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
Taste how the Quakers and Socinian fall in with this Doctrine of Justification by Works Quakers Works and Faith are equally required to Justifie Works of the Law are excluded as done by us to be justified by Grace is to be justified by Regeneration which cannot exclude Works wrought by Grace since the Law gives not Power to obey and so fall short of Justification there 's Power under the Gospel whereby the Law comes to be fulfilled inwardly Works through the Power of the Spirit is a Condition upon which Life is proposed under the New Covenant It appears from divers Scriptures that the Apostle excludes only our own Righteousness as being the Righteousness of the Law from being necessary to Justification Barcl Socinian There was never but one way of Justification by Faith This Faith is nothing else but under the hope of Eternal Life to obey the Commands of Christ and this we apprehend to be understood in Scripture where-ever we read of Salvation promised to them that believe in Christ Socin de offic Chr. Them 42.43 To believe in Christ is nothing else than to obey God according to the Rule and Prescription of Crist and in doing it to expect of Christ a Crown of Eternal Lise Socin de Servatori To the attaining Eternal Life not any Merits are required but the obeying Christs Precepts to which Eternal Life is the constituted Price or Reward not that Obedience it self deserved it but because it hath pleased the most gracious God to deal so with Mankind Socin Respon ad Obj. cut § 3. Now let us see how Consonant our Neonomians be to this Fraternity in the Doctrine we 'll take it from Mr. H. one of the honestest of the Pack and freest from Juggling Medeocr p. 16 17. Our Works do not Merit because they are not perfect i. e. therefore do not Merit as related to the Old-Covenant but Merit notwithstanding ex pacto in relation to the New-law-Covenant but we are justified by Works as we are by Faith because Faith justifies only as productive of Works thence you see he placeth the Righteousness of Faith in it self as a Work done and that it justifies only so and hath no more justifying Nature or End then the Fruits thereof It is Faith as productive of Works that receive the Reward of perfect Righteousness in that this imperfect stands in the Room of perfect but we are still to remember for Christs sake Bellarmine remembred that and the Council of Trent God judgeth and will judge all Men according to the Gospel those who perform the Condition of it he accounts and pronounceth righteous those whom he accounts righteous are justified I will add that the righteousness of Christ which is the meritorious cause of our Justification and always comes under the efficient cannot by the same reason be the formal and material cause of it It is not infusion of righteousness with the Papist which is our Sanctification nor the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness with the Protestant which is not to be understood in genere causae efficiente nor Remission of Sin with Protestant and Papist you see here how far he goes beyond the Papist but to impute to a person his performance of the New Covenant for Righteousness or pronouncing him righteous according to that Covenant is the formal cause of his Justification Med. p. 46. Here is to be remarkt that Mr. H. doth peremptorily exclude from our Justification the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness and Remission of Sins and places the whole of it in imputation of our own works for righteousness as active obedience § 4. These Men do as the Papists and the rest make our inherent Holiness in Sanctification to be that very righteousness by which we are justified Take Mr. Cl's words wherein he fully expresseth Mr. H's sense in differing from the Papist about Infusion Herein lieth the true difference between Justification and Sanctification In Sanctification we are made holy righteous and good by the infusion of those Graces into us but in Justification we are only accounted and declared such in the one the change is but relative and in the other real Come in Quakers and shake this Friend by the hand as one of you you have quarrelled with the Pulpits a great while and now you may ascend them your selves when you please and be not so angry at them for you shall not hear these men call your Doctrine Popish any more but you 'll hear them call all men that are not of your Opinion Antinomians briskly See now the depth of this distinction Justification is not by infusion of Sanctification but yet Justification is by Sanctification infused Is it not much more rational to say that Justification is by making a man righteous that was not so before for Justification of a sinner must be such Besides is it not much more Evvngelical as to justifying the ungodly as Bellarmine saith But these Men say We are first made righteous that is godly and then pardoned he should have said justified for his Justification comes in between his sanctifying Righteousness and Pardon and not on the contrary first pardoned and then righteous Mr. C. p. 19. Resp Were ever such Absurdities asserted by Men of Reason 1. We are first made righteous and quatenus made so are sanctified and not justified therefore Justification makes no man righteous but finds them so but it declares Men what what it finds them i. e. sanctified Hence to declare a Man sanctified is his Justification and I pray now how comes in Mr. H's causa formalis how doth Justification differ formally nam ad formam pertinet proprium differentia from Sanctification when Imputation or God's accounting a man holy and sanctified is his Justification Is not God's Judgment according to Truth Is it not certain that God accounts every thing to be as it is a holy man holy If this be all your Justification it s no more than as God justified at the Creation he saw that every thing was good 2. If we are first made righteous and then justified because we are so its meritum ex condigno whereon we are justified all the World cannot hinder it 3. First righteous and then pardoned What sense is in that for a righteous person needs no Pardon in that thing wherein he is righteous for therein to be righteous and want Pardon is to speak Daggers and the absurdest contradiction in the World § 5. Well But why must our Neonomians be pardoned when righteous and justified before because indeed their Righteousness and Justification by it is not worth a Fig by their own confession for Mr. Cl. saith for since subordinate Gospel Righteousness is an imperfect righteousness consistent with manifold failings and infirmities therefore notwithstanding that there 's need of pardon and that continually This is also Mr. H's Doctrine therefore I need not transcribe his very words which are to this purpose in many places Resp I find they are not fully agreed about the
sanctified but where there is the cause working there is the effect wrought and the justified is but the effect and constitutes no distinct species of it But we say the Grace of Justification of a Sinner proceeding from Grace is wholly in and from God and hath no cause in a Sinner material or formal nor is there any cause external of that Grace the moving cause only is the good will and pleasure of God he is gracious to whom he will graciousness pardoning Iniquity is only from his Grace and for the glory of his Grace which cannot be in the Justification of a righteous person but because not simply Grace but also Justice shall be glorified in a sinner's justification and God in his pardon will not clear the guilty he hath graciously provided and bestowed on the sinner a righteousness accepted by the Law and imputed to him that he may appear therein just and so just in administration of righteousness as not to infringe his Justice in the least but to the highest honor of the Law standing in its full force against the sinner without the least Relaxation This is done quite contrary to the Neonomian Doctrine therefore Gods Justification falling upon a Sinner makes actually a correlate to Gods justifying and faith is no more than the Sinners reception of this Grace no part of that righteousness by which faith or for which the Sinner is justified neither is it a grain of that righteousness which is imputed to him § 9. Mr. H. also hath another distinction between condition and duty which I will not stay upon because its frivolous and it is because he will have the duties of the Law to be performed by us tho we be not justified by them he insists upon a Relaxation of the old Law but not a total Abolition Mr. Bax. Opinion is that its abrogated as much as the Ceremonial Law wherein both penalty and duty is taken away and indeed Mr. B. is in the right according to his notion for the introduction of a New Law in the room of it and for the ends that the old Law was establisht is certainly the nulling of the said old Law but how then can Mr. B. be secured from a just charge of Antinomian viz. that moral duties are not required of us which is more Antinomian than I ever saw in any he chargeth with it he hath one poor shift which is that the duties of the old-Law are taken or spunged up in the conditions of the New but however the broken pieces are pickt up the Law it self is gone and there 's no transgression upon that account Mr. H. saith the Law 's only relaxed but his relaxation is no better than a Crack in the middle of a Glass and heart of it and he hath not told us how far this relaxation goes and every man will be ready to plead for his own sin that the Law in that respect is relaxt But he would have us believe that the moral duties still remain how relaxt or not If relaxt then at least to an indifferency a man may do them or not without any sin but he saith they are re-established in the New-Law if so they are re-established without the Relaxation and then the New-Law is as strict as the Old or with the relaxation and then all duties are required with abatement as to quality and quantity with an allowance of sin our posse or velle and what is more Antinomianism But saith he the Conditions are not Duties It was never affirmed by men of reason that the Condition of a Law is not a Duty for that which is required of us upon pain of punishment is always a Duty and to the Condition of the New-Law the highest because it hath the Sanction of a Law of the Highest he that continueth not in all things by way of performance that it requireth is cursed by it if it be but imperfect obedience it saith he that continueth not in imperfect obedience is cursed by it therefore when the Saints come to Heaven and fall into perfect obedience they fall under the Curse of the new law or else it s out of doors before they come there or the last day and the World can't be judged by it Lastly What are the conditions of imperfect obedience are they not Duties of Righteousness by the performance whereof Mr. H. will have us justified Yes this cannot be denied but the distinction will hold with a quatenus as they refer to the absolute relaxed Laws they are Duties i. e. as they respect no Law or a lawless Law and as they refer to the New Law they are Conditions and are not Duties Hence it s no Duty to perform the Conditions of the New Law for Justification thereby and this is the Truth which we stand by though infer'd truly from Mr. H's Logick and Divinity CHAP. IX An Answer to Mr. H's Arguments against Imputation of Christs Righteousness Section 1. Arguments Artificial or Inartificial § 2. His First Argument against the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness answered § 3. His Second Argument Answered § 4. His Third Argument Answered § 5. Mr. H's Argument for Faith and Obedience being the formal part of Justification First Answer § 6. The Assumption by parts § 7. Argument the Second Answered § 8. Mr. H's Third Argument Answered with his Fourth Argument § 9. Of Constitutive Justification Sect. 1. NOw it is time to come to Examine the grounds of Mr. H. and Mr. C's Doctrine in this Point of Justification And First I shall treat of them that are the reasoning Arguments Artificial as called in Logick the weakest in Divinity and then those that are pretended from Scripture which in Logick are called inartificial but if grounded upon Divine Testimony the best and strongest § 2. Against the Imputation of Christs Righteousness he argues thus How can God account our Sins to be Christs and his Righteousness ours when really they are not so and Gods Judgment is according to Truth Resp this is used again and again by Mr. B to which I shall Answer 1. By retorting the Medium and not so tedious to put it into any other form how can God account our own New Law righteousness to be justifying righteousness when in its own nature it s no righteousness Mr. H. saith so over and over and Gods judgment is according to Truth now see the honesty of these Men God must not make a Judgment according to Truth in imputing Christs perfect righteousness to us because it was not personally performed by us and imputing our Sins to Christ because they were not actually committed by him and yet God makes a judgment according to Truth in imputing our own paultry sinful righteousness to us for our righteousness when they themselves say its really no righteousness 2. Is not his righteousness ours The Scripture saith it is and our Sins made his they say it doth not that we will try God willing but for the present we ask what if
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
of our Sins And Procopius he saith expresseth it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not this as a Surety And yet he saith here is nothing like Suretiship to pay our Debts for us Now if the Bp. had pleased to read out the Chapter he might have seen two Verses more wherein this Truth is litterally express V. 11. He shall bear their Iniquities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shall take their Iniquities as a Burden on his Shoulders to carry them away as the Scape-Goat did the Iniquities of the Children of Israel And the lxx renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall take up their Iniquities upon him And V. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall bear the Sin of many shall the Spirit of God express it self to one thing so fully and plainly and all fly away at the Puff of a Bp. as Chaff before the Wind What is all that this learned Bp. hath said to refute this Doctrine of Christ's bearing our Sins and satisfying for them as our Debts to Divine Justice but this Here 's nothing like Christ's Suretiship to pay our Debts for us we will not take his Word for it till he proves that Sin is not a Debt to the Law of God when Christ hath told us it is 2. Till he shews any other credible way of bearing another's Faults besides this way of Suretiship till 3dly He shews and proves against the Apostle Peter that there is no other way of paying Debts on purchasing or redeeming than with plain Silver and Gold § 17. He proceeds to shew us the great Harm of Christ's being a Surety to pay our Debts of Sin p. 107. 1. Then Christ hath fully discharged our Debts already This is one Mischief of it but God forbid it should that Christ should do Harm in paying any Man's Debts but to do it by halves is to pay some only and leave others for us to pay How did he satisfie God's Justice if he gave not full Satisfaction God forbid that Christ should leave a Farthing for us to pay 2. The second Mischief is that we have nothing to do towards the Payment of our Debt all that we have to do is to believe and to be thankful for all this Transaction was long since past without Consideration of any Act on our parts A. Is it a Harm that Christ hath done so much for us in way of Satisfaction and Purchase that he hath left nothing of ours to put in for a Share in this Honour no not our believing it self I take it to be the Glory of Christ and the blessed Priviledge of Believers that he hath provided for Believers such a Furniture of Grace that they shall believe on him bear his Image walk in his Steps to the Glory of his Name in all Thankfulness and new Obedience The third Mischief is that it nulls all Faederal Conditions on our part but of this more afterward 4. That we can't suffer for those Sins that are already discharged Is this such a Harm It 's neither Reason or Justice that we should pay a Debt to the Law which is already discharged Christ hath born all the Sins of Believers in the deserved Punishments thereof hence the Sufferings of the Saints are not Penal nor can be but are Blessings for their Good purchased by Christ for them § 18. The Bp. saith There 's but one place of Scripture to be found to favour this Sense of the Suretiship of Christ viz. Heb. 7.22 It is easie to instance in many places that favour it and prove it it being as I may say the very Marrow of the Gospel but as to this place it expresly calls Christ a Surety and it is the more remarkable as to our present purpose that as the Spirit of God hath called Sins Debts and Christ's Suffering a Price paid and expresly excluding Payment by Silver or Gold so Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which as Lexicog say doth primarily signifie a Surety for Money Hence it appears the Spirit of God makes much of the Metaphor of Debt and Payment to confirm our Faith in this that there 's no better account of the Nature of Sin than a Debt to God's Justice and no better account of the Sufferings of Christ than that they were a Payment of this Debt to the Justice of God And what if it be but in one place of Scripture When a Truth is so fully and plainly expressed in one Text it is enough there are many Truths of great weight are so besides the marvellous Concurrence of other texts of Scripture to the tenor thereof But he saith this text speaks of a Covenant not of the Surety of a Covenant A. What is it that makes a Debt is not a Covenant or compact But it is of a better Covenant i. e. a Surety to pay the Debts of the old Covenant of Works but brought in by a better Covenant the new Covenant being a Covenant of Grace answering the Ends of God's Grace more than the old doing that which the old could not do to save Sinners by a Righteousness which is not their own but better in that it hath a Surety that it brings in to engage unto God to pay all our Debts due to the Justice of God from us under the old Covenant which had no Surety Heb. 7.19 makes it better in nothing else but the bringing in a better Hope viz. the Surety But he positively denies that Christ was to pay our debts unto God If so what 's the reason the Church prays Forgive us our Debts when God's way of Forgiveness of a Sinner as asserted in Scripture is by bringing in a Surety to pay his debts of Sin Col. 1.14 In whom we have Redemption thro' his Blood even the Forgiveness of Sins But what a Surety is it that he will have Christ to be Sure it is the same the Socinians will have to be only i. e. a Surety to engage for God to us not for us to God but a Surety only for the Truth and Faithfulness of God in his Promises See his Words p. 110. § 18. The Bp. takes notice of some dissenting Brethren he might better said of Protestants dissenting from the Church of Rome who talk much of Surety Righteousness and of Christ's being our Surety as to the Payment of our Debts because the Debtor may be said to pay the Sum the Surety lays down for him and that God doth account that Believers do pay that Debt of Obedience which Christ hath paid in their Stead because they are a legal Person with Christ and all this depends upon this mistaken Notion of Suretiship A. It is very sad that so plain Scripture should corrupt our Minds with mistaken Notions how shall we know we are mistaken or not in any then Or that we do know the Mind of the Spirit in them if when we have a plain text expressing a Truth according to the plain and undeniable Sence of other texts of Scripture not only
believe with all thy Heart c. that must be a real receiving of Christ He that hath the Son hath Life 1 John 5.11 12. The Sinner first receives Christ after sees and knows he hath received Christ himself V. 13 and 20. And we own there may be presumption where there 's an appearance of believing and knowing only there need not be such sputter as he makes about these matters neither doth it profit his cause Object But while we were Sinners Christ Died for us so saith the Apostle Rom. 5. and others after him Two things thereby signified 1. That Christ Died for us under that Consideration for he came not to Save those that are Righteous but those that were Sinners 2. That it was long ago that Christ Died while we were in the first Adam and in an unregenerate state Sinners of the Gentiles to which he rejoins thus How then must every Sinner believe that Christ Died for him A. Every Sinner under the Call of the Gospel is to believe in Christ for Life and Salvation according to the constant tenor of the Gospel but to know Christ did bear his Sins and die for him results from this Believing He that hath the Son i. e. by believing hath Life Receiving is first before knowing that a Man hath Received and it is Gospel truth that Christ bore the Sins of every one that truly believes and every one is an Elect Person whose Sins Christ bore For if the Apostle spake true he that makes sure his Calling makes sure his Election Then saith the Bp. here is Universal Redemption asserted in its full extent and what is more here is Universal Election too if all Men can believe that their Sins are forgiven A. Let us examine the Bp's fallacious Arguing 1. The Gospel is indefinitely preached to all under the Call thereof and directed to all Sinners without any exception he that believes on the Lord Jesus shall be saved is this an Argument that Redemption is Universal or that all are Saved or Elected It 's said as many as were Ordained unto Life believed therefore it cann't be said that every one doth or can believe John 12.39 2. See how foully this Man imposeth by charging his opposites with saying That all Men can believe that their Sins are forgiven p. 133. or to charge this as p. 132. That a Man's Sins are forgiven because he believes that they are forgiven being laid on Christ whereas a Man believes because his Sins are forgiven and laid on Christ for Christ bearing our Sin is the Cause of believing and not the Effect At least conditional Election follows upon it he saith We see he suspected his first consequence and therefore poacheth in another This may serve for a Professed Armin. but the Bp. I suppose would not have been accounted so the Argument is because Men are Saved in and by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ therefore Election is upon foresight of Faith but we say Men are as absolutely Elected unto Faith as unto Glory The controversie of Conditional Election is not here to be entered upon but we assert that it follows more upon the Bp's Hypothesis than ours § 26. He adds its ground enough of presumption as to all such as can believe that their Sins are forgiven A. Those that can believe their Sins are forgiven can believe through the Grace of God working it nay they have attained to a great measure of Grace How doth presumption consist with can Believe B. What can hinder any Man more from Repentance and forsaking his Sins than to be told that the first Act of Saving Faith is to believe his Sins is forgiven R. Where is any one that will teach an Unbeliever to Believe his Sins are forgiven in the state of Unbelief But we find the Voice of the Gospel to the Unbeliever is to invite and call him to believe the Gospel which saith that this is a Saying worthy of all acceptation That Christ came into the World to save Sinners that he bore Man's Sin and was made Sin and Curse for them and that the Sinner should come in particular and apply himself to Christ for this Pardon and Forgiveness that is in Christ for with him is Pardon and Plentiful Redemption He is a Fountain opened for Sin and Uncleanness and if a Fountain then not an empty Object of Faith but full of Pardon and of all the Grounds and Reasons of a Sinner's Faith and Hope Now how doth such coming to Christ and closing with him in a free Promise hinder Repentance and embolden them unto Sin For the Apostle saith Sin shall not have Dominion over you because you are under the Grace of God in the Promise and he shews Sin will reign over a Man while he is under the Law But the Gospel Preacheth Repentance in order to Remission R. It Preacheth Repentance and Remission to shew that where there is Repentance to Life there is Remission and where there is Remission received by Faith there will be Repentance in a Believing coming to God through Christ The Soul cann't turn from Sin to God but by a believing Repentance neither can any Repentance be unto Life unless it be a turning from Sin to God thro' Jesus Christ Hence Faith and Repentance are frequently put for one another or in one the other included When the Scripture speaks of the first Act of the Sinners coming unto God yea not only the first act of true Faith but all other are inseparable from Repentance as from other Graces Love Hope c. Though both Repentance Love and Hope are distinct Graces and Fruits of the Spirit from Faith and from each other This lastly I affirm as the truth of the Gospel that there can be no true Repentance antecedent in Nature to true Faith Faith being the first effect of Spiritual Life in one that is effectually called Bp Repentance is commanded and Baptism commanded therefore they are conditions R. The Antecedent is true but the consequence follows not if he meant new Covenant Conditions For all things and Duties Commanded are not therefore foederal Conditions For that Grace which God works by his Word and Spirit is very absurdly called a Condition of a Covenant that God makes with a Sinner But observe he makes Repentance such a condition as Baptism if so what inseparable connection is there as there should be in this Case between the condition and promise for will any say that he that is not Baptized shall be Damn'd The Scripture saith not so besides the Seal of a Bond is not the Condition of the Obligation but only a Ratification Whether Mr. R. B. did Socinianize The Chief thing discussed by the Bp in his third Chapter is whether Mr. B. was a Socinian from which Charge he makes as if he would Vindicate him I shall briefly examine how he acquits himself in this difficult undertaking The sum and substance of Mr. B's Opinion in this Point was That our Sins were no proper
not in vain but was he delivered from his Personal Guilt of Blood Or else he must at this day be a Blood-guilty Murderer in Heaven Arg. 7. A Surety to God for Sinners bears their Sins in being Punished for them but Christ was a Surety Heb. 7.22 There 's no fence against such a Flail as this one express place 2. The Minor is quarrelled by our Adversaries but not Universally denied yet they would make a seeming Evasion that they will have Christ a Surety for God to us and not for us to God and that Christ was no Money-Surety for us we being Criminals and that Sin must not be lookt on as a Debt the folly of all which hath been made sufficiently manifest Arg. 8. If the Personal guilt of Sin was taken away by Jesus Christ then Christ must bear Personal Guilt But the Guilt of Personal Sins was taken away by Christ as appears by 1 John 3.5 Heb. 9.26 He took away Sin by the Sacrifice of himself Sin cannot be said to be taken away if it be not taken away in the Personal Guilt The Major appears from the Type of the Scape-Goat Levit. 16. Arg. 9. Where there 's no Condemnation there Personal Guilt is taken away nor nothing to be laid to the Charge of a Person but there 's no Condemnation i. e. Reason of Condemnation in the Eye of the Law in a Believer Rom. 8. for there 's no Reason of Condemnation but Guilt of Sin and none takes off the reason of our Charge of Fault to Law Condemnation but Christ by bearing Sin unto Punishment and Satisfaction Rom. 8.33 34. For where there is the Personal Guilt of Sin there 's Condemnation Now this Freedom from Condemnation was fully obtain'd and procured by Christ's Sacrifice but the purchased Right is not received and possessed till Application till then a Sinner is shut up and imprisoned under the Law as to State and Conscience but when he is in Christ Jesus by Faith he is fully instated in the purchased Possession Arg. 10. If Christ's Punishment was without his bearing of our Personal Guilt there was no change of Persons between Christ and us according to 2 Cor. 5.21 for as we were so we remain to be guilty Sinners and so long as we are so we cannot be righteous we can't be made the Righteousness of God in Christ so long as we remain guilty Sinners in our selves Arg. 11. Where Personal Guilt remains there 's no Acceptation with God for all our Acceptation either of Persons or Services is in Christ God professing he will not clear the Guilty Arg. 12. I might argue from all those places of Scripture that speak out this Truth fully and expresly which cannot have any rational Sense put upon them no less than three times in Isa 53. and 1 Pet. 2.24 who his own self bare our Sins in his Body on the Tree There 's no one Truth in the Scripture that is more fully and plainly recorded in the Old Testament and New The Spirit telling us of a Believer's Sin covered not imputed Psal 32. Rom. 4. Of our being made nigh to God and Christ being our Peace Eph. 2.13 14 15. Likewise Christ died the just for the unjust to bring us unto God 1 Pet. 3.18 But this is enough to confirm the weak and to convince Gainsayers and to lead all the Lovers of Truth into the Mind of the Spirit in this great Article of our Faith The Presbyterian Articles against the Dissenting Brethren Answered I Had thought when I began this Task to have passed over the first part altogether for tho' I found it a very false History yet I knowing from whose Hands the Bp. had it I did not think he was chargeable so much with the falshood as with an unjust unwariness and partiality to take up the Report of a Difference and to publish the History of it to the World from one Party only concerned therein I deem'd therefore enough to refer the Reader to the true History of the Union and Breach but upon the review of the said false Historical Account and finding a fresh Presentment brought in against the Dissenting Brethren from the late Union by the grand Rebuker under divers Articles for holding and publishing many poysonsome dangerous Heresies of so mischievous a Nature that he teacheth his tractable Reader a form of Prayer to use still before he reads them to wit that he may not suck in the Bane and Poyson thereof And finding the Bp. received the said Presentment very much like a Gentleman and sends forth his very Christian Summons for our Appearance to the high Charges in these Words The Accusation being now publick and the Nation is concern'd as to the Dishonour done to Religion thereby altho' I had seen the said Reproaches in the Presbyterians Hands and found they had brought the said Brethren under their Censure in their unrighteous way of proceeding without any hearing I thought more expedient to slight than answer their unreasonable Clamours being abundantly conscious of my own Innocency in those Matters my great Mistake was in mistaking them being at my Concurrence with them in the Union for which I have deeply repented but a meer Stranger to their Persons Ways and Actions And before I come to the particular Articles it 's necessary to premise a few things that now 1. I think it necessary for my self to appear to the Accusations and make publick Answer to them but do not undertake that all I say is the Sense of my Brethren in every Particular I suppose they may concur with me so far that some different Apprehensions will make no Breach in our mutual Love and Affections 2. I apprehend it very unreasonable as well as unchristian and ungenteel to charge those things for dangerous Errors upon a whole Party which are pretended to be taken from the Writings or Sayings of one or two only 3. It is very traducing and slanderous 1. Not to prove the Words charged for Error in the Sense they represent them on the Party that wrote or spake them but to make an Accusation at large and at random 2. That they publish these for Errors before they had disputed them with such as they charge and proved them so 4. Let me ask our angry Brethren a few Questions for my Information 1. Whether they think in their Consciences and in the sight of God they have dealt uprightly and sincerely with the Truth and with their Brethren in this Controversie 2. Whether it becomes the Saints to appear such publick bitter Accusers of their Brethren as appears by the foul-mouth'd Rebuker and others whoso have been employ'd and applauded in this dirty Service 3. Whether it be for the Honour of the Nonconformists thus to bewray their own Nests 4. Whether they think not in their Consciences that many things they charge for Errors are great Truths in some Sence or other Therefore is it not very unfair to charge in general and dubious terms without any
former Court the Judgment is always according to truth but it s not so here for a man may be acquitted there and condemned here both Persons and Actions nay let me say a person may be acquitted in foro Dei and yet his Actions justly condemned in foro humano i. e. mundi but then I do not say those actions are accepted in foro Dei but are burnt for Hay and Stubble as men do justifie themselves and others in this foro mundi very often so doth God himself justifie his children and their actions that are so condemned by and ungrateful to the World God doth as it were come into it and vindicate his accused Saints where Satan takes it upon him as his Prerogative to accuse the Brethren when his Accusations run high God looks upon his Honour engaged to vindicate such in those eminent unaccountable and condemned Actions which they do for his Names sake Here we read of God's own vindicating and bearing Testimony to the actions of his children that looked strange in the eye of the World God's justifying those Actions before the World is called Justification and their Actions Righteousness not that the persons were justified thereby but that they were approved fruits of Christ's Righteousness received by Faith yea we find when God comes into the Court of the World to declare Persons or Actions to be approved by him it s usually in some extraordinary thing wherein they were Eminent and suffered much thereupon at least in their good Name if not otherwise § 4. In this case God justifies the Act of Phineas in taking upon him to execute Judgment in the case of Zimri and Cosbi the action lay condemnable in Phineas as a rash action which proceeded from an usurped Authority he being not High-Priest nor having any particular Commission from Moses This Action God testifies to as a holy and righteous Act tho it looked so extrajudicial and should be looked upon as a righteous act to all Generations Phineas was a justified person long before Numb 25.12 13. Psal 106.30 31. So Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain was he not in an accepted and justified state before God for God first accepted Abel and then his Offering and because his Offering notwithstanding God's acceptation was condemned by Cain and no doubt by his Posterity he obtained witness that he was righteous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby he was witnessed unto for God witnessed in foro mundi to the righteousness of Abel i. e. to his Justification in that he made it appear by his manifested acceptance undoubtedly Fire came down from Heaven and consumed the Sacrifice here the Apostle saith God testifying of his Gifts and this was a testimony of his Person that he was righteous but this is not the justification of his Person for if he had not been justified in foro Dei yea Conscientiae too he could not by faith have offered a Sacrifice so well pleasing to God wherefore to shew to the World that he was an accepted person God testifies to his Services So Enoch he had some eminent Testimony from God before his Translation against all the calumniating and blaspheming Posterity of Cain So Noah also in his Generation a Preacher of the righteousness of faith he had a Testimony in the Ark and the Salvation that he and his House had to both the Worlds and yet this Testimony was not that Justification which he had before God for he was heir of the righteousness of God by faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was become the heir not upon building the Ark but was so before § 5. God's appearing then to witness to the Ways and Actions of his People in the World which the children of men are still condemning of and their Persons and Profession for is not their Justification before God but an eminent fruit thereof Abraham when he offered up his Son Isaac he exerted the eminent fruit of a tried Faith which the World would be apt to condemn as one of the heinousest and most unnatural in the World therefore God justifies this Action of his and therein recommends him for the most Eminent Believer he not staggering in his faith of the promise notwithstanding believing that God could raise his son from the dead and if he should slay his son that God would do it rather than not fulfil his Promise Now I dare appeal to our most ingenuous Opposers whether they think Abraham was not justified before this great Action of his and what can James his Justification be more than God's declaring in foro mundi that this strange action of his wherein he was a Wonder to the World and for which he stood ready to be condemned by it was highly approv'd by him and an eminent Fruit and Testimony of his Faith It appears by the context that James understood nothing but that a True Faith brings forth Works witnessing in foro mundi to the truth of it and James 2.10 and that the offender of the Law in one point is guilty of all and that he that is saved by faith is saved by a lively faith such as will shew it self by works and such as God will testifie to by his Word or Providence or both that they are wrought of God § 6. The like may be said of Rahab The World would condemn her for a treacherous Harlot in betraying her Native Country to destruction But this action of justified Rahab being a signal fruit of her Eminent Faith is signally owned by God himself and her strange action justified to the World that when the Walls of Jericho fell her house stood only and she saved with the Honour and Renown of an exemplary believer in the Church yea God honoured her so far as to come into the Line of the Messiah Hath not God gloriously justified his Saints i. e. by testifying to their Gifts and Services to the World whence else hath been that eminent Spirit visible and astonishing to the World whereby they have not only rejoiced to suffer for the Name of Jesus in the spoil of their goods but in giving their bodies to death and overcame all the Reproaches and Blasphemies of their cruel enemies by faith in the blood of the Lamb and Word of the Testimony Was not that admirable Presence of God with them not only which we read of Heb. 11. but in other Martyrologies The Witness of God to their Gifts in and to the convincing the World to which they had never come had they not been freely justified by God before I am ashamed to see that Men should think that the Saints in their great Services and Sufferings should be of such servile and base Spirits as to be bargaining with God by their Works when they were frying in the Flames § 7. There is also a Justification in foro Conscientiae which is received by faith and cannot be received but by faith and its a closing in with the judgment of God according to truth
at God's hand seeing God can be a debtor ex pacto regimine gratiae paterno Resp God can be a Debtor to sinful Man ex pacto but then 1. It s upon pactum absolutum not such a Covenant as makes man's works meritorious 2. It is in and through Christ only that God is a Debtor in the way of Justice 3. It s meerly Free Grace that hath brought about the Sinners Salvation by Christ and not purchased by himself 4. God is not nor ever will be a Debtor to sinful Man to justifie him for or by any works done by him either here or hereafter 5. Therefore whatever is the fruit of Free Grace in us is free in respect of us on whom it is bestowed we do not merit or deserve it in the least neither doth God reward any of his Children regimine foederis operum such as the New Law is and must be which rewards us upon our own fulfilling the condition But upon the account here mentioned before refuted which is a most direct answer because we have shewed the indirectness and falsity of it And I declare that God's Abatement of Terms and requiring a new Condition is that which therefore makes it free seeing it is tendred and obtained without performance of the old Resp The changing of Terms in a covenant doth not make it free if God had changed the terms of the old covenant from perfect obedience to imperfect it had not made it free because the condition is Works still for here the change is but a change from one compact to another viz. Abatement of terms and requiring new terms in the room What if a man gets his Creditor of whom he complains he hath a hard Bargain to make another Bargain upon easier terms this is a favour indeed but its justice considering he had brought him under too hard terms before but yet he doth not therefore give the commodity to him because he allows him easier terms but makes another Bargain upon other terms So here the new law is as much a Bargain as the other tho upon easier terms which cannot be admitted He proceeds to refute Augustine about the works of the law according to Paul's sense which we shall examine when we come upon that Point § 14. We shall here gather the sum of what according to truth is to be asserted and defended against Mr. H. and the rest 1. That the covenant of Works was not made with Man upon equal Terms for his perfectest Obedience could never be equal with the promised Reward 2. That the New-law Covenant is upon as equal Terms according to the nature of the Law and they differ not in nature from the old covenant being works if they differ in degree it s the covenant which hath made it so and the Promise is as much a reward to the imperfection as it was in the old to a perfect condition by God's constitution 3. God is free and can be bound by none but himself and it s his Grace to covenant with the creature any way but when God hath freely without purchase covenanted upon Terms of the creatures performance he maketh himself a Debtor thereupon let the Terms be perfect or imperfect 4. In the pretended new-law covenant where faith and obedience are the conditions Man merits ex pacto and God become a Debtor to him as much as he should have bin to Adam if he had stood hence the Apostle cannot mean justifying freely by grace in Mr. H's sense But when we are said to be justified freely by Gods grace is meant 〈◊〉 That it is of the pleasure of God's Will not upon any external Motive no not of Christ's Death that God exerts the Grace of Justification he is gracious to whom he will 2. It is free in that the Object of it upon whom it falleth is a sinner every way undone and miserable without Works or Qualifications much less deserving of this Grace and this is the chief meaning of the Apostle in Rom. 3. 3. The providing giving and bestowing Christ and his righteousness is an high act of Grace that a sinner may be justified at the Bar of Divine Justice that a sinner according to the Mystery of his Will and gracious Dispensation may be fully acquitted thro Christ from the fiery Law and discharged from all the charges thereof by the highest Justice 4. That as it was Free Grace every way to us considered in our selves therefore a Covenant of Promise without conditions required on our part hence absolute so it was a higher Covenant of Works to the Second Adam than ever the First was under and whereas Mr. H. objects and says then we are justified by the law I answer 1. Where did he ever see Justification but by a Law 2. He makes his to be by the new Law which law we deny to be in rerum natura 3. As we are justified by the Grace of God so it is in Christ Jesus and a Believer in Christ needs no New Law to justifie him he is justified by the Law in Jesus Christ and yet freely by Grace CHAP. III. Of Righteousness Sect. 1. Righteousness what and of what kinds § 2. Of Distributive Justice § 3. Distinctions in respect of Justice § 4. God's Justice in Efficiency § 5. No Justifying Righteousness but perfect § 6. Of the way of God's Execution of his Justice § 7. Righteousness again distinguished § 8. Righteousness of Justification and Sanctification Sect. 1. JVstitia est suum cuique tribuere to give every one his due so Cicero The Spirit of God tells us it s to render every one their due or right Rom. 13.7 Prov. 27. And it s either commutative or distributive commutative when persons mutually perform their Duty to each other which they are bound to by any Law Covenant or Agreement whether they be superiors to inferiors or inferiors to superiors or equals to one another a due conformity in obedience to a Law is commutative Justice Rom. 13. done for Conscience sake giving the Legislator his due but if he is pleased not only to bind me to Duty but promise a Reward upon performance as I am bound to Obedience so on the performance thereof God is bound to Reward whence if Man had stood the Covenant had bin fulfilled by way of commutation it s so between Magistrate and People being bound together by Covenant and each observing his Duty to other it s done by commutative Justice and yet without any derogation from the Authority and Grandeur and just Prerogative of the Magistrate § 2. Distributive Justice or Righteousness is Magistratick for the maintaining commutative Justice by awarding it where it s refused or punishing the breach thereof or in vindicating just persons which are falsly accused upon that account to render to men judicially according to their works All first conformity to Laws and Covenants is by commutative Justice but upon complaint of the breach of the Rules thereof Distributive Justice takes place Hence
God give us this Righteousness What is freer than Gift and what makes a better propriety than Free Gift Is not Gods Judgment according to Truth when he imputes that to us which he hath given It s the Gift of Righteousness Rom. 5. E. gr A poor debtor is sued in Court for an 100 l. and upon Trial he is found insolvent and Verdict is going to be given against him the Judge throws him a Bag of 100 l. in Court and bids him pay the debt shall not the Court impute this to him a lawful Payment and give him a discharge and is not the Judgment according to Truth on the other hand another hath the like Tryal but is found insolvent the Judge or some other gives him a Bag of Counters and bids him to pay his Creditor he refuseth the Money saith its Brass well saith the Judge we will impute it to him for a lawful tender and good Payment we will make that which is no righteousness by our imputation to be a legal righteousness so the Creditor may take the Bags of Counters and go shake his Ears we call it good Money now I appeal to these Men whether this be a Judgment according to Truth And let them weigh it well and make application thereof and if they can't make a rational reply let them lay their Hands on their Mouth and hold their peace for ever hereafter § 3. A second great Argument taken from Mr. B. is That if it be so that Christs righteousness is imputed to us for Justification then should the Elect be immediately freed from punishment and immediately justified before they believed and repented for no Terms could be Imposed on them in order to their Justification and Glory if they be accounted already to have fulfilled the Law of Christ And this is one as he saith of the Antinomian consequences Resp Let it be so we say then First If it be an Antinomian consequence what is the reason Mr. B. and Mr. H. are such Antinomians to say all the World are pardoned before Faith and Repentance yea whether they believe or no Why doth Mr. B. assert two Justifications before Faith 2. We reckon it no Antinomianism to say that Election perfectly freed the Elect from coming under the execution of the Vindictive Wrath of God and Curse of the Law Why else should the Scripture say who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect and whereas it may be said before Conversion the Law will charge for they are under the Law it s replied its Christ that died yea rather is risen having fully satisfied the Law of God that they shall not fall under the Execution of the Curse of it and they are secured before God both by Election and Redemption or else Christ died and rose again in vain and as they have this security so they have an immediate right in Christ to the Life of Grace and Glory They want the application and the receiving of this righteousness and a possession thereof which reception is by Faith that is not their own but purchased and given by Christ which was never purchased and given for their righteousness but as an Organ of Spiritual Life whereby a Man created in Christ Jesus may be sensible and have the comfort of what is freely given to him of God for by Faith a Man takes up the Peace which Christ hath made and hath access into the justifying Grace of God wherein he stands and therefore comes from under the Law in his own Conscience and rejoiceth in the hope of the glory of God 3. As for imposing of Terms its Idle to think that Christ should do what he did for Sinners in his Priestly Office their Justification and Salvation and then to impose an impossibility upon them without the performance of which all that he hath done should be nothing to them and do Men talk Sence when they talk of imposing Terms upon Sinners for Eternal Life the Terms should be put upon them to be performed before they have Spiritual Life in their meer natural Estate and then to make their notion to stand on its right bottom they must be Pelagians its Eternal Life that is begun in Justification applied to the Believer and his Person by the Spirit and it s received Vitally and Sensibly by Faith when the Sinner is made a live by the Sanctifying work of the Spirit his Life of Faith is part of the Eternal Life purchased Can any Terms of Life be imposed on a dead Man what Terms were imposed upon Lazarus if the roling away the Grave-Stone was the Term it was not imposed on him it was on them that stood about the Grave if they say God will give these Terms as they must say to save themselves from Pelagianism then the Term lies upon God and its Idle to say they are imposed upon incapable Subjects neither is that Imposed upon me as a Term that cannot be expected from me unless by the donation of another by any rational Man 4. The clause follows not according to Mr. H.'s Principles who saith Christ satisfied the Law tho I know what the Neonomians talk of they intend no true satisfaction did Christ satisfie the Law in what Sence they will Was it for himself or for us if for himself then he offended it this they will not say then for us if for us our Offence was taken of before God thereby God was in him by reason of his satisfaction not imputing our Trespasses how can it be otherwise but we must be accounted by God to have fulfilled the Law in Christ if Gods judgment be according to Truth and why may not this satisfaction be and our fulfilling in Christ be before we had a being in the World this was actually performed for the Saints before his coming long after most of them were dead why not for those that are to come before they have life and why may they not be called to a fellowship with Christ and participation of the righteousness of Christ in Satisfaction by Faith when the day of their Regeneration comes This is the dangerous Doctrine that these poor blind men are so afraid of § 4. There is another Argument of Mr. H's which he takes to be Herculean and admires and it looks as if it were out of his own Forge and he chargeth Mr. L. to hearken to it Animadv p. 67. There is nothing can be imputed to us but either that which we have not and then it is that we may have it that is to have it made ours or reputed as ours Resp There is nothing can be imputed to a Sinner for righteousness but that which he hath not first but is given so saith Mr. H. and here 's the difference he saith inherent Grace is given for righteousness we say the obedience of Christ is given for our righteousness which the Scripture saith now it is given that it may be imputed ours legally and it s imputed that we may be
justified it is not imputed that we may have it but because we have it it is imputed Mr. H. herein goes against himself Or else if we have it it must be imputed to some other end than to have it Answ Yes it s imputed legally that we may be justified we have it by gift prius natura by gift of Grace for we must have the righteousness before the Law can judge we have it because legal Judgment is according to Truth Mr. H's Justification runs thus far that we must have a righteousness before it is imputed nay and he saith its by Gift too Now if Christ did obey or suffer in our persons or as our legal person so as in law sence we have and are accounted to have obeyed and suffered in him then can his righteousness consisting of his Obedience and Sufferings be neither imputed to us that we may have it or be made ours or reckoned to us as ours seeing we have it already it is ours it is reckoned as ours in that it was performed in our persons nor can it be imputed to us to any other end or thing but ad justitiam which is to the same end and for the same thing and can be no other Resp Mr. H. thinks this Argument irrefrigable and that it will carry all before it but poor men as most opposers of truth have the unhappiness to smite with the backs of their Swords and cut themselves with the edge Mr. H. argues if we have Christ's righteousness we cannot have it by Imputation We do not say we have it by imputation any other than a legal allowance that we have it having it is antecedent to the legal allowance it is not so in their Principles we have our own righteousness before it is imputed to us But if in a law-sence we are accounted to have obeyed and suffered in Christ then his righteousness cannot be imputed unto us cujus contrarium verum yea therefore it s imputed unto us for one man's payment is not reckoned and imputed to another unless the payment be made in his person in a law-sence it is ours and reckoned as ours in that it was performed in our persons he saith therefore as such it is reckoned and imputed to us nor can it be imputed to us for any other end than for righteousness we say and you say § 5. Mr. H's Arguments for Faith and Obedience being the Formal Cause of our Justification we shall examine in the next place they are as Mr. Cl. hath gathered them up By the consent of all Divines That righteousness which denominates us righteous in the sight of God must be the form or formal part of our Justification But neither Regeneration nor Christ's Righteousness nor Pardon is that which justifies per modum causae formalis and therefore it must be Faith Resp 1. He should have added imputed to the things enumerated in the minor for he saith to Mr. C. he means so 2. If he doth mean so he putteth the material and formal cause together and therefore I shall deny his Minor under the term of essential causes which takes in his formal As to the major I except that all the Divines do not hold that righteousness that denominates us righteous before God is the formal cause but insist on the minors denial that the righteousness of Christ doth not denominate us righteous before God for so should the assumption be the Syllogism as it stands is false having one medium in Major another in the Minor Dare Mr. H. be so scandalous as to speak out his Minor as he ought by his Medium That Christ's Righteousness doth not denominate us righteous in the sight of God its plain that he shifts it off by a wrong Assumption and according to that fault makes his Proof And I only say that there 's no righteousness can denominate us righteous in the sight of God but what is fully satisfactory to the Law that condemns us but there 's no righteousness fully satisfactory to the Law that condemns us but Christ's let Mr. H. shew any other if he can and as for the righteousness of the New Law which he pleads for he acknowledgeth that it s no righteousness in its own nature that it needs Pardon at the Bar of the Old Law and therefore it cannot denominate us righteous in the sight of God § 6. He proceeds to prove his false Assumption by parts 1. That Christ's righteousness is not that righteousness whereby we are denominated righteous in the sight of God why because saith he it is the meritorious case I answer therefore it is for no righteousness makes any one righteous coram Judice but a meritorious righteousness not regenerating grace see how he shifts he said in his Minor not regeneration i. e. inherent renovation which he all along asserts for our justifying righteousness and now he has brought it to the active infusion of Grace as he quibbles with the Papists and why not Regenerating Grace because that must precede Justification and must not the righteousness precede the Justification by his own Doctrine and doth not the formalis ratio precede the effect but what doth regenerating Grace preceed Is it not regeneration it self it being the working cause of it but as for the Grace of regeneration wrought that 's the very righteousness which he means and yet saith in his Assumption not regeneration this is but juggling it is not plain dealing He goes on not pardon for that comes after it Mr. H. saith so I know no better authority for it and I will believe it ad Graecas calendas I have shewed the absurdity and folly of it yea and of his pardon preceeding Justification And if none of these be the formal cause i. e. the Essential causes denominating us Righteous in Gods sight it must be something else What 's that The righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel i. e. Faith and Obedience Mr. Cl. saith something else Imputation it s that which is the form one essential cause in this they differ but as to the matter they agree that Faith and imperfect Obedience is the righteousness whereby we are denominated righteous in the sight of God and is not the Grace of regeneration inherent whether Faith be the righteousness of God shall be examined anon by its self because Mr. H. puts so much stress upon it § 7. Arg. 2. Adam if he had perfectly obeyed his Obedience had been his formal Righteousness in regard to the Law so is this ours in regard to the Gospel Again works were the formal righteousness in regard to the Law therefore Faith is the formal righteousness of Justification by the Gospel And two things go to this formal Righteousness Faith and the imputation of it Resp It seems Mr. H. understands formal cause matter formed and that is an effect not a cause the materia formata is the formal cause I must tell him his Notion is neither Divinity nor Logick 2. What
and Faith as such is both seen in us and present with us 4. If Faith be the very righteousness then Faith believes in Faith as righteousness Doth the Scripture bid us believe in our selves or believe in another Faith believes in Faith for our very righteousness by these Men which is most absurd when they preach they should bid Men believe in themselves did Abraham believe in his Faith Was that his believing or did he believe that which was held out in the Promise the same thing that God imputes to us for righteousness we do make the Object of our Faith for Righteousness Now then if God imputes our believing to us then we believe in our believing these are inevitable Rocks this Doctrine will bring these Men unto 5. God cannot impute Faith as a Work and in the Neonomian sence for righteousness it being as Mr. H. confesseth again and again no righteousness sinful in need of pardon for 1. This would not be according to truth to call evil good nor to do it in a way of administration of Justice as in Justification would it be just But most unjust God is a God of Truth and Holiness and the Judge of all the World and therefore must deal righteously for tho' he pardons Iniquity yet will by no means clear the Guilty 2. It s contrary to their own assertions that Justification is an Act of Justice whereas such an Imputation and Justification as they speak of would be far from an Act of justice and is a meer dispensation with justice for where a Law must be abrogated or relaxed there is an absolute dispensation with Justice and without one of these they confess there cannot be Justification by their New Law 6. This cannot be justification because Sin is not pardoned in it nor the person accepted Imputation of righteousness to the work before it s to the person and if the person must do good works before he 's justifi'd which is absurd because the works he doth are imputed to him and he is justified by 'em as they say § 5. But let us hear what Mr. Cl. hath to say for the Proof of this Position that Faith is our Subordinate righteousness i. e. in his sence an interveening righteousness coming between Christs righteousness whereby we are justified before we come at Christ or pardon both being consequent to our Justification by this New-Law-Righteousness which he calls Faith see p. 64. His reason are these 1. What else can be the plain and proper meaning of that Phrase it was accounted to him for righteousness Without putting it upon the Rack of Tropes and Figures and the like Engines of Cruelty c. Resp Doth Mr. Cl. pretend to be an interpreter of Scripture and will not allow the use of a Trope or Figure but to call them Engines of Cruelty is to say where a Trope is said to be used in a Scripture there is a wresting of Scripture I must tell him that a Tropical sence of many Places of Scripture is the true plain and proper sence and meaning of the Spirit of God in many most eminent Expressions and for this he must expect to be watched in the adjusting his New-found righteousness whether he doth no where interpret Scripture Tropically What answer will he give the Papist in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation founded on This is my Body Mr. B. saith it s as credible as the Doctrine of imputation of Christs Righteousness And what saith Mr. Cl. to the Covenant of Circumcision Well let us make a little Impartial Examination of this Expression If Abraham were justified by works Rom. 4.2 he hath boasting but not before God not in the Presence of God for his Justification yea he may rejoice that through Grace he hath performed any action by faith which God witnesseth to as James speaks of but he dare not plead it before God for Justification of his Person Now he brings in Justification by Faith in diametrical opposition to it for the Scripture saith Abraham believed in God and it was accounted to him for righteousness so translated the words in the Hebrew may run thus He believed on Jehovah and he accounted it i. e. what he believed of him for righteousness to him the Words are rendred by the Septuagint and the New Testament Abraham believed God it was accounted to be unto righteousness The Seed promised before was the thing believed by Abraham the blessing unto all Nations which Seed was to proceed from his and Sarah his Wife's Loins this was the promise of God to him and this was accounted to him for righteousness he believed Jehovah graciously promising and the thing promised Jehovah imputed to him for righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he accounted the thing believed not the Faith it self therefore the Targum hath its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he believed the word of promise and the thing promised was imputed to him in this sense the Apostle takes it Rom. 4.3 Gal. 3.6 where in both places he opposeth a righteousness of faith i. e. which is believed on unto a righteousness within which is no object of faith for it is within us and an object of sense he believed God in the Promise of Christ and this that he believed was reckoned to him he argues presently that this imputation was not to Abraham as a work of any kind for to him that worketh as much as if he should say O do not mistake me I do not nor doth the Scripture speak of Abraham's Faith as a work the reward should not be of grace but debt but to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly as Abraham was when first justified Josh 24. his faith is esteemed to be unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. he believes upon the righteousness which is imputed to him And why may not Faith be taken objectively by a Metonomy for the thing believed for 't is not unusual in Scripture Christ is said to be our hope the object of our hope 1 Tim. 1.1 and so the hope laid up for us in Heaven i e. the things hoped for Coloss 1.5 so looking for that blessed hope Tit. 2.14 the things hoped for what 's more frequent than these Metonomies yea proper plain and elegant in matters of sense or perception its most frequent to put the object for the sence and sence for the object Matth. 6.22 the light of the body is the eye and there the light is for the eye and after the eye for the light besides it s a rule that when a word in Scripture taken in the direct sense will cross other Scriptures and the signification lies fair for the Analogy of Faith then the true sense lies in the Trope as here we are justified by faith but how as it lays hold on the justifying blood of Christ or else we contradict Rom. 5.9 being now justified by his blood now either Faith or the justifying Blood of Christ must fall into a Trope for which
in a law-sence if so was it for himself or for us if for us then the law saith so for us For the Law of God doth not take Satisfaction in so blind a manner as that God in his Law knows not for whom it is if God in his Law knows for whom it is and accepts it for us then it is accounted to us and imputed to us as to all the ends thereof in Law The taking Satisfaction in Law for any offence against it for any one is the Laws Imputation or accounting it to him for whom it is made whether the satisfaction be given by himself who transgressed or any one for him therefore if Christ satisfied for us and this Satisfaction accepted by God for us God imputes it to us as if we had done it our selves therefore Mr. H. must either renounce the Doctrine of Satisfaction with the Socinians or own its imputed to us as fully yea in this case we may say more fully than if we had made it our selves § 6. Let us see how Mr. H. would avoid the Socinian Rock he saith Christ may have wrought with the father or made him that satisfaction as to procure new Terms so that a man may be justified as a fulfiller of them and yet need pardon for non-performance of the old R. Behold the Neonomian Satisfaction 1. He makes not Satisfaction a payment of a Debt owing to the Law by us but only a procurement a buying something of God whereas Satisfaction is for a wrong done I may purchase a thing of a person whom I never injur'd or if I have the Money whereby I purchase a new thing that refers not to the injury I did before but to the new Purchace observe then he makes Christ's Satisfaction only a New Purchace 2. This New Purchace is of New Terms of Justification hence God is not to stand upon satisfaction to the Old Law but to drop it and bring the Sinner under a New Law Christ died not to satisfie the Law but to translate us from one Law to another whence the old hath no more to do with us and thus all the world are translated therefore the Old Law is gone to all the World unsatisfied 3. A Man is justified on the new Terms they being fulfilled by his own righteousness but not pardoned on these terms by the New Law and this is one of the greatest inconsistencies in the World to say a man is justified by a Law and not pardoned how is he just in the eye of that Law that doth not free from the charge of any transgression of it But 3. He saith he needs Pardon for non-performance of the old if so 1. The New Law is not an Act of Indemnity in respect of sins against the old for if a man condemned by one law be taken from under it to a new law he is indempnified from the old else all pretence of advantage by the said translation is gone for he that stands under the terms of one law condemned by it and brought under new terms to another come now to be liable to the lash of two Laws whereas before he was under but one 2. He saith this Pardon must be had at the Bar of the Old Law I would know of Mr. H. how If he saith and will stand to it according to his own Argument he cannot or else he must deny Christs Satisfaction which is this That Law which is satisfied for the breach of it admits no Pardâ—n from the Legislator but the Old Law say Neonomians in words was satisfied for us therefore there can be no Pardon yea it was satisfied for us in our stead and the satisfaction accepted for us yea therefore imputed to us Here I have the Neonomian fast in this Dilemma from their own Doctrine let them free themselves how they can For if Pardon and Satisfaction imputed are not consistent as to our Doctrine then not in theirs but they say notwithstanding their justification by their New Law they must have Pardon for the breach of the Old and how Not at all in their sence if the Old be not satisfyed or that Satisfaction not imputed as much as to say it is Money laid down in Court indefinitely but not accepted in Court for this and that Mans Sins hence Christ hath satisfyed for none for all satisfaction as such is accepted as such we come now to his attempt to prove that neither the Active or Passive Obedience of Christ is imputed § 7. For saith he If that his Active and Passive Obedience be imputed then must God be made to deal with Man according to the Covenant of Works Resp See how this Gentleman in all his Arguings runs his Head against a Post and Pillar of Gospel Truth his Argument is this if Christ's Active and Passive Obedience be accepted for us as satisfaction for the Law then God deals with Sinners in their justification after the tenor of the Covenant of Works now he may assume either by taking away the Antecedent or by taking away the Consequent he indeed intends both first by taking away the Antecedent viz. But Christ's Active and Passive Obedience is not accepted for satisfaction therefore he doth not deal with Sinners in Justification according to the Covenant of Works therefore Christ hath not satisfied the Covenant of Works for us the Law lies unsatisfyed I would know how the Pardon he speaks of is Subsequent to the New Law Justification is had is it by dealing with us upon the account of satisfaction to the Old Law He suggests that it is then pardoned Sinners are dealt with according to the Old Law if not justified But to have him in his Consequences he assumes that God deals not with Sinners in Justification upon the Terms of the Old Law or Covenant of Works To Answer he deals with them in Christ according to the Terms of the Covenant of Works but in themselves as sinners justifying them in Christ according to the Tenor of the Covenant of Works it is meer Grace the Mystery of Grace is to save sinners in such a way as may not only magnifie rich Grace but Exalt Grace and that in the highest manner Now the Exaltation of Justice cannot be but in the justifying a Sinner in the Eye of the strictest Law by the highest and most acceptable Satisfaction thereof on this account Christs Obedience was the most Legal both active and passive that ever was but that a sinner is brought under this Obedience of Christ unto Justification is meer free Grace he being thereby partaker of the distinguishing Grace of God and the free Gift of Christ and his Righteousness without the intervention of any Mediator or Subordinate Righteousness of his own hence it is that his Faith makes not void the Law but Establisheth it in the highest degree in Exalting Christ as his only and most compleat Righteousness most legal in satisfying the Law for us as a Covenant of Works he saith when nothing is