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
said and only take notice of the things of weight But first it is necessary to shew how we understand this Question 1. In what capacity Christ stood when he bore sin and punishment 2. In what sense he bore sin 3. What personal guilt is 4. How Christ came to bear personal guilt A. As to the first that Christ stood in the capacity of a publick person representing the whole body of the Elect under the consideration of the lapsed Estate and Condition in the first Adam As to the second when we say Christ bore Sin it 's neither treason or blasphemy as our Adversaries would have it because we speak in the language of the Spirit of God however to prevent cavilling we will vouchsafe to yeild to the Bp's term personal guilt which can import nothing but the committed Sin remaining on the sinner's person and conscience as a forbidden and condemned fault by the law neither do we say that Christ committed these Sins or was made to have committed them when our Sins were laid upon him neither that his Nature was physically or morally corrupted thereby Lastly We cannot but adore the wisdom of God in calling personal guilt Sin because 1. A bare physical Act as such is not Sin and as all killing is not sin but Sin is a physical Act cloathed with a moral Exorbitancy arising from its relation to and comparing with the law of God therefore to say the substratum of the physical act or defect is transferred from one subject to another is most absurd but the guilt of this fact and its moral relation to the law may be transferred and taken away from the subject transgressor as we shall make it appear As to the third the Bp. tells us what he means by personal guilt and it 's very plain David's personal guilt was of Murder and Adultery so Peter's of denying his Master Now the Bp. will not have personal guilt ever to be taken off from any but that David continues in Heaven under personal guilt of Murder and Adultery to this Day and for ever Lastly Christ came to bear Sin 1. By God's call and his acceptance voluntarily obeying his Father's command 2. In submitting himself to a legal way of proceeding with him when he came under the same law the transgressor was under 3. By a legal accounting and imputing our Sin to him he coming in forum Justitiae and writing himself debtor in the room and stead of all the insolvent debtors to the Law of God Justice accepts of him as a sufficient Paymaster Hence in the law sense Christ was called by God what he was not in a natural sense Rom. 4. He was made Sin who knew no Sin and God calls things that are not as tho' they were both in calling Christ Sin and us Righteous § 3. Now we say that Commutation of Persons was so far and no more nor less than God hath made it to be in his legal way of proceeding in this great mystery That Christ should according to the Preordination and Constitution of the Father freely put himself under a judicial Process for the Sins of all the Elect under the same law that they transgressed and that Justice should deal with him as if he had been the original transgressor and in the stead thereof in transferring the charge upon him and punishing him for Sin Hereupon follows the change that he is made Sin and we Righteousness in him Justice receiving full satisfaction for our Sins Hence we shall not much trouble our selves with the many odious Inferences that the Neonom would draw upon this glorious Mystery nor the dirty Reflections on the unsearchable Wisdom of God the Truth being as fully and plainly made manifest in Holy Writ as any doctrine of Godliness 1. It is plain that Sin was laid on Christ in some sence or other the Scripture being so express in it 2. It 's granted on all hands the physical part of the Act was not transferred to Christ after which that which remains on the Sinner is the guilt of it which is his relation to the law in the moral sense as a transgressor and must be his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the laws condemnation of the Fact making his guilt or desert of punishment 3. The Spirit of God calls this Merit or Desert Sin and shall we call it contrary to Scripture Where doth the Scripture say it was not It saith again and again that it was and what if contrary to the Bp's reason Are we to believe God or Man Is the Bp's reason the rule of our Faith What if the same word be used in Scripture for Sin and Punishment I grant that one word in Hebrew is used for Sin and the Sacrifice for Sin sometimes but when it 's used for the Sacrifice it 's therefore used because Sin was judicially transferred to the Sacrifice that it bore the Sin of the Transgressor so that it became the formalis ratio of its Suffering and therefore it 's denominated from its most essential cause To say it 's a tropical word is not much to the purpose it being such as expresseth the very nature of the thing as often in Scripture by a Metonimy Sensus pornitur pro sensili a Grace of the Spirit put for the Object Faith for the Object and Hope for its Object so here Sin for the personal guilt of Sin the Subject put for an essential or proper Production It 's a Metan of another nature from that this is my Body where Signum is put for Signatum and its true the Scripture doth always denote the guilt of Sin by Sin and the Bp. doth concede that Punishment is not Sin but a Consequent of guilt we say it 's more than a mere Consequent it is a merited effect and Sin always deserves and merits Punishment tho' no Sinner merited that a Surety should be punished for him this is by Gracious Surrogation or Substitution And it 's to contradict Scripture to make Punishment separable from guilt and for good reason to for no just Law punisheth any one but the guilty whereby it 's always said that Sin lyes upon him i. e. the just charge of Sin § 4. Bp. Obj. But Punishment must have relation to Sin as to the same Person This is true it must and always hath Sin is inseparable from Punishment in the same Person according to the just Terms and Constitution of any Law by which any Person is punished To this the Bp. saith he answers distinctly that there are three ways our Sins are said to have relation to Christ's Sufferings 1. As an external impulsive cause no more than occasional no proper reason of Punishment and so for the Socinians This I suppose he leaves to the Socinians with whom Mr. B. is one in this point 2. As an impulsive cause becomes meritorious by the voluntary Act of Christ's undertaking to satisfie Divine Justice for our Sins and not as his own 3. As to the Personal guilt of our
State and so doth the sanctifying Grace of God in Regeneration God doth both justifie and sanctifie the ungodly by his active apprehending Grace Phil. 3.12 As to the second clause I suppose none can deny that therefore we believe that we may be justified Rom. 10.10 and elsewhere and as to the last Word wherein they lay the stress of the Error they might put it in unexceptionable Terms by adding a monosyllable they believe that they may be justified and declaratively they believe that they may receive and have Eternal Life and that they may know they have it according to the express Words of the Apostle 1 John 5.12 13. Er. 4. Union to Christ is before Faith at least by Nature and we partake of the Spirit by virtue of that Union and there 's a compleat Union with Christ before the Act of Faith A. For the first clause of the charge I own it and have defended it as Truth and shall stand by it and am ready to dispute it with the Accusers when they please in the mean time let them tell me whether Faith be not a vital Act of the Soul If so how came the Fruit to grow on the Branch before it was in the Root Christ Jesus Again if Faith be the Effect of Union to Christ then Union is the cause and in Nature antecedent to it There 's no need to enlarge upon so plain a Truth the second clause is as true that by virtue of this Union or in this Union we first partake of the Spirit because the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ Rom. 8. The Spirit is the Bond of this Union for 3. I know not whether it be mine in the terms expressed but if it were there was something said to explain it the Sense I am ready to defend it in is this that whatever Union Christ makes is compleat in it self such is vital Union in Regeneration where the Regenerated is altogether passive and all Regeneration is perfect tho' the regenerated is not every one conceived is perfectly conceived tho' the conceived is not perfectly grown every one born is perfectly born tho' every one born is not perfect so is every one born of the Spirit he hath compleat Life tho' he is not compleat in the Acts of Life compleatness of Life and compleatness in exercising the Acts of Life are to be distinguished Er. 5. It is a great Truth that God sees no Sin in a Believer and Sin can do no Hurt to a Believer God is not displeased with his People and is not angry with the Persons of Believers for their Sins A. Here are the 12 13 14 of the Rebuker's Articles crowded together As to the first I say 1. They are the Words of Scripture let the Exceptors shew and prove that the Spirit of God means quite contrary to what it saith in that Place Num. 21.21 and that all other Places of Scripture that confirm this Truth are false and mean quite contrary as when it saith a Believer is blessed his Sins being covered and not imputed Psal 32.1 2. This is Poyson but the meaning is He is blessed whose Sin is uncovered before God and his Iniquity imputed when God saith he doth not remember our Iniquities you must read it He doth remember our Iniquity Let them give a rational Sense of Jer. 50.20 Mic. 7.19 Jer. 31.34 Heb. 8.12 ch 10.17 But let them not take us to be so stupid as to understand this of the Eye of his Omnisciency but in respect of the Eye of his Justice Psal 51.9 when they give us any probable Interpretation of the forementioned Places of Scripture so to prove the Word of God false Num. 23. In the Sense we take it as I could never see yet the greatest of them ever did we will acknowledge it an Error in the mean time let them give us leave to believe it and receive it as an Article of Faith The second Clause the Rebukers 13 is That Sin can't do any real Hurt to a Believer A. Why is this charged upon the dissenting Brethren Did they ever hear any one of them assert it in Terminis he that uttered it in the Ardency of a popular Discourse was above 50 Years since and is it Blasphemy or Heresie to defend a good Man's Discourse by a charitable Interpretation If they had a Grain of Charity they may easily see that he meant not according to that gross Sense they would put upon the saying that he intended not to countenance Professors living in Sin nor in respect of Grief Sorrow and Darkness occasioned by a Believer's Fall into Sin but his meaning was 1. That their Falls into Sin should not prejudice that State of Union to Christ according to Rom. 8.35 36 37 38. 2. That tho' Sin remain in them yet they shall not have Dominion over them according to Rom. 6.14 15. 3. That tho' they fall they shall arise according to Mic. 7.8 4. That God will over-rule all the Falls of his Children for their Spiritual Good and Advantage according to Rom. 8.28 and therefore he saith real hurt The third thing here which is the Rebuker's 14th God is not displeased with his People i. e. their Persons A. Why do they not explain what they mean by God's displeasure do they mean Paternal or Vindictive If they mean Paternal in a way of Rebuke and Chastisment who denies it If they mean Vindictive we deny it Again why do they not tell us what they mean by God's People do they mean a Collection of Professing People Church or Nation Such may be the general Defection of these from their Profession never real and true that God's Vindictive Wrath may go forth against them as often against his People of Old Lastly God is never pleased with the Sins of his People therefore condemned all their Sins in the Flesh of Christ Rom. 8.3 But God is not displeased with the Persons of his People such as are called according to purpose because he loved them with an Eternal Love and he is a God that changeth not Art 6. Believers are as Righteous as Christ A. Most know who is Charged here it is one that is gone to give up his Account to his Lord and Master I doubt not but it is with Joy and that he hath received a Crown of Glory that fadeth not Tho' the Rebuker hath trampled upon his Bones and Memory in his Pride and Insolency and not only upon his but on those of that other Eminent Servant of God that is at rest with him And why Because both of them in their Life-time served their Generation in bearing faithful Testimony to the Truths of Jesus I need say nothing to this Article That worthy Servant of Christ spake enough to explain himself in that Position in his Printed Sermons which he Preached at Pinner's-Hall The sum of it was that he meant not in respect of Sanctification for there our best Holiness is imperfect therefore he means not in a way of
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
God may freely forgive them without disparagement to his wisdom and justice without any Satisfaction But what if God will not He hath revealed this in his word that he will by no means acquit the guilty without satisfaction we are not speaking of God's absolute Power but of his ordinate neither are we speaking of God's acting by his soveraign dominion but by his acting in a way of justice because where there 's sin there is a law transgressed and God's dealing with the sinner must be in a way of justice unless God repeal his law or dispense with it as the Neonom will have it but we can't admit thereof But 2. Why can't God upon the same reason forgive a criminal by his prerogative as well as a debtor An earthly King may why not the King of Kings 3. And why is not sin a debt in a proper sence enough Is it not a debt to God's justice and made so by God's law and treated as such in the very point of Satisfaction It 's such a Debt as must be satisfied 1 Pet. 1.18 19. 1 Cor. 6.23 and 7.23 and elsewhere must it of necessity be a money debt and no other He saith I can't but wonder at the learned author that he doth at the same time assert our sins to be considered as debts and the necessity of vindictive justice for what vindictive justice belongs to a creditor I have rather wondred at the learned Author that he should be taken with such a Delirium as to suppose B. Stillingfleet to be for a Commutation of Persons in sano sensu having been sufficiently informed by his Letters of his Neonom principles before he appeal to him and flattered him so offensively as he did But ad rem 1. The B. knew that similitude or metaphorical expressions are not to be forc'd to run on four feet for tho' sins be most fitly called debts to the justice of God yet God is not therefore a money creditor but with necessity of Vindictive Justice to a creditor sure imprisonment is vindictive justice or seizing on all that a man hath doth not God in justice seize on all a sinner hath by his curse and cast him into prison till he hath paid the utmost Farthing Matth. 5.26 Sure Christ's own Phraseology might be admitted by us but it seems not by this B. and some others see further his Neonom spirit he calls Christ's language in calling sin debts to God and ascribing Vindictive Justice to such an adversary rude and inconsistent and he can hardly think such ever penetrated into these matters but took up with a sett of phrases I always found these Neonom great boasters of their own wit and deep penetration into things answer their adversaries still more by contemptuous and approbrious language than by any fair way of argumentation tho' I must confess I do not find this learned B. so addicted to this foul way of treating those that dissent from him as many others of the Neonom kidney that are far short of him in learning and gentility The main design of this discourse in answer to Mr. Lob's Appeal is to shew how much the good man was mistaken as to believe that he the B. was for Commutation of persons in his sence but he was for Commutation in Mr. W. and the Neonom sence The meaning of all that there hath been such a sputter about and so much foul language unbecoming Christians much more Ministers lyes in this one Question whether Christ was made of God sin and curse for sinners And whether the said sinners believing become the righteousness of God in him The Commutation according to scripture lyes here that Christ instead of the guilty sinner became sin and curse and that the Sinner in Christ becomes righteous and guitless Now saith the B. That the change was not in respect of sin asserting that Christ bore no personal guilt but that he bore only punishment that we should not be punish'd upon our Faith and Repentance so that he must hold the Commutation of persons is not in respect of sin and righteousness for that person that is taken from the guilt of sin in foro justitiae can never be righteous but only in respect of punishment and impunity 4. That Christ was punish'd that the sinner might not but that this change was not absolute but conditional and to be future upon terms to be performed by one party when he should have an actual Being in the world when he should perform the fixed conditions of Faith Repentance and good Works Again he will not have it such a change as is between the surety and debtor but such a change as is between two private persons one doing a good turn for on the behalf and so instead of the other denying Christ to be a publick person to be in his Mediatorship a surety or legal Representative before God's Tribunal of Justice and this I find every where to be the Neonom Doctrine But I shall assert that the B's change of persons is none at all for if it be not of persons as standing in relation to the law it 's none at all in a law sence Christ bearing no guilt by law obligation and the sinner being freed from none thereby this is enough to say of it here my design being to be short I can't fill up my paper with rehearsal of the very Words which I have tired my self too much in already nor enter upon a tedious Litigation about Words or Sense of them and if Dr Crisp or the Bp. have not well express'd themselves I leave those Words to themselves and apply my self only to the true sense and meaning of the Bp. in that point which he mainly prosecutes in this treatise Bp. p. 79. My business at present is about transferring our very faults upon Christ which Dr. Crisp calls the guilt of the fact A. I need not here tell the Reader that the Assertor doth distinguish between the fact and the guilt of the fact the Culpa reatus culpae the Bp. himself hath vindicated him from the charge of saying that the fact it self was charged on Christ p. 77. Dr. Crisp denies Christ to be the actual transgressor but asserted that he had the personal guilt of our Sins upon him and built his whole Hypothesis upon it This then is the Question in short to be discussed Whether Christ in his sufferings bare upon him the personal guilt of Sin The affirmative is the truth in our judgment let who will assert it the Bp. holds the negative throughout his treatise as being the vertical point upon which the whole controversie of change of persons doth turn § 2. I desire to speak as plainly in this matter as may be and as briefly and shall pass over all the proofs that the Bp. hath made that this was the Dr's judgment with this concession that it was so yea and all the needless remarks interpretations and banters that he hath upon what the Doctor hath
Sins These three ways of Sin 's relation to Christ we will consider 1. The fact of Sin and from it the guilt of it is the proper meritorious cause of Punishment it 's causa proegumena internal always to the punished let the Socin and Mr. B. say what they will the punished is always the guilty Person and he is therefore punished because guilty 2. This Impulsive of ours becomes meritorious he saith how I pray By Christ voluntary undertaking c. This is very absurd that Christ's free undertaking should make Sin meritorious was not Sin meritorious of Punishment of it self What is the Sin of faln Angels that Christ never undertook for But he should have said that Christ's voluntary undertaking brought the guilt and punishment upon himself by his coming under a Law Transaction for he saith it was to satisfie Divine Justice and can Justice be satisfied by the Sufferings of a Person no way guilty in the Eye of Justice That 's strange Justice But still saith the Bp. They are consider'd as our Sins and not his true our Sins originally but his by a Law Transmission else he could not be punished by the Law But now see how the Bp. after his brandishing by way of Opposition is necessitated to fall into rank and file with us They are not Christ's Sins any further than by consent he took upon himself to bear the guilt which relates to Punishment and so they come to be justly charged upon him Now I pray what is it that the Bp. saith in the winding up of the Matter more than what we say for he saith 1. The Sins were ours not his originally and primarily and the guilt remains in all those for which Christ died not 2. These Sins of all saved ones become Christ's in the guilt of them thro' his free and voluntary Intervention 3. That he took upon himself that guilt which relates to punishment i. e. it s proper law relation 4. And so they come to be justly charged upon him here the Bp hath given us the whole Point for 1. He allows guilt to be distinct from Punishment for Relata are contraria affirmantia and it 's a true notion that guilt and punishment are proper relata constantia ex mutua alterius affectione and therefore distinct 2. That Christ took upon him to bear the guilt that relates to punishment it came not from the Sinner that Christ bore the guilt but from God's Ordination and Christ's Submission to law proceding and thence wrote himself Debtor to the Law and Justice of God instead of Sinners and was accepted as plenary Paymaster 3. He owns that Sin came justly chargeable on him the charge of Sin on the Sinner is that whereby he becomes guilty before God Rom. 3.19 for he that 's justly punished is justly charged as he saith charged upon him must be in a way of Law proceeding and tho' God hath made him to confess the Truth in Words yet it fully appears by his after Discourse that he believes not a word of it in sano sensu § 3. The third thing wherein our Sins have relation to the Sufferings of Christ he saith As to the personal Guilt of our Sins which he denies and decries after he had in the same Breath own'd Christ's bearing the guilt of our Sins now he will have Christ to bear the guilt of our Sins but not the personal as if there were or could be any guilt that is not of one person or another or if there were some generical guilt found in individual Persons his Exceptions are 1. The fault of the Sins are not laid on Christ 1. Then its Law Relation was not laid on Christ and Christ being punished for no fault of himself or others was unjustly punished nay he saith he was justly charged Is any justly charged when charged with no fault 2. He excepts against saying that laying Sin upon Christ makes Christ really a Transgressor but how is that said It is in a legal Sense not physical therefore Christ is said to be made Sin viz. Such he was not before nor was in his own Natures but was really accepted instead of the guilty Sinner not Romantickly and Fabulously the Transaction was real according to the nature of it As to the denial of Imputation it 's a gross Error in whoever it is Dr. Crisp or Mr. B. the first mistakingly denies the sense of the word but Mr. B. denies the thing it self the very Doctrine of Imputation of Sin to Christ as the Bp. the Righteousness of Christ to us having these invective Words As the Papists have by no means more alienated the reformed from them irreconcileably than by obtruding as an Article of Faith the Impossibilities and Contradictions of Transubstantiation so some erroneous Protestants have no way Men made the Papists irreconcileable to us than by holding forth the Impossibilities and Absurdities of imputed Righteousness as a most necessary part of the Gospel Meth. Theol. Part iii. Ch. 27. Page 322. The great Argument propounded by Dr. Crisp very unwarily he not seeing how far it would run but sufficiently improved by Mr. B. is this That God hath no other Thoughts of things than as they are So doth he esteem and think of things and consequently of Sin in Knowledge we must distinguish between Things and Relation and between one Relative and another God thinks of things as they are under divers respects God thinks and knows what we are by Nature yea the most eminent Believer is by Nature a Child of Wrath as well as the other but he knows also what he is through Grace what under a Covenant of Works and what under a Covenant of Grace Sinners in the first Adam Righteous in the second God calls things that are not as though they were God calls his Son Sin in a Law-sence who never Sinned and a Sinner Righteous in Christ who never was Righteous in himself He sees him as acceptable in his sight he having cloathed him with his Righteousness as if he were perfectly Righteous in himself God knows and sees all things as he is Omniscient but yet doth not see reconciled Ones in their Sins and Guilt of them by the Eye of his Justice God saw Christ under Sin by the Eye of his Justice when he was under the charge of Sin and his Person absolutely considered most pleasing to him It is no way inconsistent with the Nature of God to know what any thing is in its absolute Being and what it is in this or that relation to know a Creature is a Man and to know him to stand under the relation of a Father or a Son to know what he is Naturally and what Morally for this is not inconsistent with Man's knowledge much less with God's therefore when God knows a thing what it is in one respect and calls it another it is to be supposed that he really puts that respect or relation upon it as when God calls a Man a Sinner in
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
agreeing with but essential to the Analogy of Faith If we must look on this received Doctrine to be a mistaken Notion then surely notwithstanding the Revelation that God hath given us in his Word he hath left us under Chymerian Darkness and inextricable Laborinths in the great Points of Life and Salvation but what hath he to say against this received Doctrine by the dissenting Brethren and all true Protestants If once it be supposed that we perfectly obeyed the Law in Christ there can be no room for Remission of Sins for how can Sins be forgiven to them that have obeyed the Law I cannot answer this Argument better than in the very Words of Mr. R. Capel whom none I suppose will call an Antinom in Vindication of Dr. Twiss on this Point There is a double Acception of the Term Remission of Sins 1. There is a meritorious Justification or Remission of Sins this is of Sins before they are committed 2. There 's an actual Justification or Remission of Sin and this is not till after our Sin is committed and we do believe all this none of these Exceptors do or can question Those that lean much to the Doctrine of Arminius and Vortius in this point may see all this expressed in clear terms by Vortius So that it is one thing for all the Sins of all the Elect to be pardoned to Christ for them that was done before we were or our Sins were another thing to be pardoned to them Christ was made a Curse for us by Imputation for that the Father did impute all our Sins as a Judge to Christ as a Surety and did exact all of him as guilty by that Law and this is I conceive all the meaning of Dr. Twiss and is or at least ought to be the meaning of us all and this a learned Man calls a mystical Justification because all the Sins of all the Elect are as laid upon Christ so remitted unto Christ our Head and Husband which Pardon and Absolution he took in our Name and keeps for our Use See Capel of Repentance p. 257 258. For Brevity-sake I shall add nothing further to the Answer of this Argument of the Bp. § 19. He adds It doth not follow because a Debt may be transferred to a Surety that our Sins may be transferred to Christ and his Reasons are 1. Because Sins cannot be transferred as Money A. But doth not the Spirit of God sufficiently acquaint us that it 's a moral Debt Sin is the Debt our owing and not paying Obedience to the Law and that Christ paid not Silver and Gold but his Precious Blood but he saith That altho' the Sinner be said to owe a Debt to the Law yet that Debt lyes in an Obligation to Punishment which he is liable to by the Guilt of the Fact A. Now he owns the Sinner owes a Debt to the Law but that 's not Obedience but Punishment But believe it Punishment is the Debt of the Law to the Sinner the Wages of Sin by the Law is Death But that whereby the Sinner becomes a Debtor to the Law is his Failure in giving due Obedience to the Preceptive Part of the Law for its Obedience the Law doth naturally and primarily enjoin and expect from the Subject Punishment may be transferred by the Legislator's Consent A. Punishment without Merit is but suffering and not legally inflicted and can't be done by a Legislator without Dispensing with his Law Object This Debt ariseth from Guilt of Fact how then can any discharge the Debt without taking the fault I answer That taking the fault can signifie no more than being answerable to the Law for it which must respect the Debt of Punishment Reader But doth not this quite overthrow all the Bp. hath been doing For if Punishment as always it is be answering the Law for Sin this always implies that the punished Person bears the just Demerit of his Sin else why do the Law inflict Punishment It 's not because that Man hath not obeyed but disobeyed wherein the Punished is only passive in suffering tho' active in contracting the Guilt wherein lyes the Demerit of Punishment and makes the Wages due from the Law And he that takes away the Guilt of Punishment doth satisfie the Justice of the Law A. The satisfying the Justice of the Law lyes in inflicting deserved Punishment for Guilt is not in the Law as the Bp. hath said but in a Person whom the Law hath found guilty therefore the Law is not satisfied by afflicting in general but afflicting some Person that is found guilty and faulty by the Law As to the Objection That nothing is the Merit of Punishment but Reatrus culpae he answers so little that it 's not worth our Cognizance and that little is but a Rehearsal of what hath been replied to already § 20. Bp. Suppose the Fault could be transferred as a Debt may how comes it to pass that upon this Translation there must be a present Discharge A. There must be such to him that pays the Debt and this given to him for the Benefit and Use of the Prisoner when he will please to give it Christ must be justified from our Sins and discharged or else not raised from bearing them when he had satisfied Justice all our Sins were pardoned to him but another Act of Grace is shewed in bringing home and applying Pardon to and therefore for discharging us from the Law as Prisoners of Hope thro' what Christ hath fully done and suffered B. This Doctrine tends to incourage Men to neglect or careless Performance of strict Obedience which they owe to God A. This is the Objection against the Doctrine of the Grace of God which Enemies to it made and the Apostle Paul answers Rom. 6. But the Bp. will not take his Answer there he saith it naturally disposeth Men's Minds to a passive careless Temper and wait for Supplies from above A. The Grace of God never enclines the Heart to so ill a Temper but quite contrary Tit. 2.11 12. It is one thing what a Man is by Nature and what by Grace Men by Nature are naturally enclined to abuse the Grace of God but are not so by effectual Grace Bp. They depend upon Gord's working in them to will and to do of his own good Pleasure without setting themselves to work out their own Salvation with fear and trembling A. The Bp. should have known that the Abuse of the Grace of God is no just Argument against it and if some Men do so will he censure all as such God's working in Men to will and to do and their working out their own Salvation are not Contradictions if rightly understood but to shew us that the Grace of God is first in all we do that teacheth and worketh in us to work both to begin and continue to serve God with all our Might but with Fear lest we should give the Glory of all unto our selves in leaning and depending on our own Strength The
Distinctions or Explications Doth this become learned Divines The Rebukers Articles which he brought into Court were I find to the number of 21 but it seems the judicious Bp. contracted them to Six which he hath called us to appear to looking upon the rest I suppose as frivolous illiterate or spiteful the Six with my respective Answers are as follows Er. 1. That Pardon is rather the Condition of Faith having a causal Influence thereunto then Faith and Repentance are of Pardon A. The Words were mine in transitu of a Discourse and therefore it is very unfair to expose them without shewing their Dependance 1. I have shewn and proved and will stand by it that Pardon Faith and Repentance belong not to the conditional Part of the new Covenant but to the Promisory 2. That Pardon Faith and Repentance altho' they are not Foederal Conditions yet being connected in the Promise may have a Connexion conditional given to them as if a Man believe he receiveth Pardon in believing if he repent he will believe if he repent and believe he shall be saved and I renounce not the Scripture Language in anything but desire to understand and explain it in its true and genuine Sense 3. I say that if we talk of the Foederal Conditionality of Faith to Pardon Pardon is rather a Foederal Condition of Faith and Repentance than Faith of Pardon I say not that it is but rather because distinguishing Pardon aright into Active and Passive I say Pardon Passive received can't be without Faith to receive it but Pardon Active must be before Faith 1. Because the Object that the Hand receives must be before the Instrument that receives it 2. The Grace of Pardon is in God to be bestowed before we receive it 3. There is Pardon in Christ for all that shall believe Jo. 17.20 See what Mr. Capel saith on this point It is one thing for all the Sins of all the Elect to be pardoned to Christ for them that was done before we were or our Sins were another thing to be pardoned to them Christ was made a Curse for us by Imputation for that the Father did impute all our Sins as a Judge to Christ as our Surety the true notion of Imputation that it is not an Act of Grace but a Judicial Act and God did exact all of him as guilty by that Law c. 3. Pardon in God and in Christ hath a causal Influence on Faith and Repentance 1. Pardon is an essential cause of a pardoned Person the Abstract being the formal cause of the Concrete pardoning Grace doth effectually work all Graces of the Spirit in us the pardoning Grace of the Father Son and Spirit 2. The Gospel preached to Sinners which is Pardon of Sin the Gospel preached to Abraham is that which works Faith thro' the effectual Operation of the Spirit Act. 13.39 Rom. 10.15 And it was preached to David by Nathan 2 Sam. 12.17 as done before his particular Repentance express'd Psal 51. therefore if we talk of Foederal Conditions Pardon is rather such than Faith and Repentance because it 's in Nature as well as Time antecedent and such an antecedent as hath a causal Influence And hence I also assert that every necessary antecedent tho' with causal Influence upon the consequent is not a Foederal Condition Er. 2. That Sin it self as opposed to Guilt was laid on Christ and Christ was reputed a Criminal not only by Man but God A. As to the first clause they should have pointed out the Person that said it If I spake it or writ it I was asleep then for when we say Sin was laid on Christ we speak not of it by way of Opposition unto Guilt but by way of Identity or Sameness with Guilt in the Dialect of the Spirit of God our use of the Word Guilt being but an apt Exegetical Term to express the meaning of Sin in this Point because the Physical Substratum of Sin can't be transferred to another but the Law Relation may As to the second charge 1. It will be easily granted by the Accusers that a Sinner's Debts to the Law are Crimes 2. To say he was a reputed Criminal in Law only is by a received Sense to justifie the personal and absolute Innocency of Christ in himself 3. I suppose they will not deny that if Sin was charged on Christ for the delivery of Sinners it was done by God as his Act and not by the false Accusation of Satan or his Instruments for the Salvation of Sinners by his bearing Sin was never their Design and it 's said God laid upon him the Iniquity of us all Isa 53.4 The term Criminal might possibly be used by some or other with a good Meaning but I look not upon it as proper and I don't know that I have used it if I have I have better considered of it 1. Because tho' the Scripture saith Sin was laid on Christ and that he was made Sin yet it saith not that he was a Sinner or a Criminal 2. Because his bearing Sin and being made so it plainly implies that he was not so in himself but made so by Law Imputation and by standing in a Surety relation to the Law for us 3. A Sinner or Criminal doth in an ordinary and common Acceptation import a Committer or Perpetrator of Sin which Christ never was not reputed by God so to be Therefore herein God shews his wonderful Wisdom in teaching us to speak of Christ in this great Mystery with so much Exactness Er. 3. That the Doctrine of Justification before Faith is not an Error but a great and glorious Truth and therefore we believe that we may be justified declaratively A. It is an Error and it is not an Error it is an Error to say Justification by Faith is before Faith in time and a contradiction in Adjecto therefore I never said so for Justification by Faith can't be before Faith is in the Receiver to receive it by But that Justification is before Faith is a glorious Truth and this I must affirm for Truth that there is Justification before Faith if we distinguish of Justification aright as of Pardon and say it 's actively and passively to be understood active Justification is in God that justifieth Rom. 8. the Grace of Justification a Gift to us 2. Christ as the Head and Representative of the Elect was justified and all the Elect fundamentally in him else Jesus Christ's suffering as a publick Person could not have been he was taken from Prison and Judgment 3. Justification in Application is by Nature before Faith because all Grace apprehends the Sinner before he apprehends it and is the immediate cause of a Sinner's apprehending it Again the Grace of Justification is in nature before Sanctification and the Foundation of it by the consent of Protestants and therefore it 's said in that Sence that God justifies the ungodly not that we should be ungodly but that he finds and takes us in that
of Eternal State Where are we now what a Justification is this by the New Law wherein our eternal state is not concerned Well! but our Justification in this life is not yet perfect not by Christ because he takes off only eternal punishment but temporal he hath left to us to remove by Repentance performing the righteousness of the New Law I hope this righteousness falling in to help Christ's it will produce perfect Justification No it wont this righteousness takes away our Sins and Punishment wholly but sometimes and sometimes only in part and what 's the reason where 's the fault why it falls upon this New Law which is always fulfilling and never fulfilled it will never justifie any one till the last day and it cannot do it then without the perfect righteousness of the Old Law § 7. Let 's take Mr. Cl's Definition of Justification into consideration a little He saith The Definition of Justification so far as it relates to God is thus Justification is an act of God whereby he accounts us righteous at present and treats us as such and will solemnly declare and pronounce us so at the last day of Judgment Resp He should have told us what act of God whether immanent or transient whether an act of Grace or Justice or both he should have told us the object of that act whether a meer sinner or a righteous person he will tell us anon it s a righteous person and he saith accounting him so at present if this accounting him be in a law sense it s but Imputation at most and this is that and all that he doth at present he finds them holy and righteous and judgeth them to be as they be but doth not God declare them righteous at present neither in foro Legis nor in foro Evangelii nor in foro conscientiae in none of these at present when then the very Sentence of Justification is not till the last day so that indeed there is none justified till then for a suspended sentence keeps the person whatever Opinion the Judge hath of him under the Law in Prison and in continual fear of Condemnation so that they are all the day long for fear of Death subject to Bondage § 8. Hence he infers two things 1. That Justification while we are in this life is but partial imperfect and incompleat and that we shall not obtain fully compleat entire and final Justification for all the effects of sin till the Day of Judgment To which I answer Where there is but an imperfect partial Justification there must be a partial Condemnation it cannot be denied but the Apostle denys it and saith there 's no condemnatien to them that are in Christ Jesus 2. The law knows no such thing a man is either perfectly justied for the same thing or perfectly condemned there 's no Medium betwixt Justification and Condemnation 3. If the New Law do not perfectly justifie a person then it condemns too at the same time that when ever the Parator of righteousness takes himself to be justified he is bound to believe himself condemned also and whether will stand good at the last Day he knows not either his Justification or Condemnation CHAP. VI. Of Pardon Section 1. Whether Remission of Sin belongs to Justification § 2. Remission distinguished by Mr. H. § 3. Of general Remission § 4. Conditional Pardon antecedent to a mans Justification § 5. Actual Pardon subsequent to a mans Justification Sect. 1. MR. Cl's Second Inference is That Justification doth not properly consist in Pardon afterward he saith a man is first righteous and then pardoned to which we have spoken something Mr. H. makes a fearful pudder about this Point we will a little inspect his Notions Mediocr p. 44 55. Our Divines do generally place Justification in remission of Sins and so do the Papists and so did I my self Resp Remission of Sins is upon good grounds placed in Justification as an essential part of the Justification of a Sinner and I can boldly deny that sinner to be justified whose sins are not forgiven and to separate them is as possible as to separate homo animal rationale The Law any Law nay your New Law cannot justifie a sinner and declare him righteous unless in that very act of declaring him righteous his sins are taken away in foro legis and this is God's Remission tho not Man 's for his ways are not as mans and whereas Mr. H. makes remission of sins to be a benefit after Justification as an effect of it we say it is a benefit in Justification and the first thing in it in Nature for its impossible any one should stand righteous in the eye of any Law that stands chargeable as a transgressor thereof But remission must not saith Mr. H. be the formal reason of Justification Resp The form of an Act and the formal reason of that Act are two things the material reason of Justification is righteousness and the formal cause is imputation of that righteousness Justification comes in as the acquitting Sentence opposed as Mr. B. saith to condemnation which ex natura rei must formally carry in it forgiveness of sins He proceeds To forgive a mans sins and declare him rigeteous are two inconsistencies one with another in the same respect Resp Cujus contrarium verum in Justification of a Sinner they are most consistent and inseparable that in declaring a sinful man righteous his sins are also done away its true in mans way of Pardon there is some inconsistency because his is by dispensing with his Law but God's way of forgiveness is in and through the satisfaction of his Law but I must tell him that here no Man is looked upon as righteous in the eye of man's law that hath transgressed it till he is first pardoned and therefore when God pronounceth a man just it is according to the law of faith when he pardons his sins it is in respect of the law of works Resp Here are two Bars now he saith elsewhere he likes not two bars I would fain know now at which of these Bars a sinner is most justified either by the law of Works where all his sins are forgiven and therefore consequently must be made righteous or at the Bar of the New Law where he saith the man is declared just but imperfectly so and therefore goes away with his sins upon his Back to the Law of Works to have them pardoned Is it not pretty Divinity then to say a man is declared righteous first at the Bar of the Law of Faith and then all the Bed-role of his sins are pardoned at the Bar of the Law of Works § 2. He comes to distinguish of Remission It s either conditional and universal as it lies in the Covenant and is the purchase of Christ or actual as it lies in application thereof to particular persons upon performance of the conditions Resp This Distinction is a great Point among the Neonomians Mr. B.
sanctified but where there is the cause working there is the effect wrought and the justified is but the effect and constitutes no distinct species of it But we say the Grace of Justification of a Sinner proceeding from Grace is wholly in and from God and hath no cause in a Sinner material or formal nor is there any cause external of that Grace the moving cause only is the good will and pleasure of God he is gracious to whom he will graciousness pardoning Iniquity is only from his Grace and for the glory of his Grace which cannot be in the Justification of a righteous person but because not simply Grace but also Justice shall be glorified in a sinner's justification and God in his pardon will not clear the guilty he hath graciously provided and bestowed on the sinner a righteousness accepted by the Law and imputed to him that he may appear therein just and so just in administration of righteousness as not to infringe his Justice in the least but to the highest honor of the Law standing in its full force against the sinner without the least Relaxation This is done quite contrary to the Neonomian Doctrine therefore Gods Justification falling upon a Sinner makes actually a correlate to Gods justifying and faith is no more than the Sinners reception of this Grace no part of that righteousness by which faith or for which the Sinner is justified neither is it a grain of that righteousness which is imputed to him § 9. Mr. H. also hath another distinction between condition and duty which I will not stay upon because its frivolous and it is because he will have the duties of the Law to be performed by us tho we be not justified by them he insists upon a Relaxation of the old Law but not a total Abolition Mr. Bax. Opinion is that its abrogated as much as the Ceremonial Law wherein both penalty and duty is taken away and indeed Mr. B. is in the right according to his notion for the introduction of a New Law in the room of it and for the ends that the old Law was establisht is certainly the nulling of the said old Law but how then can Mr. B. be secured from a just charge of Antinomian viz. that moral duties are not required of us which is more Antinomian than I ever saw in any he chargeth with it he hath one poor shift which is that the duties of the old-Law are taken or spunged up in the conditions of the New but however the broken pieces are pickt up the Law it self is gone and there 's no transgression upon that account Mr. H. saith the Law 's only relaxed but his relaxation is no better than a Crack in the middle of a Glass and heart of it and he hath not told us how far this relaxation goes and every man will be ready to plead for his own sin that the Law in that respect is relaxt But he would have us believe that the moral duties still remain how relaxt or not If relaxt then at least to an indifferency a man may do them or not without any sin but he saith they are re-established in the New-Law if so they are re-established without the Relaxation and then the New-Law is as strict as the Old or with the relaxation and then all duties are required with abatement as to quality and quantity with an allowance of sin our posse or velle and what is more Antinomianism But saith he the Conditions are not Duties It was never affirmed by men of reason that the Condition of a Law is not a Duty for that which is required of us upon pain of punishment is always a Duty and to the Condition of the New-Law the highest because it hath the Sanction of a Law of the Highest he that continueth not in all things by way of performance that it requireth is cursed by it if it be but imperfect obedience it saith he that continueth not in imperfect obedience is cursed by it therefore when the Saints come to Heaven and fall into perfect obedience they fall under the Curse of the new law or else it s out of doors before they come there or the last day and the World can't be judged by it Lastly What are the conditions of imperfect obedience are they not Duties of Righteousness by the performance whereof Mr. H. will have us justified Yes this cannot be denied but the distinction will hold with a quatenus as they refer to the absolute relaxed Laws they are Duties i. e. as they respect no Law or a lawless Law and as they refer to the New Law they are Conditions and are not Duties Hence it s no Duty to perform the Conditions of the New Law for Justification thereby and this is the Truth which we stand by though infer'd truly from Mr. H's Logick and Divinity CHAP. IX An Answer to Mr. H's Arguments against Imputation of Christs Righteousness Section 1. Arguments Artificial or Inartificial § 2. His First Argument against the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness answered § 3. His Second Argument Answered § 4. His Third Argument Answered § 5. Mr. H's Argument for Faith and Obedience being the formal part of Justification First Answer § 6. The Assumption by parts § 7. Argument the Second Answered § 8. Mr. H's Third Argument Answered with his Fourth Argument § 9. Of Constitutive Justification Sect. 1. NOw it is time to come to Examine the grounds of Mr. H. and Mr. C's Doctrine in this Point of Justification And First I shall treat of them that are the reasoning Arguments Artificial as called in Logick the weakest in Divinity and then those that are pretended from Scripture which in Logick are called inartificial but if grounded upon Divine Testimony the best and strongest § 2. Against the Imputation of Christs Righteousness he argues thus How can God account our Sins to be Christs and his Righteousness ours when really they are not so and Gods Judgment is according to Truth Resp this is used again and again by Mr. B to which I shall Answer 1. By retorting the Medium and not so tedious to put it into any other form how can God account our own New Law righteousness to be justifying righteousness when in its own nature it s no righteousness Mr. H. saith so over and over and Gods judgment is according to Truth now see the honesty of these Men God must not make a Judgment according to Truth in imputing Christs perfect righteousness to us because it was not personally performed by us and imputing our Sins to Christ because they were not actually committed by him and yet God makes a judgment according to Truth in imputing our own paultry sinful righteousness to us for our righteousness when they themselves say its really no righteousness 2. Is not his righteousness ours The Scripture saith it is and our Sins made his they say it doth not that we will try God willing but for the present we ask what if
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
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
between God and him thro this Imputed and believed righteousness 8. The justified one as he draws his first breath of the new man in believing unto righteousness so he lives upon this righteousness in all his Christian course in that Christs righteousness may be called the righteousness of Faith for Meat and Drink John 6.51 53. 9. Faith hath hereby all justifiable ways to God Christ is thereby his way unto the Father he can have access to the grace wherein he stands comes thro this righteousness with boldness to the Throne of grace and receives remission of sins and every good and perfect gift God having not spared his Son but given him for us hence he will not withhold any good thing 10. As it receives all grace in and with justifying grace so it gives and ascribes all to free grace in the Father Son and Holy Spirit both the gift of righteousness and faith it self and the life eternal given to such a poor wretch in and thro Jesus Christ 11. In that this grace being filled with Christs righteousness is leading to all fruits of Christs righteousness imputed and believed all which appear in the exercise of all holy affections graces and duties to the mortification of sin and growth in obedience and conformity to Christ § 14. Now having shewed the Excellency of this Grace in its Nature and Kind we must shew you that it is not Christ nor must not take his Throne or Crown from him yea abhors nothing more if true but will keep a Believer always a poor humble broken and contrite hearted Sinner Therefore we assert and Christ with his whole Word will stand by us in it that our Faith as a Grace of the Spirit or Work of ours is not imputed for Righteousness to Justification I shall but Name a few Arguments convincing enough and shew thereby the way to others to do the same 1. Faith is for the Honour of Christ our High-Priest upon the Throne if it takes to it self justifying Righteousness it takes the Crown from his Head and sets it upon his own for the great end of Christ's Humiliation and Exaltation was the working out of this Righteousness 2. If Faith be our Righteousness then Faith is its own Object when you bid Men believe unto Justification you must bid them believe in themselves and bid them by Faith go to their Faith for Righteousness and Life what 's Absurder 3. If God impute Faith it self as a Work to Justification then Faith must be imputed as meritorious of Justification For 1. Christs Righteousness is so imputed 2. No Righteousness can be imputed otherwise to Justification but such as is meritorious of it Justification being a Law-act 4. Faith making it self Righteousness for Justification by a Law makes it self altogether Legal as much as any Works whatever insomuch that it is not an evangelical Work so that it ought not to justifie as a Work by their own Rule that we are not justified by the legal works but we have proved all their Works legal 5. That that can't cover Sin and take off the Imputation of it can't be justifying Righteousness and take off the the Imputation of Sin for faith did not die for Sin or was made a Sacrifice for it to bear the Sin of many 6 The Priests and Sacrifices of Old were Types of Christs Righteousness for Justification of a Sinner not of the Sinners righteousness and the faithful looked upon themselves as sinners Typically justified in the Righteousness Typified and not in their Faith as a Work done 7. If our Faith in it self be our Righteousness then our unbelief is for that Faith must believe that Christs Righteousness is not imputed to us for Justification this his high unbelief according to the Scripture 8. If Faith say it justifie as a Work then Faith excludes it self the very Nature of it the Neonomian say the Law of Faith is the New-law if so then it excludes it self for the Law of Faith excludes boasting and Works of a Law i. e. the very Nature of Faith if it be good is so 9. If Faith justifie as a Work then Faith justifies not without Works for if it be a Work it self and justifying as such then it justifieth not without Works because it is a Work contrary to Rom. 4.6 10. If Faith be Imputed for Righteousness then the Blood of Christ is not but we are to be justified by the Blood of Christ and the Scripture saith we are by Faith in his Blood 11. If Faith Justifies as a Work then no more is ascribed to Faith than to other Graces in the concern of our Justification but the Apostle ascribes more concern to Faith than other Graces and then why doth he oppose Faith to Works Is it not that its more the Office of Faith as to Justification the Neonomian say it is the same with other Graces c. So Mr. Cl. Justifying Faith is the same thing in Substance with Effectual Calling Repentance Regeneration forming Christ in the Soul the new Creature c. Is not a great deal of the Scripture in vain hath not Paul wrote two Epistles in vain where he makes it his Main Business to beat down Justification by Works and oppose them to one another and now he tells us that Faith and Gospel Works i. e. legal are all one 12. That which justifies as a Righteousness justifies eternally Dan. 9. but Faith can't justifie eternally because Faith ceaseth in Heaven but justifying Righteousness doth not yea all the Righteousness of the New-law must cease 1 Cor. 13.10 14. That which is not the faederal Condition of the Covenant of Grace can't be our Righteousness in it self but Faith is not the faederal Condition because Faith is promised in the Covenant given by Grace purchased by Christ part of Eternal Life a means to lay hold of the Condition but I shall not enlarge upon this now only make one Quotation at last Mr. R. Capel who wrote of Temptation saith speaking of the Conditions of the Covenant In this Matter I am of the Opinion of Kendal that the Covenant he means of Grace was not made with us but with Christ this was the Assembly's Judgment for us and for the main I am clear of Opinion that the Covenant of Grace cannot stand with any Condition of ours at all for that I wish the Learned to consult Junius To deliver my Opinion Adam casting himself out of his Estate the Covenant of Works fell void Then it pleased God to fill up this Room with a New Covenant commonly called his last Testament wherein he bequeathed Grace and Glory on no other Condition that I know of out of the Scriptures but the Death of the Testator i. e. Jesus Christ that as the First Covenant was built on the Righteousness of the first Adam so the Second was built on the Righteousness of the second It is beyond my Brain to conceive that God should immediately make a Covenant with us who were Children of Disobedience and of Wrath who could not be capable of any such Covenant or Conditions but it was with Christ for us Adam lost his Righteousness the Foundation of the first Covenant but the Righteousness of Christ the Second can never be lost and therefore the second Covenant or rather Testament can never be broken or disanulled Condition of the Covenant p. 260. Errata PAge 38. line 2. read partaker p. 39. l. 32. r. relaxed p. 42. l. 23. r. Justice p. 43. l. 36. r. we could not p. 46. l. 17. r. per quam p. 48. l. 16. r. Is it by Imputation p. 49. l. 22. r. God justifies p. 50. l. 34. r. their sins p. 57. l. 34. r. the only p. 64. l. 23. dele r. bottom they must be Pelagians p. 66. l. 2. r. is it not so p. 72. l. 27. dele ◠p. ibid. l. 28. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 73. l. 40. r. Christs righteousness and us p. 78. l. 27. r. would not be p. 79. l. prope antep dele no. p. 85. l. 16. r. Gal. 3.21 p. 86. l. 21. r. Gal. 3.21 p. 87. l. 3. ab ult r. for Saviour self p. 88. l 23. r. Gal. 3.21 l. 37. r. is manifest p. 99. l. 16. dele not p. 100. l. 3. dele and l. 6. r. yea 123. l. 13. r. addicted to it l. 35. r. should not be p. 126. l. 10. r. righteousness twice p. 133 l. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 31. false Hebrew p. 134. l. 20. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 148. l. 17. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 29. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 34. dele the before events p. 149. l. 5. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 155. l. 6. a fine r. unprofitable p. 158. l. 6. ab ult r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 159 false Hebrew p. 160. l. 6. ab ult r. Arg. 3 The righteousness for which and by which a sinner is justified