never died to purchase such a Justification far be it § 11. Mr. H. shewing some disrelish of Mr. B. for agreeing with Bellarmine and the Council of Trent in the Doctrine of Infusion which he saith he took up of Le Blanc That God doth make men righteous by inherent Grace before he doth justifie them A thing that Mr. H. must grant according to his Principles tho he will distinguish nomine tenus only as to the same thing calling inherent Grace in respect of Justification righteousness and in respect of Sanctification Holiness according to a supposed disserent imputation He accordingly distinguisheth of a threefold making a man just 1. By Conversion or Regeneration and this Augustine and the Papists he might have added Mr. B. and the Quakers 2. By Pardon and this is Mr. Wotton's Or 3. By the righteousness of God and this is my Justification I will call it mine Resp As he understands the righteousness of God much good may it do him I desire it not I know no sound Protestant will put in for a share in his Righteousness or Justification nor desire either like his We will let him alone to chide the Papists about infusion of righteousness and let him clear himself from being a Papist in the Point of Justification if he can let us see how he acquits himself The Papists Opinion is that the Grace of God infused is the formal righteousness that justifies us according to the law of works they of Trent thought of no other but our imperfect Faith and new Obedience is a conformity to that which God hath made a condition of life by the law of Grace and is our formal righteousness according to that law being made so by God when he imputes it to us for righteousness By the Evangelical Law this is our righteousness we are made righteous i. e. not guilty of the non-performance of the condition according to Mr. B. Resp According to his own Quotation the Papists hold as Mr. B. and he that habitual righteousness is infused by God so far as that a man endued therewith may be accounted truly righteous they do suggest that they do not intend a perfect righteousness but so much as may admit at least of an acceptillation which Mr. H. gives us to understand the Neonomians approve of and Mr. Fox and others tell us the Notion of a New Law was long ago among the Papists and there 's no doubt now our Neonomians have so briskly Trumpt up that old musty piece of Popery they will willingly fall in Hand-and-Glove with them and rectifie their flaws according to the Neonomian Edition they will call their works Evangelical and calculate them to the height of the new Law and carry all their merits thither seeing there 's in all probability the fairest Market and they bear the best Price there their unrighteousness will be called righteousness and his sins will be allowed there is no need of so many Indulgences for one new-law-allowance will pass for all Again do not the Papists speak of the same Works Faith Repentance New Obedience and what if they say they are the measure of conformity to the Law of Works do they say they are justified by them absolutely considered do they not say for the sake of Christ's Merits why may not they be as well justified by the old-law-old-law-works for the merits of Christ's righteousness as our Neonomians by a new-law-righteousness through the merits of Christ's righteousness for of the two I had a thousand times rather trust to Justification by an old law righteousness through the merits of Christ than to a new-law-righteousness through our own merits for Paul we know and the old law we know but as for the new law and the righteousness thereof we say who are ye and what is the Evangelical in plain English it is a plain contradiction to the law of works when that chargeth all the world as guilty before God this new law saith sin maketh them not guilty but is their righteousness and the Evangelical Law finds them not guilty of non performance of the condition The Moral law saith if a man kills another he is guilty of non-performance of the condition but the Evangelical saith tho he kills a man if he repent and give some Alms his killing a man makes his other obedience but imperfect which is the true nature of the condition and therefore he is not guilty of the non-performance of the condition § 12. There 's a mystery here which he saith Dr. O. nor Mr. B. never gave its due consideration for Dr. O. saith There 's an imputation of a thing to us that is ours and that is judging it ours and dealing with us accordingly or of a thing that is not ours and that is by donation and dealing with us according to it made ours our righteousness cannot but Christs righteousness must be imputed to our Justification To which he thus answers As there is an imputing to a man a thing that is his and a thing not his so there is an imputing to a person that which is partly his and partly not his but that which in the effect becomes his by imputation this never sunk into the Dr's mind Resp Sure the Doctor was a very shallow man that he could think of the imputation of a thing that is ours and of a thing not ours and could not think of a thing partly ours and partly not ours but the reason of his not mentioning of it was because he did not think any man of consistent Brains would propose such a Justification For saith Mr. H. there are two things in the matter our Faith and God's Imputation Faith Repentance and new Obedience is one thing and having it accepted is another Now here lies the mystery it s the making one thing two our new obedience is ours and sanctification but God's Imputation makes it ours for Justification but its being ours doth not God esteem and judge it ours how comes it now ours if God esteem it our righteousness how is it less ours than before unless it be in this manner a man hath a Cloth Coat on this is his another calls it a Silk Coat this is not his because he had no Silk Coat but his Cloth Coat is made a Silk Coat by another in imputing it Silk but he tells us God's imputation brings nothing with it in the effect I say that which was not ours i. e. the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ Doth the imputation of ours at the same time impute the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ if so then it doth bring something not ours and then we are juftified by two righteousnesses by ours and not ours or will he have this a single imputation and both these made one by mixture partly ours and partly Christs for this answers his Notion best partly his and partly not his but he excludes Christ's merits from imputation again and again ergo the imputation is only of that which is ours
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-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
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
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-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-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-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
Consequent § 9. He proceeds with Confidence 2dly I do absolutely deny that a true Gospel justifying Faith and Gospel-Works are ever opposed to one another and do confidently affirm the contrary because I have examined all Places where Faith and Works are mentioned and do not find them if any affirm let him prove it R. Mr. Cl's Confidence is no Proof and his searching the Scriptures and not finding so plain a Truth as that Justification by Faith is opposed to Justification by Works argues but judicial blindness whereby God hath hardned his Heart and blinded his Eyes 1. As was said before all Gospel-works as he calls his New Law Works brought into Justification by a Law are legal not Gospel not accepted of God but leaves a Man under a Curse 2. Those that are Gospel-works are Fruits of the Spirit thro' the Gift of Grace and Fruits of Faith as they are Fruits of Christ's Righteousness believed in to Justification and no cause of Justification in the least neither doth the Believer claim Justification thereby and hence called Gospel-Works but if he claim Justification by them they are Works and opposed to Faith but loose the Name of Gospel are Legal dross and dung and stink in the Nostrils of God neither are any such Works the gracious Gifts of the Spirit or true Faith or the good Fruit of it For such seek Righteousness as it were by the Works of the Law and obtain it not 3. Now whereas Mr. Cl. here throws down his Gantlet in an Ambiguous manner we take it up in the true State of the Difference and confidently affirm that Justification by Faith is positively opposed by the Apostle Paul to Justification by any Works of a Law whatever performed by us the proving of which is the drift of this whole Dispute as now managed 4. He saith there was no Coutroversie about any other Works but the Works of the Law Resp There was no Controversie about any Works but the Works of a Law no more is there now Gal. 5.4 The Apostle saith They are abdicated from Christ and fallen from Grace that are justified by a Law so say we § 10. Proposition 4. This Law was the whole Body of the Mosaical Law consisting of precepts Moral Ceremonial and Judicial what he saith under this proposition about the acceptation of the term Law I think will not hold all of it with his other Doctrine for he saith its taken 1. For any written Declaration or Revelation of the Will of God concerning our Duty 2. It s frequently taken for the Moral Law as Rom. 7.12 and Ch. 3.31 Mat. 5.17 Luke 16.17 3. It s used Indefinitely for the whole Body of the Law given to Moses and therefore he mentions it in such general Terms R. Because Law is used in so many Senses in Scripture and those that would introduce Justification by Works are apt to slip from one Law to another and say as Mr. Cl. doth that though the Apostle deny Justification by one Law yet he intends Justification by Works of another Law therefore the Apostle excludes our Works of any Law whatever as frequently in his Epistles as hath been shewed so in that express and plain Place Gal. 3.21 If there had been a Law given which could have given Life verily Righteousness should have been by the Law And why is it spoken It 's spoken as a Reason that the Law of Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not against the Promise i. e. against Justification by the Promise and Gift of Righteousness no the Law of Moses taken together was so far from being against this way of Justification without the Works of a Law that it witnessed to it as the Apostle expresly speaks Rom. 3.21 It did not appropriate the Grace of the Promise to it self but by the whole Tenor of it witnessed to the Promise and Righteousness The Law of Moses taken as a Law did justifie none Gal. 3.11 For saith the Apostle the Law i. e. as such is not of Faith ver 12. The Condition of it being Works and therefore Justification by the Law is not Justification by Faith the Apostle saying further ver 18. If the Inheritance be of a Law than no more of Promise ver 19. For what end served the Law given by Moses Answ It was added because of Transgression till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made i. e. Christ but why added for two Ends. 1. That Sin might be distinctly known by the Moral Part as the Apostle by the Knowledge of Sin 2. That by the Ceremonial Law there might be a Typical Redemption and Satisfaction held forth unto them through which they might have a sight of Faith and of the true Sacrifice held forth unto them § 11. Proposition 5. The Law was looked upon by the Carnal Jews as a Covenant of Werks Mat. 19.16 Granting that it was yet not to be fulfill'd by a perfect Obedience but by imperfect as appears by his Words What good thing shall I do that I may inherit Eternal Life As much as to say I have done Good and Evil I would know what that good thing is whereby I may be righteous to Life Eternal He depreciates the Law calling it a Ministration of Death and Condemnation 2 Cor. 3.7 9. It was the true Sense of the Apostle that the Law of Moses or any other Commands of God understood used and applied as a Law for Justification by the Works of it is a Ministration of Death and not of Faith and as a Ceremonial Law which Heb. 6.19 is made nothing and by it self perfect it being Typical and the Type absolutely considered could not purifie them as to Conscience The Apostle saith it was weak through our weakness Rom. 8.3 We being not able to come to the Terms of this nor of any other and Rom. 6.14 saith we i. e. Believers are not under a Law but under Grace for Justification as much as to say you take the Doctrine of Grace to be a licentious Doctrine but believe it it s the legal Doctrine that leads to Sin not the Doctrine of Grace besides the Apostle shews plainly that to look for Justification by the Law of Moses or of any other is to be Married to it which he shews Rom. 7. is quite contrary to our Marriage to Christ by Faith while we are in expectation of Justification by a Law we are held in Bondage but being by the true Sence of the Nature of it Dead to it it becomes Dead to us Now we are delivered from the Law that being Dead wherein we were held and there 's no other Husband comes in the room of the Dead Law no new Law but Christ only And the Opposition saith Mr. Cl. is only between the Law of Works and the Law of Faith if he make the Law of Faith to be a Law of Works then it s no Opposition at all because both are a Law of Works and why I pray is Justification by Faith Justification by
Law is unsinning therefore this Plea will serve no more for Ejection of the VVorks of the Old Law than for the Ejection of the VVorks of the New Law out of Justification Hence we see the pretence of casting out the VVorks of the Old Law is frivolous and vain because they are performed by our Strength which none can pretend to no not Adam in Innocency or because they introduce boasting when the VVorks of any Law do when Justification is pleaded for thereby they are meritorious when the VVorks of any Law are so or they are unsinning and perfect when the VVorks of any Law must be so or else it justifies not § 17. Prop. 10. The Jews many of them did Conceit and Fancy that they could yield perfect Obedience to this Law so as to need no Pardon This he would prove from Luke 16.15 and Luke 18.9 Resp It is not to be granted that a People that offered so many Sacrifices for Sin should think they could yield perfect Obedience to the Law of God That of Luke 16. proves not his Assertion for Christ speaks only of the Justification before Men by their external Actions and he shews that neither their external nor internal would justifie them before God and besides he tells them that which Men account Righteousness God looks upon as an Abomination Nor that Chap. 18.9 for he there condemns plainly looking for Justification by Mens own Righteousness and trusting to it VVhat doth a Neonomian do less then they when he looks upon himself as Righteous to Justification by his own Righteousness thence he gives the Instance of the proud Pharisee and poor Publican he saith the Publican of the two lookt more like a Justified Person because he renounced his own Righteousness and applied himself wholly to the Mercy of God as a poor Sinner not pleading any works at all of any kind 2. It is to be supposed the carnal Jews did look for Justification by their own Righteousness tho' they looked not at themselves as Righteous in perfect performance of the Moral Law for if so they could not have been so Zealous for Moses his ceremonial Law the chiefest part whereof was the Levitical Priesthood and Sacrifices they could not but know that the very High-Priest sinned and offered first for his own Sins and then for the Sins of the People yea that Sin polluted their holiest things and therefore Sacrifices for Sin were offered for them yea all sprinkled with Blood But they having such apprehensions of their Justification as the Neonomians have of theirs they fall under the severe remarks of the Lord Christ and his Apostles 1. They looked upon Moses his Law as that which was their New Law for Justification by imperfect Righteousness in opposition to the Old Law as first given to Adam in Innocency 2. They looked upon the Sanction of the Law of Works as to perfection to be abrogated or relaxed that God would accept them for their sincerity in Imperfect works so Paul in his unregeneracy 3. They looked to the Opus operatum in all Obedience to Moses his Law for because 1. They looked for forgiveness by the Offering up of Sin Offering meerly without looking to the Antitype by Faith 2. They looked upon the most material part of the Law of Works to be taken up into Moses his Law their New Law now its Impossible but the New Law to them if ever any such thing was Exhibited and dispensed by Moses his Law which indeed being spiritually understood was the Jews Gospel therefore saith the Apostle they sought Righteousness Rom. 9. As it were by the Works of a Law tho' it was impersest yet the works of a Law and never attained to a law of Righteousness and why Because they went to Establish their own impertect Righteousness but sought not after a true perfect Righteousness which was not their own but Christs Rom. 10.3.4 Now saith the Apostle these are engaged in a great mistake for they think to have a Justification by an impepfect partial Obedience but they become hereby Debtors to keep the whole Law of Moses Moral and Ceremonial but such as seek such Justification by Law-Works either Legal or Evangelical for the New-Law must be such else they were not saved even as we are abdicated from Christ and fallen from Grace Gal. 3.3 4. As for the words of the rich Man Luke 11.21 And as to Paul's sentiments in his unregeneracy Phil. 3.6 They are to be understood only as to common account and gross Actions not that Paul thought he was perfect as to Moral-Obedience but that he was imperfectly righteous by some degrees of moral obedience together with his Mosaical Expiation for Sin and this is no other than his New-Law righteousness hence Rom. 7.9 he was alive without the law once i. e. he once laid aside the thoughts of the spirituality and exactness of the righteousness of the true law of God and therefore cast it off but was wholly taken up with a new-New-Law righteousness imperfect and that God would accept this to Justification but when he came to see the true law and what righteousness he must be justified by or perish eternally then sin revived then he could see sin with a vengeance in himself and died to all Justification by his works or by a law of what kind soever it was § 18. There 's one place yet behind under the branch of Negative 1 Cor. 4.4 I know nothing by my self yet am I not hereby justified Resp This place is against Mr. Cl. for here are two things in it He tells us of a twofold Judgment of God that he looked for 1. That of his Person 2. The regularity and sincerity of his Actions and Deportment Whatever Censures Men were ready to pass upon him yet he had the testimony of a good conscience as chap. 1. but whatever his simplicity and godly sincerity was he expected not to be justified by it but it might be said your actions are condemned by men and there 's none that doeth good and sinneth not and so may you in discharge of your Apostleship He saith as to my actions God knows what they are and he will testifie to them before the World that condemns them when he shall come and lay open the secret and hidden things of darkness therefore he disowns plainly Justification by New-law-works and he appeals plainly to the Judgment of God as to his ways and works to be such wherein he is Evangelically thro Christ approved of God as such as are regular sincere and from a true Principle renouncing Justification thereby but desiring to walk in all well-pleasing to God in Sanctification § 19. It is now time to look back a little and take notice of the great Challenge Mr. Cl. makes I do absolutely deny true Gospel works and justifying faith are opposed one to another which is very unfairly made as to the Terms whereas Justifying-Faith and Gospel-Works as the fruits of justifying are consentaneous as Cause
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
Righteousness is the pâ—r the formal cause by which we are justified This Distinction Mr. H. having taken up from Bellarmine makes very much of More of it anon § 5. Take one or two for all to avoid tediousness to the Reader Mr. H. in Medioc p. 42. Herein doth appear the ground of reconciliation between the Papists and us in this point the sum of what he saith is Provided they say that the works they plead for our righteousness be the works of the new law and not of the old we are agreed and then tells us That Gods judging a man to have performed the condition of the Covenant i. e. the New Law is the accounting and declaring him righteous That righteousness which makes a man righteous and denominates him righteous is that righteousness which does make God account him righteous and that is the righteousness which he doth Note it for it is express and this he saith is not the righteousness of the law of works but of the law of grace which he saith is a righteousness which he doth but not work in doing which is pretty absurd that a man should do works of righteousness and not work but the meaning is he doth not work perfect works I will not wrong him But do not those that work imperfect works work Yea saith he they that do absolutely sinful works are called workers of iniquity A little after he tells us Christ's Redemption was to bring in a New Law for when Man fell it was impossible he should be righteous any more unless there were a new Law brought in by performance whereof he might attain to that again which he lost now this was the main business of Christ's Redemption the procuring a new law or another law with lower Terms which some men performing they do thereby become righteous and so have righteousness according to that Law imputed to them for Remission and life eternal And thus you see what everlasting righteousness Christ brought in Dan. 9. and in his Piece Of Righteousness which comes forth with Episco Approbation p. 3. It is true against the Papists there is no such righteousness inherent as to render God appeased with the sinner or that the Conscience can rest on it then it is good for nothing as that propter quod he is forgiven or saved by his favour Bellarmine doth not say it is but that Christ's righteousness is the propter quam Therefore the Papists and they are agreed in this sence It is true also against the common Protestant therefore the Neonomians are not Protestants unless such as have causa formalis of Papists that there is not any righteousness without us that can be made ours so as we should be accounted righteous in another's righteousness or be that thing per quod we are justified there is no such matter in reality but in notion only This righteousness as imperfect as it is wrought by the Spirit is that and must be that which is the form per quam he is accepted and justified we grant the righteousness of Christ is the meritorious cause per quam we are pardoned and saved § 6. About the New Law there 's little difference between the Papists and Neonomians tho the Papiste are on the surer side of the Notion Mr. Fox Mart. about the difference between Ancient Rome and present p. 34. tells us The Church of Rome teach the People that there 's no difference between Moses and Christ save only that Moses was the giver of the old law but Christ the giver of a new and more perfect law And it s most rational that the new law should be a more perfect law and not a law of imperfection we do not mend perfect things and if there be any reason for particular ends it s with those things that more perfectly answer those ends and therefore their remedying law ought to be perfecter and most compleat § 7. Next a-kin to these men are the Quakers in their most refined Doctrine put out in the name of Barclay but I heard Mr. Keath that was a Neonomian Quaker say Barclay's Book was chiefly his work Works are necessary to Justification as well as Faith James 2. both equally required to Justification works of the Law are excluded as done by us Tit. 3.5 6 7. this is Mr. H. just To be justified by Grace is to be justified or saved by Regeneration which cannot exclude Works wrought by Grace and by the Spirit 1 Cor. 6.11 The law gives not power to obey and so falls short of Justification but there 's power under the Gospel by which the Law comes to be fulfilled inwardly Rom. 8.3 4. Works are the Condition upon which Life is proposed under the New Covenant Tho we place Remission of Sins in the Righteousness and Obedience of Christ performed in the Flesh as to what pertains to the remote procuring cause and that we hold our selves formally justified by Christ formed and brought forth in us yet can we not as some Protestants have done unwarily exclude works from Justification for tho properly we are not justified for them yet are we justified in them c. § 8. The Socinians say No other Imputation is in our eternal Salvation than that whoever sincerely obeys the Commands of Christ is from them accounted of God righteous Socin de serv When God is said to impute Faith for Righteousness the meaning is that God hath so great a value for Faith that he esteems it for a Righteousness to Justification Crel on Gal. 3.6 And Mr. B. saith I abhor the Opinion that Christ's righteousness given us is all without us Preface to Doct. of Chr. p. 3. but more of this in what follows § 9. The Arminians bring up the Rear and I shall name the Man from whom I can prove Mr. B. hath taken up most of his corrupt Notions about General Redemption and Justification and its J. G. The Question in precise Terms is this Whether the Faith of him that truly believes in Christ or whether the righteousness of Christ himself be that which God imputes to a Believer for righteousness or unto Righteousness in his Justification J. G. of Justification p. 7. he concludes it is faith As a Merchant that grows rich by such a Commodity i. e. he grew rich by the Gain and Return he made of that Commodity So we may be said to be justified by the righteousness of Christ and yet not have the righteousness it self upon us by Imputation or otherwise but only a righteousness procured or purchased by it really and essentially differing from it p. 12. This Righteousness of Christ is not that that is imputed unto any man for righteousness but is that for which righteousness is imputed to every man that believeth Paul neither eat his Fingers nor spun out the flesh of his hands into cloathing and yet was both fed and cloathed with them Here 's the true sense of being justified by the effects of Christ's Righteousness So may a
at God's hand seeing God can be a debtor ex pacto regimine gratiae paterno Resp God can be a Debtor to sinful Man ex pacto but then 1. It s upon pactum absolutum not such a Covenant as makes man's works meritorious 2. It is in and through Christ only that God is a Debtor in the way of Justice 3. It s meerly Free Grace that hath brought about the Sinners Salvation by Christ and not purchased by himself 4. God is not nor ever will be a Debtor to sinful Man to justifie him for or by any works done by him either here or hereafter 5. Therefore whatever is the fruit of Free Grace in us is free in respect of us on whom it is bestowed we do not merit or deserve it in the least neither doth God reward any of his Children regimine foederis operum such as the New Law is and must be which rewards us upon our own fulfilling the condition But upon the account here mentioned before refuted which is a most direct answer because we have shewed the indirectness and falsity of it And I declare that God's Abatement of Terms and requiring a new Condition is that which therefore makes it free seeing it is tendred and obtained without performance of the old Resp The changing of Terms in a covenant doth not make it free if God had changed the terms of the old covenant from perfect obedience to imperfect it had not made it free because the condition is Works still for here the change is but a change from one compact to another viz. Abatement of terms and requiring new terms in the room What if a man gets his Creditor of whom he complains he hath a hard Bargain to make another Bargain upon easier terms this is a favour indeed but its justice considering he had brought him under too hard terms before but yet he doth not therefore give the commodity to him because he allows him easier terms but makes another Bargain upon other terms So here the new law is as much a Bargain as the other tho upon easier terms which cannot be admitted He proceeds to refute Augustine about the works of the law according to Paul's sense which we shall examine when we come upon that Point § 14. We shall here gather the sum of what according to truth is to be asserted and defended against Mr. H. and the rest 1. That the covenant of Works was not made with Man upon equal Terms for his perfectest Obedience could never be equal with the promised Reward 2. That the New-law Covenant is upon as equal Terms according to the nature of the Law and they differ not in nature from the old covenant being works if they differ in degree it s the covenant which hath made it so and the Promise is as much a reward to the imperfection as it was in the old to a perfect condition by God's constitution 3. God is free and can be bound by none but himself and it s his Grace to covenant with the creature any way but when God hath freely without purchase covenanted upon Terms of the creatures performance he maketh himself a Debtor thereupon let the Terms be perfect or imperfect 4. In the pretended new-law covenant where faith and obedience are the conditions Man merits ex pacto and God become a Debtor to him as much as he should have bin to Adam if he had stood hence the Apostle cannot mean justifying freely by grace in Mr. H's sense But when we are said to be justified freely by Gods grace is meant 〈◊〉 That it is of the pleasure of God's Will not upon any external Motive no not of Christ's Death that God exerts the Grace of Justification he is gracious to whom he will 2. It is free in that the Object of it upon whom it falleth is a sinner every way undone and miserable without Works or Qualifications much less deserving of this Grace and this is the chief meaning of the Apostle in Rom. 3. 3. The providing giving and bestowing Christ and his righteousness is an high act of Grace that a sinner may be justified at the Bar of Divine Justice that a sinner according to the Mystery of his Will and gracious Dispensation may be fully acquitted thro Christ from the fiery Law and discharged from all the charges thereof by the highest Justice 4. That as it was Free Grace every way to us considered in our selves therefore a Covenant of Promise without conditions required on our part hence absolute so it was a higher Covenant of Works to the Second Adam than ever the First was under and whereas Mr. H. objects and says then we are justified by the law I answer 1. Where did he ever see Justification but by a Law 2. He makes his to be by the new Law which law we deny to be in rerum natura 3. As we are justified by the Grace of God so it is in Christ Jesus and a Believer in Christ needs no New Law to justifie him he is justified by the Law in Jesus Christ and yet freely by Grace CHAP. III. Of Righteousness Sect. 1. Righteousness what and of what kinds § 2. Of Distributive Justice § 3. Distinctions in respect of Justice § 4. God's Justice in Efficiency § 5. No Justifying Righteousness but perfect § 6. Of the way of God's Execution of his Justice § 7. Righteousness again distinguished § 8. Righteousness of Justification and Sanctification Sect. 1. JVstitia est suum cuique tribuere to give every one his due so Cicero The Spirit of God tells us it s to render every one their due or right Rom. 13.7 Prov. 27. And it s either commutative or distributive commutative when persons mutually perform their Duty to each other which they are bound to by any Law Covenant or Agreement whether they be superiors to inferiors or inferiors to superiors or equals to one another a due conformity in obedience to a Law is commutative Justice Rom. 13. done for Conscience sake giving the Legislator his due but if he is pleased not only to bind me to Duty but promise a Reward upon performance as I am bound to Obedience so on the performance thereof God is bound to Reward whence if Man had stood the Covenant had bin fulfilled by way of commutation it s so between Magistrate and People being bound together by Covenant and each observing his Duty to other it s done by commutative Justice and yet without any derogation from the Authority and Grandeur and just Prerogative of the Magistrate § 2. Distributive Justice or Righteousness is Magistratick for the maintaining commutative Justice by awarding it where it s refused or punishing the breach thereof or in vindicating just persons which are falsly accused upon that account to render to men judicially according to their works All first conformity to Laws and Covenants is by commutative Justice but upon complaint of the breach of the Rules thereof Distributive Justice takes place Hence
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
intervening Righteousness between Christ and us what to call it Mt. Cl. calls it subordinate and so doth Mr. B. but Mr. H. liking not that Name so well had rather call it co-ordinate but I know not from the Notion of the thing duly considered why they may not go one step further and call it the Principal or supream justifying righteousness for that which hath the principal place in any thing ascribed to it is the principal but our own righteousness hath the principal place in the thing ascribed to it which is Justification therefore it s the chief and supream righteousness For they say we are justified by the imputation of this righteousness only and by no other therefore all conducing righteousnesses to the introducing this are subordinate to it Again That which hath its place only in the external causes and in the modality of their operation as to the production of the effect is much inferiour to the essential causes that enter the very effect and are constitutive to it but Christ's Righteousness by these men is no more and therefore must be a subordinate righteousness to ours ours being causa formalis justificationis an essential cause Christ's being but causa protarch a remote cause adjuvant to the efficient therefore the righteousness of Christ can have no more than a remote causality in purchasing the New Law by the righteousness whereof we are justified which is no better indeed than causa sine qua non it s in ordine ad the justifying righteousness therefore subordinate to it 2. He saith This subordinate Gospel Righteousness is an imperfect righteousness Truly I am sorry for it that Gospel Righteousness should be imperfect I doubt there 's little dependance upon it since the righteousness of the law that condemns us is perfect its little likelihood that an imperfect righteousness should save us from it ay but they will say it s Christ's perfect righteousness must save us from the perfect righteousness of the law condemning us Say you so and therefore why should not this righteousness of Christ have the honour of justifying us it seems we are saved by Christ's righteousness and justified by our own as if Justification were not Salvation But is our Gospel-righteousness imperfect this is no Gospel for its ill News I must tell these men its a rotten foundation they build upon and their Building will drop not being built on Christ the Corner Stone in Justification 3. He saith It s imperfect consistent with many failings and infirmities Resp I pray how comes this to pass is it from the Legislator that constituted such a Law whose condition is obedience consistent with sin or is it from the Operator or Worker under this Law if from the former then the Law makes it in fault if there be any but if he hath made a law with such condition of obedience consistent with sin then performance of such is no sin nor needs a Pardon for sin is the transgression of the law the subject is under Now if Believers are under the New Law for Justification and perform there what 's required what need have they of a Pardon from a righteousness borrowed from another law If it be from the last viz. the fault and defect of the operator of righteousness that his righteousness is not the performance of the condition of the New Law as required then this New Law cannot justifie him our Neonomians in this Point will be on Scilla or Charybdis in spite of the World In a word 1. That righteousness that cannot justifie us at the Bar of the old Law or Covenant of Works is no justifying righteousness but none of our own righteousness New Law or other will not justifie us at the Bar of the Covenant of Works by the Neonomians own confession therefore we cannot be justied by any such righteousness 2. Again that righteousness which needs pardon is no justifying righteousness but is condemned by the law for whatever is pardoned is condemned by the law first neither is that person justified who by the law is unpardoned Pardon being an essential part of Justification in Mens Courts where many Indictments ly against a Man if he be quitted of some and not of all he is not discharged as justified but here it s worse I do not find that at the New Law Bar a man as they say justified is quite discharged from any Indictment at all for there 's none fully pardoned wherefore our Neonomians say that their Justification is not perfect in this life So Mr. Cl. Our Justification in this world is not perfect and compleat c. p. 18. § 6. Mr. Cl. saith There 's a twofold guilt Legal and Evangelical Legal Guilt is an obligation to eternal punishment this is fully pardoned in Justification and can never return again because Christ hath taken it all upon himself and made full satisfaction to his Father's Justice for it but Gospel-guilt which is an obligation to Gospel-Punishment i. e. fatherly chastisements for sins after Justification returns upon commission of new sins and is removed upon repentance sometimes wholly sometimes in part This is also Mr. H's Doctrine Resp The distinction is naught for we deny any Evangelical Guilt Evangelical Guilt Threat or Punishment is a Bull a downright Contradiction if we know what Gospel is and they that will be ignorant and call this Assertion Antinomian Poyson let them be ignorant still I thank God for the knowledge of the Gospel so far as that it is quite contrary to Guilt Threat and Punishment or Obligation to it in the true legal sense thereof Likewise he should have distinguished of Guilt as usual reatus culpae and reatus paenoe the first properly Guilt and that in judicio legis vel judicio conscientiae if a Man be sub reatu culpae judicio legis as they say the justified ones are he is unjustified for the law cannot justifie a man and declare him guilty i. e. not guilty and guilty at the same time Obligation to Punishment is not Guilt in the true sense of it for we say a man cast in Court is guilty of the charged Fault and therefore the Law binds him over to Punishment We never say a Man is guilty of the punishment but deserves he is found guilty and therefore the Sentence of the Law binds him to Punishment but he saith Legal Guilt is fully pardoned in Justification Pardon is always of a fault and includes not punire but is sin pardoned fully in Justification as to an obligation to eternal punishment then 1. Pardon is included in Justification contrary to what he asserts in the foregoing Page 2. Justification is perfect and compleat so far as the taking off eternal punishment 3. He cannot but own this to be the main part of Justification at least and this it seems is owing to the full satisfaction made by Christ to the Justice of God our righteousness of the New Law hath nothing to do here in the matter
of Eternal State Where are we now what a Justification is this by the New Law wherein our eternal state is not concerned Well! but our Justification in this life is not yet perfect not by Christ because he takes off only eternal punishment but temporal he hath left to us to remove by Repentance performing the righteousness of the New Law I hope this righteousness falling in to help Christ's it will produce perfect Justification No it wont this righteousness takes away our Sins and Punishment wholly but sometimes and sometimes only in part and what 's the reason where 's the fault why it falls upon this New Law which is always fulfilling and never fulfilled it will never justifie any one till the last day and it cannot do it then without the perfect righteousness of the Old Law § 7. Let 's take Mr. Cl's Definition of Justification into consideration a little He saith The Definition of Justification so far as it relates to God is thus Justification is an act of God whereby he accounts us righteous at present and treats us as such and will solemnly declare and pronounce us so at the last day of Judgment Resp He should have told us what act of God whether immanent or transient whether an act of Grace or Justice or both he should have told us the object of that act whether a meer sinner or a righteous person he will tell us anon it s a righteous person and he saith accounting him so at present if this accounting him be in a law sense it s but Imputation at most and this is that and all that he doth at present he finds them holy and righteous and judgeth them to be as they be but doth not God declare them righteous at present neither in foro Legis nor in foro Evangelii nor in foro conscientiae in none of these at present when then the very Sentence of Justification is not till the last day so that indeed there is none justified till then for a suspended sentence keeps the person whatever Opinion the Judge hath of him under the Law in Prison and in continual fear of Condemnation so that they are all the day long for fear of Death subject to Bondage § 8. Hence he infers two things 1. That Justification while we are in this life is but partial imperfect and incompleat and that we shall not obtain fully compleat entire and final Justification for all the effects of sin till the Day of Judgment To which I answer Where there is but an imperfect partial Justification there must be a partial Condemnation it cannot be denied but the Apostle denys it and saith there 's no condemnatien to them that are in Christ Jesus 2. The law knows no such thing a man is either perfectly justied for the same thing or perfectly condemned there 's no Medium betwixt Justification and Condemnation 3. If the New Law do not perfectly justifie a person then it condemns too at the same time that when ever the Parator of righteousness takes himself to be justified he is bound to believe himself condemned also and whether will stand good at the last Day he knows not either his Justification or Condemnation CHAP. VI. Of Pardon Section 1. Whether Remission of Sin belongs to Justification § 2. Remission distinguished by Mr. H. § 3. Of general Remission § 4. Conditional Pardon antecedent to a mans Justification § 5. Actual Pardon subsequent to a mans Justification Sect. 1. MR. Cl's Second Inference is That Justification doth not properly consist in Pardon afterward he saith a man is first righteous and then pardoned to which we have spoken something Mr. H. makes a fearful pudder about this Point we will a little inspect his Notions Mediocr p. 44 55. Our Divines do generally place Justification in remission of Sins and so do the Papists and so did I my self Resp Remission of Sins is upon good grounds placed in Justification as an essential part of the Justification of a Sinner and I can boldly deny that sinner to be justified whose sins are not forgiven and to separate them is as possible as to separate homo animal rationale The Law any Law nay your New Law cannot justifie a sinner and declare him righteous unless in that very act of declaring him righteous his sins are taken away in foro legis and this is God's Remission tho not Man 's for his ways are not as mans and whereas Mr. H. makes remission of sins to be a benefit after Justification as an effect of it we say it is a benefit in Justification and the first thing in it in Nature for its impossible any one should stand righteous in the eye of any Law that stands chargeable as a transgressor thereof But remission must not saith Mr. H. be the formal reason of Justification Resp The form of an Act and the formal reason of that Act are two things the material reason of Justification is righteousness and the formal cause is imputation of that righteousness Justification comes in as the acquitting Sentence opposed as Mr. B. saith to condemnation which ex natura rei must formally carry in it forgiveness of sins He proceeds To forgive a mans sins and declare him rigeteous are two inconsistencies one with another in the same respect Resp Cujus contrarium verum in Justification of a Sinner they are most consistent and inseparable that in declaring a sinful man righteous his sins are also done away its true in mans way of Pardon there is some inconsistency because his is by dispensing with his Law but God's way of forgiveness is in and through the satisfaction of his Law but I must tell him that here no Man is looked upon as righteous in the eye of man's law that hath transgressed it till he is first pardoned and therefore when God pronounceth a man just it is according to the law of faith when he pardons his sins it is in respect of the law of works Resp Here are two Bars now he saith elsewhere he likes not two bars I would fain know now at which of these Bars a sinner is most justified either by the law of Works where all his sins are forgiven and therefore consequently must be made righteous or at the Bar of the New Law where he saith the man is declared just but imperfectly so and therefore goes away with his sins upon his Back to the Law of Works to have them pardoned Is it not pretty Divinity then to say a man is declared righteous first at the Bar of the Law of Faith and then all the Bed-role of his sins are pardoned at the Bar of the Law of Works § 2. He comes to distinguish of Remission It s either conditional and universal as it lies in the Covenant and is the purchase of Christ or actual as it lies in application thereof to particular persons upon performance of the conditions Resp This Distinction is a great Point among the Neonomians Mr. B.
makes much use of it in his Vniversal Redemption the Story is this They feign that God finding the inconvenience of the law of works by reason of the Fall his Son satisfied not the law broken but compounded with God as Lord above Law that this law should be relapsed saith Mr. H. Mr. B. saith that it might be abrogated which is more rational tho it is more downright Antinomianism which scares Mr. H. Christ accordingly dies to purchase a New Law with condition of imperfect obedience instead of the perfect the propounding or promulgating this New Law to all the world is universal remission it being the offer of Remission on the condition of imperfect obedience to all the World in this sence all the world they say is redeemed justified and forgiven before they perform that condition Now if any others besides Neonomians should talk at this rate they would be in danger of being taken up and sent to Bethlem for Madmen As if a Company suppose the E. India set up their Bills for a Sale at a certain time after prefixt with the respective Prizes if one or all should run about the City before the day of Sale prefixt and say they had sold their Goods at such and such Prizes all men will call them Liars or Madmen So because God proffers eternal life upon performance of a condition therefore all men are redeemed justified and forgiven i. e. say they conditionally and that 's not at all till they perform the condition but Neonomians may talk non-sence and contradict by the New Law yea and assert Justification before Faith while they call others Antinomians who do it when they are the greatest Antinomians themselves in the World Now the noise that they make about the Merit and Purchase of Christ it s no more than his purchasing the New Law of Works and they are justified by the performing the condition of the new law for the sake of Christ's Merits its only because as Mr. H. tells us that Christ by his Merits was an efficient of the New Law so that generally in all they talk of Christ's Satisfaction and Merits there 's some cheat or Amphibology Mr. H. indeed speaks out most honestly in as good as telling us that Neonomians are Papists in the Point of Justification But to proceed § 3. When Divines say we can do nothing our selves for procuring reconciliation and remission it is to be understood of conditional universal remission Resp What Divines understand so they are not the Protestants it s only the Neonomians who are no Protestants in the Point of Justification These Divines understand only that we cannot purchase the conditional universal Remission the Purchase of that it seems was peculiar to Christ but as for particular Remission these men purchase and Reconciliation too Christ purchased that we might purchase and tho he purchased the new law and promulgation of it yet he purchased not the performance of the Condition for such hard terms they will keep Christ too that he may not entrench on their Dignity § 4. Conditional Pardon is antecedent to a mans Justification and contained in our redemption in whom we have redemption through his blood the forgiveness of sins Resp Conditional Pardon is none it s no more than the offer of a Bargain to any that will come to the Terms As if I should offer to Lett my House for so much Money by a Bill over the Door and then say I have Lett my House to all the men in London And its strange that all men should be pardoned and redeemed and not justified but I think R. B. saith they are justified and I am sure they may be as well justified as pardoned However he owns Pardon in Redemption and this antecedent to Faith sure then Justification which with us is inseparable from Faith is not Antinomianism And is it possible any Divine should abuse the Scripture so as to wrest it to such a sense that the Apostle should by Remission there mean such as is contained in universal Redemption Col. 1.14 whereas the Apostle speaks of Redemption in particular application for the words preceeding v. 13. are who hath delivered us from the power of darkness and hath translated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son verse 14. In whom we have redemption § 5. Actual Remission is subsequent to Justification for we must be supposed first to have performed the condition and be pronounced righteous and then pardoned when there is no remission then but doth go before or follow Justification it cannot be made the very act it self of Justification Resp Let us try a little for it 1. He saith actual remission is subsequent to Justification now we are come into Mr. Cl's road he seems not to be so well acquainted with the Mystery of the antecedent remission and it s so indeed for it seems it is but potential remission it s not actual nay it s a contingent potentia there is pardon and none pardoned the meaning is that the New Law made all the world pardonable upon a contingent condition 2. We find a pretty odd invention here 's Justification beset with Remission before and behind and yet no Remission in it a man pardoned and not justified and then justified and not pardoned and truly if this subsequent Pardon be no better than the antecedent the Neonomian Justification is destitute of Pardon before and behind too I wonder all Protestant Divines do not nauseate such Whims as these 3. But is it possible that he should say that pardon cannot be made the act of Justification surely these forget what they are talking of is it not conditional Pardon the New Law promiseth how can there be Justification by the New Law of him that performs the condition but by pardon in the act of Justification for if the New Law saith believe and thou shalt be pardoned the new law when it justifies the Believer must pardon him and now we have help at a dead lift just now it was that tho our new law could justifie yet it could not pardon but we are fain to go to the old Law Bar to fetch a Pardon and trouble Christ about it too but we have found now that the new law can pardon for if it pardon all the World conditionally it can pardon particular persons actually when they perform the conditions CHAP. VII The Neonomian Doctrine of Iustification Examined Section 1. Mr. H's Definition of Justification § 2. Imperfect Obedience not to be accepted by God to Justification § 3. Justification not without Life § 4. Of the Form of Justification 5. What is the account of Christ's righteousness § 6. Christ's Merits put to account are imputed § 7. Distinction between Pardon and bearing with our defects § 8. A Pardon general becomes absolute § 9. Justification by Infusion and by Imputation distinguished § 10. Of Justifying the Vngodly § 11. Whether Old Law Righteousness or New be best § 12. Mr. H's Mystery which he saith
Dr. O. did not understand MR. H. defines Justification thus It is an act of God's free Grace whereby God imputes to every sound Believer his Faith for Righteousness upon the account of Christ's Satisfaction and Merit giving him Pardon and Life as the benefits of it Right of God p. 25. Resp For the Genus he refers the proof to the Assembly but he representeth himself short of the Assembly who say Justification is an act of God's free Grace unto sinners for which they quote Rom. 3.21 24 25. Now Justification barely considered as such is an act of Justifice unless it be spoken with this condition and I find Mr. H's Notion of it will not bear this connection for his Justification is of a person only that is subjectively righteous our Justification and his are distinguished toto genere for he saith the object of his Justification is a righteous person to such an one Justification is due it s no act of Grace to justifie such an one a sound Believer By Faith he means Repentance and New Obedience as the conditional terms of the New Law which being performed by any one he is not justified by free Grace but legally he can challenge it by the New Law § 2. This Faith and New Obedience tho imperfect God accepts in the room of perfect righteousness not accounting it perfect Resp It is absurd to say God accepts it in the room of perfect for if so it should come in in place and room of the perfect in the Covenant of Works God putting out that condition and putting in this but this imperfect comes as terms in another law so it hinders not the terms of another 2. No why should God account it perfect if it be as they say but the law of God is perfect and tho God judgeth the righteousness morally imperfect in comparison of the righteousness of the first law yet he must reckon it a perfect condition of the new law it being as much as the law requires and therefore a condition perfectly performed for else it can never be pleaded or imputed at its Bar but he saith he accepts it if he accept it its by its self or for the sake of a better righteousness now no law can accept any righteousness by its self but it must be esteemed by its self to be a full righteousness compleatly to answer the demands of the said law if the law accept it for or in the righteousness of another it thereby declares the insufficiency of the man 's own righteousness being such as the law cannot justifie him for but the sufficiency of the other righteousness for which he justifies him this now will bring in Christ and his obedience into the new law where our Neonomians will permit him to have nothing to do but only as a Legislator as for his Obedience and Satisfaction it belonged to the old law only with purchase of the new-remedying law Lastly its Nonsence that any law or God in a law should impute Faith and Obedience for righteousness which is not perfectly so according to the law constitution but he doth it upon the account of the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ How upon the account and is the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ put in the Ballance with our imperfect righteousness to make it up or is Christ's righteousness imputed to it that it cannot be unless imputed to the person which he denies how then must we understand this Gentleman for the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ is only effective because Christ was so kind as to purchase Merit and satisfie God for the new law without which he could not have been justified by our imperfect righteousness and this is all they intend by it for the Merits of Christ's sake a plain and facile simile may be given A Man ows a great deal of Money to his Creditor that 's suing of him in Court a friend of the Debtor and Creditor interposeth and brings the Creditor to a Composition of 10 s. 5 s. or 1 s. in the pound these Writings brought into the Court the Action is dismissed for the Merits Purchase and procurement of this person who now brought the Debtor under the new law of Composition which if the Debtor do not pay he is suible upon his Composition Now this is all these men make of the Merits of Christ its only his bringing God to the New Law Composition § 3. Pardon and Life he adds as effects of Justification We have already shewed what an absurd thing Justification is without Pardon Pardon being essential to it but it seems to be as absurd if not more that there should be Justification without life for if by condemnation a man be dead in law then certainly by Justification wherein Condemnation is taken off the person is made alive in law But Mr. H. will have a man to be justified and both ly under the guilt and condemnation of sin for he adds to these which he calls Benefits a right to impunity so that Justification lays but in the foundation of impunity they are not from under punity Justification brings only an expectation of Pardon Life Impunity hereafter but none of these are in hand § 4. When I say this Righteousness or Faith is the form I understand it in the sence as these Divines do who say Christs righteousness is the form or Remission is the form not the form of that Imputation but of Justification passively taken Resp Then the plain meaning is that Mr. Humph. understands our righteousness to have that place in causality of Justification which others give to the righteousness of Christ if other Divines say that Christ's is the formal reason of Justification in the sense that they take Christ's righteousness to be the formal cause in the person justified he takes a man 's own righteousness to stand in genere causalitatis this is Diametrical Opposition and therefore not only to be scrupled but to be contradicted and detested Hum. Not the form of that Imputation but of Justification passively taken Resp Mr. H. confounds his Notion by his obscure Logick for there is a great difference between the form of a thing and formalis ratio agentis the form is an essential cause and enters the effect the effect made up of the vis of all the causes hath existence from concourse of all the causes the formalis ratio is causa movens efficientem non ingreditur effectum tho the form doth which is another thing Now Justification in the abstract is forma justificationis in concreto or in the person justified and there is not any other form as Justitia is the form of justus or of a man imputed just that the imputation makes him legally just to be just and imputed so is one thing in law and to be justified is another Now the justice of a man is the form of the just man and the formalis ratio of Justification and this he saith is the form of Justification
the Condition Resp Either the Neonomians have lost their understandings or think all other Men have and so think they may impose what they please upon them for here he distinguishes betwixt a conditional Gospel Covenant and a Gospel Covenant upon conditions a total Covenant and a partial a total upon conditions and a partial absolute upon performance of conditions and all these one new law Covenant a Covenant that pardons upon conditions and a Covenant absolutely pardoning upon conditions The total pardon if that which pardons all the World upon conditions not performed and yet it damns them too for non performances a pardoning Covenant that damns all for it remains not a pardon upon conditions when any one performs the conditions it s then absolute but did ever any one know that a conditional Covenant when the condition is performed absolute i.e. without conditions if any Man buy a House of his Neighbour for a Summ of Money will he say after he has paid his Money my Neighbour gave me this House for an absolute promise is a promise of free Gift He proceeds The one of these is that very Grace or Act of Grace it self as goes into that Act of Imputation or Act that imputes our Faith for Righteousness when the other still is the Effect or benefit following justification Resp The Man is in a Wood The one of these an act of Grace which of them That which hath conditional pardon without performance or that which upon performance becomes absolute the total general or the partial particular which I know not but one it is that is an Act of Grace going into the Act of Imputation Imputation is an Act of Justice in strict acceptation because its never but of righteousness tho' to bring righteousness to a sinner to whom the Law imputes righteousness is an act of Grace as Justification is but it must not be his own righteousness for that excludes Grace § 9. He is a little cautious of Mr. B's opinion that Justification is the making us righteous but he saith he will distinguish there is a making a Man just by infusion or by Imputation that by infusion is Regeneration which the Papists hold and which we distinguish from Justification Res The righteousness by which they 'll have a man justified is that of Regeneration and that of Works the Papists way has more of Grace in it because theirs is Justification of the ungodly as Regeneration is Sanctifying the ungodly Some he saith are for Justification by pardon and so a Man is righteous by non-imputation of Sin but he is not for this neither because he keeps pardon and non imputation of Sin for a consequent of Justification he will have a Man just in the Eye of the Law and yet under the imputation of Sin well how will he have it to be It s by imputation of what righteousness Christs no it s by Imputation of our Faith to us for righteousness Our Faith and Evangelical Obedience being imperfect and sinful and we are unrighteous in the Eye of the Law for all that but God in his judging us according to the Law of Grace doth allow of that i. e. Sin for Christ's sake instead of all which the Law requires to our Justification Resp Here you see what a parcel of righteousness this New Law righteousness is its imperfect sinful as to Sins of omission and commission and we are for all this righteous in the eye of the moral Law but God judging by the Law of Grace he allows all the Sin against his own Law for Christ's sake Christ hath merited Gods allowing our sinful righteousness i. e. Unrighteousness and justified us for it but seeing here is all this done by the Law of Grace how comes it to pass that it doth not pardon these Sins but they must go to another Bar for Pardon Why because the Law of Grace tho' it justifies the performer it pardons no Sin because no Law can suppose its own condition to be sinful but if there be Sin in the condition as these Men say again and again there is the Law of Grace allows it its certainly an Antinomian Law allows that Sin that Gods most Holy Law condemns God here must deny himself and to say he allows it for Christs sake is to make Christ the Minister of Sin die for allowance of Sin and establishing of it by Law and if God by a new Law hath established this sinful Obedience instead of all which the old Law required what need of asking pardon of the said Law Gods abolition or relaxation of the old Law and setting us upon Obedience to a New Law and the performances thereof instead of what the old Law required freed us from Sin and there needs no pardon for not performing perfect obedience for that would have been sin in the eye of the new law it requiring imperfect obedience imperfection and sinfulness being the formality of the condition and therefore it must needs forbid perfection as most contrary to it and condemn all glorified Saints § 10. By this may that expression of the Apostle he rightly understood God justifies the ungodly not in sensu divlso so that he that is so before his Justification is no longer so afterwards but in sensu composito our Faith or Evangelical Obedience in regard to the law he should have said the law of Works or in regard of those Works that are required by the law to our justification are no righteousness within its own nature therefore unrighteous would justifie us but God constitutes it so by the law of the Gospel and according to that law imputes it to us for righteousness Resp I need say no more to this but that it is both in sensu diviso composito an ungodly interpretation That God should make that righteousness by an after law which he had made moral unrighteousness by a former and impute that by one law for righteousness to Justification which he had imputed by another law for sin to condemnation Is God as Man that he should ly or as the Son of Man that he should repent The sence of the place is not difficult it is that justifies a sinner as such or else it s no act of Free Grace that when the Grace of Justification toucheth on the person of a sinner he is no more godly than when the Grace of Regeneration toucheth upon him tho the Grace of God lays hold on a sinner in both these respects finding them ungodly in all respects yet it leaves them not so His ensuing Supposition is very impertinent supposing that which never was nor never will be viz. That a Believer living regenerate can never be justified by the law of works by his own righteousness No he can be justified by no law neither did God ever make any law to account any mans unrighteousness righteousness I can call that unrighteousness which the law of Works condemns and God never intended by his Grace nor Christ
their upright walking and no otherwise in the World Resp If Mr. H. means Men of the Orthodox complexion in his Eye Neonomian complexions I believe but few if any for ought I know but are of the Opinion Mr. B. hath declared himself and divers others of that Orthodoxy but if he means the true Protestant Calvinistical complexion there 's enough of them 2. I would know whether or no they did ever hear of a New Law and if they expected to be justified by their own righteousness or whether they thought of any other Law to be justified by than the Law of Works For there was not the least Word of any other Law before the Flood or after none can be pretended to be till Abrahams time at furthest 3. Whether there was one Word of a conditinal promise to Adam after the fall and whether he thinks not that Adam Abel Enock c. Were not saved by Faith in that absolute promise that the seed of the Woman c. who is the Messiah tho' not under the Name of Messiah till Ages afterwards did they not believe in his righteousness as that which should break the Serpents Heads i. e. all the power he had got over Man by the unrighteousness he had brought him into 4. If they did look upon themselves as righteous without the Obedience of the Messiah or by the Name which the Spirit of God reveal'd him to them why did they offer Sacrifice for Sin did they look at no Significancy or typicalness in them were they not taught of God so to do and did he not shew shew them that they were typical of the great Sacrifice the seed of the Woman should offer in the end of the World Was it not by Faith they offered them Heb. 11. And what was that Faith was it not in a righteousness for Noah believed in a righteousness and became heir of righteousness which is by Faith what was he Heir of his own Righteousness did they believe in themselves The Apostle 's design is not to prove that Faith is the Evidence of things not seen the Substance of those things hoped for that those worthys lived in Faith and Hope and dyed so not having received the promise in performance but saluted and embraced it by Faith 5. Had Job and his friends such Principles tho' not of the Jews Church chap. 19.27 I know that my Redeemer liveth was there no Faith in his Words is there no righteousness in a Redeemer and what were the Sentiments of his Friends in this Doctrine sure they were not Neonomians Job 25.4 How can Man be justified with God or how can he be clean that is born of a Woman Saith Bildad A Neonomian would have easily resolved this Question by performing of the conditions of the New-Law but alas they heard not of this New-Law this Nor-West passage to Heaven § 2. Let us consider Abraham whether he did imagine himself righteous by his doing righteously or looked to obtain favour of God thereby and no otherways and whether his Faith was not Eminently carried forth to the Eying of Christ in the promise Christ saith Abraham rejoiced to see my Day and saw it and was glad he saw it and saw it and rejoiced and was glad John 8.58 And where and how did he see it was it not in the promise of his Seed and what did he see in it was it not the blessedness promised Gen. 12. and the Salvation by Redemption and Righteousness did he see nothing in Christ for his own Soul yes you say he saw him as a Neonomian Cypher to stand by his Justification by his own Works to the magnifying his own righteousness but the Spirit of God saith he was not justified by Works how come Men to say he was James saith he was how by approving the Truth of his Faith for he was in a justifyed State long before the offering up his Son but his Faith was proved and approved of by God and witnessed to by this eminent Act of Obedience God testified to his particular Acts of Obedience which the World was ready to Condemn and so to Rabab so to Phineas his Act that whatever the World judged of these Actions yet they were approved of God as righteous and true Obedience Abel was an accepted person of God before his offering then because his person was justified God witnesseth to his gifts that they were accepted as being done in Faith whereas Cain was an unjustified person there 's no Sinner justified by his Works but a Believers Works are accepted because their persons are accepted in another righteousness in which their Works are accepted afterward Abel was first accepted and then his Service § 3. Now we are upon Abraham let us consider him a little further did he imagine himself righteous without the Obedience of Christ and no other way than by his own righteousness What do these Men make of the Gospel preached is it not the preaching of Christ for righteousness for Christ is made Righteousness to us 1 Cor. 1. The Gospel was preached to Abraham what was that The Apostle tells us Gal. 3.8 It was in the first promise whereby he was converted to God in Vr of the Chaldees Gen. 12. In thee shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed and that this contained in it that blessing of righteousness which is after more particularly Explained he was justified as the Heathen and believing Gentiles were to be justified afterwards and the Apostle saith these that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. of that kind of Justification are blessed with faithful Abraham ver 9. but such as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that expect justification from the Works of a Law are under a curse for the Law i. e. Justification by the works of the Law is not of justifying Faith their 's none under Abraham's blesssing expect Justification by the Works of the Law Indeed the Mystery was not so distinctly understood Eph. 3.5 Yet they were saved even as we Acts 15. And how are we Gentiles saved by becoming fellow Heirs of the same Body i. e. mystical and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel Eph. 3.6 The which participation the faithful before Christ was the Gospel had preached to Abraham § 4. The great cry is that Faith i. e. our working Faith our Faith and Obedience is our Subordinate Righteousness or co-ordinate or Supream which our Neonomians please for Justification because it is said Abrahams Faith was imputed to him for Righteousness i. e. say they his Gospel Works not Mosaical or not according to the Old Law but according to the New This assertion is most false for these reasons 1. There was no Mosaical Law in Abraham's days 2. There was no New Law exhibited to Abraham for their promise was absolute Gen. 12. And cannot be pretended to be conditional 3. It s not consistent with the nature of Faith which is the Evidence of something not seen or present but Works
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
Evangelical But alas Mr. Cl. to prevent misconstruction after he hath bin disputing for the work of Faith to be our righteousness yet we must not expect Mercy Justification Pardon Reconciliation or Favour with God upon the account of our sincerity Faith or Obedience as the procuring cause but we are to look up to Christ confessing our best works to be but filthy rags in strict justice c. Resp One may see how frail a righteousness these men have feigned to themselves it is as the Spider's Web that they dare not lean upon it tho they will swagger and vapour with it to out-dare them whom they call Antinomians who will cleave immediately to Christ's righteousness alone as their only righteousness without the intervention of these filthy Rags their righteousness must have Christ stand behind the Curtain to patch their ragged raiment their House cannot stand without Bellarmine's propter quod their Pageantry is all dead Images unless one behind the Curtain move them which no body must see here is no Mercy Pardon and Reconciliation for and by their Righteousness but Christ procured something of it I know not what but Christ's Procurement was long ago the Law is in their own hands now he only procured the New Law they must shift as well as they can to perform the Conditions Christ did not purchase those neither died he to forgive any fault in their righteousness but oh their righteousness comes not up to the old Law what need they trouble themselves about that Christ hath fetcht them from under that faulty Perfection and brought them under a faultless unrighteousness of the Remedial Law and faults their Righteousness must have or else it would be an adequate condition but they must acknowledge their unworthiness and desert of all evil and when we have done God looks upon us as righteous in a Gospel sense I had thought in the beginning of this Paragraph Christ had bin to have pardoned and mended the faults of our remedial righteousness but it seems here is some pretence to it only that Christ may not think he is put off with nothing but the compleating of these rough Garments to deceive lies in their own doings if we do this God looks upon us as righteous in a Gospel-sense and pardons us first justified and not pardoned and then pardoned and not justified VVhat a great matter of Lamentation is it to see the corrupt minds of men thus vainly and mischievously sport themselves with the rich Grace of God and his strict Justice § 9. Before I leave this Chapter let us talk a little further with Mr. Humph. about his great challenge if it be as he saith that no Man or Woman before Christ coming did Imagine they were righteous before God or accepted for the Obedience of Christ it must follow that they had a hard task under the New Law for they wanted the propter quod and both Mr. Cl. and he saith their righteousness wants pardon and they must go to the id propter quod for pardon and acceptance Now I would Query whether if they could not imagine Christs Obedience to be their righteousness how could they imagine that Christs Obedience could be the procuring cause so that they were altogether destitute of the id propter quod I would know whether the Faith of Gods Children before Christ had no Eye unto Christ and his righteousness in the Sacrifices and sin Offerings which they offered daily did they not look at them as shadows and types of a better and more perfect Sacrifice the Apostle saith that the righteousness of God which we shall by and by shew to be the righteousness of Christ was witnessed by the Law i. e. the Law of Moses and the Prophets and if so its strange that they should have no imagination of it when as the Apostle Peter 1 Ep. c. 1.10 Saith the Prophets have Enquired after and searched diligently for this Salvation prophesied of Searching what and what manner of times the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signifie when it testified before hand the sufferings of Christ and the glory which should follow The Apostle Peter was clear in this Point Acts 2.31 He saith that David foresaw the Resurrection of Christ and spake of it and Christ himself affirms this after his Resurrection to the two Disciples going to Immaus that he ought thus to suffer and enter into Glory beginning at Moses and all the Prophets he expounded unto them in all the Scripture the things concerning himself Now if Moses and all the Prophets yea all the Scriptures should so eminently and expresly foretel Christs sufferings and resurrection and why it was viz. to bear Sin and satisfie Gods justice as the Prophet Isa c. 53. and David and Jer. and all the Sacrifices of old and his Redemption was also for them to the transgressions under the first Testament Heb. 9.15 It is strange that none of them from Adam to Christ should in the least imagine their acceptance with God should be for his righteousness but that they should look for Justification by their own righteousness only and none others § 10. Mr. Cl. in the conclusion of his Book undertakes to disprove the Imputation of the Active righteousness of Christ when as all a long his Book he holds that Christ's righteousness Active or Passive is not imputed but as to Effects now he can mean nothing by the non-imputation of Either but as to Effects So that he must intend by the non-imputation of Christs active Obedience of the Effect and then either it had no effects or no effects pro bono nostro now sure if I mistake not he grants that whatever Christ was it was for our good and therefore have some benefit by it and God reckons it a benefit for that 's their Imputation when we have a benefit God reckons it so i. e. Imputes it to be what it is surely if Christ active Obedience did but fit him to redeem us by passive it was a benefit to us His Incarnation was it not a benefit In their way of Imputation they may say after Mr. B. because he did not obey that we should not obey Resp Neither did he suffer that we should not suffer but Christ suffered that we might not suffer penally and obey that we might not obey legally and its strange that the second Adam should have actual righteousness for us as well as the first had actual sin that all should not be repaired as to the preceptive as well as the vindicative part of the Law which was fallen upon us in the first Adam by the second Adam Why was he made under the Law Was it not for active as well as passive Obedience CHAP. XI Of Iustification by Works Section 1. The Neonomian Doctrine opposed § 2. Who it is God justifies § 3. More fully Answer'd § 4. Arguments against Justification by Works § 5. Mr. Cl's Proposition § 6. Of the Jews Opinion about Justification § 7. Whether
Paul means only Works of Moses's Law § 8. Whether Paul disputes only against some Works § 9. Mr. Cl's Denial and Challenge § 10. What Law the Apostle means § 11. How the Jews looked upon the Law § 12. Of the Law of Faith § 13. What Deeds of the Law § 14. What Works to be boasted of § 15. Of meritorious Works § 16. Of justifying Works § 17. Of the Jews Conceit of Perfect Obedience § 18. 1 Cor. 4.4 considered § 19. Mr. Cl. unfair in his Challenge § 20. Of Rom. 4.5 § 21. Of Rom. 2.20 Sect. 1. OUR Neonomians affirm we are justified by works not of the Old Law which the Apostle Paul every were excludes but of the New Law this is that which we oppose and say the Apostle doth exclude all our works even in the state of Regeneracy from Justification and in this Point we shall take Mr. Cl. because he seems to be most full in the handling of it and take up that Mr. H. saith in a more scattered manner here and there § 2. Chap. 10. He tells us who it is that God Justifies not ungodly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Rom. 4.5 No saith Mr. Cl. the Spirit of God means the godly and he brings against the position of the Spirit of God in this place that of Exod. 23.7 Where the LXX useth the same words Resp To which I shall answer 1. That Mr. Cl. knows the LXX doth not translate the words according to the Heb. Text but rather speaks to the drift of the Text which is to enjoyn unto Men an impartial Execution of distributive Justice and therefore it renders it Thou shalt not justifie the wicked for a reward and that is the plain Drift of the Text by what precedes v. 6. Thou shalt not wrest judgment and thou shalt take no gift v. 8. and the Hebrew in the 7th verse is I will not justifie i. e. will not have thee to justifie for thou art but my Deputy and I sit in the Assemblies and Courts of Earthly Judges and whatever Judgment contrary to Justice and Right thou passest I will call thee to an account for it Then 1. This Text speaks of Man's Judgment not of God's immediately but as supervising the actions of men 2. He might as well or better alledged Exod. 34.7 where God proclaiming himself a sin-pardoning God saith he will by no means clear the guilty but in pardon of sin God doth clear the guilty and so the ungodly in Justification of them by the imputed righteousness of Christ which takes off the ungodliness in that kind tho man cannot provide for the Justification of an unrighteous person by gifts or partiality in a way of Justice yet God can by gracious and just ways and means provide for the acquitting the guilty and justifying the ungodly justly 2. It must be understood Rom. 4. according to the words in a strict sence God justifies the ungodly while such not to remain such For Abraham there spoken of was such an ungodly vile Idolater Josh 24. Had Abraham performed any new-New-Law righteousness before he came out of Vr Mr. C. will understand it he saith in a strict Law sence i. e. that he was a transgressor of the law of works so will I and that 's therefore to be ungodly and I know no ungodliness but such and while he was such God justified him and he did no new-New-Law works before he was justified for Heb. 11.8 for by faith when he was called of God to go forth he went so that he had faith and was justified before he obey'd the Call 3. It s most consistent with the Grace of God to justifie the ungodly and not in the least derogatory from his Justice to justifie a sinner in Gods way of Justification 4. As God justifies none to be ungodly nor justifies ungodliness but that sinners may be godly so there 's none can be godly before he is justified he cannot perform one godly Act nor have the Spirit the natural Man being a stranger to God and Enemy to him 5. Why may not God justifie the ungodly as well as sanctifie the ungodly if God may give one gift to the rebellious why not another if he may give Grace why not all Grace they will have Men justified by works who works in them to will or do Who gives them this righteousness Doth not this gift of God find them ungodly They will say yea undoubtedly then I will say why may not God give Christ to an ungodly one the gift of righteousness and justifie him thereby I hope if God can give one righteousness he can give another unless they will limit his Sovereign Grace § 3.1 But more fully And first Negatively not by the Law Gal. 2.16 viz. the Law of Moses and why so is there any the least word of the Law of Moses its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the works of a law any law when the Apostle speaks of Moses's law he annexeth the pre-positive Article So Rom. 3.20 it s a law from the works of a law no flesh living can be justified now this is not the Ceremonial Law by v. 19. but that law whereby all the world became guilty Jews and Gentiles v. 9 c. for the Gentiles were not guilty by Moses Law neither could the works of the New Law admit of an exception here for its any law that gives the knowledge of sin Now if the New Law gives the knowledge of sin the works of it are here excluded for that is no law that gives no knowledge of sin Hence all works of all Laws are here excluded i. e. such as the righteousness thereof required is our obedience performed by us whence its plain that the Law of VVorks the Ceremonial Law and the New Law are equally excluded Now the next Verse hath it that the righteousness of God is manifested without these excluded works this is no new Notion but witnessed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the law i. e. of Moses and the Prophets VVhat Gal. 3.16 is brought in for I know not I find it not among the Errata's but I think it must be one Hitherto also do belong these places Job 15.14 chap. 25.4 Psalm 143.2 which Places plainly and peremptorily deny righteousness in Man to be found unto Justification Mr. Cl. says according to strict Justice according to the law of works as Paul expounds it Gal. 2.16 Resp The Apostle there doth peremptorily protest against Justification by the works of a Law any Law whatever and if he hath an eye upon the Psalmists words he explains them so far as to us why the Psalmist denies Justification to any man living is because all works that Man can perform must be referred to some law by the works of a law no flesh living could be justified Let me add what the Apostle saith If righteousness be by a law then Christ died in vain It s strange the Apostle should so expresly and positively exclude the works of
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
and Effects and therefore as such in their due place they are not opposite one to another but let the Question be stated right and we will receive the Challenge Whether the Scripture doth not oppose faith and works as such of all sorts in the point of Justification We affirm that it doth and a little Logick-Light here is not amiss to consider that distinguishing Properties of Opposites for dissentaneous Arguments are diversa vel opposita diversa's dissent only in a certain respect may be in the same subject at the same time a man may be rich and wise too in a different respect at the same time But as for opposites they do disagree both in respect and indeed really in their nature and must have their proper distinguishing Properties which are that they cannot be attributed to the same thing to the same place and in the same respect nor at the same time so that one of the opposites being affirmed the other must be denied Now then according to the true logical acceptation of faith and works in Justification they are opposed expresly and they are contraria opposita unum uni adversa contraria affirmantia quae inter se velut è regione perpetuò adversantur Now then Arg. 1. If Faith and Works of a Law are not opposed in Justification then a Man may be justified by Faith and Works in the sense of the Apostle and in the same respect But the consequence is not true the minor is proved that Paul doth not intend that any Man is justified at the same time and in the same respect by Faith and Works too for then all his dispute against one and for the other would be very unfair to say a Man is not justified by the Works of a Law and yet that he is justified by the Works of a Law let us take Rom. 3.28 a conclusion drawn from the Exclusion of the deeds of a Law from Justification therefore we conclude that a Man is justified by Faith without the deeds of a Law Let Mr. Cl. construe it better if he can yes saith he his meaning is without the deeds of the Law of Innocency but not without the deeds of the New Law i. e. the Law of Faith It s strange the Apostle should speak then Exclusively of all works indefinitely the Apostle might as well have said therefore we conclude a Man is justified by the deeds of a Law and it had been a more probable conclusion seeing he just before had mentioned the Law of Faith by which might be understood only the Nature and Ordination of Faith as a receptive Grace of the objective Grace of Justification It is plain the Apostle hath not the least intention to understand the Fruit of Faith nor Faith as a Work of a Law for if he had he would not have said so positively therefore we conclude that a Man is justified by Faith without the deeds of a Law and its impossible to speak any thing as opposites if these are not so spoken they are not spoken as diversa but one is affirmed of the Subject and the other absolutely denyed a Man cannot be justified by Faith in the Apostles sence and by Works at once but if Faith justifie as works then Works and Faith are the same in the Apostles sense and to be justified by Faith and by Works the same and so the Apostle speaks non-sense Arg. 2. That which excludes Works of a Law in Justification is opposed to Works of a Law in Justification but Faith excludes Works of a Law in Justification Ergo and Minor It s the Law Nature and Ordination of Faith to exclude Works or it self as a Work yea Faith becomes useless in Justification it s abdicated from Justification if it puts in as a work of a Law yet it cannot be a Gospel work nor can any other work be so that puts in for Justification it is impossible any thing should have a jot of Gospel in it that is a deed of a Law for Justification it is a legal work it makes it so It is the greatest contradiction in the world to say we are justified by our Gospel works Again to prove the Minor further That which excludes the deeds of a law by an essential proparty is opposite to works but the law nature or ordination of faith excludes the deeds of a law by an essential property viz. boasting in claiming the reward for the work done this faith or the law of faith doth it renounceth all self-righteousness and renounceth it self as such it comes to Christ and for his righteousness naked and empty it s not true faith unless it be so unless it take Christ only for himself and his righteousness alone to Justification § 20. Arg. 3. Faith also is opposed to works Rom. 4.5 where the righteousness of faith is imputed to him that worketh not but is ungodly there faith is opposed to works but in the Justification of Abraham it was so and is so in every Believer according to the Apostle for Justification cannot be there by faith as a work for then it were false to say righteousness is imputed to him that worketh not viz. for Justification for if faith justifieth as a work then God justifieth him that worketh Arg. 4. If faith and works in the point of Justification evacuate one another then they are opposed but faith and works do thus evacuate each other Ergo c. The consequence cannot be denied where one destroys another they cannot be together in the same subject therefore contrary for the Minor the Apostle is clear Rom. 4.14 if they that be of the law be heirs i. e. those that are of the works of the law for Justification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faith is evacuated and the promise abdicated for faith making it self a work is felo de se and throws off the free promise and takes the reward as Debt and not of Grace § 21. Arg. 5. That which is not of faith in Justification is opposed to faith in Justification at least in genere disparatorum but the law and deeds of it is not of faith i. e. he that works for Justification on legal terms is not one that 's justified by faith And what 's these terms the man that doth them shall live in them now then if it s of faith to say I am of the works of a law and I shall live in my faith because its the term of a law if so the law should be of faith and faith of the law contrary to the Apostle Galatians 3.12 Arg. 6. There 's nothing more plain than the opposition the Apostle makes between Justification by faith and works Gal. 2.16 The Apostle says it was a known thing to Peter and the Apostles that a man is not justified by the works of a law if he meant an exception of the law of faith why did he not express it but by the faith of Jesus wherefore is this Antithesis if no opposition between
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
he always had and would deal with them that stood upon their own righteousness according to the tenor of the law if you are able to stand the test of your own righteousness you shall be tried by it yea I will deal not only righteously with you according to my law but condescendingly if you are able to turn from sin to righteousness and abide in it and not turn to sin again but all this is to shew them their folly in trusting to their own righteousness and ability to perform it for he saith v. 31. cast away all your transgressions i. e. there 's not the guilt of any must ly upon you and make you a new heart and a new spirit where he challengeth them to do that which no natural man can do but because they stood upon their own righteousness and natural abilities God brings them to the test for their Conviction that they might fly to his Grace both for Justification and Sanctification which fully appears by the Promise chap 36.25 26 27. where both are said to be of God and not of our selves He alledgeth also the tenor of the Law he that doth them shall live in them i. e. saith he he shall be justified in them Resp Now its strange a man should be so absurd to bring the express tenor of the Covenant of Works to be that of the Covenant of Grace when it s positively affirmed that this tenor of the law is not of faith directly opposed to that righteousness of faith Gal. 3.12 Nay he is not content with this downright contradiction to the Spirit of God he goes on If you make a question there is another Text must convince you The just shall live by faith to live by our faith is to be justified by it Resp The man I suppose said these things by roat not minding the Text he says there 's another Text but names not where but it s applied to the matter in hand Gal. 3.11 the very reciting whereof will be answer enough to him The Apostle was proving a man is not justified by the works of the law perfectly or imperfectly performed is evident for the just shall live by faith i. e. he that is righteous is righteous by the righteousness of faith and this is the righteousness which his faith as its food feeds upon during his life of Justification § 2. His second Argument is Medioc p. 19 20. When this very Phrase of the imputation of Christs righteousness is not found in Scripture So saith Mr. Cl. Resp That imputation of righteousness is found in Scripture it cannot be denied as in the instance of Abraham Rom. 4. Now our adversaries will grant us this Dilemma that either it was Christ's righteousness was imputed to him or his own not his own because he was ungodly when justified for when he was ungodly saith the Text faith was imputed to him for righteousness what of faith sure it was no other than the thing he believed Jesus Christ and his righteousness whose day of expiation he saw this was imputed to him for righteousness For if Abraham saw Christ's day it was the day of his Sacrifice and Expiation for this end he came into the world and the Good News or Gospel preached unto him was Christ in the Promise Gal. 3.8 and the same righteousness the heathen was to be justified by Ibid. Faith wherever it s said to be accounted for righteousness or wherever we are said to be accounted righteous it s to be understood objectively and put for the righteousness that it does eye and lay hold upon But 2dly Is not Christs righteousness said in Scripture to be imputed to us let us a little examine Scripture First whether it s not in Rom. 4. where Imputation is often mentioned The Apostle Rom. 4.21 22. observes Abraham believing the promise viz. of Christ saith therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness viz. the thing promised and the thing believed for he believed that God was able to perform what he promised therefore the thing promised was that which was imputed to him Now saith the Apostle do not believe you are told this because it was peculiar to Abraham and none had it but Abraham but it s written not for him only but for us that have the same Faith Righteousness and Imputation to us to whom it shall be imputed if we believe i. e. receive that righteousness by faith which Abraham received embracing the promises viz. believing on him that justifies and on the righteousness of Christ by which we are justified and then the Argument stands thus The death of Christ for our sins and resurrection for Justification is the righteousness of Christ this none can deny but the death of Christ for our sins and his resurrection for or because of our Justification is imputed to every believer as is plain in the Text chap. 4.24 25. and hence it follows that all the Justification spoken of and imputation of righteousness throughout the Chapter is Christs righteousness the Apostle asserting here and Gal. 3. that the Gentiles should be justified by faith as Abraham was 3. The Scripture saith we are justified by his blood Rom. 5.9 and through faith in his blood Rom. 4.28 therefore They that be justified by the blood of Christ are justified by the imputation of his righteousness but we are so justified by the places mentioned Now then none cna deny that Christs shedding his blood is his righteousness and we cannot be justified by it unless it be imputed to us and if any thing else be imputed then not that if Mr. Humph. will say its effective only its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his blood as in the blood of a Sacrifice shed for us where in the blood of the Sacrifice is accepted as if it were the very blood of the Sinner 4th That by which we have redemption is the righteousness of Christ but the death and satisfaction of Christ is that whereby we have redemption and therefore that redeeming righteousness is imputed to us Rom 3.25 26. Col. 4.14 but more of this by and by for the Scripture is full of it blessed be God Neonomian Doctrine I am fully assured is far from Gospel as far as Darkness is from Light § 3. His third Argument against the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness is If the righteousness of Christ be imputed to us as if it were ours in it self it must be the righteousness of his active or passive obedience or both But it s neither Resp We say both He goes to prove his active obedience is not imputed If it be then must we be looked upon in him as having committed no Sin nor omitted no Duty and then what need will there be of Christ's Death Resp The same consequent may be corruptly drawn upon imputation of his passive as he doth But the consequent follows not for the Imputation of Christs active obedience is upon supposal that the Law of God is not nor cannot be perfectly
in a law-sence if so was it for himself or for us if for us then the law saith so for us For the Law of God doth not take Satisfaction in so blind a manner as that God in his Law knows not for whom it is if God in his Law knows for whom it is and accepts it for us then it is accounted to us and imputed to us as to all the ends thereof in Law The taking Satisfaction in Law for any offence against it for any one is the Laws Imputation or accounting it to him for whom it is made whether the satisfaction be given by himself who transgressed or any one for him therefore if Christ satisfied for us and this Satisfaction accepted by God for us God imputes it to us as if we had done it our selves therefore Mr. H. must either renounce the Doctrine of Satisfaction with the Socinians or own its imputed to us as fully yea in this case we may say more fully than if we had made it our selves § 6. Let us see how Mr. H. would avoid the Socinian Rock he saith Christ may have wrought with the father or made him that satisfaction as to procure new Terms so that a man may be justified as a fulfiller of them and yet need pardon for non-performance of the old R. Behold the Neonomian Satisfaction 1. He makes not Satisfaction a payment of a Debt owing to the Law by us but only a procurement a buying something of God whereas Satisfaction is for a wrong done I may purchase a thing of a person whom I never injur'd or if I have the Money whereby I purchase a new thing that refers not to the injury I did before but to the new Purchace observe then he makes Christ's Satisfaction only a New Purchace 2. This New Purchace is of New Terms of Justification hence God is not to stand upon satisfaction to the Old Law but to drop it and bring the Sinner under a New Law Christ died not to satisfie the Law but to translate us from one Law to another whence the old hath no more to do with us and thus all the world are translated therefore the Old Law is gone to all the World unsatisfied 3. A Man is justified on the new Terms they being fulfilled by his own righteousness but not pardoned on these terms by the New Law and this is one of the greatest inconsistencies in the World to say a man is justified by a Law and not pardoned how is he just in the eye of that Law that doth not free from the charge of any transgression of it But 3. He saith he needs Pardon for non-performance of the old if so 1. The New Law is not an Act of Indemnity in respect of sins against the old for if a man condemned by one law be taken from under it to a new law he is indempnified from the old else all pretence of advantage by the said translation is gone for he that stands under the terms of one law condemned by it and brought under new terms to another come now to be liable to the lash of two Laws whereas before he was under but one 2. He saith this Pardon must be had at the Bar of the Old Law I would know of Mr. H. how If he saith and will stand to it according to his own Argument he cannot or else he must deny Christs Satisfaction which is this That Law which is satisfied for the breach of it admits no Pardâ—n from the Legislator but the Old Law say Neonomians in words was satisfied for us therefore there can be no Pardon yea it was satisfied for us in our stead and the satisfaction accepted for us yea therefore imputed to us Here I have the Neonomian fast in this Dilemma from their own Doctrine let them free themselves how they can For if Pardon and Satisfaction imputed are not consistent as to our Doctrine then not in theirs but they say notwithstanding their justification by their New Law they must have Pardon for the breach of the Old and how Not at all in their sence if the Old be not satisfyed or that Satisfaction not imputed as much as to say it is Money laid down in Court indefinitely but not accepted in Court for this and that Mans Sins hence Christ hath satisfyed for none for all satisfaction as such is accepted as such we come now to his attempt to prove that neither the Active or Passive Obedience of Christ is imputed § 7. For saith he If that his Active and Passive Obedience be imputed then must God be made to deal with Man according to the Covenant of Works Resp See how this Gentleman in all his Arguings runs his Head against a Post and Pillar of Gospel Truth his Argument is this if Christ's Active and Passive Obedience be accepted for us as satisfaction for the Law then God deals with Sinners in their justification after the tenor of the Covenant of Works now he may assume either by taking away the Antecedent or by taking away the Consequent he indeed intends both first by taking away the Antecedent viz. But Christ's Active and Passive Obedience is not accepted for satisfaction therefore he doth not deal with Sinners in Justification according to the Covenant of Works therefore Christ hath not satisfied the Covenant of Works for us the Law lies unsatisfyed I would know how the Pardon he speaks of is Subsequent to the New Law Justification is had is it by dealing with us upon the account of satisfaction to the Old Law He suggests that it is then pardoned Sinners are dealt with according to the Old Law if not justified But to have him in his Consequences he assumes that God deals not with Sinners in Justification upon the Terms of the Old Law or Covenant of Works To Answer he deals with them in Christ according to the Terms of the Covenant of Works but in themselves as sinners justifying them in Christ according to the Tenor of the Covenant of Works it is meer Grace the Mystery of Grace is to save sinners in such a way as may not only magnifie rich Grace but Exalt Grace and that in the highest manner Now the Exaltation of Justice cannot be but in the justifying a Sinner in the Eye of the strictest Law by the highest and most acceptable Satisfaction thereof on this account Christs Obedience was the most Legal both active and passive that ever was but that a sinner is brought under this Obedience of Christ unto Justification is meer free Grace he being thereby partaker of the distinguishing Grace of God and the free Gift of Christ and his Righteousness without the intervention of any Mediator or Subordinate Righteousness of his own hence it is that his Faith makes not void the Law but Establisheth it in the highest degree in Exalting Christ as his only and most compleat Righteousness most legal in satisfying the Law for us as a Covenant of Works he saith when nothing is
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
that law which convicted all the world as guilty is the righteousness of Christ but such is the righteousness here spoken of as is apparent by the whole Text. 2. That righteousness which we have by faith in another to justification is the righteousness of Christ but this righteousness is that which we have by and in another for faith is said to act upon what is without us and not on that which is within us 3. That which is imputed to Sinners devoid of any righteousness by the law or by any law is the righteousness of Christ but this righteousness of God is so ergo the Propositions of these Syllogisms lies plainly proved in the Text. 4. If all righteousness be here peremptorily rejected which is performed by us in obedience to any law then the righteousness here introduced the righteousness of God is Christ's righteousness but the Antecedent is true v. 20. 5. If the righteousness of Christ is our justifying righteousness which the Apostle intends throughout this Discourse then God's righteousness is Christ's but ergo the Minor which is the Antecedent is proved The redemption and propitiation of Christ is the righteousness by which we are justified v. 24.6 That righteousness which the law of Moses witnesseth to being the reason and sign thereof is the righteousness of Christ as such For what did the sacrifices for sin but witness to Christ's great propitiatory sacrifice but the sacrifices of the law all held forth Christ offering himself a sacrifice for sin and the Gospel was therein preached Now it 's plain the Apostle brings in the law of Moses witnessing to this righteousness of God § 13. The next place is Rom. 10.3 The Jews had a zeal for God and a blind devotion but were extreme ignorant of Gospel-Mysteries being ignorant of the righteousness of God being ignorant of God ' righteousness in the law viz. the perfection thereof and going about to establish their own imperfect righteousness unto justification they submitted not to justification by God's righteousness being ignorant of Christ's righteousness for it 's expresly said to be the righteousness of God v. 4. Submitted not to the righteousness of God for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth Take the Argument then that Christ's righteousness is God's 1. That righteousness which is directly opposed to our own in justification is Christ's righteousness but God's righteousness here is so 2. That righteousness which a man being ignorant of tho' he know his own righteousness falls short of justification is Christ's righteousness but the righteousness of God in the Text is such ergo 3. That which is the end of the law for righteousness i.e. answers the law is the righteousness of God but Christ is the end of the law This Argument is so plain and fall in the Text that it cannot be answered with any fair pretence tho' they make a blundering at it to no purpose and you shall see the Apostle opposeth it v. 5. to the righteousness of the law consisting in doing and at once tells us the righteousness of God the righteousness of Christ and the righteousness of Faith is but one righteousness and opposed to the righteousness of the law which the Jews established thinking as our Neonomians do that it was sufficient to justification to have some imperfect sincere obedience to Moses's law For I bear them record saith the Apostle they have a zeal of God that 's their sincerity which was the new law for if they were saved by the law of Grace this was dispensed to them in Moses's law they knew not that God's law required perfect right and its perfect right must answer it Hence it appears that they had the same opinion that the Neonomians now have that Moses's law was a new law requiring only obedience to the moral part of it so far as they could and for their sins to offer sacrifice according to the ceremonial part and resting therein without faith in the Antitype they reckoned themselves fully righteous for justification Hence upon the annual day of atonement they reckoned themselves as innocent as Adam in his innocency i. e. as free from guilt propitiation being made till they had contracted more guilt Therefore the Apostle saith Heb. 10.1 That the law being a shadow of good things to come could never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year make the comers thereto perfect and the most carnal of them reckoned themselves perfected by those sacrifices but for a time Therefore it 's most absurd to assert that the carnal Jews whom the Apostle writes against did endeavour after a perfection of the law of works 1. Because they offered sacrifices and made atonement for sin 2. Because when they did make atonement they reckoned they contracted new guilt and were perfect but for a time Therefore the Apostle saith Rom. 9.30 31 32. they attained not to the righteousness of faith because they sought their righteousness as it were by the works of the law not directly by perfect obedience but by such as they had and not by faith in Christ's obedience for the Apostle is express in it for they stumbled at that stumbling stone which was Christ as the Apostle proves Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling stone c. 3. When they offered they confessed Sin § 14. Mr. H. gives his Explication of this place Rom. 10.4 thus For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness i. e. as I construe it Christ by his satisfaction hath procured that we should not he judged by the law of works and consequently that righteousness or justification be attained if we do perform the terms of the Gospel Resp Can Mr. H. be so irrational as to think in his Judgment and Conscience that this is a genuine Interpretation Here lies in the Text very fairly these two things 1. That the righteousness of God is explained by him particularly to be the righteousness of Christ have not submitted to i. e. accepted the righteousness of God What is that the righteousness of Christ for Christ is the righteousness that answers the righteousness of the law and this is the righteousness of God 2. The Design and great End of the Law was righteousness and perfect righteousness unto Justification of Man perfect cannot be performed by fallen man therefore God hath provided a perfect righteousness in Christ and he is this end of the law to every one that believeth and herein by justifying him by this righteousness God is just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus and it s the righteousness of faith because it s not for Justification by any thing that evacuates or relaxeth the law of God but establisheth it in seeking for and laying hold upon Justification by a righteousness that fully answers the law How will it hold in Mr. H's sence That Christ by his Satisfaction hath procured that we should not answer the law of works or that he should
not be the end of the law of works for righteousness to a Believer but that a believer's performance of obedience to the new law should be the end of the law of works for righteousness which is a direct contradiction to the Text. For he faith Christ is the end of the law what law of all law of works in way of Satisfaction of the Moral and concurring Ceremonial as an Antitype he and his righteousness is shadowed forth thereby he saith not that Christ is the end of a law for a righteousness of our performing for that would be a contradiction to fay the end of a law is righteousness and then Christ is the end of it for another righteousness and not his own he should have said believing is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth Lastly What righteousness is it to take us from under a law or relax it or procure that it shall not be satisfied at all and that the offender shall be justified by another Law § 15. The next Text is He hath made him sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him 2 Cor. 5.21 i. e. saith Mr. H. the immaculate lamb made a Sacrifice for our sins that we may become righteous with the righteousness of God which he accepts through him Christ as a Sacrifice redeems us from a Law of Sin and purchaseth for us a law of grace according to that law we have a righteousness which is a righteousness accepted unto life through Christ Medioc p. 28. R. So that Mr. H's meaning must be That Christ was made Sin under the old law that we might have righteousness by him under the new law and that what Christ did under the old law amounted to no righteousness to us But he must be righteousness to us under the New Law and then Christ was made under the New Law which these men will deny and be our righteousness there no say they not himself be our righteousness but procure that we should be our own righteousness then the true meaning is here That Christ was made Sin for us that we should be our own righteousness but how our righteousness in Christs is our righteousness Christs then it is that we may be made Christs righteousness becoming ours by Imputation Christ being made sin for us he glosses upon as the Socinians i. e. Christ the immaculate Lamb was made a sacrifice for sin It is true Christ is expresly said to be a sacrifice for sin but how 1. As the true Sacrifice not as a typical Heb. 9.26 2. As a Sacrifice to bear Sin not less but more than all the Sacrifices of Old and therefore it is said to be made sin for us he was not a sinner by nature neither was his nature corrupted by his being made Sin for us therefore he was made sin by legal imputation made sin because put under the law the Priests and Sacrifices of old had the sins of the People laid upon them sin was charged on them their own first for which they sacrificed then the sins of the People but Christ did not only bear Sin as the Sacrifice that was slain but as Scape Goat also for one Type could not hold forth the fulness of Christ's Righteousness therefore the Apostle saith he did not only bear sin but bore it away Heb. 9.26 28. Now it s a strange thing that these men should spit at this Doctrine of Christ's bearing Sin one of late calling it Poyson another saying he bore not our very sins and all that he bore only suffering for sin I would know how any can suffer for Sin in Law or Justice and not legally bear the charge of sin And how Christ came to be a Curse if he bore not Sin 2. He bore Sin because he bore the Curse of the Law he was made a curse doth curse come upon any but for sin Is there any in the World but for Sin therefore whatever subject hath the curse of the law hath also the charge of sin for they are inseparable 3. How dare any man be so audacious as to give the Spirit of God the lie in that it hath so often and peremptorily asserted We have gone astray and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all he hath caused them to meet upon him will you say that is the punishment of us all when the Spirit of God speaks so distinctly of punishment v. 5. and tells us the reason because he bore sin he was wounded for our transgression because sin was laid upon him so v. 8. for the transgression of my people was he stricken and least you should be at a stand in this Point about Christ's bearing sin it s exprest again as the reason of Christs justifying many v. 11. for he shall bear their iniquities Nay it s added the third time and he bare the sins of many so that Christs bearing Sin distinct from Punishment is no less than three times in this Chapter It is also fully exprest in the New Testament totidem verbis Heb. 9.28 Christ was once offered there 's his suffering for what to bear the sins of many and 1 Pet. 2.24 He his own self bare our sins in his body on the tree and in multitude of places in expressions that are tantamount to these and now to say that Christ did not bear sin and all things that the Law calls Sin let it be as filthy and as vile as you will for it s so because its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we know he was manifest to take away all sin now is there any thing which you call the filth of sin is it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is it not then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the transgression of the law if it be Christ bore it if he did not then it stands yet in Gods sight and the hand-writing of the law is against you and you are not justified and why is Christ's Sacrifice said to be the purging of sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many things might be said to shew how properly it s spoken see Dr. Owen I must for brevity sake only say that it imports Christ's purging us by Sacrifice from all that the law of God calls filthy in sin Then it s objected Christ was unclean Answ Not morally polluted but legally unclean while he was under our sins as the Sacrifices were and therefore he suffered without the camp Obj. Then the Saints have no sin who give sufficient evidence that sin remains in them Answ The Saints are without spot before God in Point of Justification they are justified from all sin and filthy spot in Gods sight 2. Sin remains in them and will do in Point of Sanctification which is not perfect in this life but all in their sins that is a burden to them that is odious and filthy was laid on Christ by
and calls him so for the Words are Who of God is made unto us Wisdom c. But he saith Christ is not Wise and Holy in our stead neither doth it follow then that he is Actively Righteous in our stead but the meaning is he is the procuring meritorious Cause by his perfect Obedience hath satisfied the Law and procur'd a new Way of Righteousness by Faith Sanctification Resp The Words are not Christ is Wise and Holy in our stead but that Christ is made of God to us what he is there said to be whether Wisdom as a Prophet to teach us or Righteousness as a Priest to Cloath us with the Garment of Salvation and Robe of Righteousness and that he is made of God to be what he is in the divers Ways and manner of Being or Conveying what we have from him he is our Wisdom by way of teaching Righteousness by way of Sacrifice Sanctification by being the Treasure of all Grace and Holiness which God bestows he is Redemption in that all the Promises of Inchoation and Consummation of Redemption are yea and Amen in him But Mr. Cl. makes Righteousness and Sanctification all one and Christ being to us all these Things one way by meriting and procuring we have as much right to say too that Christ is all these one Way viz. by Imputation because we are sure he is Righteousness to us by Imputation but why is Active annexed to Righteousness he might have excluded his whole Righteousness by what follows both Active and Passive intentionally But is not Christ righteous in our stead when he satisfied Gods Law and Justice in our stead For what For any wrong we had done unto the Law of God I pray is not that our Righteousness which is Righteousness in our stead but these Men will have Satisfaction and no Satisfaction only a new Bargain or Purchase likewise a Satisfaction but not for us so their Satisfaction which they will have Christ make is no Payment for us nor accounted so by God nor any Satisfaction to him for any wrong we have done him that which Christ hath done is a Purchase of a Righteousness he saith we say Righteousness is the Purchase Money accounted to us so that Christ is not only a Procurer and Bestower but he hath something to procure and Purchase by he hath something to offer now as God hath made Christ the satisfying Price and Ransom-mony so he is made of God Righteousness to us but with Mr. Cl. Righteousness and Sanctification is all one this is hard dealing with Jehovah our Righteousness these Men are as the Jews of Old that would not be subject to the Righteousness of God § 5. Mr. Cl. Another is Rom. 4.6 prest to serve this Cause As David describes the blessedness of the Man to whom the Lord imputes Righteousness without Works say they the Righteousness of Christ but its clear it s not meant of any thing in another Person that 's imputed for Righteousness but something in a Mans self by the whole Tenour of the Chapter and by ver 9. where he saith Faith was reckoned for Righteousness so that the Righteousness imputed here spoken of is inherent graciously accounted Righteousness but in strict Justice is not so nor according to the Original Law c. Resp This plain Place which stands a Rock against all Popish and Neonomian Attempts he calls prest into our Service or Cause no it comes in freely it 's a Volunteer and mighty thro' God to cast down all their Confidence and Imaginations where 's the clearness in all this Chapter or Psalm from whence it s taken is it not clear for the Imputation of anothers Righteousness Is there any thing of self-righteousness Faith is spoken of as accounted to Abraham for Righteousness but we have shewn that that which was imputed to Abraham for Righteousness was the Righteousness of the promised Seed for the Gospel which is the Doctrine of Christs Righteousness was Preached to him in the Promise and he by Faith saw Christ's Day of Expiation and Attonement this he reached by Faith and it was imputed to him not Faith it self not the Arm that reached it but the Righteousness it self There 's a Plain Instance in the Gospel where what the Object of Faith doth is ascrib'd by a Metonymy to Faith it self Mat 9.21 22. The diseased Woman touched the Hem of Christ's Garment and was made whole and Christ saith Woman thy Faith hath made thee whole And we see Mark 9.29 30. where is the same Narrative that Christ perceived that Vertue was gone out of him and yet saith ver 34. Thy Faith hath made thee whole now I would know of these Men whether it was Christ's Vertue that healed the Woman or the Vertue of her Faith Faith as an Act of hers that made her whole See Luke 7.39 42 47 48 50. Likewise the stung Israelites were healed by looking on the Brazen Serpent was the healing Vertue in the Brazen Serpent or in their own Eyes Let us now examine then how clear it is that the Place is not meant of the Righteousness of another The Apostle saith that David describeth the righteousness of the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works 1. The Apostles design in the whole Chapter is to prove our Justification by a righteousness which is not made up of works of our own and the Neonomians say his design is to prove Justification by works are not these contradicentia the Apostle negat ubique they say by some works only the Apostle means works of the old law they the works of the new It s strange the Apostle did not except and secure works of the new law but I suppose as for the works of the new law he never heard of them thence his altum silentium about the new law and its works too He saith David was justified or Justification was with a righteousness without works and yet David might plead his own works to Justification as well as any Neonomian 1. He was no carnal Jew that sought Justification by the law of Works as appears by Psal 51. 2. If there was any Justification then by new-New-Law works as indeed there was not then or now David sure must be under the New Law for Justification and he must needs know the works thereof whereby he expected to be justified and therefore I thus argue If David knew he was justified by works and blessed therein then he deals falsly or the Apostle greatly mistakes him in saying that David proves the blessedness of the man c. the consequent is of absolute necessity and the assumption must tollere anteced ut tollat conseq for they were both inspired and therefore could not deceive themselves nor us in this great Point Arg. If David proves a righteousness without his own works either old or new-law works then it must be works of another that he intends for there 's no righteousness without works of some or another if he
to the righteousness of the law but to his own righteousness in the largest consideration any thing of his own now What he saith to Rom. 10.1 is answered before The Christians Faith and new Obedience out of doubt by God's help are his righteousness Resp These men will hold their Conclusion let the Scripture say what it will Then the import of the Apostle must be thus That I may be found in Christ not having mine own righteousness which is of the old law but my righteousness of the New Law through faith the righteousness which is of God by faith Paul's righteousness as a Jew and Pharisee was one thing and Paul's Faith and Obedience which is his righteousness as a Christian is another To which I answer 1. That Paul's righteousness after Conversion is here directly opposed to the righteousness of Christ for he would not be found in his own but this righteousness of Christ to be found in it i. e. by judicial Enquiry his own righteousness can't be holiness or the having it for he doth not nor would say he would not be found having of holiness 2. There can be no Gospel-righteousness of our own that stands in competition with the righteousness of Christ for Justification for then its legal and fleshly 3. A man 's own righteousness whether before or after pretended Conversion is his own of the same nature and kind whatever he himself may think of it 4. If it was Paul's Judgment that his works was only chang'd from one law to another and thought that he was now to be justified by his Gospel-Works he was as far from the Kingdom of Heaven as before for one law can no more justifie a man by his own works than another therefore rejects all righteousness of a law 5. He is very full in expressing what righteousness he would be found in in no righteousness of his own for all such is legal in the righteousness of Christ in him this he tells us is the righteousness which faith lays hold on and this is the righteousness of God which God imputes to Justification and the sinner receives by faith 6. He intends not any thing here of Sanctification in this v. but speaks singly and by it self of it in the next neither doth he call it his righteousness but in this ver sets aside all his works tho he shews his value of them in their place yet as for any place in Justification he counted them but Dross and Dung He adds the Words of our Saviour except your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees which is against him for no mans righteousness exceeds theirs which stand in his own for Justification before God It must not be our own that can it must be Christs alone for no other exceeds theirs § 7. Mr. Cl. The next Text is by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous Rom. 5.19 Here Mr. Cl. and Mr. H. both exclude Christ's active obedience as having nothing to do Mr. H. saith this is perfect Antinomian Faith and excludes Repentance quite out of this life I must tell him I am sorry he understands Repentance no better those that he calls Antinomian knows how to reconcile Christs Perfections and their Duties together I see better than he doth as if Christ being a perfect Second Adam did exclude Grace from us where it is of his fulness for righteousness and holiness that we receive and exercise Grace but so much only by the way as a Mark upon the Dirt that he often throws on the Protestants and Reformers and upon the Lord Jesus Christ himself I must confess that I answer him with more mildness than he deserves As to the exclusion of the active obedience of Christ there 's no ground for it in the Text but quite contrary the design of the Apostle in the 2d part of the Chapter from v. 12. is to shew how Sin and Death entered by the First Adam and how Righteousness and Life entered by the Second Adam He accordingly compares them together as contraries shews that the first was a Figure of the other in his general nature but after shews notwithstanding their agreement in a general nature how greatly they differ specifically sin entred into the World by the First Adam by imputation of his Sin and by Propagation so Righteousness by Imputation and Life as the Promise annexed unto the Second Adam The First Adam was a Type or Figure of the Second 1. In that the First was a Publick Foederal and Seminal Head to all his Posterity so the Second was to all his and therefore upon the Fall of Man from the Perfection of the Law the Second is made under the Law and stands in all the Perfection of it as a Publick Head to all his spiritual Seed Now that Christ's active obedience is not excluded in the Text appears by the plain Antithesis of the First Adam's disobedience to the Second's obedience for where disobedience and obedience are set one against another then as the one is actual sin so the other is positive obedience for if only passive obedience be here meant then it should be said as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the Sufferings or Satisfactions of one many were made righteous 2. The First in the Figure was a Publick Person in respect of his actual obedience or disobedience to the Law of God therefore the Second Adam must be a Publick Person also in respect of his active obedience or else he answers not to the Figure 3. Christ could not be without active obedience as the Head and Root of his Church the Root must be actually holy or else the Branches cannot be so 4. It was essential to his High-Priesthood to be holy harmless c. as such and a High Priest is a Publick Person and stands for the People I could be very large in proving that Christ's active obedience belongs to that righteousness of Christ by which we are justified but I shall not have room here Mr. Cl. makes as if he would exclude Christ's active obedience only from righteousness but it is the passive also which both he and Mr. H. strikes at for he saith As by Adam's sin all his posterity were brought into a state of sin so that by the Merits of Christ's sufferings they are brought into such a state as that they may be made righteous Resp i. e. They are brought into such a capacity by Christ's purchasing a new law that they may possibly be righteous by their own righteousness So that Adam by his sin brought his into a state of sin but Christ by his righteousness doth procure a possibility of a righteousness for his so that the Second Adam comes short of the First in Conveiance whereas the Apostle hath much more Rom. 5.17 If by one mans offence death reigned by one much more the grace of God and the gift by grace hath abounded unto many v. 15. So if by the
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
Justified by this Law here 's Christs law causa sine qua non with a Witness As to the consequence if Justification be an effect of Merits and it be a Juridical effect then Merits which is the cause must be imputed to the person on whom these effects must fall What moves the Court or Judge to justify this or that person his own Merits or the Merits of another Not his own but the Merits of another Then these Merits are imputed for it quickly and plainly appears what is imputed to any whether merits of Condemnation or merits of Justification for Justice goes by nothing but Merit and therefore mens own righteousness cannot justify-because it cannot Merit And do not our Neonomians speak as the Socinians in this point and mumble as if their mouths were full of plumbs Now therefore if Christs Merit be brought into Court as a meritorious cause of the Sinners Justification they are imputed to him for his Justification as if he had merited himself § Arg. 5. They say Christs Merits cannot be Imputed but the Effects are Imputed And I Argue If Christs Righteousness be Imputed its Imputed as a cause of Justification or in the Effect It should be as an Effect or the Disjunction is ridiculous but it s not Imputed in the Effect Ergo. In and as the Cause for the Effect is not the Cause but contrary it s another thing so that to say Christs Merits are imputed and so imputed to the person Justified is nonsense But what are the effects imputed All the Benefits purchased by Christ For is Justification an effect imputed Sure not Is Justification imputed to Justification Sure that 's most absur'd Is Mortification imputed to Justification That looks very odd Is Vocation and Adoption or Glorification all or any of them Imputed to Justification for they are Effects of Christs Merits But suppose they say some of these or all are to us imputed for righteousness unto Justification I then Query Whether the Righteousness perform'd by us in the new law Justification be merited by Christ as an Effect Do not I see them sneak away now and give no Answer but upon another Subject they will tell you that Faith and the condition of the New law was not purchased by Christ but are by the gift of Election only And now I pray what 's become of Justification by Effects of Christs Merits They will say we are Justified by Imputing the Spirits operations to us for righteousness Now this cannot be 1. The Spirit never was incarnate nor his Office to work a Righteousness for Justification this was peculiar to Christ 2. The fruits of the Spirit when they come to be exerted are called our works and justly so because Graces exercised or Duties performed by us are so these are all renounced as such by the Apostle Paul Phil. 3.8 and elsewhere 3. What the Spirit doth in Justification its office is by way of Application it takes of Christs and gives it to us it applies and brings home to a sinner the Impetration of Christ as Righteousness unto his Justification hence the Spirit is said to justifie 1 Cor. 6.11 in bringing to the Soul the Grace of Justification and enstating him therein by faith as he sanctifies by bringing in the Grace of Sanctification Now then if Christ's Righteousness cannot be imputed in the effect and is imputed at all then as the cause meritorious of Justification But they say God cannot impute Christs Righteousness to us because we did not perform it and God is a God of Truth he cannot impute that to us which we did not To which I answer 1. That God doth not reckon we performed Christs Righteousness 2. God may give us his Son for righteousness Rom. 8. and give us this righteousness Rom. 5.5 3. He may accept it for us on law terms as our righteousness to Justification and all this is according to Truth and Righteousness imputing it to us in a Law Sense 4. The Argument will fall upon Neonomian Justification for that 's to call that righteousness which is unrighteousness and not according to Truth as hath been shewed Mr. Cl. makes it a great Argument that the active righteousness of Christ must not be imputed because Christ did not obey that we should not obey and where 's the Antinomian that says so but we say that Christ did and suffered all that the law required of him as a Second Adam and our Surety and his obeying in doing is no hindrance but a Gospel ground and reason of our doing and obeying As Christ did not suffer that we should not suffer but not suffer the Penally so Christs doing was not that we should not obey Evangelically but that we should but not obey legally with expectation of our Justification by our works or from a law for that is to be under a Law and not under Grace and to sin instead of obeying Rom. 6 c. Lastly If Christ's righteousness be taken as a meritorious cause in a sinner's Justification it is imputed as such to the person justified the effect of this cause is the sinner's Justification which is his proper Discharge and this is not Imputation but Judgment upon it and Delivery in Law and suppose the effects of Merit could be imputed the cause and reason thereof must be first imputed for the Law doth nothing in way of Condemnation or Justification but upon a meritorious cause imputed unto Condemnation or Justification and how absurd is it to say Condemnation is imputed but its proper to say the sin that merits it is imputed § 6. Arg. 6. That Righteousness which is accepted in law unto Justification is imputed to the person justified but Christ's Merits are accepted of God to the Sinner's Justification The major must be owned for Truth by the Neonomians otherwise they could not assert their Justification by Works The minor hath been counted sound Divinity by most Protestants and many Papists but whether it be or be not the Scripture affirms it roundly see for a taste Eph. 5.2 chap. 1.6 for an acceptation in law must be an imputation of Merit to Justification and can be upon no other account either of a man 's own or of another's for him the law looks at the value of his Money or Works that he brings into Court not how he came by either whether by Gift or otherwise § 7. Arg. 7. That righteousness through which Sin is not imputed to condemnation is the righteousness through which a man is imputed righteous unto Justification But Christs righteousness is that through which sin is not imputed to condemnation Ergo. The minor is very clear from Rom. 8.1.34 who is he that condemneth it is Christ that died chap. 4.6 7 8 Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven to whom God doth not impute sin and this is told us is a righteousness without works that which comes on Jews and Gentiles that which covers Sin from the Eye of God's Justice therefore that which
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-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
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
Sir I shall no longer detain you from the ensuing Discourse but subscribe my self Yours in all Truth and Faithfulness J. C. THE DOCTRINE OF Iustification Explained and Vindicated c. CHAPTER I. Of the Doctrine of Iustification and the Neonomian Opposition thereto Section 1. The Article of the Assembly § 2. How opposed in the universality of Grace and qualification of the person justified § 3. How Neonomianism agrees with Papists and Quakers in Justification by Infused Righteousness § 4. How they oppose in Pardon of Sin and Imputing Righteousness § 5. Their agreement with the Papists in Justification by Works § 6. The Papists Talk of a New Law § 7. Quakers Doctrine of Justification § 8. The Socinian Doctrine of Justification § 9. The Arminian Justification § 10. Inference § 11. They assert Justification not for Christ's sake alone 12. Neonomians affirm Imputation of the Act of Faith § 13. They deny the Imputation of Christs Obedience and Satisfaction § 14. How they account Faith a qualifying Condition § 15. Conclusion Sect. 1. ASsembl conf cap. 11. § 1. Those whom God effectually calleth he also freely justifieth not by infusing Righteousness into them but by pardoning their Sins and by accounting and accepting their Persons as righteous Not for any thing wrought in them or done by them but for Christ's sake alone nor by imputing Faith it self the Act of believing nor any other Evangelical Obedience to them as their righteousness but by imputing the Obedience and Satisfaction of Christ unto them they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith which Faith they have not of themselves it is the gift of God To this Doctrine here delivered with the greatest Exactness according to the Word of God is the Doctrine of Neonomianism diametrically opposite as will abundantly appear § 2. They say Whom God effectually calleth he justifieth Mr. B. saith God justifieth all the World and he and Mr. H. ' That Christ redeemed all the World in which there are Millions that were never or will be effectually called 2. That God freely justifieth This is fuller expressed in the Larger Catechism Q. 70. Justification is an act of God's free grace unto Sinners Rom. 3.21 23 24. for the free Grace is demonstrated in the Object that Justification falls upon Justification considered in it self is an act of Justice but the Free Grace lies in bringing Justification upon a Sinner as such not as qualified by righteousness of his own under any Denomination whatsoever Christ died for the ungodly for enemies while yet sinners Rom. 5.6 7 8 9. it is such chap. 3. that are said to be justified chap. 4.5 by free Grace it is such that have sinned and come short of the glory of God as all he saith have both Jews and Gentiles such as are described from v. 10. of whom none are righteous no not one but full of all sin and wickedness as expressed with the highest aggravation unto v. 19. Now our Neonomians say it s of Free Grace because Justification is an Instance of Grace but by Mr. Cl's favour it must be in the Justification of a Sinner not of a just one and therefore it s said freely by Grace because he hath nothing nor brings any thing in or from himself 2. He saith It s in respect of what is required of us or in us Faith is wrought in us and it s of Free Grace that he accepts of Faith and imputes it to us for righteousness This by the Assembly is rejected as False Doctrine altho Faith and all the Graces of the Spirit are of Grace yet neither Faith or any of them are our righteousness for Justification neither doth God accept it as such nor impute it Mr. Cl. mightily perverts Rom. 4.16 therefore it is of faith ' i. e. the righteousness before spoken of is such as he received by faith he saith not therefore it is faith that it might be of grace because as Grace gives freely so Faith receiveth freely and is not so proud as to call it self righteousness but gladly humbly and thankfully receives the gift of righteousness which Grace bestows and Justice accepts and imputes to Justification § 3. Not by infusing righteousness into them The Assembly doth here exclude the Popish Justification at which Mr. H. inveighs and so doth J. G. for indeed there 's but a pair of Shears between the Papists and Neonomians for the Papists mean only That we have the righteousness for Justification by infusion and so says the other they say indeed Infusion is of Sanctification and it is so and we say Justification is only a relative Grace as it finds nothing in the justified so it puts nothing but the Neonomians say It must find a righteousness infused and there implanted in the justified for which he is justified or by which it s all one as we shall make appear anon in a word tho the Neonomians say The infusion of grace is not justification yet they say Grace infused is our righteousness for Justification and here they do concur with the Papists Quakers and others in confounding Justification and Sanctification together § 4. But by pardoning their sins The Neonomians will not have Pardon to be any part of Justification but an effect of it only we affirm it to be an essential part of Justification By accounting and accepting their persons as righteous The Neonomians say it s by accounting and accepting their imperfect obedience for righteousness God's Justification is first of the Person and then of their Services as Abel's but their Justification is first of their Services and so it is always in legal Justification never in that of Free Grace for in a meer Legal Justification Persons cannot be accepted before the Work done but the Person is accepted for the Work sake Not for any thing wrought in them or done by them The Papists Neonomians Quakers Socinians Arminians all say its for or by what 's wrought in us or done by us Pap. Cons Trid. There is one only formal cause of Justification and that is the righteousness of God not that whereby he is righteous but whereby he makes us righteous with which we being endowed are renewed in the spirit of our minds and are truly called righteous and are righteous c. Upon which Bellarmine saith the State of the whole Controversie may be reduc'd to this plain Question Whether our inherent righteousness be the formal cause of our own absolute Justification which he maintains in the Affirmative and this is the Question in Controversie exactly which our Neonomians plead for in the like manner tho some more obscurely and sophistically but others more honestly in speaking out plainly what they mean such as Mr. B. Mr. H. and Mr. Cl. Bellarmine also blames Kemnitius for dealing fraudulently in not distinguishing between propter and per saying with the Council of Trent That Christ's Righteousness is the propter the cause for which we we are justified and our own inherent
former Court the Judgment is always according to truth but it s not so here for a man may be acquitted there and condemned here both Persons and Actions nay let me say a person may be acquitted in foro Dei and yet his Actions justly condemned in foro humano i. e. mundi but then I do not say those actions are accepted in foro Dei but are burnt for Hay and Stubble as men do justifie themselves and others in this foro mundi very often so doth God himself justifie his children and their actions that are so condemned by and ungrateful to the World God doth as it were come into it and vindicate his accused Saints where Satan takes it upon him as his Prerogative to accuse the Brethren when his Accusations run high God looks upon his Honour engaged to vindicate such in those eminent unaccountable and condemned Actions which they do for his Names sake Here we read of God's own vindicating and bearing Testimony to the actions of his children that looked strange in the eye of the World God's justifying those Actions before the World is called Justification and their Actions Righteousness not that the persons were justified thereby but that they were approved fruits of Christ's Righteousness received by Faith yea we find when God comes into the Court of the World to declare Persons or Actions to be approved by him it s usually in some extraordinary thing wherein they were Eminent and suffered much thereupon at least in their good Name if not otherwise § 4. In this case God justifies the Act of Phineas in taking upon him to execute Judgment in the case of Zimri and Cosbi the action lay condemnable in Phineas as a rash action which proceeded from an usurped Authority he being not High-Priest nor having any particular Commission from Moses This Action God testifies to as a holy and righteous Act tho it looked so extrajudicial and should be looked upon as a righteous act to all Generations Phineas was a justified person long before Numb 25.12 13. Psal 106.30 31. So Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain was he not in an accepted and justified state before God for God first accepted Abel and then his Offering and because his Offering notwithstanding God's acceptation was condemned by Cain and no doubt by his Posterity he obtained witness that he was righteous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby he was witnessed unto for God witnessed in foro mundi to the righteousness of Abel i. e. to his Justification in that he made it appear by his manifested acceptance undoubtedly Fire came down from Heaven and consumed the Sacrifice here the Apostle saith God testifying of his Gifts and this was a testimony of his Person that he was righteous but this is not the justification of his Person for if he had not been justified in foro Dei yea Conscientiae too he could not by faith have offered a Sacrifice so well pleasing to God wherefore to shew to the World that he was an accepted person God testifies to his Services So Enoch he had some eminent Testimony from God before his Translation against all the calumniating and blaspheming Posterity of Cain So Noah also in his Generation a Preacher of the righteousness of faith he had a Testimony in the Ark and the Salvation that he and his House had to both the Worlds and yet this Testimony was not that Justification which he had before God for he was heir of the righteousness of God by faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was become the heir not upon building the Ark but was so before § 5. God's appearing then to witness to the Ways and Actions of his People in the World which the children of men are still condemning of and their Persons and Profession for is not their Justification before God but an eminent fruit thereof Abraham when he offered up his Son Isaac he exerted the eminent fruit of a tried Faith which the World would be apt to condemn as one of the heinousest and most unnatural in the World therefore God justifies this Action of his and therein recommends him for the most Eminent Believer he not staggering in his faith of the promise notwithstanding believing that God could raise his son from the dead and if he should slay his son that God would do it rather than not fulfil his Promise Now I dare appeal to our most ingenuous Opposers whether they think Abraham was not justified before this great Action of his and what can James his Justification be more than God's declaring in foro mundi that this strange action of his wherein he was a Wonder to the World and for which he stood ready to be condemned by it was highly approv'd by him and an eminent Fruit and Testimony of his Faith It appears by the context that James understood nothing but that a True Faith brings forth Works witnessing in foro mundi to the truth of it and James 2.10 and that the offender of the Law in one point is guilty of all and that he that is saved by faith is saved by a lively faith such as will shew it self by works and such as God will testifie to by his Word or Providence or both that they are wrought of God § 6. The like may be said of Rahab The World would condemn her for a treacherous Harlot in betraying her Native Country to destruction But this action of justified Rahab being a signal fruit of her Eminent Faith is signally owned by God himself and her strange action justified to the World that when the Walls of Jericho fell her house stood only and she saved with the Honour and Renown of an exemplary believer in the Church yea God honoured her so far as to come into the Line of the Messiah Hath not God gloriously justified his Saints i. e. by testifying to their Gifts and Services to the World whence else hath been that eminent Spirit visible and astonishing to the World whereby they have not only rejoiced to suffer for the Name of Jesus in the spoil of their goods but in giving their bodies to death and overcame all the Reproaches and Blasphemies of their cruel enemies by faith in the blood of the Lamb and Word of the Testimony Was not that admirable Presence of God with them not only which we read of Heb. 11. but in other Martyrologies The Witness of God to their Gifts in and to the convincing the World to which they had never come had they not been freely justified by God before I am ashamed to see that Men should think that the Saints in their great Services and Sufferings should be of such servile and base Spirits as to be bargaining with God by their Works when they were frying in the Flames § 7. There is also a Justification in foro Conscientiae which is received by faith and cannot be received but by faith and its a closing in with the judgment of God according to truth
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-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-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
of all the elect a slander and imposed expression that none ever said the reatum culpae or guilt of fault and so he bore the sins of all the Elect by real imputation this is truth which Mr. B. chargeth as one of his hundred Antinomian Errors Er. 18. p. 10. Again being made sin for us is meant a sacrifice for sin so Mr H. and used as a sinner why should he be used as a sinner if sin was not charged upon him sure very unjustly If God imputed sin to Christ or accounted Christ a sinner he must be by sin hateful to God c. and Christ suffered for his own sins c. Scr. G. d. p. 30 31. If Christ had bin a sinner in his individual person these consequences might have held but Christ being by Law-imputation made sin in order to the Salvation of Sinners it s otherwise therefore doth my Father love me because I lay down my life for my sheep Is a rich person and honourable hated in the Court and detested because he enters himself Debtor for some Ludgate Prisoners Socin The meaning of these words 2 Cor. 5.21 is not that he was made sin for us by God's imputation but that he was made a sacrifice for sin the word made is a word of Election and Ordination Pinct Dial. to which Mr. Norton answers thus He was made sin for us as we are made righteousness i. e. by judicial imputation without the violation yea with establishing of Justice as he was made curse Gal. 3.13 because he was the sin-offering in truth therefore be was made sin by real imputation Nort. against Pinch Quak. We deserved those things that Christ endured and much more for our sins but that God ever reputed him a sinner is denied neither did he ever dy that we should be reputed righteous by his being made sin for us must be understood his suffering for our sins that we might be made partakers of the grace purchased by him by the working whereof we are made the righteousness of God in him Barch Apol. of Just p. 376. Thus you see how Sister Sects run hand in hand together Thus far of Imputation here which should have bin continued to imputation of Righteousness The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness being the main Point which the Neonomians oppose but because it will be the main subject of our ensuing Discourse we pass it over in this Chapter CHAP. V. Of Imputation of Righteousness unto the Iustification of a Sinner Sect. 1. Righteousness imputed and what § 2. Cardinal Bellarmine a Middle-way-man and so Quakers too and Socinians § 3. How consonant Neonomians are to that Fraternity § 4. They make inherent Holiness to be our Righteousness § 5. Why pardoned after justified and of subordinate righteousness § 6. Of Legal and Evangelical Guilt § 7. Of Mr. Cl's definition of Justification and of incompleat Justification in this life Sect. 1. THat Righteousness is imputed to the Justification of a sinner before God is held on all sides but the great Controversie lies here What Righteousness is it Is it our own inherent righteousness or the righteousness of another the Neonomians with the Papists say it s our own which is the formal cause of our Justification we say that Christ's Righteousness is the material cause of our Justification and Imputation the formal Mr. H. excludes the Merits of Christ from any of the essential causes and makes it only modum efficientis something in the hand of the efficient it may be an instrument but at the best it s but causa ministrans by way of efficiency but enters not that effect as any essential Cause Mr. H. would find out some little Difference between the Papists and himself but it s so little that he can hardly render it visible The Counsel of Trent saith thus There is only one formal Cause of Justification which is the Righteousness of God not whereby he is Righteous but whereby he makes us Righteous viz. which he hath bestowed on us whereby we are renewed in the Spirit of our minds and are not only reputed Just but are truly called Righteous and are so and it follows In this is the Justification of the Vngodly whilst for the Merit of that most Holy Passion the Love of God is shed abroad by the Holy Ghost in the Hearts of them that are justified and inherent in them whence in Justification it self with Remission of Sins this is together with it infused c. Sess 6. c. 7. Mr. H. agrees with them that our inherent Righteousness is the formal Cause and that it is for the Merits of Christ that this Righteousness is wrought in us that therefore it 's called the Righteousness of God Bellarmine in Defence of the Doctrine of the C. of Tr. says the State of this whole Controversie may be reduced to this one Question Whether or no the formal Cause of Absolute Justification be Righteousness inhering in us Which he endeavours to maintain in the Affirmative Mr. H. would have some difference from the Papists in that they say Justification is by Infusion of Righteousness whereas he saith Infusion of Grace is Sanctification but Justification is by Grace infused of the two I take the Papist to be rightest in constitutive Justification and to have less of Merit in it whereas Mr. H. Justification is by Sanctification wrought first which carries more of Merit and less of Grace for here Justification appears at first sight to be ex condigno the good qualification of the Subject Yea the Papists go further then Mr. H. for he will not have Imputation of Christs Righteousness nor Remission of Sins to have any place in Justification which the Papists own to be Parts of our Justification for the Council of Trent do Anathametize those only that teach that a Man is justified only by Imputation of Christs Righteousness and Remission of Sins without inherent Grace and Charity yea I do not find that this Neonomian Doctrine comes any whit short of the Popish Doctrine of Justification nay it out-does it in daring Contradiction to the the Gospel § 2. See what a Middle-way Man the Cardinal is if he go far enough He gives his Sense of Rom. 3.24 Justified freely i.e. from his mere liberality as to our Merits for we cannot deserve to be justified by any Work of ours and this Bounty of God is the efficient Cause but we are justified by his Grace i. e. by a Righteousness given and infused by him is not this Mr. H. exactly what doth he trifle for about Infusion and this is the formal Cause we are justified also by the Redemption of Christ and this is the meritorious Cause Lastly we are justified by Faith in the Blood of a Propitiator and this the disposing Cause from hence we may learn that every sincere Neonomian is a Papist in the Point of Justification and that the Popish Doctrine of Justification is the Middle-way between the Calvinists and Arminians See but a
because Christs Obedience is said to be per quam when it is intended thereby to be the very righteousnes unto Justification ergo per quam and propter quam are of the same import in a juridical sence but that which our Nâ—onomâ—ans and Papists aim at is an immediate and mediare righteousness that we are justified by one as immediate for the sake of Christ's the mediate § 3. The Papists by this distinction would make way for a double righteousness in our Justification for the Council of Trent doth anathematize those that say a man is justified only by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ or only by remission of sins without inherent Grace and Charity To this purpose our Neonomian Mr. Cl. p. 35. That the merit of Christ's Death and Sufferings he excluding his active obedience hath purchased this priviledge for us among others that sincere faith should be accounted for righteousness and that God will account us righteous if we be possest thereof Resp In both these we see Christ's righteousness is made the propter quam and our own the per quam Christ's the meritorious of our Justification by our own righteousness whereby the ascribing any essential causality to Christ's righteousness is out of doors For 1. The Justification by our own ' is entire in all essential causes without Christ's for our righteousness imputed must be the material as well as the formal part of our Justification 2. It must be first imputed and we justified by it for they make not only the Condition but the Imputation thereof and Justification thereby ' to be conditional of our pardon and acceptance by Christ's Righteousness 3. The very righteousness of our own is imputed not Christs Righteousness at all only the effects cause and effects are opposita therefore if the effects only then not the righteousness it self 4. To say that Christ purchased Justification by our own righteousness is but to make Christ such a remote cause of Justification as Election is Now to talk that the condition by which we are justified is a formal cause and yet to be no cause is non-sence for a formal cause altho it be sine qua non and so is every cause yet the four immediate causes are not only so and this distinguisheth them as propter immediate causes whose vis caters the effect when causa sine qua non as to the effect is only antecedent or causa causae and enters not the effect spoken of But Mr. H. saith it s a cause as well as a condition it is both if we made our works to justifie us sub genere causae efficientis procatarct and so the meritorious cause it were to bring our works into the office of Christ's Righteousness and derogate from Grace Resp So they do notwithstanding all they say for if they thrust out Christ's Righteousness from any essential part of our Justification as they do not allowing it materiality or formality therein they put our own Works into Christ's Office and nothing can be more derogatory to the Grace of God they say they make it medus efficientis causa procatarchtica an external motive to the efficient the effect then in that respect falls on the efficient but the effect of the efficient is another thing Supposing God justifies as Judge Christ's Righteousness by way of Merit falls upon him and procures of him that he takes our righteousness in payment We may use this Similitude a Man is prosecuted before a Judge for an hundred Pounds a Friend of the Defendant tampers with the Jury and Judge and procures of them that the Debtor pay but 10 l. I pray whether is he justified by paying the 10 l. in Court or by that which the Judge and Jury received which is not brought in Plea at all so that all meritorious righteousness is brought in Plea coram Judice and accordingly being imputed or not Judgment passeth The Righteousness of Christ whatever it may purchase out of the Court of the New Law it s not allowed there as a Plea and is never nay cannot be imputed these men say though pleaded therefore no Justification thereby for no man is justified legally but by what is imputed § 4. But when we make it the formal cause only of our passive Justification we do nothing thereby but advance God's Grace and Christ's Merits as having obtained for us not only that God should require of us no othâ—r condition but our Faith or inchoate Righteousness unto life but also that he should corstitute by his New Law this condition performed to be our righteousness in the room of that perfect one required of the old p. 47. of right Resp Note 1. They do something besides advancing the Grace of God because it makes Justification due to us upon Debt for he that hath a formal right-ousness of his own legally imputed to him he may demand Justification as due to him by the law it self and this is not to advance Grace but contrary if the Apostle speak sence Rom. 4. 2. It is not an advance of Christ's Merits for it casts it out of Imputation and Justification and makes it but a causa sine quanon it casts them out of the essential causes and it makes them but an adjuvant cause or con-cause a co-ordinate according to Mr. H. it makes not Christ's Merits the only righteousness it makes our own righteousness the inchoate and foundation righteousness the Corner Stone of our Justification and whereas the Scriptures make Christ's it makes Christ's Righteousness but to belong to another law whereby they say we are not justified and our own to that which justifies and the only justifying righteousness of the new law it makes Christ's Righteousness and our Pardon by it to be a consequent of Justification by our own and that without imputation thereof extra-judicial but our own very righteousness to be imputed to us it makes that righteousness within its self and own nature saith Mr. H. again and again to be righteousness legal for our Justification and rejects Christ's perfect Righteousness as to Imputation and Justification which is contrary to the Holiness and Justice of God 3. He makes the Grace of God to consist in constituting a Law for Justification which is but part of distributive Justice the exercise of a Legislative Power and not of Grace to Sinners 4. The constitution of this inchoste righteousness is harder terms than the constitution of the righteousness of the Covenant of Works for Reasons before given 5. We see what their meaning is of Christ's Merits its only that he purchased a new Law and we see what is the Neonomian Commutation that they have of late made such a stir about they are for a Commutation what 's that its a commutation of our righteousness i. e. bringing into the room of the righteousness of the law i. e. Christ's in Justification they deny it in Dr. C's sence i. e. that our sins were imputed to Christ and his
but from it proceeds a Dispensation of Justice Thundrings Lightnings c. of Judicial Proceedings to his enemies and a Dispensation of Grace to his Church there being a Rainbow round about the Throne where Christ is a High-Priest who hath satisfied the Justice of God and pleading his Satisfaction as our Advocate and Intercessor did not David do so Psalm 51. 2. Is it not good Doctrine and agreeable to the Appeal to tell the People that nothing else but the perfect Obedience and Satisfaction of Christ imputed to them can save them Is this to bring them back to the Tribunal of meer Justice is not this the Throne of Grace where Justice is satisfied and appeased where Christ the Satisfier is exalted to Gods right hand to be a Prince and Saviour I pray what do Neonomians do they first bring them to a law suppose it were a law of Grace as they call it to be justified by their own righteousness whither do they carry them then is it not to the Tribunal of Justice to be pardoned So that if God in Christ pardoning iniquity on the Throne of Grace through the Shatisfaction of Christ be the Throne of Justice divested of Grace Why are Neonomians to be pardoned there after they are justified at another Bar But he is for the dividing Grace and Justice in a Sinner's Justification as the Socinians are or rather abandoning Justice CHAP. XIII Of the Righteousness of God Section 1. Works of a Law not Gospel § 2. Mr. H. outdone the Papists § 3. The Righteousness of God what § 4. An offer at Faiths being our subordinate Righteousness § 5. Mr. Cl. and Mr. H. Sence of the Righteousness of God § 6. Their Reasons given and Answered § 7. Mr. Cl. Reasons why it is not Christs Righteousness 2 Cor. 5.21 § 8. His second Reason § 9. A distinct Consideration of the said Texts § 10. Christs Righteousness is the Righteousness of God § 11. § 12. Rom. 3.21 22. examin'd § 13. Rom. 10.3 § 14. Mr. H. Explication of Rom. 10.4 examin'd § 15. Mr. H. Explication of 2 Cor. 5.21 Examin'd And § 16. What he further faith on the Place examin'd § 1. IN the last Place There is a Righteousness revealed in the Gospel that God goes by in his dealing with all the World whereby it is that we are Justified in Opposition to the Righteousness of Works Resp If it be a revealed Righteousness it 's that which is the Object of Faith seen without our selves not in our selves for that need not to be revealed which every Man is naturally addicted to see and know Again it must not be our Works in Opposition to our Works for Justification for there is no formal Opposition between Works and Works nor material indeed which have the same Subject and Genns and End as for what he calls them by way of Difference it will not serve he calls some Works Works of the Law some Gospel-works i. e. Works of the Law of Grace now we have shew'd that there are no such Gospel-works which put in for Justification nor doth the Spirit Work such and being both are the Works of a Law they differ not specifically they are legal Works Works of a Law performed for Justification are always Legal never Evangelical § 2. This Revealed Righteousness is in Scripture called the Righteousness of God which the Protestants conceive to be the Righteousness of Christ without us all but Neonomians and Quakers i. e. the Righteousness of Christ which is not ours by Performance but by Faith but neither Protestants since Luther nor Papists since Augustine have hit the Mind of the Apostle Resp But the Scripture hath hit it long before Luther sure then if they were not Right the Reformation was the Deformation in Doctrine the Truth is many of the Protestants were out in this Point all our Reformation so far as I can understand Mr. H. and many Neonomians are gone is not worth a Fig and here indeed Mr. H. boasts again and again that he hath out-done the Papists and I may truly say that he and his Father B. hath and in this only they differ from the Papists that they go beyond them in Self-righteousness and in a most daring scornful Opposition to the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ § 3. The Righteousness of God and Grace opposed to Works is nothing but the Righteousness of the Covenant of Grace accepted for Christs sake instead of the Covenant of Works Resp It is not Christ's Righteousness accepted for us for that alone is the Righteousness of the Covenant of Grace and then only God did not set up Christ to set up our Righteousness because it was impossible for us to have any other to be justified by that he might have the Glory of Being our Righteousness alone but he saith this Righteousness of ours must come instead of the Righteousness of the Covenant of Works to which we Answer that its impossible for us to be Justified by any Righteousness but that which fully and exactly answers the Covenant of Works either our own or anothers the Righteousness of another Law cant Justifie us there For if a Sinner be justified it must be by that Law which he hath broken and by none else if they say Christ hath satisfied that Law for us then we say that Satisfaction is a sufficient Righteousness for our Justification we look for no other Law to be justified by nor no other Righteousness for our Justification He proceeds Herein are two Things comprized the meritorious Righteousness of Christ procuring the pardoning Covenant of Grace and our performing the Condition only we are to know how this Righteousness may be understood in respect to God as it is all one with his Grace or with respect to us as its all one upon which this Grace is vouchsafed Resp This Neonomian Cheat is always to be noted in the Point of Satisfaction that all the Satisfaction they ascribe to Christ is only in making pay unto God for a new Purchase they will not have Christ to have paid any Arrears or old Scores the Law passeth away in sententiam and we found insolvent to this perfect Law therefore Christ buys another Law upon that promiseth Justification upon easier Terms not so Holy but sinful and immoral and therefore called the Law of Indulgence yet justifies us upon those Terms but yet without Pardon which we must have of the Old Law and because we have fulfilled the New Law God out of his Prerogative without any other Satisfaction than the forementioned procurement Pardons for they say Satisfaction and Pardon are inconsistent as the Socinians do and why do they say Christs Satisfaction is not imputed to us because if they were not ashamed to speak out they think there is none yea and that they speak of is only Christs purchasing a new Law which would be madness for to claim an Imputation of to us for that concerns us no further then a new Legal Bondage
faulty that will serve the turn God never abandoned nor relaxed his original Law though others as branches in positive laws for a time being may be but that was perfectly fulfilled in Christ § 3. Arg. 2. That Righteousness which merits the Justification of a Sinner before God is that righteousness only by which and for which he is justified before God but the Righteousness of Christ is such Ergo. For the minor our adversaries grant it that Christ merited and purchased our Justification i. e. by works of our own and that our Righteousness and Justification are effects thereof and therefore there needs no further Proof here but we must come to the major which pincheth hard upon them but it appears to be true 1. Because there is no legal Discharge of an accused person without a meritorious righteousness appearing Now these men with the Socinians say some at least and others do but lisp at it Mr. B. says it downright he knowing it to be inseparable from the Popish Doctrine that their righteousness is not meritorious being imperfect if it be not it s no justifying righteousness I will stand by it that there is no righteousness can claim Justification but upon the merit of their action in the performance of the preceptive part and if they be justified by the new law they must be justified by the merits thereof but we assert that the righteousness must answer the old law broken and it must be as in Justice it doth so satisfie that law that it lays claim to Justification by vertue of those merits and no other righteousness will pass there but what is such § 5. Arg. 4. The righteousness typified by the Priests Sacrifices of old was the righteousness whereby a sinner is justifi d in the sight of God but the righteousness of Christ a-alone is such Ergo. For the major our adversaries Mr. Bellarmine and Mr. H. say that Christs Righteousness is the thing for which id propter quod not as the End but as an Instrument of the Efficient and a meritorious cause and our Faith and Obedience is the per quam which they say doth not denote Merit and in the Protestant sence per quam denotes only instrumentality but indeed here 's these mens Commutation they make Christ's Righteousness the Instrument and that remote enough too and our own righteousness the Formal Cause of Justification which in truth is their meritorious cause upon their own Positions the major must be granted The minor will be very demonstrable upon these reasons That the Righteousness of Christ is only such the id propter quod and per quod a sinner is justified in Gods sight 1. i. e. The righteousness by which we are justified is not two but one and Christs is that as the Scripture affirms 2. That for which a man is meritoriously justified in tribuno legis is that by which he is justified so the law knows no difference in those terms for it doth nothing by any righteousness but it doth it for that righteousness 3. The Spirit of God therefore useth the Greek Prepositions promiseuously in this case as hath in part been shewed 4. No Sinner therefore can stand in Judgment but by and for this Righteousness of Christ § 5. Arg. 4. The Righteousness typified by the Priestly Sacrifices of old was the righteousness whereby a sinner is justified in the sight of God but this was the Righteousness of Christ only Ergo. The major and minor are so clear that no Christian that hath read the Scripture with any understanding can deny either if any shall say it s not easie to defend it there 's the whole Epistle to the Hebrews yea the whole Scripture to prove them all the Devils in Hell cannot cast down this Fortress and I leave it therefore to the intelligent Reader let him search the Scriptures they testifie of it § 6. Arg. 5. That Righteousness which is a ransoming and redeeming righteousness from a legal Bondage is the justifying righteousness of a sinner before God but Christ's Righteousness is that alone which is a redeeming and ransoming righteousness Ergo. The minor is true none that call themselves Christians dare to fly so audaciously in the face of Christ and deny plain Scripture to deny this if they do there 's enough to prove it to the meanest Christian The major therefore I will prove beyond all contradiction That righteousness which meritoriously dischargeth the sinner from his Bondage under the Law the condemnation and curse of it is justifying Righteousness but Christs Righteousness is such Rom. 8.34 Gal. 3.13 and divers places for a discharge of a person from under the Bonds Imprisonments and Curse of the Law is his Justification and the righteousness for which he is discharged is his Justification § 7. Arg. 6. That Righteousness which only can justifie a Sinner against the Law is the Righteousness whereby a Sinner is Justifyed in the sight of God but Christ's Righteousness is such Ergo I suppose the major is undeniable except men will cavil at the Sun at noon day and will any have the face to say as to the minor 1. That God hath not purer Eyes of Justice than to behold Iniquity 2. That he exerciseth justice by halves and not in the strictest and exactest manner 3. Will they say their righteousness is so perfect as to answer Gods Law The Neonomians say no. How will they dare to say then they are justifyed by a Righteousness which is not answerable in perfection to the Law but they will be justifyed by another Righteousness the worst they can think of by a Law coined adequate to Antinomian and licentious Principles 4. A Sinners unrighteousness is such that the Law could never look upon him for to be righteouss in the sight of God in his own righteousness because he hath been once a transgressor James saith If a man transgress but in one Point he is guilty of all The Saints in Heaven tho glorified with Perfection yet having been sinners and transgressors of the Law they could not stand Justifyed out of Christ's righteousness It is one thing to have perfection of Sanctification as to the present standing and performances and another thing to have perfection of Justification wherein the least believer here on Earth are as perfectly Justifyed and as righteous before God as the glorifyed Saints in Heaven See Col. 1.22 Eph. 6.27 Rev. 14.4.5 § 8. Arg. 7. That Righteousness which repairs all our unrighteousnesses lost in the first Adam is the only righteousness whereby we are Justifyed before God but Christ's righteousness is such and no other righteousness Ergo as to the major for all other righteousness comes short of what we lost in the first Adam our unrighteousness was our breach of the preceptive part of Gods Law this was our unrighteousness our loss and punishment was also very great in respect of moral original righteousness and coming under the wages of sin which is death or liableness thereto by
the Law in all acceptations Now Christ as a second Adam brought in a righteousness upon both these accounts 1. His perfect compleat active Obedience in opposition to Adam's Sin obedience to disobedience Rom. 5.14 If thro the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace which is Christ's obedience which is by one man hath abounded unto many So in every v. to the end of the chapter Christ's obedience was not only to save us from punishment but to take of all the spots of sin in the sight of God Will Neonomian righteousness take away Original sin in the sight of God bring us into the perfection of the Law in the sight of God repair the preceptive part of God's Law Nay will it do any thing to take us of from punishment No they say not if not its worth nothing § 9. Arg. 8. That Righteousness whereby a Sinner is at peace with God reconciled to him and hath access unto his presence with boldness is the Righteousness whereby he is Justified but the Righteousness of Christ is such the minor is evident Rom. 5.1 2. Eph. 2.13 14. Rom. 5.10 Col. 1.20 The major appears Justification is our reconciling peace with God Ground of boldness of access in Faith and Prayer Rom. 5.1 Heb. 4.15 16. § 10. Arg. 9. That Righteousness which Christ pleads in Heaven for us is our Justifying righteousness but it is his own righteousness which he pleads in Heaven for us Ergo This righteousness is our Justification righteousness Doth Christ plead our righteousness or his own Not ours sure he pleads for acceptance of our services thro' his righteousness he entred into the holyest of all with his blood What was it to procure A Justifying righteousness of ours for him to plead before his Father § 11. Arg. 10. If there be no name of any other nor Salvation in any other among men besides Christ's than there 's no righteousness for Justification of a Sinner but Christ's but the antecedent is true Acts. 4.12 the place so full and express there 's no disputing it But our Neonomians will deny the antecedent for this is the stone that is set at naught by our new Gospel builders they will say that there 's justification righteousness in men and in the name of themselves and their own righteousness they shall be Justified but then I say there 's another name and salvation in some other among men if that justifying righteousness is our salvation only For what is in Christ is it not in them And tho Christ purchased it the salvation is in them not in Christ § 12. Arg. 11. If Christ be the end of the law for Righteteousness to every one that believeth then his righteousness is the only Justifying righteousness but Christ is so the Antecedent is true Rom. 10.4 all the aim and design of God in his law in making it is that it may be answered in righteousness Christ is this end as to all saved ones and as to believers he said not that we are the end of the law by our own righteousness or that Christ merited that we should be the end of the law or shou'd be the righteousness of a new law but Christ is so if their had been any other end for righteousness he would have told us of it The consequence needs no proof for whatever fully answer the end of the law in active and passive obedience for us is justifying righteousness in the eye of the law it looks for no more but the Neonomians will say here is the old law meant and Christ answered that I say then if he did justify us as to Old law righteousness a fig for the New law and the pretended Justification thereby § 13. Arg. 12. That righteousness which in a lively manner is held forth in the seals of the Covenant and as seals of the righteousness of faith is justifying righteousness but that is the righteousness of Christ Ergo. For the minor that 's plain the washing with water held forth his washing us from our sins in his blood the eating the bread and drinking the wine it is to signify our feeding upon the Body of Christ by Faith on which he bore our sins and drinking of his Blood which he shed for the remission of Sins As to the major its plain they hold forth Christ to be our justifying righteousness Act. 2.38 and that we live upon this righteousness as the Lord's Supper holds forth in a spiritual eating the Body and drinking his Blood do we shew forth our own death or life of works or his that they should be seals of our own righteousness and not of Christs § 14. Arg. 13. If no righteousness but a Suretiship and Preistly righteousness can justify a Sinner before God then Christ's righteousness alone can do it but nothing but a Suretiship and Priestly righteousness can c. The minor is proved because we are Bankrouts have nothing to pay neither in our selves by nature nor bestowed on us that which the holiest man hath in sanctification bearing no proportion to our sins and God's demands therefore it must be the righteousness of a Surety that 's holy harmless c. that pays a righteousness for us adaequate to the demands of the Law The consequence will hold because there was no other Surety to God for Sinners but Christ he hath engaged to pay for us and hath paid and his payment accepted His Blood was shed for many for the remission of sins he was the great high Priest and as such he was a Surety Heb. 7.21.22 ch 2.17 § 15. Arg. 14. If there be no Gospel righteousness in respect of a Sinner but Christ's righteousness then Christ's righteousness is our Justifying righteousness but there 's no Gospel righteousness The minor is thus proved The righteousness by which a Sinner is Justified is Gospel 1. Because it s not wrought by himself but by another for him 2. Because it s given to him freely it s a Law righteousness in respect of Christ Now when by our graces and duties we claim Justification as due to us upon performing conditions we make all our works legal and put them in the room of Christ's righteousness for Justification The consequence is clear because a Sinner can be saved only by a Gospel righteousness that of Christ that is offer'd him and he receives as the Gospel glad tidings for its good news and Gospel to any man to hear of one that is able and willing to pay his debt for him § 16. Arg. 15. If there be no life to be given to a Sinner by the righteousness of any law perform'd by him then the righteousness of Christ is the only righteousness that he is justified by but there is no life to be given to any Sinner by the righteousness of any law perform'd by him Ergo. The antecedent is fully proved by the Gal. 3.21 where Law is used indefinitely in both parts of the Texts
lies in the Death and Resurrection of Christ v. 24 25. likewise 2 Cor. 5.15 God was in Christ reconciling the world i. e. justifying for God reconciles none but by Justification reconciliation is essential to it and therefore non imputation of sin for while a man lies under a law charge of sin he is unrighteous till he be imputed righteous by the law The major is evident from what is said in proof of the minor for non imputation of sin to a sinner is essential to his Justification which can be no otherwise then by a covering righteousness and when a law imputes sin the same law must justify by imputing to him an adequate and satisfactory righteousness § 8. Arg. 8. The Sins of Sinners under the old Testament were Imputed Typically to the High-Priest and Sacrifices which is very easie to make appear Ergo. The Sins of all sav'd sinners are Imputed really to Christ and his righteousness to them See 1 Cor. 5.21 Rom. 3.25 Heb. 9.15 § 9. Arg. 9. That which cannot be pleaded for Pardon or Justification unless it be Imputed is when it s pleadibly imputed unto Justification But Christs very righteousness is pleadible c. Ergo. The minor I suppose these Gentlemen dare not deny for I find tho they will not have it their immediate righteousness by imputation yet they will have it for some remote and as a reserve at a dead lift when conscience sees that neither the New Law nor the righteousness thereof will serve the turn Now that Christs righteousness is not pleadible without Imputation to us neither by Christ in heaven nor by us on earth its plain for if Christ be never so righteous his plea is answerered in saying thou art righteous for thy self I never imputed thy righteousness to these let them plead for their own Justification If they plead it with God the answer is Christ is righteous for himself his righteousness not imputed to thee no more then the righteousness of one of the Angels and therefore Christs righteousness being pleadible its imputed without Imputation it s not pleadible for us or by us § 10. Arg. 10. That righteousness which is a Suretiship righteousness must be imputed else it s of no value to the offender but Christs righteousness is a Suretiship righteousness he being a Surety his righteousness must be such And as for the major its plain that the justice that accepts one person to be Surety for another doth impute or account the righteousness of the Surety to that other or else it accepts not the Surety is rejected now that Christ was accepted as a Surety is beyond all question Heb. 7.22 § 11. Arg. 11. The righteousness of the second Adam is an Imputed righteousness for 1. as Adam was a Publick person that had a Covenant standing for all his Seed so the 2d Christ was and had for his 2. As Adam 's Sin came by Imputation upon his Seed so Christs righteousness on his as fully appears from Rom. 5. But this I must not now enlarge upon the Apostle is so full and plain therein that I never could see any thing said to oppose that could have weight with any learned and rational Interpreter if unprejudiced against Truth CHAP. XVIII What Interest and concern Faith hath in our Iustification Section 1. Of the Nature of Faith as spoken of § 2. What this Faith is § 3. And how we are said to be Justified by Faith § 4. Arg. To prove that Faith is not our Righteousness Section 1. HAving proved Christ's Righteousness to be the only Righteousness for a Sinner's Justification in Gods sight and that this Righteousness is certainly Imputed to every one that believes we shall in the last place enquire what concern and intrest Faith hath in our Justification I shall not speak of Faith accompanying Salvation at large as the Apostle doth Heb. 11 Wherein he also comprehends Justifying among the other Senses there spoken of but only of Faith as it referrs to Justification and the righteousness thereof § 2. Justifying Faith is a gift of God whereby a poor sinner believes in God unto eternal life thro Jesus Christ 1. It is a gift of God in respect of the grace of God and the work of the Spirit Eph. 2.8 2. It is a purchased benefit for an Elect person 2 Pet. 1. 3. It 's a Gift to a Sinner there 's no grace lives tell Faith then Christ lives in him it s to a poor undone broken Sinner 4. This is a gift of grace to believe in God and Christ 1. To be perswaded of the truth of the Law his certain curse under it impossibility of coming to the works thereof That its a saying worthy of all acceptance that Christ came into the world to save Sinners whereof Paul saith he was one of the chiefest not that he was righteous subordinately to Christ's to qualify him for it This is that which is properly call'd fides but its hard to distinguish this from the Faith of a natural man and hipocrite therefore 2. There is believing in i. e. resting upon God and Christ resting on the faithfulness of God in his promise of a good thing to us as for eternal life and for righteousness in Christ now faithfulness belongs to persons truth unto things when the Soul doth not only believe the thing promised true but believes him faithful who hath promised and from thence doth stay himself and his Soul acquisce in it This is properly fiducia trusting in God 3. There 's a particular application of Christ in the promise and the Soul unto God in Christ believing that all the promises especially those that concern eternal life and justification by Christ's righteousness are yea and Amen in him made and perform'd in him § 3. Hence by Faith we are said to be justified 1. Because the righteousness of Christ is the object of our Faith it is that we believe to and come unto believing Rom. 10.10 We believe unto righteousness 2. By Faith a man is devorced from the Law and legal righteousness and comes into a new marriage relation to Christ for righteousness and life Rom. 7.3 Because its that grace only whereby a man can go out of himself and fetch in the righteousness of another 4. It is that grace which from the very law of its nature which it hath thro grace doth always deny it self any thing of righteousness for Justification and gives all the glory of righteousness unto Christ alone 5. In that it doth fiducially rest and depend thereon believing 6. It dwells upon an object of righteousness which is not seen by sence or reason yea it is the hypostasis of Christ's righteousness in the Soul Christ lives as it were in our Faith take away Christ from it and you leave it a dead nothing or worse it returns to unbelief 7. Because by this Faith the Soul sees God at peace with him and he hath peace in himself and the controversy is at an end
is it fittest and to which doth it suit best Paul Rom. 4. argues strenuously against justification by works and therefore against Justification by Faith as a Work To this kind of Justification he opposeth that of Faith its being accounted for righteousness if faith be understood as a work of righteosness then the Apostle contradicts himself and maketh justification by faith to be justification by works and so disputes vainly making no opposition but if in Justification by Faith the righteousness is imputed to us and that be the drift of it then his Argumentation hath the greatest weight the righteousness of Faith is Christ's righteousness and the righteousness of works our righteousness inherent wrought by us or in us utterly excluded from Justification § 6. Mr. Cl's Second Argument Because the Apostle frequently opposeth working and believing faith and works Works as a perfect obedience to the Law Faith as a sincere obedience to the Gospel Resp Then the Apostle should have opposed works and works and distinguished between Law-works and Gospel works or when he had opposed Faith unto Works in two Epistles so largely he should have excepted Gospel-works or said I do not mean Faith as a work but to be short for I shall not need to be long on the remaining Arguments We say only that this Argument is against Mr. Cl. because the Apostle still makes so clear an opposition betwixt Faith and Works without any Exception Arg. 3. It is expresly called the righteousness of faith Rom. 4.11 13. chap. 9.30 chap. 10.16 by faith Gal. 5.5 Heb. 11.5 Resp This affects us not The righteousness of faith is but as the light of the eye the righteousness which is the object of faith Rom. 4.11 he received the sign of circumcision called the covenant of Circumcision by a plain Trope not cruel at all the seal of the righteousness of faith Is this a Seal only that we are righteous or is it a Seal of the righteousness of Christ promised to Abraham v. 13. there 's a positive denial that the Promise was to Abraham and his Seed through a Law any Law Old or New but thro the righteousness of faith the proper and peculiar object in Justification Rom. 9.30 the righteousness of Faith is opposed to the righteousness of Works the Jews depended on By Faith is but righteousness received by Faith or waited for in faith Gal. 5.5 we by the Spirit i. e. its assistance wait for the hope of righteousness i. e. the righteousness hoped for by faith or from faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it s not called the righteousness of faith there to what purpose quoted I know not and Heb. 11.5 where it is said by faith Enoch was translated what 's Enoch's Translation here to his Justification which was three hundred years before § 7. Argument 4. Because Faith is a conformity to the rule of the promise wherein the nature of righteousness doth consist viz. the Gospel or Covenant of Grace which requires only sincere believing not perfect doing Rom. 10.8.10 and therefore tho it be not righteousness in strict Justice according to the law of nature i. e. works yet it is righteousness according to the favourable construction of the Gospel i. e. God upon the account of Christ's righteousness is pleased to accept of this for righteousness so as to account it whence it s called the righteousness of God Resp The rule of the promise is an uncouth Term which I have examined elsewhere and therefore shall not now stand upon it only A rule of the promise must be either by which it is made or upon which it is performed there 's no Rule God makes any Promise by but his own good Will and Pleasure but it s the Rule it s performed by that must be a Rule in us by which God walks i. e. the condition of the New Law performed by us a Law indeed hath such a Rule but no Gospel hath do and live do is the Rule and live the Promise to be performed upon our doing and this is these mens Gospel or Govenant of Grace a downright Law and where is it proved that Faith is a conformity to this Rule of the Promise or legal Condition Rom. 10.8 there 's something said of a believing the Word preached but what 's that to the Rule of the Promise and verse 10. with the heart man believes unto righteousness c. who denies Faith if it be true to be as sincere as any other Grace but this proves it not to be our righteousness the words of the Text are against it it believes unto righteousness it goes out of it self for righteousness takes not its self for righteousness v. 11. the object believed on where this righteousness is is told v. 11 whosoever believeth on him but these men will have believing unto righteousness to be faith believing it self unto righteousness VVell when Faith hath done its do to make its self righteousness yet it is not righteousness in the sense of the law of works which is the true Rule of a Law-righteousness that God never abates in the least of yet it is Gospel-righteousness according to the favourable construction of the Gospel God forbid that that should be our justifying-righteousness which strict Justice will not allow to be righteousness Here they bring in God's dispensing with Justice and make him a favourer of unrighteousness in making it such for Justification this is Antinomianism with a witness for God to favour sin and justifie him for that which a just Law and strict Justice condemns for unrighteousness the righteousness of the new Law is condemn'd at the Bar of the old law hence it can be no better than the law of Sin and Death and yet this unrighteous condition must be father'd on God's favourable construction yea on Jesus Christs Undertaking and Performance he undertook and died for this end that our unrighteousness should have the honour of justifying us his was but subservient to that end it seems God would have it so that his Son should be made a Sacrifice to purchace the imputation of our own righteousness for righteousness unto justification and therefore it is called the righteousness of God why because it s ours and not Christs Of this in another place § 8. That Faith is our Gospel-righteousness appears further from Rom. 10. this being the same with the Fourth and answered there I need say nothing to it Argument 6. There are but two sorts of righteousness Legal and Evangelical but this is not legal righteousness and therefore it must be Evangelical Resp There is but one sort of righteousness and that is legal and its a legal righteousness though graciously bestowed that we are justified by and its impossible that it should be otherwise it s only the legal righteousness of Christ made ours which is our Evangelical Christ's own righteousness as it respects the Justice of God and his Law is Legal as it respects a Sinner is graciously bestowed its