I suppose because he lookt upon us as Men very shallow and of no penetration into matters For though he that hath been an actual Transgressor cann't be said not to have been because it 's past and cann't be made otherwise than that it hath been Doth it follow from this that therefore now he is a Transgressor His Argument doth run thus A Man hath been an Actual Transgressor therefore now he is and ever will be a Man hath been actually Sick or Poor and therefore he is so now and ever will be It 's a truth unalterable that this or that thing hath been but it follows not that therefore it 's now and always will be so It is a truth that all the Saints in Heaven have been guilty of Sin but are they therefore so now Then Heaven is full of guilty Sinners He alledges the absurdity of making a Fact past not to be past there 's none asserts it but that the Law may be fully satisfied for the obliquity of Fact we assert and in that sense God is said to take away our transgressions for what is the end of Christ's satisfaction in being a Sin-offering Is it not to satisfie the Justice of God in a Law-sense for the exorbitancy of that Fact for unless this obliquity be taken away before God the Sinner must be bound over to Punishment And hence no Flesh could be saved but all the World must remain Guilty Unjustified and Unpardon'd § 10. He excepts against considering Sins as Debts which he saith when once paid are no longer Debts but there 's difference between the guilt of a Fact and contracting a Debt for a Debt consists in a thing real whose property may be altered and transferred but in criminal matters there 's nothing capable of being transferred which is a thing real but the obliquity and guilt of the Fact is a privative and personal thing A. If Christ hath directed us to consider of Sin as a Debt such consideration is most regular and justifiable 2. If Obedience be that which is due to the Law of God in the strictest consideration of Justice then Disobedience is a Debt erg Sin is a Debt 3. If a Debt be no more a real thing but a Privation then other transgressions of the Law then the obliquity may be transferred in one as well as in another but it is so Erg. For a Debt is a defect of Payment and Privation of it there 's nothing but the Payment is real 4. In criminal matters no wrong subject is capable to be Punished in a way of Justice but he that is guilty § 11. He saith the Desert of Punishment which follows the transgression cannot be separated from it A. That which is meer consequent to a thing may be separated from the Essential Nature of the thing at least in Consideration but we have shewed that the Desert of Punishment is in the formal Nature of Sin For Sin as such is made by the Law to deserve Punishment and that is absolutely false if the Scripture be true which he saith Let what Grace or Favour soever be shewed the desert of Punishment remains still A. 1. In Man's Proceedings a Man that is Pardon'd is taken from desert of Punishment for it 's a slander punishable to call a Pardon'd Thief a Thief and the Law is silenced from dealing with himas such or calling him so But here God's ways are not as Man 's when he Pardons he also Justifies He provides as well for a full satisfaction of his Law for the very obliquity and exorbitancy of the Fact But he saith a Privation can't be transferred A. It 's true a Physical privation can't but a Moral may and a Debt may by his own Concession but a Debt is a Privation of the Creditor's Money I wonder an Ecclesiastical Man should not know it as well as others unless they call Men Debtors that owe them nothing Again the B. saith No Sinner can deserve that one that was not a Sinner should suffer for his faults A. It is true no Sinner can deserve that Christ should suffer for him no nor any ordinary Principal Debtor can deserve that any Man should be his Surety but another in kindness to him may put himself under Obligation to Pay and Write himself Debtor in his stead so tho' Sinners deserved Punishment yet not that Christ should be Punished for them and therefore that Christ is punished for their Sins flows from the love of God and kindness of the Lord Jesus from which he putting himself under Law-Proceedings and Suffers in a way of Justice for Sin i. e. taking upon him the Deserts of Man's Sin Bp Nor can the Law or Act of any Person transfer the desert of Punishment from him that was the actual Transgressor A. Here 's miserable Divinity it 's time sure to come to our Litany Lord have Mercy upon us A. 1. Cann't a Law transfer a deserved Punishment to another that fully satisfies it Why doth any one fully satisfie the Law for another but that the Law should have nothing to say to him to Charge or Accuse him which if so his desert is taken away If a Child or Wife commit a great Theft doth not the Guilt in Law fall on the Father or Husband and is not the Personal Desert taken away by the Father or Husband 's satisfying the Law 2. Can no Person Cann't God transfer the Guilt It 's strange that the Scripture should be so mistaken in saying Jehovah laid upon him the Iniquities of us all All the Answers to this are so frivolous that they are not worth our trouble of Answering them § 12. B. The Turpitude as to the Act of Sin cann't be re moved from it A. All these things being inseparable Sin remains in the best yea glorified Saints for Personal Guilt remaining and a Turpitude inseparable as it must needs so long as Personal Guilt remains there can be no Sanctified one on Earth or Heaven for Guilt and Filth is permanent ever never to be removed according to this Doctrine Bp Where-ever the Act of Sin is it must be displeasing to God but the Turpitude as it affects the Person of a Sinner must have another consideration A. Is Sin displeasing to God And can the Sinner be pleasing to him so long as he lies under the fault of Sin the desert and guilt thereof For suppose he is taken off from Punishment can he be received into favour with God Doth God accept Sinners in all their Guilt and Turpitude 2. I understand not how Turpitude of Sin is distinguish'd from the Guilt of Sin the said Guilt being the Turpitude the Law finds punisheth for it and condemns it even in Man's Law And although Sin carries an inherent Privation of good and an internal pravity yet there 's none of this that hath not personal guilt in it which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so far at least was charged on Christ and so far a believer washed in the
occasioned by a Book lately wrote by Mr. Dan. Williams entituled Gospel Truth stated vindicated pri 6 d. 2. The 2d part of Neonomianism un-mask'd or the Ancient Gospel pleaded for against the other called the New Law wherein the following Points are discoursed 1. What the state of the Elect is before effectual calling 2. Whether Good laid our Sins on Christ 3. Whether the Elect were discharg'd from sin upon Christ's bearing them 4. Whether the elect cease to her sinners from the time their sins were laid on Christ 5. What was the time when our sins were laid on Christ 6. Whether God was separated from Christ while our sins were laid upon him To be had with his whole Works and not single any other Part may be had single at the same Price set to them 3. The 3d part of Neonomianism Vnmask'd Or the Ancient Gospel Wherein these following Points are discussed 1. Of a Change of Person between Christ and the Elect. 2. Of the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace 3. Of the nature of Saving Faith 4. Of the free offer of Christ to sinners and of Preparatory Qualifications 5. Of Vnion to Christ before Faith 6. Of Justification by Faith 7. Of the necessity and benefit of Holiness Obedience and Good Works with Perseverance therein 8. Of intending our Souls Good by Duties we perform 9. Of the way to attain Assurance 10. Of God's seeing Sin in his People 11. Of the Hurt that sin may do to Believers 12. Of Gods displeasure for sin in the afflictions of his People 13. Of the Beauty of sincere Holiness 14. Of Gospel and legal preaching 15. Mr. John Nisbet's Reply to D W. Price 2 s. 6 d. 4. A Rejoinder to Mr. Dan. Williams's Reply to the first part of Neonomianism unmaskt wherein his Defence is examined and his Arguments answered whereby he endeavours to prove the Gospel to be a new Law with Sanction and the contrary is proved 1. By shewing what a Law is 2. By shewing what the Gospel is 3. Several Arguments proving that the Gospel is not a New Law with Sanction 4. An Account given of the Beginning and Progress of this Neonomian Error Price 6 d. 5. A friendly Examination of the Pacifick Paper concerning the consistency of absolute Election of particular Persons with the Universality of Redemption and the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace where also the new Scheme is clearly declared in several Questions and Answers about some great Points of Religion 1. In understanding what Christ did in the flesh for all 2. What he did in the Spirit only for his Elect. 3. As concerning the Law 4. Of Justification 5. Whether Salvation be possible to all Men by the Law of Grace c. Price 4 d. Note All these five Pieces are printed in Quarto to bind together and those that will have them compleat shall have them all bound together for 5 s. 6. ☞ Another very useful Book of Isaac Chauncy's M.A. Being a System or Body of Divinity Intituled The Doctrine which is according to Godliness grounded upon the holy Scriptures of Truth and agreeable to the Doctrinal part of the English Protestant Articles and Confessors to which is annexed The Congregational Church Government 1. Of a visible Gospel Church 2. Of Church Officers 3. Of Church Ordinances 4. Of Ordinances of Gospel Communion And first of the Seals 5. Concerning the Keys 6. Of divers Duties which concern the comfort of Church Communion pri bound 2 s. A Catalogue of some other Books lately Printed for Will Marshall and sold at the Bible in Newgate Street 1. A Discourse of Christian Religion in sundry Points Preached at the Merchants Lecture in Broadstreet by the late Reverend Mr. Tho. Cole M. A. and Student of Christs College in Oxford Price 2 s. 6 d. 2. An Answer to six Arguments produc'd by Du-pin Likewise a Refutation of some of the false Conceits in Mr. Lock 's Essay of Human Vnderstanding Price 6 d. 3. Stated Christian Conference asserted to be a Christians Duty 6d 4. A new methodiz'd Concordance Price 6 d. 5. A Compendium of the Covenant of Grace as the most solid support under the most terrible Conflicts of Death tho arm'd with Desertion decay of Grace and sense of Guilt by Walter Cross M. A. 6 d. 6. Bunyan of Election and Reprobation Price 6 d. 7. Christianity the great Mystery in answer to a late Treatise intituled Christianity not Mysterious together with a Postscript Letter to the Author Price 1 s. 8. The young Man's Guide for Drawing Limning and Etching with printed Directions Price 1 s. At the Bible in Newgate Street you may be supplied with all sorts of Printed Books of most Authors Bibles Testaments Grammars with all sorts of School-Books most sorts of Almanacks OLD BOOKS New bound of any sorts Also all sorts of Stationary Wares as Paper Pens Ink Wax Bonds Bills Funeral Tickets Printed at reasonable Rates Also Dr. Daffy's Cordial Elixir Blagrave's Spirit of Scurvigrass both purging and plain Queen of Hungarys Water Bromfield's PILLS SOME REMARKS UPON The B. of W. s' discourse concerning the doctrine of Satisfaction in Answer to Mr. L. 's Appeal I shall not spend time in rectifying what the B. saith concerning the occasion of the present difference believing the B. saith nothing in this Matter but what he had from one Party concern'd who gave him as appears a very unfair and partial representation of these things as they have done elsewhere and therefore because I will not actum agere I refer the Reader to the History of the Union and of the causes of the Breach thereof and counsel him as a Lover of Truth to believe no more of what the B. writes on this account than what he finds is consonant to the said History § 2. I therefore pass over to the second Chapter of the Mystery of Antinom laid open and first I must take notice of the B. Concession That if there were no more in the controversie than what is contained in these terms Relative or Connexive Conditions and Faederal the controversie might fairly and easily been accommodated I suppose this accommodation must have been by granting this disjunction to be true and according to the rules of distribution That a condition is that which is Axiomatically expressâ—d by the connexive conjunction Si If and is the Logical knitting together of an Antecedent and Consequent but doth not necessarily import the connexion of cause and effect but of a usual or requisite dependance such as is between Antecedent and Consequent e. gr If I go to the Exchange I must go out of my own house if I pass into Glory I must pass thro' the State of Grace not that the state of Grace is any meritorious cause of Glory but that there is such a cause of both and to which both answer as effects equally altho' one precede the other in order But faederal conditions are quite of another nature of a covenant and moral nature a
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
against the Socinians and Mr. B. 2. That Christ bore not the Personal Guilt of any Legally but that all Personal Guilt remains on the Sinner and was not legally transferred to Christ For this he saith P. 167. Bp. 1. We say that Punishment may be justly inslicted where there was a Translation of Guilt by Relaxation of the Law as to personal Offenders and admitting a Mediator to suffer in their stead R. No Guilt is translated by Relaxation of a Law for that dispenceth only 2. If the Law be relaxed as to Personal Offenders the doing of those things aster the relaxation is not Sin which was so before what needs a transferring to another 3. If the Precept be not relaxt which they will be loath to say it is then the Penalty must and if so either to a part only or to the whole If to the whole what need is there of a Translation If to a part only then part of the Sin only is transferred and Christ Died only for some part of our Sin not all Hence one part of our Salvation is owing to the relaxed Law and the other to Christ Hence Christ did not satisfie the Law in the proper and strict Nature of it and Christ's Sufferings were improper Punishments according to Mr. B. And here the Bp runs on ground Bp. He saith 2. Absolute Promises of the New-Covenant on which so much weight is laid without comparing them with other places speak no more of Christ's Sufferings than they do of any Conditions in us Here our own Qualifications and Performances are made to have an equality of conditionality foederally with Christ's Sufferings and if Christ's Sufferings be meritorious so are they too Bp. 3. The notion of Satisfaction lays the Foundation of Antinomianism which attributes unto God such a sort of vindictive Justice which requires an absolute and perfect Satisfaction in the same kind for the Sins of Mankind R. How much this kind of satisfaction borders upon Socinianism in the true meaning of it it 's easie to judge and what little reason the Bp had to reject the Principles that Mr. B. built upon is manifest being a firmer Foundation for his building And after all that he hath said against them as too much favouring Socinianism he is fain to lay hold on them to support his own Fabrick See here the pitiful shifts Men are put to that wander from the way of truth Arguments to prove that Christ bore the Personal Guilt of all them for whom he Suffered THAT the less intelligent Reeader may not be at loss for the truth not so easily finding it among the Controversal Difficulties of a Dispute I have thought good to make plain proof of this great Question in the affirmative And that we may prevent enlargements I premise 1. That by Personal Guilt is meant the Guilt of every particular Person for whom Christ Died as of Noah David and Peter c. 2. I take Guilt and Sin and the merit and desert of Sin to be equivalent terms in the sense of the Spirit of God and though the Scripture use the word Sin and we most commonly say Guilt this is exegetical to shew that we mean not that the Subjective Physical Act of Sin was transferred to Christ nor the inherent Moral Pollution But whatever is in either that is a Transgression of the Law the Law-relation of all Sin so far as the Law condemns the Sinner for it was charged on Christ i. e. Legally and Juridically in the Just God's distribution of Justice Then I argue Arg. 1. He that was punisht for Sin bore Sin in the Personal Guil i. e. the Legal Charge of it as the reason of his Punishment but Christ was punisht for it by the Concession of our opposites Ergo The Major is true 1. Because God is Just 2. Punishment without a Reason is very unjust 3. There was no reason in Christ absolutely considered for his Punishment therefore in some others therefore the Personal Sin of some or other 4. Without a bearing of Sin in the legal desert of some or other he could not be justly punished by the Law Arg. 2. He that was made Sin for us was made so by charging our Sins upon him bare Personal Guilt for he was made that which he was not in himself Now how could he be made so but by an imputation of the Sins of others to him a legal proceeding with him in judicature which could be no other than by Judging and Punishing him for some Guilt that merits the Wages of Death The Answer the Socinians and others make to 2 Cor. 5.21 is that he was made Sin as the Sacrifices were because a Sin-offering is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I answer 1. It was essential to the Sin-offering to have the the Personal Guilt of the Sinner charged upon it 2. When 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for a Sin-offering it 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. The Prophet Isa doth only use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he speaks of Christ's bearing Sin which last word is never used for Sin-offering 4. He was made Sin as we are made Righteous now we are not made Righteous by being made Sacrifices for Sin but by imputation Arg. 3. He that bore the Curse of the Law to Redeem us from it bore also the Personal Guilt of our Sins but Christ bore the Curse of the Law Gal. 3.13 For the Major it 's as clear as the Sun because Curse is inseparable from Sin the Law curseth no where but where it finds Personal Guilt Let these Men tell me where a Curse falls upon the head of any one but of such wherein there is Sin in some legal sense or other Arg. 4. If the Priests and Sacrifices of old the Types of Christ and his Sufferings had the Personal Guilt of Sin laid upon them then Christ the Antitype in his Sufferings had Personal Guilt laid upon him But the Antecedent is without contradiction yea and the Consequence because the Antitype is to answer the Type in all things wherein it is a Type Arg. 5. If they that were Punished by the Law did bear their Personal Sins by the Law then if Christ was Punished by the Law he also bore Sin by the Law But the Antecedent is true by the Scripture both in them that are recorded to have been Punished in Person for their own Sins Lev. 20.20 and 22.9 and 24.15 Numb 9.13 and 14.34 and 18 22 32. Ezek. 23.49 and in such as are recorded to have been Punished or Suffer for others Isa 53.11 Ezek. 4.4 5 6. The Consequence must be true if Christ was Punished by Law and was one that Suffered for others the proof whereof the Scripture is full of Arg. 6. If Christ bore not Personal Guilt but every one's Personal Guilt still remains then the Spirit of God taught David to pray after his Sin in vain Deliver me from Blood guiltiness O God But David's Prayer was
have detected that ignorant Person and not charged it on their dissenting Brethren surely they are not such pitiful Wretches as not to distinguish between the mystical Body of Christ and his Person and to talk of a mystical Person 3. This mystical Person must be distinguished from a legal Union before Faith Where is this Stuff put together I challenge these Men to tell the Man and quote the Place where such a Mess of Nonsense is put together if they do not it must pass for one of the horrid Defamations wherewith they have bespattered their dissenting Brethren to render them odious unto the World I suppose the Bp could make nothing of it The Lord give them Repentance and Remission of these great Sins of the first Magnitude and that they persist not thus to fly in the Face of Christ and his faithful Members and that he leave them not to a reprobate Mind as well as such a persecuting false Tongue whereby we shall be engaged to pray the 120th Psalm against them A POSTSCRIPT BEcause we are so highly reproached by our Adversaries for Antinomians in the great Point of Justication I thought it very needful to transcribe some few Passages out of the Writings of that renowned Servant of Jesus Christ Mr. Tho. Shephard whom none of our bitterest Opponents can call an Antinomian He shews how Christ redeems 1. By Satisfaction 2. By strong Hand 1. By Satisfaction in paying a Price for us 1 Cor. 6. ult Hence Christ satisfieth Justice 1. By standing in the room of all them whom Mercy decreeth to save A Surety standeth in the room of a Debtor Heb. 7.22 As the first Adam stood in the room of all Mankind fallen so Christ standeth in the room of all Men rising or to be restored again 2. By taking from them in whose room he stood the eternal Guilt of all their Sins and by assuming the Guilt of all their Sins unto himself 2 Cor. 5.22 Hence Luther said Christ was the greatest Sinner by Imputation 3. By bearing the Curse and Wrath of God kindled against Sin for God is so holy that when he seeth Sin sticking only by Imputation to his own Son he will not spare him but his Wrath and Curse must he bear Gal. 3.13 Christ drinks up the Cup of all the Elect at one Draught which they should have been sipping and drinking and tormented with Millions of Years 4. By bringing into the Presence of God perfect Righteousness Rom. 5.11 For this also God's Justice required Perfection Conformity to the Law as well as perfect Satisfaction in suffering for the Wrong offered to the Lawgiver Justice requiring these Four Things Christ satisfies Justice by performing them and so pays the Price 2. Christ is a Redeemer by a strong Hand The first Redemption by Price finished in Christ's Person at his Resurrection the second is begun by the Spirit in Man's Vocation and ended at the Day of Judgment c. Sinc. Conv. p. 102 103. By Satisfaction I understand the whole Obedience of Christ unto the very Death both Active and Passive by which we are justified Heb. 10.10 Phil. 2.8 c. This Righteousness of Christ is not that of the Godhead for then what need was there for Christ to do or suffer but that which was wrought in the Manhood And hence it is finite in it self tho' infinite in value in that it was the Righteousness of such a Person This Righteousness of God may be consider'd two ways 1. Absolutely in it self 2. Respectively as done for us Christ's absolute Righteousness is not imputed to us as he is Mediator Head of the Church having the Spirit without measure c. These things are applied for our Good but are not imputed as our Righteousness Here the Objections such as these if Christ's Righteousness be imputed to us then we are Mediators Heads of the Church c. vanisheth 2. The respective or dispensative Righteousness of Christ which some call Justitia fide jussoria Suretiship Righteousness is that whereby Christ is just for us in fulfilling the Law in bearing God's Image we once had and have now lost by Sin And thus we are truly said to be as Righteous as Christ by Imputation because he kept the Law for us and here observe that the Question is not whether all that Christ did or had is imputed to us as our Righteousness But whether all that he did for us as a Surety in fulfilling the Law be not in Substance our Righteousness Because then we are justified by his working Miracles preaching Sermons c. Which is to cast Stumbling-blocks before the Blind so that tho' Christ doth not bestow his Personal Wisdom and Justice upon another yet what hinders but that which Christ doth by his Wisdom and Righteousness for another the same should stand good for him for whom it is done For thus it is among Men. Christ's Essential Righteousness Infinite Wisdom Fulness of the Spirit without Measure c. is not imputed to us yet these have conspired together to do that for us and suffer that for us whereby we come to be righteous before God Jer. 23.6 This Righteousness therefore imputed to us justifies us Rom. 5.18 we are said to be made righteous in him not the Righteousness of God whereby God is just but whereby we are just opposed to the Righteousness of Man called our own Rom. 10.3 Rom. 1.17 Not Righteousness from him as the Papists dream but Righteousness in him Sound Believer p. 265 266. ERRATA PAge 14. l. 2. ab ult r. appealed p. 15. l. 5. r. what necessary p. 16. l. 13. r. not taken p. 20. l. 5. ab ult r. ponitur p. 23. l. 6. ab ult r. not found p. 24. l. 22. f. Men r. more p. 43. l. 13. r. to the Sinner p. 49. l. 1. r. Gods p. 61. l. 8. r. Acquaints p. 69. l. 18. r. meritorious p. 76. l. 7. r. so as to bare l. 16.19.20 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 21. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 87. l. 6. r. 23.21 l. 9. dele at Sins l. 21. r. so as To my old Acquaintance Mr. John Humphry Reverend Sir THE former Civilities that I have receiv'd from you in sending your Books concerning the Doctrine of Justification to me which I always read and seriously considered knowing you to be a Man of Thought and plain-hearted sine fuco which some Men are too much starch'd with These I say first engaged me in this Undertaking for which I must crave your Excuse looking upon this as the best Returns that I am your Apponent in the Doctrine you have deliver'd in the said Books and laboured strenuously to defend for you know the old proverbial Saying Amicus Plato Amicus Aristotiles sed magis Amica Veritas I hope you will not nor Mr. Clerk whom I join with you as one that pleadeth the same bad Cause have any reason to complain of uncivil Treatment for if you find any
Socin They are greatly deceived who gather that all the posterity of Adam sinned in Adam the Parent and truly to have deserved the punishment of death for sins and merits such as are meerly personal go not out of the person which hath sinned neither do Parents represent their Children Altho there may be some hurt and that not a little to Children by their Parents sin as indeed it fell out in Adam 's sin but the very Sin and Merit of Adam was not communicated in nor imputed to Adam's Posterity and hence the Posterity of Adam was not truly punished for Adam's sin unless they imitated their Parents Schlicting on Heb. 7.10 Whereas it appears plainly by Rom. 5.12 that the merit passed upon all by Adam's sin for death passed upon all and the merit of Death cannot be without imputation of sin and it passed upon all that have not finned actually even Infants before they are capable of imitation of their Parents Quakers We do not ascribe any whit of Adam 's guilt to men till they make it theirs by the like acts of disobedience Barchl This is also Pelagian Doctrine That Adam 's sin is not imputed to his Posterity § 9. Imputation is also by way of Suretiship and it is when the Sins or Debts of one person are by law charged upon or imputed to another in order to the Salvation of the Principal or personal transgressor Here it is always understood that the payment of a Surety is as good and acceptable to the Law as that of the Principal 2. That the Surety cannot become Pay-master in Law unless he take the Debt or Sin upon him instead of the proper transgressor he must be charged as transgressor else the Law can make no demand upon him 3. He must freely offer himself to be a Surety no person can be forced in any case to be Surety for another 4. When he hath engaged himself in Suretiship the law takes him person for person the principal Debt becomes his and his righteousness and payment becomes the Principals in a real legal commutation here is no natural or moral Change but sponsorial and legal nay no logical change i. e. one relation is not changed into another the Surety into the Principal nor Principal into the Surety but in the Judgment of the Law the Principal Debt becomes the Surety's and the Surety's Payment is the Principals whereupon the Principal in respect of that Sin or Debt for which Satisfaction is made hath the discharge in full and is as perfectly righteous as to that as the Surety himself he is not it may be so rich and honourable as his Surety but in respect of the Debt satisfied the Law hath no more to say to him than to the Surety An Alderman fetcheth a Prisoner and with him many more out of Ludgate owing Five or Ten Pounds a piece this little money being all that 's owing in the World by the poor Man when discharged the Law hath no more to say to him than to the Alderman and he is as righteous in the eye of the Law tho he will not pretend to be so great and so rich or a ransomer of others out of Prison as the Alderman himself is § 10. He that bears the sins of others must be a Representative and Publick Person that must personate or bear the persons of them whose sins he bears and must be either substituted by the Court or if by some other he must be allowed to be capable and able to make Payment must be accepted and dealt with in the name and upon the account of the other and becomes a Debtor or Transgressor in and for the person he doth represent in Court and becomes a Delinquent in the eye of the Law the Law imputing sin to him makes him sin because he is supposed to owe nothing on his own account he that doth in foro represent one or more and stands not nor acts for himself but others is a publick Person and Representative as a Burgess or Citizen in Parliament and they that he represents are said to act in and by him It s a contradiction to common sense and reason to say that he that stands legally or civilly in the place of another to act his part and in his name should not be a publick Person but men will throw down common sense and reason to establish their own fond Conceits and Errors § 11. The difference between Imputation by way of Attainder and by way of Suretiship is that this Imputation is in order to the Salvation of the Sinner but that is as to legal single effects only to the Sinners Destruction 2. That in this Imputation in the way of Suretiship as there is Imputation of the sinners sin to the Surety so there is a re-imputation of the Surety's righteousness to the sinner but in Imputation of Sin by way of Attainder there 's no re-imputation of righteousness to the first sinner 3. The Imputation doth differ in the manner of transaction In Imputation of sin by way of Attainder sin is transferred from the Representative to the Represented but in Imputation by way of Suretiship sin is transferred from the Represented to the Representative and that 's the reason that tho we are fitly said to sin in Adam because he was our Representative yet it s not so fitly said that Christ sinned in us because that we were never Representatives to Christ but it s fitly said we are righteous in Christ because he is our Representative and that we satisfied in Christ which saying doth not rob Christ of his Glory of Satisfaction but gives it him affirming that Christ satisfied and for us and that God is well pleased with us through him If a man that hath owed Money to A. and paid him by his Surety B. be charged that he owes A. so much Money he denys it and saith I paid you by B. doth he speak true or false doth he not speak properly doth he hereby say I paid you by my own Money No he only saith that B. paid for me my Debt with his Money But we see how Neonomians will pick quarrel with common sense and reason as they do in their denial of this high and fundamental Point Of Imputation of Sin to Christ and charge it for an Error to say we satisfied in Christ § 12. Neonom Christ neither was a Sinner nor reputed a Sinner by God R. B. End of Contr. p. 122. Christ took not reatum facti nor reatum culpae as if there were any difference between them He took reatum poenae the guilt of punishment that 's always in the fault for nothing deserves punishment but faults Scr. G. d. p. 89. They dangerously affirm meaning those he calls Antinomians that Christ took not only the punishment of our Sins and that guilt and reatum paenae which is an assumed obligation to suffer the punishment deserved by us but all our very sins themselves the very essence of the sins
intervening Righteousness between Christ and us what to call it Mt. Cl. calls it subordinate and so doth Mr. B. but Mr. H. liking not that Name so well had rather call it co-ordinate but I know not from the Notion of the thing duly considered why they may not go one step further and call it the Principal or supream justifying righteousness for that which hath the principal place in any thing ascribed to it is the principal but our own righteousness hath the principal place in the thing ascribed to it which is Justification therefore it s the chief and supream righteousness For they say we are justified by the imputation of this righteousness only and by no other therefore all conducing righteousnesses to the introducing this are subordinate to it Again That which hath its place only in the external causes and in the modality of their operation as to the production of the effect is much inferiour to the essential causes that enter the very effect and are constitutive to it but Christ's Righteousness by these men is no more and therefore must be a subordinate righteousness to ours ours being causa formalis justificationis an essential cause Christ's being but causa protarch a remote cause adjuvant to the efficient therefore the righteousness of Christ can have no more than a remote causality in purchasing the New Law by the righteousness whereof we are justified which is no better indeed than causa sine qua non it s in ordine ad the justifying righteousness therefore subordinate to it 2. He saith This subordinate Gospel Righteousness is an imperfect righteousness Truly I am sorry for it that Gospel Righteousness should be imperfect I doubt there 's little dependance upon it since the righteousness of the law that condemns us is perfect its little likelihood that an imperfect righteousness should save us from it ay but they will say it s Christ's perfect righteousness must save us from the perfect righteousness of the law condemning us Say you so and therefore why should not this righteousness of Christ have the honour of justifying us it seems we are saved by Christ's righteousness and justified by our own as if Justification were not Salvation But is our Gospel-righteousness imperfect this is no Gospel for its ill News I must tell these men its a rotten foundation they build upon and their Building will drop not being built on Christ the Corner Stone in Justification 3. He saith It s imperfect consistent with many failings and infirmities Resp I pray how comes this to pass is it from the Legislator that constituted such a Law whose condition is obedience consistent with sin or is it from the Operator or Worker under this Law if from the former then the Law makes it in fault if there be any but if he hath made a law with such condition of obedience consistent with sin then performance of such is no sin nor needs a Pardon for sin is the transgression of the law the subject is under Now if Believers are under the New Law for Justification and perform there what 's required what need have they of a Pardon from a righteousness borrowed from another law If it be from the last viz. the fault and defect of the operator of righteousness that his righteousness is not the performance of the condition of the New Law as required then this New Law cannot justifie him our Neonomians in this Point will be on Scilla or Charybdis in spite of the World In a word 1. That righteousness that cannot justifie us at the Bar of the old Law or Covenant of Works is no justifying righteousness but none of our own righteousness New Law or other will not justifie us at the Bar of the Covenant of Works by the Neonomians own confession therefore we cannot be justied by any such righteousness 2. Again that righteousness which needs pardon is no justifying righteousness but is condemned by the law for whatever is pardoned is condemned by the law first neither is that person justified who by the law is unpardoned Pardon being an essential part of Justification in Mens Courts where many Indictments ly against a Man if he be quitted of some and not of all he is not discharged as justified but here it s worse I do not find that at the New Law Bar a man as they say justified is quite discharged from any Indictment at all for there 's none fully pardoned wherefore our Neonomians say that their Justification is not perfect in this life So Mr. Cl. Our Justification in this world is not perfect and compleat c. p. 18. § 6. Mr. Cl. saith There 's a twofold guilt Legal and Evangelical Legal Guilt is an obligation to eternal punishment this is fully pardoned in Justification and can never return again because Christ hath taken it all upon himself and made full satisfaction to his Father's Justice for it but Gospel-guilt which is an obligation to Gospel-Punishment i. e. fatherly chastisements for sins after Justification returns upon commission of new sins and is removed upon repentance sometimes wholly sometimes in part This is also Mr. H's Doctrine Resp The distinction is naught for we deny any Evangelical Guilt Evangelical Guilt Threat or Punishment is a Bull a downright Contradiction if we know what Gospel is and they that will be ignorant and call this Assertion Antinomian Poyson let them be ignorant still I thank God for the knowledge of the Gospel so far as that it is quite contrary to Guilt Threat and Punishment or Obligation to it in the true legal sense thereof Likewise he should have distinguished of Guilt as usual reatus culpae and reatus paenoe the first properly Guilt and that in judicio legis vel judicio conscientiae if a Man be sub reatu culpae judicio legis as they say the justified ones are he is unjustified for the law cannot justifie a man and declare him guilty i. e. not guilty and guilty at the same time Obligation to Punishment is not Guilt in the true sense of it for we say a man cast in Court is guilty of the charged Fault and therefore the Law binds him over to Punishment We never say a Man is guilty of the punishment but deserves he is found guilty and therefore the Sentence of the Law binds him to Punishment but he saith Legal Guilt is fully pardoned in Justification Pardon is always of a fault and includes not punire but is sin pardoned fully in Justification as to an obligation to eternal punishment then 1. Pardon is included in Justification contrary to what he asserts in the foregoing Page 2. Justification is perfect and compleat so far as the taking off eternal punishment 3. He cannot but own this to be the main part of Justification at least and this it seems is owing to the full satisfaction made by Christ to the Justice of God our righteousness of the New Law hath nothing to do here in the matter
more apparent in Scripture then that by Grace it is that we are justified and by Grace saved Resp But will Mr. H. affirm that Grace doth justifie us without Justice Doth not the Apostle say a sinner is justifyed by Grace in and through Christs Redemption that God may be just Doth not Mr. H. say Justification is an Act of Justice again and again Doth not this setting up our own righteousness in performance of the Condition of the New Law make his Justification an Act of Justice yea and without Grace What do these Men mean so often and positively to contradict the Scripture and themselves to draw their dirty Inferences upon the Truth with holding it in unrighteousness § 8. If nothing less then a Righteousness as doth Answer and satisfie the Law fully will suffice for the sinners Plea to flee from Condemnation he is not judged by the Law of Grace but by the Law of Works R. The inference hath no danger in it for 1. We know of no Judgment in freeing any from Condemnation but a Discharge in Christ from the Law of Works before which every Believer is discharged here and hereafter through Grace 2. We know of no New Law either to quit or condemn a Law of Grace in that sense is a Bull Grace and a Law are directly opposite 2. He here insinuates as if Christs satisfaction were compleat and imperfect If nothing else will suffice for a Plea 1. What can be better than a perfect satisfaction for a Plea 2. Either Christs is not perfect or else perfect will not do without an imperfect added to it which indeed he means that Christs perfect satisfaction must have our Imperfect added to make our Plea compleat 3. What is freeing from condemnation but Pardon of Sin I pray what righteousness doth a Neonomian flee to for the pardon of Sin Do they tell us its Christs tho' they be justified by their own I would know whether they esteem Christs Righteousness full and compleat for the pardon of Sin Or do they plead for some of their pardon at the Bar of the New Law where they are justifyed and some of their pardon at the Bar of the Old Law where they are condemned But this imputed righteousness is a mistake of the Protestants poor Man I pitty him and he hath found the mistake so it seems indeed by his Writing § 8. Christ came into the World to procure and tender a New Law and in this regard he is called our Law giver not that he hath given any other Moral rules of Life to us but that he hath given the same Precepts with Indulgence Resp Now mark the Neonomian Spirit but Two or Tree Lines off he was for Justification only by Grace without Law that he might dethrone Christ but now again that he may Enthrone Mans Righteousness he is altogether for Law his Language is half Ashdod take him where you will 1. He tells you what he means by Satisfaction which he saith is procurement Christ came into the World not to satisfie the Law of God which we had broken but to procure a Law a remedial Law a better Law to answer Gods Ends than the First it was a great mistake sure in Divine Wisdom to make such a Law at first as would not do 2. It was another oversight at least that Christ did not come to procure a right law at first 3. It s very strange that God would not afford a right law without procurement Laws are not used to be purchased or procured Legislators make Laws according to their pleasure without procurement 4. And whâ—t's the World the better Christ hath procured the putting the World under New-Law Terms and not satisfied the Old Law and now they must perform the condition of the New Law and be pardoned by the old Law unsatisfied else they cannot be saved 5. After all the noise about saving by Grace it s but by a law which requires personal obedience in fulfilling the condition this is the Grace of the Law and Law of Grace a Law of Grace it is such wherein Grace is no more Grace and the Law is no more a Law that indeed a law of Grace is a Contradiction in proprio adjuncto a meer Hobgoblin But how is these mens New Law compounded It is they say of Grace and a Law and it lies In that he hath not given new Moral Laws of life to us other than what was contained in the old law before but that he hath given the same precepts with indulgence Answ Well Christ is not our Lawgiver according to purchase for these Men make Christ to have died for himself to make himself a Lawgiver to devise and constitute any new Moral Precepts but first to pluck down the old house and then to take the broken and scattered pieces and make a new one he takes the Moral Materials of the old Law cuts and hews them pretty much makes the Duties more indifferent the sins forbidden Venial and allowable yea necessary to come into the righteousness of the new law for if the Condition be not mixt of Morality and Immorality its good for nothing it will not serve this turn therefore the old law with indulgence of sin is the New Law I pray let me know from the Wits of our Age whether this be not Antinomianism Now he tells us this is a law of indulgence c. the plain English of it is that its a Law of Dispensation with a Law of Justice i. e. a lawless law that all the Satisfaction he means is Gods Dispensation with Law and Justice and a law to call Sin by one law Sin and righteousness by another the truth is the whole Doctrine tends to deny God in his glorious Properties and to change him into the similitude of an Ox that eateth Hay interpretativè and if God doth not act now and at Judgment by this lay of Dispensation with Law and indulgence of Sin he says the main business of Christ's coming and Redemption is lost that can be no other in his sence than to be Minister of Sin § 10. You shall hear a Protestant i. e. Neonomians they are Papists according to the Profession of this downright Papist in his Prayer appealing from the Tribunal of Gods Justice to the Throne of his Grace yet in his Sermon telling the People that it is nothing else but the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ imputed to them that saves them which is to bring them back from the throne of Grace to the Bar of his Justice to be judged Resp I am ashamed to read such a Banter of Christianity from any man that professeth himself a Christian tho a Papist and Socinian 1. Is it a good Appeal or no for a sinner to make from the Tribunal of Justice i. e. meer Justice where God beholds the Sinner as he is in himself by his most righteous law a condemned transgressor to the Throne of Grace not that God hath two Thrones Rev. 4.
Counsels and Covenant-Compact with the Son as the Apostle saith expresly 1 Pet. 1.19 20. Christ as redeemer by his precious bloud as of a lamb without spot this is his righteousness who verily i. e. really as such was fore-ordained of God before the foundation of the world It was then the Plot and Contrivance of God and therefore may well be called the righteousness of God This Purpose and Grace to poor Sinners was first given us in the Person and Righteousness of Christ before the World began but was manifested since and especially at the first appearance of Christ in the flesh actually to work out this righteousness in abolishing Death and bringing Life and Immortality to Light in the said Gospel of Christ which he was a Preacher of this Head I might be large in insisting on from other places as Eph. 1.6 7 8 9. Prov. 8 30. Heb. 10.8 9. 2. It is the Righteousness of the Person who is God Acts 20.28 3. It s the only righteousness that God is well pleased with a sinner for and in which he makes his law honourable Isa 42.21 3. God hath called and anointed Christ thereto in righteousness Isa 42.6 i. e. to answer my law and righteousness therein and to perform the work of righteousness the Condition of the Covenant I have given thee for so Heb. 8.3 chap. 5.5 9.12 4. It s a Righteousness becoming the Grace of God as the gift of righteousness Rom. 5. and becoming the Perfect Justice and Law of God and therefore magnifies his Law c. and becoming the Wisdom of God therefore Christ is called the Wisdom of God and answers all the ends of God's Glory in Man's Salvation 5. It s the Righteousness of God in regard of the stateliness and highness thereof as the Trees of Lebanon were called the Trees of Jehovah Psal 104.16 6. In a way of opposition to all mens inherent righteousness which is humane mans righteousness only this is God's righteousness and be hath made Christ to be righteousness to us 1 Cor. 1.30 § 10. Now here is reason enough why Christ's Righteousness should be called the righteousness of God and that its plainly so intended in the Text appears 1. Because its a revealed righteousness that Man saw not before they can easily see their own own righteousness without Revelation they are addicted 2. It s the righteousness of Christ that is the righteousness of the Gospel of Christ the Gospel of Christ is called so because its the preaching Christ and him crucified 1 Cor. 3. and because it s his Gospel whereby he cometh and preacheth peace through his righteousness Eph. 2.14 15. 3. It s the righteousness of Christ because its the great object of Faith in Justification for its absurd to say our faith is the object of faith it s something without a man first that he believes upon faith is the evidence or Hypostacy of things not seen 4. It s opposed to the Anger and Wrath of God revealed in the Law v. 18. as that righteousness which answers it 5. The Apostle throughout this Epistle casts off and abandons all righteousness of ours as insufficient therefore this must be the righteousness intended 6. The Text is plain that the righteousness of God is spoken of objectively as to faith for a thing is revealed that it may be seen it s revealed from one act of faith to another and it is confirmed by the words of the Prophet the just shall live by faith on this righteousness believing in it and feeding upon it as their food of life and therefore is not in themselves but in the Gospel there as revealed for the import of the words should be according to those men I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ it is the power of God to Salvation for therein i. e. in the Gospel preached not in our selves is the righteousness of God revealed from one act of faith to another to be seen by it it is not said that faith is revealed to be the righteousness of God but the righteousness of God in the Gospel because it is the power of God to Salvation is revealed to our faith and to be that righteousness which is Gospel righteousness therefore not in our selves 3. The preaching thereof is the power of God to Salvation and that which a believers faith lives upon § 11. The next place Rom. 3.21 22. The Apostle in the 9th verse saith he proved both Jews and Gentiles under sin viz. under the transgression of the Moral Law as plainly appears by his Proof unto v. 19. now saith he they are under the law in that they are convict by the law even the whole World by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that law not the Ceremonial but Moral against which all the forementioned transgressions are committed and Gentiles who were never under the Ceremonial Law as well as Jews Now saith the Apostle seeing that by this Moral Law the World is condemned its impossible that any works of obedience to any law whatever should for if any other law comes to milder terms unless this law be rescinded its impossible any man can be righteous before God hence he concludes therefore by the deeds of the law i. e. any law no flesh can be justified in Gods sight whatever Law men may pretend to God will judge and try all by the Moral Law for a sinner and transgressor of God's law can have the knowledge of sin by it i. e. Conviction but no Salvation by any righteousness of his performance What then must all the World perish therefore for want of a righteousness No God hath provided a righteousness he doth not say God hath repealed his Law and made a new one the righteousness of God without a new law is evident or made manifest in the Gospel which is witnessed by the Law i. e. of Moses in the Doctrine of Sacrifices and by the Prophets that have prophesied of Christ v. 22. even the righteousness of God which is by the faith of Jesus Christ viz. the righteousness of Christ which faith lays hold on which is by faith i. e. which we receive by faith for it may be said what is this righteousness of God saith the Apostle it is in Christ how have it we in Christ by faith Now saith he it s unto all i. e. imputed unto all and upon all as a covering or robe of righteousness by the faith of every Believer by the least as well as the greatest by a Gentile Believer as well as a Jew there 's no difference in the degree of righteousness nor in the imputation of it nor application of it all Believers are equally and alike righteous in Christ's righteousness which is the righteousness of God and the reason added for all have sinned and justified freely by Gods grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ § 12. Now it appears that the righteousness of God is Christ's righteousness That righteousness that fully and compleatly satisfied
not be the end of the law of works for righteousness to a Believer but that a believer's performance of obedience to the new law should be the end of the law of works for righteousness which is a direct contradiction to the Text. For he faith Christ is the end of the law what law of all law of works in way of Satisfaction of the Moral and concurring Ceremonial as an Antitype he and his righteousness is shadowed forth thereby he saith not that Christ is the end of a law for a righteousness of our performing for that would be a contradiction to fay the end of a law is righteousness and then Christ is the end of it for another righteousness and not his own he should have said believing is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth Lastly What righteousness is it to take us from under a law or relax it or procure that it shall not be satisfied at all and that the offender shall be justified by another Law § 15. The next Text is He hath made him sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him 2 Cor. 5.21 i. e. saith Mr. H. the immaculate lamb made a Sacrifice for our sins that we may become righteous with the righteousness of God which he accepts through him Christ as a Sacrifice redeems us from a Law of Sin and purchaseth for us a law of grace according to that law we have a righteousness which is a righteousness accepted unto life through Christ Medioc p. 28. R. So that Mr. H's meaning must be That Christ was made Sin under the old law that we might have righteousness by him under the new law and that what Christ did under the old law amounted to no righteousness to us But he must be righteousness to us under the New Law and then Christ was made under the New Law which these men will deny and be our righteousness there no say they not himself be our righteousness but procure that we should be our own righteousness then the true meaning is here That Christ was made Sin for us that we should be our own righteousness but how our righteousness in Christs is our righteousness Christs then it is that we may be made Christs righteousness becoming ours by Imputation Christ being made sin for us he glosses upon as the Socinians i. e. Christ the immaculate Lamb was made a sacrifice for sin It is true Christ is expresly said to be a sacrifice for sin but how 1. As the true Sacrifice not as a typical Heb. 9.26 2. As a Sacrifice to bear Sin not less but more than all the Sacrifices of Old and therefore it is said to be made sin for us he was not a sinner by nature neither was his nature corrupted by his being made Sin for us therefore he was made sin by legal imputation made sin because put under the law the Priests and Sacrifices of old had the sins of the People laid upon them sin was charged on them their own first for which they sacrificed then the sins of the People but Christ did not only bear Sin as the Sacrifice that was slain but as Scape Goat also for one Type could not hold forth the fulness of Christ's Righteousness therefore the Apostle saith he did not only bear sin but bore it away Heb. 9.26 28. Now it s a strange thing that these men should spit at this Doctrine of Christ's bearing Sin one of late calling it Poyson another saying he bore not our very sins and all that he bore only suffering for sin I would know how any can suffer for Sin in Law or Justice and not legally bear the charge of sin And how Christ came to be a Curse if he bore not Sin 2. He bore Sin because he bore the Curse of the Law he was made a curse doth curse come upon any but for sin Is there any in the World but for Sin therefore whatever subject hath the curse of the law hath also the charge of sin for they are inseparable 3. How dare any man be so audacious as to give the Spirit of God the lie in that it hath so often and peremptorily asserted We have gone astray and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all he hath caused them to meet upon him will you say that is the punishment of us all when the Spirit of God speaks so distinctly of punishment v. 5. and tells us the reason because he bore sin he was wounded for our transgression because sin was laid upon him so v. 8. for the transgression of my people was he stricken and least you should be at a stand in this Point about Christ's bearing sin it s exprest again as the reason of Christs justifying many v. 11. for he shall bear their iniquities Nay it s added the third time and he bare the sins of many so that Christs bearing Sin distinct from Punishment is no less than three times in this Chapter It is also fully exprest in the New Testament totidem verbis Heb. 9.28 Christ was once offered there 's his suffering for what to bear the sins of many and 1 Pet. 2.24 He his own self bare our sins in his body on the tree and in multitude of places in expressions that are tantamount to these and now to say that Christ did not bear sin and all things that the Law calls Sin let it be as filthy and as vile as you will for it s so because its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we know he was manifest to take away all sin now is there any thing which you call the filth of sin is it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is it not then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the transgression of the law if it be Christ bore it if he did not then it stands yet in Gods sight and the hand-writing of the law is against you and you are not justified and why is Christ's Sacrifice said to be the purging of sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many things might be said to shew how properly it s spoken see Dr. Owen I must for brevity sake only say that it imports Christ's purging us by Sacrifice from all that the law of God calls filthy in sin Then it s objected Christ was unclean Answ Not morally polluted but legally unclean while he was under our sins as the Sacrifices were and therefore he suffered without the camp Obj. Then the Saints have no sin who give sufficient evidence that sin remains in them Answ The Saints are without spot before God in Point of Justification they are justified from all sin and filthy spot in Gods sight 2. Sin remains in them and will do in Point of Sanctification which is not perfect in this life but all in their sins that is a burden to them that is odious and filthy was laid on Christ by
expacto now then if he concede that our Works are not meritorious of a Reward he gives us all we contend for provided he yeild that the Condition of a Covenant compact is meritorious of the Reward which all Men of Sense will acknowledge well then what Place after all this noise is Works to have He saith They are only Means which God hath appointed in order to an end A. If this be rightly meant we will grant it and yet hold our Assertion untouch'd for tho' all Foederal Conditions are Means yet all Means are not Covenant Conditions antecedent things are Means of coming to consequent but not always Foederal Conditions Now if he will say eternal Life is that end I will say more that he hath not Eternal Life who hath not such a Faith which hath its Fruits unto Holiness and that this Holy Life belongs to and is that Eternal Life begun in us Bp. As a Son that hath an Estate promised him of the free Gift of his Father but yet he requires some Conditions to be performed by him before he comes to the Possession of it can any one think this to be Bargain and Sale between Father and Son A. The Comparison is too short to illustrate much less to prove the thing For 1. In this the Father will not enjoin any Conditions but such as the Son hath Ability to perform As for Example He will not enjoin a poor lame Cripple to leap over a Hedge first nor a Stone-blind illiterate Son to read a Chapter in the Hebrew Bible Now to say that our Case runs parallel it 's false for if God promise Eternal Life upon the condition of our good Works who are dead in Trespasses and Sins it 's to do it on an unperformable condition which becometh not the Wisdom of God 2. And he saith Can any one think this to be Bargain and Sale A. Yes sure there are such Fools in the World If all be so who believe not as the Bp. saith I would ask the Bp. if his Father should tell him Child if thou wilt resign up thy Bishoprick of Worcester to thy Brother I will give thee the Bishoprick of Durham would not the Bp. demand the Bishoprick of Durham as due to him from his Father upon his Resignation let the Father be Pater Patriae the King or any other § 24. Now he saith If these be Theological Measures they had need to seek for new ones No sure for the Bp. hath saved us that Labour he hath found them for us but such as are but Trash by the Standard of Scripture and Reason Now he reckons he hath paid off Theological Measures but faith he hath not yet done with them Sure we may most safely take our Theological Measures from our Saviour yes surely there 's no doubt of it for he knew best how far and in what Sense the Guilt of our Sins was transferred upon him and whether there followed an immediate Discharge upon it without regard to Conditions on our parts the Question of the highest Import being put to him what shall I do to inherit Eternal Life A. Where lyes the Force of this Argument It must be here If Christ had this Question twice put to him What shall I do to inherit Eternal Life And his Answer was Keep the Commandments and thou shalt live then the Guilt of our Sins were not laid on Christ non sequitur so he saith as to him Luke 10.25 28. Had our Saviour only a mind to banter him No what was it then He himself tells us It was to convince him of the Impossibility of his doing what was necessary for Eternal Life He should have added under the Covenant of Works and therefore of performing a Covenant Condition answerable to the Covenant of Works whereby the Jews expected a merited Reward they sought Life by the Righteousness of the Law and he acknowledgeth That it is not improbable that our Lord intended to convince him of his Folly who supposeth he had kept those Commandments in the Jewish Sence of them And this is the true meaning of the Text why therefore is this Text brought to prove that Christ bore not the Guilt of Sins Baculus stat in Angulo ergo pluit There 's as iittle consequence from the other Mark 10.17 The same or like Answer may serve which he suggests himself There was an immoderate Love to the World in his Heart which he was not aware of till our Saviour put him upon a severe Trial of himself Go sell what thou hast c. Upon this Trial he shewed himself and went away sorrowful notwithstanding all his seeming Desire for Heaven this was the true Reason and no other and Christ intended not thereby to establish a Covenant of Works and what he saith after is to little purpose it 's only to wrest the Sense of a Text from what he thought in his Conscience it would bear And so Luke 16.9 Make to your self Friends of the Mammon What doth he say of that Not by way of Merit or any foolish Imagination of that sort but in Obedience to the Will of God who hath made it a necessary Duty Do they speak otherwise who hold Christ bore their Personal Guilt I wonder a Bp. should trifle so shamefully Again he saith If these be Theological Measures what doth our Saviour mean when he saith Luke 13.24 Strive to enter c. A. He means not that he did not bear the Guilt of Sin or any should strive in his own Strength or strive as a Foederal Condition for he saith Many shall strive i. e. falsly in such a manner and shall not be able and who interprets striving here of faint and weak Endeavours Certainly he would render all them that holds that Christ bore the Guilt of Sin to be a pitiful sort of Christians that have little or no regard to the Command of Christ Sure if they were so they would not many of them so joyfully have suffered the spoiling of their Goods by the Bishops in the late time of Persecution and what led them to it but a Conscience of Obedience to the Commands of Christ He saith One would think it impossible to enter into a Man's Head to suppose that a Man 's own Righteousness should be excluded from being conjunct with the Righteousness of Christ if he look to V. 21 and 24. A. Christ doth not in the least oppose Man's Righteousness to his nor make it conjunct with his but gives only a Character of such as be sincere Believers and Professors of his Name and will be found so at the last Day What he says of immediate Discharge hath been spoken to before that the immediate Effect of Christ's Death was a Right to a Discharge the Discharge it self could not be before they have a Natural and Spiritual Being § 25. Bp. If there be no condition how can they be satisfied that the Guilt of their Sins are laid on Christ A. In answer to this it 's said
meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings they were only premeritorious or occasional Causes For although the Bp would have Mr. B. mean something more than occasional by promeritorious yet he acquits us with Mr. B's own Explication of his meaning of premeritorious that it is only occasional which the Bp saith is no cause at all and Socinianism and yet he good Man would defend him though he finds it hic labor hoc opus and fain to leave it re infecta The first proof which he would make is from Mr. B's Confession wherein all that he saith is no more than what a Socinian will say in this Point That Christ gave up himself a Sacrifice for our Sins and a Ransom for us in suffering for us upon the Cross which he doth make according to his way of moulding of Doctrine comport well enough with Socinian Principles See what he gives for Antinomianism 1. That Christ satisfied God's Justice as in the Person of all the Elect this one Error whereby he denies Jesus Christ to be a Publick Person 2. That in a Law-sence and God's account they themselves did satisfie in and by Christ Here he denies Christ to have Suffered in our stead or to have made Payment to Justice for our Sins either in a Law-sense nor in God's account and therefore he made no payment for us neither can we say we satisfie in and by him Whereas every Debtor can say so who hath a Surety that makes payment in his stead the Law accounting this payment to the Original Debtor neither is it untrue that he paid in and by his Surety but an honour to his Surety and detraction from himself when he saith he paid in and by his Surety 3. That Christ's Sufferings were full and proper Executions of the threatning of the Law to Man Here he denies Christ's Suffering under the Law that Man brake and that his Punishment was no proper execution of the threatning of the Law and therefore no proper Punishment 4. And so acquits them ipso facto on the meer Suffering Here he makes up his charge by ambiguous Expressions without any further means of conveyance to give them right in it by Application 1. Here he insinuates that there was no Discharge of Christ from the Sins of the Elect which he suffered for If so no satisfaction 2. He makes as if some held that Men have an Actual and Personal discharge before their being by Grace or Nature which is a false Charge and a male Consequent drawn by himself on the Doctrine As if those that held Christ's full and compleat Satisfaction by impetration denied application 3. He would have us believe it an Error that Christ purchased a right to Eternal Life for all the Elect as the immediate effect of his purchase and that our right comes by application whereas our right lyes in the purchase only and our claim of that right and possession is by application The Socin Error he thus represents That Jesus Christ did not undergo any Penalty for our Sins as meritorious or promeritorious Cause but only as occasional And doth not Mr. B. say the same thing again and again in his Writings only he foacheth in his promeritorious which if the Socin either did not use or if they did they would not deny it in the Sense Mr. B. useth it and as he hath explain'd himself And that he did not make any Satisfaction to God's Justice for us c. there is nothing plainer in Mr. B's Writings both in his Methodus and Universal Redemption He puts for Truth as follows That Jesus Christ as a Publick Sponsor did bear the Punishment deserved by the Sins of the World he means of all and every Man and made to his Father a Satisfaction sufficient for all It is strange a Bishop of the Church of England should look upon this as an Orthodox and Plain Confession to distinguish a Man from a Socinian for it 's plain he prevaricates in speaking of Christ as a Publick Person for in the Antin charge he makes it a marvelous Error to say Christ satisfied Justice in the Person of all the Elect so he must mean here that Christ was such a Publick Person that was no Representative or Surety which is no publick Person at all 2. In that he saith Christ did bear the Punishment deserved by Sin he also prevaricates for he doth every-where deny that our Sins were imputed to Christ that he suffered the Punishment of our Sins in any proper Sense and that Sin was but an occasional no proper Cause thereof and therefore his Punishment was but Analogical Equivalent to the Socinian's Metaphorical He cann't mean in respect of proportion in a Mathematical Sense for that would overthrow his whole Hypothesis Mr. Lob quotes enough to overthrow all that the Bp pleads on his behalf He shews that in his Methodus he expresly declares that the Sufferings of Christ were only a Natural Evil undergone by occasion and the remote causality of the Sins of Mankind and that Christ's sufferings are only sufferings in an Improper and Analogical Sense These things saith the Bp were long since written The chief Expression is Christ's Sufferings had no proper meritorious Cause but yet Man's Sins were the Pro causa meritoria c. and saith nothing to defend it p. 151. He considers whether Mr. B's own words do lay him open to the suspicion of going too far towards the Socinians in this matter Now let us see whether Mr. B. hath a fair deliverance at the Bp's Bar. Bp In this case we must distinguish the Scripture Notion of Punishment from a Strict and Philosophical Sense of Punishment R. This is a strange distinction of a Learned Bp what means he by a Philosophical Punishment Is it morally Philosophical i. e. such Punishment as belongs to the breach of a Moral Law If so sure the Scripture Punishment cann't be distinguished from it for that is legal Punishment but he saith it's strict Punishment i. e. according to the exact tenor of a Moral Law if he mean so it cannot be excluded from Scripture Punishment Bp The Scripture speaks in General of Christ's bearing our Sins c. but not a word of strict and proper Punishment R. No sure the Bp is mistaken greatly when he might see in the same Chapter that Christ was wounded for our Transgressions was not that proper Punishment Doth the Scripture say nothing of strict and proper Punishment when it saith the Wages of Sin is Death Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the Book of the Law Is not the Curse of the Law strict and proper Punishment If this be his Philosophical Punishment there 's much of it in Scripture and it cann't be distinguish'd from it Bp. But of that which was appointed and accepted in order to atonement for our Sins as the impulsive Cause which become meritorious by his voluntary undertaking R. The Bp would suggest that there 's some general improper
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
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
Similitude to his Personal Holiness and Righteousness but in a way of equality i. e. in respect of a Believer's relation to the Law as Christ hath made full Satisfaction to the Law for a Believer so he is as fully discharged from the Law and condemnation thereof as Christ is i. e. the Law hath no more to do to condemn a Believer than to condemn Christ His full Original Discharge having been in Christ the thing is made plain by an illustration A Rich Alderman pays a Poor Man's Debt of 10 l. and sets him at liberty from the Prosecution of the Law and Imprisonment which done the Poor Man can be no more Prosecuted by the Law than the Rich Alderman being as Righteous in the Eye of the Law as the Alderman But he cann't say he is as Rich as Wise as Valuable in Estate or Person or so Able to pay the Debts of others as the Alderman I know Mr. M. was not the first that insisted on this Notion I have read it in Mr. Shephard of N. E. as I take it in his Sound Believer and I am sure the Rebuker cann't call him an Antinom As for my own part I chuse not to use the Expression tho' it's in Mr. M's Accept a Truth because many that are short in Understanding are apt to abuse it and others to make an advantage thereof to wreak their malice against the great Truths of the Gospel as these Accusers have done But especially because I apprehend the truth therein contained may be delivered in less offensive words The Bp hath pitched upon Ten of the Rebuker's Articles and reduced them to Six there is about Eleven more which he thought had no weight or sence in them As Ac. 1. To talk of a Gospel threat is at best a Catechresis and nothing else can save it from being a Bull I suppose the Bp thought that no Scholar could make an Error of it I am the Man that wrote it and I will stand by it as a very favourable Reflection upon such as talk so improperly and impertinently Ac. As to the Elect there was never any guilt upon them in respect of the Righteous Judgment of God in foro Dei But that which accompanied the Letter of the Law setting in with Conscience This Article it seems the Bp could make nothing of nor I indeed it being one that M. W. hath patcht up For I deny not the Elect are under the Law and Children of Wrath according to it till effectual calling but that God's Vindictive Righteous Judgment is ever executed upon them I do deny Ac. 9. It is denied that God requires Faith as an indispensible Qualification in them whom he will justifie for Christ's Merits A. This smells of Mr. W.'s qualifying Righteousness all is Gospel with the Rebuker which he hears from his Oracle Now to give a brief Answer here because I have disputed this Article with the Gentleman already I do not deny that God requires Faith and will work Faith in all those that God will justifie by Faith but I deny that God requires Faith indispensibly in all that he will justifie by Christ's Merits for he justifies saved Infants by Christ's Merits but who can say Faith is required of them Lastly He doth not require Faith in any as a subordinate qualifying Righteousness to Justification by Christ's for such it is the Gentleman would have which I have formerly refuted but all Men must be Hereticks with the Presbyterians that say not after him Ac. 10. All that a Believer can pray for is the further Manifestation of Pardon for he knows that all his Sins are pardoned A. This is Ejusdem farinae Originis 1. I suppose a Believer may know that all his Sins are pardon'd or else the Scripture speaks much in vain 2. Is it a poysonsome Error to pray for a further Manifestation of pardoning Grace and Confirmation in and Continuance of that Knowledge 3. If a Man do not know his Sins are pardoned or doth doubt of it sure he will pray that he may be Partaker of pardoning Grace and be confirmed in the Knowledge of it I know none of the accused but do pray thus and that daily Forgive us our Trespasses as we pray for daily Bread when we have it in the House for whatever we have of Spiritual or outward good things it is God must give unto us richly to enjoy it Ac. 15. Legal Convictions before Faith are no more than Sin it 's but a filthy Conscience c. A. I believe all that Author and his second can do can't make any better of it So saith the Spirit of God Tit. 1.15 and the Bp. knew that the Articles of the Church of England said so and therefore he inserts it not as an Error Ac. 16. All imperfect Holiness is Sin A. Who said so This is another dab of W.'s Spittle which the Rebuker hath likct up Ac. 17. Turn ye turn ye why will you die Is but the Triumph of the Law over a dead Sinner A. I argued the meaning of that Place with D. W.'s and shew'd that it could be for no other end than to convince the Jews of their Inability in themselves that trusted to their own Strength and Righteousness inherent to work out their justifying Righteousness and Salvation and to bring them to the Grace of God in the Promise the Truth of which I am ready to discuss with any of them Ac. 18. I can't make Head or Tail of he should have told us where he had it or how he came to dream of it Ac. 20. Christ's Incarnation was no part of his Humiliation A. The terms are falsly charged there 's no Man that saith that Christ's Abode in the Flesh was not his Humiliation and what he suffered in it but if he means the Divine Nature's Assumption it self of Flesh this was an Act of Divine Power I say the taking of our Nature for he could not be humbled in the Divine Nature therefore he took Man's that he might be humbled in it after his Assumption This was a wiser and more learned Man's Opinion than they that oppose it If the Rebuker had read Dr. Ames's Medulla one would think he should have been ashamed to put it down as a baneful and poysonsome Error altho' Mr. W.'s did who it may be never heard of it till Mr. M. preached it The Bp. here cast it out and as not consonant to the Rebuker's Form of Prayer Ac. 21. We coaless upon believing into one Mystical Person with Christ which is distinguish'd from Legal Union which is before Faith A. Sure the Rebuker and his learned Master shew'd themselves mighty acute Divines here at last for they seem to take the mystical Body of Christ for a great Error for that the Error lyes in asserting that Believers are Members of the mystical Body of Christ if they mistake not Person for Body 2. If they accuse any for saying Believers make one mystical Person with Christ they should
of all the elect a slander and imposed expression that none ever said the reatum culpae or guilt of fault and so he bore the sins of all the Elect by real imputation this is truth which Mr. B. chargeth as one of his hundred Antinomian Errors Er. 18. p. 10. Again being made sin for us is meant a sacrifice for sin so Mr H. and used as a sinner why should he be used as a sinner if sin was not charged upon him sure very unjustly If God imputed sin to Christ or accounted Christ a sinner he must be by sin hateful to God c. and Christ suffered for his own sins c. Scr. G. d. p. 30 31. If Christ had bin a sinner in his individual person these consequences might have held but Christ being by Law-imputation made sin in order to the Salvation of Sinners it s otherwise therefore doth my Father love me because I lay down my life for my sheep Is a rich person and honourable hated in the Court and detested because he enters himself Debtor for some Ludgate Prisoners Socin The meaning of these words 2 Cor. 5.21 is not that he was made sin for us by God's imputation but that he was made a sacrifice for sin the word made is a word of Election and Ordination Pinct Dial. to which Mr. Norton answers thus He was made sin for us as we are made righteousness i. e. by judicial imputation without the violation yea with establishing of Justice as he was made curse Gal. 3.13 because he was the sin-offering in truth therefore be was made sin by real imputation Nort. against Pinch Quak. We deserved those things that Christ endured and much more for our sins but that God ever reputed him a sinner is denied neither did he ever dy that we should be reputed righteous by his being made sin for us must be understood his suffering for our sins that we might be made partakers of the grace purchased by him by the working whereof we are made the righteousness of God in him Barch Apol. of Just p. 376. Thus you see how Sister Sects run hand in hand together Thus far of Imputation here which should have bin continued to imputation of Righteousness The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness being the main Point which the Neonomians oppose but because it will be the main subject of our ensuing Discourse we pass it over in this Chapter CHAP. V. Of Imputation of Righteousness unto the Iustification of a Sinner Sect. 1. Righteousness imputed and what § 2. Cardinal Bellarmine a Middle-way-man and so Quakers too and Socinians § 3. How consonant Neonomians are to that Fraternity § 4. They make inherent Holiness to be our Righteousness § 5. Why pardoned after justified and of subordinate righteousness § 6. Of Legal and Evangelical Guilt § 7. Of Mr. Cl's definition of Justification and of incompleat Justification in this life Sect. 1. THat Righteousness is imputed to the Justification of a sinner before God is held on all sides but the great Controversie lies here What Righteousness is it Is it our own inherent righteousness or the righteousness of another the Neonomians with the Papists say it s our own which is the formal cause of our Justification we say that Christ's Righteousness is the material cause of our Justification and Imputation the formal Mr. H. excludes the Merits of Christ from any of the essential causes and makes it only modum efficientis something in the hand of the efficient it may be an instrument but at the best it s but causa ministrans by way of efficiency but enters not that effect as any essential Cause Mr. H. would find out some little Difference between the Papists and himself but it s so little that he can hardly render it visible The Counsel of Trent saith thus There is only one formal Cause of Justification which is the Righteousness of God not whereby he is Righteous but whereby he makes us Righteous viz. which he hath bestowed on us whereby we are renewed in the Spirit of our minds and are not only reputed Just but are truly called Righteous and are so and it follows In this is the Justification of the Vngodly whilst for the Merit of that most Holy Passion the Love of God is shed abroad by the Holy Ghost in the Hearts of them that are justified and inherent in them whence in Justification it self with Remission of Sins this is together with it infused c. Sess 6. c. 7. Mr. H. agrees with them that our inherent Righteousness is the formal Cause and that it is for the Merits of Christ that this Righteousness is wrought in us that therefore it 's called the Righteousness of God Bellarmine in Defence of the Doctrine of the C. of Tr. says the State of this whole Controversie may be reduced to this one Question Whether or no the formal Cause of Absolute Justification be Righteousness inhering in us Which he endeavours to maintain in the Affirmative Mr. H. would have some difference from the Papists in that they say Justification is by Infusion of Righteousness whereas he saith Infusion of Grace is Sanctification but Justification is by Grace infused of the two I take the Papist to be rightest in constitutive Justification and to have less of Merit in it whereas Mr. H. Justification is by Sanctification wrought first which carries more of Merit and less of Grace for here Justification appears at first sight to be ex condigno the good qualification of the Subject Yea the Papists go further then Mr. H. for he will not have Imputation of Christs Righteousness nor Remission of Sins to have any place in Justification which the Papists own to be Parts of our Justification for the Council of Trent do Anathametize those only that teach that a Man is justified only by Imputation of Christs Righteousness and Remission of Sins without inherent Grace and Charity yea I do not find that this Neonomian Doctrine comes any whit short of the Popish Doctrine of Justification nay it out-does it in daring Contradiction to the the Gospel § 2. See what a Middle-way Man the Cardinal is if he go far enough He gives his Sense of Rom. 3.24 Justified freely i.e. from his mere liberality as to our Merits for we cannot deserve to be justified by any Work of ours and this Bounty of God is the efficient Cause but we are justified by his Grace i. e. by a Righteousness given and infused by him is not this Mr. H. exactly what doth he trifle for about Infusion and this is the formal Cause we are justified also by the Redemption of Christ and this is the meritorious Cause Lastly we are justified by Faith in the Blood of a Propitiator and this the disposing Cause from hence we may learn that every sincere Neonomian is a Papist in the Point of Justification and that the Popish Doctrine of Justification is the Middle-way between the Calvinists and Arminians See but a
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.
Evangelical But alas Mr. Cl. to prevent misconstruction after he hath bin disputing for the work of Faith to be our righteousness yet we must not expect Mercy Justification Pardon Reconciliation or Favour with God upon the account of our sincerity Faith or Obedience as the procuring cause but we are to look up to Christ confessing our best works to be but filthy rags in strict justice c. Resp One may see how frail a righteousness these men have feigned to themselves it is as the Spider's Web that they dare not lean upon it tho they will swagger and vapour with it to out-dare them whom they call Antinomians who will cleave immediately to Christ's righteousness alone as their only righteousness without the intervention of these filthy Rags their righteousness must have Christ stand behind the Curtain to patch their ragged raiment their House cannot stand without Bellarmine's propter quod their Pageantry is all dead Images unless one behind the Curtain move them which no body must see here is no Mercy Pardon and Reconciliation for and by their Righteousness but Christ procured something of it I know not what but Christ's Procurement was long ago the Law is in their own hands now he only procured the New Law they must shift as well as they can to perform the Conditions Christ did not purchase those neither died he to forgive any fault in their righteousness but oh their righteousness comes not up to the old Law what need they trouble themselves about that Christ hath fetcht them from under that faulty Perfection and brought them under a faultless unrighteousness of the Remedial Law and faults their Righteousness must have or else it would be an adequate condition but they must acknowledge their unworthiness and desert of all evil and when we have done God looks upon us as righteous in a Gospel sense I had thought in the beginning of this Paragraph Christ had bin to have pardoned and mended the faults of our remedial righteousness but it seems here is some pretence to it only that Christ may not think he is put off with nothing but the compleating of these rough Garments to deceive lies in their own doings if we do this God looks upon us as righteous in a Gospel-sense and pardons us first justified and not pardoned and then pardoned and not justified VVhat a great matter of Lamentation is it to see the corrupt minds of men thus vainly and mischievously sport themselves with the rich Grace of God and his strict Justice § 9. Before I leave this Chapter let us talk a little further with Mr. Humph. about his great challenge if it be as he saith that no Man or Woman before Christ coming did Imagine they were righteous before God or accepted for the Obedience of Christ it must follow that they had a hard task under the New Law for they wanted the propter quod and both Mr. Cl. and he saith their righteousness wants pardon and they must go to the id propter quod for pardon and acceptance Now I would Query whether if they could not imagine Christs Obedience to be their righteousness how could they imagine that Christs Obedience could be the procuring cause so that they were altogether destitute of the id propter quod I would know whether the Faith of Gods Children before Christ had no Eye unto Christ and his righteousness in the Sacrifices and sin Offerings which they offered daily did they not look at them as shadows and types of a better and more perfect Sacrifice the Apostle saith that the righteousness of God which we shall by and by shew to be the righteousness of Christ was witnessed by the Law i. e. the Law of Moses and the Prophets and if so its strange that they should have no imagination of it when as the Apostle Peter 1 Ep. c. 1.10 Saith the Prophets have Enquired after and searched diligently for this Salvation prophesied of Searching what and what manner of times the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signifie when it testified before hand the sufferings of Christ and the glory which should follow The Apostle Peter was clear in this Point Acts 2.31 He saith that David foresaw the Resurrection of Christ and spake of it and Christ himself affirms this after his Resurrection to the two Disciples going to Immaus that he ought thus to suffer and enter into Glory beginning at Moses and all the Prophets he expounded unto them in all the Scripture the things concerning himself Now if Moses and all the Prophets yea all the Scriptures should so eminently and expresly foretel Christs sufferings and resurrection and why it was viz. to bear Sin and satisfie Gods justice as the Prophet Isa c. 53. and David and Jer. and all the Sacrifices of old and his Redemption was also for them to the transgressions under the first Testament Heb. 9.15 It is strange that none of them from Adam to Christ should in the least imagine their acceptance with God should be for his righteousness but that they should look for Justification by their own righteousness only and none others § 10. Mr. Cl. in the conclusion of his Book undertakes to disprove the Imputation of the Active righteousness of Christ when as all a long his Book he holds that Christ's righteousness Active or Passive is not imputed but as to Effects now he can mean nothing by the non-imputation of Either but as to Effects So that he must intend by the non-imputation of Christs active Obedience of the Effect and then either it had no effects or no effects pro bono nostro now sure if I mistake not he grants that whatever Christ was it was for our good and therefore have some benefit by it and God reckons it a benefit for that 's their Imputation when we have a benefit God reckons it so i. e. Imputes it to be what it is surely if Christ active Obedience did but fit him to redeem us by passive it was a benefit to us His Incarnation was it not a benefit In their way of Imputation they may say after Mr. B. because he did not obey that we should not obey Resp Neither did he suffer that we should not suffer but Christ suffered that we might not suffer penally and obey that we might not obey legally and its strange that the second Adam should have actual righteousness for us as well as the first had actual sin that all should not be repaired as to the preceptive as well as the vindicative part of the Law which was fallen upon us in the first Adam by the second Adam Why was he made under the Law Was it not for active as well as passive Obedience CHAP. XI Of Iustification by Works Section 1. The Neonomian Doctrine opposed § 2. Who it is God justifies § 3. More fully Answer'd § 4. Arguments against Justification by Works § 5. Mr. Cl's Proposition § 6. Of the Jews Opinion about Justification § 7. Whether
he always had and would deal with them that stood upon their own righteousness according to the tenor of the law if you are able to stand the test of your own righteousness you shall be tried by it yea I will deal not only righteously with you according to my law but condescendingly if you are able to turn from sin to righteousness and abide in it and not turn to sin again but all this is to shew them their folly in trusting to their own righteousness and ability to perform it for he saith v. 31. cast away all your transgressions i. e. there 's not the guilt of any must ly upon you and make you a new heart and a new spirit where he challengeth them to do that which no natural man can do but because they stood upon their own righteousness and natural abilities God brings them to the test for their Conviction that they might fly to his Grace both for Justification and Sanctification which fully appears by the Promise chap 36.25 26 27. where both are said to be of God and not of our selves He alledgeth also the tenor of the Law he that doth them shall live in them i. e. saith he he shall be justified in them Resp Now its strange a man should be so absurd to bring the express tenor of the Covenant of Works to be that of the Covenant of Grace when it s positively affirmed that this tenor of the law is not of faith directly opposed to that righteousness of faith Gal. 3.12 Nay he is not content with this downright contradiction to the Spirit of God he goes on If you make a question there is another Text must convince you The just shall live by faith to live by our faith is to be justified by it Resp The man I suppose said these things by roat not minding the Text he says there 's another Text but names not where but it s applied to the matter in hand Gal. 3.11 the very reciting whereof will be answer enough to him The Apostle was proving a man is not justified by the works of the law perfectly or imperfectly performed is evident for the just shall live by faith i. e. he that is righteous is righteous by the righteousness of faith and this is the righteousness which his faith as its food feeds upon during his life of Justification § 2. His second Argument is Medioc p. 19 20. When this very Phrase of the imputation of Christs righteousness is not found in Scripture So saith Mr. Cl. Resp That imputation of righteousness is found in Scripture it cannot be denied as in the instance of Abraham Rom. 4. Now our adversaries will grant us this Dilemma that either it was Christ's righteousness was imputed to him or his own not his own because he was ungodly when justified for when he was ungodly saith the Text faith was imputed to him for righteousness what of faith sure it was no other than the thing he believed Jesus Christ and his righteousness whose day of expiation he saw this was imputed to him for righteousness For if Abraham saw Christ's day it was the day of his Sacrifice and Expiation for this end he came into the world and the Good News or Gospel preached unto him was Christ in the Promise Gal. 3.8 and the same righteousness the heathen was to be justified by Ibid. Faith wherever it s said to be accounted for righteousness or wherever we are said to be accounted righteous it s to be understood objectively and put for the righteousness that it does eye and lay hold upon But 2dly Is not Christs righteousness said in Scripture to be imputed to us let us a little examine Scripture First whether it s not in Rom. 4. where Imputation is often mentioned The Apostle Rom. 4.21 22. observes Abraham believing the promise viz. of Christ saith therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness viz. the thing promised and the thing believed for he believed that God was able to perform what he promised therefore the thing promised was that which was imputed to him Now saith the Apostle do not believe you are told this because it was peculiar to Abraham and none had it but Abraham but it s written not for him only but for us that have the same Faith Righteousness and Imputation to us to whom it shall be imputed if we believe i. e. receive that righteousness by faith which Abraham received embracing the promises viz. believing on him that justifies and on the righteousness of Christ by which we are justified and then the Argument stands thus The death of Christ for our sins and resurrection for Justification is the righteousness of Christ this none can deny but the death of Christ for our sins and his resurrection for or because of our Justification is imputed to every believer as is plain in the Text chap. 4.24 25. and hence it follows that all the Justification spoken of and imputation of righteousness throughout the Chapter is Christs righteousness the Apostle asserting here and Gal. 3. that the Gentiles should be justified by faith as Abraham was 3. The Scripture saith we are justified by his blood Rom. 5.9 and through faith in his blood Rom. 4.28 therefore They that be justified by the blood of Christ are justified by the imputation of his righteousness but we are so justified by the places mentioned Now then none cna deny that Christs shedding his blood is his righteousness and we cannot be justified by it unless it be imputed to us and if any thing else be imputed then not that if Mr. Humph. will say its effective only its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his blood as in the blood of a Sacrifice shed for us where in the blood of the Sacrifice is accepted as if it were the very blood of the Sinner 4th That by which we have redemption is the righteousness of Christ but the death and satisfaction of Christ is that whereby we have redemption and therefore that redeeming righteousness is imputed to us Rom 3.25 26. Col. 4.14 but more of this by and by for the Scripture is full of it blessed be God Neonomian Doctrine I am fully assured is far from Gospel as far as Darkness is from Light § 3. His third Argument against the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness is If the righteousness of Christ be imputed to us as if it were ours in it self it must be the righteousness of his active or passive obedience or both But it s neither Resp We say both He goes to prove his active obedience is not imputed If it be then must we be looked upon in him as having committed no Sin nor omitted no Duty and then what need will there be of Christ's Death Resp The same consequent may be corruptly drawn upon imputation of his passive as he doth But the consequent follows not for the Imputation of Christs active obedience is upon supposal that the Law of God is not nor cannot be perfectly
Imputation or else Christ died in vain or made not full satisfaction for their sins and they are yet in their sins and bear them and so unjustified This I have a little the more enlarged upon for some reasons § 16. I pray note it it s not said that his righteousness might become ours nor that we might be made his righteousness but that we might be made the righteousness of God Resp It s said that we might be made the righteousness of God in him and what is the righteousness of God in him but his righteousness in him shews where this righteousness of God is it s in him the Apostle speaks not of two Subjects but of one that is Christ and is it not said that his righteousness may become ours what is more plain 1. It s said as Christ was made sin viz. by Imputation for its a legal making so righteousness is made ours 2. As our sins are made Christs not by his Corruption but being imputed to him juridically so his Righteousness is made ours in Justification before God As he was made Sin in our sins so we are made Righteousness in the righteousness of God that is in him The Phrase in him determines expresly what the righteousness of God is unless men will be wilfully blind to plain Truth Lastly What he saith is in uncouth Terms he saith Christ redeemed us from the law of sin I find not the Moral Law any where so called but the law of sin is the Bent Propensity and Inclination of our natures to sin and so used Rom. 7.23 2. He calls meer procurement Satisfaction which we have excepted against before 3. It s no sence to say that Christ was made Sin in making agreement of procuring to obtain any good thing for himself or us 4. Why doth he talk of Christs Procurement when he denys that which is the thing here mentioned as the next end of Christ's being made Sin which is that we should be made the righteousness of God in Christ 5. If he hath procured that we should not be judged by the law of works then he hath procured the repeal of the law then it ceaseth to be norma judicii and what satisfied it 6. He hath procured a new law what 's that to the righteousness of it which they deny to be procured by Christ the Parliament procures an Act to pay the King Taxes but we the People must pay the Money CHAP. XIV Other Places of Scripture Vindicated from False Glosses Section 1. Mr. Cl's False Gloss on Isa 45.24 § 2. His Gloss on Jer. 23.6 Examined § 3. The Branch is Christ Priest as well as King § 4. 1 Cor. 1.30 Examined § 5. Rom. 4.6 Examined § 6. Phil. 3.9 Examined § 7. Rom. 5.19 § 8. And Heb. 7.22 Examined 9. Further of Christ's Suretiship Section 1. THE false Glosses of Mr. Cl. are first upon Isa 45.24 Surely shall one say in the Lord I have righteousness and strength which he saith are words of the Deity in opposition to Idols and that the most rebellious shall submit to him and the seed of Israel shall confess they have righteousness by him i.e. of his bestowing upon them in the same manner as they have strength for as he strengthens us so he makes us righteousness upon which he deals with us as righteous persons and justifies us Resp The words are the words of Christ who is called Jehovah in divers places by the Prophets but that they are the words of Jehovah in the Person of Christ I am told plainly by the Holy Ghost Phil. 2.10 and Christ Jehovah swares that every knee should bow and every tongue confess as the Apostle saith at the Name of Jesus for he saith he is a just God and a Saviour so is Jesus and there is no God or Saviour but he there is no other Name given therefore this Homage that he calls for is to him as Jehovah Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 4.12 2. It s him the ends of the earth i.e. the Gentiles should look to to be saved by 3. The great thing that hereby we are assured of and promised irreversibly is that at the time when the Gentiles shall submit to Christ they shall acknowledge that in Jehovah the Saviour Christ they have righteousness and strength it s a force to the Text to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by from or by for its plainly in Jehovah for in Christ is our righteousness and strength and because here is two things named it s no reason to say they come to us the same way the fulness of Christ both of righteousness for Justification by way of imputation and strength for Sanctification Now according to these Men to say in Jehovah I have righteousness is to say in my self I have righteousness and strength but it denotes that the righteousness that we are justified by is in Jehovah v. 25. and its that which is in Jehovah for in the Lord shall all the seed of Israel i. e. the true seed he justified and glory they shall also give God the Glory of the strength they receive in Grace for as Christ is made of God the righteousness so he is made the Fountain Head and Root of their Sanctification and this is a special Prophecy of the latter days when the Vail shall be removed and the Glory of Christ shine more brightly than to the Jews of old who sought for righteousness in themselves for the most part and lived upon a Neonomian righteousness Christ Jehovah saith it should not be so when the ends of the earth came to be his inheritance then men should renounce their own righteousness and acknowledge Christs righteousness alone to be their justifying righteousness yet that all Grace and Holiness is treasured up in him 1. It s the righteousness of God such Paul calls so 2. It s the righteousness of Justification 3. It s a Righteousness of God in Christ Jehovah 4. It s a righteousness made ours by Imputation 5. It s the righteousness that every true Believer is justified by for such are the Seed of Israel in the days of the Gospel 6. It is that righteousness not only to be received to Justification but to be rejoiced in they shall rejoice in Christ Jesus having no confidence in their own fleshly righteousness § 2. Mr. Cl. p. 31. The next is Jer. 23.6 He shall be called the Lord our Righteousness Much of the same import with the former the words are very general without assigning how Here are four Verses treating of Christ I observe every passage refers to his Kingly Office v. 6. must be understood in a sence correspondent to the rest v. That he is the Lord that doth execute Judgment and Righteousness for us and I deny not but it may refer to a being our Righteousness in sences agreeable to Scripture as to be the author of our righteousness Mr. H. It s not appropriated to the Second Person but to be understood of the
dwells in Eternity there 's no Time nor Succession Christ was set up from Eternity Prov. 8. as Surety a Thousand Years are to God but as one Day and much less therefore Christs Execution of his Suretiship on Earth in the Days of his Flesh was Eternally before the Lord hence he is said to be slain from the Foundation of the World hence the faithful before his coming had a full 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Remission of Sin through this Covenant Relation of Christ there was not a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or passing them by for Remission till Christ was actually Slain but they had the Vertue of his Death as fully as we Heb. 4.15 7. He continues our Surety that hath paid standing and pleading his full Satisfaction for us therefore is our Surety now since Payment carrying his own Blood into the Holiest of all and there making Intercssion for us CHAP. XV. More Places of Scripture Vindicated from False Glosses Section 1. Of Daniel 9.24 § 2. Of Ephes 1.4 § 3. 2 Cor. 5.19 examined § 4. Of Gal. 5.7 8. § 5. The Sence of the Apostle James § 6. Mr. H. and Mr. Cl. Answered Section 1. MR. Hum. interprets Daniel 9.24 thus He shall make reconciliation for iniquity and so shall bring in an everlasting righteousness i. e. he should by his death procure a Covenant or Law of Grace by our performance whereof without the law we are righteous and must be saved 'T is that is our righteousness if Christ had not procured for us this New Law we could not be saved Resp Let us see how Mr. H's Gloss will hold with the Text for I am sure it holds not with the Analogy of Faith Seventy weeks shall be distributed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which word lies the Key of the Prophesie not to our purpose now to speak to upon thy People i.e. the Church of the Jews here and upon the City of thy Holiness or Holy City to finish transgression to make an end of sin these Events seem in our English to be the same but they are not in the Original the first is most agreeable to the Margent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to restrain transgression i. e. by the Reformation of Ezra and Nehemiah in the compass of these 72 Weeks but to make an end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make an end of sins or sin-offerings by the offering up of Christ within the 72 Weeks and to make expiation for sin true not typical and perfect Expiation by the Expiation made by the Blood of Christ and to bring everlasting righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bring in eternal righteousness or the righteousness of ages Lxx 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We shall go no further in the Prophecy This Prophecy is generally owned to belong to the first coming of Christ and in this Verse the time is set in a mysterious manner to the coming of Christ his offering up and erecting the Gospel Church the Angels the Events that should fall out in this compass of time especially toward the latter end in the Sacrifice of Christ wherein he should make an end of sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the abolishing Sin by the sacrifice of himself Heb. 9.26 wherein he also finished all sin-offerings 2. He should put it away by making atonement and Expiation Lxx. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to blot out and attone for transgression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in pih signifieth to make Expiation and Atonement by Sacrifice even to the blotting them out and full satisfaction to Divine Justice for then sin is expiated when the Debt-Book is cancell'd thus the bloud of the Sacrifice was sprinkled on the Book of the Law and on all the People so that there is plenary satisfaction in the bloud of Christ and thereby a righteousness everlasting brought in i. e. preached called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rev. 14.6.2 Thereby revealed and made manifest freed from the Vails and Shadows of the Old Testament for tho it was given us in Christ before the World began and lay obscured long under the Old Testament Types yet now was made manifest by the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ who hath abolished Death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nulling or abandoning death and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel the Apostle seeming plainly to allude to these expressions of Daniel the bringing in of righteousness is plainly no more than the bringing the sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ for everlasting righteousness opposed to the righteousness of the legal Sacrifices which was but temporary offered every year but this Expiation of Christ was one offering and the righteousness of Ages or if it carry any thing distinct from preceding Events that it be not to be understood of the passive obedience of Christ the Spirit of God expresseth to all the fulness thereof he adds this to signifie the active obedience of Christ which is also everlasting and to be understood always as a complement of that perfect righteousness of Christ In Answer to Mr. H. I say 1. Christ himself is the everlasting righteousness it s not procured but it s that which procures 2. The Righteousness of Christ is here prophesied of not the righteousness of our selves 3. It s the Righteousness that expiates the old transgressions and therefore here is nothing of a New-Law spoken of 4. Justifying righteousness is such as satisfies the Law broken and therefore there must be at least Expiation in it 5. It s very absurd and contradictio in adjecto to talk of a Law of Grace if thereby be meant a law for Justification and again absurder to talk of performing the condition of a law without law 6. How is new-law-righteousness for it s but imperfect obedience and therefore will be quite wipt away at death for when things that are perfect are come those that are imperfect are done away you will say it may last in a perfect righteousness than the New Law will turn into he old for they make imperfection to be a proper adjunct of the works of the New-Law and appropriate to it to distinguish it from the old law So that here they are justified by the New Law and in Heaven by the Old Law What a stir do these men make with the Law and how do they shift and shirk from one law to another swerving from Faith and Truth to laws singly making themselves great teachers of the laws but understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm I would fain know whether Daniel was justified by his own New Law righteousness it seems he did not understand that that kind of Justification was then a-foot and its a Wonder the Angel Gabriel could come to tell him that in a few years hence the Messias should come and bring in old self righteousness again for Justification which is so choice and precious a Commodity that it shall cost him his blood to purchase Would not Daniel be amazed at it that a man so
Blood of Christ is purged from all his Sins and is perfectly Righteous in the sight of God in Christ though not in himself notwithstanding all the inherency of remaining corruption in him after he is partaker of Regenerating and Sanctifying Grace Bp For God may see cause to forgive a Sinner and receive him into favour although he still continues to hate and abhor the Sin A. What cause can God have to forgive a Sinner and receive him into favour besides his Free-Grace and the Satisfaction of his Son which he hath made to his Justice in bearing his Sin and suffering for it And this God doth and yet hates and abhors Sin for though Christ bore Sin it was not in kindness to it but to condemn it in his Flesh And though God loves and saves the Person of the Sinner yet he always hated Sin both of the Elect and Reprobate § 13. Bp As to the Guilt of Sin as it relates to Punishment these things are to be considered He should have told us what Guilt of Sin he means for obligation to Punishment he told us is in the Law not in the Delinquent therefore his Guilt is not of Sin but of the Law I have not much to say to the three particulars provided they be rightly meant viz. 1. Although a Divine Justice require satisfaction for Sin it is not necessary the actual Transgressors should undergo the Punishment which they have deserved i. e. if another undergo their deserved Punishment by a substitution legally in their stead in regard of Desert and Punishment for then there would be no room for Grace and Favour which is not shewed by God to any absolutely in a dispensation with Justice but in such a way as may glorifie Divine Justice 2. That it is consistent with the Wisdom and Justice of God to accept of a Mediator such an one as is a Surety to interpose between the Severity of the Law and the Punishment of the Transgressor upon terms agreeable to Divine Wisdom and Mercy A. 1. The Mediator ought to be between God and Man in respect of Sin especially the cause of Punishment for it's Sin that 's contrary to God's Law Punishment of the Sinner is agreeable to God's Law 2. He speaks of terms upon which God accepted of a Mediator I cannot understand what he means by it for Christ's Mediatorship was the condition of God's acceptance of us Christ in respect of himself was absolutely accepted not upon any previous conditions performed by him or after-conditions to be performed by us Which latter I find he intends 3. That such a Mediator undertaking to make Atonement for our Sins by Suffering in our stead and Place as Sinners may truly and properly be said to undergo the Punishment of our Sins and our Sins to be the Meritorious cause of it By no means in Suffering only upon an occasional remote reason from Sin but he must suffer judicially taking upon him a Legal Charge of Merit and Desert in the place and stead of the Sinner Now he seems to suspect himself in this Doctrine of his to fall upon the Shelves of marvellous inconsistency and therefore indeavours to forestall the following Objection If Desert adhere to Personal Guilt inseparably as before asserted how can our Sins be the Meritorious cause of another's Punishment The Argument against his Doctrine he can't Answer for where there 's no Guilt there 's no Desert and where there 's no Desert there 's no Punishment in legal Sense He riggles up and down under the pressure of this Objection but can't get it off I answer that a meritorious cause may be considered two ways 1. In a Natural Course of things and so Desert follows the Fact so that the Sinner always deserves Punishment and no interposition nor forgiveness can take off the Desert c. A. The subject Act to Sin is Natural but the formal Nature of Sin as Guilt is Moral as it stands in Relation to the Law So that supposing that Ordine naturae the Guilt or Desert follows the Fact yet it 's not in a Physical course of things 2. His after Assertion implies that no Sin is pardoned in and through the Satisfaction of Christ that whether the Sin be Pardon'd in a way of Grace or satisfied for in a way of Justice the Sin remains in its full strength upon the Sinner for ever for he that deserves Punishment doth so by the Law for the strength of Sin is the Law and therefore must of necessity for fear of Death the Wages of Sin be all the Day long subject unto Bondage this is a sad Gospel 2. He saith As Desert implies only a just reason of Punishment and so there may be a Meritorious cause in extraordinary Cases when the Legislator consents that another bear the Punishment which others have deserved Immerito quemque punire est injuste punire as Johns out of Cret Immerito is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 merito 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Cic. Jure merito are most commonly put together A. Here we have the cause given The Question is in plain terms whether Christ Died merito for our Sins He here plainly grants those things 1. That Desert implies a just reason of Punishment then I argue if Christ was punished justly then he Died with a just reason thereof and there can be no just reason of Punishment but Desert and if this was on Christ it came from Christ's own Personal Sins or from ours The Bp would not say from his therefore from ours 2. He grants there may be a meritorious Cause in extraordinary Cases when the Legislator consents that another shall undergo the Punishment What 's that 1. Was any Case more extraordinary than this we are speaking of 2. He must needs mean that when the Legislator consents that another shall undergo the Punishment that then the said Person so undergoing stands under the Desert of that Person for whom he is punished 3. He grants the truth and none can deny it that Immerito aliquem punire est injuste punire it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 punire sine ratione in juditio Nothing of Suffering can be reasonable in Judicial Proceedings unless there be a desert therefore he saith that Cic. puts jure merito together Now this is the Mystery that the Bp is to reveal to shew how Christ was Punished for a meritorious Cause and yet stood not under any of our Personal Deserts § 14. He comes now to Answer what is said for Christ's bearing our Personal Guilt and the most that he saith is to resay what he said before and is sufficiently Answered already but to do him right we will briefly weigh his strength The first is The injustice of Punishing any immerito this is the summ of it His Answer lyes chiefly in asserting that this is the Socinian way of Arguing and so we see the Antinomians join with the Socinians But how the same way of Arguing May not one and the