Consequent § 9. He proceeds with Confidence 2dly I do absolutely deny that a true Gospel justifying Faith and Gospel-Works are ever opposed to one another and do confidently affirm the contrary because I have examined all Places where Faith and Works are mentioned and do not find them if any affirm let him prove it R. Mr. Cl's Confidence is no Proof and his searching the Scriptures and not finding so plain a Truth as that Justification by Faith is opposed to Justification by Works argues but judicial blindness whereby God hath hardned his Heart and blinded his Eyes 1. As was said before all Gospel-works as he calls his New Law Works brought into Justification by a Law are legal not Gospel not accepted of God but leaves a Man under a Curse 2. Those that are Gospel-works are Fruits of the Spirit thro' the Gift of Grace and Fruits of Faith as they are Fruits of Christ's Righteousness believed in to Justification and no cause of Justification in the least neither doth the Believer claim Justification thereby and hence called Gospel-Works but if he claim Justification by them they are Works and opposed to Faith but loose the Name of Gospel are Legal dross and dung and stink in the Nostrils of God neither are any such Works the gracious Gifts of the Spirit or true Faith or the good Fruit of it For such seek Righteousness as it were by the Works of the Law and obtain it not 3. Now whereas Mr. Cl. here throws down his Gantlet in an Ambiguous manner we take it up in the true State of the Difference and confidently affirm that Justification by Faith is positively opposed by the Apostle Paul to Justification by any Works of a Law whatever performed by us the proving of which is the drift of this whole Dispute as now managed 4. He saith there was no Coutroversie about any other Works but the Works of the Law Resp There was no Controversie about any Works but the Works of a Law no more is there now Gal. 5.4 The Apostle saith They are abdicated from Christ and fallen from Grace that are justified by a Law so say we § 10. Proposition 4. This Law was the whole Body of the Mosaical Law consisting of precepts Moral Ceremonial and Judicial what he saith under this proposition about the acceptation of the term Law I think will not hold all of it with his other Doctrine for he saith its taken 1. For any written Declaration or Revelation of the Will of God concerning our Duty 2. It s frequently taken for the Moral Law as Rom. 7.12 and Ch. 3.31 Mat. 5.17 Luke 16.17 3. It s used Indefinitely for the whole Body of the Law given to Moses and therefore he mentions it in such general Terms R. Because Law is used in so many Senses in Scripture and those that would introduce Justification by Works are apt to slip from one Law to another and say as Mr. Cl. doth that though the Apostle deny Justification by one Law yet he intends Justification by Works of another Law therefore the Apostle excludes our Works of any Law whatever as frequently in his Epistles as hath been shewed so in that express and plain Place Gal. 3.21 If there had been a Law given which could have given Life verily Righteousness should have been by the Law And why is it spoken It 's spoken as a Reason that the Law of Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not against the Promise i. e. against Justification by the Promise and Gift of Righteousness no the Law of Moses taken together was so far from being against this way of Justification without the Works of a Law that it witnessed to it as the Apostle expresly speaks Rom. 3.21 It did not appropriate the Grace of the Promise to it self but by the whole Tenor of it witnessed to the Promise and Righteousness The Law of Moses taken as a Law did justifie none Gal. 3.11 For saith the Apostle the Law i. e. as such is not of Faith ver 12. The Condition of it being Works and therefore Justification by the Law is not Justification by Faith the Apostle saying further ver 18. If the Inheritance be of a Law than no more of Promise ver 19. For what end served the Law given by Moses Answ It was added because of Transgression till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made i. e. Christ but why added for two Ends. 1. That Sin might be distinctly known by the Moral Part as the Apostle by the Knowledge of Sin 2. That by the Ceremonial Law there might be a Typical Redemption and Satisfaction held forth unto them through which they might have a sight of Faith and of the true Sacrifice held forth unto them § 11. Proposition 5. The Law was looked upon by the Carnal Jews as a Covenant of Werks Mat. 19.16 Granting that it was yet not to be fulfill'd by a perfect Obedience but by imperfect as appears by his Words What good thing shall I do that I may inherit Eternal Life As much as to say I have done Good and Evil I would know what that good thing is whereby I may be righteous to Life Eternal He depreciates the Law calling it a Ministration of Death and Condemnation 2 Cor. 3.7 9. It was the true Sense of the Apostle that the Law of Moses or any other Commands of God understood used and applied as a Law for Justification by the Works of it is a Ministration of Death and not of Faith and as a Ceremonial Law which Heb. 6.19 is made nothing and by it self perfect it being Typical and the Type absolutely considered could not purifie them as to Conscience The Apostle saith it was weak through our weakness Rom. 8.3 We being not able to come to the Terms of this nor of any other and Rom. 6.14 saith we i. e. Believers are not under a Law but under Grace for Justification as much as to say you take the Doctrine of Grace to be a licentious Doctrine but believe it it s the legal Doctrine that leads to Sin not the Doctrine of Grace besides the Apostle shews plainly that to look for Justification by the Law of Moses or of any other is to be Married to it which he shews Rom. 7. is quite contrary to our Marriage to Christ by Faith while we are in expectation of Justification by a Law we are held in Bondage but being by the true Sence of the Nature of it Dead to it it becomes Dead to us Now we are delivered from the Law that being Dead wherein we were held and there 's no other Husband comes in the room of the Dead Law no new Law but Christ only And the Opposition saith Mr. Cl. is only between the Law of Works and the Law of Faith if he make the Law of Faith to be a Law of Works then it s no Opposition at all because both are a Law of Works and why I pray is Justification by Faith Justification by
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
lies in the Death and Resurrection of Christ v. 24 25. likewise 2 Cor. 5.15 God was in Christ reconciling the world i. e. justifying for God reconciles none but by Justification reconciliation is essential to it and therefore non imputation of sin for while a man lies under a law charge of sin he is unrighteous till he be imputed righteous by the law The major is evident from what is said in proof of the minor for non imputation of sin to a sinner is essential to his Justification which can be no otherwise then by a covering righteousness and when a law imputes sin the same law must justify by imputing to him an adequate and satisfactory righteousness § 8. Arg. 8. The Sins of Sinners under the old Testament were Imputed Typically to the High-Priest and Sacrifices which is very easie to make appear Ergo. The Sins of all sav'd sinners are Imputed really to Christ and his righteousness to them See 1 Cor. 5.21 Rom. 3.25 Heb. 9.15 § 9. Arg. 9. That which cannot be pleaded for Pardon or Justification unless it be Imputed is when it s pleadibly imputed unto Justification But Christs very righteousness is pleadible c. Ergo. The minor I suppose these Gentlemen dare not deny for I find tho they will not have it their immediate righteousness by imputation yet they will have it for some remote and as a reserve at a dead lift when conscience sees that neither the New Law nor the righteousness thereof will serve the turn Now that Christs righteousness is not pleadible without Imputation to us neither by Christ in heaven nor by us on earth its plain for if Christ be never so righteous his plea is answerered in saying thou art righteous for thy self I never imputed thy righteousness to these let them plead for their own Justification If they plead it with God the answer is Christ is righteous for himself his righteousness not imputed to thee no more then the righteousness of one of the Angels and therefore Christs righteousness being pleadible its imputed without Imputation it s not pleadible for us or by us § 10. Arg. 10. That righteousness which is a Suretiship righteousness must be imputed else it s of no value to the offender but Christs righteousness is a Suretiship righteousness he being a Surety his righteousness must be such And as for the major its plain that the justice that accepts one person to be Surety for another doth impute or account the righteousness of the Surety to that other or else it accepts not the Surety is rejected now that Christ was accepted as a Surety is beyond all question Heb. 7.22 § 11. Arg. 11. The righteousness of the second Adam is an Imputed righteousness for 1. as Adam was a Publick person that had a Covenant standing for all his Seed so the 2d Christ was and had for his 2. As Adam 's Sin came by Imputation upon his Seed so Christs righteousness on his as fully appears from Rom. 5. But this I must not now enlarge upon the Apostle is so full and plain therein that I never could see any thing said to oppose that could have weight with any learned and rational Interpreter if unprejudiced against Truth CHAP. XVIII What Interest and concern Faith hath in our Iustification Section 1. Of the Nature of Faith as spoken of § 2. What this Faith is § 3. And how we are said to be Justified by Faith § 4. Arg. To prove that Faith is not our Righteousness Section 1. HAving proved Christ's Righteousness to be the only Righteousness for a Sinner's Justification in Gods sight and that this Righteousness is certainly Imputed to every one that believes we shall in the last place enquire what concern and intrest Faith hath in our Justification I shall not speak of Faith accompanying Salvation at large as the Apostle doth Heb. 11 Wherein he also comprehends Justifying among the other Senses there spoken of but only of Faith as it referrs to Justification and the righteousness thereof § 2. Justifying Faith is a gift of God whereby a poor sinner believes in God unto eternal life thro Jesus Christ 1. It is a gift of God in respect of the grace of God and the work of the Spirit Eph. 2.8 2. It is a purchased benefit for an Elect person 2 Pet. 1. 3. It 's a Gift to a Sinner there 's no grace lives tell Faith then Christ lives in him it s to a poor undone broken Sinner 4. This is a gift of grace to believe in God and Christ 1. To be perswaded of the truth of the Law his certain curse under it impossibility of coming to the works thereof That its a saying worthy of all acceptance that Christ came into the world to save Sinners whereof Paul saith he was one of the chiefest not that he was righteous subordinately to Christ's to qualify him for it This is that which is properly call'd fides but its hard to distinguish this from the Faith of a natural man and hipocrite therefore 2. There is believing in i. e. resting upon God and Christ resting on the faithfulness of God in his promise of a good thing to us as for eternal life and for righteousness in Christ now faithfulness belongs to persons truth unto things when the Soul doth not only believe the thing promised true but believes him faithful who hath promised and from thence doth stay himself and his Soul acquisce in it This is properly fiducia trusting in God 3. There 's a particular application of Christ in the promise and the Soul unto God in Christ believing that all the promises especially those that concern eternal life and justification by Christ's righteousness are yea and Amen in him made and perform'd in him § 3. Hence by Faith we are said to be justified 1. Because the righteousness of Christ is the object of our Faith it is that we believe to and come unto believing Rom. 10.10 We believe unto righteousness 2. By Faith a man is devorced from the Law and legal righteousness and comes into a new marriage relation to Christ for righteousness and life Rom. 7.3 Because its that grace only whereby a man can go out of himself and fetch in the righteousness of another 4. It is that grace which from the very law of its nature which it hath thro grace doth always deny it self any thing of righteousness for Justification and gives all the glory of righteousness unto Christ alone 5. In that it doth fiducially rest and depend thereon believing 6. It dwells upon an object of righteousness which is not seen by sence or reason yea it is the hypostasis of Christ's righteousness in the Soul Christ lives as it were in our Faith take away Christ from it and you leave it a dead nothing or worse it returns to unbelief 7. Because by this Faith the Soul sees God at peace with him and he hath peace in himself and the controversy is at an end
Works doth the Apostle speak any where of a new Law or the Works of it No he speaks of the Law of Faith Let us see then what is in that Expression Rom. 3.27 28. § 12. The Apostle having told us how we are Justified freely by Grace who are Sinners in all respects ver 24 25 26. Infers elegantly where is boasting then i. e. Of our own Righteousness saith its shut quite out a Doors By what Law doth any Law shut out boasting No saith the Apostle doth not Works Nay they cause boasting what Law then Such a Law if you will have a Law as the Nature of Faith it s in the very Nature of Faith to shut out Works therefore we conclude that we are justified by Faith without the Works of a Law is not Justification by Faith and Works here plainly opposed Now that Law is taken for the Nature of a Thing many Instances might be given but for the present take Rom. 7.23 so Rom. 8.2 The Law is the Nature of the Spirit of Life that is in Christ Let us see what Sense it will be in the Neonomian Interpretation where is boasting then it is excluded by what Law Works i. e. the Old Law of Works nay but by the Works of the New Law Work excludes boasting of Works boasting is excluded not by the Law of Works but by the Law of Works therefore we conclude that a Man is justified by Works without Works not by some but by other Works § 13. Proposition 6. The Works or Deeds of this Law are such as are performed by our own Strength in Obedience thereto such as Adam had in the State of Innocency hence called their own Righteousness Rom. 10.3 R. I enquire whether giving Strength and Power to perform Works hinders them from being Works of the Law or would it have hindred Adams had he stood and I marvel that any Man will say that Adam in innocency had not Strength given him by God but whether he had or had not it makes nothing to the Point in Hand which is the Consideration of the Respect or Relation that Works have to the Law which enquire not how a Man came by his Money but whether it be Good and Current Rom. 10.3 is falsly explained as we shall shew anon neither doth the Spirit of God savingly strengthen us to the performance of any Works of our own for Justification and such as any Man claims by are not Gospel-Obedience nor performed by the Spirit § 14. Proposition 7. They were such Works as did admit of boasting Rom. 3.27 Eph. 2.9 Rom. 4.2 For what we do of our selves without the help of another we may boast of R. Can it be supposed that any understanding Jews or Gentile do think they can do good upon a meer natural or moral Consideration without Help and Strength from God 2. How shall Men know they have supernatural Assistance its certain they have it not graciously when they aim by their Duties to set up themselves for justifying Righteousness 3. The boasting spoken of in the Places mentioned is glorying before God sitting on a Throne of Justice dispensing it by a Law now that Person that doth come with his own Righteousness in his own Hand and will say here are my Works Faith Obedience Repentance Sincerity performed by me justifie me for them or by them this is the glorying the Apostle excludes and Faith always excludes and the Apostle saith Gods giving the Reward upon these Terms is paying of a Debt and not of Grace for whatever is demandable upon our own Performances in a way of Justice is not of Grace The Apostle to Eph. 2. speaks v. 7. of God shewing forth the Riches of his Grace in Justification as appears by foregoing Context of vile miserable Sinners and saith it s in his kindness to us thro' Christ and then v. 8. gives the Reason For by Grace are we saved Justification being an eminent part of Salvation through Faith receiving that Justification and Salvation now least any one should call this Faith Works as the Neonomians do he positively excludes all Works and not of Works not through Faith as a Work and least any one should say he is beholding only to himself for his Faith he tells us it s a Gift of God and its a Gift of Sanctification not of Justification as appears by the Text that 's only the Object of Faith the Righteousness of Christ § 15. Proposition 8. These Works viz. of the Old Law are meritorious implied in that Description Rom. 10.5 Resp The Description the Apostle gives there of Legal Works is such as belongs to all Law-works for there 's no Law that enjoins personal Obedience for the Condition let it be more or less but it makes the said Obedience meritorious and the promised Reward a Debt Rom. 4.4 and this Merit belongs not only to the Law of Works at first but to all Works of any Law for Justification these are the Works a Man may boast of tho' he receive them as Gift from another for if a Man gives the Grace of God in Works in payment to the Law of God he paies God you will say in his own Coyn but yet his presenting them to God for Justification in Satisfaction to a Law is high abuse of the Grace of God perverting to an end that God never intended The Law of Faith which he tells of was never intended to be a Law of Works for the Apostle useth it in Opposition to Works and to prevent the Mistake these Men are run upon viz. that they should understand the Work of Faith to be meant by him where he saith it is of Faith that it may be of Grace because Faith ascribes nothing to it self as fulfilling to any Law it is said by the Law of Faith either according to the nature of true Faith as hath been said or else according to the Ordination of God that we should be justified by Faith without Works Gods Ordination of thing as to the End and Means doth not always make it a Law of Sanction God hath ordained to give Faith to give the Spirit to give the Relation of Children Doth God give them in a Law Do this and live § 16. Proposition 9. These Works are perfect and unsinning Works Resp This is a great Mistake that God hath brought in sinning VVorks for Justification instead of perfect VVorks 1. God never made a Law where sinning VVorks were the Condition of the Law this would be contrary to his Holiness and Justice But if God makes a Law wherein he saith do and live let the doing be more or less perfect or imperfect yet a Man doing the thing commanded his VVork is rewarded as meritorious and its perfect as to the Law that it is to be righteous in the Sence of the Law and to be meritorious He that performs the Condition of a Law and he never sins at all in the Eye of the Law therefore all justifying Righteousness in any
but from it proceeds a Dispensation of Justice Thundrings Lightnings c. of Judicial Proceedings to his enemies and a Dispensation of Grace to his Church there being a Rainbow round about the Throne where Christ is a High-Priest who hath satisfied the Justice of God and pleading his Satisfaction as our Advocate and Intercessor did not David do so Psalm 51. 2. Is it not good Doctrine and agreeable to the Appeal to tell the People that nothing else but the perfect Obedience and Satisfaction of Christ imputed to them can save them Is this to bring them back to the Tribunal of meer Justice is not this the Throne of Grace where Justice is satisfied and appeased where Christ the Satisfier is exalted to Gods right hand to be a Prince and Saviour I pray what do Neonomians do they first bring them to a law suppose it were a law of Grace as they call it to be justified by their own righteousness whither do they carry them then is it not to the Tribunal of Justice to be pardoned So that if God in Christ pardoning iniquity on the Throne of Grace through the Shatisfaction of Christ be the Throne of Justice divested of Grace Why are Neonomians to be pardoned there after they are justified at another Bar But he is for the dividing Grace and Justice in a Sinner's Justification as the Socinians are or rather abandoning Justice CHAP. XIII Of the Righteousness of God Section 1. Works of a Law not Gospel § 2. Mr. H. outdone the Papists § 3. The Righteousness of God what § 4. An offer at Faiths being our subordinate Righteousness § 5. Mr. Cl. and Mr. H. Sence of the Righteousness of God § 6. Their Reasons given and Answered § 7. Mr. Cl. Reasons why it is not Christs Righteousness 2 Cor. 5.21 § 8. His second Reason § 9. A distinct Consideration of the said Texts § 10. Christs Righteousness is the Righteousness of God § 11. § 12. Rom. 3.21 22. examin'd § 13. Rom. 10.3 § 14. Mr. H. Explication of Rom. 10.4 examin'd § 15. Mr. H. Explication of 2 Cor. 5.21 Examin'd And § 16. What he further faith on the Place examin'd § 1. IN the last Place There is a Righteousness revealed in the Gospel that God goes by in his dealing with all the World whereby it is that we are Justified in Opposition to the Righteousness of Works Resp If it be a revealed Righteousness it 's that which is the Object of Faith seen without our selves not in our selves for that need not to be revealed which every Man is naturally addicted to see and know Again it must not be our Works in Opposition to our Works for Justification for there is no formal Opposition between Works and Works nor material indeed which have the same Subject and Genns and End as for what he calls them by way of Difference it will not serve he calls some Works Works of the Law some Gospel-works i. e. Works of the Law of Grace now we have shew'd that there are no such Gospel-works which put in for Justification nor doth the Spirit Work such and being both are the Works of a Law they differ not specifically they are legal Works Works of a Law performed for Justification are always Legal never Evangelical § 2. This Revealed Righteousness is in Scripture called the Righteousness of God which the Protestants conceive to be the Righteousness of Christ without us all but Neonomians and Quakers i. e. the Righteousness of Christ which is not ours by Performance but by Faith but neither Protestants since Luther nor Papists since Augustine have hit the Mind of the Apostle Resp But the Scripture hath hit it long before Luther sure then if they were not Right the Reformation was the Deformation in Doctrine the Truth is many of the Protestants were out in this Point all our Reformation so far as I can understand Mr. H. and many Neonomians are gone is not worth a Fig and here indeed Mr. H. boasts again and again that he hath out-done the Papists and I may truly say that he and his Father B. hath and in this only they differ from the Papists that they go beyond them in Self-righteousness and in a most daring scornful Opposition to the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ § 3. The Righteousness of God and Grace opposed to Works is nothing but the Righteousness of the Covenant of Grace accepted for Christs sake instead of the Covenant of Works Resp It is not Christ's Righteousness accepted for us for that alone is the Righteousness of the Covenant of Grace and then only God did not set up Christ to set up our Righteousness because it was impossible for us to have any other to be justified by that he might have the Glory of Being our Righteousness alone but he saith this Righteousness of ours must come instead of the Righteousness of the Covenant of Works to which we Answer that its impossible for us to be Justified by any Righteousness but that which fully and exactly answers the Covenant of Works either our own or anothers the Righteousness of another Law cant Justifie us there For if a Sinner be justified it must be by that Law which he hath broken and by none else if they say Christ hath satisfied that Law for us then we say that Satisfaction is a sufficient Righteousness for our Justification we look for no other Law to be justified by nor no other Righteousness for our Justification He proceeds Herein are two Things comprized the meritorious Righteousness of Christ procuring the pardoning Covenant of Grace and our performing the Condition only we are to know how this Righteousness may be understood in respect to God as it is all one with his Grace or with respect to us as its all one upon which this Grace is vouchsafed Resp This Neonomian Cheat is always to be noted in the Point of Satisfaction that all the Satisfaction they ascribe to Christ is only in making pay unto God for a new Purchase they will not have Christ to have paid any Arrears or old Scores the Law passeth away in sententiam and we found insolvent to this perfect Law therefore Christ buys another Law upon that promiseth Justification upon easier Terms not so Holy but sinful and immoral and therefore called the Law of Indulgence yet justifies us upon those Terms but yet without Pardon which we must have of the Old Law and because we have fulfilled the New Law God out of his Prerogative without any other Satisfaction than the forementioned procurement Pardons for they say Satisfaction and Pardon are inconsistent as the Socinians do and why do they say Christs Satisfaction is not imputed to us because if they were not ashamed to speak out they think there is none yea and that they speak of is only Christs purchasing a new Law which would be madness for to claim an Imputation of to us for that concerns us no further then a new Legal Bondage
Justified by this Law here 's Christs law causa sine qua non with a Witness As to the consequence if Justification be an effect of Merits and it be a Juridical effect then Merits which is the cause must be imputed to the person on whom these effects must fall What moves the Court or Judge to justify this or that person his own Merits or the Merits of another Not his own but the Merits of another Then these Merits are imputed for it quickly and plainly appears what is imputed to any whether merits of Condemnation or merits of Justification for Justice goes by nothing but Merit and therefore mens own righteousness cannot justify-because it cannot Merit And do not our Neonomians speak as the Socinians in this point and mumble as if their mouths were full of plumbs Now therefore if Christs Merit be brought into Court as a meritorious cause of the Sinners Justification they are imputed to him for his Justification as if he had merited himself § Arg. 5. They say Christs Merits cannot be Imputed but the Effects are Imputed And I Argue If Christs Righteousness be Imputed its Imputed as a cause of Justification or in the Effect It should be as an Effect or the Disjunction is ridiculous but it s not Imputed in the Effect Ergo. In and as the Cause for the Effect is not the Cause but contrary it s another thing so that to say Christs Merits are imputed and so imputed to the person Justified is nonsense But what are the effects imputed All the Benefits purchased by Christ For is Justification an effect imputed Sure not Is Justification imputed to Justification Sure that 's most absur'd Is Mortification imputed to Justification That looks very odd Is Vocation and Adoption or Glorification all or any of them Imputed to Justification for they are Effects of Christs Merits But suppose they say some of these or all are to us imputed for righteousness unto Justification I then Query Whether the Righteousness perform'd by us in the new law Justification be merited by Christ as an Effect Do not I see them sneak away now and give no Answer but upon another Subject they will tell you that Faith and the condition of the New law was not purchased by Christ but are by the gift of Election only And now I pray what 's become of Justification by Effects of Christs Merits They will say we are Justified by Imputing the Spirits operations to us for righteousness Now this cannot be 1. The Spirit never was incarnate nor his Office to work a Righteousness for Justification this was peculiar to Christ 2. The fruits of the Spirit when they come to be exerted are called our works and justly so because Graces exercised or Duties performed by us are so these are all renounced as such by the Apostle Paul Phil. 3.8 and elsewhere 3. What the Spirit doth in Justification its office is by way of Application it takes of Christs and gives it to us it applies and brings home to a sinner the Impetration of Christ as Righteousness unto his Justification hence the Spirit is said to justifie 1 Cor. 6.11 in bringing to the Soul the Grace of Justification and enstating him therein by faith as he sanctifies by bringing in the Grace of Sanctification Now then if Christ's Righteousness cannot be imputed in the effect and is imputed at all then as the cause meritorious of Justification But they say God cannot impute Christs Righteousness to us because we did not perform it and God is a God of Truth he cannot impute that to us which we did not To which I answer 1. That God doth not reckon we performed Christs Righteousness 2. God may give us his Son for righteousness Rom. 8. and give us this righteousness Rom. 5.5 3. He may accept it for us on law terms as our righteousness to Justification and all this is according to Truth and Righteousness imputing it to us in a Law Sense 4. The Argument will fall upon Neonomian Justification for that 's to call that righteousness which is unrighteousness and not according to Truth as hath been shewed Mr. Cl. makes it a great Argument that the active righteousness of Christ must not be imputed because Christ did not obey that we should not obey and where 's the Antinomian that says so but we say that Christ did and suffered all that the law required of him as a Second Adam and our Surety and his obeying in doing is no hindrance but a Gospel ground and reason of our doing and obeying As Christ did not suffer that we should not suffer but not suffer the Penally so Christs doing was not that we should not obey Evangelically but that we should but not obey legally with expectation of our Justification by our works or from a law for that is to be under a Law and not under Grace and to sin instead of obeying Rom. 6 c. Lastly If Christ's righteousness be taken as a meritorious cause in a sinner's Justification it is imputed as such to the person justified the effect of this cause is the sinner's Justification which is his proper Discharge and this is not Imputation but Judgment upon it and Delivery in Law and suppose the effects of Merit could be imputed the cause and reason thereof must be first imputed for the Law doth nothing in way of Condemnation or Justification but upon a meritorious cause imputed unto Condemnation or Justification and how absurd is it to say Condemnation is imputed but its proper to say the sin that merits it is imputed § 6. Arg. 6. That Righteousness which is accepted in law unto Justification is imputed to the person justified but Christ's Merits are accepted of God to the Sinner's Justification The major must be owned for Truth by the Neonomians otherwise they could not assert their Justification by Works The minor hath been counted sound Divinity by most Protestants and many Papists but whether it be or be not the Scripture affirms it roundly see for a taste Eph. 5.2 chap. 1.6 for an acceptation in law must be an imputation of Merit to Justification and can be upon no other account either of a man 's own or of another's for him the law looks at the value of his Money or Works that he brings into Court not how he came by either whether by Gift or otherwise § 7. Arg. 7. That righteousness through which Sin is not imputed to condemnation is the righteousness through which a man is imputed righteous unto Justification But Christs righteousness is that through which sin is not imputed to condemnation Ergo. The minor is very clear from Rom. 8.1.34 who is he that condemneth it is Christ that died chap. 4.6 7 8 Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven to whom God doth not impute sin and this is told us is a righteousness without works that which comes on Jews and Gentiles that which covers Sin from the Eye of God's Justice therefore that which