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
respect of the Old Covenant and Righteous in respect to the New it is to be supposed that the said Person hath those opposite relations really upon him first and last and that the said relations are real and not feigned in their respective way and manner of existing So Christ Jesus in respect of Sinners in whose stead he stood relatively as a Surety was made truly Sin and Curse in a Law-sense reckon'd by God to be really in that Relation not feignedly And this is imputation of Sin to Christ which term ought not to be rejected whoever it is that makes light of it Dr. C. or Mr. B. or any other but most excellently expressive of the Gospel Mystery as not imposing any thing on God but what is most consistent with his Perfections For as God can and hath brought his Son under a Law-relation as a Surety Mediatorial and as such to stand instead of Sinners under a charge of Sin for the Guilt of their Sins he judgeth as things are when he accounts him and calls him what he hath made him Sin and Curse in this Law-respect and relation how pleasing soever his Person is to him being singly and abstractly considered from the said relation § 6. The Bp. excepts against the taking of the immediate discharge of a Sinner upon Christ's bearing of Sin A. It is easie by general and indistinct charges to make Men's Opinions look very absurd if one Man speak not so exactly in a loose and popular Discourse are all the Drs. in the World to look upon it as their great Renown to carp at his Words that are Printed but just as taken from him and not Corrected by him I think Learned Drs. do much undervalue themselves in so doing But to the Point in Hand it is absurd indeed to say that all Sinners have an actual discharge in themselves from the Dominion of the Law immediately upon the Death of Christ most being not then in Being in a Natural Sense much less in a Spiritual But the Bp. knew well enough the distinction of the Protestants that Redemption is considered in Impetration and Application that though the Sacrifice and Propitiation of Christ was compleated and perfect in its self in its Nature and to all intents and purposes Justifying and Pardoning and Sanctifying Grace being fully treasured up therein Yet this Grace is not Applied neither can it be Received actually by the Sinner till 1. He hath a Being Naturally And 2. Till he hath a Spiritual Being whereto he is Created by the Spirit in Christ and made capable of a Reception by a Spiritual Organ bestowed on him 2. He was not ignorant of this Question lately disputed What is the immediate Effect of the Death of Christ We say the great Effects of the Death of Christ are two in General 1. A Right to Life in Christ 2. The Application Reception or Possession of the Life purchased by Christ The 1. We say is the immediate Effect of the Satisfaction and Purchase of Christ all Redeemed Ones have a Right in Christ i. e. latent and hid in Christ and his Fulness even before they are or do Believe from which Pristine Fulness all received Grace doth flow even Faith in it self in us 1. Being in the Soul and acting on its Object and those that have this hidden Right a jus ad rem yet they have not presently jus in re they have not yet received and possessed the Grace of Justification or Sanctification till they Believe through Grace but are in themselves under the Law the Charge and Sentence thereof This Doctrine I know Mr. B. Disputes with all his might against but was fully Answered by Dr. O. § 7. Another thing the Bp. Answers to Is on the Nature of Guilt that Guilt of a Sinner is most truly reatus culpae and not reatus penae reatus culpae being that which is accounted Guilt in all Courts of Judicature To which he answers there 's a twofold Guilt to be considered 1. Guilt of the Fact as it is a Transgression of the Law 2. A Guilt consequent to the Fact by Vertue of the Sanction of the Law Those which are the Foundation Assertions that the Bp. builds all upon are two 1. That Guilt which was charged on Christ was reatus penae or Obligation to Punishment not reatus culpae alicujus not the Guilt of any Fault or of any Person committing it 2. He asserts that the Guilt of a Personal Fault can never be taken away by Transmission no not by Pardon it self Hence we are necessitated to enter the Lists with him upon these two great Points though something hath been said before concerning them § 8. We have shewed before that the first distinction is between the Fact and Guilt of the Fact The Fact is meerly Physical is inherent and inseparable from the Agent not transferrible at all e. gr The Act of borrowing Money is inherent in the borrower and not a Transgression of any Law but to borrow and not to pay is a Transgression of the Law enjoined by commutative Justice Now this is the Guilt of the Fact when the Fact stands as a Fault in the Eye of the Legislator by the preceptive part of the Law 1. The first Relations of an irregular Action is to the preceptive part of the Law being Disobedience Hence it 's a great mistake to place the Sanction of the Law only in its Obligation to Punishment this is but a part of the Sanction consequent to its Obligation to Obedience therefore the primary guilt of a Sinner lies in Disobedience his Fact standing in that Relation to the Law it becomes formally the Reason why the Sinner is obliged to Punishment he in the said relation of the Fact deserving it 2. The Bp. is in the right when he saith That Obligation to Punishment is that which is in the Law and only the exprest Will of the Legislator therefore it can in no true sense be called the Guilt of the Sinner And hence I must needs argue that the Bp. placing all the Guilt charged upon Christ in the Laws Obligation of him to Punishment doth totally renounce the Doctrine of Christ's being made Sin for any Sinner For if he was not made Guilty but only Punished he bore only the Law 's Obligation which must be only the Sin of the Law and not of the Sinner But is the Law Sin God forbid Yet this Doctrine plainly makes the Law Sin because it obligeth a Person to Punishment who in no sence deserves it § 9. For the overthrowing this Hypothesis of Imputation of a Sinner's Guilt of Fact to Jesus Christ he examines how far guilt is separable from the Act of Sin p. 87. 1. As to the Guilt of the Fact for he that hath been an actual transgressor can never be made not to have been so and so the guilt of the Fact must remain A. But methinks a Bp. should not impose such a fallacy upon us that every School-Boy can look through
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
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.
Counsels and Covenant-Compact with the Son as the Apostle saith expresly 1 Pet. 1.19 20. Christ as redeemer by his precious bloud as of a lamb without spot this is his righteousness who verily i. e. really as such was fore-ordained of God before the foundation of the world It was then the Plot and Contrivance of God and therefore may well be called the righteousness of God This Purpose and Grace to poor Sinners was first given us in the Person and Righteousness of Christ before the World began but was manifested since and especially at the first appearance of Christ in the flesh actually to work out this righteousness in abolishing Death and bringing Life and Immortality to Light in the said Gospel of Christ which he was a Preacher of this Head I might be large in insisting on from other places as Eph. 1.6 7 8 9. Prov. 8 30. Heb. 10.8 9. 2. It is the Righteousness of the Person who is God Acts 20.28 3. It s the only righteousness that God is well pleased with a sinner for and in which he makes his law honourable Isa 42.21 3. God hath called and anointed Christ thereto in righteousness Isa 42.6 i. e. to answer my law and righteousness therein and to perform the work of righteousness the Condition of the Covenant I have given thee for so Heb. 8.3 chap. 5.5 9.12 4. It s a Righteousness becoming the Grace of God as the gift of righteousness Rom. 5. and becoming the Perfect Justice and Law of God and therefore magnifies his Law c. and becoming the Wisdom of God therefore Christ is called the Wisdom of God and answers all the ends of God's Glory in Man's Salvation 5. It s the Righteousness of God in regard of the stateliness and highness thereof as the Trees of Lebanon were called the Trees of Jehovah Psal 104.16 6. In a way of opposition to all mens inherent righteousness which is humane mans righteousness only this is God's righteousness and be hath made Christ to be righteousness to us 1 Cor. 1.30 § 10. Now here is reason enough why Christ's Righteousness should be called the righteousness of God and that its plainly so intended in the Text appears 1. Because its a revealed righteousness that Man saw not before they can easily see their own own righteousness without Revelation they are addicted 2. It s the righteousness of Christ that is the righteousness of the Gospel of Christ the Gospel of Christ is called so because its the preaching Christ and him crucified 1 Cor. 3. and because it s his Gospel whereby he cometh and preacheth peace through his righteousness Eph. 2.14 15. 3. It s the righteousness of Christ because its the great object of Faith in Justification for its absurd to say our faith is the object of faith it s something without a man first that he believes upon faith is the evidence or Hypostacy of things not seen 4. It s opposed to the Anger and Wrath of God revealed in the Law v. 18. as that righteousness which answers it 5. The Apostle throughout this Epistle casts off and abandons all righteousness of ours as insufficient therefore this must be the righteousness intended 6. The Text is plain that the righteousness of God is spoken of objectively as to faith for a thing is revealed that it may be seen it s revealed from one act of faith to another and it is confirmed by the words of the Prophet the just shall live by faith on this righteousness believing in it and feeding upon it as their food of life and therefore is not in themselves but in the Gospel there as revealed for the import of the words should be according to those men I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ it is the power of God to Salvation for therein i. e. in the Gospel preached not in our selves is the righteousness of God revealed from one act of faith to another to be seen by it it is not said that faith is revealed to be the righteousness of God but the righteousness of God in the Gospel because it is the power of God to Salvation is revealed to our faith and to be that righteousness which is Gospel righteousness therefore not in our selves 3. The preaching thereof is the power of God to Salvation and that which a believers faith lives upon § 11. The next place Rom. 3.21 22. The Apostle in the 9th verse saith he proved both Jews and Gentiles under sin viz. under the transgression of the Moral Law as plainly appears by his Proof unto v. 19. now saith he they are under the law in that they are convict by the law even the whole World by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that law not the Ceremonial but Moral against which all the forementioned transgressions are committed and Gentiles who were never under the Ceremonial Law as well as Jews Now saith the Apostle seeing that by this Moral Law the World is condemned its impossible that any works of obedience to any law whatever should for if any other law comes to milder terms unless this law be rescinded its impossible any man can be righteous before God hence he concludes therefore by the deeds of the law i. e. any law no flesh can be justified in Gods sight whatever Law men may pretend to God will judge and try all by the Moral Law for a sinner and transgressor of God's law can have the knowledge of sin by it i. e. Conviction but no Salvation by any righteousness of his performance What then must all the World perish therefore for want of a righteousness No God hath provided a righteousness he doth not say God hath repealed his Law and made a new one the righteousness of God without a new law is evident or made manifest in the Gospel which is witnessed by the Law i. e. of Moses in the Doctrine of Sacrifices and by the Prophets that have prophesied of Christ v. 22. even the righteousness of God which is by the faith of Jesus Christ viz. the righteousness of Christ which faith lays hold on which is by faith i. e. which we receive by faith for it may be said what is this righteousness of God saith the Apostle it is in Christ how have it we in Christ by faith Now saith he it s unto all i. e. imputed unto all and upon all as a covering or robe of righteousness by the faith of every Believer by the least as well as the greatest by a Gentile Believer as well as a Jew there 's no difference in the degree of righteousness nor in the imputation of it nor application of it all Believers are equally and alike righteous in Christ's righteousness which is the righteousness of God and the reason added for all have sinned and justified freely by Gods grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ § 12. Now it appears that the righteousness of God is Christ's righteousness That righteousness that fully and compleatly satisfied
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
offence of one death reigned by one much more they which receive abundance of Grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ § 8. Mr. Cl. Christ is called the Surety of a better Covenant Heb. 7.22 Whence some infer that he hath paid the debt of obedience to God for us Interpreters generally assign two ways wherein Christ is a Surety 1. By undertaking for God to us or his becoming Security for God that he should make good his Covenant to us on his part 2. By undertaking for us to God that we should perform the Condition of the Covenant the first the Polonian Merchants Grotius and Hammond are for the Protestants generally stick to this latter that Christ is our Surety by undertaking for us to God that we shall fulfil the Condition of the Covenant by yielding that obedience that is required of us therein Resp Mr. Cl. tells of the Merchants that they the Neonomians do trade with and indeed most of their Commodities have Polonian stamps not to treat so large as to handle all that might be said of the Suretiship of Christ it being the very Hinge of our Salvation though the Neomonian as well as the Polonian Merchants make very slight of it and Mr. H. in Particular because he saith it s but once used in the New Testament I say it is therefore a Pearl of great Price for I could Instance in several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Spirit of God hath used in the Old and New which do express singular Truths and Mysteries not common I shall only Note some things generally that are Truths I will stand by as 1. That Christ is not a Metaphorical Surety but the most proper Surety that ever was and the Exemplar of all Sureties 2. That the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Surety for Debt 3. That is a Surety of the better Covenant i. e. of the Covenant of Grace not that he was a Surety of the Performance of that Covenant but that he is the Surety in that Covenant that is bound to pay the Debt that we owe to the Justice of God in the Covenant of Works which we have broken and he is not such a Surety as to be bound to the Justice of God that we should pay the Debt the Lord have Mercy on Neonomians but he hath undertaken to pay the whole Debt for us every Farthing if he had been such a Surety as Mr. Cl. speaks of we were in a miserable Condition I know the Neonomians do mostly incline to be with their Polonian Merchants in Mr. Cl. first Point mentioned as to God's Suretiship to us but it 's no great Matter where they be the second Particular being worse than the former for Christ to be engaged to God that we shall pay the Debt that we owe to the Law of God by Adams fall and our Sin i. e. that we shall satisfie Gods Justice for the wrong done and that we shall perform perfect Obedience to the Law thus much Man must pay tho a poor insolvent wretched Creature and Christ hath engaged to see it done but not to pay any thing of the Debt himself And indeed I can prove this to be the true Account of their Doctrine for they say Christ hath procured and merited of God a new Law whereby the old Law is relaxed or repealed not paid or satisfied a new one is set up the Condition whereof we performing we shall be justified but procured not nor merited the Condition to be performed by us Now I would fain know whether Christ was a Surety for that which he never Purchased is Christ a Surety that we shall perform the Condition of the Covenant and never merited Faith and Obedience what a kind of Surety will they have Christ to engage for our Performance and not take care that we should have the cum quo But Mr. Cl. seems not to be quite satisfied with this second Way He adds a Third to mend the Matter a little at least to put a gloss upon it viz. 3. To discharge that Debt of Suffering which we did owe the Law for the Transgressing of it Resp Ay Sir now you say something you bring a Surety with Mony in his Hands we use indeed to say that a Man should never be bound for another unless he resolve to pay the Debt Christ knew well enough how Poor we should be when he undertook this Suretiship Well let us see whether Christ clears the score for us or whether he doth leave a considerable part of the Debt for us to pay our selves It may be that which the Law is primarily and mostly concern'd at and that for a wise Neonomian End viz. That if he should pay all the Sinner would prove an Idle Antinomian and Shabby-fellow having nothing to do himself and nothing to pay therefore Christ indeed paies some of the Debt but laies up the Sinner in a Work-house to pay the rest at his Fingers ends For saith Mr. Cl. Now take it in which of these Three Ways you will yet there 's nothing of his paying the Debt of Active Obedience Resp A very sad Story indeed a great noise of a Surety that would pay the whole Debt of the poor Man in Prison and when the Matter is strictly enquired into he hath only prevailed that he should not be whipt so often in Bridewel though agreed that he should have the Lash too pretty severely sometimes but as for the greatest Part of the Debt he must Work it out at least so far as a new Law of his which he hath procured and made doth require Well when all comes to all here 's nothing done to free the Sinner but he must pay all the good Money by the Sweat of his Brows for Active Obedience to the Law is indeed that which the Law sets a High value upon being the first and main Thing that it designs and aims at and it doth expect not only to be satisfied for Disobedience but must be obeyed yea and it must be paied by perfect Obedience too not by imperfect Now saith our Neonomian Christ was no Surety to pay any of our Debt of Active Obedience how then hath he made no Provision in this Case Yes truly he hath done something that may help a little He hath taken down the old strict Law that kept the Sinner at continual hard-work and brought in a new easie remedying Law then he makes choice of his own Work and business and his own Time and work at leisure only must have the Lash now and then and besure that he Work when he is going to Die and the Condition shall be performed and the Debt paid Now I only briefly argue if Christ was a Surety it was to pay all our Debt in Active and Passive Obedience or none for Christ paid not by halves though the Passive Obedience is hardest yet the active is hardest to do the damned can suffer and shall but can pay
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
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