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
I suppose because he lookt upon us as Men very shallow and of no penetration into matters For though he that hath been an actual Transgressor cann't be said not to have been because it 's past and cann't be made otherwise than that it hath been Doth it follow from this that therefore now he is a Transgressor His Argument doth run thus A Man hath been an Actual Transgressor therefore now he is and ever will be a Man hath been actually Sick or Poor and therefore he is so now and ever will be It 's a truth unalterable that this or that thing hath been but it follows not that therefore it 's now and always will be so It is a truth that all the Saints in Heaven have been guilty of Sin but are they therefore so now Then Heaven is full of guilty Sinners He alledges the absurdity of making a Fact past not to be past there 's none asserts it but that the Law may be fully satisfied for the obliquity of Fact we assert and in that sense God is said to take away our transgressions for what is the end of Christ's satisfaction in being a Sin-offering Is it not to satisfie the Justice of God in a Law-sense for the exorbitancy of that Fact for unless this obliquity be taken away before God the Sinner must be bound over to Punishment And hence no Flesh could be saved but all the World must remain Guilty Unjustified and Unpardon'd § 10. He excepts against considering Sins as Debts which he saith when once paid are no longer Debts but there 's difference between the guilt of a Fact and contracting a Debt for a Debt consists in a thing real whose property may be altered and transferred but in criminal matters there 's nothing capable of being transferred which is a thing real but the obliquity and guilt of the Fact is a privative and personal thing A. If Christ hath directed us to consider of Sin as a Debt such consideration is most regular and justifiable 2. If Obedience be that which is due to the Law of God in the strictest consideration of Justice then Disobedience is a Debt erg Sin is a Debt 3. If a Debt be no more a real thing but a Privation then other transgressions of the Law then the obliquity may be transferred in one as well as in another but it is so Erg. For a Debt is a defect of Payment and Privation of it there 's nothing but the Payment is real 4. In criminal matters no wrong subject is capable to be Punished in a way of Justice but he that is guilty § 11. He saith the Desert of Punishment which follows the transgression cannot be separated from it A. That which is meer consequent to a thing may be separated from the Essential Nature of the thing at least in Consideration but we have shewed that the Desert of Punishment is in the formal Nature of Sin For Sin as such is made by the Law to deserve Punishment and that is absolutely false if the Scripture be true which he saith Let what Grace or Favour soever be shewed the desert of Punishment remains still A. 1. In Man's Proceedings a Man that is Pardon'd is taken from desert of Punishment for it 's a slander punishable to call a Pardon'd Thief a Thief and the Law is silenced from dealing with himas such or calling him so But here God's ways are not as Man 's when he Pardons he also Justifies He provides as well for a full satisfaction of his Law for the very obliquity and exorbitancy of the Fact But he saith a Privation can't be transferred A. It 's true a Physical privation can't but a Moral may and a Debt may by his own Concession but a Debt is a Privation of the Creditor's Money I wonder an Ecclesiastical Man should not know it as well as others unless they call Men Debtors that owe them nothing Again the B. saith No Sinner can deserve that one that was not a Sinner should suffer for his faults A. It is true no Sinner can deserve that Christ should suffer for him no nor any ordinary Principal Debtor can deserve that any Man should be his Surety but another in kindness to him may put himself under Obligation to Pay and Write himself Debtor in his stead so tho' Sinners deserved Punishment yet not that Christ should be Punished for them and therefore that Christ is punished for their Sins flows from the love of God and kindness of the Lord Jesus from which he putting himself under Law-Proceedings and Suffers in a way of Justice for Sin i. e. taking upon him the Deserts of Man's Sin Bp Nor can the Law or Act of any Person transfer the desert of Punishment from him that was the actual Transgressor A. Here 's miserable Divinity it 's time sure to come to our Litany Lord have Mercy upon us A. 1. Cann't a Law transfer a deserved Punishment to another that fully satisfies it Why doth any one fully satisfie the Law for another but that the Law should have nothing to say to him to Charge or Accuse him which if so his desert is taken away If a Child or Wife commit a great Theft doth not the Guilt in Law fall on the Father or Husband and is not the Personal Desert taken away by the Father or Husband 's satisfying the Law 2. Can no Person Cann't God transfer the Guilt It 's strange that the Scripture should be so mistaken in saying Jehovah laid upon him the Iniquities of us all All the Answers to this are so frivolous that they are not worth our trouble of Answering them § 12. B. The Turpitude as to the Act of Sin cann't be re moved from it A. All these things being inseparable Sin remains in the best yea glorified Saints for Personal Guilt remaining and a Turpitude inseparable as it must needs so long as Personal Guilt remains there can be no Sanctified one on Earth or Heaven for Guilt and Filth is permanent ever never to be removed according to this Doctrine Bp Where-ever the Act of Sin is it must be displeasing to God but the Turpitude as it affects the Person of a Sinner must have another consideration A. Is Sin displeasing to God And can the Sinner be pleasing to him so long as he lies under the fault of Sin the desert and guilt thereof For suppose he is taken off from Punishment can he be received into favour with God Doth God accept Sinners in all their Guilt and Turpitude 2. I understand not how Turpitude of Sin is distinguish'd from the Guilt of Sin the said Guilt being the Turpitude the Law finds punisheth for it and condemns it even in Man's Law And although Sin carries an inherent Privation of good and an internal pravity yet there 's none of this that hath not personal guilt in it which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so far at least was charged on Christ and so far a believer washed in the
of our Sins And Procopius he saith expresseth it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not this as a Surety And yet he saith here is nothing like Suretiship to pay our Debts for us Now if the Bp. had pleased to read out the Chapter he might have seen two Verses more wherein this Truth is litterally express V. 11. He shall bear their Iniquities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shall take their Iniquities as a Burden on his Shoulders to carry them away as the Scape-Goat did the Iniquities of the Children of Israel And the lxx renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall take up their Iniquities upon him And V. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall bear the Sin of many shall the Spirit of God express it self to one thing so fully and plainly and all fly away at the Puff of a Bp. as Chaff before the Wind What is all that this learned Bp. hath said to refute this Doctrine of Christ's bearing our Sins and satisfying for them as our Debts to Divine Justice but this Here 's nothing like Christ's Suretiship to pay our Debts for us we will not take his Word for it till he proves that Sin is not a Debt to the Law of God when Christ hath told us it is 2. Till he shews any other credible way of bearing another's Faults besides this way of Suretiship till 3dly He shews and proves against the Apostle Peter that there is no other way of paying Debts on purchasing or redeeming than with plain Silver and Gold § 17. He proceeds to shew us the great Harm of Christ's being a Surety to pay our Debts of Sin p. 107. 1. Then Christ hath fully discharged our Debts already This is one Mischief of it but God forbid it should that Christ should do Harm in paying any Man's Debts but to do it by halves is to pay some only and leave others for us to pay How did he satisfie God's Justice if he gave not full Satisfaction God forbid that Christ should leave a Farthing for us to pay 2. The second Mischief is that we have nothing to do towards the Payment of our Debt all that we have to do is to believe and to be thankful for all this Transaction was long since past without Consideration of any Act on our parts A. Is it a Harm that Christ hath done so much for us in way of Satisfaction and Purchase that he hath left nothing of ours to put in for a Share in this Honour no not our believing it self I take it to be the Glory of Christ and the blessed Priviledge of Believers that he hath provided for Believers such a Furniture of Grace that they shall believe on him bear his Image walk in his Steps to the Glory of his Name in all Thankfulness and new Obedience The third Mischief is that it nulls all Faederal Conditions on our part but of this more afterward 4. That we can't suffer for those Sins that are already discharged Is this such a Harm It 's neither Reason or Justice that we should pay a Debt to the Law which is already discharged Christ hath born all the Sins of Believers in the deserved Punishments thereof hence the Sufferings of the Saints are not Penal nor can be but are Blessings for their Good purchased by Christ for them § 18. The Bp. saith There 's but one place of Scripture to be found to favour this Sense of the Suretiship of Christ viz. Heb. 7.22 It is easie to instance in many places that favour it and prove it it being as I may say the very Marrow of the Gospel but as to this place it expresly calls Christ a Surety and it is the more remarkable as to our present purpose that as the Spirit of God hath called Sins Debts and Christ's Suffering a Price paid and expresly excluding Payment by Silver or Gold so Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which as Lexicog say doth primarily signifie a Surety for Money Hence it appears the Spirit of God makes much of the Metaphor of Debt and Payment to confirm our Faith in this that there 's no better account of the Nature of Sin than a Debt to God's Justice and no better account of the Sufferings of Christ than that they were a Payment of this Debt to the Justice of God And what if it be but in one place of Scripture When a Truth is so fully and plainly expressed in one Text it is enough there are many Truths of great weight are so besides the marvellous Concurrence of other texts of Scripture to the tenor thereof But he saith this text speaks of a Covenant not of the Surety of a Covenant A. What is it that makes a Debt is not a Covenant or compact But it is of a better Covenant i. e. a Surety to pay the Debts of the old Covenant of Works but brought in by a better Covenant the new Covenant being a Covenant of Grace answering the Ends of God's Grace more than the old doing that which the old could not do to save Sinners by a Righteousness which is not their own but better in that it hath a Surety that it brings in to engage unto God to pay all our Debts due to the Justice of God from us under the old Covenant which had no Surety Heb. 7.19 makes it better in nothing else but the bringing in a better Hope viz. the Surety But he positively denies that Christ was to pay our debts unto God If so what 's the reason the Church prays Forgive us our Debts when God's way of Forgiveness of a Sinner as asserted in Scripture is by bringing in a Surety to pay his debts of Sin Col. 1.14 In whom we have Redemption thro' his Blood even the Forgiveness of Sins But what a Surety is it that he will have Christ to be Sure it is the same the Socinians will have to be only i. e. a Surety to engage for God to us not for us to God but a Surety only for the Truth and Faithfulness of God in his Promises See his Words p. 110. § 18. The Bp. takes notice of some dissenting Brethren he might better said of Protestants dissenting from the Church of Rome who talk much of Surety Righteousness and of Christ's being our Surety as to the Payment of our Debts because the Debtor may be said to pay the Sum the Surety lays down for him and that God doth account that Believers do pay that Debt of Obedience which Christ hath paid in their Stead because they are a legal Person with Christ and all this depends upon this mistaken Notion of Suretiship A. It is very sad that so plain Scripture should corrupt our Minds with mistaken Notions how shall we know we are mistaken or not in any then Or that we do know the Mind of the Spirit in them if when we have a plain text expressing a Truth according to the plain and undeniable Sence of other texts of Scripture not only
agreeing with but essential to the Analogy of Faith If we must look on this received Doctrine to be a mistaken Notion then surely notwithstanding the Revelation that God hath given us in his Word he hath left us under Chymerian Darkness and inextricable Laborinths in the great Points of Life and Salvation but what hath he to say against this received Doctrine by the dissenting Brethren and all true Protestants If once it be supposed that we perfectly obeyed the Law in Christ there can be no room for Remission of Sins for how can Sins be forgiven to them that have obeyed the Law I cannot answer this Argument better than in the very Words of Mr. R. Capel whom none I suppose will call an Antinom in Vindication of Dr. Twiss on this Point There is a double Acception of the Term Remission of Sins 1. There is a meritorious Justification or Remission of Sins this is of Sins before they are committed 2. There 's an actual Justification or Remission of Sin and this is not till after our Sin is committed and we do believe all this none of these Exceptors do or can question Those that lean much to the Doctrine of Arminius and Vortius in this point may see all this expressed in clear terms by Vortius So that it is one thing for all the Sins of all the Elect to be pardoned to Christ for them that was done before we were or our Sins were another thing to be pardoned to them Christ was made a Curse for us by Imputation for that the Father did impute all our Sins as a Judge to Christ as a Surety and did exact all of him as guilty by that Law and this is I conceive all the meaning of Dr. Twiss and is or at least ought to be the meaning of us all and this a learned Man calls a mystical Justification because all the Sins of all the Elect are as laid upon Christ so remitted unto Christ our Head and Husband which Pardon and Absolution he took in our Name and keeps for our Use See Capel of Repentance p. 257 258. For Brevity-sake I shall add nothing further to the Answer of this Argument of the Bp. § 19. He adds It doth not follow because a Debt may be transferred to a Surety that our Sins may be transferred to Christ and his Reasons are 1. Because Sins cannot be transferred as Money A. But doth not the Spirit of God sufficiently acquaint us that it 's a moral Debt Sin is the Debt our owing and not paying Obedience to the Law and that Christ paid not Silver and Gold but his Precious Blood but he saith That altho' the Sinner be said to owe a Debt to the Law yet that Debt lyes in an Obligation to Punishment which he is liable to by the Guilt of the Fact A. Now he owns the Sinner owes a Debt to the Law but that 's not Obedience but Punishment But believe it Punishment is the Debt of the Law to the Sinner the Wages of Sin by the Law is Death But that whereby the Sinner becomes a Debtor to the Law is his Failure in giving due Obedience to the Preceptive Part of the Law for its Obedience the Law doth naturally and primarily enjoin and expect from the Subject Punishment may be transferred by the Legislator's Consent A. Punishment without Merit is but suffering and not legally inflicted and can't be done by a Legislator without Dispensing with his Law Object This Debt ariseth from Guilt of Fact how then can any discharge the Debt without taking the fault I answer That taking the fault can signifie no more than being answerable to the Law for it which must respect the Debt of Punishment Reader But doth not this quite overthrow all the Bp. hath been doing For if Punishment as always it is be answering the Law for Sin this always implies that the punished Person bears the just Demerit of his Sin else why do the Law inflict Punishment It 's not because that Man hath not obeyed but disobeyed wherein the Punished is only passive in suffering tho' active in contracting the Guilt wherein lyes the Demerit of Punishment and makes the Wages due from the Law And he that takes away the Guilt of Punishment doth satisfie the Justice of the Law A. The satisfying the Justice of the Law lyes in inflicting deserved Punishment for Guilt is not in the Law as the Bp. hath said but in a Person whom the Law hath found guilty therefore the Law is not satisfied by afflicting in general but afflicting some Person that is found guilty and faulty by the Law As to the Objection That nothing is the Merit of Punishment but Reatrus culpae he answers so little that it 's not worth our Cognizance and that little is but a Rehearsal of what hath been replied to already § 20. Bp. Suppose the Fault could be transferred as a Debt may how comes it to pass that upon this Translation there must be a present Discharge A. There must be such to him that pays the Debt and this given to him for the Benefit and Use of the Prisoner when he will please to give it Christ must be justified from our Sins and discharged or else not raised from bearing them when he had satisfied Justice all our Sins were pardoned to him but another Act of Grace is shewed in bringing home and applying Pardon to and therefore for discharging us from the Law as Prisoners of Hope thro' what Christ hath fully done and suffered B. This Doctrine tends to incourage Men to neglect or careless Performance of strict Obedience which they owe to God A. This is the Objection against the Doctrine of the Grace of God which Enemies to it made and the Apostle Paul answers Rom. 6. But the Bp. will not take his Answer there he saith it naturally disposeth Men's Minds to a passive careless Temper and wait for Supplies from above A. The Grace of God never enclines the Heart to so ill a Temper but quite contrary Tit. 2.11 12. It is one thing what a Man is by Nature and what by Grace Men by Nature are naturally enclined to abuse the Grace of God but are not so by effectual Grace Bp. They depend upon Gord's working in them to will and to do of his own good Pleasure without setting themselves to work out their own Salvation with fear and trembling A. The Bp. should have known that the Abuse of the Grace of God is no just Argument against it and if some Men do so will he censure all as such God's working in Men to will and to do and their working out their own Salvation are not Contradictions if rightly understood but to shew us that the Grace of God is first in all we do that teacheth and worketh in us to work both to begin and continue to serve God with all our Might but with Fear lest we should give the Glory of all unto our selves in leaning and depending on our own Strength The
against the Socinians and Mr. B. 2. That Christ bore not the Personal Guilt of any Legally but that all Personal Guilt remains on the Sinner and was not legally transferred to Christ For this he saith P. 167. Bp. 1. We say that Punishment may be justly inslicted where there was a Translation of Guilt by Relaxation of the Law as to personal Offenders and admitting a Mediator to suffer in their stead R. No Guilt is translated by Relaxation of a Law for that dispenceth only 2. If the Law be relaxed as to Personal Offenders the doing of those things aster the relaxation is not Sin which was so before what needs a transferring to another 3. If the Precept be not relaxt which they will be loath to say it is then the Penalty must and if so either to a part only or to the whole If to the whole what need is there of a Translation If to a part only then part of the Sin only is transferred and Christ Died only for some part of our Sin not all Hence one part of our Salvation is owing to the relaxed Law and the other to Christ Hence Christ did not satisfie the Law in the proper and strict Nature of it and Christ's Sufferings were improper Punishments according to Mr. B. And here the Bp runs on ground Bp. He saith 2. Absolute Promises of the New-Covenant on which so much weight is laid without comparing them with other places speak no more of Christ's Sufferings than they do of any Conditions in us Here our own Qualifications and Performances are made to have an equality of conditionality foederally with Christ's Sufferings and if Christ's Sufferings be meritorious so are they too Bp. 3. The notion of Satisfaction lays the Foundation of Antinomianism which attributes unto God such a sort of vindictive Justice which requires an absolute and perfect Satisfaction in the same kind for the Sins of Mankind R. How much this kind of satisfaction borders upon Socinianism in the true meaning of it it 's easie to judge and what little reason the Bp had to reject the Principles that Mr. B. built upon is manifest being a firmer Foundation for his building And after all that he hath said against them as too much favouring Socinianism he is fain to lay hold on them to support his own Fabrick See here the pitiful shifts Men are put to that wander from the way of truth Arguments to prove that Christ bore the Personal Guilt of all them for whom he Suffered THAT the less intelligent Reeader may not be at loss for the truth not so easily finding it among the Controversal Difficulties of a Dispute I have thought good to make plain proof of this great Question in the affirmative And that we may prevent enlargements I premise 1. That by Personal Guilt is meant the Guilt of every particular Person for whom Christ Died as of Noah David and Peter c. 2. I take Guilt and Sin and the merit and desert of Sin to be equivalent terms in the sense of the Spirit of God and though the Scripture use the word Sin and we most commonly say Guilt this is exegetical to shew that we mean not that the Subjective Physical Act of Sin was transferred to Christ nor the inherent Moral Pollution But whatever is in either that is a Transgression of the Law the Law-relation of all Sin so far as the Law condemns the Sinner for it was charged on Christ i. e. Legally and Juridically in the Just God's distribution of Justice Then I argue Arg. 1. He that was punisht for Sin bore Sin in the Personal Guil i. e. the Legal Charge of it as the reason of his Punishment but Christ was punisht for it by the Concession of our opposites Ergo The Major is true 1. Because God is Just 2. Punishment without a Reason is very unjust 3. There was no reason in Christ absolutely considered for his Punishment therefore in some others therefore the Personal Sin of some or other 4. Without a bearing of Sin in the legal desert of some or other he could not be justly punished by the Law Arg. 2. He that was made Sin for us was made so by charging our Sins upon him bare Personal Guilt for he was made that which he was not in himself Now how could he be made so but by an imputation of the Sins of others to him a legal proceeding with him in judicature which could be no other than by Judging and Punishing him for some Guilt that merits the Wages of Death The Answer the Socinians and others make to 2 Cor. 5.21 is that he was made Sin as the Sacrifices were because a Sin-offering is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I answer 1. It was essential to the Sin-offering to have the the Personal Guilt of the Sinner charged upon it 2. When 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for a Sin-offering it 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. The Prophet Isa doth only use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he speaks of Christ's bearing Sin which last word is never used for Sin-offering 4. He was made Sin as we are made Righteous now we are not made Righteous by being made Sacrifices for Sin but by imputation Arg. 3. He that bore the Curse of the Law to Redeem us from it bore also the Personal Guilt of our Sins but Christ bore the Curse of the Law Gal. 3.13 For the Major it 's as clear as the Sun because Curse is inseparable from Sin the Law curseth no where but where it finds Personal Guilt Let these Men tell me where a Curse falls upon the head of any one but of such wherein there is Sin in some legal sense or other Arg. 4. If the Priests and Sacrifices of old the Types of Christ and his Sufferings had the Personal Guilt of Sin laid upon them then Christ the Antitype in his Sufferings had Personal Guilt laid upon him But the Antecedent is without contradiction yea and the Consequence because the Antitype is to answer the Type in all things wherein it is a Type Arg. 5. If they that were Punished by the Law did bear their Personal Sins by the Law then if Christ was Punished by the Law he also bore Sin by the Law But the Antecedent is true by the Scripture both in them that are recorded to have been Punished in Person for their own Sins Lev. 20.20 and 22.9 and 24.15 Numb 9.13 and 14.34 and 18 22 32. Ezek. 23.49 and in such as are recorded to have been Punished or Suffer for others Isa 53.11 Ezek. 4.4 5 6. The Consequence must be true if Christ was Punished by Law and was one that Suffered for others the proof whereof the Scripture is full of Arg. 6. If Christ bore not Personal Guilt but every one's Personal Guilt still remains then the Spirit of God taught David to pray after his Sin in vain Deliver me from Blood guiltiness O God But David's Prayer was
as the Law hath to do with him 3. A Man is not charged by one Law and acquitted by another but his imputation is always according to that law where he was charged and therefore his Justification or Condemnation by the same if a Man be found guilty by one Law he cannot be acquitted by another tho requiring milder Terms § 3. Not to impute a fault is to acquit and of the same import as to impute righteousness and therefore where the Spirit of God speaks of non imputation of sin Psalm 32.2 Rom. 4.8 1 Cor. 5.19 it always therein asserts imputation of righteousness for he that is a sinner and hath no sin imputed to him or charged upon him by the Law is righteous and found so by the Law and indeed all proper imputation is by the Law for Sin is not imputed where there is no law therefore it s properly the voice of the Law that imputes Sin or Righteousness where Actions or Claims of Right come to be questioned and tried what the law saith is saith to them that are under it for judgment and condemns therefore all transgressors and makes them guilty before God Rom. 3.19 § 4. To attribute or ascribe are larger Terms than to impute when any thing is imputed to a person it s attributed and ascribed but every thing attributed or ascribed is not said to be imputed because it s spoken of in a Law-sense e. gr we attribute Holiness Justice Power c. to God but do not say we impute them to God we attribute Heat to Fire hardness to Iron but do not say we impute Heat to Fire or hardness to Iron because it s naturally in them § 5. Legal Imputation of Sin or Righteousness is either of that which is a Man 's own unto himself or of that which primarily is his own and imputed unto another The first is when a Man bears his own Sin or stands legally in his own righteousness upon the first the law condemns him upon the other it justifies him he is upon the first Judgment of the Law found guilty or not to have right to the Claim that he makes or to have no right to his Claim to the Promise in a Law-Covenant Hence imputation of righteousness fixeth his right to the promised reward Imputation of sin cuts off his right to the said reward and brings him under the curse of the Law § 6. The second sort of legal Imputation is of a Man 's own Sin or Righteousness unto another It s by way of translation and it s either of Sin or of Righteousness Imputation of Sin by translation is when the Law imputes Sin to any other than the Sinner so that by that Imputation those others are legally made Sinners And this Imputation is twofold by way of Attainder or by way of Suretiship § 7. Imputation by way of Attainder is when the whole Blood is charged with and stained by the Sin of the actual transgressor Such was Achan's Sin such also Adam's First Sin his sin was imputed to himself and all his Posterity he being not only a single person but a Publick Person 1. Naturally containing all Mankind in him 2. Foederally Because God when he covenanted with him covenanted with a Kind he covenanted but with individuals when he covenanted with Angels As Adam was when he stood in respect of Mankind sohe was when he fell Hence it was that all the Kind must needs fall in him when Angels fell each one fell but for himself as each stood for himself but it was not it could not be so with Man Adam therefore was the greatest Representative in respect of the number represented by him that ever was and all Mankind sinned in him Sin did not come upon us by Propagation only tho a sinner can propagate none but a sinner but by imputing Adam's First Sin to all his Posterity for judgment of imputation came upon all to condemnation of the whole kind else Adam's First Sin should affect us no more than any other of his sins and Adam's sins no more than the sins of any other of our Progenitors Hence Adam's sin came upon us federally and by way of Imputation as well as by Propagation and seminal Descent for the Privation of the Image of God by Adam's Sin which was his moral Death was a Publick Loss never to be regained by any that have their standing only in him Hence every Natural Man is in him stands under that first Privation and therefore under that first Guilt and as every Man by Nature stands under that Guilt he also is under the condemnation Wrath and Curse of the Law Death passed upon all men in that all have sinned the Apostle speaks but of Adam's sin Rom. 5.12 16. and of death passing upon all by that sin imputed by the law as appears by the following word that all died in Adam the Apostle is express 1 Cor. 15.22 Undestand it of which Death you please spiritual or corporal that in Adam all died it infers necessarily that Adam was a Publick Person for we cannot be said to live or dy in another's life or death but as he is a Publick Person vers 49. we are said to bear the image of the earthly i. e. in his Fallen State which shews that his Image was of a Publick Nature to all his Posterity and his loss of God's Image a Sin imputed to the whole kind § 8. I cannot stay to insist largely on the proof of the Imputation of Adam's Sin but is a Point of so great concern that the denial of it overthrows the Gospel in the true state thereof I shall only acquaint the Reader That the Neonomians together with the Socinians and Quakers lay this denial in the foundation of their rotten Doctrine Neonomian We were not in Adam as a Publick Person or Representative by a Covenant standing nor his sin imputed to us further than we are guilty by a natural in being or derivation Scr. G. D. p. 86 87. 112 113. End of Controv. 95. See his daring confidence We were not in Adam as a publick Covenanter I would ask whether God covenanted with Adam as the comprehender of all the Kind if he did then Adam was a Publick Covenantee instead of the whole Kind and it appears in that the Covenant reached Eve then in him when the covenant was made Gen. 2 and if the covenant was made with her in him then why not by the same reason with all Mankind in him He saith Adam's sin is imputed no further than we are guilty we say we are not guilty any further than his sin is imputed its imputation of Sin makes us guilty not guilt that makes imputation He saith also no further than by a natural in-being what then doth not a natural in-being in Adam at the time of his Covenant make him a publick Covenanter when the whole Nature was in him and so we were federally in him because naturally but see how the Socinians concur
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-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
kept by us for if we were perfect in our selves there would not need the Perfection of another to be imputed to us for all Imputation by Transaction supposeth the person not to be that personally and in himself which he is made to be by Imputation so Imputation of our Sins to Christ supposeth Christ was not Sin in himself but made so by imputation of ours therefore the Imputation of Christs active obedience supposeth us to be sinners in our selves 2. As Christ was the Second Adam and made under the law in all respects for us so he was to come under it for us as to active obedience and to answer that way as well as the other for it was needful that he fulfil all righteousness for us and the first and chief thing the Law required was active obedience the Law is not satisfied without a performance of the righteousness which it requires there must be therefore a fulfilling of the Law as to active obedience else the righteousnes of Christ is lame and imperfect It s true if the righteousness imputed were inherent according to the Neonomian Doctrine then the inference might hold if we are imputed righteous for our internal righteousness that would bring us under this consequence but our Imputation is of the active righteousness of another which makes us compleat in Christ and without spot in the eye of God's Justice Let me return the Argument upon him If our active obedience to the new Law be imputed to us for justifying righteousness then must we he lookt upon in this righteousness as such as have committed no sin I hope Mr. H. will not say that the righteousness of the new law is not active obedience I say is it imputed or not if imputed the consequence follows but to see the baseness of these men to draw odious consequences upon the Mystery of Christ when the same would follow with much more odium upon their own Doctrine that they set up against Christ their active obedience must be imputed to them for righteousness but Christ's must not be imputed to us They say then what need would there be of Christ's Death We say as much as there is of paying the wages of sin where the law is actually broken The law requires two things 1. The death of the sinner 2. The obedience of the sinner to the preceptive part of the law both which Christ hath performed and a Believer in him as his Representative Priest and Surety and whereas he saith we must be looked upon as such as have committed no sin we must not be lookt upon as such by our selves but there is no true Believer but is lookt upon by God in foro Justitiae as if he had committed no sin for if our sins stand in the light of God's Countenance in the eye of his Justice we must needs be odious to him whence is it then that the sins of Gods children are cast behind his back and that they stand without spot before the Throne and to conclude this Point now let him consider only one verse of Rom. 5.19 As by the disobedience of one many were made sinners so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous I would know of him what will become of so plain an Antithesis if obedience be not active obedience there meant § 4. If Christs passive obedience be imputed then must we look on our selves as such who in Christ have suffered and satisfied the law and born the curse of it and then how shall there be room for any pardon a man that pays his full debt by himself or Surety cannot be forgiven by the Creditor Resp And here he would cover himself not to be seen a Socinian we shall see how well by and by 1. He lays it down as a gross absurdity to say we satisfied in Christ here and elsewhere often to which we answer that it is not absurd for any man to say I paid my Debt by another viz. a Surety for the law looks upon it as the payment of his Debt and he is discharged by it 2. He makes not himself the Surety for he ascribes the payment to the Surety and the Debt to himself so the words are not honouring himself but honour to the Surety therefore to say Believers have satisfied the law in their Surety Christ is giving glory to him and a proper usual Speech But he infers with the Socinians that then there 's no room for Pardon indeed it is easie to see how their mouths water at a plain Denial of Christ's Satisfaction though they do it interpretatively as much as the Socinians you may likewise see the Design in dividing Justification and Pardon one from the other It s true when a righteous person is justified by his own righteousness as in the Neonomian Justification there 's no room for Pardon for he hath paid all his due and by his own Money but it is otherwise in God's Justification of a sinner 1. That is his Pardon God pardons none but in Justification we have forgiveness through the blood of Christ tho Man pardons often with injury to Justice but God declares his righteousness for the remission of sins Rom. 3.25 and without shedding of blood there is no remission Heb. 9. 2. God's justifying sinners ungodly c. by a righteousness given unto them is a pardon of them 3. It is the highest noblest Pardon in the World where sins are nailed to the Cross of Christ when it is to the Satisfaction of Justice as Grace so Justice are magnified therein A true Believer and broken-hearted sinner will not speak in the proud Socinian or Neonomian Dialect O Lord we thank thee not for or expect Pardon if Christ hath died to satisfie with them either Gods Pardon or the Sinners Justification must fall to the ground but bless God for the noblest Pardon in the World § 5. But methinks this Argument is purely Socinian for they say there 's nothing more contrary to Gods forgiving freely than Satisfaction But Mr. H. that he might not seem to run a Tilt against Satisfaction saith indeed The Argument of the Socinian from Pardon against Christ's Satisfaction is not valid but it is good against imputation of it to us as if we had satisfied Resp And why is it not good against Satisfaction in the Socinian sence he gives no reason for he saith that he that pays the full Debt by himself or Surety there 's no room for pardon and will not Mr. H. say that Christ hath not paid the full Debt for him if he will let him pay what remains or try for Pardon for that which is not paid another way than by remission through his blood but what do they Socinians say more if God be satisfied where is Pardon we say God's Pardon is by way of Satisfaction to his Law No saith Mr. H. it is good against Imputation so the Socinians hold too I pray did Christ satisfie at all if he did was it
plainly mean the exclusion of his own works then he must mean some righteousness of another and not his own as appears by this Psal 31. and also 51. Now we shall prove that David means the Righteousness of Christ and not of the New Law 1. That righteousness by which sin is forgiven is not New-Law righteousness but Christ's and without our works but the righteousness is such here The major is proved from the Neonomians themselves who say there 's no forgiveness in Justification by Works but forgiveness is consequent of it for that they go to the old Law Bar that the righteousness whereby sin is forgiven is the righteousness of Christ because it s expressed by blood remission is not without blood and forgiveness being one Medium by which the Apostle proves Justification without works 2. That righteousness which covers from the eye of God's Justice in the law is a righteousness without our works and anothers and no◠of the New Law but such is the righteousness here spoken of such as covers sin from the eye of God's Justice in the Law such covering David meant as appears Psal 51.9 Hide thy face from my sin and blot out all mine iniquity now it s such righteousness as will take off the Eye of Divine Justice from our sins yea cancel and blot out iniquity Now as to the major it appears by the Neonomian Doctrine that their righteousness in Justification doth not cover sin for they say it s a sinful righteousness and needs pardon therefore their righteousness cannot cover sin which is sinful in it self and there can be no righteousness but Christ's that can cover sin Mens own righteousnesses are far from being such covering 3. That righteousness through which God imputeth not sin to any chargeable therewith is a righteousness of another but this righteousness without works is such Ergo. The minor is plain by the Apostle for what the Apostle rehearseth from the Prophet is David's description of this righteousness without works The major is clear from what went before no man hath righteousness enough to cover his own sin Neither can God not impute sin where he sees sin to be more than righteousness God must impute Sin where Sin is seen uncovered by righteousness therefore if there be a righteousness through which God imputeth not sin its certain it s not ours but Christ's only 4. That Righteousness through which God imputeth not Sin is justifying Righteousness and Christs alone but the Apostle speaks of such a Righteousness Now the major is plain that Christ's Righteousness is that through which God imputes not sin for he saith Cor. 5.9 God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses § 4. And so likewise Phil. 3.9 is of the same import they have one answer for all This Place should have been handled in the former Chapter but Mr. Cl. missing it there led me out Here Mr. Cl. saith Paul disclaims only his legal righteousness which he had before Conversion not his Gospel Righteousness viz. his Repentance Faith Love Humility c. And it s the same thing Mr. H. saith Med. 31. and tells us the Protestants are mistaken in their interpretation 1. Because the righteousness of God is not the same with the righteousness of Christ as hath been observed R. That we have disproved and proved it a false Assertion and proved that the righteousness of God is the righteousness of Christ in all the forementioned places and is as easily proved here for the righteousness which he opposeth to his own righteousness indefinitely without any exception is Christs that I may be found in him in Christ not having mine own righteousness therefore in Christ is anothers which righteousness of mine own working is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 legal as all righteousness of our own by which we seek Justification is legal it cannot in any sence be called Evangelical therefore Paul would be found in Gospel righteousness which is Christs only and this is God's righteousness which we receive by believing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. You are to know that this righteousness which Paul calls his own in this Text is the righteousness of a Jew and Pharisee not his own as a Christian this appeareth from the Verses before v. 4. and this appears further from Rom. 10.1 2. R. The righteousness of a Jew or Pharisee was a new-law righteousness for they were all Neonomian Paul could not look upon himself as Perfect but as to his moral conversation comparatively blameless he was sincere for he had great zeal and verily thought he did God good Service in persecuting the Church But Mr. H. should have looked to the beginning of the Chapter where he bids them beware of absolutely prophane of evil workers that carry on mischievous Designs under fair Shews and lastly of the concision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that were so fond of their new-law Notions so as to cast off Christ or cut themselves off from him but we are of the true circumcision whereby all our fleshly Conceits are cut off and worship God in the Spirit rejoicing in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh a fleshly conceit of our own righteousness in which I had more ground to rejoice than any and accordingly he tells how exactly he had conformed to Mose's Law and performed the condition of it as much as any Pharisee of them all and had as much reason to expect Justification by this new imperfect righteousness as any that now do but Christ had now taught him better things what then I counted gain I now count loss for Christ I find I had nothing that advantaged while I was ignorant of Christ and therefore I find now that not only my Pharisaical righteousness was loss to me but any present self-righteousness even now at this time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do now esteem all things to be damage for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord c. and account them dung that I may gain Christ and he tells us what he means by that that I may be now found in him what in respect of holiness yea especially in respect of righteousness not having now my own righteousness viz. that of the works of the law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is legal for so all his righteousness that a man seeks Justification by is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is of a law but what is the righteousness he would be found in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that righteousness which I have by the faith of Christ the righteousness which is of God for such is that by faith the righteousness which God giveth and Christ hath in whom it is and I do receive by faith this whole verse treats of his Justification and the righteousness thereof and the following verses treat of the the Sanctification he looks after in Christ and v. 9. there it s certain that Paul opposeth the righteousness of Christ not only
dwells in Eternity there 's no Time nor Succession Christ was set up from Eternity Prov. 8. as Surety a Thousand Years are to God but as one Day and much less therefore Christs Execution of his Suretiship on Earth in the Days of his Flesh was Eternally before the Lord hence he is said to be slain from the Foundation of the World hence the faithful before his coming had a full 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Remission of Sin through this Covenant Relation of Christ there was not a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or passing them by for Remission till Christ was actually Slain but they had the Vertue of his Death as fully as we Heb. 4.15 7. He continues our Surety that hath paid standing and pleading his full Satisfaction for us therefore is our Surety now since Payment carrying his own Blood into the Holiest of all and there making Intercssion for us CHAP. XV. More Places of Scripture Vindicated from False Glosses Section 1. Of Daniel 9.24 § 2. Of Ephes 1.4 § 3. 2 Cor. 5.19 examined § 4. Of Gal. 5.7 8. § 5. The Sence of the Apostle James § 6. Mr. H. and Mr. Cl. Answered Section 1. MR. Hum. interprets Daniel 9.24 thus He shall make reconciliation for iniquity and so shall bring in an everlasting righteousness i. e. he should by his death procure a Covenant or Law of Grace by our performance whereof without the law we are righteous and must be saved 'T is that is our righteousness if Christ had not procured for us this New Law we could not be saved Resp Let us see how Mr. H's Gloss will hold with the Text for I am sure it holds not with the Analogy of Faith Seventy weeks shall be distributed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which word lies the Key of the Prophesie not to our purpose now to speak to upon thy People i.e. the Church of the Jews here and upon the City of thy Holiness or Holy City to finish transgression to make an end of sin these Events seem in our English to be the same but they are not in the Original the first is most agreeable to the Margent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to restrain transgression i. e. by the Reformation of Ezra and Nehemiah in the compass of these 72 Weeks but to make an end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make an end of sins or sin-offerings by the offering up of Christ within the 72 Weeks and to make expiation for sin true not typical and perfect Expiation by the Expiation made by the Blood of Christ and to bring everlasting righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bring in eternal righteousness or the righteousness of ages Lxx 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We shall go no further in the Prophecy This Prophecy is generally owned to belong to the first coming of Christ and in this Verse the time is set in a mysterious manner to the coming of Christ his offering up and erecting the Gospel Church the Angels the Events that should fall out in this compass of time especially toward the latter end in the Sacrifice of Christ wherein he should make an end of sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the abolishing Sin by the sacrifice of himself Heb. 9.26 wherein he also finished all sin-offerings 2. He should put it away by making atonement and Expiation Lxx. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to blot out and attone for transgression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in pih signifieth to make Expiation and Atonement by Sacrifice even to the blotting them out and full satisfaction to Divine Justice for then sin is expiated when the Debt-Book is cancell'd thus the bloud of the Sacrifice was sprinkled on the Book of the Law and on all the People so that there is plenary satisfaction in the bloud of Christ and thereby a righteousness everlasting brought in i. e. preached called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rev. 14.6.2 Thereby revealed and made manifest freed from the Vails and Shadows of the Old Testament for tho it was given us in Christ before the World began and lay obscured long under the Old Testament Types yet now was made manifest by the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ who hath abolished Death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nulling or abandoning death and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel the Apostle seeming plainly to allude to these expressions of Daniel the bringing in of righteousness is plainly no more than the bringing the sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ for everlasting righteousness opposed to the righteousness of the legal Sacrifices which was but temporary offered every year but this Expiation of Christ was one offering and the righteousness of Ages or if it carry any thing distinct from preceding Events that it be not to be understood of the passive obedience of Christ the Spirit of God expresseth to all the fulness thereof he adds this to signifie the active obedience of Christ which is also everlasting and to be understood always as a complement of that perfect righteousness of Christ In Answer to Mr. H. I say 1. Christ himself is the everlasting righteousness it s not procured but it s that which procures 2. The Righteousness of Christ is here prophesied of not the righteousness of our selves 3. It s the Righteousness that expiates the old transgressions and therefore here is nothing of a New-Law spoken of 4. Justifying righteousness is such as satisfies the Law broken and therefore there must be at least Expiation in it 5. It s very absurd and contradictio in adjecto to talk of a Law of Grace if thereby be meant a law for Justification and again absurder to talk of performing the condition of a law without law 6. How is new-law-righteousness for it s but imperfect obedience and therefore will be quite wipt away at death for when things that are perfect are come those that are imperfect are done away you will say it may last in a perfect righteousness than the New Law will turn into he old for they make imperfection to be a proper adjunct of the works of the New-Law and appropriate to it to distinguish it from the old law So that here they are justified by the New Law and in Heaven by the Old Law What a stir do these men make with the Law and how do they shift and shirk from one law to another swerving from Faith and Truth to laws singly making themselves great teachers of the laws but understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm I would fain know whether Daniel was justified by his own New Law righteousness it seems he did not understand that that kind of Justification was then a-foot and its a Wonder the Angel Gabriel could come to tell him that in a few years hence the Messias should come and bring in old self righteousness again for Justification which is so choice and precious a Commodity that it shall cost him his blood to purchase Would not Daniel be amazed at it that a man so
Blood of Christ is purged from all his Sins and is perfectly Righteous in the sight of God in Christ though not in himself notwithstanding all the inherency of remaining corruption in him after he is partaker of Regenerating and Sanctifying Grace Bp For God may see cause to forgive a Sinner and receive him into favour although he still continues to hate and abhor the Sin A. What cause can God have to forgive a Sinner and receive him into favour besides his Free-Grace and the Satisfaction of his Son which he hath made to his Justice in bearing his Sin and suffering for it And this God doth and yet hates and abhors Sin for though Christ bore Sin it was not in kindness to it but to condemn it in his Flesh And though God loves and saves the Person of the Sinner yet he always hated Sin both of the Elect and Reprobate § 13. Bp As to the Guilt of Sin as it relates to Punishment these things are to be considered He should have told us what Guilt of Sin he means for obligation to Punishment he told us is in the Law not in the Delinquent therefore his Guilt is not of Sin but of the Law I have not much to say to the three particulars provided they be rightly meant viz. 1. Although a Divine Justice require satisfaction for Sin it is not necessary the actual Transgressors should undergo the Punishment which they have deserved i. e. if another undergo their deserved Punishment by a substitution legally in their stead in regard of Desert and Punishment for then there would be no room for Grace and Favour which is not shewed by God to any absolutely in a dispensation with Justice but in such a way as may glorifie Divine Justice 2. That it is consistent with the Wisdom and Justice of God to accept of a Mediator such an one as is a Surety to interpose between the Severity of the Law and the Punishment of the Transgressor upon terms agreeable to Divine Wisdom and Mercy A. 1. The Mediator ought to be between God and Man in respect of Sin especially the cause of Punishment for it's Sin that 's contrary to God's Law Punishment of the Sinner is agreeable to God's Law 2. He speaks of terms upon which God accepted of a Mediator I cannot understand what he means by it for Christ's Mediatorship was the condition of God's acceptance of us Christ in respect of himself was absolutely accepted not upon any previous conditions performed by him or after-conditions to be performed by us Which latter I find he intends 3. That such a Mediator undertaking to make Atonement for our Sins by Suffering in our stead and Place as Sinners may truly and properly be said to undergo the Punishment of our Sins and our Sins to be the Meritorious cause of it By no means in Suffering only upon an occasional remote reason from Sin but he must suffer judicially taking upon him a Legal Charge of Merit and Desert in the place and stead of the Sinner Now he seems to suspect himself in this Doctrine of his to fall upon the Shelves of marvellous inconsistency and therefore indeavours to forestall the following Objection If Desert adhere to Personal Guilt inseparably as before asserted how can our Sins be the Meritorious cause of another's Punishment The Argument against his Doctrine he can't Answer for where there 's no Guilt there 's no Desert and where there 's no Desert there 's no Punishment in legal Sense He riggles up and down under the pressure of this Objection but can't get it off I answer that a meritorious cause may be considered two ways 1. In a Natural Course of things and so Desert follows the Fact so that the Sinner always deserves Punishment and no interposition nor forgiveness can take off the Desert c. A. The subject Act to Sin is Natural but the formal Nature of Sin as Guilt is Moral as it stands in Relation to the Law So that supposing that Ordine naturae the Guilt or Desert follows the Fact yet it 's not in a Physical course of things 2. His after Assertion implies that no Sin is pardoned in and through the Satisfaction of Christ that whether the Sin be Pardon'd in a way of Grace or satisfied for in a way of Justice the Sin remains in its full strength upon the Sinner for ever for he that deserves Punishment doth so by the Law for the strength of Sin is the Law and therefore must of necessity for fear of Death the Wages of Sin be all the Day long subject unto Bondage this is a sad Gospel 2. He saith As Desert implies only a just reason of Punishment and so there may be a Meritorious cause in extraordinary Cases when the Legislator consents that another bear the Punishment which others have deserved Immerito quemque punire est injuste punire as Johns out of Cret Immerito is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 merito 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Cic. Jure merito are most commonly put together A. Here we have the cause given The Question is in plain terms whether Christ Died merito for our Sins He here plainly grants those things 1. That Desert implies a just reason of Punishment then I argue if Christ was punished justly then he Died with a just reason thereof and there can be no just reason of Punishment but Desert and if this was on Christ it came from Christ's own Personal Sins or from ours The Bp would not say from his therefore from ours 2. He grants there may be a meritorious Cause in extraordinary Cases when the Legislator consents that another shall undergo the Punishment What 's that 1. Was any Case more extraordinary than this we are speaking of 2. He must needs mean that when the Legislator consents that another shall undergo the Punishment that then the said Person so undergoing stands under the Desert of that Person for whom he is punished 3. He grants the truth and none can deny it that Immerito aliquem punire est injuste punire it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 punire sine ratione in juditio Nothing of Suffering can be reasonable in Judicial Proceedings unless there be a desert therefore he saith that Cic. puts jure merito together Now this is the Mystery that the Bp is to reveal to shew how Christ was Punished for a meritorious Cause and yet stood not under any of our Personal Deserts § 14. He comes now to Answer what is said for Christ's bearing our Personal Guilt and the most that he saith is to resay what he said before and is sufficiently Answered already but to do him right we will briefly weigh his strength The first is The injustice of Punishing any immerito this is the summ of it His Answer lyes chiefly in asserting that this is the Socinian way of Arguing and so we see the Antinomians join with the Socinians But how the same way of Arguing May not one and the