Justification must be before any person can receive it the Assembly do most accurately tell us what Justification by faith is We say not that no man that says he believes not his Justification is not justified nor every one that says he believes it is justified but we say That every one that believes truly is justified and every one that 's justified shall believe God's Justification of a Sinner is his Juridical Sentence concerning his Eternal State and Condition which admits not of majus and minus in God but admits of different times of application and of degrees of manifestation it finds nothing in the creature nor makes any change but relative wherein God is first in relation justifying and applying that Grace to us and therefore we are wholly passive till by vertue of Union with Christ by the Spirit the Spirit of Life raising us from the dead we are enabled to believe whereby we make a sensible re-application of the Grace of Justification to our selves and being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ But more of this infra § 8. The Judge of all the World must judge righteously i. e. according to his righteous Law for as that is norma officii to us so it is of judicii to him now here is the Mystery How God can justifie a sinner according to most perfect law and do it freely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. H. in his Medio p. 5. hath this Quaery The Gospel requires Faith Repentance new Obedience how then are we justified and saved by Grace how is it free when it is not vouchsafed but upon condition This difficulty hath made some run into the Extream that the Covenant of Grace is without conditions Resp It is such an extream Argument against the Neonomian Doctrine that all their Skill and Sophistry neither hath nor can answer and the Argument stands thus If nothing doth essentially distinguish a Covenant of Works from a Covenant of Grace but the Conditionality of it then a Covenant of Grace must have no Condition and whatever Covenant hath a Condition is a Covenant of Works but there 's nothing can distinguish because the Antecedent is true therefore the Consequence There can be nothing in sense to invalidate either Proposition for the distinguishing formal difference between the one Covenant and the other must be Condition and no Condition where the true Opposition lieth for the promise of both Covenants are life therefore the special and formal difference lieth in conditionality none now to say it lies in the nature of the condition will appear most absurd 1. If it be the littleness of the Condition makes a Covenant of Grace this I deny for the promulgated Covenant of Works was laid upon the least condition imaginable the forbearing to eat in Apple but let us hear what Mr. H. will say to make a Covenant of Works a Covenant of Grace p. 5. I say readily the Grace of God and of the Gospel is free and therefore not conditional well but how wherein is the freedom In that it accepts of the sinners Faith and Repentance when he needs not or when according to the law he was not tied to it Resp Was the Man awake or asleep when he said this he says its free because God accepts of his Faith and Repentance that 's the same freedom whereby I may be said to give a Man a Horse when I accept of Money which he was to pay me for it Is not a Covenant a Bargain Was it not so to Adam Was it possible he should say he need not accept it What doth he make of his New-Law-Covenant need not God keep it where was God's Faithfulness and Truth when he made that Covenant doth not that bind him to accept our Faith and Obedience as the Condition According to the law he is not tied Why will an honest Man speak so equivocally to justifie a cause his Conscience tells him or ought to do that it is nought he says according to the law I pray what law the Old or New Doth he not say that Faith and Repentance is the Condition of the New Law and is not God bound to accept of them by that Law Oh but he is not bound to accept of them by the old law It is just as if a Man brings the Money that I sold such a Commodity for and I tell him I will not take the Money unless he will confess I gave him it freely no saith he I make a tender of the Money with which I bought it I will neverly for the Bargain and say you gave it me when I bought it to which I reply I am not bound by law to accept the Money What law the law that the King and Parliament made for the Pole-Tax H. Unless Man's Obedience were perfect but he is bound by the new law to accept imperfect Obedience H. our Divines say usually because it s not of merit but this labours with some defect of light if man had performed the condition of the covenant of Works it might have bin said upon this reason that Life and Salvation had bin still of Grace and Free as not merited while these considerations hinder merit How might Man's Obedience in the Covenant of Works be said to be of Free Grace because his were not proportionable to the reward no more are good Angels works to this day there was Grace in making the Covenant on easie Terms but when the Covenant is made the Reward is merited ex pacto by the performed Conditions Hence the Apostle's reasoning remains unshaked they that are justified of debt are not of grace § 9. Mr. Humphry makes a fearful bungling about this business and lends us for our help a distinction about merit and saith There is a debt or merit of Commutative Justice and of distributive it is impossible that any should engage the Almighty in the former Resp But the Almighty may engage himself in it to the creature may there not be place for commutative Justice between a superiour and inferiouur between a King and People all obligatory Covenants upon terms of mutual performances are primarily fulfilled in a way of commutative Justice distributive Justice comes in for redress in case of non-performance of mutual agreements or upon complaint thereof Of the latter i. e. distributive Justice there is a merit or debt upon compact or strict retaliation it is true that there is nothing Man does or can do in the state of innocency could merit upon strict retaliation Resp I suppose he means by his term of strict retaliation rewarding just so much as the value of the work more i. e. to reward man just as much as the value of not eating an Apple but the reward promised was infinitely more and it was promised upon so small a Condition therefore upon the performance of the condition the reward as great as it was would have become due ex pacto and hence a true debt But
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
agreeing with but essential to the Analogy of Faith If we must look on this received Doctrine to be a mistaken Notion then surely notwithstanding the Revelation that God hath given us in his Word he hath left us under Chymerian Darkness and inextricable Laborinths in the great Points of Life and Salvation but what hath he to say against this received Doctrine by the dissenting Brethren and all true Protestants If once it be supposed that we perfectly obeyed the Law in Christ there can be no room for Remission of Sins for how can Sins be forgiven to them that have obeyed the Law I cannot answer this Argument better than in the very Words of Mr. R. Capel whom none I suppose will call an Antinom in Vindication of Dr. Twiss on this Point There is a double Acception of the Term Remission of Sins 1. There is a meritorious Justification or Remission of Sins this is of Sins before they are committed 2. There 's an actual Justification or Remission of Sin and this is not till after our Sin is committed and we do believe all this none of these Exceptors do or can question Those that lean much to the Doctrine of Arminius and Vortius in this point may see all this expressed in clear terms by Vortius So that it is one thing for all the Sins of all the Elect to be pardoned to Christ for them that was done before we were or our Sins were another thing to be pardoned to them Christ was made a Curse for us by Imputation for that the Father did impute all our Sins as a Judge to Christ as a Surety and did exact all of him as guilty by that Law and this is I conceive all the meaning of Dr. Twiss and is or at least ought to be the meaning of us all and this a learned Man calls a mystical Justification because all the Sins of all the Elect are as laid upon Christ so remitted unto Christ our Head and Husband which Pardon and Absolution he took in our Name and keeps for our Use See Capel of Repentance p. 257 258. For Brevity-sake I shall add nothing further to the Answer of this Argument of the Bp. § 19. He adds It doth not follow because a Debt may be transferred to a Surety that our Sins may be transferred to Christ and his Reasons are 1. Because Sins cannot be transferred as Money A. But doth not the Spirit of God sufficiently acquaint us that it 's a moral Debt Sin is the Debt our owing and not paying Obedience to the Law and that Christ paid not Silver and Gold but his Precious Blood but he saith That altho' the Sinner be said to owe a Debt to the Law yet that Debt lyes in an Obligation to Punishment which he is liable to by the Guilt of the Fact A. Now he owns the Sinner owes a Debt to the Law but that 's not Obedience but Punishment But believe it Punishment is the Debt of the Law to the Sinner the Wages of Sin by the Law is Death But that whereby the Sinner becomes a Debtor to the Law is his Failure in giving due Obedience to the Preceptive Part of the Law for its Obedience the Law doth naturally and primarily enjoin and expect from the Subject Punishment may be transferred by the Legislator's Consent A. Punishment without Merit is but suffering and not legally inflicted and can't be done by a Legislator without Dispensing with his Law Object This Debt ariseth from Guilt of Fact how then can any discharge the Debt without taking the fault I answer That taking the fault can signifie no more than being answerable to the Law for it which must respect the Debt of Punishment Reader But doth not this quite overthrow all the Bp. hath been doing For if Punishment as always it is be answering the Law for Sin this always implies that the punished Person bears the just Demerit of his Sin else why do the Law inflict Punishment It 's not because that Man hath not obeyed but disobeyed wherein the Punished is only passive in suffering tho' active in contracting the Guilt wherein lyes the Demerit of Punishment and makes the Wages due from the Law And he that takes away the Guilt of Punishment doth satisfie the Justice of the Law A. The satisfying the Justice of the Law lyes in inflicting deserved Punishment for Guilt is not in the Law as the Bp. hath said but in a Person whom the Law hath found guilty therefore the Law is not satisfied by afflicting in general but afflicting some Person that is found guilty and faulty by the Law As to the Objection That nothing is the Merit of Punishment but Reatrus culpae he answers so little that it 's not worth our Cognizance and that little is but a Rehearsal of what hath been replied to already § 20. Bp. Suppose the Fault could be transferred as a Debt may how comes it to pass that upon this Translation there must be a present Discharge A. There must be such to him that pays the Debt and this given to him for the Benefit and Use of the Prisoner when he will please to give it Christ must be justified from our Sins and discharged or else not raised from bearing them when he had satisfied Justice all our Sins were pardoned to him but another Act of Grace is shewed in bringing home and applying Pardon to and therefore for discharging us from the Law as Prisoners of Hope thro' what Christ hath fully done and suffered B. This Doctrine tends to incourage Men to neglect or careless Performance of strict Obedience which they owe to God A. This is the Objection against the Doctrine of the Grace of God which Enemies to it made and the Apostle Paul answers Rom. 6. But the Bp. will not take his Answer there he saith it naturally disposeth Men's Minds to a passive careless Temper and wait for Supplies from above A. The Grace of God never enclines the Heart to so ill a Temper but quite contrary Tit. 2.11 12. It is one thing what a Man is by Nature and what by Grace Men by Nature are naturally enclined to abuse the Grace of God but are not so by effectual Grace Bp. They depend upon Gord's working in them to will and to do of his own good Pleasure without setting themselves to work out their own Salvation with fear and trembling A. The Bp. should have known that the Abuse of the Grace of God is no just Argument against it and if some Men do so will he censure all as such God's working in Men to will and to do and their working out their own Salvation are not Contradictions if rightly understood but to shew us that the Grace of God is first in all we do that teacheth and worketh in us to work both to begin and continue to serve God with all our Might but with Fear lest we should give the Glory of all unto our selves in leaning and depending on our own Strength The
Bp. might have spared the rest of his Banter it 's not worth Paper and Ink to spend about it § 21. He makes a great Clutter against the dissenting Brethren as if in their Doctrine of the Free Grace of God they would allow no Conditions upon any Account and saith here is something beyond meer Gratitude and Service and what 's that It 's a Connexion in away of Duty and Means in order to the end and not meer Connexion in a way of Event so that those to whom God will give Glory he will give Grace to fit Persons for it A. Hereby it 's easie to see what strange Monsters the Opposers of the Doctrine of Christ do ignorantly or maliciously represent the Professors and Defenders thereof to be Do they deny a firm Connexion between Grace and Glory Do they deny the Necessity of Holiness Indeed not as a Faederal Condition of Happiness but a Condition of necessary Connexion and as he gallops along he is pleased to fall upon some Expressions of mine Some may perhaps say What is' t but to make that Promise to secure Life upon doing of our Duties And if this be not to make the Gospel a more overgrown and swinging Covenant of Works than ever the old Law was I have lost not they my Theological Measures Neonom p. 3 and 296. Reader Upon these few quoted Lines pick'd up at a distance not truly quoted neither he makes a large Harangue about Theological Measures which Words I applied not to any but to my self and say they The Standard of Theological Measures is the Scripture And so I say And saith he St. Paul was as little suspected of setting up a Covenant of Works as any Penman in the New Testament I think so too But he hath said 2 Tim. 1.19 God hath saved us and called us with an holy Calling not according to our Works c. I subscribe to the Apostles Doctrine heartily and it 's expresly against the Bp's Doctrine who would have our Works the Foederal Condition of the Covenant of Grace when the Apostle says who hath called us not according to our Works and what is the Genuine Meaning thereof but that tho' God hath called us to Holiness yet it 's not according to our Works as a Covenant Condition thereof so Tit. 3.5 but it 's the manner of these Men to quote Places for themselves which are Diametrically opposite to them He makes a needless Sputter about working out of our Salvation and saith we are told Neon part 3. and 296. No more is meant by this than a continual maintaining a holy Jealousie of our selves lest we should fail of the Grace of God by trusting in our selves c. Now doth it become a Bp. to be so false in representing what he would expose there 's not a word of No more is meant by this but that this is meant it may contain more but this is every Believer's Duty laboriously to continue in all ways of Holiness and new Obedience but fear and tremble in Suspicion of his corrupt Heart which is apt to make his Obedience Hay and Stubble in ascribing it to his own Strength and in making it his Righteousness for his Justification and if any will rationally argue against this Doctrine I am ready to defend it as I am other Truths which I have asserted that some have snarl'd and banter'd at but have not made any fair shew of proving them Errors and till they do that I shall not honour them so far as to blot Paper about them § 22. What remains is only to draw odious Consequences upon this Doctrine of laying our Sins on Christ or his bearing the desert of Punishment for our Sins 1. There 's nothing for us to do but only to sit still and expect when God will work in us A. Doth the Text say we must sit still Doth any one say so But the Scripture saith and the Saints have practiced to be continually waiting upon God in the Prayer and all the means of Grace to work in them to will and to do and as God works it in them he works them to it knowing that of themselves they are not able to think a good Thought but herein being enabled by Divine Assistance to do a good Work they must keep a Watch over their own Hearts that they rob not God of the Glory of his Efficiency and take it to themselves Bp. Paul gives another Sense when he perswades rich Men to do Good 1 Tim. 6.18 How another Sense Doth not the Grace of God perswade and teach Men to do good Works Doth not the same Apostle tell us that the Grace of God that brings Salvation teach Men to deny Ungodliness and to live holily c. Again Is laying hold of Eternal Life by good Works a swingeing Covenant of Works No who said so But there 's a twofold laying hold of a thing one is by way of Right that is not in our Works themselves but in Christ and a laying hold by way of Participation and Possession that is an effect of the Covenant right in Christ and so all Believers by the exercise of Faith and Holiness are continually maintaining their hold of Christ and Eternal Life given them in Christ and the Theological Measure holds here that Paul hath not by this Text thrown down what he taught of the Efficacy of the Grace of God but only prosecutes that Doctrine that where it brings Salvation it teacheth Men to do good Works therefore he exhorts Timothy to teach by the Word what God's Grace works by the Word and Spirit neither doth he accommodate himself to rich Men as if he intended they should be saved in a Covenant of Works which would be no better than Bargain and Sale of Eternal Life Bp. The Foundation of the Covenant it self was certainly nothing but the Grace of God thro' Christ A. Foundation here 's very ambiguous I know the Neonom and Papists and all will say so when they say Christ purchased the Covenant of Grace i. e. the new Law and deny him to be the Condition of it and therefore he speaks always in their Dialect cunningly yea and the Foundation of our Hopes as to our obtaining the Benefits A. If so then how is Christ the Foundation of such Hopes Is it not Christ believed in as the great Obtainer of Right to Eternal Life and the great Bestower of effectual Grace for without this Faith there can be no Hope nor any purifying our self as he is pure § 23. Not as Works meritorious of a Reward so say the Socinians too but as Means which God hath appointed in order to an end A. I pray who denies all this of the Calvenists All which he calls Antin but doth he not trip up his own Heels by this Concession I say and I am sure can prove that the Condition of a Covenant compact let the thing required be little or more it 's meritorious of the covenant Reward promised and is meritum
a Law from Justification and yet all this while intend that we are justified by the works of a Law and that he should never tell us he doth not mean works of the New Law nor so much as mention it § 4. From the forementioned places these Arguments will arise against Justification by our works 1. Justification of a sinner or ungodly one as such cannot be by any works of a Law performed by him but Gods Justification of any fallen Man is such for the Major its plain against Neonomian Justification unless they will say that a natural Man may be godly while such or that which the old law calls ungodliness the new law calls godliness yea a man must be sanctified in their sense before justified while under condemnation and bound over to wrath Again the Text is clear that Abraham was ungodly when justified both by History and the Apostles for he could not do any good and all his obedience was after his Justification by Faith Now the Minor is as Evident that Gods Justification of fallen Man is such for if we be justified by the works of a Law it s not consistent with Grace for justification singly considered speaks nothing but Justice And Justification by the works of a Law performed by us speaks nothing but Justice but Justification by Grace is only as the Apostle saith when it s without the deeds of the Law performed by us 2. That Doctrine that excludes the works of every Law by which is the knowledge of Sin excludes the works of every Law performed by us but the Apostles Doctrine excludes the works of every Law that gives the knowledge of Sin Ergo the works of every Law Old New and Moral Law are excluded This Argument stands firm from Rom. 3.20 3. If the holiest Men have not expected to be justified by their own righteousness who have lived by Faith then justification is not by works of a Law But the Antecedent is true therefore the consequence The consequence appears in that David had lived long by Faith and in Holiness when he penned Psal 143.2 And if he thought to be justified by New Law works he need not have said Enter not into Judgment with thy Servant unless he had added by the Old Law but Enter into Judgment with thy Servant by the New Law for in thy sight New-Law works will justifie any Flesh Minor David Job Paul expected not to be justified by New Law Works 4. Those works that will not make a sinner clean and pure in the sight of God cannot justifie him but no New Law righteousness will take away Moral Pollution in the sight of God so as to make him clean Ergo the Major is so clear as none can deny for by Justification the justified is purged and clean from Sin in the sight of God he can Enter into Judgment with God upon the account of the righteousness he is justified by The Minor is true 1. From the confession of our Adversary that its a sinful righteousness it s condemned by the Moral Law it s not adequate to exact Justice therefore it will not cover Sin from the Eve of Gods Justice 2. From so many express Places of Scripture Job 15.4 He that is righteous before God must be clean before God Imperfect righteousness can never make us clean in the sight of God Job 15.4 It s not to be found of man born of a Woman i. e. meer man nor in any flesh living Believers are flesh living and born of women Job saith chap. 9.30 If I wash my self in snow water and make my self never so clean yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch and mine own cloaths shall abhor me now will Job's new-law-works justifie him he had been long a holy man yet he often pleaded his uprightness towards God and his integrity against his friends charge and yet you see what his new-law-righteousness amounted to chap. 40.4 42 6. 5. Let me add a Fifth Argument before I leave his Negative If there was never any Law given to fallen Man that could give Life upon the Terms thereof then there could be no righteousness to Justification by a Law but the antecedent is true therefore the consequent and both from Gal. 3.1 the Apostle's unanswerable Argument against Justification by any Law The words are very plain and full to any one that can construe Greek § 5. He proceeds to his further Proof in divers Propositions which are many so little to the purpose that it would be lost time to follow them particularly but that there 's in them many places of Scripture perverted from their true Interpretation His first Proposal is The whole scope of the Apostle is to assert and establish Justification by faith as the only way of Salvation to lapsed men Resp What if so Doth it therefore follow that the Apostle teacheth that Faith is the way of Justification by Works or quite contrary that Justification by Faith is not by the works of righteousness which we have done but by these that Christ hath done This I gather saith he from that place Rom. 1.17 The righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith which words I paraphrase thus That the Gospel alone discovers the method and way appointed by God whereby we may become righteous in his account viz. by faith in Christ and by continuance increase and exercise thereof Resp It s the Office of the Gospel to teach Sinners the way the truth and life who is Christ there 's no other righteousness that the Gospel can teach a sinner to Justification John 14.6 and that Faith lays hold on that way is the Gospel to teach a man that he is to be justified by the works of a law is it Good News to a sinner That this Text is grosly abused appears 1. Because the righteousness of God here spoken of is a righteousness revealed and therefore not in us for things already in us are not said to be revealed to us 2. It s the righteousness of God and not of Man 3. It s an objective righteousness that is here spoken of such as is made known to our Faith by Revelation therefore not Faith it self 4. It appears by the Proof in that the life of a just one is by faith feeding upon another's righteousness not his own In a word according to Mr. Cl's sence it should be this The Gospel is the Method of God unto Salvation for therein is the righteousness of man revealed from faith to faith viz. the more a man believes in Christ the more he believes he is justified by his own works and this is that he lives by he lives by faith i. e. by believing his faith to be works He disproves Justification by works of a law as inconsistent therewith because all are sinners and therefore none can be justified by their works and on the other hand that they must be justified by faith Resp One would think this man spake now good Divinity but his
it which is not to get life by our own works but living by and upon the righteousness of another by faith and thus he argues from Moses's Law to every Law that works of neither cannot justifie and when he speaks of Moses his law he seldom understands the meer Ceremonial Law but the Moral also as recognized under Moses and that of Gal. 5.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye are abdicated from Christ whoever of you are justified by the works of a law in Mr. Cl's sence it is whoever of you are justified by the works of some law only so Paul opposeth Christ himself to the works that are of a Law Phil. 3.9 His own righteousness he saith is such viz. this he desires to be found out of but in Christ viz. his righteousness by Faith which he opposeth to his own as that which he calls the righteousness of God in opposition to the righteousness of Man He saith indeed in one place Works are mentioned in general Rom. 4.2 It s true but he takes not Notice how often Law is mentioned in general and so the works of a Law are general where-ever spoken so of But he saith these words must be understood with a limitation too and be meant of the same kind of works Resp And therefore the words import thus if Abraham were justified by some kind of works he hath wherein to Glory but why should some kind of works give Abraham more cause of boasting than others He will say because some are great and perfect others little and imperfect but I say there 's no specifick difference between great and little of the same kind besides he that attains a great End by a small work hath more cause of boasting than he that attains it by great work and Labour therefore a Man may rather boast of the works of the New Law than of the Old and then they are all works opposed by him to Faith for he saith the reward is to him that worketh not that that Expression excludes all works for Paul could not be so absurd to express works by not working § 8. If Paul understood himself c. We must grant and conclude that Paul disputes only against the works of the Law Resp No doubt he knew his own Mind and was consistent with himself and if such plain Expressions are intelligible he excludes all works of any Law what ever but he gives his reason why he means we are justified by works when he saith positively we are not justified by works and that he that worketh not but is ungodly Because they were such works as did frustrate and evacuate the undertakings of Christ Rom. 4.14 Gal. 5.4 Resp So do all works of a Law brought in for righteousness for if the great End of Christ's undertaking was to be our Justifying-righteousness then any works brought into the room thereof frustrate Christ's righteousness but that was the chief End of Christ's undertaking Rom. 4.25 2 Cor. 5.21 The words of Rom. 4.14 are if they that be of a Law be Heirs i. e. such as claim by the works of a Law performed by them Faith is made Void i. e. it s to no purpose to believe on another for righteousness Faith is made empty of the righteousness of another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Promise or Gospel is abdicated for the same thing cannot be Law and Promise or Gospel and the reason is given because you see the law of Moses worketh wrath and where there 's no law there 's no transgression the law determines the transgression and the sinner to wrath for it and this doth every law whatever The other Scriptures were spoken to before 2d Reason They are such works as he opposeth every way to faith and also to Grace Gal. 4.4 therefore they are not faith or any inherent grace Gal. 5.4 But he never opposeth faith and Gospel-Works Resp He always opposeth Faith and all Works in the Point of Justification because Works justifie by themselves but Faith by its Object only Because Gospel-works suppose Faith or Grace being the fruit of Faith and product of Grace Resp A pitiful Reason because a man that runs apace is supposed to see therefore a man runs by his eyes and after this manner he applies 1 Cor. 15.10 by the Grace of God I am what I am and laboured more abundantly than they all ergo Paul was justified by works is not this a very learned consequence I grant saith he faith and works of the law are frequently opposed by the Apostle Resp Then faith and works of a law are not the same in this he gives us the Cause Let us see his Concessions further I grant saith he a meer profession of faith is opposed to works James 2.14 Resp True Faith fruitful in good works is opposed to false faith that has no fruits 3. I grant that even gospel-Gospel-works are opposed to Grace tho not to faith both in Election Rom. 11.5 6. and in Vocation 2 Tim. 1.9 Resp Works of a law by which a man claims Justification are not gospel-Gospel-works but Legal and they are opposed to Grace both in Election Vocation and Justification but as Election is not on the foresight of any works or righteousness no not of Christ's and Vocation is not upon our performance of any works no more is Justification I grant God chooseth not upon foresight of good works or faith in us neither call any because they have faith or good works but that they may have them his Grace is antecedent to any good in us but now the case is otherwise in reference to those priviledges which follow Vocation for God justifies and glorifies us yet not as the meritorious cause thereof but only as a way means and qualification c. Resp Well now the Case is altered Grace goes no further than Vocation there it makes a stand and man does the rest himself but let us enquire a little into this Mystery Is a man effectually called and made holy and yet not justified for he that is made holy in order to Justification suppose qualified and conditionated for it is in order of Nature holy before justified i. e. hath the Spirit of Holiness the Gift of Grace and inherent righteousness whilst a child of wrath and actually under the curse of the law 2. All Justification for Holiness because it is the work of a law is meritorious righteousness for there 's no law justifies but because the performance of the condition deserves it in Justice Hence all Qualifications and Means made legally conditionally to the remunerative part of the Law are deserving thereof and meritorious and undeniably so for if the absence of the Qualification and the Means or Non-performance of the Condition doth merit or deserve the Wages of the Sin from the Law enjoyning the said Qualifications or Conditions then having and performance thereof doth upon the same Reason merit and deserve the Reward of Righteousness but the Antecedent is true therefore the
faith and works in Justification he should have said in the Neonomian sense knowing we are not justified by the works of a law but by the works of the law of faith we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ now least any should say this faith in Christ is a work of the new law he saith and not by the works of a law for in thy sight shall no flesh living be justified by them Now I pray were any saved under the Old Testament they will say presently yes by the works of the New Law nay but the Spirit of God saith positively no flesh living was ever justified no not by a new law VVill any man dare then to venture his Justification upon works of a law old or new Doth the Apostle say we have believed in Jesus that we may be justified by the works of the law of faith So he should have said to have expressed his meaning in these mens sence No he saith to prevent all mistakes in this kind not by the work of a law and he proves it And he adds for Conviction of Peter of his Error in complying with the Judaizing Christians if we i. e. you and I seek to be justified by Christ we are worse are found transgressors by endeavouring by our practice to build People up in Justification by their own righteousness the works of a law which we have destroyed by our Ministry § 22. Arg. 7. The opposition is full Rom. 2.20 21 22. where the righteousness of a law is directly opposed to the righteousness of faith as two righteousnesses opposite in Justification there is an opposition But in the Justification of a sinner the righteousness of faith and works are so opposed in the said place for by the righteousness of a law he said shall no flesh living be justified in the sight of God he should have added his exception if he had intended men were to be justified by the righteousness of the new law and his reason is that by a law is the knowledge of sin i. e. conviction of sin but no remedy for the law only makes a sinner guilty before God and his own Conscience but how then justified Answ It is by another righteousness the gift of God which we have not performed but which is received by faith therefore called the righteousness of God which is by faith without our law-performances but the righteousness of Christ who fulfilled the law this is that which is in and upon every Believer But saith Mr. Cl. I infer we are not justified by the active righteousness of Christ p. 46. or his obedience to the law of works imputed to us for then we are justified by the law or Covenant of works c. Resp The same inference will hold if only the passive obedience of Christ be imputed for what was that but fulfilling the Covenant of Works in Satisfaction All that Christ did or suffered was obedience to the Covenant of Works and his righteousness is justifying to us before God in foro legis the difference of Law and Gospel lying here in the Covenant of Grace That our righteousness for Justification is not of our own performance of obedience to the law for that is legal only but our Gospel-righteousness is Christ's perfect performance of the most legal righteousness and this freely bestowed on us and received by faith CHAP. XII Of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness Section 1. Mr. H. insists on Justification by Works § 2. He saith the Imputation of Christ's righteousness is not found in Scripture § 3. His Third Argument against Imputation of Christ's Righteousness § 4. Of Imputation of Christ's passive Obedience § 5. How far his Argument agrees with Socinus § 6. He seeks to avoid the Socinian Rock § 7. Active and passive Obedience of Christ imputed § 8. His further inference § 9. Christ came to procure a New Law § 10. Of the Protestant's Appeal Sect. 1. I Shall here take Mr. H. in hand because I find he is most positive in the denial of it upon all accounts only he tells us of imputation of effects which are not imputable and besides is a total denial of Imputation of Christ's Righteousness it self His Arguments are 1. Taken from the places of Scripture that seem to evince the imputation of our own righteousness to us for Justification VVhat he saith of boasting and merit hath bin spoken to already the latter he doth after many Good Morrows in a manner grant whereby his Doctrine is eradicated by the Apostle He tells us the large extent of Christ's righteousness to all the world in procurement of a law of Grace which Doctrine I have shewed the absurdity and vanity of elsewhere It is manifest in Scripture Mediocr p. 20. that good works holy duties and performances are accepted of God and rewarded Resp It is true but acceptation of good works doth not prove justification of their persons by them nor the rewarding them for Abel's person being justified by faith his services were also accepted in the same righteousness he was justified by and rewarded graciously in Christ yea his works were witnessed to by God before the World but such approbation of works as the fruits of faith is not Justification in God's sight in the strict eye of his Justice That place of Matth. 19.17 If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments where Christ answers him according to the true tenor of his question which was what good may I do that I may inherit eternal life Mr. H. and Mr. Cl. must needs say that he sought for righteousness by an old-law righteousness which doth appear by Christ's Answer and his Reply Indeed the whole of Christ's Discourse seems clearly to evince that Christ confuted his Confidence in his own righteousness and convinced him of it because Christ gave him a Command that put him to the non-plus and sent him away sorrowful and therefore is no proof of Justification for he was not justified The Apostle Rom. 2.7 speaks after the tenor of the Covenant of Works which requires perseverance in good works not at all of works or doing as justifying righteousness that of 2 Tim. 4.7 8. speaks of Gods acceptation of the services of the Apostles and rewarding them in Christ but nothing of his righteousness for Justification which was Christ's only that he desired to be found in that of Matth. 25.34 hath the same import come ye blessed c. it holds only God's owning and declaring the acceptance of the works and services of the Saints as performed by faith in Christ alone for the accepting their Persons and Services besides it appears sufficiently by the context they never brought their works to account for Justification He brings in also Ezek. 18.26 27. which is as little to the purpose The Lord there answers a charge the People had against him in not dealing uprightly equally and justly with them v. 25. which the Lord answers That
if Christs Righteousness be not accepted for our Justification from the Old Law and imputable to us it s not desirable to be imputed to us to bring us under a new Law and further Bondage Besides if Christ purchased this Law-making Power it s for himself and not for us for they will tell you he did not Purchase the Performance of the Condition and when they say we are justified by our Works for the sake of Christs Merits their meaning is because Christ purchased the Law and Promulgation of it just as if they should say if Adam had stood he had been justified by his Works for the sake of God who made the Law for if there had been no Law there had been no Justification by it so we are justified say they by the Law of Grace for the sake of Christ who merited the Law and became Law-maker this is all they mean and this is the Neonomian Cheat in the great Point of Satisfaction whereby they would by retaining the Word only without the Sence cover themselves from the odious Name of Socinians Lastly He makes Grace and Justice in respect of God to be all one so that to be justified by Works of our own and by Grace is all one and Paul's Epistles are all Non-sense § 4. Mr. Cler. p. 64. tells us He will offer his Reasons why Faith is our subordinate Righteousness to the First and Second we have spoken sufficiently already The Third is Because we frequently read of the Righteousness of Faith which he saith is our Conformity to the Rule of the New-Law in sincere Believing and imperfect Doing the Places he mentions are Rom. 4.11 13 Chap. 9.30 Chap. 10.6 Gal. 5.5 Heb. 11.5 Resp The Righteousness of Faith is the Righteousness of Christ apprehended and received by Faith for Rom. 4.11 tells us that Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith which Righteousness of Faith Abraham had being uncircumcised that the same righteousness may be imputed to them and what righteousness is that it is that through which iniquity is forgiven and Sin covered that it might not be imputed and this is the righteousness that 's imputed without works Hence I argue That that righteousness through which iniquity is forgiven and sin covered and is imputed without works is the righteousness of Christ and not ours but the righteousness of Faith according to the Apostle in that place is such as appears v. 6 7 9 10. Is there any iniquity forgiven in the New Law Righteousness no they say pardon is consequent to it it s had of the old law Is any Sin cover'd by it from the Eye of God's Justice no they say God sees their Sins by the old Law Is righteousness imputed without works no it cannot be because its faith as a work is imputed v. 13. The Promise that he should be the heir of the world was not through a law then not through any works of a law but through the righteousness of faith therefore it was the the righteousness of Christ the righteousness of a law is excluded therefore works and it s here also what the righteousness of faith apprehends That of Rom. 9.31 and chap. 10.6 we shall shew by and by was the righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith The Apostle Gal. 5.5 intends Christ's righteousness for what should men do for the hope of that righteousness which they have in themselves for by faith all saith he are one in Christ Jesus true faith bringing forth love as such apprehends and waits for more and more comfort in the righteousness of Christ That spoken of Hebrews 11.7 is the righteousness of Christ promised the Seed of the Woman that was the great Promise believed by the Antidiluvian Patriarchs and by the Death and Satisfaction of the Seed of the Woman promised they believed he should break the Serpents head Noah became heir of this righteousness which he received and lived comfortably in the enjoyment of by faith in the Promise § 5. Mr. Cl. brings for a further confirmation of this Argument those places which speak of the righteousness of God which they bring as a great Block in their way and therefore take much pains to remove it Mr. Cl. saith this Phrase hath been much mistaken by many who have been led into error thereby and therefore he will endeavour to give the true sence of it to this purpose also Mr. H. we will therefore very diligently mark what they say The places are Rom. 1.17 3.21 22. 10.3 2 Cor. 5.22 Phil. 3.9 We say by the righteousness of God is meant the righteousness of Christ but these men say it s our own inherent righteousness Mr. H. saith That our righteousness is called Gods in opposition meerly to that of works let a man do what he can by his own strength or by God's aid he can never come to the law of works or Moses God hath therefore been pleased to make us a new law a law of faith or grace or new covenant having lower terms in performance whereof the sinner in respect of the law may be righteous it s a righteousness performed by Grace which God mercifully condescends to accept instead of that which is perfect through the merits of our Saviour and in regard of that acceptation N. B. or this good will it s called his or the righteousness which is of him Lo here is the true Key which opens the Mind of the Apostle therefore Mr. H. takes it to be the new-law-righteousness which in these places is called the righteousness of God becouse opposed to the old-law-righteousness because also wrought of God Mr. Cl's resolution is in a manner the same That the imperfect new-law-righteousness is the righteousness of God because it is of his Institution as for perfect obedience to the law which is legal righteousness that is righteousness in the strictest sence and in strict justice can be taken for no other and therefore the reward must be debt But that an imperfect work such as Faith and Obedience should be accounted righteousness must arise from the gracious Appointment Designation and Ordination of God who hath set up this Way and Method of becoming righteous under the Gospel and hence it s said reckoned accounted imputed for righteousness which Phrase imports Grace and Favour as some note § 6. Mr. Cl's reasons for his Opinion are 1. Because the Phrase of submitting to the righteousness Rom. 10.3 of God seems to import that this is a new law institution or way naturally we are not acquainted with Resp The Text runs quite against him being ignorant of the righteousness of God how doth that appear seeking to establish their own righteousness they submitted not to yielded not to accept of the righteousness of God 1. God's righteousness and man's are here directly opposed to each others 2. It is directly against Mr. Cl's reason in that man need not be taught to set up his own righteousness they naturally adhere to it 3. They
beloved as he was was ignorant of it but that very day as v. 16. According to thy righteousness I beseech thee let thy anger and thy fury be turned away a Neonomian will Gloss thus i. e. according to our righteousness of the New Law v. 18. We do not present our supplications to thee for our righteousness i. e. say the Neonomians the righteousness of the Old Law not of the New but for thy great mercy that say they is the Law of Grace so they will have their Belly-full of law shortly § 2. Mr. H. gives a wild Gloss upon Eph. 1.4 According as he hath chosen us in Christ before the Foundation of the World he saith the Election of Grace is the Election of Grace and Gods choosing us is the taking the Way and Method of Grace and not of Works a choice way of saving Resp Ay indeed it s a choice way to save by Grace and not by Works but to save by Grace and yet by Works is a Contradiction in Paul's Logick Election is in Christ how according to common Notion of Election is over hard to conceive but take it in this Notion and here is even Day-light if you take it for the Law of Grace the Law is the Will of the Law-giver and that 's all one with the Gospel there 's no difficulty in it Resp This Man is so fond of his New Law that ask him of what Place of Scripture you will what it means and he will tell you its the New Law what is Election The New Law what is Redemption Purchase of the New Law How are you justified by the Righteousness of the New Law how shall you be judged by the New Law what 's the Gospel the New Law may not these Men be fitly call'd Neonomian that thus New Law it its hard to conceive how Election is in Christ why Because he cannot conceive Christ to be a common Person or Head of the Elect and that Christ as such was chosen and the whole Body in him but tell him that we are chosen in the New Law and the Difficulty is removed and you see what he makes of the Gospel it is the Law-giver I think its Time to give over talking with Men whose Wits go a Wool-gathering once more though § 3. 2 Cor. 5.19 God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself not imputing their Trespasses and hath committed to us the Word of Reconciliation the Word is the Gospel declaring to the World this purchased Pardon the Pardon is General a standing Pardon an Act of Grace yet if any will have Benefit by it he must look into the Act and see how he is to be qualified Resp The Gospel he saith is the Declaration of the New Law the making of which was an Act of general Pardon for all the World and for this Pardon Christ atoned none could obtain this but Christ and here all the Rogues and Whores in the World continuing so are pardoned at once now the silly Antinomian talks only of the Pardon of Believers before Faith now a Neonomian doth Antinomize to Purpose and Mr. H. is willing Christ shall have the Honour of saving Peter so far as he saved Judas and so far it 's from the Love of the Father in sending his Son to fulfil the Law how By no Obedience to it or Satisfaction for wrong done to him in it and in this Sence he will allow Grace is without Condition i. e. as much as Creation is Grace and God's giving a Law at first it 's true whatever Act God puts forth at first to a Created Being in a way of Nature or Jurisdiction or Mercy it may be said to proceed from his Sovereignty but it cannot shine forth in a way of Grace unless it be the bestowing some good Thing in a way of Speciality Peculiarity and in Distinction from others not to do something in general for all the World in common this is not that which will bear the Name of Grace likewise considering that what he calls a Law of Grace is but an Exhibition of a Law of Works for it is but do believe God had made the first Law as much a Law of Grace as this had the World been as full of People as since and more for it had been easier to perfect Man to perform than now an un-performable condition is to lapsed man This is Grace without conditions he saith even as much as the first Covenant for God made that Covenant without Man's causing it the Condition was lege constitura in the law enacted the previous causes of a law whether it proceed from the meer pleasure of the Legislator or obtained from him by Petition or Purchace are not considered in the law by the Subject it s the tenour of it that he looks at and is concerned in it therefore the making a law the proper nature whereof is to be conditional and promulgatting of it to all the world is no Pardon therefore he soon trips up the heels of his General Pardon in saying If any come to look for benefit by this Pardon Act of Grace Law Covenant Testament any thing a declaration of the will of God as he saith which being a law is not therefore Grace he must read it and see the conditions or terms that God requires And are not these conditions required of all the World are they therefore pardoned because they are required of them its required of every man he saith to believe repent walk sincerely in order to the benefit if these be the conditions of the Covenant then not free because working conditions are required of all the World which by the World are unperformable The main of the Text he cannot see he is so dazled with his New Law v. 18. All things are of God even the reconciliation of the World as well as its new Creation and therefore the righteousness by which reconciliation is made is of God and therefore saith reconciling us by Expiation and Satisfaction for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying reconciling by an Expiatory Sacrifice to himself the enmity was between the Sinner and God and God in this Grace is the first mover of Reconciliation by or in Jesus Christ in whom the righteousness of Satisfaction is giving to us the word of reconciliation i. e. the Gospel in which this reconciliation is preached whereby the Sinner seeing the preventing love of God in the mystery of Reconciliation by the Impetration of Christ he may have the application of this Grace also by Faith for this is the great doctrin that reconciles the heart and brings him to believe This he repeats v. 9. shewing only exegetically that we who are to be saved are the world in the sense of the Scripture in this truth by an usual synecdoche of the choice part being put for the whole and the whole for the better part not imputing their Trespasses shew which is the great thing done in reconciliation of a Sinner to
Alexipharmacon OR A FRESH ANTIDOTE AGAINST Neonomian Bane and Poyson TO THE Protestant Religion Being a Reply to the late Bishop of Worcester's Discourse of Christ's Satisfaction in Answer to the Appeal of the late Mr. Steph. Lob. And also a Refutation of the Doctrine of Justification by Man's own Works of Obedience delivered and defended by Mr. John Humphrey and Mr. Sane Clark contrary to Scripture and the Doctrine of the first Reformers from Popery If there had been a Law given which could have given Life verily Righteousness had been by the Law But the Scripture hath concluded all under Sin that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe Gal. 3.21 22. By ISAAC CHAVNCY M. A. London Printed for and Sold by W. Marshall at the Bible in Newgate-Street 1700. THE PREFACE TO THE READER THE Points Controverted in this small Treatise are not of the least moment to the Christian Religion all Reducible to these two great Questions 1. Whether our Lord Jesus Christ in his Suffering bore the Personal guilt of any or no 2. Whether our Inherent Obedience to the New Law be the Righteousness by which a Believer is Justified before God The first Question comes to be discussed upon the Controversie about change of Persons Mr. Lob asserting That the change of Persons between Christ and Believers consisted in Christ being made sin for us by the Imputation of our sins to him in a legal Sence and a Believers being made the Righteousness of Christ by Imputation and both by transaction of our Personal guilt and punishment due to us for Sin to Christ and of his righteousness in bearing sin and punishment to us This change of Persons the Scripture asserts in plain Words 2 Cor. 5.21 This Mr. Lob asserts Report p. 13. and the Bishop denies and saith That the change was not in respect of the guilt of Sin because Christ bore the Personal guilt of none and whatever Christ did or suffered the personal guilt of sin remains on Believers and can never be taken away But he tells us of a kind of Change that he is for viz. That Christ was punisht that we might not be punisht and this is all our stead that Christ stood in now if Christ stood not in our stead as Sinners and he was not made Sin for us it s to assert that which is Expresly contrary to Scripture and most irrational to men of Vnderstanding as shall be made appear And the Change which is pretended by the Bishop is no change in the sence of the Spirit of God at best it can be but a partial change neither as a Publick person nor in the Room of the Sinner as such It is such a change as when three persons are condemned and they are thro' the mercy of the Legislator to cast Lots for their lives one only to die now be on whom Deaths Lot falls dieth that in the event the other may not die yet this Person dieth but in Relation to his own Sins not upon the account of the others Sins Many Instances might be given of the like Nature where a Man does or suffer for another that the other may not and here is a change of Persons in respect of Punity and Impunity but Note that it s no true Change if Desert remains on the Original Transgressor and the Sufferer suffer under no Desert neither is such Sufferings Punishment in any Law Sence neither can that Person be ever Righteousness that standeth in the Personal Guilt of his Sin unremoved but this is not the Place to enlarge on this Point I shall only Note that in one thing the Bishop got the Weather-gage of Mr. Lob Mr. Lob having in express Terms renounced that Change of Persons which Dr. Crisp Asserts The Bishop very honestly proves that Dr. Crisp asserted no other Change of Persons then what Mr. Lob contends for and therein he hath done Justice both to Dr. Crisp and Mr. Lob and truly its but a sorry Business of any Man of Learning and Ingenuity to inveigh highly against the Opinion of another as erroneous when he himself is necessitated by his Principles to hold the same thing only a little differing in way of Expressions Neither let the Reader think that I appear to Justifie Mr. L's appealing to the Bishop for I was always against it and declared to him how much I and others was offended at it and at his nauseous fawning and flattering of him as if he intended to lay down his Faith at his Feet for he could not but know the Bishops settled Opinion in this Point as I told him by the Letters he wrote to Mr. H. and Mr. W. yea and to himself before his Appeal and then if so what a piece of Pageantry was it in him to Appeal to the Bishop but it must be done it seems the Wind of his Phantasie without any Reason hurrying him this Way the Issue whereof is that were Mr. L. alive he would see he is inevitably run a ground and therefore although I can't get him off as to that matter yet I hope to see the Truth safe the main Thing which the Good Man contended for for I am not to defend Men who will have their Imprudencies and Imperfections but the good Cause he defended The Second great Thing I contend for is the Righteousness of Christ that it is the only Righteousness that a Believer is justified by Mr. Humphr and Mr. Clerk Assert our Justification by a Believers own inherent Righteousness i. e. by their Works of Obedience to the New Law a Tenent that hath an inseparable Connexion unto the former I shall not detain the Reader any longer therein but refer him to the Treatise it self Lastly I finding in the Bishops Treatise a Presentation of the Independants brought in by the Presbyterians for holding several Antinomian Principles which the Rebuker calls Bane and Poyson in that Form of Prayer which he hath taught his Disciples I have thought it requisite to Entitle my Book accordingly Alexipharmacon and though I take the Rebuker to be of too haughty a Constitution abounding in Choler to be my Patient yet I am not discouraged from exposing this Preparation to Publick Advantage not doubting but some may reap Benefit thereby and hence I have endeavoured also to correct the Druggs which the unskilful Rebuker hath cast away with his prophane Faugh for Bane and Poyson and shew that if they be but a little scraped and wip'd from the Dirt and Filth which he and his slovenly Apothecary hath put upon them they will become a Christians wholesome Food and substantial Medicine being the Fruit and Leaves of the Tree of Life for the healing of the Nations Rev. 22.2 A Catalogue of Mr Isaac Chauncy's Books Printed for and Sold by William Marshall at the Bible in Newgate Street 1. NEonomianism Vnmask'd Or the Ancient Gospel pleaded for against the other called a new Law or Gospel in a Theological Debate
might be given tho' these are enough to demonstrate the falseness of the B's odious consequence and we may as well wonder that any that bear any reverence to our blessed Saviour should not abhor such dirty and irrational consequences as these are especially when so expresly contrary to the word of God and common reason Isa 53. 2 Cor. 5. 3. Hence these men dare not but say there is a guilt translated to Christ I pray what guilt Is it not personal Is there any guilt in the world besides what is of one Person or another But our B. will find out a guilt that 's not personal which we will examine § 5. The other branch of his division of translation of guilt is of Legal Guilt which he saith lyes in an obligation to Punishment by virtue of the Sanction of the Divine Law Now this guilt implies two things 1. The desert of Punishment which follows personal guilt and cannot be transferred by change of persons c. 2. The obligation to undergo the deserved punishment here may intervene a change of persons c. Reader Now observe what kind of guilt the B. will have Christ to bear 1. He saith it 's legal guilt but what 's that according to him It 's the obligation to punishment and that 's in the sanction of the law i. e. it 's subjectively in the law hence it 's the guilt of the law that Christ must bear and not the guilt of any person It 's true that obligation to punishment is formally in the law and therefore obligation to punishment cannot be called guilt but guilt is of a person transgressing the law not in the law transgressed 2. He saith this guilt implies two things What is the meaning of implies Is it that the laws obligation of a transgressor to punishment essentially contains in it those two things 1. An actual desert of punishment and obligation of some Person to undergo it Surely not for if the law had never been transgressed it had contain'd this in it that if ever any do deserve it they shall be obliged to punishment 2. Doth it imply these integrally their desert of punishment and obligation to punishment are the parts of the forenamed legal guilt then the desert of punishment as well as obligation to punishment i. e. no other than the fault must lye in the law for it can't be in more subjects than one and the B. must come under the force of this Dilemma if he will allow any such thing as guilt that it is subjectively in some person and so personal or in the law it self Now there 's no fault in the law therefore no guilt 3. He saith desert of punishment follows personal guilt but by his favour it is personal guilt it self the merit of punishment is in the fault the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for what deserves punishment but sin to which the law makes the wages of Death due not continuing in all things written in the law The law enquires no further than it finds the fault wherein it hath found the desert it 's formally and essentially in it it 's true the sentence follows this but the desert lyes in the essential moral contrariety of the action to the obedience of the law required it the wisdom of God saith the taking away of guilt is to take away sin 4. He asserts but hath not proved That personal guilt can't be transferred by change of persons His strong reason is For no man can cease to deserve punishment for his own faults nor deserve that another should be punished for them The assertion is that personal guilt can't be transferred then certainly no guilt at all for there is no guilt but is personally contracted and personally adhering and therefore Christ bore no guilt of Sin at all most contrary to Scripture and the very known nature of a surety which always is in bearing the sin of the transgressor by change of persons 2. He argues to prove it That no man can cease to deserve punishment for his own faults An excellent assertion If so I am sure God can't cease to punish him for he renders to every one according to his deserts he is a just God 2. This position throws down the whole satisfaction of Christ at one blow for if Christ hath not taken off the personal desert of sin from any he hath not satisfied the law for if according to the B. he takes off the legal obligation of any to punishment he takes off the desert by the law 3. It will follow that not only believers but the glorified Saints in Heaven are still under the personal guilt and desert of punishment and if so they can't be in the favour of God they can't be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without spot before the Throne they are under the personal guilt of all their sins and this is no spot of God's Children but an essential form of a Hellish State The B. here hath very inconsiderately run himself upon the rocks tho' with the rest of the Neonomians he doth so frequently charge those that are contrary minded with Shallowness Illiterateness c. It is one thing to sin and contract a personal guilt and another thing to lye under this personal guilt sure bare pardon of sin by him that hath power to pardon takes off personal guilt in the B's sence the obligation of the person to punishment else after pardon the law may take him up again and would even in mens proceedings by law but in God's there 's not only the pardon of the sinner but a just satisfaction to the law Rom. 8.1 § 6. The B. adds Nor deserve that another should be punish'd for them What will not men of perverse minds say Whoever asserted that sinners deserved that Christ should suffer for them I wonder men are not asham'd of such gross impositions quite contrary to the known minds of others but to the nature of the thing for where did any debtor or criminal deserve that another should suffer for him either by his good works to deserve so much good of another or by his evil works to make another that is neither criminal nor accessory guilty How much less may it be said of us that we deserved that Christ should be punished for us The B. saith Christ was punished for us the obligation of the law binding us over to punishment and that Christ took the punishment in our stead was it because we deserv'd it or not If it was not because we deserv'd if it was not in our stead we say not that it was in the nature of our sins to deserve his punishment but in the grace wisdom and justice of the Legislator As the B. saith it was of grace of God to find a ransom it was of the grace of the Son to give up himself unto justice for this end it was to the honour of divine justice to accept of his glorious satisfaction in the sinners room and stead here 's
God may freely forgive them without disparagement to his wisdom and justice without any Satisfaction But what if God will not He hath revealed this in his word that he will by no means acquit the guilty without satisfaction we are not speaking of God's absolute Power but of his ordinate neither are we speaking of God's acting by his soveraign dominion but by his acting in a way of justice because where there 's sin there is a law transgressed and God's dealing with the sinner must be in a way of justice unless God repeal his law or dispense with it as the Neonom will have it but we can't admit thereof But 2. Why can't God upon the same reason forgive a criminal by his prerogative as well as a debtor An earthly King may why not the King of Kings 3. And why is not sin a debt in a proper sence enough Is it not a debt to God's justice and made so by God's law and treated as such in the very point of Satisfaction It 's such a Debt as must be satisfied 1 Pet. 1.18 19. 1 Cor. 6.23 and 7.23 and elsewhere must it of necessity be a money debt and no other He saith I can't but wonder at the learned author that he doth at the same time assert our sins to be considered as debts and the necessity of vindictive justice for what vindictive justice belongs to a creditor I have rather wondred at the learned Author that he should be taken with such a Delirium as to suppose B. Stillingfleet to be for a Commutation of Persons in sano sensu having been sufficiently informed by his Letters of his Neonom principles before he appeal to him and flattered him so offensively as he did But ad rem 1. The B. knew that similitude or metaphorical expressions are not to be forc'd to run on four feet for tho' sins be most fitly called debts to the justice of God yet God is not therefore a money creditor but with necessity of Vindictive Justice to a creditor sure imprisonment is vindictive justice or seizing on all that a man hath doth not God in justice seize on all a sinner hath by his curse and cast him into prison till he hath paid the utmost Farthing Matth. 5.26 Sure Christ's own Phraseology might be admitted by us but it seems not by this B. and some others see further his Neonom spirit he calls Christ's language in calling sin debts to God and ascribing Vindictive Justice to such an adversary rude and inconsistent and he can hardly think such ever penetrated into these matters but took up with a sett of phrases I always found these Neonom great boasters of their own wit and deep penetration into things answer their adversaries still more by contemptuous and approbrious language than by any fair way of argumentation tho' I must confess I do not find this learned B. so addicted to this foul way of treating those that dissent from him as many others of the Neonom kidney that are far short of him in learning and gentility The main design of this discourse in answer to Mr. Lob's Appeal is to shew how much the good man was mistaken as to believe that he the B. was for Commutation of persons in his sence but he was for Commutation in Mr. W. and the Neonom sence The meaning of all that there hath been such a sputter about and so much foul language unbecoming Christians much more Ministers lyes in this one Question whether Christ was made of God sin and curse for sinners And whether the said sinners believing become the righteousness of God in him The Commutation according to scripture lyes here that Christ instead of the guilty sinner became sin and curse and that the Sinner in Christ becomes righteous and guitless Now saith the B. That the change was not in respect of sin asserting that Christ bore no personal guilt but that he bore only punishment that we should not be punish'd upon our Faith and Repentance so that he must hold the Commutation of persons is not in respect of sin and righteousness for that person that is taken from the guilt of sin in foro justitiae can never be righteous but only in respect of punishment and impunity 4. That Christ was punish'd that the sinner might not but that this change was not absolute but conditional and to be future upon terms to be performed by one party when he should have an actual Being in the world when he should perform the fixed conditions of Faith Repentance and good Works Again he will not have it such a change as is between the surety and debtor but such a change as is between two private persons one doing a good turn for on the behalf and so instead of the other denying Christ to be a publick person to be in his Mediatorship a surety or legal Representative before God's Tribunal of Justice and this I find every where to be the Neonom Doctrine But I shall assert that the B's change of persons is none at all for if it be not of persons as standing in relation to the law it 's none at all in a law sence Christ bearing no guilt by law obligation and the sinner being freed from none thereby this is enough to say of it here my design being to be short I can't fill up my paper with rehearsal of the very Words which I have tired my self too much in already nor enter upon a tedious Litigation about Words or Sense of them and if Dr Crisp or the Bp. have not well express'd themselves I leave those Words to themselves and apply my self only to the true sense and meaning of the Bp. in that point which he mainly prosecutes in this treatise Bp. p. 79. My business at present is about transferring our very faults upon Christ which Dr. Crisp calls the guilt of the fact A. I need not here tell the Reader that the Assertor doth distinguish between the fact and the guilt of the fact the Culpa reatus culpae the Bp. himself hath vindicated him from the charge of saying that the fact it self was charged on Christ p. 77. Dr. Crisp denies Christ to be the actual transgressor but asserted that he had the personal guilt of our Sins upon him and built his whole Hypothesis upon it This then is the Question in short to be discussed Whether Christ in his sufferings bare upon him the personal guilt of Sin The affirmative is the truth in our judgment let who will assert it the Bp. holds the negative throughout his treatise as being the vertical point upon which the whole controversie of change of persons doth turn § 2. I desire to speak as plainly in this matter as may be and as briefly and shall pass over all the proofs that the Bp. hath made that this was the Dr's judgment with this concession that it was so yea and all the needless remarks interpretations and banters that he hath upon what the Doctor hath
expacto now then if he concede that our Works are not meritorious of a Reward he gives us all we contend for provided he yeild that the Condition of a Covenant compact is meritorious of the Reward which all Men of Sense will acknowledge well then what Place after all this noise is Works to have He saith They are only Means which God hath appointed in order to an end A. If this be rightly meant we will grant it and yet hold our Assertion untouch'd for tho' all Foederal Conditions are Means yet all Means are not Covenant Conditions antecedent things are Means of coming to consequent but not always Foederal Conditions Now if he will say eternal Life is that end I will say more that he hath not Eternal Life who hath not such a Faith which hath its Fruits unto Holiness and that this Holy Life belongs to and is that Eternal Life begun in us Bp. As a Son that hath an Estate promised him of the free Gift of his Father but yet he requires some Conditions to be performed by him before he comes to the Possession of it can any one think this to be Bargain and Sale between Father and Son A. The Comparison is too short to illustrate much less to prove the thing For 1. In this the Father will not enjoin any Conditions but such as the Son hath Ability to perform As for Example He will not enjoin a poor lame Cripple to leap over a Hedge first nor a Stone-blind illiterate Son to read a Chapter in the Hebrew Bible Now to say that our Case runs parallel it 's false for if God promise Eternal Life upon the condition of our good Works who are dead in Trespasses and Sins it 's to do it on an unperformable condition which becometh not the Wisdom of God 2. And he saith Can any one think this to be Bargain and Sale A. Yes sure there are such Fools in the World If all be so who believe not as the Bp. saith I would ask the Bp. if his Father should tell him Child if thou wilt resign up thy Bishoprick of Worcester to thy Brother I will give thee the Bishoprick of Durham would not the Bp. demand the Bishoprick of Durham as due to him from his Father upon his Resignation let the Father be Pater Patriae the King or any other § 24. Now he saith If these be Theological Measures they had need to seek for new ones No sure for the Bp. hath saved us that Labour he hath found them for us but such as are but Trash by the Standard of Scripture and Reason Now he reckons he hath paid off Theological Measures but faith he hath not yet done with them Sure we may most safely take our Theological Measures from our Saviour yes surely there 's no doubt of it for he knew best how far and in what Sense the Guilt of our Sins was transferred upon him and whether there followed an immediate Discharge upon it without regard to Conditions on our parts the Question of the highest Import being put to him what shall I do to inherit Eternal Life A. Where lyes the Force of this Argument It must be here If Christ had this Question twice put to him What shall I do to inherit Eternal Life And his Answer was Keep the Commandments and thou shalt live then the Guilt of our Sins were not laid on Christ non sequitur so he saith as to him Luke 10.25 28. Had our Saviour only a mind to banter him No what was it then He himself tells us It was to convince him of the Impossibility of his doing what was necessary for Eternal Life He should have added under the Covenant of Works and therefore of performing a Covenant Condition answerable to the Covenant of Works whereby the Jews expected a merited Reward they sought Life by the Righteousness of the Law and he acknowledgeth That it is not improbable that our Lord intended to convince him of his Folly who supposeth he had kept those Commandments in the Jewish Sence of them And this is the true meaning of the Text why therefore is this Text brought to prove that Christ bore not the Guilt of Sins Baculus stat in Angulo ergo pluit There 's as iittle consequence from the other Mark 10.17 The same or like Answer may serve which he suggests himself There was an immoderate Love to the World in his Heart which he was not aware of till our Saviour put him upon a severe Trial of himself Go sell what thou hast c. Upon this Trial he shewed himself and went away sorrowful notwithstanding all his seeming Desire for Heaven this was the true Reason and no other and Christ intended not thereby to establish a Covenant of Works and what he saith after is to little purpose it 's only to wrest the Sense of a Text from what he thought in his Conscience it would bear And so Luke 16.9 Make to your self Friends of the Mammon What doth he say of that Not by way of Merit or any foolish Imagination of that sort but in Obedience to the Will of God who hath made it a necessary Duty Do they speak otherwise who hold Christ bore their Personal Guilt I wonder a Bp. should trifle so shamefully Again he saith If these be Theological Measures what doth our Saviour mean when he saith Luke 13.24 Strive to enter c. A. He means not that he did not bear the Guilt of Sin or any should strive in his own Strength or strive as a Foederal Condition for he saith Many shall strive i. e. falsly in such a manner and shall not be able and who interprets striving here of faint and weak Endeavours Certainly he would render all them that holds that Christ bore the Guilt of Sin to be a pitiful sort of Christians that have little or no regard to the Command of Christ Sure if they were so they would not many of them so joyfully have suffered the spoiling of their Goods by the Bishops in the late time of Persecution and what led them to it but a Conscience of Obedience to the Commands of Christ He saith One would think it impossible to enter into a Man's Head to suppose that a Man 's own Righteousness should be excluded from being conjunct with the Righteousness of Christ if he look to V. 21 and 24. A. Christ doth not in the least oppose Man's Righteousness to his nor make it conjunct with his but gives only a Character of such as be sincere Believers and Professors of his Name and will be found so at the last Day What he says of immediate Discharge hath been spoken to before that the immediate Effect of Christ's Death was a Right to a Discharge the Discharge it self could not be before they have a Natural and Spiritual Being § 25. Bp. If there be no condition how can they be satisfied that the Guilt of their Sins are laid on Christ A. In answer to this it 's said
he tells us what a Compact is § 10. Mr. H. A Compact may be two-fold Vpon Terms equal or unequal Vpon terms equal we know the reward doth become debt and may he said to be merit notwithstanding by way of strict Retaliation or upon account of equal benefit the performance of the condition would require no such matter Resp Equality of Terms in an Agreement is so much for so much the mutual performance whereof is strict retaliation Tho the Term is foreign to the matter in hand for it belongs to revenge in giving a man as good or rather bad as he brings I deny that Compact upon Terms equal or unequal do alter the nature thereof so that the Condition is not a Merit and the Promise a Reward He saith If I agree to give a man 2 s. 6 d. for his days work I must pay the debt tho the Emolument be not worth half the money Here he answers himself in his strict retaliation and tho the condition is worth little yet it is the Compact that makes the Debt upon the performance And he says If I promise a poor man a shilling for leading my Horse to the next Stile its Alms an act of Grace Resp It seems here 's but 18 d. difference between Works and Grace An agreement to give a man 2 s. 6 d. for a Days Work makes a Debt but an agreement to give a shilling for leading his Horse is Alms he allowed the mans Days-work prov'd not to be worth above a shilling and yet ex pacto he was indebted to him 2 s. 6 d. and why I pray Is it not as good a Debt to the poor man that he bargains with to lead his Horse to the next Stile he will say it was not worth so much in strict Retaliation no more was the other man's days-Days-work if he had given the man the shilling and afterward said prethee lead my Horse to the next Stile he would have said ay Master and thank you too but if he agree with him when he hath done his work he could demand the Wages as Debt tho it may be he would thank him for so easie a Bargain He tells us The first Covenant was upon Terms equal and if man did his duty tho with the ability God gives him as if I agree with a man to work with my Tools the reward is of Merit or Debt Answ If he means equal in value I deny that the First Covenant was so any more than the New Law covenant Ay but if he means equal as to obligation in a way of commutative Justice i. e. that God is as much bound to perform his part after covenanting as Man to perform his then I say the New Covenant is as equal as the old for each is but equality of obligation but he goes on When he gives us the reward which is eternal life thro his Son upon obedience which is imperfect that is upon a new covenant upon terms unequal he gives it freely R. Here it plainly appears what he means by terms equal and unequal that it is as to intrinsick value that a covenant of works are terms equal wherein also he contradicts himself i. e. man's perfect obedience in the said covenant is so much for so much as good as the reward it s a days-days-work in it self worth the Wages promised whereas before he saith it was not but now he saith when the wages are more worth than the work it s on terms unequal but the terms unequal do not change the nature of a Bargain to make it none for there are different Bargains some better and some worse but is the new law covenant a better Bargain or worse than that of the covenant of Works I take it to be much the harder because of the incapacity of the Covenantee Man in the state of Perfection could much easier perform the condition of the covenant by perfect obedience than he can now in his lapst state perform the condition of the new law by imperfect as may easily be demonstrated from these mens Principles they affirming that the performing the condition is not by natural power and strength § 11. But Mr. H. returns after this excursion in saying p. 7. That the grace of Justification is purchased by Christ is apparent by Rom. 3.24 The purchase of Grace being free in the exerting its self is a contradiction for what God doth by Grace he doth sua sponte without motion thereto by externals and it s meerly of his own good will and pleasure I will have mercy on whom I will Our Divines say the covenant of Grace was not purchased no not by Christ but the way of the execution of this covenant was in and through Christ and his Purchase that God might not infringe his Justice in the least in exerting his Grace to the Salvation of Sinners This Mr. H. opposeth and saith If the Notion of free did ly in the conception our Divines ordinarily frame then could it not be the fruit of Christ's purchase for how can that which is purchased in their sense be free Resp There 's much more reason to say how can that which is purchased in Mr. H.'s sense be free There 's less reason that a thing purchased in the Original and Fountain should be free than what is purchased in the Streams therefore Mr. H's Answer cuts off his own legs for if the Grace of God be not free because it comes to us in and through Christ and as the fruits of Christ's Purchase then when this gratia dans is purchased how can that be free He proceeds § 13. Whereas it is this Grace certainly is the main fruit of Christ's Redemption viz. that the new Covenant should be established Resp Here it appears that he asserts That the Grace whereby the New Covenant was made was purchased grace therefore not free by his own assertion because purchas'd he says Christ purchased the Grace of the New Covenant therefore the covenant and all in it So you see he will have Purchase in our sense inconsistent with Free Grace but purchase in his sense more comprehensive to be Free Grace but now he will have the freeness to ly in bestowing freely the works which should make the reward due to him To which I answer it s one thing to justifie for the Works wrought and another to give them Mr. H. calls this latter infusion of Grace and Sanctification but Justification is declaring a man righteous by the said Works Now if this Grace giving the condition be purchased then Faith and Obedience was purchased by Christ contrary to Mr. H. who saith it comes only as the gift of election Hence it appears that he will have Grace in the root to be purchased as to exhibition of the whole covenant but not as to the performance of the main part of it § 13. See then how the Grace of God is made free in the sense of the Apostle not upon the account that man cannot merit
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
Righteousness to us for they expresly deny both the one and the other § 5. Mr. H. So as Adam if he had perfectly obeyed his obedience had been his formal righteousness in regard of the law Resp His Obedience had bin his material Righteousness and this imputed to Justification had bin his Righteousness clothed with the Form and End and unless we have a material and formal righteousness in regard to the same law we can never be justified So is this ours in regard to the Gospel Resp The Gospel is not a new Law neither doth it allow our own righteousness for any in our Justification and is therefore Gospel because it doth not He tells us both Protestant and Papist are both out in saying the Law is the rule of that Righteousness which both say is the formal reason of their Justification Resp It is the Neonomians are out and worse than the Papists in this Point in that they will bring any other rule of Righteousness for Justification the Law of Works is only norma officii judicii for Righteousness and Justification They are both out for the Papists speaks for inherent Grace and his Works so as he would have them meritorious and perfect pleading for Merit and Perfection but can never bring them to answer the law but must still pray forgive us our trespasses Resp The Papists are righter and more rational here than Neonomians if they differ from them in Merit they ought not and Mr. B. asserts it in his End of Controversies but whereever the performance of the condition of a law requires Justification by the law there is Merit and must be for such a Performer deserves and merits Justification and the remuneration thereof as much as Adam's standing and performing the condition of the Law of Works had merited Justification thereby Likewise as to Perfection they are right for that is a man's Perfection which the Law makes so and justifies a man by the Law matters not what other laws make perfect performance the Old Law is no rule to the New Law that 's a man's Perfection which the Law that justifies him saith is the performance of the condition Mr. H. quotes Mr. B. for saying the New Law acquits a man from non-performance of the condition and what need such an one pray for Pardon any more than they that say they are justified in Christ's Righteousness the great Cry they make against Justification in Christ's Righteousness what need such an one pray for Pardon for if their Justification in and by their own righteousness be not as perfect discharging from guilt by Pardon as ours is in Christ's Righteousness it s not worth a Fig we desire no such trifling Justifications § 6. The Protestants on the other side plead for Christ's righteousness which arswers the Rule but this being without us though it be upon the account thereof id propter quod or cujus merito we are justified the Papists say stiffly it can never be made formally ours so as to be propter quod we are justified â—â—d I must say the same for the Truth is Truth Resp Here you have Mr. H. plainly confessing himself a Papist in the Point of Justification and hence it s no wrong to him to say he is a Papist upon his own Confession and the truth is the truth He saith with the Papists that this being without us cannot oâ— imputed can nothing but what is personally done by us be Imputed to us I find no Proof that he makes any where that one man's righteousness cannot be imputed to another and here it is only because it is without us What is more common than Sureties to pay the Deâ—ts of insolvent Persons and that Christ made Payment and Satisfaction for Sinners is most plain from Scriptures though these men will deny that the Scripture saith any thing thereof which denial will be tried by us whether there is any weight in it There are two great Points to be cleared in this Controversie 1. Whether the Scripture excludes all inherent righteousness from the Justification of a Sinner before God 2. Whether the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to a Sinner for his Justification before God These Questions shall be maintained by us in the Affirmative God willing in their due place § 7. Whereas Mr. H. Prides himself exceedingly in the singularity of his Notion of our Righteousness being the formal cause of our Justification any one may see it in Cardinal Bellarmine and J. Goodwyn from both whom its easie to shew how the Neonomians have taken up their Doctrine as for the Notion it self it labours under many weaknesses 1. That Righteousness in it self is not the formal but the material reason of Justification that which induceth the form is a legal Imputation for if a man be never so innocent and righteous if the Court do not impute him so he shall not be justified and if a man be never so unrighteous if the Court impute righteousness to him he shall be justified so it s here Imputation is the legal form of Justification and righteousness is but the material only 2. He makes a formal reason without material for if our own righteousness be the formal reason where 's the material he will not make Christ's Merits the material for he brings in them sub genere causae efficientis besides he cannot for it would be very absurd to place the matter in one subject and the form in another therefore his formal reason is immaterial and it s indeed but an imagenary Chymaera both his New Law and his Formal Righteousness 3. Our Righteousness if it be the formal reason of our Justification it s such as per quam homo justus est and that is in law always propter quod for no law justifies any one but because he is righteous his righteousness must constitute him just and the law esteeming him so he is justified as legally meritorious thereof the noise Mr. B. J. G. and others make of the distinction between constitutive and declarative Justification is Popish and hath nothing in it constitutive Justification is no more than Imputation it is that which in law constitutes any one just and meritorious of declarative Justification § 8. Mr. H. makes a distinction of Justification that its active and passive whereas Justification is but one and it doth not constitute properly a physical effect but a legal relation it doth neither find nor make any sinner inherently righteous for Justification of a righteous person finds him inherently so this Justification we speak not of but Mr. H. will have a passive Justification upon this account because it finds the sinner righteous inherently he saith indeed the infusion of this preceeding righteousness is not his Justification according to the Papists but his Justification is for the righteousness which it finds infused and so it s the formal cause of Justification He might with much better reason say that Sanctification is double active sanctifying and passive
consequence is there in this Argument works were the formal cause of Justification as to the Law of Works therefore works must be the formal cause in relation to the Gospel it follows not but vice versa and if the consequence be true then there 's no formal difference between Law and Gospel 3. Hereby he yields that New Law conditions are Old Law works and consequently his Gospel is no Gospel but a Law of works which is contrary to Scripture and accordingly Mr. Cl. saith Gospel works must merit the reward as works should have done in Adams Covenant Mr. H's reply is so weak that it s not worth taking Notice of § 3. Argum. 1. Justification hath a form and that must be some righteousness Resp It may have a form and yet Righteousness be the matter What righteousness is it whereby we are justified I answer against Mr. Cl. and him that it s no righteousness inherent in the justification of a sinner He saith it s not regenerating grace infused but imputed Answer What makes the difference then between Sanctification and Justification its nothing but the divers respect in Mr. H's Divinity and wherein lies that respect is it not in imputation and this Logick he yields in his Notes Argument 4. Divines generally fix it upon some righteousness Resp If some Divines speak improperly it doth not justifie Mr. H. to do so but he saith a distinction is made of a genus and differentia and therefore righteousness must be the form Resp Non sequitur for genus is the matter and but part of the form at most sometimes but the differencing part of the Definition is the form distinct from the genus Mr. Cl. saith the most plausible Argument of all because it is Scripture you have omitted we are justified by faith This saith Mr. H. is my id per quod that runs through all my Books its true and what would Mr. H. have done to support his Notion if the Cardinal had not helpt him to this id per quod and id propter quod he takes himself safe enough between the Cardinal and Bishops Well Mr. Cl. is not so well pleased I find with his formalis causa but rather than break with Mr. H. he will comport with him especially finding him very uncertain and unsettled sometimes our righteousness is the formal cause and sometimes the material and imputation the formal Mr. Cl. hath another denomination for our own righteousness he calls it our subordinate righteousness Our Justification by Faith or accounting it to us for righteousness will be considered anon § Cl. also gathering and applauding Mr. H's constitutive Justification let it be a little inspected Mr. Cl. saith That Mr. H. doth clearly distinguish his Opinion from the Papists in that he makes infused righteousness only Sanctification and imputation of the same to be Justification its only to distinguish up our own righteousness several ways I would ask these Gentlemen whether they do not hold the infusion of their righteousness and Justification upon it imputed if they do so do the Papist for if the Papist did hold making a man's righteousness inherent to be Justification then must they hold some merit of condignity to precede in the natural man for a meer free gift as such is an infusion cannot be Justification I do not see but Mr. H's constitutive Justification and the Papists is all one for if they say God infuseth righteousness and imputeth righteousness it s the same thing and God cannot constitute any just by infusion but he must impute him so I have said this constitutive Justification as they take it can be no other than Imputation if they will make it differ from declarative Justification 2. The constituting us as just doth in order of nature go before accounting or using us as just Resp God neither constitutes any man just in and by his own righteousness nor accounts them so But we can say God first gives us Christ's righteousness by his Grace then accounts us righteous therein Constitutive Justification consists in three things in making us just accounting us just and using us as just all these the Papists have Therefore more fully Justification is a judicial act and that by the law of Grace God by that Law and the act of God's law makes pronounces and by pronouncing makes a Believer a righteous person and being so made accounts him so Resp The Scripture speaks of Justification of a Sinner and therefore saith it s an act of free Grace Indeed Mr. H's Justification can be no other than a judicial Act it s no way consistent with Grace because he saith its by a Law and Act of it whereby it makes and pronounceth a believer righteous and it seems he is first declaratively justified and after imputed righteous when God hath pronounced him righteous then accounts him so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Cart before the Horse Our righteousness wrought in us by Vocation and is the same materially but not formally with this righteousness of Justification Resp Now here 's the reason why he sticks so hard for our righteousness being the formal part of our Justification so that the same righteousness as he saith materially the same Sanctifies us materially and Justifies us formally So as that as Sanctifying it hath no form and as Justifying no matter Now this is a Quatenus with a witness so in Mr. Cl's sence he doth well making the matter real and the form relative These things Mr. H. in his several middle-way Pages and Letters repeats a hundred times you cannot look into a Page hardly but you have the sum of his Doctrine therefore it must not be expected that I should follow him Page by Page unless I should Tautologize as he doth CHAP. X. Whether Faith be our justifying Righteousness Section 1. Whether the Saints before Christs did not look upon themselves as righteous by their own righteousness § 2. Abraham considered § 3. Abraham considered § 4. Abraham 's Justification further considered § 5. Of Subordinate righteousness § 6. Mr. Cl's defence of a Subordinate righteousness § 7 Opposition of Faith and Works in Justification Mr. Cl's 2d and 3d. Arg. § 8. Mr. Cl. fourth Argument Answer'd § 9. Argument 5 6. § 10. More to Mr. H 's challenge Sect. 1. MR. H's Enquiry about the Saints before Christs coming is He would know of any Man who is most Orthodox in his Complexion whether he does or is able to think that Enoch Noah Job who were before the Law Samuel the Kings and Prophets under the Law or any Man or Woman whatsoever before the coming of Christ did ever imagine that they were righteous or accepted with God for the Obedience which the Messiah should perform on their behalf when he came into the World and believing this was an Instrument of making him to be theirs c. And whether they did not look upon themselves righteous by their own righteousness their doing righteoâ—snâ—ss and to obtain favour by
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
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
God its non-Imputation of sin which contains Imputation of righteousness for wherever sin is not Imputed to condemnation righteousness is Imputed to Justification so here its manifest that it s not our own righteousness that is Imputed to Justification but his only by which reconciliation is made and sin not imputed whence it follows also that our sins were Imputed to Christ or else there could not be the non-Imputation of them unto us § 4. Mr. Cl. makes a long Discourse to acquaint us that Paul and James do both mean Justification by Faith to be Justification by Works that Paul in denial of Justification by works only means works of the law then I say he excludes all works for all works performed for Justification are works of the law and to say that such are Gospel-works is to say the Sea burns And that James speaks of Abraham's Justification before God by Faith in conjunction with Works That Paul makes a perfect exclusion of all works of any law from Justification i e. works of our own performance hath been sufficiently made to appear what he alledgeth for Paul's meaning p. 70. may be a little spoken to and undertakes to tell us from Gal. 5.5 6. compared with chap. 6.15 that Paul intends works as well as faith when he rejects works from Justification I must say as I have said If Paul was of their mind it is strange that in Two Epistles he had not acquainted us what he meant when he shall only intend Jewish Services which the Gentiles are not concerned in and perfect works of the Moral Law which none ever performed since the Fall but Christ alone that he should mean Gospel-works and not tell us what were the Gospel-works which he meant when Gospel-works whereby any man seeks Justification are law-works and therefore contradictio in adjecto The Apostle to the Galatians v. 4. makes a solemn Protestation that whoever is i. e. professeth to be justified by law by his own works of a law hath abdicated Christ and fallen from Grace where there cannot be a law of Grace for to assert a law in our Justification by our performance of the works of it is to fall from Grace now it is strange that he did not specifie the Law and Works that he intended we are justified by Mr. Cl. saith he did in his specifying Love and the New Creature Verse 6. in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but faith that worketh by love the Apostle had said before as for us our expectation of righteousness is only by faith for it s nothing that availeth at all in Christ but a true faith and that is true which worketh by love which bringeth forth goodfruits and one of the more eminent is instanced in which is love now he doth here set by all the other Graces and Duties in comparison of faith because it hath a peculiar nature of receiving a justifying righteousness from without and in denying and rejecting it self or any doing by us for that end hence he saith it s not any works of the circumcision that is of those that profess Justification by Works in the Jewish Religion nor of the works of the uncircumcision i.e. works of the Christian Religion that signifies any thing but true Faith only this is the plain meaning of the Apostle As for Chap. 6.15 it signifies nothing as to our adversaries v. 14. He shewed how his glorying was always in the Cross of Christ both unto Justification and Sanctification for to be in Christ implies both and he desires and looks for no other ground of rejoicing than the Cross of Christ neither is there any other ground to any one Jew or Gentile there is nothing in either that is to be valued but the new Creature which is the life of Justification and Sanctification both which is by being in Christ Jesus he being to every Believer whatever he is for Righteousness and Life so that here is nothing to exalt the new creature to righteousness for Justification but to exalt Christ Jesus to be all and in all to the new creature for righteousness in Justification and as the Head and Root of Holiness in Sanctification § 5. And now it will appear what the sence of James is The main Scope of the Apostle in chap. 2. is to exhort to the impartial exercise of Charity to the Saints and after many Arguments v. 14. he tells us not to exercise Love and Charity is a sign of a false Faith such as will not save us as plainly appears by v. 15.16 17. Even as the Apostle Paul saith true faith is that which worketh by love so he saith that which doth not work by love in the exercise of true and faithful charity is dead faith being alone i. e. having no fruits but an outward Name and Profession only and further v. 18. How saith he wilt thou demonstrate to another person that thou hast faith thou saist to another I have faith but saith that other demonstrate it to me by thy works that it may appear to me by thy works I will shew thee my works whereby thou shalt conclude I have faith and justifie me and my profession before all men that have a question or doubt thereof Thou believest it may be by an historical or dogmatical faith as to some things so do the Devils But v. 20. wilt thou know O vain man that faith without works is dead i. e. wilt thou have demonstration of it how dead It is not justifying faith and therefore not saving for all true saving faith is justified against all objections men can make against it 1. He instances in Abraham the obedience of Abraham to God was a ground of mens justification of Abraham as a true Believer provided his action was good obedience which seemed so unnatural wherefore God himself witnesseth to his obedience as good and an eminent effect of true Faith therefore he was justified by works not as to his state before God for he was in a justified state before but first provided his obedience were good all men must justifie Abraham to be an eminent Believer Again God bore witness to Abraham's obedience as good therefore Abraham was justified to be a true Believer from his works So that Abraham was justified as to his faith as true good and eminent by his or from his obedience therefore the Apostle saith thou seest how his faith co-co-works with his works i. e. he did these actions in faith and faith carrying him on to such works his faith was perfected thereby i. e. as a Tree that hath its fruits growing upon it all true faith thriving and flourishing in that manner He insists upon Abraham's again and tells us That the Scripture was fulfilled or is proved to be true in two great things 1. That it saith he was justified by faith i. e. he believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness what was imputed his faith No it was the blessing in
the Promise the Lord Jesus Christ and his righteousness that he believed 2. The Scripture saith his faith worked by love therefore it was not a dead faith he was called the friend of God he was from the greatness of love he had to God ready to yield any obedience to God thence the Apostle denies not that he was justified by faith only as to his Person but that God declared and witnessed also to his obedience as approved of by him which in the sence the Apostle is speaking of was a Justification as to his Faith and the goodness of it in his particular acts of obedience v. 24. you see therefore that a man is justified by works a man may have an approbation of his works and a commendation from God for them and not of his faith only God may commend and approve of a mans works as well as his faith for indeed it is a Justification by way of commendation and approbation of a mans faith and works which the Apostle James here speaks of Likewise v. 25. Rahab the harlot was she not justified by works i. e. did she not approve her self to be a true Believer when she received the messengers and had sent them out another way The World would be apt to condemn this action of Rahab as treachery to her Native Country and therefore God justifies her in this particular action that it was good being done in faith God witnesseth to it in his Word and justifies her as a Believer in foro mundi by this eminent act of her v. 26. whence having given these instances he concludes as a body without a spirit is dead so is faith without works dead and that was the thing which he undertook to prove that faith i. e. supposed or professed is dead if it be fruitless hence he saith Believers have been justified to be so by God in giving Testimony to their works as true fruits of saving faith Wherefore we may conclude that James and Paul are agreed in all 1. That James speaks of faith in general a Profession of Christian Faith and that such Profession is empty and profitable to our selves and others as also dead in it self if it is not justified by good works so the Apostle Paul often speaks of saving faith and our Saviour Christ that we can have no better Argument of each others truth of faith than the fruit growing upon the tree this is without question to v. 19. 2. He proves it in that they were true Believers had a double Justification 1 By Faith only and here he concurs with Paul concerning his Justification before God v. 23. and yet he had such a faith as wrought by love for the Scripture calls him the friend of God 2. That there is a Justification of a Person as to a particular act as well as his Person and State and therefore the instance of Abraham's offering his Son and Rahab is brought in and this is that Justification which the Apostle Paul speaks not so much of but the Spirit of God doth in several cases as Abel and Enoch God testifying some way to their Services in foro mundi and so Job whom God justified against the unjust charges of his Friends so Phineas his zeal for the glory of God in the matter of Cosbi that seemed a rash and mutinous piece of Usurpation God justified him in it declared his high approbation thereof Hence James speaks of faith that accompanies salvation at large and condemns that as false and hypocritical that is not fruitful 2. He speaks of Justification at large which is by faith in foro divino before God and in foro humano before Men by works and fruits of faith that in foro divino is by faith only without works 1. In that he saith no works of ours can answer God's law v. 10. He that keeps or pretends to keep the whole law and offends in one point is guilty of all whence ariseth this unanswerable Argument They that cannot keep the whole law of God without offending in out point can never be justified before God by works but none can do so Ergo. 2. He asserts Justification by faith before God in the instance of Abraham's faith using the same Expression and doth not deny this to be true Justification and full before God but only Abraham brought forth the fruits before Men from his faith working by love he is called the friend of God thus God justified him in his obedience as a true Believer Ergo he concludes as all true faith so true justifying faith hath such fruit 3. James shews how God often bears witness and approves of particular actions which men are ready to condemn such as Abraham's offering up his Son and Rahab's giving up the City and such a Testimony that they performed it by faith in Christ and his Righteousness for no other are approved of by God as Gospel-Works and thus you have the full scope of James not contradicting the Apostle Paul at all but speaking only of another Justification in foro humano in the effects that Men see and the approbation that God gives § 6. Hence I answer Mr. Cl. who saith the same Justification is intended by Paul and James I say James intends the same Justification before God in foro Dei aut â—egis when he speaks of Justification by Faith but he intends not the same when he speaks of Justification by works he intends as Paul doth so far as he speaks of Justification by Faith but when he speaks of the same persons justification by works it intends only Gods declaration of his approbation of the particular Acts of obedience and bearing witness thereto of the true faith in foro humano by word or evidences as in that whole of Hebr. 11. And in divers other Scripture James speaks of Justification of a mans person It is true and here it s ascribed to his faith the righteousness he receives by faith is imputed to him but the faith is not all the approbation that he hath not all his Justification he is also justified coram hominibus He doth not say works were imputed to him for righteousness But he and his works for his person then his obedience being accepted by God in Christ God witnesseth before men to his faith and obedience and to his faith by owning his obedience So that he speaks both of the Justification of his person and of his faith too but in divers respects 2. Can his faith save him Implying that tho faith without works cannot save yet faith with works will for Saved and Justified both belong to the same Subject R. True but that doth not prove that Justifying and Saving is in all respects the same for there may be works as well as faith in that respect saving because both accompany Salvation but it s not therefore that Saving in all respects is Justifying for there 's saving in sanctification and glorification and tho faith without it be such as in time
produceth works will not save upon any account yet it follows not that works do justify before God 3. He speaks of the person of Abraham being Justified and there was a concurrence of his works with his faith in his Justification R. There was in foro humano for he could not appear unto men that he had faith but by works if Abraham saith he is a believer and righteous before God another man will say shew me such works as will argue it to me So Abraham shews his obedience and his faith concurrs to it for he could do such works but by Faith and God witnesseth to them Heb. 11. coram hominibus 4. He rejects being Justifyed by Faith only R. 1. He cannot be Justifyed by Faith that is dead and barren 2ly He cannot be Justifyed before God and man too without works 3ly There was not any held a mans Faith was justifyed by his faith but his person and that his faith was justifyed to men by his outward demeanour in exercising visible graces 5. The reason that he coucheth in that Similitude v. 26. shews that he speaks of the Justification of the person viz. That such a faith cannot Justify because its dead R. The words are as the body without the spirit is dead so faith without works is dead These words shew only what was the drift of the Apostles discourse from the 14 v. viz. to shew that faith which bringeth not forth good works is not true it will not save it will not profit it is no better than reprobates may have it is not Justifying before God or Man Now then for Mr. Cl. Pairs of Antith he saith A man is justifyed by works as James saith a man is Justifyed without works of the law i. e. saith he A man is Justifyed by such works as are in the nature of living faith but not by such as are works of the law R. All works and faith it self as a qualification are works of a Law and whereby no flesh living shall be justify'd Gal. 3.11 and tho the Apostle speaks of and owns Abraham's Justification by faith before God as Paul doth Rom. 4. yet he no where saith a person is justifyed by works before God if he had said so he had directly contradicted the Apostle Paul but the Reconciliation is thus a believer is not Justified by works before God but he is justifyed by works of faith or fruits of it before man 2d Pair A man is Justifyed by faith and a man is not Justifyed by Faith only Reconc A man is Justifyed by that faith that includes works but not by that faith that is without works Recon A man is Justifyed by faith objectively which produceth works before God and man is not Justifyed without works before man The 3d Pair is thus A man is Justifyed by Faith and a man is Justifyed by Works I reconcile thus a man is justifyed by that faith which brings forth works and a man is justifyed by those works R. Recon a man is justifyed before God by faith a man is justifyed before man by works By all which it appears that Paul and James are agreed in the nature of true Faith and Justification by it in the sight of God but only James speaks of Justification in a larger sence to wit Justification in foro humano as well as Divino and therefore he ascribes a kind of Justification to works so that a man cannot be Justifyed by Faith alone in the largest sence seeing he cannot be Justifyed before man without works Now if he had meant as our Neonom do he must have ascribed all Justification to works only for they hold our Justification by Faith to be no otherwise than as a work Mr. Cl. seems to boast himself in expression of the Psal 106.3 1. concerning Phineas where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used the same root which is used of Abraham 's Faith Gen. 15.6 Where the thing that Abraham believed in the Promise God Imputed to him for righteousness as the Apostle expounds Gal. 3.6.8 for he saw Christ in that Gospel preached to him as our Saviour witnesseth and as the word there is an Active signification It is a Passive in Niph with the Psalm it plainly referrs to the particular Act of Phineas It is said that Phineas stood up and executed Judgment and the Plague was stayed and it was reckoned to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Righteousness for a noble righteous just Act to all Generations it s not said that the Lord accounted it him for the righteousness of his person before God but God bore witness to the seasonableness and justice of the action in staying of the Plague and such an effect being thereof all men have since judged it a righteous just Act to all Generations So that the word is not used impersonally but personally and passively and the Act which he perform'd is the Nominative Case neither is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used impersonally but the thing that God promises and he believes is the Nominative Case CHAP. XVI The Righteousness of Christ is the only Righteousness whereby a sinner is Iustified in God's sight Section 1. The Transition and Subject asserted § 2. Argument 1. § 3. Arg. 2. § 4. Arg. 3. § 5. Arg. 4. § 6. Arg. 5. § 7. Arg. 6. § 8. Arg. 7. § 9. Arg. 8. § 10. Arg. 9. § 11. Arg. 10. § 12. Arg. 11. § 13. Arg. 12. § 14. Arg. 13. § 15. Arg. 14. § 16. Arg. 15. Sect. 1. HAving written hitherto in way of defence against the Adversaries of our Justification by Christ's Righteousness and having in some measure as I trust the mind of the Spirit I dare not let these Adversaries pass without using the Sword of the Spirit to the wounding their Doctrine even in its very Vitals by home thrusts and downright blows For the Lord Jesus Christ who is come forth upon his white Horse with a Bow and a Crown will not return till he hath conquered all the Enemies of this glorious Righteousness of his and triumphed over them I have chearfully thro' grace taken this Service in hand under the Captain of my Salvation thro whose strength and assistance I hope for success to his praise and glory I shall in the first place prove that the Righteousness of Christ is the only righteousness that a Sinner is justified by before God and the Arguments are these briefly § 2. Arg. 1. That is the righteousness only that a sinner can be justified by which fulfils that law which he hath broken But Christs Righteousness is such For the minor our adversaries would have us believe that they mean so however they often talk of satisfaction to the Law their sincerity therein will be tried in due time As to the major its indubitable to any man of sence that it s not another law can excuse him from the condemnation of the law which he hath broken nor a righteousness of another law especially such as is imperfect and
between God and him thro this Imputed and believed righteousness 8. The justified one as he draws his first breath of the new man in believing unto righteousness so he lives upon this righteousness in all his Christian course in that Christs righteousness may be called the righteousness of Faith for Meat and Drink John 6.51 53. 9. Faith hath hereby all justifiable ways to God Christ is thereby his way unto the Father he can have access to the grace wherein he stands comes thro this righteousness with boldness to the Throne of grace and receives remission of sins and every good and perfect gift God having not spared his Son but given him for us hence he will not withhold any good thing 10. As it receives all grace in and with justifying grace so it gives and ascribes all to free grace in the Father Son and Holy Spirit both the gift of righteousness and faith it self and the life eternal given to such a poor wretch in and thro Jesus Christ 11. In that this grace being filled with Christs righteousness is leading to all fruits of Christs righteousness imputed and believed all which appear in the exercise of all holy affections graces and duties to the mortification of sin and growth in obedience and conformity to Christ § 14. Now having shewed the Excellency of this Grace in its Nature and Kind we must shew you that it is not Christ nor must not take his Throne or Crown from him yea abhors nothing more if true but will keep a Believer always a poor humble broken and contrite hearted Sinner Therefore we assert and Christ with his whole Word will stand by us in it that our Faith as a Grace of the Spirit or Work of ours is not imputed for Righteousness to Justification I shall but Name a few Arguments convincing enough and shew thereby the way to others to do the same 1. Faith is for the Honour of Christ our High-Priest upon the Throne if it takes to it self justifying Righteousness it takes the Crown from his Head and sets it upon his own for the great end of Christ's Humiliation and Exaltation was the working out of this Righteousness 2. If Faith be our Righteousness then Faith is its own Object when you bid Men believe unto Justification you must bid them believe in themselves and bid them by Faith go to their Faith for Righteousness and Life what 's Absurder 3. If God impute Faith it self as a Work to Justification then Faith must be imputed as meritorious of Justification For 1. Christs Righteousness is so imputed 2. No Righteousness can be imputed otherwise to Justification but such as is meritorious of it Justification being a Law-act 4. Faith making it self Righteousness for Justification by a Law makes it self altogether Legal as much as any Works whatever insomuch that it is not an evangelical Work so that it ought not to justifie as a Work by their own Rule that we are not justified by the legal works but we have proved all their Works legal 5. That that can't cover Sin and take off the Imputation of it can't be justifying Righteousness and take off the the Imputation of Sin for faith did not die for Sin or was made a Sacrifice for it to bear the Sin of many 6 The Priests and Sacrifices of Old were Types of Christs Righteousness for Justification of a Sinner not of the Sinners righteousness and the faithful looked upon themselves as sinners Typically justified in the Righteousness Typified and not in their Faith as a Work done 7. If our Faith in it self be our Righteousness then our unbelief is for that Faith must believe that Christs Righteousness is not imputed to us for Justification this his high unbelief according to the Scripture 8. If Faith say it justifie as a Work then Faith excludes it self the very Nature of it the Neonomian say the Law of Faith is the New-law if so then it excludes it self for the Law of Faith excludes boasting and Works of a Law i. e. the very Nature of Faith if it be good is so 9. If Faith justifie as a Work then Faith justifies not without Works for if it be a Work it self and justifying as such then it justifieth not without Works because it is a Work contrary to Rom. 4.6 10. If Faith be Imputed for Righteousness then the Blood of Christ is not but we are to be justified by the Blood of Christ and the Scripture saith we are by Faith in his Blood 11. If Faith Justifies as a Work then no more is ascribed to Faith than to other Graces in the concern of our Justification but the Apostle ascribes more concern to Faith than other Graces and then why doth he oppose Faith to Works Is it not that its more the Office of Faith as to Justification the Neonomian say it is the same with other Graces c. So Mr. Cl. Justifying Faith is the same thing in Substance with Effectual Calling Repentance Regeneration forming Christ in the Soul the new Creature c. Is not a great deal of the Scripture in vain hath not Paul wrote two Epistles in vain where he makes it his Main Business to beat down Justification by Works and oppose them to one another and now he tells us that Faith and Gospel Works i. e. legal are all one 12. That which justifies as a Righteousness justifies eternally Dan. 9. but Faith can't justifie eternally because Faith ceaseth in Heaven but justifying Righteousness doth not yea all the Righteousness of the New-law must cease 1 Cor. 13.10 14. That which is not the faederal Condition of the Covenant of Grace can't be our Righteousness in it self but Faith is not the faederal Condition because Faith is promised in the Covenant given by Grace purchased by Christ part of Eternal Life a means to lay hold of the Condition but I shall not enlarge upon this now only make one Quotation at last Mr. R. Capel who wrote of Temptation saith speaking of the Conditions of the Covenant In this Matter I am of the Opinion of Kendal that the Covenant he means of Grace was not made with us but with Christ this was the Assembly's Judgment for us and for the main I am clear of Opinion that the Covenant of Grace cannot stand with any Condition of ours at all for that I wish the Learned to consult Junius To deliver my Opinion Adam casting himself out of his Estate the Covenant of Works fell void Then it pleased God to fill up this Room with a New Covenant commonly called his last Testament wherein he bequeathed Grace and Glory on no other Condition that I know of out of the Scriptures but the Death of the Testator i. e. Jesus Christ that as the First Covenant was built on the Righteousness of the first Adam so the Second was built on the Righteousness of the second It is beyond my Brain to conceive that God should immediately make a Covenant with us who were Children of Disobedience and of Wrath who could not be capable of any such Covenant or Conditions but it was with Christ for us Adam lost his Righteousness the Foundation of the first Covenant but the Righteousness of Christ the Second can never be lost and therefore the second Covenant or rather Testament can never be broken or disanulled Condition of the Covenant p. 260. Errata PAge 38. line 2. read partaker p. 39. l. 32. r. relaxed p. 42. l. 23. r. Justice p. 43. l. 36. r. we could not p. 46. l. 17. r. per quam p. 48. l. 16. r. Is it by Imputation p. 49. l. 22. r. God justifies p. 50. l. 34. r. their sins p. 57. l. 34. r. the only p. 64. l. 23. dele r. bottom they must be Pelagians p. 66. l. 2. r. is it not so p. 72. l. 27. dele ◠p. ibid. l. 28. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 73. l. 40. r. Christs righteousness and us p. 78. l. 27. r. would not be p. 79. l. prope antep dele no. p. 85. l. 16. r. Gal. 3.21 p. 86. l. 21. r. Gal. 3.21 p. 87. l. 3. ab ult r. for Saviour self p. 88. l 23. r. Gal. 3.21 l. 37. r. is manifest p. 99. l. 16. dele not p. 100. l. 3. dele and l. 6. r. yea 123. l. 13. r. addicted to it l. 35. r. should not be p. 126. l. 10. r. righteousness twice p. 133 l. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 31. false Hebrew p. 134. l. 20. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 148. l. 17. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 29. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 34. dele the before events p. 149. l. 5. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 155. l. 6. a fine r. unprofitable p. 158. l. 6. ab ult r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 159 false Hebrew p. 160. l. 6. ab ult r. Arg. 3 The righteousness for which and by which a sinner is justified
meaning is only that Justification of a sinner by the works of the old law is inconsistent but not Justification by the works of a new law whereas the design of the Apostle throughout is to disprove the Justification of a sinner by the works of a law any law he specifies not any one law in particular unless where he led to it but when he opposeth Works to Faith in Justification he speaks of law indefinitely excluding all works of any law whatever signified to us Gal. 3.2 If there had been any law given whereby life is given then righteousness had been by a law but there was no such law given § 6. The Apostle insists largely on this Dispute against Justification by works because it was a received Opinion among the Jews that a man might be justified by the works of the law and it was retained by many of them even after they were converted to the faith of Christ as appears Acts 21.20 Resp The Apostle insisted largely and strenuously on this Dispute in making and proving the direct opposition between Justification by the works of any law performed by us and Justification by faith in the righteousness of another 1. Because the Jews were generally bigotted to a righteousness of some law to be performed by them for Justification 2. Because they were generally ignorant of the righteousness of Christ which made them go about to establish their own righteousness in Point of Justification 3. What he writes to the converted Jews he doth 1. In order to convince them of the danger of joining their own righteousness in obedience to any law in Justification with the righteousness of Christ and this was the danger of the Galatians 2. He warns them of the vanity of the continuance of the works of Moses's law in order to Salvation Now Mr. Cl. brings the words of James to Paul Acts 21.20 to prove that the converted Jews sought Justification by the works of the Law of works To which I answer 1. That the unconverted Jews did none of them expect Justification by the works of the law of works for 1. They did not look upon their works as perfect works though they took the external obedience to be what the law mainly looked for which Christ refutes for they owned that their external works were mixed with much imperfection and sin Else 2dly They could not own the Doctrine of Sacrifices for sin wherein they saw the sinfulness of their works and were convinced at least thereof whether they saw by faith the Antitype signified by them or no and therefore could stand upon their works in themselves perfect in answer to the righteousness of that law but the Justification by works which they looked for was by an imperfect righteousness as the Neonomians do in obedience to the law of Moses which they made their new law as the Neonomians do the Gospel and therefore the Apostle saith that they sought it as it were by the works of the law it was Justification by works in their sence the Apostle preacheth accordingly against works as taken by themselves Rom. 9. Ans 2. As for the converted Jews spoken of Acts 21. they where for the observations of some things in the Obedience of Moses his Law as necessary means of Salvation not abolish'd by Christs coming in the Flesh and as the Apostles did not press harder upon them in that Point than only to leave them under an indifferency of using them or not provided they laid not the stress of their Justification thereon as appears by Acts 15. So here the charge against Paul which the Apostle James would have him clear himself of was that he contradicted the Apostles at Jerusalem in permitting the use of some Jewish Ceremonies as indifferent for the present by reason of the Jews weakness thou teachest the Gentiles to forsake Moses Now he shewed by his complying with James that whatever he taught the Gentiles yet he was not against complying with the Jews so far as to use yet some of Moses his appointment provided they made not such Actions of theirs the righteousness of Justification therefore tells the Galatians running on that Point that if they were circumcised Christ could profit them nothing Now this is clearly the Point he withstands Peter in and opposeth the Galatians in that he made his Saviour a Transgressor by his practice in judaizing contrary to the Doctrine he had preached in Justification by Christs righteousness alone As for the others they brought in another Gospel not one whatever they called it Hence the complaint against some believing Pharisees Acts 15.5 was that they taught the necessity of keeping Moses's Law unto full justification the conjoining our righteousness with his or that his righteousness meritted ours and therefore they were to observe Moses his Law as their own righteousness the New Law with them this Doctrine Peter opposeth in his speech unto ver 11. to which James agrees and proposeth an expedient ver 19 20. so that what the Pharisees attempted at Antioch and what the Galatians were seduced to was only the necessity of the works of a New Law as a sole or social righteousness with Christs for Justification Pro. 9.3 § 7. When he disputes against Justification by Works he means only the Works of the Law Resp He should have told us what Law the Apostles means Moral or Ceremonial or New Law or whether works of any Law whatever which we confidently affirm and if he make Gospel works Law works he disputes against them And this proposition of his he is large in proving with little Proof 1 It appears he saith by the Apostles wary close and restrictive way of speaking Rom. 3.20 The restrictiveness of that place we have spoken to and shewed the place is positively against all works of any Law Again we have shewed that Gal. 2.20 Is an absolute exclusion of the works of a Law any Law for as Mr. C. observes che works of a Law are three times excluded we shall not actum agere as near as may be Gal. 3. The design of the Apostle in that Chapter is to shew 1. That a believer of the Gentiles is blessed i. e. Justified by Faith with faithful Abraham ver 9. to prove this he argues thus either by Faith or by Works not by works of a Law any Law for saith he he that is a sinner and under a Law for Justification is under a Curse nor cannot come from under it by the works of it And that you may take an instance of the Voice of any Law take that of Moses ver 10. cursed is every one that abideth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moses his Law Because by a Law any Law no flesh living is justified with God or before God manifest because the just shall live by faith and shall draw the first breath of the life of Justification by faith and live that life always by