure agreeing with us therein tho differing enough in the modus as appears in the foregoing Chapter that Justification is directly opposed to Condemnation That it is a forinsick or Law-Term and that properly it is a Law-Sentence distinctly and per se understood That God is the great Justifier That the Person justified is always upon the account of some righteousness of that Law that justifieth That this righteousness must be legally his that is justified i. e. imputed to him without denial of it self and that Justification is the sentential pronouncing a person righteous and accepted by the Lawgiver free from condemnation righteous in his sight and enstated in all advantages that this righteousness of his brings him into Thus far I take it we are agreed what little wordy differences there is we shall not concern our selves about nor trouble the Reader with § 2. Justification in Scripture and in our usual and common acceptation is any Vindication of a Person or Action from a Charge or Accusation brought in or alledged against them and this in the largest sense wherein a man is said to justifie God Psal 51.4 It s one mans justifying another or vindicating their actions and this done by pleading for or defending them Job 27.5 and 33.32 or practically by doing the same thing or worse Ezek. 10.51.55 Or a man is said to justifie himself Job 32. Luke 10.29 § 3. Justification being allowed to be a Forinsick Term it must always suppose a Forum or Court where it is And all Justification must be supposed to be in one at least or all these Courts Forum Dei Mundi Conscientiae a true Believer is sometimes justified in all as to his State and Actions sometimes in one and not in another The Court or Forum Dei is where God sits as Law-giver and righteous Judge of his Law where every one that is saved must find Acquittance and Acceptance Forum Mundi is of two kinds 1. Common wherein the actions of men are judged of either by Vogue and Reports of the Vulgar or by the Courts of Judicature among men 2. It is more special in Ecclesiis to be tried and judged in a Church of Christ 3. Forum Conscientiae where God sits a Judge and brings the Sinner to the Bar and Trial and accordingly Sentence of Condemnation or Justification passeth upon a man or on his Actions As to the first of these all men are tried as unto their State and they are there juridically acquitted or condemned in foro Dei i. e. legis either by a Judgment on their own righteousness which is called legal righteousness or upon a Judgment on them according to the righteousness of another called Evangelical because it s of absolute promise to a Sinner and the freest Gift in the World As to the second Forum the Courts of the World the World many ways call Courts of Judicature and will have Judgment upon men in the
God's execution of distributive Justice takes place upon the Fall of Men and Angels § 3. Again Righteousness is to be distinguished in regard of the subject It s either the Righteousness of God or the Righteousness of Man the Righteousness of God is that which peculiarly belongs to himself and that in his Sufficiency or Efficiency the Justice appertaining to God in his Sufficiency is his Essential Attribute whereby he is eternally infinitely and unchangeably righteous this is not a righteousness imputed unto us in Justification but a justifying righteousness it is the just God that justifieth § 4. God's Justice in Efficiency is the execution thereof that his essential Justice may shine forth to his Praise and Glory The Execution of his Justice is a transient Act and is either Legislation or execution of his Laws God's Legislation is his acting from his Sovereign Will and Pleasure in laying what Laws he pleaseth on the creature Laws are not purchased of God any more than Grace therefore they that talk in that manner seem neither to understand Law or Grace In God's Legislation he hath given Man but one Law for Life in the fulfilling where for not Man is liable to be eternally saved or condemned and God never made nor Christ purchased any Remedying Law to amend the faults thereof never abrogated or relaxt it but it stands in its full Sanction preceptive remunerative or vindictive § 5. There neither is nor ever was any justifying righteousness to Man but what is the perfect and compleat righteousness of this Law as imperfect righteousness is renounced and condemned by this Law so it will not stand for Justification with any of God's Laws neither is it Grace in God to relax his Law he cannot deny himself in the perfection of Justice § 6. The execution of this Law upon Man since the Fall is in a way of meer Justice or in a way of exact Justice in consistency with Grace and Mercy In a way of meer Justice to the Glory thereof on the Vessels of Wrath in a way of Justice in consistency with all the designs of Grace and Mercy by setting up a Second Adam and providing such a righteousness in him as might fully answer all the demands of the Law which the Law should accept and and impute to the Sinner the Mediatorial and Surety Righteousness of Christ and this is called the righteousness of God that we are made in Justification Mr. H. denys it but we shall endeavour to prove it § 7. Righteousness of Man is to be distinguished Either as it is of his own performance for Justification and so it s the righteousness of the Law and rejected by the Apostle Or as it s performed by another by Jesus Christ for us and this is called Our Righteousness and is so by real Imputation and Free Gift This is our only Evangelical Righteousness § 8. It s also considered in respect of Justification before God In this respect all Fallen Man's imperfect Righteousness is filthy Rags in respect of Sanctification they are the fruit of the Spirit and accepted in Christ the person being justified and therefore Believers are often denominated righteous in Scripture CHAP. IV. Of Imputation Sect. 1. What Imputation imports § 2. How it differs from Justification § 3. Not to impute is to acquit § 4. To attribute or ascribe what § 5. Legal Imputation § 6. The Second Sort. § 7. Imputation by Attainder § 8. Neonomians deny Imputation of Adam 's Sin § 9. Imputation by way of Suretiship § 10. A Surety a Representative § 11. The difference of Imputation by way of Attainder and by way of Suretiship § 12. Neonomians deny Imputation of Sin to Christ Sect. 1. IMputation for the most part in Scripture is a Forinsick or Law Term as Justification is the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is the accounting things or actions to Persons which they did not do or plead they did not do when a man's action comes to be lis coram Judice the first Enquiry is de facto whether he he guilty of it or not guilty the Judgment of the Court by the Jury is the Imputation or laying Guilt upon him or the acquitting him which is not only non-imputation of Fault to him but imputing righteousness unto him The Sentence of the Judge on the Verdict of Guilty is Condemnation on the Verdict of Not Guilty is Justification I find the word so used 1 Sam. 22.15 when Abimelek is accused by Doeg to Saul for enquiring of the Lord concerning David he saith Let not the King impute any thing unto his servant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let not the King lay it upon or ascribe it to his servant as a fault LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let not the King lay any thing to the charge of his servant This is rendred impute by our Translators so 2 Sam. 19.19 Shimei pleading with David for his Pardon saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let not my lord impute sin to me Likewise in the Plea of a righteous action Lev. 7.18 If the Priest shall eat the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day God saith it shall not be accepted neither shall it be imputed to him that offers it the Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LXX is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So in offering any where but at the Door of the Tabernacle blood shall be imputed * To impute is to lay any thing to the charge so Minst Lat. Imputare aliquid alicui Plin. Caedem alicui imputare So Quint. to that man that doth it Lev. 17.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now these are the words used for imputing in the Old Testament and as the Sept. renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the forequoted places in the same sense the Apostles use it in the New Testament whence it appears that Imputation is a Law Term and it s used when it comes to be argued in Law whether this thing or action whether righteousness or unrighteousness is to be ascribed to a person whereby he stands just or unjust in the eye of the Law and what the Judgment of the Court is is Imputation Such Trials do especially concern two things Right or Actions in matters of Right or Claim the Judgment of the Court imputes it to the Plaintiff or Defendant in matters of Fact the Judgment of the Court determines it or imputes it as righteousness or unrighteousness § 2. Hence 1. Imputation differs from Justification because it s of right or fact It s a Judgment concerning things or actions according to law Justification in this legal sense or Condemnation is of Persons according to Imputation 2. Guilt is the imputation of fault to the charged person in the most proper sense reatus culpae and the acquitting a person from Guilt when charged is the making him righteous by removal of unrighteousness from him so far
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
consequence is there in this Argument works were the formal cause of Justification as to the Law of Works therefore works must be the formal cause in relation to the Gospel it follows not but vice versa and if the consequence be true then there 's no formal difference between Law and Gospel 3. Hereby he yields that New Law conditions are Old Law works and consequently his Gospel is no Gospel but a Law of works which is contrary to Scripture and accordingly Mr. Cl. saith Gospel works must merit the reward as works should have done in Adams Covenant Mr. H's reply is so weak that it s not worth taking Notice of § 3. Argum. 1. Justification hath a form and that must be some righteousness Resp It may have a form and yet Righteousness be the matter What righteousness is it whereby we are justified I answer against Mr. Cl. and him that it s no righteousness inherent in the justification of a sinner He saith it s not regenerating grace infused but imputed Answer What makes the difference then between Sanctification and Justification its nothing but the divers respect in Mr. H's Divinity and wherein lies that respect is it not in imputation and this Logick he yields in his Notes Argument 4. Divines generally fix it upon some righteousness Resp If some Divines speak improperly it doth not justifie Mr. H. to do so but he saith a distinction is made of a genus and differentia and therefore righteousness must be the form Resp Non sequitur for genus is the matter and but part of the form at most sometimes but the differencing part of the Definition is the form distinct from the genus Mr. Cl. saith the most plausible Argument of all because it is Scripture you have omitted we are justified by faith This saith Mr. H. is my id per quod that runs through all my Books its true and what would Mr. H. have done to support his Notion if the Cardinal had not helpt him to this id per quod and id propter quod he takes himself safe enough between the Cardinal and Bishops Well Mr. Cl. is not so well pleased I find with his formalis causa but rather than break with Mr. H. he will comport with him especially finding him very uncertain and unsettled sometimes our righteousness is the formal cause and sometimes the material and imputation the formal Mr. Cl. hath another denomination for our own righteousness he calls it our subordinate righteousness Our Justification by Faith or accounting it to us for righteousness will be considered anon § Cl. also gathering and applauding Mr. H's constitutive Justification let it be a little inspected Mr. Cl. saith That Mr. H. doth clearly distinguish his Opinion from the Papists in that he makes infused righteousness only Sanctification and imputation of the same to be Justification its only to distinguish up our own righteousness several ways I would ask these Gentlemen whether they do not hold the infusion of their righteousness and Justification upon it imputed if they do so do the Papist for if the Papist did hold making a man's righteousness inherent to be Justification then must they hold some merit of condignity to precede in the natural man for a meer free gift as such is an infusion cannot be Justification I do not see but Mr. H's constitutive Justification and the Papists is all one for if they say God infuseth righteousness and imputeth righteousness it s the same thing and God cannot constitute any just by infusion but he must impute him so I have said this constitutive Justification as they take it can be no other than Imputation if they will make it differ from declarative Justification 2. The constituting us as just doth in order of nature go before accounting or using us as just Resp God neither constitutes any man just in and by his own righteousness nor accounts them so But we can say God first gives us Christ's righteousness by his Grace then accounts us righteous therein Constitutive Justification consists in three things in making us just accounting us just and using us as just all these the Papists have Therefore more fully Justification is a judicial act and that by the law of Grace God by that Law and the act of God's law makes pronounces and by pronouncing makes a Believer a righteous person and being so made accounts him so Resp The Scripture speaks of Justification of a Sinner and therefore saith it s an act of free Grace Indeed Mr. H's Justification can be no other than a judicial Act it s no way consistent with Grace because he saith its by a Law and Act of it whereby it makes and pronounceth a believer righteous and it seems he is first declaratively justified and after imputed righteous when God hath pronounced him righteous then accounts him so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Cart before the Horse Our righteousness wrought in us by Vocation and is the same materially but not formally with this righteousness of Justification Resp Now here 's the reason why he sticks so hard for our righteousness being the formal part of our Justification so that the same righteousness as he saith materially the same Sanctifies us materially and Justifies us formally So as that as Sanctifying it hath no form and as Justifying no matter Now this is a Quatenus with a witness so in Mr. Cl's sence he doth well making the matter real and the form relative These things Mr. H. in his several middle-way Pages and Letters repeats a hundred times you cannot look into a Page hardly but you have the sum of his Doctrine therefore it must not be expected that I should follow him Page by Page unless I should Tautologize as he doth CHAP. X. Whether Faith be our justifying Righteousness Section 1. Whether the Saints before Christs did not look upon themselves as righteous by their own righteousness § 2. Abraham considered § 3. Abraham considered § 4. Abraham 's Justification further considered § 5. Of Subordinate righteousness § 6. Mr. Cl's defence of a Subordinate righteousness § 7 Opposition of Faith and Works in Justification Mr. Cl's 2d and 3d. Arg. § 8. Mr. Cl. fourth Argument Answer'd § 9. Argument 5 6. § 10. More to Mr. H 's challenge Sect. 1. MR. H's Enquiry about the Saints before Christs coming is He would know of any Man who is most Orthodox in his Complexion whether he does or is able to think that Enoch Noah Job who were before the Law Samuel the Kings and Prophets under the Law or any Man or Woman whatsoever before the coming of Christ did ever imagine that they were righteous or accepted with God for the Obedience which the Messiah should perform on their behalf when he came into the World and believing this was an Instrument of making him to be theirs c. And whether they did not look upon themselves righteous by their own righteousness their doing righteoâ—snâ—ss and to obtain favour by
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
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