Counsels and Covenant-Compact with the Son as the Apostle saith expresly 1 Pet. 1.19 20. Christ as redeemer by his precious bloud as of a lamb without spot this is his righteousness who verily i. e. really as such was fore-ordained of God before the foundation of the world It was then the Plot and Contrivance of God and therefore may well be called the righteousness of God This Purpose and Grace to poor Sinners was first given us in the Person and Righteousness of Christ before the World began but was manifested since and especially at the first appearance of Christ in the flesh actually to work out this righteousness in abolishing Death and bringing Life and Immortality to Light in the said Gospel of Christ which he was a Preacher of this Head I might be large in insisting on from other places as Eph. 1.6 7 8 9. Prov. 8 30. Heb. 10.8 9. 2. It is the Righteousness of the Person who is God Acts 20.28 3. It s the only righteousness that God is well pleased with a sinner for and in which he makes his law honourable Isa 42.21 3. God hath called and anointed Christ thereto in righteousness Isa 42.6 i. e. to answer my law and righteousness therein and to perform the work of righteousness the Condition of the Covenant I have given thee for so Heb. 8.3 chap. 5.5 9.12 4. It s a Righteousness becoming the Grace of God as the gift of righteousness Rom. 5. and becoming the Perfect Justice and Law of God and therefore magnifies his Law c. and becoming the Wisdom of God therefore Christ is called the Wisdom of God and answers all the ends of God's Glory in Man's Salvation 5. It s the Righteousness of God in regard of the stateliness and highness thereof as the Trees of Lebanon were called the Trees of Jehovah Psal 104.16 6. In a way of opposition to all mens inherent righteousness which is humane mans righteousness only this is God's righteousness and be hath made Christ to be righteousness to us 1 Cor. 1.30 § 10. Now here is reason enough why Christ's Righteousness should be called the righteousness of God and that its plainly so intended in the Text appears 1. Because its a revealed righteousness that Man saw not before they can easily see their own own righteousness without Revelation they are addicted 2. It s the righteousness of Christ that is the righteousness of the Gospel of Christ the Gospel of Christ is called so because its the preaching Christ and him crucified 1 Cor. 3. and because it s his Gospel whereby he cometh and preacheth peace through his righteousness Eph. 2.14 15. 3. It s the righteousness of Christ because its the great object of Faith in Justification for its absurd to say our faith is the object of faith it s something without a man first that he believes upon faith is the evidence or Hypostacy of things not seen 4. It s opposed to the Anger and Wrath of God revealed in the Law v. 18. as that righteousness which answers it 5. The Apostle throughout this Epistle casts off and abandons all righteousness of ours as insufficient therefore this must be the righteousness intended 6. The Text is plain that the righteousness of God is spoken of objectively as to faith for a thing is revealed that it may be seen it s revealed from one act of faith to another and it is confirmed by the words of the Prophet the just shall live by faith on this righteousness believing in it and feeding upon it as their food of life and therefore is not in themselves but in the Gospel there as revealed for the import of the words should be according to those men I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ it is the power of God to Salvation for therein i. e. in the Gospel preached not in our selves is the righteousness of God revealed from one act of faith to another to be seen by it it is not said that faith is revealed to be the righteousness of God but the righteousness of God in the Gospel because it is the power of God to Salvation is revealed to our faith and to be that righteousness which is Gospel righteousness therefore not in our selves 3. The preaching thereof is the power of God to Salvation and that which a believers faith lives upon § 11. The next place Rom. 3.21 22. The Apostle in the 9th verse saith he proved both Jews and Gentiles under sin viz. under the transgression of the Moral Law as plainly appears by his Proof unto v. 19. now saith he they are under the law in that they are convict by the law even the whole World by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that law not the Ceremonial but Moral against which all the forementioned transgressions are committed and Gentiles who were never under the Ceremonial Law as well as Jews Now saith the Apostle seeing that by this Moral Law the World is condemned its impossible that any works of obedience to any law whatever should for if any other law comes to milder terms unless this law be rescinded its impossible any man can be righteous before God hence he concludes therefore by the deeds of the law i. e. any law no flesh can be justified in Gods sight whatever Law men may pretend to God will judge and try all by the Moral Law for a sinner and transgressor of God's law can have the knowledge of sin by it i. e. Conviction but no Salvation by any righteousness of his performance What then must all the World perish therefore for want of a righteousness No God hath provided a righteousness he doth not say God hath repealed his Law and made a new one the righteousness of God without a new law is evident or made manifest in the Gospel which is witnessed by the Law i. e. of Moses in the Doctrine of Sacrifices and by the Prophets that have prophesied of Christ v. 22. even the righteousness of God which is by the faith of Jesus Christ viz. the righteousness of Christ which faith lays hold on which is by faith i. e. which we receive by faith for it may be said what is this righteousness of God saith the Apostle it is in Christ how have it we in Christ by faith Now saith he it s unto all i. e. imputed unto all and upon all as a covering or robe of righteousness by the faith of every Believer by the least as well as the greatest by a Gentile Believer as well as a Jew there 's no difference in the degree of righteousness nor in the imputation of it nor application of it all Believers are equally and alike righteous in Christ's righteousness which is the righteousness of God and the reason added for all have sinned and justified freely by Gods grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ § 12. Now it appears that the righteousness of God is Christ's righteousness That righteousness that fully and compleatly satisfied
not be the end of the law of works for righteousness to a Believer but that a believer's performance of obedience to the new law should be the end of the law of works for righteousness which is a direct contradiction to the Text. For he faith Christ is the end of the law what law of all law of works in way of Satisfaction of the Moral and concurring Ceremonial as an Antitype he and his righteousness is shadowed forth thereby he saith not that Christ is the end of a law for a righteousness of our performing for that would be a contradiction to fay the end of a law is righteousness and then Christ is the end of it for another righteousness and not his own he should have said believing is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth Lastly What righteousness is it to take us from under a law or relax it or procure that it shall not be satisfied at all and that the offender shall be justified by another Law § 15. The next Text is He hath made him sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him 2 Cor. 5.21 i. e. saith Mr. H. the immaculate lamb made a Sacrifice for our sins that we may become righteous with the righteousness of God which he accepts through him Christ as a Sacrifice redeems us from a Law of Sin and purchaseth for us a law of grace according to that law we have a righteousness which is a righteousness accepted unto life through Christ Medioc p. 28. R. So that Mr. H's meaning must be That Christ was made Sin under the old law that we might have righteousness by him under the new law and that what Christ did under the old law amounted to no righteousness to us But he must be righteousness to us under the New Law and then Christ was made under the New Law which these men will deny and be our righteousness there no say they not himself be our righteousness but procure that we should be our own righteousness then the true meaning is here That Christ was made Sin for us that we should be our own righteousness but how our righteousness in Christs is our righteousness Christs then it is that we may be made Christs righteousness becoming ours by Imputation Christ being made sin for us he glosses upon as the Socinians i. e. Christ the immaculate Lamb was made a sacrifice for sin It is true Christ is expresly said to be a sacrifice for sin but how 1. As the true Sacrifice not as a typical Heb. 9.26 2. As a Sacrifice to bear Sin not less but more than all the Sacrifices of Old and therefore it is said to be made sin for us he was not a sinner by nature neither was his nature corrupted by his being made Sin for us therefore he was made sin by legal imputation made sin because put under the law the Priests and Sacrifices of old had the sins of the People laid upon them sin was charged on them their own first for which they sacrificed then the sins of the People but Christ did not only bear Sin as the Sacrifice that was slain but as Scape Goat also for one Type could not hold forth the fulness of Christ's Righteousness therefore the Apostle saith he did not only bear sin but bore it away Heb. 9.26 28. Now it s a strange thing that these men should spit at this Doctrine of Christ's bearing Sin one of late calling it Poyson another saying he bore not our very sins and all that he bore only suffering for sin I would know how any can suffer for Sin in Law or Justice and not legally bear the charge of sin And how Christ came to be a Curse if he bore not Sin 2. He bore Sin because he bore the Curse of the Law he was made a curse doth curse come upon any but for sin Is there any in the World but for Sin therefore whatever subject hath the curse of the law hath also the charge of sin for they are inseparable 3. How dare any man be so audacious as to give the Spirit of God the lie in that it hath so often and peremptorily asserted We have gone astray and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all he hath caused them to meet upon him will you say that is the punishment of us all when the Spirit of God speaks so distinctly of punishment v. 5. and tells us the reason because he bore sin he was wounded for our transgression because sin was laid upon him so v. 8. for the transgression of my people was he stricken and least you should be at a stand in this Point about Christ's bearing sin it s exprest again as the reason of Christs justifying many v. 11. for he shall bear their iniquities Nay it s added the third time and he bare the sins of many so that Christs bearing Sin distinct from Punishment is no less than three times in this Chapter It is also fully exprest in the New Testament totidem verbis Heb. 9.28 Christ was once offered there 's his suffering for what to bear the sins of many and 1 Pet. 2.24 He his own self bare our sins in his body on the tree and in multitude of places in expressions that are tantamount to these and now to say that Christ did not bear sin and all things that the Law calls Sin let it be as filthy and as vile as you will for it s so because its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we know he was manifest to take away all sin now is there any thing which you call the filth of sin is it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is it not then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the transgression of the law if it be Christ bore it if he did not then it stands yet in Gods sight and the hand-writing of the law is against you and you are not justified and why is Christ's Sacrifice said to be the purging of sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many things might be said to shew how properly it s spoken see Dr. Owen I must for brevity sake only say that it imports Christ's purging us by Sacrifice from all that the law of God calls filthy in sin Then it s objected Christ was unclean Answ Not morally polluted but legally unclean while he was under our sins as the Sacrifices were and therefore he suffered without the camp Obj. Then the Saints have no sin who give sufficient evidence that sin remains in them Answ The Saints are without spot before God in Point of Justification they are justified from all sin and filthy spot in Gods sight 2. Sin remains in them and will do in Point of Sanctification which is not perfect in this life but all in their sins that is a burden to them that is odious and filthy was laid on Christ by
covenant having but two parts the condition and promise made upon the performance of the condition by the party required so to do whereby the good thing promised upon the said performance of the condition is demandable by the performer as due debt to him Hence it 's the faederal nature of the condition not the greatness or smallness of the condition that makes it meritorious If God had said unto man in Paradice Take up this leaf or that straw and thou shalt live for ever eternal life had been his due upon his doing thereof and demandable by him and the covenant made it so viz. a due debt ex pacto i. e. legally so for a due debt is due in a law sense § 2. Now what hinders this desirable accommodation It is the B's opinion that there is a greater mischief in Antinomianism a Snake in the Grass which ought to be laid open to prevent the mischief of it Antinomianism the B. knows in true notation of the word and according to the sense of the Apostle Paul is a denial of the Justification of a sinner by our own works of the law the mischief that attends it is only occasional by reason of men's corruption viz. The vileness of corrupt and reprobate minds in the abuse of the grace of God therein to embolden themselves to sin because grace abounds which the Apostle was aware of and warns us against Rom. 6. It is not any fault in the doctrine it self Well but what is the mischief the B. finds It is saith he this all this dispute about conditions on our part depends upon another and if that hold this must follow as a consequence of it and several other things which Dr. Crisp saw very well had a necessary connexion with each other like a fair dealer in controversie owned them all Here I cannot but acknowledge the greet ingenuity of the B. beyond many others in not only owning him a fair dealer in this controversie that he opposeth him in but in his after vindication of him from those false imputations which others of his adversaries would fasten upon him so far that he leaves him a mere Calvinist and no worse § 3. p. 74. B. I come therefore to the next thing in the first Paper wherein you say i. e. Mr. L. clears the dissenting brethren from the charge of Antinomianism Report p. 13. Rem p. 11. Your words are i. e. Mr. L. 's That touching a Change of Persons between Christ and believers there is no physical change whereby Christ and believers do in stance become one another nor a moral change whereby Christ should become inherently sinful and Believers thereby become immediately innocent and sinless but the change is only in a legal sense by consent between the Father and him putting on the person and coming into the room and stead of sinners c This is laid down for the truth of this change by Mr. L. but yet Mr. L. peremptorily disowns Dr. Crisp's change of Persons as well as Mr. W. Now the B. doth very fairly shew and prove that Dr. Crisp intended no other change of Persons than what Mr. L. asserts to be the truth and a clearing the assertors from the charge of Antinom Now saith he I shall make it appear that you have not herein disowned Dr. Crisp 's sence of the change of persons so far I cannot but say that the B. hath done right to Dr. Crisp and Mr. L. and it 's no other than what I ever thought of the controversie when on foot I shall not give my self the trouble of transcribing what the B. hath done out of Dr. Crisp's Sermons to prove his assertion See p. 2. p. 75 76 77. § 4. This seems to be a great Mystery but is really the foundation of Antinomianism That Christ had the personal guilt of our transgressions charged upon him and so he was as sinful as we He should have added legally or in the eye of the law the guilt of our sins the personal guilt of every saved one being charged upon him the Reatus Culpae non perpetratio culpae the debt non contractio debiti This is the truth of the Gospel which will stand as a pillar of brass when all the wit and malice of the opposers and banterers thereof will be driven away as chaff before the wind Here are two assertions that we must stand by and defend the truth of against the B. and all other opposers In the B.'s first Letter he tells us what the Report saith p. 5. That if there be no change of persons between Christ and us there can be no translation of the guilt nor a just infliction of the punishment of our sins on Christ i. e. there can be no proper satisfaction which is truth without exception But the B. answers That there is a twofold translation of guilt to be considered 1. Of the personal guilt which results from the acts of sin committed by such persons Now the translation of this guilt of sin on Christ the B. all along denies and endeavours to disprove 1. Personal guilt can be no other than the guilt of the Person that had committed the sin for which he is arraign'd at the Bar of God's Law e. gr John hath stolen Thomas hath committed murder and neither the guilt of John's theft nor of Thomas's murder was transferred to Jesus Christ David's murder and adultery in the guilt thereof was not transferred to Jesus Christ nor the guilt of Peter's sin in denying his Master This is the meaning of the B. doctrine 2. He gives his reason If this guilt be translated Christ must become the very person who committed the sins and so become an actual Sinner yea as the Person that committed all the sins of those for whom he died I wonder so learned a man saw not the absurdity of this arguing which he took up from Mr. B. who never stuck at any gross arguments to bespatter the most glorious Gospel truths The force of the argument is thus unfolded and made very plain If a debt be translated from one man to another then he to whom it is translated must be looked upon as the person that contracted the debt but the B. saith We must not look upon sins as debts which we shall speak to in its place but let us use another instance If a thing done by one man be accounted to another e. gr a Representative in Parliament is that thing to be thought to be actually and personally performed by the persons to whom it 's accounted The Representatives of the people in Denmark gave up the liberties of the people to the King's prerogative the people by them are accounted to have done it by the Representatives must therefore every Subject be said actually and personally to have done it when doubtless Hundreds of lovers of the country hated and detested the Action tho' as necessarily included therein as if they had actually done it Many Instances of the like nature
I suppose because he lookt upon us as Men very shallow and of no penetration into matters For though he that hath been an actual Transgressor cann't be said not to have been because it 's past and cann't be made otherwise than that it hath been Doth it follow from this that therefore now he is a Transgressor His Argument doth run thus A Man hath been an Actual Transgressor therefore now he is and ever will be a Man hath been actually Sick or Poor and therefore he is so now and ever will be It 's a truth unalterable that this or that thing hath been but it follows not that therefore it 's now and always will be so It is a truth that all the Saints in Heaven have been guilty of Sin but are they therefore so now Then Heaven is full of guilty Sinners He alledges the absurdity of making a Fact past not to be past there 's none asserts it but that the Law may be fully satisfied for the obliquity of Fact we assert and in that sense God is said to take away our transgressions for what is the end of Christ's satisfaction in being a Sin-offering Is it not to satisfie the Justice of God in a Law-sense for the exorbitancy of that Fact for unless this obliquity be taken away before God the Sinner must be bound over to Punishment And hence no Flesh could be saved but all the World must remain Guilty Unjustified and Unpardon'd § 10. He excepts against considering Sins as Debts which he saith when once paid are no longer Debts but there 's difference between the guilt of a Fact and contracting a Debt for a Debt consists in a thing real whose property may be altered and transferred but in criminal matters there 's nothing capable of being transferred which is a thing real but the obliquity and guilt of the Fact is a privative and personal thing A. If Christ hath directed us to consider of Sin as a Debt such consideration is most regular and justifiable 2. If Obedience be that which is due to the Law of God in the strictest consideration of Justice then Disobedience is a Debt erg Sin is a Debt 3. If a Debt be no more a real thing but a Privation then other transgressions of the Law then the obliquity may be transferred in one as well as in another but it is so Erg. For a Debt is a defect of Payment and Privation of it there 's nothing but the Payment is real 4. In criminal matters no wrong subject is capable to be Punished in a way of Justice but he that is guilty § 11. He saith the Desert of Punishment which follows the transgression cannot be separated from it A. That which is meer consequent to a thing may be separated from the Essential Nature of the thing at least in Consideration but we have shewed that the Desert of Punishment is in the formal Nature of Sin For Sin as such is made by the Law to deserve Punishment and that is absolutely false if the Scripture be true which he saith Let what Grace or Favour soever be shewed the desert of Punishment remains still A. 1. In Man's Proceedings a Man that is Pardon'd is taken from desert of Punishment for it 's a slander punishable to call a Pardon'd Thief a Thief and the Law is silenced from dealing with himas such or calling him so But here God's ways are not as Man 's when he Pardons he also Justifies He provides as well for a full satisfaction of his Law for the very obliquity and exorbitancy of the Fact But he saith a Privation can't be transferred A. It 's true a Physical privation can't but a Moral may and a Debt may by his own Concession but a Debt is a Privation of the Creditor's Money I wonder an Ecclesiastical Man should not know it as well as others unless they call Men Debtors that owe them nothing Again the B. saith No Sinner can deserve that one that was not a Sinner should suffer for his faults A. It is true no Sinner can deserve that Christ should suffer for him no nor any ordinary Principal Debtor can deserve that any Man should be his Surety but another in kindness to him may put himself under Obligation to Pay and Write himself Debtor in his stead so tho' Sinners deserved Punishment yet not that Christ should be Punished for them and therefore that Christ is punished for their Sins flows from the love of God and kindness of the Lord Jesus from which he putting himself under Law-Proceedings and Suffers in a way of Justice for Sin i. e. taking upon him the Deserts of Man's Sin Bp Nor can the Law or Act of any Person transfer the desert of Punishment from him that was the actual Transgressor A. Here 's miserable Divinity it 's time sure to come to our Litany Lord have Mercy upon us A. 1. Cann't a Law transfer a deserved Punishment to another that fully satisfies it Why doth any one fully satisfie the Law for another but that the Law should have nothing to say to him to Charge or Accuse him which if so his desert is taken away If a Child or Wife commit a great Theft doth not the Guilt in Law fall on the Father or Husband and is not the Personal Desert taken away by the Father or Husband 's satisfying the Law 2. Can no Person Cann't God transfer the Guilt It 's strange that the Scripture should be so mistaken in saying Jehovah laid upon him the Iniquities of us all All the Answers to this are so frivolous that they are not worth our trouble of Answering them § 12. B. The Turpitude as to the Act of Sin cann't be re moved from it A. All these things being inseparable Sin remains in the best yea glorified Saints for Personal Guilt remaining and a Turpitude inseparable as it must needs so long as Personal Guilt remains there can be no Sanctified one on Earth or Heaven for Guilt and Filth is permanent ever never to be removed according to this Doctrine Bp Where-ever the Act of Sin is it must be displeasing to God but the Turpitude as it affects the Person of a Sinner must have another consideration A. Is Sin displeasing to God And can the Sinner be pleasing to him so long as he lies under the fault of Sin the desert and guilt thereof For suppose he is taken off from Punishment can he be received into favour with God Doth God accept Sinners in all their Guilt and Turpitude 2. I understand not how Turpitude of Sin is distinguish'd from the Guilt of Sin the said Guilt being the Turpitude the Law finds punisheth for it and condemns it even in Man's Law And although Sin carries an inherent Privation of good and an internal pravity yet there 's none of this that hath not personal guilt in it which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so far at least was charged on Christ and so far a believer washed in the
against the Socinians and Mr. B. 2. That Christ bore not the Personal Guilt of any Legally but that all Personal Guilt remains on the Sinner and was not legally transferred to Christ For this he saith P. 167. Bp. 1. We say that Punishment may be justly inslicted where there was a Translation of Guilt by Relaxation of the Law as to personal Offenders and admitting a Mediator to suffer in their stead R. No Guilt is translated by Relaxation of a Law for that dispenceth only 2. If the Law be relaxed as to Personal Offenders the doing of those things aster the relaxation is not Sin which was so before what needs a transferring to another 3. If the Precept be not relaxt which they will be loath to say it is then the Penalty must and if so either to a part only or to the whole If to the whole what need is there of a Translation If to a part only then part of the Sin only is transferred and Christ Died only for some part of our Sin not all Hence one part of our Salvation is owing to the relaxed Law and the other to Christ Hence Christ did not satisfie the Law in the proper and strict Nature of it and Christ's Sufferings were improper Punishments according to Mr. B. And here the Bp runs on ground Bp. He saith 2. Absolute Promises of the New-Covenant on which so much weight is laid without comparing them with other places speak no more of Christ's Sufferings than they do of any Conditions in us Here our own Qualifications and Performances are made to have an equality of conditionality foederally with Christ's Sufferings and if Christ's Sufferings be meritorious so are they too Bp. 3. The notion of Satisfaction lays the Foundation of Antinomianism which attributes unto God such a sort of vindictive Justice which requires an absolute and perfect Satisfaction in the same kind for the Sins of Mankind R. How much this kind of satisfaction borders upon Socinianism in the true meaning of it it 's easie to judge and what little reason the Bp had to reject the Principles that Mr. B. built upon is manifest being a firmer Foundation for his building And after all that he hath said against them as too much favouring Socinianism he is fain to lay hold on them to support his own Fabrick See here the pitiful shifts Men are put to that wander from the way of truth Arguments to prove that Christ bore the Personal Guilt of all them for whom he Suffered THAT the less intelligent Reeader may not be at loss for the truth not so easily finding it among the Controversal Difficulties of a Dispute I have thought good to make plain proof of this great Question in the affirmative And that we may prevent enlargements I premise 1. That by Personal Guilt is meant the Guilt of every particular Person for whom Christ Died as of Noah David and Peter c. 2. I take Guilt and Sin and the merit and desert of Sin to be equivalent terms in the sense of the Spirit of God and though the Scripture use the word Sin and we most commonly say Guilt this is exegetical to shew that we mean not that the Subjective Physical Act of Sin was transferred to Christ nor the inherent Moral Pollution But whatever is in either that is a Transgression of the Law the Law-relation of all Sin so far as the Law condemns the Sinner for it was charged on Christ i. e. Legally and Juridically in the Just God's distribution of Justice Then I argue Arg. 1. He that was punisht for Sin bore Sin in the Personal Guil i. e. the Legal Charge of it as the reason of his Punishment but Christ was punisht for it by the Concession of our opposites Ergo The Major is true 1. Because God is Just 2. Punishment without a Reason is very unjust 3. There was no reason in Christ absolutely considered for his Punishment therefore in some others therefore the Personal Sin of some or other 4. Without a bearing of Sin in the legal desert of some or other he could not be justly punished by the Law Arg. 2. He that was made Sin for us was made so by charging our Sins upon him bare Personal Guilt for he was made that which he was not in himself Now how could he be made so but by an imputation of the Sins of others to him a legal proceeding with him in judicature which could be no other than by Judging and Punishing him for some Guilt that merits the Wages of Death The Answer the Socinians and others make to 2 Cor. 5.21 is that he was made Sin as the Sacrifices were because a Sin-offering is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I answer 1. It was essential to the Sin-offering to have the the Personal Guilt of the Sinner charged upon it 2. When 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for a Sin-offering it 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. The Prophet Isa doth only use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he speaks of Christ's bearing Sin which last word is never used for Sin-offering 4. He was made Sin as we are made Righteous now we are not made Righteous by being made Sacrifices for Sin but by imputation Arg. 3. He that bore the Curse of the Law to Redeem us from it bore also the Personal Guilt of our Sins but Christ bore the Curse of the Law Gal. 3.13 For the Major it 's as clear as the Sun because Curse is inseparable from Sin the Law curseth no where but where it finds Personal Guilt Let these Men tell me where a Curse falls upon the head of any one but of such wherein there is Sin in some legal sense or other Arg. 4. If the Priests and Sacrifices of old the Types of Christ and his Sufferings had the Personal Guilt of Sin laid upon them then Christ the Antitype in his Sufferings had Personal Guilt laid upon him But the Antecedent is without contradiction yea and the Consequence because the Antitype is to answer the Type in all things wherein it is a Type Arg. 5. If they that were Punished by the Law did bear their Personal Sins by the Law then if Christ was Punished by the Law he also bore Sin by the Law But the Antecedent is true by the Scripture both in them that are recorded to have been Punished in Person for their own Sins Lev. 20.20 and 22.9 and 24.15 Numb 9.13 and 14.34 and 18 22 32. Ezek. 23.49 and in such as are recorded to have been Punished or Suffer for others Isa 53.11 Ezek. 4.4 5 6. The Consequence must be true if Christ was Punished by Law and was one that Suffered for others the proof whereof the Scripture is full of Arg. 6. If Christ bore not Personal Guilt but every one's Personal Guilt still remains then the Spirit of God taught David to pray after his Sin in vain Deliver me from Blood guiltiness O God But David's Prayer was
as the Law hath to do with him 3. A Man is not charged by one Law and acquitted by another but his imputation is always according to that law where he was charged and therefore his Justification or Condemnation by the same if a Man be found guilty by one Law he cannot be acquitted by another tho requiring milder Terms § 3. Not to impute a fault is to acquit and of the same import as to impute righteousness and therefore where the Spirit of God speaks of non imputation of sin Psalm 32.2 Rom. 4.8 1 Cor. 5.19 it always therein asserts imputation of righteousness for he that is a sinner and hath no sin imputed to him or charged upon him by the Law is righteous and found so by the Law and indeed all proper imputation is by the Law for Sin is not imputed where there is no law therefore it s properly the voice of the Law that imputes Sin or Righteousness where Actions or Claims of Right come to be questioned and tried what the law saith is saith to them that are under it for judgment and condemns therefore all transgressors and makes them guilty before God Rom. 3.19 § 4. To attribute or ascribe are larger Terms than to impute when any thing is imputed to a person it s attributed and ascribed but every thing attributed or ascribed is not said to be imputed because it s spoken of in a Law-sense e. gr we attribute Holiness Justice Power c. to God but do not say we impute them to God we attribute Heat to Fire hardness to Iron but do not say we impute Heat to Fire or hardness to Iron because it s naturally in them § 5. Legal Imputation of Sin or Righteousness is either of that which is a Man 's own unto himself or of that which primarily is his own and imputed unto another The first is when a Man bears his own Sin or stands legally in his own righteousness upon the first the law condemns him upon the other it justifies him he is upon the first Judgment of the Law found guilty or not to have right to the Claim that he makes or to have no right to his Claim to the Promise in a Law-Covenant Hence imputation of righteousness fixeth his right to the promised reward Imputation of sin cuts off his right to the said reward and brings him under the curse of the Law § 6. The second sort of legal Imputation is of a Man 's own Sin or Righteousness unto another It s by way of translation and it s either of Sin or of Righteousness Imputation of Sin by translation is when the Law imputes Sin to any other than the Sinner so that by that Imputation those others are legally made Sinners And this Imputation is twofold by way of Attainder or by way of Suretiship § 7. Imputation by way of Attainder is when the whole Blood is charged with and stained by the Sin of the actual transgressor Such was Achan's Sin such also Adam's First Sin his sin was imputed to himself and all his Posterity he being not only a single person but a Publick Person 1. Naturally containing all Mankind in him 2. Foederally Because God when he covenanted with him covenanted with a Kind he covenanted but with individuals when he covenanted with Angels As Adam was when he stood in respect of Mankind sohe was when he fell Hence it was that all the Kind must needs fall in him when Angels fell each one fell but for himself as each stood for himself but it was not it could not be so with Man Adam therefore was the greatest Representative in respect of the number represented by him that ever was and all Mankind sinned in him Sin did not come upon us by Propagation only tho a sinner can propagate none but a sinner but by imputing Adam's First Sin to all his Posterity for judgment of imputation came upon all to condemnation of the whole kind else Adam's First Sin should affect us no more than any other of his sins and Adam's sins no more than the sins of any other of our Progenitors Hence Adam's sin came upon us federally and by way of Imputation as well as by Propagation and seminal Descent for the Privation of the Image of God by Adam's Sin which was his moral Death was a Publick Loss never to be regained by any that have their standing only in him Hence every Natural Man is in him stands under that first Privation and therefore under that first Guilt and as every Man by Nature stands under that Guilt he also is under the condemnation Wrath and Curse of the Law Death passed upon all men in that all have sinned the Apostle speaks but of Adam's sin Rom. 5.12 16. and of death passing upon all by that sin imputed by the law as appears by the following word that all died in Adam the Apostle is express 1 Cor. 15.22 Undestand it of which Death you please spiritual or corporal that in Adam all died it infers necessarily that Adam was a Publick Person for we cannot be said to live or dy in another's life or death but as he is a Publick Person vers 49. we are said to bear the image of the earthly i. e. in his Fallen State which shews that his Image was of a Publick Nature to all his Posterity and his loss of God's Image a Sin imputed to the whole kind § 8. I cannot stay to insist largely on the proof of the Imputation of Adam's Sin but is a Point of so great concern that the denial of it overthrows the Gospel in the true state thereof I shall only acquaint the Reader That the Neonomians together with the Socinians and Quakers lay this denial in the foundation of their rotten Doctrine Neonomian We were not in Adam as a Publick Person or Representative by a Covenant standing nor his sin imputed to us further than we are guilty by a natural in being or derivation Scr. G. D. p. 86 87. 112 113. End of Controv. 95. See his daring confidence We were not in Adam as a publick Covenanter I would ask whether God covenanted with Adam as the comprehender of all the Kind if he did then Adam was a Publick Covenantee instead of the whole Kind and it appears in that the Covenant reached Eve then in him when the covenant was made Gen. 2 and if the covenant was made with her in him then why not by the same reason with all Mankind in him He saith Adam's sin is imputed no further than we are guilty we say we are not guilty any further than his sin is imputed its imputation of Sin makes us guilty not guilt that makes imputation He saith also no further than by a natural in-being what then doth not a natural in-being in Adam at the time of his Covenant make him a publick Covenanter when the whole Nature was in him and so we were federally in him because naturally but see how the Socinians concur
intervening Righteousness between Christ and us what to call it Mt. Cl. calls it subordinate and so doth Mr. B. but Mr. H. liking not that Name so well had rather call it co-ordinate but I know not from the Notion of the thing duly considered why they may not go one step further and call it the Principal or supream justifying righteousness for that which hath the principal place in any thing ascribed to it is the principal but our own righteousness hath the principal place in the thing ascribed to it which is Justification therefore it s the chief and supream righteousness For they say we are justified by the imputation of this righteousness only and by no other therefore all conducing righteousnesses to the introducing this are subordinate to it Again That which hath its place only in the external causes and in the modality of their operation as to the production of the effect is much inferiour to the essential causes that enter the very effect and are constitutive to it but Christ's Righteousness by these men is no more and therefore must be a subordinate righteousness to ours ours being causa formalis justificationis an essential cause Christ's being but causa protarch a remote cause adjuvant to the efficient therefore the righteousness of Christ can have no more than a remote causality in purchasing the New Law by the righteousness whereof we are justified which is no better indeed than causa sine qua non it s in ordine ad the justifying righteousness therefore subordinate to it 2. He saith This subordinate Gospel Righteousness is an imperfect righteousness Truly I am sorry for it that Gospel Righteousness should be imperfect I doubt there 's little dependance upon it since the righteousness of the law that condemns us is perfect its little likelihood that an imperfect righteousness should save us from it ay but they will say it s Christ's perfect righteousness must save us from the perfect righteousness of the law condemning us Say you so and therefore why should not this righteousness of Christ have the honour of justifying us it seems we are saved by Christ's righteousness and justified by our own as if Justification were not Salvation But is our Gospel-righteousness imperfect this is no Gospel for its ill News I must tell these men its a rotten foundation they build upon and their Building will drop not being built on Christ the Corner Stone in Justification 3. He saith It s imperfect consistent with many failings and infirmities Resp I pray how comes this to pass is it from the Legislator that constituted such a Law whose condition is obedience consistent with sin or is it from the Operator or Worker under this Law if from the former then the Law makes it in fault if there be any but if he hath made a law with such condition of obedience consistent with sin then performance of such is no sin nor needs a Pardon for sin is the transgression of the law the subject is under Now if Believers are under the New Law for Justification and perform there what 's required what need have they of a Pardon from a righteousness borrowed from another law If it be from the last viz. the fault and defect of the operator of righteousness that his righteousness is not the performance of the condition of the New Law as required then this New Law cannot justifie him our Neonomians in this Point will be on Scilla or Charybdis in spite of the World In a word 1. That righteousness that cannot justifie us at the Bar of the old Law or Covenant of Works is no justifying righteousness but none of our own righteousness New Law or other will not justifie us at the Bar of the Covenant of Works by the Neonomians own confession therefore we cannot be justied by any such righteousness 2. Again that righteousness which needs pardon is no justifying righteousness but is condemned by the law for whatever is pardoned is condemned by the law first neither is that person justified who by the law is unpardoned Pardon being an essential part of Justification in Mens Courts where many Indictments ly against a Man if he be quitted of some and not of all he is not discharged as justified but here it s worse I do not find that at the New Law Bar a man as they say justified is quite discharged from any Indictment at all for there 's none fully pardoned wherefore our Neonomians say that their Justification is not perfect in this life So Mr. Cl. Our Justification in this world is not perfect and compleat c. p. 18. § 6. Mr. Cl. saith There 's a twofold guilt Legal and Evangelical Legal Guilt is an obligation to eternal punishment this is fully pardoned in Justification and can never return again because Christ hath taken it all upon himself and made full satisfaction to his Father's Justice for it but Gospel-guilt which is an obligation to Gospel-Punishment i. e. fatherly chastisements for sins after Justification returns upon commission of new sins and is removed upon repentance sometimes wholly sometimes in part This is also Mr. H's Doctrine Resp The distinction is naught for we deny any Evangelical Guilt Evangelical Guilt Threat or Punishment is a Bull a downright Contradiction if we know what Gospel is and they that will be ignorant and call this Assertion Antinomian Poyson let them be ignorant still I thank God for the knowledge of the Gospel so far as that it is quite contrary to Guilt Threat and Punishment or Obligation to it in the true legal sense thereof Likewise he should have distinguished of Guilt as usual reatus culpae and reatus paenoe the first properly Guilt and that in judicio legis vel judicio conscientiae if a Man be sub reatu culpae judicio legis as they say the justified ones are he is unjustified for the law cannot justifie a man and declare him guilty i. e. not guilty and guilty at the same time Obligation to Punishment is not Guilt in the true sense of it for we say a man cast in Court is guilty of the charged Fault and therefore the Law binds him over to Punishment We never say a Man is guilty of the punishment but deserves he is found guilty and therefore the Sentence of the Law binds him to Punishment but he saith Legal Guilt is fully pardoned in Justification Pardon is always of a fault and includes not punire but is sin pardoned fully in Justification as to an obligation to eternal punishment then 1. Pardon is included in Justification contrary to what he asserts in the foregoing Page 2. Justification is perfect and compleat so far as the taking off eternal punishment 3. He cannot but own this to be the main part of Justification at least and this it seems is owing to the full satisfaction made by Christ to the Justice of God our righteousness of the New Law hath nothing to do here in the matter
Paul means only Works of Moses's Law § 8. Whether Paul disputes only against some Works § 9. Mr. Cl's Denial and Challenge § 10. What Law the Apostle means § 11. How the Jews looked upon the Law § 12. Of the Law of Faith § 13. What Deeds of the Law § 14. What Works to be boasted of § 15. Of meritorious Works § 16. Of justifying Works § 17. Of the Jews Conceit of Perfect Obedience § 18. 1 Cor. 4.4 considered § 19. Mr. Cl. unfair in his Challenge § 20. Of Rom. 4.5 § 21. Of Rom. 2.20 Sect. 1. OUR Neonomians affirm we are justified by works not of the Old Law which the Apostle Paul every were excludes but of the New Law this is that which we oppose and say the Apostle doth exclude all our works even in the state of Regeneracy from Justification and in this Point we shall take Mr. Cl. because he seems to be most full in the handling of it and take up that Mr. H. saith in a more scattered manner here and there § 2. Chap. 10. He tells us who it is that God Justifies not ungodly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Rom. 4.5 No saith Mr. Cl. the Spirit of God means the godly and he brings against the position of the Spirit of God in this place that of Exod. 23.7 Where the LXX useth the same words Resp To which I shall answer 1. That Mr. Cl. knows the LXX doth not translate the words according to the Heb. Text but rather speaks to the drift of the Text which is to enjoyn unto Men an impartial Execution of distributive Justice and therefore it renders it Thou shalt not justifie the wicked for a reward and that is the plain Drift of the Text by what precedes v. 6. Thou shalt not wrest judgment and thou shalt take no gift v. 8. and the Hebrew in the 7th verse is I will not justifie i. e. will not have thee to justifie for thou art but my Deputy and I sit in the Assemblies and Courts of Earthly Judges and whatever Judgment contrary to Justice and Right thou passest I will call thee to an account for it Then 1. This Text speaks of Man's Judgment not of God's immediately but as supervising the actions of men 2. He might as well or better alledged Exod. 34.7 where God proclaiming himself a sin-pardoning God saith he will by no means clear the guilty but in pardon of sin God doth clear the guilty and so the ungodly in Justification of them by the imputed righteousness of Christ which takes off the ungodliness in that kind tho man cannot provide for the Justification of an unrighteous person by gifts or partiality in a way of Justice yet God can by gracious and just ways and means provide for the acquitting the guilty and justifying the ungodly justly 2. It must be understood Rom. 4. according to the words in a strict sence God justifies the ungodly while such not to remain such For Abraham there spoken of was such an ungodly vile Idolater Josh 24. Had Abraham performed any New-Law righteousness before he came out of Vr Mr. C. will understand it he saith in a strict Law sence i. e. that he was a transgressor of the law of works so will I and that 's therefore to be ungodly and I know no ungodliness but such and while he was such God justified him and he did no New-Law works before he was justified for Heb. 11.8 for by faith when he was called of God to go forth he went so that he had faith and was justified before he obey'd the Call 3. It s most consistent with the Grace of God to justifie the ungodly and not in the least derogatory from his Justice to justifie a sinner in Gods way of Justification 4. As God justifies none to be ungodly nor justifies ungodliness but that sinners may be godly so there 's none can be godly before he is justified he cannot perform one godly Act nor have the Spirit the natural Man being a stranger to God and Enemy to him 5. Why may not God justifie the ungodly as well as sanctifie the ungodly if God may give one gift to the rebellious why not another if he may give Grace why not all Grace they will have Men justified by works who works in them to will or do Who gives them this righteousness Doth not this gift of God find them ungodly They will say yea undoubtedly then I will say why may not God give Christ to an ungodly one the gift of righteousness and justifie him thereby I hope if God can give one righteousness he can give another unless they will limit his Sovereign Grace § 3.1 But more fully And first Negatively not by the Law Gal. 2.16 viz. the Law of Moses and why so is there any the least word of the Law of Moses its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the works of a law any law when the Apostle speaks of Moses's law he annexeth the pre-positive Article So Rom. 3.20 it s a law from the works of a law no flesh living can be justified now this is not the Ceremonial Law by v. 19. but that law whereby all the world became guilty Jews and Gentiles v. 9 c. for the Gentiles were not guilty by Moses Law neither could the works of the New Law admit of an exception here for its any law that gives the knowledge of sin Now if the New Law gives the knowledge of sin the works of it are here excluded for that is no law that gives no knowledge of sin Hence all works of all Laws are here excluded i. e. such as the righteousness thereof required is our obedience performed by us whence its plain that the Law of VVorks the Ceremonial Law and the New Law are equally excluded Now the next Verse hath it that the righteousness of God is manifested without these excluded works this is no new Notion but witnessed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the law i. e. of Moses and the Prophets VVhat Gal. 3.16 is brought in for I know not I find it not among the Errata's but I think it must be one Hitherto also do belong these places Job 15.14 chap. 25.4 Psalm 143.2 which Places plainly and peremptorily deny righteousness in Man to be found unto Justification Mr. Cl. says according to strict Justice according to the law of works as Paul expounds it Gal. 2.16 Resp The Apostle there doth peremptorily protest against Justification by the works of a Law any Law whatever and if he hath an eye upon the Psalmists words he explains them so far as to us why the Psalmist denies Justification to any man living is because all works that Man can perform must be referred to some law by the works of a law no flesh living could be justified Let me add what the Apostle saith If righteousness be by a law then Christ died in vain It s strange the Apostle should so expresly and positively exclude the works of
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
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
if Christs Righteousness be not accepted for our Justification from the Old Law and imputable to us it s not desirable to be imputed to us to bring us under a new Law and further Bondage Besides if Christ purchased this Law-making Power it s for himself and not for us for they will tell you he did not Purchase the Performance of the Condition and when they say we are justified by our Works for the sake of Christs Merits their meaning is because Christ purchased the Law and Promulgation of it just as if they should say if Adam had stood he had been justified by his Works for the sake of God who made the Law for if there had been no Law there had been no Justification by it so we are justified say they by the Law of Grace for the sake of Christ who merited the Law and became Law-maker this is all they mean and this is the Neonomian Cheat in the great Point of Satisfaction whereby they would by retaining the Word only without the Sence cover themselves from the odious Name of Socinians Lastly He makes Grace and Justice in respect of God to be all one so that to be justified by Works of our own and by Grace is all one and Paul's Epistles are all Non-sense § 4. Mr. Cler. p. 64. tells us He will offer his Reasons why Faith is our subordinate Righteousness to the First and Second we have spoken sufficiently already The Third is Because we frequently read of the Righteousness of Faith which he saith is our Conformity to the Rule of the New-Law in sincere Believing and imperfect Doing the Places he mentions are Rom. 4.11 13 Chap. 9.30 Chap. 10.6 Gal. 5.5 Heb. 11.5 Resp The Righteousness of Faith is the Righteousness of Christ apprehended and received by Faith for Rom. 4.11 tells us that Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith which Righteousness of Faith Abraham had being uncircumcised that the same righteousness may be imputed to them and what righteousness is that it is that through which iniquity is forgiven and Sin covered that it might not be imputed and this is the righteousness that 's imputed without works Hence I argue That that righteousness through which iniquity is forgiven and sin covered and is imputed without works is the righteousness of Christ and not ours but the righteousness of Faith according to the Apostle in that place is such as appears v. 6 7 9 10. Is there any iniquity forgiven in the New Law Righteousness no they say pardon is consequent to it it s had of the old law Is any Sin cover'd by it from the Eye of God's Justice no they say God sees their Sins by the old Law Is righteousness imputed without works no it cannot be because its faith as a work is imputed v. 13. The Promise that he should be the heir of the world was not through a law then not through any works of a law but through the righteousness of faith therefore it was the the righteousness of Christ the righteousness of a law is excluded therefore works and it s here also what the righteousness of faith apprehends That of Rom. 9.31 and chap. 10.6 we shall shew by and by was the righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith The Apostle Gal. 5.5 intends Christ's righteousness for what should men do for the hope of that righteousness which they have in themselves for by faith all saith he are one in Christ Jesus true faith bringing forth love as such apprehends and waits for more and more comfort in the righteousness of Christ That spoken of Hebrews 11.7 is the righteousness of Christ promised the Seed of the Woman that was the great Promise believed by the Antidiluvian Patriarchs and by the Death and Satisfaction of the Seed of the Woman promised they believed he should break the Serpents head Noah became heir of this righteousness which he received and lived comfortably in the enjoyment of by faith in the Promise § 5. Mr. Cl. brings for a further confirmation of this Argument those places which speak of the righteousness of God which they bring as a great Block in their way and therefore take much pains to remove it Mr. Cl. saith this Phrase hath been much mistaken by many who have been led into error thereby and therefore he will endeavour to give the true sence of it to this purpose also Mr. H. we will therefore very diligently mark what they say The places are Rom. 1.17 3.21 22. 10.3 2 Cor. 5.22 Phil. 3.9 We say by the righteousness of God is meant the righteousness of Christ but these men say it s our own inherent righteousness Mr. H. saith That our righteousness is called Gods in opposition meerly to that of works let a man do what he can by his own strength or by God's aid he can never come to the law of works or Moses God hath therefore been pleased to make us a new law a law of faith or grace or new covenant having lower terms in performance whereof the sinner in respect of the law may be righteous it s a righteousness performed by Grace which God mercifully condescends to accept instead of that which is perfect through the merits of our Saviour and in regard of that acceptation N. B. or this good will it s called his or the righteousness which is of him Lo here is the true Key which opens the Mind of the Apostle therefore Mr. H. takes it to be the new-law-righteousness which in these places is called the righteousness of God becouse opposed to the old-law-righteousness because also wrought of God Mr. Cl's resolution is in a manner the same That the imperfect new-law-righteousness is the righteousness of God because it is of his Institution as for perfect obedience to the law which is legal righteousness that is righteousness in the strictest sence and in strict justice can be taken for no other and therefore the reward must be debt But that an imperfect work such as Faith and Obedience should be accounted righteousness must arise from the gracious Appointment Designation and Ordination of God who hath set up this Way and Method of becoming righteous under the Gospel and hence it s said reckoned accounted imputed for righteousness which Phrase imports Grace and Favour as some note § 6. Mr. Cl's reasons for his Opinion are 1. Because the Phrase of submitting to the righteousness Rom. 10.3 of God seems to import that this is a new law institution or way naturally we are not acquainted with Resp The Text runs quite against him being ignorant of the righteousness of God how doth that appear seeking to establish their own righteousness they submitted not to yielded not to accept of the righteousness of God 1. God's righteousness and man's are here directly opposed to each others 2. It is directly against Mr. Cl's reason in that man need not be taught to set up his own righteousness they naturally adhere to it 3. They
that law which convicted all the world as guilty is the righteousness of Christ but such is the righteousness here spoken of as is apparent by the whole Text. 2. That righteousness which we have by faith in another to justification is the righteousness of Christ but this righteousness is that which we have by and in another for faith is said to act upon what is without us and not on that which is within us 3. That which is imputed to Sinners devoid of any righteousness by the law or by any law is the righteousness of Christ but this righteousness of God is so ergo the Propositions of these Syllogisms lies plainly proved in the Text. 4. If all righteousness be here peremptorily rejected which is performed by us in obedience to any law then the righteousness here introduced the righteousness of God is Christ's righteousness but the Antecedent is true v. 20. 5. If the righteousness of Christ is our justifying righteousness which the Apostle intends throughout this Discourse then God's righteousness is Christ's but ergo the Minor which is the Antecedent is proved The redemption and propitiation of Christ is the righteousness by which we are justified v. 24.6 That righteousness which the law of Moses witnesseth to being the reason and sign thereof is the righteousness of Christ as such For what did the sacrifices for sin but witness to Christ's great propitiatory sacrifice but the sacrifices of the law all held forth Christ offering himself a sacrifice for sin and the Gospel was therein preached Now it 's plain the Apostle brings in the law of Moses witnessing to this righteousness of God § 13. The next place is Rom. 10.3 The Jews had a zeal for God and a blind devotion but were extreme ignorant of Gospel-Mysteries being ignorant of the righteousness of God being ignorant of God ' righteousness in the law viz. the perfection thereof and going about to establish their own imperfect righteousness unto justification they submitted not to justification by God's righteousness being ignorant of Christ's righteousness for it 's expresly said to be the righteousness of God v. 4. Submitted not to the righteousness of God for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth Take the Argument then that Christ's righteousness is God's 1. That righteousness which is directly opposed to our own in justification is Christ's righteousness but God's righteousness here is so 2. That righteousness which a man being ignorant of tho' he know his own righteousness falls short of justification is Christ's righteousness but the righteousness of God in the Text is such ergo 3. That which is the end of the law for righteousness i.e. answers the law is the righteousness of God but Christ is the end of the law This Argument is so plain and fall in the Text that it cannot be answered with any fair pretence tho' they make a blundering at it to no purpose and you shall see the Apostle opposeth it v. 5. to the righteousness of the law consisting in doing and at once tells us the righteousness of God the righteousness of Christ and the righteousness of Faith is but one righteousness and opposed to the righteousness of the law which the Jews established thinking as our Neonomians do that it was sufficient to justification to have some imperfect sincere obedience to Moses's law For I bear them record saith the Apostle they have a zeal of God that 's their sincerity which was the new law for if they were saved by the law of Grace this was dispensed to them in Moses's law they knew not that God's law required perfect right and its perfect right must answer it Hence it appears that they had the same opinion that the Neonomians now have that Moses's law was a new law requiring only obedience to the moral part of it so far as they could and for their sins to offer sacrifice according to the ceremonial part and resting therein without faith in the Antitype they reckoned themselves fully righteous for justification Hence upon the annual day of atonement they reckoned themselves as innocent as Adam in his innocency i. e. as free from guilt propitiation being made till they had contracted more guilt Therefore the Apostle saith Heb. 10.1 That the law being a shadow of good things to come could never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year make the comers thereto perfect and the most carnal of them reckoned themselves perfected by those sacrifices but for a time Therefore it 's most absurd to assert that the carnal Jews whom the Apostle writes against did endeavour after a perfection of the law of works 1. Because they offered sacrifices and made atonement for sin 2. Because when they did make atonement they reckoned they contracted new guilt and were perfect but for a time Therefore the Apostle saith Rom. 9.30 31 32. they attained not to the righteousness of faith because they sought their righteousness as it were by the works of the law not directly by perfect obedience but by such as they had and not by faith in Christ's obedience for the Apostle is express in it for they stumbled at that stumbling stone which was Christ as the Apostle proves Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling stone c. 3. When they offered they confessed Sin § 14. Mr. H. gives his Explication of this place Rom. 10.4 thus For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness i. e. as I construe it Christ by his satisfaction hath procured that we should not he judged by the law of works and consequently that righteousness or justification be attained if we do perform the terms of the Gospel Resp Can Mr. H. be so irrational as to think in his Judgment and Conscience that this is a genuine Interpretation Here lies in the Text very fairly these two things 1. That the righteousness of God is explained by him particularly to be the righteousness of Christ have not submitted to i. e. accepted the righteousness of God What is that the righteousness of Christ for Christ is the righteousness that answers the righteousness of the law and this is the righteousness of God 2. The Design and great End of the Law was righteousness and perfect righteousness unto Justification of Man perfect cannot be performed by fallen man therefore God hath provided a perfect righteousness in Christ and he is this end of the law to every one that believeth and herein by justifying him by this righteousness God is just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus and it s the righteousness of faith because it s not for Justification by any thing that evacuates or relaxeth the law of God but establisheth it in seeking for and laying hold upon Justification by a righteousness that fully answers the law How will it hold in Mr. H's sence That Christ by his Satisfaction hath procured that we should not answer the law of works or that he should
plainly mean the exclusion of his own works then he must mean some righteousness of another and not his own as appears by this Psal 31. and also 51. Now we shall prove that David means the Righteousness of Christ and not of the New Law 1. That righteousness by which sin is forgiven is not New-Law righteousness but Christ's and without our works but the righteousness is such here The major is proved from the Neonomians themselves who say there 's no forgiveness in Justification by Works but forgiveness is consequent of it for that they go to the old Law Bar that the righteousness whereby sin is forgiven is the righteousness of Christ because it s expressed by blood remission is not without blood and forgiveness being one Medium by which the Apostle proves Justification without works 2. That righteousness which covers from the eye of God's Justice in the law is a righteousness without our works and anothers and no◠of the New Law but such is the righteousness here spoken of such as covers sin from the eye of God's Justice in the Law such covering David meant as appears Psal 51.9 Hide thy face from my sin and blot out all mine iniquity now it s such righteousness as will take off the Eye of Divine Justice from our sins yea cancel and blot out iniquity Now as to the major it appears by the Neonomian Doctrine that their righteousness in Justification doth not cover sin for they say it s a sinful righteousness and needs pardon therefore their righteousness cannot cover sin which is sinful in it self and there can be no righteousness but Christ's that can cover sin Mens own righteousnesses are far from being such covering 3. That righteousness through which God imputeth not sin to any chargeable therewith is a righteousness of another but this righteousness without works is such Ergo. The minor is plain by the Apostle for what the Apostle rehearseth from the Prophet is David's description of this righteousness without works The major is clear from what went before no man hath righteousness enough to cover his own sin Neither can God not impute sin where he sees sin to be more than righteousness God must impute Sin where Sin is seen uncovered by righteousness therefore if there be a righteousness through which God imputeth not sin its certain it s not ours but Christ's only 4. That Righteousness through which God imputeth not Sin is justifying Righteousness and Christs alone but the Apostle speaks of such a Righteousness Now the major is plain that Christ's Righteousness is that through which God imputes not sin for he saith Cor. 5.9 God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses § 4. And so likewise Phil. 3.9 is of the same import they have one answer for all This Place should have been handled in the former Chapter but Mr. Cl. missing it there led me out Here Mr. Cl. saith Paul disclaims only his legal righteousness which he had before Conversion not his Gospel Righteousness viz. his Repentance Faith Love Humility c. And it s the same thing Mr. H. saith Med. 31. and tells us the Protestants are mistaken in their interpretation 1. Because the righteousness of God is not the same with the righteousness of Christ as hath been observed R. That we have disproved and proved it a false Assertion and proved that the righteousness of God is the righteousness of Christ in all the forementioned places and is as easily proved here for the righteousness which he opposeth to his own righteousness indefinitely without any exception is Christs that I may be found in him in Christ not having mine own righteousness therefore in Christ is anothers which righteousness of mine own working is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 legal as all righteousness of our own by which we seek Justification is legal it cannot in any sence be called Evangelical therefore Paul would be found in Gospel righteousness which is Christs only and this is God's righteousness which we receive by believing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. You are to know that this righteousness which Paul calls his own in this Text is the righteousness of a Jew and Pharisee not his own as a Christian this appeareth from the Verses before v. 4. and this appears further from Rom. 10.1 2. R. The righteousness of a Jew or Pharisee was a new-law righteousness for they were all Neonomian Paul could not look upon himself as Perfect but as to his moral conversation comparatively blameless he was sincere for he had great zeal and verily thought he did God good Service in persecuting the Church But Mr. H. should have looked to the beginning of the Chapter where he bids them beware of absolutely prophane of evil workers that carry on mischievous Designs under fair Shews and lastly of the concision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that were so fond of their new-law Notions so as to cast off Christ or cut themselves off from him but we are of the true circumcision whereby all our fleshly Conceits are cut off and worship God in the Spirit rejoicing in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh a fleshly conceit of our own righteousness in which I had more ground to rejoice than any and accordingly he tells how exactly he had conformed to Mose's Law and performed the condition of it as much as any Pharisee of them all and had as much reason to expect Justification by this new imperfect righteousness as any that now do but Christ had now taught him better things what then I counted gain I now count loss for Christ I find I had nothing that advantaged while I was ignorant of Christ and therefore I find now that not only my Pharisaical righteousness was loss to me but any present self-righteousness even now at this time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do now esteem all things to be damage for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord c. and account them dung that I may gain Christ and he tells us what he means by that that I may be now found in him what in respect of holiness yea especially in respect of righteousness not having now my own righteousness viz. that of the works of the law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is legal for so all his righteousness that a man seeks Justification by is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is of a law but what is the righteousness he would be found in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that righteousness which I have by the faith of Christ the righteousness which is of God for such is that by faith the righteousness which God giveth and Christ hath in whom it is and I do receive by faith this whole verse treats of his Justification and the righteousness thereof and the following verses treat of the the Sanctification he looks after in Christ and v. 9. there it s certain that Paul opposeth the righteousness of Christ not only
of our Sins And Procopius he saith expresseth it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not this as a Surety And yet he saith here is nothing like Suretiship to pay our Debts for us Now if the Bp. had pleased to read out the Chapter he might have seen two Verses more wherein this Truth is litterally express V. 11. He shall bear their Iniquities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shall take their Iniquities as a Burden on his Shoulders to carry them away as the Scape-Goat did the Iniquities of the Children of Israel And the lxx renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall take up their Iniquities upon him And V. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall bear the Sin of many shall the Spirit of God express it self to one thing so fully and plainly and all fly away at the Puff of a Bp. as Chaff before the Wind What is all that this learned Bp. hath said to refute this Doctrine of Christ's bearing our Sins and satisfying for them as our Debts to Divine Justice but this Here 's nothing like Christ's Suretiship to pay our Debts for us we will not take his Word for it till he proves that Sin is not a Debt to the Law of God when Christ hath told us it is 2. Till he shews any other credible way of bearing another's Faults besides this way of Suretiship till 3dly He shews and proves against the Apostle Peter that there is no other way of paying Debts on purchasing or redeeming than with plain Silver and Gold § 17. He proceeds to shew us the great Harm of Christ's being a Surety to pay our Debts of Sin p. 107. 1. Then Christ hath fully discharged our Debts already This is one Mischief of it but God forbid it should that Christ should do Harm in paying any Man's Debts but to do it by halves is to pay some only and leave others for us to pay How did he satisfie God's Justice if he gave not full Satisfaction God forbid that Christ should leave a Farthing for us to pay 2. The second Mischief is that we have nothing to do towards the Payment of our Debt all that we have to do is to believe and to be thankful for all this Transaction was long since past without Consideration of any Act on our parts A. Is it a Harm that Christ hath done so much for us in way of Satisfaction and Purchase that he hath left nothing of ours to put in for a Share in this Honour no not our believing it self I take it to be the Glory of Christ and the blessed Priviledge of Believers that he hath provided for Believers such a Furniture of Grace that they shall believe on him bear his Image walk in his Steps to the Glory of his Name in all Thankfulness and new Obedience The third Mischief is that it nulls all Faederal Conditions on our part but of this more afterward 4. That we can't suffer for those Sins that are already discharged Is this such a Harm It 's neither Reason or Justice that we should pay a Debt to the Law which is already discharged Christ hath born all the Sins of Believers in the deserved Punishments thereof hence the Sufferings of the Saints are not Penal nor can be but are Blessings for their Good purchased by Christ for them § 18. The Bp. saith There 's but one place of Scripture to be found to favour this Sense of the Suretiship of Christ viz. Heb. 7.22 It is easie to instance in many places that favour it and prove it it being as I may say the very Marrow of the Gospel but as to this place it expresly calls Christ a Surety and it is the more remarkable as to our present purpose that as the Spirit of God hath called Sins Debts and Christ's Suffering a Price paid and expresly excluding Payment by Silver or Gold so Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which as Lexicog say doth primarily signifie a Surety for Money Hence it appears the Spirit of God makes much of the Metaphor of Debt and Payment to confirm our Faith in this that there 's no better account of the Nature of Sin than a Debt to God's Justice and no better account of the Sufferings of Christ than that they were a Payment of this Debt to the Justice of God And what if it be but in one place of Scripture When a Truth is so fully and plainly expressed in one Text it is enough there are many Truths of great weight are so besides the marvellous Concurrence of other texts of Scripture to the tenor thereof But he saith this text speaks of a Covenant not of the Surety of a Covenant A. What is it that makes a Debt is not a Covenant or compact But it is of a better Covenant i. e. a Surety to pay the Debts of the old Covenant of Works but brought in by a better Covenant the new Covenant being a Covenant of Grace answering the Ends of God's Grace more than the old doing that which the old could not do to save Sinners by a Righteousness which is not their own but better in that it hath a Surety that it brings in to engage unto God to pay all our Debts due to the Justice of God from us under the old Covenant which had no Surety Heb. 7.19 makes it better in nothing else but the bringing in a better Hope viz. the Surety But he positively denies that Christ was to pay our debts unto God If so what 's the reason the Church prays Forgive us our Debts when God's way of Forgiveness of a Sinner as asserted in Scripture is by bringing in a Surety to pay his debts of Sin Col. 1.14 In whom we have Redemption thro' his Blood even the Forgiveness of Sins But what a Surety is it that he will have Christ to be Sure it is the same the Socinians will have to be only i. e. a Surety to engage for God to us not for us to God but a Surety only for the Truth and Faithfulness of God in his Promises See his Words p. 110. § 18. The Bp. takes notice of some dissenting Brethren he might better said of Protestants dissenting from the Church of Rome who talk much of Surety Righteousness and of Christ's being our Surety as to the Payment of our Debts because the Debtor may be said to pay the Sum the Surety lays down for him and that God doth account that Believers do pay that Debt of Obedience which Christ hath paid in their Stead because they are a legal Person with Christ and all this depends upon this mistaken Notion of Suretiship A. It is very sad that so plain Scripture should corrupt our Minds with mistaken Notions how shall we know we are mistaken or not in any then Or that we do know the Mind of the Spirit in them if when we have a plain text expressing a Truth according to the plain and undeniable Sence of other texts of Scripture not only
believe with all thy Heart c. that must be a real receiving of Christ He that hath the Son hath Life 1 John 5.11 12. The Sinner first receives Christ after sees and knows he hath received Christ himself V. 13 and 20. And we own there may be presumption where there 's an appearance of believing and knowing only there need not be such sputter as he makes about these matters neither doth it profit his cause Object But while we were Sinners Christ Died for us so saith the Apostle Rom. 5. and others after him Two things thereby signified 1. That Christ Died for us under that Consideration for he came not to Save those that are Righteous but those that were Sinners 2. That it was long ago that Christ Died while we were in the first Adam and in an unregenerate state Sinners of the Gentiles to which he rejoins thus How then must every Sinner believe that Christ Died for him A. Every Sinner under the Call of the Gospel is to believe in Christ for Life and Salvation according to the constant tenor of the Gospel but to know Christ did bear his Sins and die for him results from this Believing He that hath the Son i. e. by believing hath Life Receiving is first before knowing that a Man hath Received and it is Gospel truth that Christ bore the Sins of every one that truly believes and every one is an Elect Person whose Sins Christ bore For if the Apostle spake true he that makes sure his Calling makes sure his Election Then saith the Bp. here is Universal Redemption asserted in its full extent and what is more here is Universal Election too if all Men can believe that their Sins are forgiven A. Let us examine the Bp's fallacious Arguing 1. The Gospel is indefinitely preached to all under the Call thereof and directed to all Sinners without any exception he that believes on the Lord Jesus shall be saved is this an Argument that Redemption is Universal or that all are Saved or Elected It 's said as many as were Ordained unto Life believed therefore it cann't be said that every one doth or can believe John 12.39 2. See how foully this Man imposeth by charging his opposites with saying That all Men can believe that their Sins are forgiven p. 133. or to charge this as p. 132. That a Man's Sins are forgiven because he believes that they are forgiven being laid on Christ whereas a Man believes because his Sins are forgiven and laid on Christ for Christ bearing our Sin is the Cause of believing and not the Effect At least conditional Election follows upon it he saith We see he suspected his first consequence and therefore poacheth in another This may serve for a Professed Armin. but the Bp. I suppose would not have been accounted so the Argument is because Men are Saved in and by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ therefore Election is upon foresight of Faith but we say Men are as absolutely Elected unto Faith as unto Glory The controversie of Conditional Election is not here to be entered upon but we assert that it follows more upon the Bp's Hypothesis than ours § 26. He adds its ground enough of presumption as to all such as can believe that their Sins are forgiven A. Those that can believe their Sins are forgiven can believe through the Grace of God working it nay they have attained to a great measure of Grace How doth presumption consist with can Believe B. What can hinder any Man more from Repentance and forsaking his Sins than to be told that the first Act of Saving Faith is to believe his Sins is forgiven R. Where is any one that will teach an Unbeliever to Believe his Sins are forgiven in the state of Unbelief But we find the Voice of the Gospel to the Unbeliever is to invite and call him to believe the Gospel which saith that this is a Saying worthy of all acceptation That Christ came into the World to save Sinners that he bore Man's Sin and was made Sin and Curse for them and that the Sinner should come in particular and apply himself to Christ for this Pardon and Forgiveness that is in Christ for with him is Pardon and Plentiful Redemption He is a Fountain opened for Sin and Uncleanness and if a Fountain then not an empty Object of Faith but full of Pardon and of all the Grounds and Reasons of a Sinner's Faith and Hope Now how doth such coming to Christ and closing with him in a free Promise hinder Repentance and embolden them unto Sin For the Apostle saith Sin shall not have Dominion over you because you are under the Grace of God in the Promise and he shews Sin will reign over a Man while he is under the Law But the Gospel Preacheth Repentance in order to Remission R. It Preacheth Repentance and Remission to shew that where there is Repentance to Life there is Remission and where there is Remission received by Faith there will be Repentance in a Believing coming to God through Christ The Soul cann't turn from Sin to God but by a believing Repentance neither can any Repentance be unto Life unless it be a turning from Sin to God thro' Jesus Christ Hence Faith and Repentance are frequently put for one another or in one the other included When the Scripture speaks of the first Act of the Sinners coming unto God yea not only the first act of true Faith but all other are inseparable from Repentance as from other Graces Love Hope c. Though both Repentance Love and Hope are distinct Graces and Fruits of the Spirit from Faith and from each other This lastly I affirm as the truth of the Gospel that there can be no true Repentance antecedent in Nature to true Faith Faith being the first effect of Spiritual Life in one that is effectually called Bp Repentance is commanded and Baptism commanded therefore they are conditions R. The Antecedent is true but the consequence follows not if he meant new Covenant Conditions For all things and Duties Commanded are not therefore foederal Conditions For that Grace which God works by his Word and Spirit is very absurdly called a Condition of a Covenant that God makes with a Sinner But observe he makes Repentance such a condition as Baptism if so what inseparable connection is there as there should be in this Case between the condition and promise for will any say that he that is not Baptized shall be Damn'd The Scripture saith not so besides the Seal of a Bond is not the Condition of the Obligation but only a Ratification Whether Mr. R. B. did Socinianize The Chief thing discussed by the Bp in his third Chapter is whether Mr. B. was a Socinian from which Charge he makes as if he would Vindicate him I shall briefly examine how he acquits himself in this difficult undertaking The sum and substance of Mr. B's Opinion in this Point was That our Sins were no proper
meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings they were only premeritorious or occasional Causes For although the Bp would have Mr. B. mean something more than occasional by promeritorious yet he acquits us with Mr. B's own Explication of his meaning of premeritorious that it is only occasional which the Bp saith is no cause at all and Socinianism and yet he good Man would defend him though he finds it hic labor hoc opus and fain to leave it re infecta The first proof which he would make is from Mr. B's Confession wherein all that he saith is no more than what a Socinian will say in this Point That Christ gave up himself a Sacrifice for our Sins and a Ransom for us in suffering for us upon the Cross which he doth make according to his way of moulding of Doctrine comport well enough with Socinian Principles See what he gives for Antinomianism 1. That Christ satisfied God's Justice as in the Person of all the Elect this one Error whereby he denies Jesus Christ to be a Publick Person 2. That in a Law-sence and God's account they themselves did satisfie in and by Christ Here he denies Christ to have Suffered in our stead or to have made Payment to Justice for our Sins either in a Law-sense nor in God's account and therefore he made no payment for us neither can we say we satisfie in and by him Whereas every Debtor can say so who hath a Surety that makes payment in his stead the Law accounting this payment to the Original Debtor neither is it untrue that he paid in and by his Surety but an honour to his Surety and detraction from himself when he saith he paid in and by his Surety 3. That Christ's Sufferings were full and proper Executions of the threatning of the Law to Man Here he denies Christ's Suffering under the Law that Man brake and that his Punishment was no proper execution of the threatning of the Law and therefore no proper Punishment 4. And so acquits them ipso facto on the meer Suffering Here he makes up his charge by ambiguous Expressions without any further means of conveyance to give them right in it by Application 1. Here he insinuates that there was no Discharge of Christ from the Sins of the Elect which he suffered for If so no satisfaction 2. He makes as if some held that Men have an Actual and Personal discharge before their being by Grace or Nature which is a false Charge and a male Consequent drawn by himself on the Doctrine As if those that held Christ's full and compleat Satisfaction by impetration denied application 3. He would have us believe it an Error that Christ purchased a right to Eternal Life for all the Elect as the immediate effect of his purchase and that our right comes by application whereas our right lyes in the purchase only and our claim of that right and possession is by application The Socin Error he thus represents That Jesus Christ did not undergo any Penalty for our Sins as meritorious or promeritorious Cause but only as occasional And doth not Mr. B. say the same thing again and again in his Writings only he foacheth in his promeritorious which if the Socin either did not use or if they did they would not deny it in the Sense Mr. B. useth it and as he hath explain'd himself And that he did not make any Satisfaction to God's Justice for us c. there is nothing plainer in Mr. B's Writings both in his Methodus and Universal Redemption He puts for Truth as follows That Jesus Christ as a Publick Sponsor did bear the Punishment deserved by the Sins of the World he means of all and every Man and made to his Father a Satisfaction sufficient for all It is strange a Bishop of the Church of England should look upon this as an Orthodox and Plain Confession to distinguish a Man from a Socinian for it 's plain he prevaricates in speaking of Christ as a Publick Person for in the Antin charge he makes it a marvelous Error to say Christ satisfied Justice in the Person of all the Elect so he must mean here that Christ was such a Publick Person that was no Representative or Surety which is no publick Person at all 2. In that he saith Christ did bear the Punishment deserved by Sin he also prevaricates for he doth every-where deny that our Sins were imputed to Christ that he suffered the Punishment of our Sins in any proper Sense and that Sin was but an occasional no proper Cause thereof and therefore his Punishment was but Analogical Equivalent to the Socinian's Metaphorical He cann't mean in respect of proportion in a Mathematical Sense for that would overthrow his whole Hypothesis Mr. Lob quotes enough to overthrow all that the Bp pleads on his behalf He shews that in his Methodus he expresly declares that the Sufferings of Christ were only a Natural Evil undergone by occasion and the remote causality of the Sins of Mankind and that Christ's sufferings are only sufferings in an Improper and Analogical Sense These things saith the Bp were long since written The chief Expression is Christ's Sufferings had no proper meritorious Cause but yet Man's Sins were the Pro causa meritoria c. and saith nothing to defend it p. 151. He considers whether Mr. B's own words do lay him open to the suspicion of going too far towards the Socinians in this matter Now let us see whether Mr. B. hath a fair deliverance at the Bp's Bar. Bp In this case we must distinguish the Scripture Notion of Punishment from a Strict and Philosophical Sense of Punishment R. This is a strange distinction of a Learned Bp what means he by a Philosophical Punishment Is it morally Philosophical i. e. such Punishment as belongs to the breach of a Moral Law If so sure the Scripture Punishment cann't be distinguished from it for that is legal Punishment but he saith it's strict Punishment i. e. according to the exact tenor of a Moral Law if he mean so it cannot be excluded from Scripture Punishment Bp The Scripture speaks in General of Christ's bearing our Sins c. but not a word of strict and proper Punishment R. No sure the Bp is mistaken greatly when he might see in the same Chapter that Christ was wounded for our Transgressions was not that proper Punishment Doth the Scripture say nothing of strict and proper Punishment when it saith the Wages of Sin is Death Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the Book of the Law Is not the Curse of the Law strict and proper Punishment If this be his Philosophical Punishment there 's much of it in Scripture and it cann't be distinguish'd from it Bp. But of that which was appointed and accepted in order to atonement for our Sins as the impulsive Cause which become meritorious by his voluntary undertaking R. The Bp would suggest that there 's some general improper
Evangelical But alas Mr. Cl. to prevent misconstruction after he hath bin disputing for the work of Faith to be our righteousness yet we must not expect Mercy Justification Pardon Reconciliation or Favour with God upon the account of our sincerity Faith or Obedience as the procuring cause but we are to look up to Christ confessing our best works to be but filthy rags in strict justice c. Resp One may see how frail a righteousness these men have feigned to themselves it is as the Spider's Web that they dare not lean upon it tho they will swagger and vapour with it to out-dare them whom they call Antinomians who will cleave immediately to Christ's righteousness alone as their only righteousness without the intervention of these filthy Rags their righteousness must have Christ stand behind the Curtain to patch their ragged raiment their House cannot stand without Bellarmine's propter quod their Pageantry is all dead Images unless one behind the Curtain move them which no body must see here is no Mercy Pardon and Reconciliation for and by their Righteousness but Christ procured something of it I know not what but Christ's Procurement was long ago the Law is in their own hands now he only procured the New Law they must shift as well as they can to perform the Conditions Christ did not purchase those neither died he to forgive any fault in their righteousness but oh their righteousness comes not up to the old Law what need they trouble themselves about that Christ hath fetcht them from under that faulty Perfection and brought them under a faultless unrighteousness of the Remedial Law and faults their Righteousness must have or else it would be an adequate condition but they must acknowledge their unworthiness and desert of all evil and when we have done God looks upon us as righteous in a Gospel sense I had thought in the beginning of this Paragraph Christ had bin to have pardoned and mended the faults of our remedial righteousness but it seems here is some pretence to it only that Christ may not think he is put off with nothing but the compleating of these rough Garments to deceive lies in their own doings if we do this God looks upon us as righteous in a Gospel-sense and pardons us first justified and not pardoned and then pardoned and not justified VVhat a great matter of Lamentation is it to see the corrupt minds of men thus vainly and mischievously sport themselves with the rich Grace of God and his strict Justice § 9. Before I leave this Chapter let us talk a little further with Mr. Humph. about his great challenge if it be as he saith that no Man or Woman before Christ coming did Imagine they were righteous before God or accepted for the Obedience of Christ it must follow that they had a hard task under the New Law for they wanted the propter quod and both Mr. Cl. and he saith their righteousness wants pardon and they must go to the id propter quod for pardon and acceptance Now I would Query whether if they could not imagine Christs Obedience to be their righteousness how could they imagine that Christs Obedience could be the procuring cause so that they were altogether destitute of the id propter quod I would know whether the Faith of Gods Children before Christ had no Eye unto Christ and his righteousness in the Sacrifices and sin Offerings which they offered daily did they not look at them as shadows and types of a better and more perfect Sacrifice the Apostle saith that the righteousness of God which we shall by and by shew to be the righteousness of Christ was witnessed by the Law i. e. the Law of Moses and the Prophets and if so its strange that they should have no imagination of it when as the Apostle Peter 1 Ep. c. 1.10 Saith the Prophets have Enquired after and searched diligently for this Salvation prophesied of Searching what and what manner of times the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signifie when it testified before hand the sufferings of Christ and the glory which should follow The Apostle Peter was clear in this Point Acts 2.31 He saith that David foresaw the Resurrection of Christ and spake of it and Christ himself affirms this after his Resurrection to the two Disciples going to Immaus that he ought thus to suffer and enter into Glory beginning at Moses and all the Prophets he expounded unto them in all the Scripture the things concerning himself Now if Moses and all the Prophets yea all the Scriptures should so eminently and expresly foretel Christs sufferings and resurrection and why it was viz. to bear Sin and satisfie Gods justice as the Prophet Isa c. 53. and David and Jer. and all the Sacrifices of old and his Redemption was also for them to the transgressions under the first Testament Heb. 9.15 It is strange that none of them from Adam to Christ should in the least imagine their acceptance with God should be for his righteousness but that they should look for Justification by their own righteousness only and none others § 10. Mr. Cl. in the conclusion of his Book undertakes to disprove the Imputation of the Active righteousness of Christ when as all a long his Book he holds that Christ's righteousness Active or Passive is not imputed but as to Effects now he can mean nothing by the non-imputation of Either but as to Effects So that he must intend by the non-imputation of Christs active Obedience of the Effect and then either it had no effects or no effects pro bono nostro now sure if I mistake not he grants that whatever Christ was it was for our good and therefore have some benefit by it and God reckons it a benefit for that 's their Imputation when we have a benefit God reckons it so i. e. Imputes it to be what it is surely if Christ active Obedience did but fit him to redeem us by passive it was a benefit to us His Incarnation was it not a benefit In their way of Imputation they may say after Mr. B. because he did not obey that we should not obey Resp Neither did he suffer that we should not suffer but Christ suffered that we might not suffer penally and obey that we might not obey legally and its strange that the second Adam should have actual righteousness for us as well as the first had actual sin that all should not be repaired as to the preceptive as well as the vindicative part of the Law which was fallen upon us in the first Adam by the second Adam Why was he made under the Law Was it not for active as well as passive Obedience CHAP. XI Of Iustification by Works Section 1. The Neonomian Doctrine opposed § 2. Who it is God justifies § 3. More fully Answer'd § 4. Arguments against Justification by Works § 5. Mr. Cl's Proposition § 6. Of the Jews Opinion about Justification § 7. Whether
he always had and would deal with them that stood upon their own righteousness according to the tenor of the law if you are able to stand the test of your own righteousness you shall be tried by it yea I will deal not only righteously with you according to my law but condescendingly if you are able to turn from sin to righteousness and abide in it and not turn to sin again but all this is to shew them their folly in trusting to their own righteousness and ability to perform it for he saith v. 31. cast away all your transgressions i. e. there 's not the guilt of any must ly upon you and make you a new heart and a new spirit where he challengeth them to do that which no natural man can do but because they stood upon their own righteousness and natural abilities God brings them to the test for their Conviction that they might fly to his Grace both for Justification and Sanctification which fully appears by the Promise chap 36.25 26 27. where both are said to be of God and not of our selves He alledgeth also the tenor of the Law he that doth them shall live in them i. e. saith he he shall be justified in them Resp Now its strange a man should be so absurd to bring the express tenor of the Covenant of Works to be that of the Covenant of Grace when it s positively affirmed that this tenor of the law is not of faith directly opposed to that righteousness of faith Gal. 3.12 Nay he is not content with this downright contradiction to the Spirit of God he goes on If you make a question there is another Text must convince you The just shall live by faith to live by our faith is to be justified by it Resp The man I suppose said these things by roat not minding the Text he says there 's another Text but names not where but it s applied to the matter in hand Gal. 3.11 the very reciting whereof will be answer enough to him The Apostle was proving a man is not justified by the works of the law perfectly or imperfectly performed is evident for the just shall live by faith i. e. he that is righteous is righteous by the righteousness of faith and this is the righteousness which his faith as its food feeds upon during his life of Justification § 2. His second Argument is Medioc p. 19 20. When this very Phrase of the imputation of Christs righteousness is not found in Scripture So saith Mr. Cl. Resp That imputation of righteousness is found in Scripture it cannot be denied as in the instance of Abraham Rom. 4. Now our adversaries will grant us this Dilemma that either it was Christ's righteousness was imputed to him or his own not his own because he was ungodly when justified for when he was ungodly saith the Text faith was imputed to him for righteousness what of faith sure it was no other than the thing he believed Jesus Christ and his righteousness whose day of expiation he saw this was imputed to him for righteousness For if Abraham saw Christ's day it was the day of his Sacrifice and Expiation for this end he came into the world and the Good News or Gospel preached unto him was Christ in the Promise Gal. 3.8 and the same righteousness the heathen was to be justified by Ibid. Faith wherever it s said to be accounted for righteousness or wherever we are said to be accounted righteous it s to be understood objectively and put for the righteousness that it does eye and lay hold upon But 2dly Is not Christs righteousness said in Scripture to be imputed to us let us a little examine Scripture First whether it s not in Rom. 4. where Imputation is often mentioned The Apostle Rom. 4.21 22. observes Abraham believing the promise viz. of Christ saith therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness viz. the thing promised and the thing believed for he believed that God was able to perform what he promised therefore the thing promised was that which was imputed to him Now saith the Apostle do not believe you are told this because it was peculiar to Abraham and none had it but Abraham but it s written not for him only but for us that have the same Faith Righteousness and Imputation to us to whom it shall be imputed if we believe i. e. receive that righteousness by faith which Abraham received embracing the promises viz. believing on him that justifies and on the righteousness of Christ by which we are justified and then the Argument stands thus The death of Christ for our sins and resurrection for Justification is the righteousness of Christ this none can deny but the death of Christ for our sins and his resurrection for or because of our Justification is imputed to every believer as is plain in the Text chap. 4.24 25. and hence it follows that all the Justification spoken of and imputation of righteousness throughout the Chapter is Christs righteousness the Apostle asserting here and Gal. 3. that the Gentiles should be justified by faith as Abraham was 3. The Scripture saith we are justified by his blood Rom. 5.9 and through faith in his blood Rom. 4.28 therefore They that be justified by the blood of Christ are justified by the imputation of his righteousness but we are so justified by the places mentioned Now then none cna deny that Christs shedding his blood is his righteousness and we cannot be justified by it unless it be imputed to us and if any thing else be imputed then not that if Mr. Humph. will say its effective only its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his blood as in the blood of a Sacrifice shed for us where in the blood of the Sacrifice is accepted as if it were the very blood of the Sinner 4th That by which we have redemption is the righteousness of Christ but the death and satisfaction of Christ is that whereby we have redemption and therefore that redeeming righteousness is imputed to us Rom 3.25 26. Col. 4.14 but more of this by and by for the Scripture is full of it blessed be God Neonomian Doctrine I am fully assured is far from Gospel as far as Darkness is from Light § 3. His third Argument against the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness is If the righteousness of Christ be imputed to us as if it were ours in it self it must be the righteousness of his active or passive obedience or both But it s neither Resp We say both He goes to prove his active obedience is not imputed If it be then must we be looked upon in him as having committed no Sin nor omitted no Duty and then what need will there be of Christ's Death Resp The same consequent may be corruptly drawn upon imputation of his passive as he doth But the consequent follows not for the Imputation of Christs active obedience is upon supposal that the Law of God is not nor cannot be perfectly
did so closely adhere to it that they would not submit to the Doctrine of Justification by the righteousness of another viz. the righteousness of Christ see how the words will run in Mr. Cl's sence being ignorant of an imperfect righteousness of their own performing going about to establish a righteousness of their own performing they submitted not to a righteousness of their own performing which is Gods righteousness besides it s not sence to say a man submits or not to that which is his own righteousness but it is to say he submits to take the righteousness of another 2. As the righteousness of the law is that which the law requires Rom. 2.26 so this righteousness of God is that which God requires under the Gospel Resp 1. The righteousness both under the Law and Gospel is the righteousness of God what the law requires God by the law requires and indeed God requires but one righteousness under the Law and Gospel and there 's the righteousness of the law and the strictest righteousness and if there must be a distinction between the righteousness of the Law and Gospel as our Neonomians make it s most proper to call the perfect righteousness of the law God's righteousness it being his more than an imperfect sinful righteousness which would be very dishonourable to him to be called his But Christ's righteousness is Legal in that it answers the Law and Gospel unto the Sinner because it answers it for him and his peace with God is made thereby 3. As the Sacrament of the Supper is called the Lord's Supper because it s his Institution and the Lord's Day because his Designation Answer The Supper is not called the Lord's Supper only because it s his Institution but because our Lord's Body and Blood is shewed forth therein to be the righteousness of God for our Justification Neither is the Lord's Day so called from his Design of it but because it is to remember the resurrection of our Lord who rose for our Justification having accomplished justifying righteousness for us 4. It s opposed to their own righteousness Rom. 10.3 therefore not any righteousness of their own as is already shewed supra from Rom. 10.3 § 7. Next let us see how Mr. Cl. will prove that it s not the righteousness of Christ that 's meant by the righteousness of God in the aforesaid places he saith it cannot be for these reasons p. 33. 1. Because the Apostle here distinguisheth 2 Cor. 5.21 between God and Christ the righteousness of God is one thing and being in Christ another whereas if they were all one the sence would be that we might be made the righteousness of Christ in Christ And p. 65. The Apostle also in most places where he mentions it distinguisheth between God and Christ Rom. 3.22 Phil. 3.9 Resp This Reason is so frivolous that it needs little answer There is no distinction at all in respect of righteousness but an exact account thereof that the righteousness of God which the Apostle speaks of Christ that which is in Christ that the righteousness of God in Christ is that which is imputed to us we need not look far to the meaning of the Apostle in the Phrase it s but in verse 19. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing unto them their trespasses i. e. in the righteousness of Christ God was working out reconciliation and non-imputation of sin and if so imputation of Christ's righteousness and he saith if the righteousness were one it s that they might be made the righteousness of Christ in Christ but I pray why may not Christs righteousness be called the righteousness of God as well as our own because they say our own was God's Institution Is it ours God's and ours too and Christs righteousness may not be God's and Christ's too but this reasoning is very absurd more of this as we proceed and as for the other places we shall come to them by and by § 8. P. 65. Reason 2. He always calls it the righteousness of God and never the righteousness of Christ Resp Mr. Cl. himself saith it cannot be understood of that righteousness which is inherent in God p. 33. I suppose he means of the Attribute of God's Justice because its something revealed in the Gospel and he speaks true in it but why may not the redeeming righteousness of Christ be called the righteousness of God 1. Because it was the righteousness of the Person who is God and Acts 20.28 God is said to purchase his Church with his own blood by a communication of Properties But 2. Why may not Christ's righteousness be called the righteousness of God for the same reason that you say our righteousness is so called because it is the way and method through which he hath designed to justifie us Christ saith he is the way and if so then the instituted and ordained way now if this interpretation of the Text will serve for them why not for us I am sure the righteousness we plead for is the most deserving Reason 3. He calls it The righteousness which is of God not which is in God or Christ Resp According to Mr. Cl. it s not the Attribute of Gods righteousness but it s the work of righteousness wrought by Go'd in the Person of his Son therefore its properest to express it as the Apostle of God and it s often enough said in Christ therefore it s not true I find not any thing said further by either of them to support this Notion Mr. H. talks here and there in divers places about it but the substance of all is put together more methodically by Mr. Cl. and with more modesty § 9. It remains now that we take the said Texts into distinct Consideration and examine what righteousness is by them intended which is called the righteousness of God 1. Rom. 1.16 17. The Subject the Apostle treats of is the Gospel of Christ the glad tidings brought to Sinners of Life and Salvation in him 2. This he gives an account of as the reason why he is far from being ashamed of it in receiving it for its appointed Ends for his own Salvation or in preaching it for those ends unto others 1. Because it is the power of God to Salvation of every one that believes both of Jews and Gentiles 2. In this is the power of God in effectual Grace seen in that its the Doctrine of Righteousness 3. He shews its the Doctrine of righteousness by two things 1. In that this righteousness of God is revealed in it 2. In that its the object of a Believer's Faith from time to time it s revealed to his first faith and always of faith justifying afterwards he lives upon this righteousness from time to time as he proves from the Prophet the just shall live by faith Now then it s called the righteousness of God 1. Because its a righteousness provided by God before the foundation of the World in his wise
Imputation or else Christ died in vain or made not full satisfaction for their sins and they are yet in their sins and bear them and so unjustified This I have a little the more enlarged upon for some reasons § 16. I pray note it it s not said that his righteousness might become ours nor that we might be made his righteousness but that we might be made the righteousness of God Resp It s said that we might be made the righteousness of God in him and what is the righteousness of God in him but his righteousness in him shews where this righteousness of God is it s in him the Apostle speaks not of two Subjects but of one that is Christ and is it not said that his righteousness may become ours what is more plain 1. It s said as Christ was made sin viz. by Imputation for its a legal making so righteousness is made ours 2. As our sins are made Christs not by his Corruption but being imputed to him juridically so his Righteousness is made ours in Justification before God As he was made Sin in our sins so we are made Righteousness in the righteousness of God that is in him The Phrase in him determines expresly what the righteousness of God is unless men will be wilfully blind to plain Truth Lastly What he saith is in uncouth Terms he saith Christ redeemed us from the law of sin I find not the Moral Law any where so called but the law of sin is the Bent Propensity and Inclination of our natures to sin and so used Rom. 7.23 2. He calls meer procurement Satisfaction which we have excepted against before 3. It s no sence to say that Christ was made Sin in making agreement of procuring to obtain any good thing for himself or us 4. Why doth he talk of Christs Procurement when he denys that which is the thing here mentioned as the next end of Christ's being made Sin which is that we should be made the righteousness of God in Christ 5. If he hath procured that we should not be judged by the law of works then he hath procured the repeal of the law then it ceaseth to be norma judicii and what satisfied it 6. He hath procured a new law what 's that to the righteousness of it which they deny to be procured by Christ the Parliament procures an Act to pay the King Taxes but we the People must pay the Money CHAP. XIV Other Places of Scripture Vindicated from False Glosses Section 1. Mr. Cl's False Gloss on Isa 45.24 § 2. His Gloss on Jer. 23.6 Examined § 3. The Branch is Christ Priest as well as King § 4. 1 Cor. 1.30 Examined § 5. Rom. 4.6 Examined § 6. Phil. 3.9 Examined § 7. Rom. 5.19 § 8. And Heb. 7.22 Examined 9. Further of Christ's Suretiship Section 1. THE false Glosses of Mr. Cl. are first upon Isa 45.24 Surely shall one say in the Lord I have righteousness and strength which he saith are words of the Deity in opposition to Idols and that the most rebellious shall submit to him and the seed of Israel shall confess they have righteousness by him i.e. of his bestowing upon them in the same manner as they have strength for as he strengthens us so he makes us righteousness upon which he deals with us as righteous persons and justifies us Resp The words are the words of Christ who is called Jehovah in divers places by the Prophets but that they are the words of Jehovah in the Person of Christ I am told plainly by the Holy Ghost Phil. 2.10 and Christ Jehovah swares that every knee should bow and every tongue confess as the Apostle saith at the Name of Jesus for he saith he is a just God and a Saviour so is Jesus and there is no God or Saviour but he there is no other Name given therefore this Homage that he calls for is to him as Jehovah Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 4.12 2. It s him the ends of the earth i.e. the Gentiles should look to to be saved by 3. The great thing that hereby we are assured of and promised irreversibly is that at the time when the Gentiles shall submit to Christ they shall acknowledge that in Jehovah the Saviour Christ they have righteousness and strength it s a force to the Text to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by from or by for its plainly in Jehovah for in Christ is our righteousness and strength and because here is two things named it s no reason to say they come to us the same way the fulness of Christ both of righteousness for Justification by way of imputation and strength for Sanctification Now according to these Men to say in Jehovah I have righteousness is to say in my self I have righteousness and strength but it denotes that the righteousness that we are justified by is in Jehovah v. 25. and its that which is in Jehovah for in the Lord shall all the seed of Israel i. e. the true seed he justified and glory they shall also give God the Glory of the strength they receive in Grace for as Christ is made of God the righteousness so he is made the Fountain Head and Root of their Sanctification and this is a special Prophecy of the latter days when the Vail shall be removed and the Glory of Christ shine more brightly than to the Jews of old who sought for righteousness in themselves for the most part and lived upon a Neonomian righteousness Christ Jehovah saith it should not be so when the ends of the earth came to be his inheritance then men should renounce their own righteousness and acknowledge Christs righteousness alone to be their justifying righteousness yet that all Grace and Holiness is treasured up in him 1. It s the righteousness of God such Paul calls so 2. It s the righteousness of Justification 3. It s a Righteousness of God in Christ Jehovah 4. It s a righteousness made ours by Imputation 5. It s the righteousness that every true Believer is justified by for such are the Seed of Israel in the days of the Gospel 6. It is that righteousness not only to be received to Justification but to be rejoiced in they shall rejoice in Christ Jesus having no confidence in their own fleshly righteousness § 2. Mr. Cl. p. 31. The next is Jer. 23.6 He shall be called the Lord our Righteousness Much of the same import with the former the words are very general without assigning how Here are four Verses treating of Christ I observe every passage refers to his Kingly Office v. 6. must be understood in a sence correspondent to the rest v. That he is the Lord that doth execute Judgment and Righteousness for us and I deny not but it may refer to a being our Righteousness in sences agreeable to Scripture as to be the author of our righteousness Mr. H. It s not appropriated to the Second Person but to be understood of the
to the righteousness of the law but to his own righteousness in the largest consideration any thing of his own now What he saith to Rom. 10.1 is answered before The Christians Faith and new Obedience out of doubt by God's help are his righteousness Resp These men will hold their Conclusion let the Scripture say what it will Then the import of the Apostle must be thus That I may be found in Christ not having mine own righteousness which is of the old law but my righteousness of the New Law through faith the righteousness which is of God by faith Paul's righteousness as a Jew and Pharisee was one thing and Paul's Faith and Obedience which is his righteousness as a Christian is another To which I answer 1. That Paul's righteousness after Conversion is here directly opposed to the righteousness of Christ for he would not be found in his own but this righteousness of Christ to be found in it i. e. by judicial Enquiry his own righteousness can't be holiness or the having it for he doth not nor would say he would not be found having of holiness 2. There can be no Gospel-righteousness of our own that stands in competition with the righteousness of Christ for Justification for then its legal and fleshly 3. A man 's own righteousness whether before or after pretended Conversion is his own of the same nature and kind whatever he himself may think of it 4. If it was Paul's Judgment that his works was only chang'd from one law to another and thought that he was now to be justified by his Gospel-Works he was as far from the Kingdom of Heaven as before for one law can no more justifie a man by his own works than another therefore rejects all righteousness of a law 5. He is very full in expressing what righteousness he would be found in in no righteousness of his own for all such is legal in the righteousness of Christ in him this he tells us is the righteousness which faith lays hold on and this is the righteousness of God which God imputes to Justification and the sinner receives by faith 6. He intends not any thing here of Sanctification in this v. but speaks singly and by it self of it in the next neither doth he call it his righteousness but in this ver sets aside all his works tho he shews his value of them in their place yet as for any place in Justification he counted them but Dross and Dung He adds the Words of our Saviour except your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees which is against him for no mans righteousness exceeds theirs which stand in his own for Justification before God It must not be our own that can it must be Christs alone for no other exceeds theirs § 7. Mr. Cl. The next Text is by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous Rom. 5.19 Here Mr. Cl. and Mr. H. both exclude Christ's active obedience as having nothing to do Mr. H. saith this is perfect Antinomian Faith and excludes Repentance quite out of this life I must tell him I am sorry he understands Repentance no better those that he calls Antinomian knows how to reconcile Christs Perfections and their Duties together I see better than he doth as if Christ being a perfect Second Adam did exclude Grace from us where it is of his fulness for righteousness and holiness that we receive and exercise Grace but so much only by the way as a Mark upon the Dirt that he often throws on the Protestants and Reformers and upon the Lord Jesus Christ himself I must confess that I answer him with more mildness than he deserves As to the exclusion of the active obedience of Christ there 's no ground for it in the Text but quite contrary the design of the Apostle in the 2d part of the Chapter from v. 12. is to shew how Sin and Death entered by the First Adam and how Righteousness and Life entered by the Second Adam He accordingly compares them together as contraries shews that the first was a Figure of the other in his general nature but after shews notwithstanding their agreement in a general nature how greatly they differ specifically sin entred into the World by the First Adam by imputation of his Sin and by Propagation so Righteousness by Imputation and Life as the Promise annexed unto the Second Adam The First Adam was a Type or Figure of the Second 1. In that the First was a Publick Foederal and Seminal Head to all his Posterity so the Second was to all his and therefore upon the Fall of Man from the Perfection of the Law the Second is made under the Law and stands in all the Perfection of it as a Publick Head to all his spiritual Seed Now that Christ's active obedience is not excluded in the Text appears by the plain Antithesis of the First Adam's disobedience to the Second's obedience for where disobedience and obedience are set one against another then as the one is actual sin so the other is positive obedience for if only passive obedience be here meant then it should be said as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the Sufferings or Satisfactions of one many were made righteous 2. The First in the Figure was a Publick Person in respect of his actual obedience or disobedience to the Law of God therefore the Second Adam must be a Publick Person also in respect of his active obedience or else he answers not to the Figure 3. Christ could not be without active obedience as the Head and Root of his Church the Root must be actually holy or else the Branches cannot be so 4. It was essential to his High-Priesthood to be holy harmless c. as such and a High Priest is a Publick Person and stands for the People I could be very large in proving that Christ's active obedience belongs to that righteousness of Christ by which we are justified but I shall not have room here Mr. Cl. makes as if he would exclude Christ's active obedience only from righteousness but it is the passive also which both he and Mr. H. strikes at for he saith As by Adam's sin all his posterity were brought into a state of sin so that by the Merits of Christ's sufferings they are brought into such a state as that they may be made righteous Resp i. e. They are brought into such a capacity by Christ's purchasing a new law that they may possibly be righteous by their own righteousness So that Adam by his sin brought his into a state of sin but Christ by his righteousness doth procure a possibility of a righteousness for his so that the Second Adam comes short of the First in Conveiance whereas the Apostle hath much more Rom. 5.17 If by one mans offence death reigned by one much more the grace of God and the gift by grace hath abounded unto many v. 15. So if by the
dwells in Eternity there 's no Time nor Succession Christ was set up from Eternity Prov. 8. as Surety a Thousand Years are to God but as one Day and much less therefore Christs Execution of his Suretiship on Earth in the Days of his Flesh was Eternally before the Lord hence he is said to be slain from the Foundation of the World hence the faithful before his coming had a full 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Remission of Sin through this Covenant Relation of Christ there was not a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or passing them by for Remission till Christ was actually Slain but they had the Vertue of his Death as fully as we Heb. 4.15 7. He continues our Surety that hath paid standing and pleading his full Satisfaction for us therefore is our Surety now since Payment carrying his own Blood into the Holiest of all and there making Intercssion for us CHAP. XV. More Places of Scripture Vindicated from False Glosses Section 1. Of Daniel 9.24 § 2. Of Ephes 1.4 § 3. 2 Cor. 5.19 examined § 4. Of Gal. 5.7 8. § 5. The Sence of the Apostle James § 6. Mr. H. and Mr. Cl. Answered Section 1. MR. Hum. interprets Daniel 9.24 thus He shall make reconciliation for iniquity and so shall bring in an everlasting righteousness i. e. he should by his death procure a Covenant or Law of Grace by our performance whereof without the law we are righteous and must be saved 'T is that is our righteousness if Christ had not procured for us this New Law we could not be saved Resp Let us see how Mr. H's Gloss will hold with the Text for I am sure it holds not with the Analogy of Faith Seventy weeks shall be distributed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which word lies the Key of the Prophesie not to our purpose now to speak to upon thy People i.e. the Church of the Jews here and upon the City of thy Holiness or Holy City to finish transgression to make an end of sin these Events seem in our English to be the same but they are not in the Original the first is most agreeable to the Margent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to restrain transgression i. e. by the Reformation of Ezra and Nehemiah in the compass of these 72 Weeks but to make an end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make an end of sins or sin-offerings by the offering up of Christ within the 72 Weeks and to make expiation for sin true not typical and perfect Expiation by the Expiation made by the Blood of Christ and to bring everlasting righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bring in eternal righteousness or the righteousness of ages Lxx 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We shall go no further in the Prophecy This Prophecy is generally owned to belong to the first coming of Christ and in this Verse the time is set in a mysterious manner to the coming of Christ his offering up and erecting the Gospel Church the Angels the Events that should fall out in this compass of time especially toward the latter end in the Sacrifice of Christ wherein he should make an end of sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the abolishing Sin by the sacrifice of himself Heb. 9.26 wherein he also finished all sin-offerings 2. He should put it away by making atonement and Expiation Lxx. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to blot out and attone for transgression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in pih signifieth to make Expiation and Atonement by Sacrifice even to the blotting them out and full satisfaction to Divine Justice for then sin is expiated when the Debt-Book is cancell'd thus the bloud of the Sacrifice was sprinkled on the Book of the Law and on all the People so that there is plenary satisfaction in the bloud of Christ and thereby a righteousness everlasting brought in i. e. preached called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rev. 14.6.2 Thereby revealed and made manifest freed from the Vails and Shadows of the Old Testament for tho it was given us in Christ before the World began and lay obscured long under the Old Testament Types yet now was made manifest by the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ who hath abolished Death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nulling or abandoning death and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel the Apostle seeming plainly to allude to these expressions of Daniel the bringing in of righteousness is plainly no more than the bringing the sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ for everlasting righteousness opposed to the righteousness of the legal Sacrifices which was but temporary offered every year but this Expiation of Christ was one offering and the righteousness of Ages or if it carry any thing distinct from preceding Events that it be not to be understood of the passive obedience of Christ the Spirit of God expresseth to all the fulness thereof he adds this to signifie the active obedience of Christ which is also everlasting and to be understood always as a complement of that perfect righteousness of Christ In Answer to Mr. H. I say 1. Christ himself is the everlasting righteousness it s not procured but it s that which procures 2. The Righteousness of Christ is here prophesied of not the righteousness of our selves 3. It s the Righteousness that expiates the old transgressions and therefore here is nothing of a New-Law spoken of 4. Justifying righteousness is such as satisfies the Law broken and therefore there must be at least Expiation in it 5. It s very absurd and contradictio in adjecto to talk of a Law of Grace if thereby be meant a law for Justification and again absurder to talk of performing the condition of a law without law 6. How is new-law-righteousness for it s but imperfect obedience and therefore will be quite wipt away at death for when things that are perfect are come those that are imperfect are done away you will say it may last in a perfect righteousness than the New Law will turn into he old for they make imperfection to be a proper adjunct of the works of the New-Law and appropriate to it to distinguish it from the old law So that here they are justified by the New Law and in Heaven by the Old Law What a stir do these men make with the Law and how do they shift and shirk from one law to another swerving from Faith and Truth to laws singly making themselves great teachers of the laws but understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm I would fain know whether Daniel was justified by his own New Law righteousness it seems he did not understand that that kind of Justification was then a-foot and its a Wonder the Angel Gabriel could come to tell him that in a few years hence the Messias should come and bring in old self righteousness again for Justification which is so choice and precious a Commodity that it shall cost him his blood to purchase Would not Daniel be amazed at it that a man so
as well the last as the first and it should have been rendred thus if there had been a Law given which could have given Life then Righteousness had been by a Law therefore this place is fully exclusive of justifying righteousness by a new Law and God never made such a Law The consequence is clear if all other Law righteousness but Christ's be excluded then Christ's righteousness is that alone by which a Sinner is Justified These Arguments are strong and enough to prove what we assert and against all the World if the Scripture and Reason enlightned thereby may take place The Scripture is so full of proof that these Sixteen might be made Sixty but brevity is call'd for by the circumstances that attend Printing CHAP. XVII Of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness Section 1. Christ's Righteousness is Imputed to us and Paul saith so § 2. Argument 1. § 3. Arg. 2. and 3. § 4. Arg. 4. § 5. Arg. 5. § 6. Arg. 6. § 7. Arg. 7. § 8. Arg. 8. § 9. Arg. 9. § 10. Arg. 10.11 Section 1. OUr Adversaries say they own the Imputation of Righteousness to Justification but they say it s there own not Christ's Now we shall prove that Christ's Righteousness is Imputed They say it s no where said that Christ's Righteousness is Imputed We say it is in all that is said by the Apostle Paul so plain that all but he that will shut his Eyes perversly must see it I shall but give brief hints of it 1. The Apostle Paul Rom. 4. speaking so often of Imputation gives us plainly to understand that he means no Imputation but of Christ's Righteousness to Justification for his Discourse in the 4th chap. is continued from ver 25. of the 3d to prove the Doctrine of Justification by the Propitiation Blood and Righteousness of Christ and shews how Faith honours this Righteousness and wrongs not the law by it but establisheth it In the 4th ch he goes on to exclude all Justification by any works and shews in Abraham and David they took Christ's Righteousness viz. that spoken ch 3.25 by Faith for their Imputed righteousness unto justification and remission and covering of them from the Eye of God's justice wherefore Christ is call'd our Propitiation in allusion to the Golden cover of the Ark that hid the Law and was the mercy seat now briefly to shew that by Imputation so often mention'd in this chap. he meant the Righteousness of Christ to our Justification he tells us ver 22. that what God had promised to Abraham viz. the Righteousness of Christ which he was fully by Faith perswaded of was Imputed to him for Righteousness now saith the Apostle it was not written for the sake of Abraham only but for us also to whom it shall be Imputed i. e. the Righteousness in the Promise if we believe on him that raised up the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead who was delivered for our offences and raised again for our Justification i. e. if we believe in God thro' the full perfect and compleat righteousness of Christ for our Righteousness could not have been full and compleat without his Resurrection and his Justification as a publick head of all the Elect who raised was Justified as having wrought out a full and compleat Justifying righteousness for them they are incouraged and invited to take it for their Righteousness by Faith and they might assure themselves of the Imputation thereof and proceeds in the next chap. to say that having taken this Imputed righteousness by Faith they are said to be justified by Faith and to have peace with God and access unto the grace of God thro the said righteousness § 2. Arg. 1. Now then I Argue if Christ in the promise be Imputed for Righteousness to Abraham and every believer and the Apostle saith so then the Imputation here spoken of is the Imputation of Christ's righteousness but the antecedent is true from Gal. 3.21 22. its plain that it was what God had promised to him was Imputed to him The consequence needs no proof for it was Christ was promised and he saw Christ's day in that promise and the Promise of Christ was the Gospel preached to him Again to prove the Apostle means the Righteousness of Christ is imputed If the delivery of Christ for our sins and raising him again for Justification was the Righteousness of Christ for Justification then this is that which was imputed not to Abraham for righteousness only but also to every Believer by the Text and therefore the minor is fully there proved and I think as to the major that none can deny the Life Death and Resurrection of Christ to be his compleat Righteousness § 3. Arg. 2. He that was made of God righteousness to us is made by imputation of his righteousness to us but Christ is made so of God 1 Cor. 1.30 but saith Mr. Cl. he is made righteousness as he is made Wisdom So Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption but it follows not only that he be made of great advantage to a Christian but these several ways that he is not one thing as the other he is not a Prophet as a Priest and if he should mean made righteousness in Mr. Cl's sence then he should be but made sanctification twice taken for Mr. Cl's justifying righteousness is but Sanctification it s he is made the Spring Head and Root of Sanctification and legally made righteousness to us Arg. 3. Again If we be made the righteousness of God in Christ where its plain this righteousness of God is in Christ then the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us but we are made the righteousness of God in him Ergo. the antecedent is proved by 2 Cor. 5.21 as to the major the Neonomians say the righteousness of God is our own righteousness We say nay the righteousness of God is said to be in Christ and we are made so by imputation for Christ could not be made Sin for us but by Imputation and if it is meant of a Sacrifice for Sin even such were made Sin by Imputation and therefore we are made the righteousness of God in Christ by Imputation § 4. Arg. 4. Again If Christ hath merited our Justification Christs Merits are imputed in themselves to Justification but Christ hath merited our Justification The minor is granted by these Gentlemen They tell us that Christs Merits are id propter quod we are justified for the sake or rather by reason of Christs Merits but they mean not that Christ purchased the Sinner's perform'd condition of the New law but that he procured of God a new law for man to perform the condition of Now this is no more to be the cause of Justification than God in making a Law was a cause of Sin for sin is not Imputed where there 's no law and where there is a Law there will be Justification or Condemnation Christ merited a Law and made one therefore for the sake of Christ we are