is it fittest and to which doth it suit best Paul Rom. 4. argues strenuously against justification by works and therefore against Justification by Faith as a Work To this kind of Justification he opposeth that of Faith its being accounted for righteousness if faith be understood as a work of righteosness then the Apostle contradicts himself and maketh justification by faith to be justification by works and so disputes vainly making no opposition but if in Justification by Faith the righteousness is imputed to us and that be the drift of it then his Argumentation hath the greatest weight the righteousness of Faith is Christ's righteousness and the righteousness of works our righteousness inherent wrought by us or in us utterly excluded from Justification § 6. Mr. Cl's Second Argument Because the Apostle frequently opposeth working and believing faith and works Works as a perfect obedience to the Law Faith as a sincere obedience to the Gospel Resp Then the Apostle should have opposed works and works and distinguished between Law-works and Gospel works or when he had opposed Faith unto Works in two Epistles so largely he should have excepted Gospel-works or said I do not mean Faith as a work but to be short for I shall not need to be long on the remaining Arguments We say only that this Argument is against Mr. Cl. because the Apostle still makes so clear an opposition betwixt Faith and Works without any Exception Arg. 3. It is expresly called the righteousness of faith Rom. 4.11 13. chap. 9.30 chap. 10.16 by faith Gal. 5.5 Heb. 11.5 Resp This affects us not The righteousness of faith is but as the light of the eye the righteousness which is the object of faith Rom. 4.11 he received the sign of circumcision called the covenant of Circumcision by a plain Trope not cruel at all the seal of the righteousness of faith Is this a Seal only that we are righteous or is it a Seal of the righteousness of Christ promised to Abraham v. 13. there 's a positive denial that the Promise was to Abraham and his Seed through a Law any Law Old or New but thro the righteousness of faith the proper and peculiar object in Justification Rom. 9.30 the righteousness of Faith is opposed to the righteousness of Works the Jews depended on By Faith is but righteousness received by Faith or waited for in faith Gal. 5.5 we by the Spirit i. e. its assistance wait for the hope of righteousness i. e. the righteousness hoped for by faith or from faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it s not called the righteousness of faith there to what purpose quoted I know not and Heb. 11.5 where it is said by faith Enoch was translated what 's Enoch's Translation here to his Justification which was three hundred years before § 7. Argument 4. Because Faith is a conformity to the rule of the promise wherein the nature of righteousness doth consist viz. the Gospel or Covenant of Grace which requires only sincere believing not perfect doing Rom. 10.8.10 and therefore tho it be not righteousness in strict Justice according to the law of nature i. e. works yet it is righteousness according to the favourable construction of the Gospel i. e. God upon the account of Christ's righteousness is pleased to accept of this for righteousness so as to account it whence it s called the righteousness of God Resp The rule of the promise is an uncouth Term which I have examined elsewhere and therefore shall not now stand upon it only A rule of the promise must be either by which it is made or upon which it is performed there 's no Rule God makes any Promise by but his own good Will and Pleasure but it s the Rule it s performed by that must be a Rule in us by which God walks i. e. the condition of the New Law performed by us a Law indeed hath such a Rule but no Gospel hath do and live do is the Rule and live the Promise to be performed upon our doing and this is these mens Gospel or Govenant of Grace a downright Law and where is it proved that Faith is a conformity to this Rule of the Promise or legal Condition Rom. 10.8 there 's something said of a believing the Word preached but what 's that to the Rule of the Promise and verse 10. with the heart man believes unto righteousness c. who denies Faith if it be true to be as sincere as any other Grace but this proves it not to be our righteousness the words of the Text are against it it believes unto righteousness it goes out of it self for righteousness takes not its self for righteousness v. 11. the object believed on where this righteousness is is told v. 11 whosoever believeth on him but these men will have believing unto righteousness to be faith believing it self unto righteousness VVell when Faith hath done its do to make its self righteousness yet it is not righteousness in the sense of the law of works which is the true Rule of a Law-righteousness that God never abates in the least of yet it is Gospel-righteousness according to the favourable construction of the Gospel God forbid that that should be our justifying-righteousness which strict Justice will not allow to be righteousness Here they bring in God's dispensing with Justice and make him a favourer of unrighteousness in making it such for Justification this is Antinomianism with a witness for God to favour sin and justifie him for that which a just Law and strict Justice condemns for unrighteousness the righteousness of the new Law is condemn'd at the Bar of the old law hence it can be no better than the law of Sin and Death and yet this unrighteous condition must be father'd on God's favourable construction yea on Jesus Christs Undertaking and Performance he undertook and died for this end that our unrighteousness should have the honour of justifying us his was but subservient to that end it seems God would have it so that his Son should be made a Sacrifice to purchace the imputation of our own righteousness for righteousness unto justification and therefore it is called the righteousness of God why because it s ours and not Christs Of this in another place § 8. That Faith is our Gospel-righteousness appears further from Rom. 10. this being the same with the Fourth and answered there I need say nothing to it Argument 6. There are but two sorts of righteousness Legal and Evangelical but this is not legal righteousness and therefore it must be Evangelical Resp There is but one sort of righteousness and that is legal and its a legal righteousness though graciously bestowed that we are justified by and its impossible that it should be otherwise it s only the legal righteousness of Christ made ours which is our Evangelical Christ's own righteousness as it respects the Justice of God and his Law is Legal as it respects a Sinner is graciously bestowed its
nothing of the sinner's deserving that brought Christ's suffering for the sinners but the substitution of Christ for this end by the Father and himself tho' the sinner deserves punishment § 7. The second thing according to the B. implied in Legal guilt is obligation to undergo the deserved punishment but because the execution of punishment depends on the wisdom and justice of the Legislator therefore here a change of person may intervene A. It behoves us to be exact with the B. here because he acquaints us with a curiosity in this point of change of persons that of late men have so shittlecock'd it up and down that it 's hard to find what either side would have but what they both agreed in that they would not have it to be what Dr. Crisp said it was 1. What is the reason the B. distinguisheth the obligation to undergo the deserved punishment and execution of punishment Why saith he not execution of deserved punishment To me it seems to be a very smatch of Socinianism as if Christ did not undergo any deserved punishment but only a punishment without desert i. e. only suffering and not punishment in any proper sence 2. If obligation to undergo the deserved punishment be the guilt only transferred to Christ then it will follow it 's only the guilt of the law is charged on Christ not of the sinner and it 's plain the B. means so for he denies that the guilt of any person is charged on Christ 3. He saith this obligation to punishment is only in the law and its truth therefore he means that this law obligation falling on Christ is all the guilt that falls upon him and here may be no change of persons for tho' the law obligation may fall upon John and Thomas and John be never the better that it falls on Thomas because it falls not on Thomas for the sake of John But he saith that here a change of persons may intervene how between two persons to undergo punishments If so it must be under one and the same law not a change from being under one law to a being under another 2. It must be a change in respect of deserved punishment for punishment cannot be without desert it becomes not the wisdom and justice of God that it should be be so 3. If the change be in respect of deserved punishment we have gained as much as we expect for then the desert of the sinner which is of his fault and his guilt is translated to Christ because his punishment was deserved e. gr he bore the deserved punishment of sin of what or whom of the law nay the law never deserved punishment of any persons nay quoth the B. he bore no personal guilt then there is no change in respect of deserved punishment Christ suffer'd for us but was not punished for any he suffered no deserved punishment Hence no punishment at all for all just punishment is due § 8. He saith The execution of punishment depends on the wisdom and justice of the Legislator It is true therefore ought not the execution of punishment answer the obligation to it Is it wisdom and justice in God to oblige in his law to any punishment not deserved And is it wisdom or justice in God to oblige in his law to deserved punishment and not to execute deserved punishments For if Christ's punishments were not deserved they were meer sufferings and if so no more to us than the suffering of a Martyr to us if deserved suffering then 1. According to some rule of justice 2. Deserved by himself or some others not by himself and his own individual person you will say therefore by some other Hence if Christ bore deserved punishments of others he bore the guilt of sin the Reatus culpae that being the formal desert of punishment the law making it so either of God or Man He saith By the wisdom and justice of God a mediator may be accepted in such a manner as himself hath determined and upon acceptance of his Sacrifice the offenders may be pardoned and received into grace and favour of God on such terms as he hath declared in the Gospel and in this sence is the guilt of sins charged on Christ c. A. It is much that these men can take upon themselves a power of directing God and telling him what he may do when God hath never said that he did or would do so the true Explanation of the B's sence in this paragraph is by the new-coin'd law but we will take him in his own terms And I say in God's execution of punishment it becomes the wisdom and justice of God to do it according to a promulgated law which the Legislator hath in his wisdom and justice made a manifest Norma Justitiae to shew forth his justice and that God may be justified as Judge of all the world to deal righteously and therefore not to accept of a Sinner or a Mediator for them upon other terms than is in his law express'd and not upon other secret and unknown terms 2. How may God accept of a Mediator Is it not in satisfying for the sinner in bearing the sinners deserved punishment and therein taking off the laws obligation of the Sinner to punishment God can't otherwise do in wisdom or justice 3. He makes God's acceptance of a sacrifice to be an antecedent of pardon only not a satisfying and meritorious reason thereof 4. How doth God accept Christ's sacrifice as a single noble act done by him wherein none is concern'd but himself or a qualifying act to God himself to make him able to pardon Or doth he accept his sacrifice for sinners deserving punishment under the law Taking their deserts and punishment upon himself then he is a mediatorial sacrifice otherwise if the guilt lyes upon persons unremoved he is neither a sacrifice for their sins nor accepted of God as such 5. Is it according to the justice of God to accept a sacrifice for sinners whose personal guilt he never took away thereby and pardon and receive them into favour upon other terms afterwards Sure then the mediator is not accepted till they have performed those conditions upon which their pardon and acceptance is laid § 9. In answer to the Reporter p. 8. he takes occasion to tell him that the Consideration of sins as debts is a wrong notion and gives up the point of Satisfaction to the Socinians If it do it doth but as the B. and his right Reverend Father Mr. B. hath done from whom he took up this divinity It seems the spirit of God did not so well consider of it as the B. hath done nor our master the Lord Jesus when he taught his disciples to pray so I know it sticks cruelly in the Neonom stomachs that our Lord Jesus was so rash and inconsiderate to make use of this word debt for sin but why doth this give away the cause to Socinians Because if sins be considered as debts
God may freely forgive them without disparagement to his wisdom and justice without any Satisfaction But what if God will not He hath revealed this in his word that he will by no means acquit the guilty without satisfaction we are not speaking of God's absolute Power but of his ordinate neither are we speaking of God's acting by his soveraign dominion but by his acting in a way of justice because where there 's sin there is a law transgressed and God's dealing with the sinner must be in a way of justice unless God repeal his law or dispense with it as the Neonom will have it but we can't admit thereof But 2. Why can't God upon the same reason forgive a criminal by his prerogative as well as a debtor An earthly King may why not the King of Kings 3. And why is not sin a debt in a proper sence enough Is it not a debt to God's justice and made so by God's law and treated as such in the very point of Satisfaction It 's such a Debt as must be satisfied 1 Pet. 1.18 19. 1 Cor. 6.23 and 7.23 and elsewhere must it of necessity be a money debt and no other He saith I can't but wonder at the learned author that he doth at the same time assert our sins to be considered as debts and the necessity of vindictive justice for what vindictive justice belongs to a creditor I have rather wondred at the learned Author that he should be taken with such a Delirium as to suppose B. Stillingfleet to be for a Commutation of Persons in sano sensu having been sufficiently informed by his Letters of his Neonom principles before he appeal to him and flattered him so offensively as he did But ad rem 1. The B. knew that similitude or metaphorical expressions are not to be forc'd to run on four feet for tho' sins be most fitly called debts to the justice of God yet God is not therefore a money creditor but with necessity of Vindictive Justice to a creditor sure imprisonment is vindictive justice or seizing on all that a man hath doth not God in justice seize on all a sinner hath by his curse and cast him into prison till he hath paid the utmost Farthing Matth. 5.26 Sure Christ's own Phraseology might be admitted by us but it seems not by this B. and some others see further his Neonom spirit he calls Christ's language in calling sin debts to God and ascribing Vindictive Justice to such an adversary rude and inconsistent and he can hardly think such ever penetrated into these matters but took up with a sett of phrases I always found these Neonom great boasters of their own wit and deep penetration into things answer their adversaries still more by contemptuous and approbrious language than by any fair way of argumentation tho' I must confess I do not find this learned B. so addicted to this foul way of treating those that dissent from him as many others of the Neonom kidney that are far short of him in learning and gentility The main design of this discourse in answer to Mr. Lob's Appeal is to shew how much the good man was mistaken as to believe that he the B. was for Commutation of persons in his sence but he was for Commutation in Mr. W. and the Neonom sence The meaning of all that there hath been such a sputter about and so much foul language unbecoming Christians much more Ministers lyes in this one Question whether Christ was made of God sin and curse for sinners And whether the said sinners believing become the righteousness of God in him The Commutation according to scripture lyes here that Christ instead of the guilty sinner became sin and curse and that the Sinner in Christ becomes righteous and guitless Now saith the B. That the change was not in respect of sin asserting that Christ bore no personal guilt but that he bore only punishment that we should not be punish'd upon our Faith and Repentance so that he must hold the Commutation of persons is not in respect of sin and righteousness for that person that is taken from the guilt of sin in foro justitiae can never be righteous but only in respect of punishment and impunity 4. That Christ was punish'd that the sinner might not but that this change was not absolute but conditional and to be future upon terms to be performed by one party when he should have an actual Being in the world when he should perform the fixed conditions of Faith Repentance and good Works Again he will not have it such a change as is between the surety and debtor but such a change as is between two private persons one doing a good turn for on the behalf and so instead of the other denying Christ to be a publick person to be in his Mediatorship a surety or legal Representative before God's Tribunal of Justice and this I find every where to be the Neonom Doctrine But I shall assert that the B's change of persons is none at all for if it be not of persons as standing in relation to the law it 's none at all in a law sence Christ bearing no guilt by law obligation and the sinner being freed from none thereby this is enough to say of it here my design being to be short I can't fill up my paper with rehearsal of the very Words which I have tired my self too much in already nor enter upon a tedious Litigation about Words or Sense of them and if Dr Crisp or the Bp. have not well express'd themselves I leave those Words to themselves and apply my self only to the true sense and meaning of the Bp. in that point which he mainly prosecutes in this treatise Bp. p. 79. My business at present is about transferring our very faults upon Christ which Dr. Crisp calls the guilt of the fact A. I need not here tell the Reader that the Assertor doth distinguish between the fact and the guilt of the fact the Culpa reatus culpae the Bp. himself hath vindicated him from the charge of saying that the fact it self was charged on Christ p. 77. Dr. Crisp denies Christ to be the actual transgressor but asserted that he had the personal guilt of our Sins upon him and built his whole Hypothesis upon it This then is the Question in short to be discussed Whether Christ in his sufferings bare upon him the personal guilt of Sin The affirmative is the truth in our judgment let who will assert it the Bp. holds the negative throughout his treatise as being the vertical point upon which the whole controversie of change of persons doth turn § 2. I desire to speak as plainly in this matter as may be and as briefly and shall pass over all the proofs that the Bp. hath made that this was the Dr's judgment with this concession that it was so yea and all the needless remarks interpretations and banters that he hath upon what the Doctor hath
said and only take notice of the things of weight But first it is necessary to shew how we understand this Question 1. In what capacity Christ stood when he bore sin and punishment 2. In what sense he bore sin 3. What personal guilt is 4. How Christ came to bear personal guilt A. As to the first that Christ stood in the capacity of a publick person representing the whole body of the Elect under the consideration of the lapsed Estate and Condition in the first Adam As to the second when we say Christ bore Sin it 's neither treason or blasphemy as our Adversaries would have it because we speak in the language of the Spirit of God however to prevent cavilling we will vouchsafe to yeild to the Bp's term personal guilt which can import nothing but the committed Sin remaining on the sinner's person and conscience as a forbidden and condemned fault by the law neither do we say that Christ committed these Sins or was made to have committed them when our Sins were laid upon him neither that his Nature was physically or morally corrupted thereby Lastly We cannot but adore the wisdom of God in calling personal guilt Sin because 1. A bare physical Act as such is not Sin and as all killing is not sin but Sin is a physical Act cloathed with a moral Exorbitancy arising from its relation to and comparing with the law of God therefore to say the substratum of the physical act or defect is transferred from one subject to another is most absurd but the guilt of this fact and its moral relation to the law may be transferred and taken away from the subject transgressor as we shall make it appear As to the third the Bp. tells us what he means by personal guilt and it 's very plain David's personal guilt was of Murder and Adultery so Peter's of denying his Master Now the Bp. will not have personal guilt ever to be taken off from any but that David continues in Heaven under personal guilt of Murder and Adultery to this Day and for ever Lastly Christ came to bear Sin 1. By God's call and his acceptance voluntarily obeying his Father's command 2. In submitting himself to a legal way of proceeding with him when he came under the same law the transgressor was under 3. By a legal accounting and imputing our Sin to him he coming in forum Justitiae and writing himself debtor in the room and stead of all the insolvent debtors to the Law of God Justice accepts of him as a sufficient Paymaster Hence in the law sense Christ was called by God what he was not in a natural sense Rom. 4. He was made Sin who knew no Sin and God calls things that are not as tho' they were both in calling Christ Sin and us Righteous § 3. Now we say that Commutation of Persons was so far and no more nor less than God hath made it to be in his legal way of proceeding in this great mystery That Christ should according to the Preordination and Constitution of the Father freely put himself under a judicial Process for the Sins of all the Elect under the same law that they transgressed and that Justice should deal with him as if he had been the original transgressor and in the stead thereof in transferring the charge upon him and punishing him for Sin Hereupon follows the change that he is made Sin and we Righteousness in him Justice receiving full satisfaction for our Sins Hence we shall not much trouble our selves with the many odious Inferences that the Neonom would draw upon this glorious Mystery nor the dirty Reflections on the unsearchable Wisdom of God the Truth being as fully and plainly made manifest in Holy Writ as any doctrine of Godliness 1. It is plain that Sin was laid on Christ in some sence or other the Scripture being so express in it 2. It 's granted on all hands the physical part of the Act was not transferred to Christ after which that which remains on the Sinner is the guilt of it which is his relation to the law in the moral sense as a transgressor and must be his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the laws condemnation of the Fact making his guilt or desert of punishment 3. The Spirit of God calls this Merit or Desert Sin and shall we call it contrary to Scripture Where doth the Scripture say it was not It saith again and again that it was and what if contrary to the Bp's reason Are we to believe God or Man Is the Bp's reason the rule of our Faith What if the same word be used in Scripture for Sin and Punishment I grant that one word in Hebrew is used for Sin and the Sacrifice for Sin sometimes but when it 's used for the Sacrifice it 's therefore used because Sin was judicially transferred to the Sacrifice that it bore the Sin of the Transgressor so that it became the formalis ratio of its Suffering and therefore it 's denominated from its most essential cause To say it 's a tropical word is not much to the purpose it being such as expresseth the very nature of the thing as often in Scripture by a Metonimy Sensus pornitur pro sensili a Grace of the Spirit put for the Object Faith for the Object and Hope for its Object so here Sin for the personal guilt of Sin the Subject put for an essential or proper Production It 's a Metan of another nature from that this is my Body where Signum is put for Signatum and its true the Scripture doth always denote the guilt of Sin by Sin and the Bp. doth concede that Punishment is not Sin but a Consequent of guilt we say it 's more than a mere Consequent it is a merited effect and Sin always deserves and merits Punishment tho' no Sinner merited that a Surety should be punished for him this is by Gracious Surrogation or Substitution And it 's to contradict Scripture to make Punishment separable from guilt and for good reason to for no just Law punisheth any one but the guilty whereby it 's always said that Sin lyes upon him i. e. the just charge of Sin § 4. Bp. Obj. But Punishment must have relation to Sin as to the same Person This is true it must and always hath Sin is inseparable from Punishment in the same Person according to the just Terms and Constitution of any Law by which any Person is punished To this the Bp. saith he answers distinctly that there are three ways our Sins are said to have relation to Christ's Sufferings 1. As an external impulsive cause no more than occasional no proper reason of Punishment and so for the Socinians This I suppose he leaves to the Socinians with whom Mr. B. is one in this point 2. As an impulsive cause becomes meritorious by the voluntary Act of Christ's undertaking to satisfie Divine Justice for our Sins and not as his own 3. As to the Personal guilt of our
Sins These three ways of Sin 's relation to Christ we will consider 1. The fact of Sin and from it the guilt of it is the proper meritorious cause of Punishment it 's causa proegumena internal always to the punished let the Socin and Mr. B. say what they will the punished is always the guilty Person and he is therefore punished because guilty 2. This Impulsive of ours becomes meritorious he saith how I pray By Christ voluntary undertaking c. This is very absurd that Christ's free undertaking should make Sin meritorious was not Sin meritorious of Punishment of it self What is the Sin of faln Angels that Christ never undertook for But he should have said that Christ's voluntary undertaking brought the guilt and punishment upon himself by his coming under a Law Transaction for he saith it was to satisfie Divine Justice and can Justice be satisfied by the Sufferings of a Person no way guilty in the Eye of Justice That 's strange Justice But still saith the Bp. They are consider'd as our Sins and not his true our Sins originally but his by a Law Transmission else he could not be punished by the Law But now see how the Bp. after his brandishing by way of Opposition is necessitated to fall into rank and file with us They are not Christ's Sins any further than by consent he took upon himself to bear the guilt which relates to Punishment and so they come to be justly charged upon him Now I pray what is it that the Bp. saith in the winding up of the Matter more than what we say for he saith 1. The Sins were ours not his originally and primarily and the guilt remains in all those for which Christ died not 2. These Sins of all saved ones become Christ's in the guilt of them thro' his free and voluntary Intervention 3. That he took upon himself that guilt which relates to punishment i. e. it s proper law relation 4. And so they come to be justly charged upon him here the Bp hath given us the whole Point for 1. He allows guilt to be distinct from Punishment for Relata are contraria affirmantia and it 's a true notion that guilt and punishment are proper relata constantia ex mutua alterius affectione and therefore distinct 2. That Christ took upon him to bear the guilt that relates to punishment it came not from the Sinner that Christ bore the guilt but from God's Ordination and Christ's Submission to law proceding and thence wrote himself Debtor to the Law and Justice of God instead of Sinners and was accepted as plenary Paymaster 3. He owns that Sin came justly chargeable on him the charge of Sin on the Sinner is that whereby he becomes guilty before God Rom. 3.19 for he that 's justly punished is justly charged as he saith charged upon him must be in a way of Law proceeding and tho' God hath made him to confess the Truth in Words yet it fully appears by his after Discourse that he believes not a word of it in sano sensu § 3. The third thing wherein our Sins have relation to the Sufferings of Christ he saith As to the personal Guilt of our Sins which he denies and decries after he had in the same Breath own'd Christ's bearing the guilt of our Sins now he will have Christ to bear the guilt of our Sins but not the personal as if there were or could be any guilt that is not of one person or another or if there were some generical guilt found in individual Persons his Exceptions are 1. The fault of the Sins are not laid on Christ 1. Then its Law Relation was not laid on Christ and Christ being punished for no fault of himself or others was unjustly punished nay he saith he was justly charged Is any justly charged when charged with no fault 2. He excepts against saying that laying Sin upon Christ makes Christ really a Transgressor but how is that said It is in a legal Sense not physical therefore Christ is said to be made Sin viz. Such he was not before nor was in his own Natures but was really accepted instead of the guilty Sinner not Romantickly and Fabulously the Transaction was real according to the nature of it As to the denial of Imputation it 's a gross Error in whoever it is Dr. Crisp or Mr. B. the first mistakingly denies the sense of the word but Mr. B. denies the thing it self the very Doctrine of Imputation of Sin to Christ as the Bp. the Righteousness of Christ to us having these invective Words As the Papists have by no means more alienated the reformed from them irreconcileably than by obtruding as an Article of Faith the Impossibilities and Contradictions of Transubstantiation so some erroneous Protestants have no way Men made the Papists irreconcileable to us than by holding forth the Impossibilities and Absurdities of imputed Righteousness as a most necessary part of the Gospel Meth. Theol. Part iii. Ch. 27. Page 322. The great Argument propounded by Dr. Crisp very unwarily he not seeing how far it would run but sufficiently improved by Mr. B. is this That God hath no other Thoughts of things than as they are So doth he esteem and think of things and consequently of Sin in Knowledge we must distinguish between Things and Relation and between one Relative and another God thinks of things as they are under divers respects God thinks and knows what we are by Nature yea the most eminent Believer is by Nature a Child of Wrath as well as the other but he knows also what he is through Grace what under a Covenant of Works and what under a Covenant of Grace Sinners in the first Adam Righteous in the second God calls things that are not as though they were God calls his Son Sin in a Law-sence who never Sinned and a Sinner Righteous in Christ who never was Righteous in himself He sees him as acceptable in his sight he having cloathed him with his Righteousness as if he were perfectly Righteous in himself God knows and sees all things as he is Omniscient but yet doth not see reconciled Ones in their Sins and Guilt of them by the Eye of his Justice God saw Christ under Sin by the Eye of his Justice when he was under the charge of Sin and his Person absolutely considered most pleasing to him It is no way inconsistent with the Nature of God to know what any thing is in its absolute Being and what it is in this or that relation to know a Creature is a Man and to know him to stand under the relation of a Father or a Son to know what he is Naturally and what Morally for this is not inconsistent with Man's knowledge much less with God's therefore when God knows a thing what it is in one respect and calls it another it is to be supposed that he really puts that respect or relation upon it as when God calls a Man a Sinner in
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
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
same medium be used truly and falsly How is it the same way of Arguing Two Ships may Sail two contrary ways with one and the same Wind but that Answer which overthrows the Socinian must overthrow the Neonom For the Position is true and will be granted on all hands The Question between the Socin and Antinom is whether Christ Died merito No saith the Socin because he was an innocent Person in himself The Antinom as he calls in this all Calvinists saith he Died merito not upon the merits of his own Sins but under the merits of ours in whose stead he Died Now comes in the Neonom and says he was punished but not for any Personal Desert of himself or ours Let the Candid Reader judge now who is the Socinian this is enough to shew his unfairness in this matter and what he talks after to this matter is but repeating over and over what hath been brought to the test and found very weak but tells us still that what he saith is very agreeable to the Natural Sense of Men's Minds he should have said to the Natural Man that knows little of the Spirit if they would allow themselves the liberty of thinking yea of thinking themselves out of Scripture or any rational Understanding and therefore I am aware still that Neon are the most thinking Men in their own conceits in the World though I find none more abusive and unfair in Argumentation § 15. Bp. But do we not by this means take away the proper Punishment of Christ for Sins and so overthrow the Doctrine of Satisfaction A. I say you certainly do For 1. How can you say Christ was properly Punished is it for such thinking Men as you are That any Punishment is proper Punishment which is not deserved Punishment 2. How is it possible that you say that that Punishment is Satisfactory to God's Law which is not for the Sins which break the Law But the Bp saith no ☞ For I take away nothing but the Punishment that follows Personal Guilt and if this be not taken away the Antinom Sense must be allowed A. Say you so stand aside all Protestants your House is coming down on your Heads Well we come upon this Dilemma you must either deny that ever Christ bore any deserved Punishment or be Antinom I am sorry to see that my late esteemed Friend Mr. L. gave occasion to such rebukes which he hath received in the Answer to his Appeal that in a fixed Enmity to Dr. C. he condemned Christ's bearing the Personal Guilt of our Sins as false blasphemous and impossible whereas he declares it as the Opinion he contended for That the Lord Jesus Christ voluntarily on the Father's invitation coming under the Sanction of the violated Law was justly charged with the Guilt of our Sin found Guilty Condemned Sentenc'd and Executed as such even by that God which laid on him the Iniquity of us all Now the words of the Bp are these If I do not misunderstand both Dr. C. and you you say as much in consequence as he And therefore you cannot disown the transferring Personal Guilt upon Christ This he sufficiently proves and I cann't but subscribe to the truth of the Bishop's Judgment in this matter for this is a fault and a great inconsistency which I always disliked to inveigh against some as Erroneous and yet saying those very things which they spake For as the Bp saith What Guilt of our Sins could be charged on Christ if not the Personal Guilt c. See p. 28 99 100. I forbear repeating more in Honour to my Deceased Friend It is good to own and defend truth as truth without respect of Persons § 16. The second proposed by the Bishop for Answer is That without this translation of Personal Guilt no advantage could come to us by Christ's Sufferings because a Man suffers only for his own fault unless the fault of another be laid upon The Argument hath great force in it For 1. Without translation of our Guilt upon another either a guilty Person must Die in his Guilt i. e. in his Sins or he must be absolutely Pardon'd without satisfaction in both these there can be no Benefit by Christ's Sufferings 2. Another Person 's Sufferings will not profit me unless it be in my room or stead and taken upon that Law-defect that belonged unto me In Answer he saith Here is no question but our Iniquities were laid on Christ and that he Suffered in our stead but the Dispute is about the manner how whether our very Transgressions themselves were laid upon him and how it doth appear that we cann't receive the Benefits of Christ's Sufferings unless that were done which is suppos'd to be done It is a great Argument with them our Sins are Debts and they are reckon'd to Christ as our Surety To shew how little force there is in it we need only these Considerations 1. That there is no sufficient ground for it in Scripture as for that of Isa 53.6 there is not the least ground for it in the Text for the words properly signifie that he made our Iniquities meet and to fall upon him i. e. as a Man falls upon his Enemy when he meets him So the Jewish Interpreters But doth this Man say enough to take off the force of this place of Scripture 1. He tells us that the meaning is he made our Sins to meet upon him the words are here Jehovah made the Iniquities of us all to fall upon him the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is that but Iniquity Is it ever taken for Sacrifice for Sin Who made them to meet Jehovah the Legislator God the Judge of all and how can Iniquities of many meet on one Person Can it be any way but judicially As the Person is a Surety chargeable and charged with the guilt of many But see what a Sence he would sham off his Reader with As a Man falls upon his Enemy when he meets him he should have said as many Enemies falls upon a Man when they meet him for it was the Iniquities of many but how could our Iniquities fall upon Christ to hurt him if the Guilt of them fell not upon him And why should Jehovah make many Sins fall upon Christ Was there any reason for it in Christ or us or in the Justice of God to set such Millions of Mastiff Dogs on Jesus Christ on poor innocent Jesus Or what Design of Wisdom was it when those Sins were neither to slay Christ nor Christ to slay them And this he tells us was the Jews and Symachus his Interpretation he knew what Opinion the Jews were of concerning Christ and this so eminent Prophesie of him and he might have told us what his Friend Grotius's Opinion was about this place but he acquaints us how the lxx render He gave him up to our Iniquities and is not that against him How could Christ be given up to our Iniquities But in bearing the deserved Punishments
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
meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings they were only premeritorious or occasional Causes For although the Bp would have Mr. B. mean something more than occasional by promeritorious yet he acquits us with Mr. B's own Explication of his meaning of premeritorious that it is only occasional which the Bp saith is no cause at all and Socinianism and yet he good Man would defend him though he finds it hic labor hoc opus and fain to leave it re infecta The first proof which he would make is from Mr. B's Confession wherein all that he saith is no more than what a Socinian will say in this Point That Christ gave up himself a Sacrifice for our Sins and a Ransom for us in suffering for us upon the Cross which he doth make according to his way of moulding of Doctrine comport well enough with Socinian Principles See what he gives for Antinomianism 1. That Christ satisfied God's Justice as in the Person of all the Elect this one Error whereby he denies Jesus Christ to be a Publick Person 2. That in a Law-sence and God's account they themselves did satisfie in and by Christ Here he denies Christ to have Suffered in our stead or to have made Payment to Justice for our Sins either in a Law-sense nor in God's account and therefore he made no payment for us neither can we say we satisfie in and by him Whereas every Debtor can say so who hath a Surety that makes payment in his stead the Law accounting this payment to the Original Debtor neither is it untrue that he paid in and by his Surety but an honour to his Surety and detraction from himself when he saith he paid in and by his Surety 3. That Christ's Sufferings were full and proper Executions of the threatning of the Law to Man Here he denies Christ's Suffering under the Law that Man brake and that his Punishment was no proper execution of the threatning of the Law and therefore no proper Punishment 4. And so acquits them ipso facto on the meer Suffering Here he makes up his charge by ambiguous Expressions without any further means of conveyance to give them right in it by Application 1. Here he insinuates that there was no Discharge of Christ from the Sins of the Elect which he suffered for If so no satisfaction 2. He makes as if some held that Men have an Actual and Personal discharge before their being by Grace or Nature which is a false Charge and a male Consequent drawn by himself on the Doctrine As if those that held Christ's full and compleat Satisfaction by impetration denied application 3. He would have us believe it an Error that Christ purchased a right to Eternal Life for all the Elect as the immediate effect of his purchase and that our right comes by application whereas our right lyes in the purchase only and our claim of that right and possession is by application The Socin Error he thus represents That Jesus Christ did not undergo any Penalty for our Sins as meritorious or promeritorious Cause but only as occasional And doth not Mr. B. say the same thing again and again in his Writings only he foacheth in his promeritorious which if the Socin either did not use or if they did they would not deny it in the Sense Mr. B. useth it and as he hath explain'd himself And that he did not make any Satisfaction to God's Justice for us c. there is nothing plainer in Mr. B's Writings both in his Methodus and Universal Redemption He puts for Truth as follows That Jesus Christ as a Publick Sponsor did bear the Punishment deserved by the Sins of the World he means of all and every Man and made to his Father a Satisfaction sufficient for all It is strange a Bishop of the Church of England should look upon this as an Orthodox and Plain Confession to distinguish a Man from a Socinian for it 's plain he prevaricates in speaking of Christ as a Publick Person for in the Antin charge he makes it a marvelous Error to say Christ satisfied Justice in the Person of all the Elect so he must mean here that Christ was such a Publick Person that was no Representative or Surety which is no publick Person at all 2. In that he saith Christ did bear the Punishment deserved by Sin he also prevaricates for he doth every-where deny that our Sins were imputed to Christ that he suffered the Punishment of our Sins in any proper Sense and that Sin was but an occasional no proper Cause thereof and therefore his Punishment was but Analogical Equivalent to the Socinian's Metaphorical He cann't mean in respect of proportion in a Mathematical Sense for that would overthrow his whole Hypothesis Mr. Lob quotes enough to overthrow all that the Bp pleads on his behalf He shews that in his Methodus he expresly declares that the Sufferings of Christ were only a Natural Evil undergone by occasion and the remote causality of the Sins of Mankind and that Christ's sufferings are only sufferings in an Improper and Analogical Sense These things saith the Bp were long since written The chief Expression is Christ's Sufferings had no proper meritorious Cause but yet Man's Sins were the Pro causa meritoria c. and saith nothing to defend it p. 151. He considers whether Mr. B's own words do lay him open to the suspicion of going too far towards the Socinians in this matter Now let us see whether Mr. B. hath a fair deliverance at the Bp's Bar. Bp In this case we must distinguish the Scripture Notion of Punishment from a Strict and Philosophical Sense of Punishment R. This is a strange distinction of a Learned Bp what means he by a Philosophical Punishment Is it morally Philosophical i. e. such Punishment as belongs to the breach of a Moral Law If so sure the Scripture Punishment cann't be distinguished from it for that is legal Punishment but he saith it's strict Punishment i. e. according to the exact tenor of a Moral Law if he mean so it cannot be excluded from Scripture Punishment Bp The Scripture speaks in General of Christ's bearing our Sins c. but not a word of strict and proper Punishment R. No sure the Bp is mistaken greatly when he might see in the same Chapter that Christ was wounded for our Transgressions was not that proper Punishment Doth the Scripture say nothing of strict and proper Punishment when it saith the Wages of Sin is Death Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the Book of the Law Is not the Curse of the Law strict and proper Punishment If this be his Philosophical Punishment there 's much of it in Scripture and it cann't be distinguish'd from it Bp. But of that which was appointed and accepted in order to atonement for our Sins as the impulsive Cause which become meritorious by his voluntary undertaking R. The Bp would suggest that there 's some general improper
all this he will not give up Mr. B. to the Socinians why Because he hath writ of the Doctrine of the Trinity that he might do and yet be a Socin in the Doctrine of Satisfaction But he hath written of the Doctrine of Satisfaction yes he hath retained the word to make his Doctrine go down the better but hath endeavoured to destroy the thing to all intents and purposes Bp. These may be said for his Vindication 1. By laying all the passages together he must mean something more by his promeritous Cause than meerly a remote occasional Cause A. This supposition is very unreasonable when the Bp hath told us from Mr B's own Mouth what he means by his promeritorious Cause It is not hard to conceive what Mr. B. meant by promeritorious it is only that Sin Antecedently to Christ's Death was meritorious of Death but this merit terminated there and never reached as a Cause meritorious of the Sufferings of Christ This merit the Bp saith is antecedent to the Legislator's act in accepting a Sponsor and is but an occasional Cause and what saith he of an occasional Cause It 's really no Cause at all c. just as if a Man said the Fire of London was the occasional Cause of the Monument p. 169. Bp. Now no Man can say the fault antecedently was any more than an occasional cause of the innocent Person 's Suffering A. This is true in Mr B's sense that the fault of the Offender makes him only guilty and deserving of Punishment in general but is not transferred to the Sponsor to be any Guilt or desert of his Punishment which is truly Mr. B's meaning of his term promeritorious And therein Mr. B. is consonant to himself in saying it's but an occasional Cause and that Sin is a remote impulsive Cause viz. remote from Christ tho' immediate and impulsive to Punishment 2. This is true in the Bp's Sense who saith Christ suffered Punishment for Sin and bear the Personal Guilt of none is to make the Sin of Man no more than an occasional Cause But the consistency of the assertion lyes more on Mr. B's side because he knew it to be a great inconsistency to say that Christ bore proper Punishment when he bore the guilt of no Sin Bp. But taking all together when he is admitted to suffer in the place of the Guilty the Law with the Punishment makes the impulsive Cause become meritorious and it is the immediate Reason of his Sufferings R. This the Bp speaks as the truth and intimates as if he would have it Mr. B's Sense but gives no proof that it is so neither is it likely he should being not consonant at all to what Mr. B. every-where maintains and what if the Bp saith so it 's not consonant at all to the Tenet he defends that Christ bore no Personal Guilt For then how can the Guilt of any become the meritorious and immediate reason of his Sufferings Bp. The only question then is whether this can properly be called a meritorious cause A. That may be taken in two Senses 1. In a strict and proper sence so your self deny that Christ merited by his own Sin 2. In the sense of the Law i. e. Sin was legally charged on Christ and so that which was the near impulsive cause the fault of the Transgressor may be truly said to be meritorious as to his sufferings because they made it an act of Justice which otherways had been an act of Power and Dominion R. See now the Bp's clear concession 1. That what is here spoken of Christ it 's in the sense of the Law not in a Physical or Moral sense 2. He makes the near impulsive cause Sin and here Sin in its merits or deserts the immediate reason of Christ's suffering can that be any thing but the Guilt of Men's Persons 3. Sin is such a reason as may distinguish Christ's Punishment from an Act of Dominion and make it an Act of Justice How is it possible that any Man that saith this can say that the guilt of Man's Sin was not charged on Christ as our Representative in a legal Sense i. e. in a way of Judicial proceeding Now doth the Bp lay down this as Mr. B's sense No he dare not for if he did Mr. B. were he living would say he had laid therein the Foundation of Antinomianism Bp. The question between us and the Socinians is not about meritorious and promeritorious Cause R. I wonder the Bp should insinuate so great a falshood when he knows the question between us and the Socinians is whether our Sins were the meritorious cause of Christ's sufferings or occasional And it 's that which hath been at present under hand Promeritorious being a word of Mr. B's bringing in it may be they might not think of it to hide occasional under it as he doth to make Men think he did not deny all merit in this Case Bp. But the question is whether Christ did really undergo the Punishment of our Sins in order to be a Sacrifice of Atonement for them And in this we have Mr. B 's consent express'd on all occasions R. I wonder the Bp can speak thus why doth he not acquaint us then with his consent in one passage if he hath any such passage doth he mean as he speaks No no more than the Bp who could not as long as he held that Christ bore the personal guilt or desert of none It is now evident the Bp hath said nothing to the purpose for vindication of Mr. B. what hath been said hath been for a greater confirmation of the Charge and wounding his own Cause He saith little further but to excuse 1. Liberty must be given to Metaphysick Heads 2. Tells a Story of Lubbertus and Mcacovius 3. He tells us of favourable interpretations that are to be given to Persons that keep to the main point as if this were but a trifling matter between the Socin and us 4. Mr. L. argues that Mr. B. speaks after the Unitarians That Christ did not undergo punishment properly so called but in a popular sense of Punishment The Bp in answer doth fill up p. 162 163 164 165 166. in shewing what slippery Gentlemen the Writers of the Unitarian Doctrine are but nothing to Mr. L's Charge of Mr. B. therefore yields the truth thereof and agrees with Mr. L. in these words Bp. you say Rectoral Justice doth essentially respect the Law in its distributions Whatever a Soveraign may do in acts of Dominion A Rector cannot justly inflict Sufferings on an innocent person as such Here I grant you have come up to the true state of the Case between the Socin and us and therefore we shall leave it and let the Reader judge who is cast at the Bp's Bar. But before I end it 's necessary to consider how the Bp. doth reconcile his two Principles 1. That the Sin of Man was the immediate impulsive and meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferigns This he holds
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
of all the elect a slander and imposed expression that none ever said the reatum culpae or guilt of fault and so he bore the sins of all the Elect by real imputation this is truth which Mr. B. chargeth as one of his hundred Antinomian Errors Er. 18. p. 10. Again being made sin for us is meant a sacrifice for sin so Mr H. and used as a sinner why should he be used as a sinner if sin was not charged upon him sure very unjustly If God imputed sin to Christ or accounted Christ a sinner he must be by sin hateful to God c. and Christ suffered for his own sins c. Scr. G. d. p. 30 31. If Christ had bin a sinner in his individual person these consequences might have held but Christ being by Law-imputation made sin in order to the Salvation of Sinners it s otherwise therefore doth my Father love me because I lay down my life for my sheep Is a rich person and honourable hated in the Court and detested because he enters himself Debtor for some Ludgate Prisoners Socin The meaning of these words 2 Cor. 5.21 is not that he was made sin for us by God's imputation but that he was made a sacrifice for sin the word made is a word of Election and Ordination Pinct Dial. to which Mr. Norton answers thus He was made sin for us as we are made righteousness i. e. by judicial imputation without the violation yea with establishing of Justice as he was made curse Gal. 3.13 because he was the sin-offering in truth therefore be was made sin by real imputation Nort. against Pinch Quak. We deserved those things that Christ endured and much more for our sins but that God ever reputed him a sinner is denied neither did he ever dy that we should be reputed righteous by his being made sin for us must be understood his suffering for our sins that we might be made partakers of the grace purchased by him by the working whereof we are made the righteousness of God in him Barch Apol. of Just p. 376. Thus you see how Sister Sects run hand in hand together Thus far of Imputation here which should have bin continued to imputation of Righteousness The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness being the main Point which the Neonomians oppose but because it will be the main subject of our ensuing Discourse we pass it over in this Chapter CHAP. V. Of Imputation of Righteousness unto the Iustification of a Sinner Sect. 1. Righteousness imputed and what § 2. Cardinal Bellarmine a Middle-way-man and so Quakers too and Socinians § 3. How consonant Neonomians are to that Fraternity § 4. They make inherent Holiness to be our Righteousness § 5. Why pardoned after justified and of subordinate righteousness § 6. Of Legal and Evangelical Guilt § 7. Of Mr. Cl's definition of Justification and of incompleat Justification in this life Sect. 1. THat Righteousness is imputed to the Justification of a sinner before God is held on all sides but the great Controversie lies here What Righteousness is it Is it our own inherent righteousness or the righteousness of another the Neonomians with the Papists say it s our own which is the formal cause of our Justification we say that Christ's Righteousness is the material cause of our Justification and Imputation the formal Mr. H. excludes the Merits of Christ from any of the essential causes and makes it only modum efficientis something in the hand of the efficient it may be an instrument but at the best it s but causa ministrans by way of efficiency but enters not that effect as any essential Cause Mr. H. would find out some little Difference between the Papists and himself but it s so little that he can hardly render it visible The Counsel of Trent saith thus There is only one formal Cause of Justification which is the Righteousness of God not whereby he is Righteous but whereby he makes us Righteous viz. which he hath bestowed on us whereby we are renewed in the Spirit of our minds and are not only reputed Just but are truly called Righteous and are so and it follows In this is the Justification of the Vngodly whilst for the Merit of that most Holy Passion the Love of God is shed abroad by the Holy Ghost in the Hearts of them that are justified and inherent in them whence in Justification it self with Remission of Sins this is together with it infused c. Sess 6. c. 7. Mr. H. agrees with them that our inherent Righteousness is the formal Cause and that it is for the Merits of Christ that this Righteousness is wrought in us that therefore it 's called the Righteousness of God Bellarmine in Defence of the Doctrine of the C. of Tr. says the State of this whole Controversie may be reduced to this one Question Whether or no the formal Cause of Absolute Justification be Righteousness inhering in us Which he endeavours to maintain in the Affirmative Mr. H. would have some difference from the Papists in that they say Justification is by Infusion of Righteousness whereas he saith Infusion of Grace is Sanctification but Justification is by Grace infused of the two I take the Papist to be rightest in constitutive Justification and to have less of Merit in it whereas Mr. H. Justification is by Sanctification wrought first which carries more of Merit and less of Grace for here Justification appears at first sight to be ex condigno the good qualification of the Subject Yea the Papists go further then Mr. H. for he will not have Imputation of Christs Righteousness nor Remission of Sins to have any place in Justification which the Papists own to be Parts of our Justification for the Council of Trent do Anathametize those only that teach that a Man is justified only by Imputation of Christs Righteousness and Remission of Sins without inherent Grace and Charity yea I do not find that this Neonomian Doctrine comes any whit short of the Popish Doctrine of Justification nay it out-does it in daring Contradiction to the the Gospel § 2. See what a Middle-way Man the Cardinal is if he go far enough He gives his Sense of Rom. 3.24 Justified freely i.e. from his mere liberality as to our Merits for we cannot deserve to be justified by any Work of ours and this Bounty of God is the efficient Cause but we are justified by his Grace i. e. by a Righteousness given and infused by him is not this Mr. H. exactly what doth he trifle for about Infusion and this is the formal Cause we are justified also by the Redemption of Christ and this is the meritorious Cause Lastly we are justified by Faith in the Blood of a Propitiator and this the disposing Cause from hence we may learn that every sincere Neonomian is a Papist in the Point of Justification and that the Popish Doctrine of Justification is the Middle-way between the Calvinists and Arminians See but a
intervening Righteousness between Christ and us what to call it Mt. Cl. calls it subordinate and so doth Mr. B. but Mr. H. liking not that Name so well had rather call it co-ordinate but I know not from the Notion of the thing duly considered why they may not go one step further and call it the Principal or supream justifying righteousness for that which hath the principal place in any thing ascribed to it is the principal but our own righteousness hath the principal place in the thing ascribed to it which is Justification therefore it s the chief and supream righteousness For they say we are justified by the imputation of this righteousness only and by no other therefore all conducing righteousnesses to the introducing this are subordinate to it Again That which hath its place only in the external causes and in the modality of their operation as to the production of the effect is much inferiour to the essential causes that enter the very effect and are constitutive to it but Christ's Righteousness by these men is no more and therefore must be a subordinate righteousness to ours ours being causa formalis justificationis an essential cause Christ's being but causa protarch a remote cause adjuvant to the efficient therefore the righteousness of Christ can have no more than a remote causality in purchasing the New Law by the righteousness whereof we are justified which is no better indeed than causa sine qua non it s in ordine ad the justifying righteousness therefore subordinate to it 2. He saith This subordinate Gospel Righteousness is an imperfect righteousness Truly I am sorry for it that Gospel Righteousness should be imperfect I doubt there 's little dependance upon it since the righteousness of the law that condemns us is perfect its little likelihood that an imperfect righteousness should save us from it ay but they will say it s Christ's perfect righteousness must save us from the perfect righteousness of the law condemning us Say you so and therefore why should not this righteousness of Christ have the honour of justifying us it seems we are saved by Christ's righteousness and justified by our own as if Justification were not Salvation But is our Gospel-righteousness imperfect this is no Gospel for its ill News I must tell these men its a rotten foundation they build upon and their Building will drop not being built on Christ the Corner Stone in Justification 3. He saith It s imperfect consistent with many failings and infirmities Resp I pray how comes this to pass is it from the Legislator that constituted such a Law whose condition is obedience consistent with sin or is it from the Operator or Worker under this Law if from the former then the Law makes it in fault if there be any but if he hath made a law with such condition of obedience consistent with sin then performance of such is no sin nor needs a Pardon for sin is the transgression of the law the subject is under Now if Believers are under the New Law for Justification and perform there what 's required what need have they of a Pardon from a righteousness borrowed from another law If it be from the last viz. the fault and defect of the operator of righteousness that his righteousness is not the performance of the condition of the New Law as required then this New Law cannot justifie him our Neonomians in this Point will be on Scilla or Charybdis in spite of the World In a word 1. That righteousness that cannot justifie us at the Bar of the old Law or Covenant of Works is no justifying righteousness but none of our own righteousness New Law or other will not justifie us at the Bar of the Covenant of Works by the Neonomians own confession therefore we cannot be justied by any such righteousness 2. Again that righteousness which needs pardon is no justifying righteousness but is condemned by the law for whatever is pardoned is condemned by the law first neither is that person justified who by the law is unpardoned Pardon being an essential part of Justification in Mens Courts where many Indictments ly against a Man if he be quitted of some and not of all he is not discharged as justified but here it s worse I do not find that at the New Law Bar a man as they say justified is quite discharged from any Indictment at all for there 's none fully pardoned wherefore our Neonomians say that their Justification is not perfect in this life So Mr. Cl. Our Justification in this world is not perfect and compleat c. p. 18. § 6. Mr. Cl. saith There 's a twofold guilt Legal and Evangelical Legal Guilt is an obligation to eternal punishment this is fully pardoned in Justification and can never return again because Christ hath taken it all upon himself and made full satisfaction to his Father's Justice for it but Gospel-guilt which is an obligation to Gospel-Punishment i. e. fatherly chastisements for sins after Justification returns upon commission of new sins and is removed upon repentance sometimes wholly sometimes in part This is also Mr. H's Doctrine Resp The distinction is naught for we deny any Evangelical Guilt Evangelical Guilt Threat or Punishment is a Bull a downright Contradiction if we know what Gospel is and they that will be ignorant and call this Assertion Antinomian Poyson let them be ignorant still I thank God for the knowledge of the Gospel so far as that it is quite contrary to Guilt Threat and Punishment or Obligation to it in the true legal sense thereof Likewise he should have distinguished of Guilt as usual reatus culpae and reatus paenoe the first properly Guilt and that in judicio legis vel judicio conscientiae if a Man be sub reatu culpae judicio legis as they say the justified ones are he is unjustified for the law cannot justifie a man and declare him guilty i. e. not guilty and guilty at the same time Obligation to Punishment is not Guilt in the true sense of it for we say a man cast in Court is guilty of the charged Fault and therefore the Law binds him over to Punishment We never say a Man is guilty of the punishment but deserves he is found guilty and therefore the Sentence of the Law binds him to Punishment but he saith Legal Guilt is fully pardoned in Justification Pardon is always of a fault and includes not punire but is sin pardoned fully in Justification as to an obligation to eternal punishment then 1. Pardon is included in Justification contrary to what he asserts in the foregoing Page 2. Justification is perfect and compleat so far as the taking off eternal punishment 3. He cannot but own this to be the main part of Justification at least and this it seems is owing to the full satisfaction made by Christ to the Justice of God our righteousness of the New Law hath nothing to do here in the matter
and Faith as such is both seen in us and present with us 4. If Faith be the very righteousness then Faith believes in Faith as righteousness Doth the Scripture bid us believe in our selves or believe in another Faith believes in Faith for our very righteousness by these Men which is most absurd when they preach they should bid Men believe in themselves did Abraham believe in his Faith Was that his believing or did he believe that which was held out in the Promise the same thing that God imputes to us for righteousness we do make the Object of our Faith for Righteousness Now then if God imputes our believing to us then we believe in our believing these are inevitable Rocks this Doctrine will bring these Men unto 5. God cannot impute Faith as a Work and in the Neonomian sence for righteousness it being as Mr. H. confesseth again and again no righteousness sinful in need of pardon for 1. This would not be according to truth to call evil good nor to do it in a way of administration of Justice as in Justification would it be just But most unjust God is a God of Truth and Holiness and the Judge of all the World and therefore must deal righteously for tho' he pardons Iniquity yet will by no means clear the Guilty 2. It s contrary to their own assertions that Justification is an Act of Justice whereas such an Imputation and Justification as they speak of would be far from an Act of justice and is a meer dispensation with justice for where a Law must be abrogated or relaxed there is an absolute dispensation with Justice and without one of these they confess there cannot be Justification by their New Law 6. This cannot be justification because Sin is not pardoned in it nor the person accepted Imputation of righteousness to the work before it s to the person and if the person must do good works before he 's justifi'd which is absurd because the works he doth are imputed to him and he is justified by 'em as they say § 5. But let us hear what Mr. Cl. hath to say for the Proof of this Position that Faith is our Subordinate righteousness i. e. in his sence an interveening righteousness coming between Christs righteousness whereby we are justified before we come at Christ or pardon both being consequent to our Justification by this New-Law-Righteousness which he calls Faith see p. 64. His reason are these 1. What else can be the plain and proper meaning of that Phrase it was accounted to him for righteousness Without putting it upon the Rack of Tropes and Figures and the like Engines of Cruelty c. Resp Doth Mr. Cl. pretend to be an interpreter of Scripture and will not allow the use of a Trope or Figure but to call them Engines of Cruelty is to say where a Trope is said to be used in a Scripture there is a wresting of Scripture I must tell him that a Tropical sence of many Places of Scripture is the true plain and proper sence and meaning of the Spirit of God in many most eminent Expressions and for this he must expect to be watched in the adjusting his New-found righteousness whether he doth no where interpret Scripture Tropically What answer will he give the Papist in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation founded on This is my Body Mr. B. saith it s as credible as the Doctrine of imputation of Christs Righteousness And what saith Mr. Cl. to the Covenant of Circumcision Well let us make a little Impartial Examination of this Expression If Abraham were justified by works Rom. 4.2 he hath boasting but not before God not in the Presence of God for his Justification yea he may rejoice that through Grace he hath performed any action by faith which God witnesseth to as James speaks of but he dare not plead it before God for Justification of his Person Now he brings in Justification by Faith in diametrical opposition to it for the Scripture saith Abraham believed in God and it was accounted to him for righteousness so translated the words in the Hebrew may run thus He believed on Jehovah and he accounted it i. e. what he believed of him for righteousness to him the Words are rendred by the Septuagint and the New Testament Abraham believed God it was accounted to be unto righteousness The Seed promised before was the thing believed by Abraham the blessing unto all Nations which Seed was to proceed from his and Sarah his Wife's Loins this was the promise of God to him and this was accounted to him for righteousness he believed Jehovah graciously promising and the thing promised Jehovah imputed to him for righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he accounted the thing believed not the Faith it self therefore the Targum hath its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he believed the word of promise and the thing promised was imputed to him in this sense the Apostle takes it Rom. 4.3 Gal. 3.6 where in both places he opposeth a righteousness of faith i. e. which is believed on unto a righteousness within which is no object of faith for it is within us and an object of sense he believed God in the Promise of Christ and this that he believed was reckoned to him he argues presently that this imputation was not to Abraham as a work of any kind for to him that worketh as much as if he should say O do not mistake me I do not nor doth the Scripture speak of Abraham's Faith as a work the reward should not be of grace but debt but to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly as Abraham was when first justified Josh 24. his faith is esteemed to be unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. he believes upon the righteousness which is imputed to him And why may not Faith be taken objectively by a Metonomy for the thing believed for 't is not unusual in Scripture Christ is said to be our hope the object of our hope 1 Tim. 1.1 and so the hope laid up for us in Heaven i e. the things hoped for Coloss 1.5 so looking for that blessed hope Tit. 2.14 the things hoped for what 's more frequent than these Metonomies yea proper plain and elegant in matters of sense or perception its most frequent to put the object for the sence and sence for the object Matth. 6.22 the light of the body is the eye and there the light is for the eye and after the eye for the light besides it s a rule that when a word in Scripture taken in the direct sense will cross other Scriptures and the signification lies fair for the Analogy of Faith then the true sense lies in the Trope as here we are justified by faith but how as it lays hold on the justifying blood of Christ or else we contradict Rom. 5.9 being now justified by his blood now either Faith or the justifying Blood of Christ must fall into a Trope for which
a Law from Justification and yet all this while intend that we are justified by the works of a Law and that he should never tell us he doth not mean works of the New Law nor so much as mention it § 4. From the forementioned places these Arguments will arise against Justification by our works 1. Justification of a sinner or ungodly one as such cannot be by any works of a Law performed by him but Gods Justification of any fallen Man is such for the Major its plain against Neonomian Justification unless they will say that a natural Man may be godly while such or that which the old law calls ungodliness the new law calls godliness yea a man must be sanctified in their sense before justified while under condemnation and bound over to wrath Again the Text is clear that Abraham was ungodly when justified both by History and the Apostles for he could not do any good and all his obedience was after his Justification by Faith Now the Minor is as Evident that Gods Justification of fallen Man is such for if we be justified by the works of a Law it s not consistent with Grace for justification singly considered speaks nothing but Justice And Justification by the works of a Law performed by us speaks nothing but Justice but Justification by Grace is only as the Apostle saith when it s without the deeds of the Law performed by us 2. That Doctrine that excludes the works of every Law by which is the knowledge of Sin excludes the works of every Law performed by us but the Apostles Doctrine excludes the works of every Law that gives the knowledge of Sin Ergo the works of every Law Old New and Moral Law are excluded This Argument stands firm from Rom. 3.20 3. If the holiest Men have not expected to be justified by their own righteousness who have lived by Faith then justification is not by works of a Law But the Antecedent is true therefore the consequence The consequence appears in that David had lived long by Faith and in Holiness when he penned Psal 143.2 And if he thought to be justified by New Law works he need not have said Enter not into Judgment with thy Servant unless he had added by the Old Law but Enter into Judgment with thy Servant by the New Law for in thy sight New-Law works will justifie any Flesh Minor David Job Paul expected not to be justified by New Law Works 4. Those works that will not make a sinner clean and pure in the sight of God cannot justifie him but no New Law righteousness will take away Moral Pollution in the sight of God so as to make him clean Ergo the Major is so clear as none can deny for by Justification the justified is purged and clean from Sin in the sight of God he can Enter into Judgment with God upon the account of the righteousness he is justified by The Minor is true 1. From the confession of our Adversary that its a sinful righteousness it s condemned by the Moral Law it s not adequate to exact Justice therefore it will not cover Sin from the Eve of Gods Justice 2. From so many express Places of Scripture Job 15.4 He that is righteous before God must be clean before God Imperfect righteousness can never make us clean in the sight of God Job 15.4 It s not to be found of man born of a Woman i. e. meer man nor in any flesh living Believers are flesh living and born of women Job saith chap. 9.30 If I wash my self in snow water and make my self never so clean yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch and mine own cloaths shall abhor me now will Job's new-law-works justifie him he had been long a holy man yet he often pleaded his uprightness towards God and his integrity against his friends charge and yet you see what his new-law-righteousness amounted to chap. 40.4 42 6. 5. Let me add a Fifth Argument before I leave his Negative If there was never any Law given to fallen Man that could give Life upon the Terms thereof then there could be no righteousness to Justification by a Law but the antecedent is true therefore the consequent and both from Gal. 3.1 the Apostle's unanswerable Argument against Justification by any Law The words are very plain and full to any one that can construe Greek § 5. He proceeds to his further Proof in divers Propositions which are many so little to the purpose that it would be lost time to follow them particularly but that there 's in them many places of Scripture perverted from their true Interpretation His first Proposal is The whole scope of the Apostle is to assert and establish Justification by faith as the only way of Salvation to lapsed men Resp What if so Doth it therefore follow that the Apostle teacheth that Faith is the way of Justification by Works or quite contrary that Justification by Faith is not by the works of righteousness which we have done but by these that Christ hath done This I gather saith he from that place Rom. 1.17 The righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith which words I paraphrase thus That the Gospel alone discovers the method and way appointed by God whereby we may become righteous in his account viz. by faith in Christ and by continuance increase and exercise thereof Resp It s the Office of the Gospel to teach Sinners the way the truth and life who is Christ there 's no other righteousness that the Gospel can teach a sinner to Justification John 14.6 and that Faith lays hold on that way is the Gospel to teach a man that he is to be justified by the works of a law is it Good News to a sinner That this Text is grosly abused appears 1. Because the righteousness of God here spoken of is a righteousness revealed and therefore not in us for things already in us are not said to be revealed to us 2. It s the righteousness of God and not of Man 3. It s an objective righteousness that is here spoken of such as is made known to our Faith by Revelation therefore not Faith it self 4. It appears by the Proof in that the life of a just one is by faith feeding upon another's righteousness not his own In a word according to Mr. Cl's sence it should be this The Gospel is the Method of God unto Salvation for therein is the righteousness of man revealed from faith to faith viz. the more a man believes in Christ the more he believes he is justified by his own works and this is that he lives by he lives by faith i. e. by believing his faith to be works He disproves Justification by works of a law as inconsistent therewith because all are sinners and therefore none can be justified by their works and on the other hand that they must be justified by faith Resp One would think this man spake now good Divinity but his
it which is not to get life by our own works but living by and upon the righteousness of another by faith and thus he argues from Moses's Law to every Law that works of neither cannot justifie and when he speaks of Moses his law he seldom understands the meer Ceremonial Law but the Moral also as recognized under Moses and that of Gal. 5.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye are abdicated from Christ whoever of you are justified by the works of a law in Mr. Cl's sence it is whoever of you are justified by the works of some law only so Paul opposeth Christ himself to the works that are of a Law Phil. 3.9 His own righteousness he saith is such viz. this he desires to be found out of but in Christ viz. his righteousness by Faith which he opposeth to his own as that which he calls the righteousness of God in opposition to the righteousness of Man He saith indeed in one place Works are mentioned in general Rom. 4.2 It s true but he takes not Notice how often Law is mentioned in general and so the works of a Law are general where-ever spoken so of But he saith these words must be understood with a limitation too and be meant of the same kind of works Resp And therefore the words import thus if Abraham were justified by some kind of works he hath wherein to Glory but why should some kind of works give Abraham more cause of boasting than others He will say because some are great and perfect others little and imperfect but I say there 's no specifick difference between great and little of the same kind besides he that attains a great End by a small work hath more cause of boasting than he that attains it by great work and Labour therefore a Man may rather boast of the works of the New Law than of the Old and then they are all works opposed by him to Faith for he saith the reward is to him that worketh not that that Expression excludes all works for Paul could not be so absurd to express works by not working § 8. If Paul understood himself c. We must grant and conclude that Paul disputes only against the works of the Law Resp No doubt he knew his own Mind and was consistent with himself and if such plain Expressions are intelligible he excludes all works of any Law what ever but he gives his reason why he means we are justified by works when he saith positively we are not justified by works and that he that worketh not but is ungodly Because they were such works as did frustrate and evacuate the undertakings of Christ Rom. 4.14 Gal. 5.4 Resp So do all works of a Law brought in for righteousness for if the great End of Christ's undertaking was to be our Justifying-righteousness then any works brought into the room thereof frustrate Christ's righteousness but that was the chief End of Christ's undertaking Rom. 4.25 2 Cor. 5.21 The words of Rom. 4.14 are if they that be of a Law be Heirs i. e. such as claim by the works of a Law performed by them Faith is made Void i. e. it s to no purpose to believe on another for righteousness Faith is made empty of the righteousness of another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Promise or Gospel is abdicated for the same thing cannot be Law and Promise or Gospel and the reason is given because you see the law of Moses worketh wrath and where there 's no law there 's no transgression the law determines the transgression and the sinner to wrath for it and this doth every law whatever The other Scriptures were spoken to before 2d Reason They are such works as he opposeth every way to faith and also to Grace Gal. 4.4 therefore they are not faith or any inherent grace Gal. 5.4 But he never opposeth faith and Gospel-Works Resp He always opposeth Faith and all Works in the Point of Justification because Works justifie by themselves but Faith by its Object only Because Gospel-works suppose Faith or Grace being the fruit of Faith and product of Grace Resp A pitiful Reason because a man that runs apace is supposed to see therefore a man runs by his eyes and after this manner he applies 1 Cor. 15.10 by the Grace of God I am what I am and laboured more abundantly than they all ergo Paul was justified by works is not this a very learned consequence I grant saith he faith and works of the law are frequently opposed by the Apostle Resp Then faith and works of a law are not the same in this he gives us the Cause Let us see his Concessions further I grant saith he a meer profession of faith is opposed to works James 2.14 Resp True Faith fruitful in good works is opposed to false faith that has no fruits 3. I grant that even Gospel-works are opposed to Grace tho not to faith both in Election Rom. 11.5 6. and in Vocation 2 Tim. 1.9 Resp Works of a law by which a man claims Justification are not Gospel-works but Legal and they are opposed to Grace both in Election Vocation and Justification but as Election is not on the foresight of any works or righteousness no not of Christ's and Vocation is not upon our performance of any works no more is Justification I grant God chooseth not upon foresight of good works or faith in us neither call any because they have faith or good works but that they may have them his Grace is antecedent to any good in us but now the case is otherwise in reference to those priviledges which follow Vocation for God justifies and glorifies us yet not as the meritorious cause thereof but only as a way means and qualification c. Resp Well now the Case is altered Grace goes no further than Vocation there it makes a stand and man does the rest himself but let us enquire a little into this Mystery Is a man effectually called and made holy and yet not justified for he that is made holy in order to Justification suppose qualified and conditionated for it is in order of Nature holy before justified i. e. hath the Spirit of Holiness the Gift of Grace and inherent righteousness whilst a child of wrath and actually under the curse of the law 2. All Justification for Holiness because it is the work of a law is meritorious righteousness for there 's no law justifies but because the performance of the condition deserves it in Justice Hence all Qualifications and Means made legally conditionally to the remunerative part of the Law are deserving thereof and meritorious and undeniably so for if the absence of the Qualification and the Means or Non-performance of the Condition doth merit or deserve the Wages of the Sin from the Law enjoyning the said Qualifications or Conditions then having and performance thereof doth upon the same Reason merit and deserve the Reward of Righteousness but the Antecedent is true therefore the
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
more apparent in Scripture then that by Grace it is that we are justified and by Grace saved Resp But will Mr. H. affirm that Grace doth justifie us without Justice Doth not the Apostle say a sinner is justifyed by Grace in and through Christs Redemption that God may be just Doth not Mr. H. say Justification is an Act of Justice again and again Doth not this setting up our own righteousness in performance of the Condition of the New Law make his Justification an Act of Justice yea and without Grace What do these Men mean so often and positively to contradict the Scripture and themselves to draw their dirty Inferences upon the Truth with holding it in unrighteousness § 8. If nothing less then a Righteousness as doth Answer and satisfie the Law fully will suffice for the sinners Plea to flee from Condemnation he is not judged by the Law of Grace but by the Law of Works R. The inference hath no danger in it for 1. We know of no Judgment in freeing any from Condemnation but a Discharge in Christ from the Law of Works before which every Believer is discharged here and hereafter through Grace 2. We know of no New Law either to quit or condemn a Law of Grace in that sense is a Bull Grace and a Law are directly opposite 2. He here insinuates as if Christs satisfaction were compleat and imperfect If nothing else will suffice for a Plea 1. What can be better than a perfect satisfaction for a Plea 2. Either Christs is not perfect or else perfect will not do without an imperfect added to it which indeed he means that Christs perfect satisfaction must have our Imperfect added to make our Plea compleat 3. What is freeing from condemnation but Pardon of Sin I pray what righteousness doth a Neonomian flee to for the pardon of Sin Do they tell us its Christs tho' they be justified by their own I would know whether they esteem Christs Righteousness full and compleat for the pardon of Sin Or do they plead for some of their pardon at the Bar of the New Law where they are justifyed and some of their pardon at the Bar of the Old Law where they are condemned But this imputed righteousness is a mistake of the Protestants poor Man I pitty him and he hath found the mistake so it seems indeed by his Writing § 8. Christ came into the World to procure and tender a New Law and in this regard he is called our Law giver not that he hath given any other Moral rules of Life to us but that he hath given the same Precepts with Indulgence Resp Now mark the Neonomian Spirit but Two or Tree Lines off he was for Justification only by Grace without Law that he might dethrone Christ but now again that he may Enthrone Mans Righteousness he is altogether for Law his Language is half Ashdod take him where you will 1. He tells you what he means by Satisfaction which he saith is procurement Christ came into the World not to satisfie the Law of God which we had broken but to procure a Law a remedial Law a better Law to answer Gods Ends than the First it was a great mistake sure in Divine Wisdom to make such a Law at first as would not do 2. It was another oversight at least that Christ did not come to procure a right law at first 3. It s very strange that God would not afford a right law without procurement Laws are not used to be purchased or procured Legislators make Laws according to their pleasure without procurement 4. And whâ—t's the World the better Christ hath procured the putting the World under New-Law Terms and not satisfied the Old Law and now they must perform the condition of the New Law and be pardoned by the old Law unsatisfied else they cannot be saved 5. After all the noise about saving by Grace it s but by a law which requires personal obedience in fulfilling the condition this is the Grace of the Law and Law of Grace a Law of Grace it is such wherein Grace is no more Grace and the Law is no more a Law that indeed a law of Grace is a Contradiction in proprio adjuncto a meer Hobgoblin But how is these mens New Law compounded It is they say of Grace and a Law and it lies In that he hath not given new Moral Laws of life to us other than what was contained in the old law before but that he hath given the same precepts with indulgence Answ Well Christ is not our Lawgiver according to purchase for these Men make Christ to have died for himself to make himself a Lawgiver to devise and constitute any new Moral Precepts but first to pluck down the old house and then to take the broken and scattered pieces and make a new one he takes the Moral Materials of the old Law cuts and hews them pretty much makes the Duties more indifferent the sins forbidden Venial and allowable yea necessary to come into the righteousness of the new law for if the Condition be not mixt of Morality and Immorality its good for nothing it will not serve this turn therefore the old law with indulgence of sin is the New Law I pray let me know from the Wits of our Age whether this be not Antinomianism Now he tells us this is a law of indulgence c. the plain English of it is that its a Law of Dispensation with a Law of Justice i. e. a lawless law that all the Satisfaction he means is Gods Dispensation with Law and Justice and a law to call Sin by one law Sin and righteousness by another the truth is the whole Doctrine tends to deny God in his glorious Properties and to change him into the similitude of an Ox that eateth Hay interpretativè and if God doth not act now and at Judgment by this lay of Dispensation with Law and indulgence of Sin he says the main business of Christ's coming and Redemption is lost that can be no other in his sence than to be Minister of Sin § 10. You shall hear a Protestant i. e. Neonomians they are Papists according to the Profession of this downright Papist in his Prayer appealing from the Tribunal of Gods Justice to the Throne of his Grace yet in his Sermon telling the People that it is nothing else but the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ imputed to them that saves them which is to bring them back from the throne of Grace to the Bar of his Justice to be judged Resp I am ashamed to read such a Banter of Christianity from any man that professeth himself a Christian tho a Papist and Socinian 1. Is it a good Appeal or no for a sinner to make from the Tribunal of Justice i. e. meer Justice where God beholds the Sinner as he is in himself by his most righteous law a condemned transgressor to the Throne of Grace not that God hath two Thrones Rev. 4.
if Christs Righteousness be not accepted for our Justification from the Old Law and imputable to us it s not desirable to be imputed to us to bring us under a new Law and further Bondage Besides if Christ purchased this Law-making Power it s for himself and not for us for they will tell you he did not Purchase the Performance of the Condition and when they say we are justified by our Works for the sake of Christs Merits their meaning is because Christ purchased the Law and Promulgation of it just as if they should say if Adam had stood he had been justified by his Works for the sake of God who made the Law for if there had been no Law there had been no Justification by it so we are justified say they by the Law of Grace for the sake of Christ who merited the Law and became Law-maker this is all they mean and this is the Neonomian Cheat in the great Point of Satisfaction whereby they would by retaining the Word only without the Sence cover themselves from the odious Name of Socinians Lastly He makes Grace and Justice in respect of God to be all one so that to be justified by Works of our own and by Grace is all one and Paul's Epistles are all Non-sense § 4. Mr. Cler. p. 64. tells us He will offer his Reasons why Faith is our subordinate Righteousness to the First and Second we have spoken sufficiently already The Third is Because we frequently read of the Righteousness of Faith which he saith is our Conformity to the Rule of the New-Law in sincere Believing and imperfect Doing the Places he mentions are Rom. 4.11 13 Chap. 9.30 Chap. 10.6 Gal. 5.5 Heb. 11.5 Resp The Righteousness of Faith is the Righteousness of Christ apprehended and received by Faith for Rom. 4.11 tells us that Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith which Righteousness of Faith Abraham had being uncircumcised that the same righteousness may be imputed to them and what righteousness is that it is that through which iniquity is forgiven and Sin covered that it might not be imputed and this is the righteousness that 's imputed without works Hence I argue That that righteousness through which iniquity is forgiven and sin covered and is imputed without works is the righteousness of Christ and not ours but the righteousness of Faith according to the Apostle in that place is such as appears v. 6 7 9 10. Is there any iniquity forgiven in the New Law Righteousness no they say pardon is consequent to it it s had of the old law Is any Sin cover'd by it from the Eye of God's Justice no they say God sees their Sins by the old Law Is righteousness imputed without works no it cannot be because its faith as a work is imputed v. 13. The Promise that he should be the heir of the world was not through a law then not through any works of a law but through the righteousness of faith therefore it was the the righteousness of Christ the righteousness of a law is excluded therefore works and it s here also what the righteousness of faith apprehends That of Rom. 9.31 and chap. 10.6 we shall shew by and by was the righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith The Apostle Gal. 5.5 intends Christ's righteousness for what should men do for the hope of that righteousness which they have in themselves for by faith all saith he are one in Christ Jesus true faith bringing forth love as such apprehends and waits for more and more comfort in the righteousness of Christ That spoken of Hebrews 11.7 is the righteousness of Christ promised the Seed of the Woman that was the great Promise believed by the Antidiluvian Patriarchs and by the Death and Satisfaction of the Seed of the Woman promised they believed he should break the Serpents head Noah became heir of this righteousness which he received and lived comfortably in the enjoyment of by faith in the Promise § 5. Mr. Cl. brings for a further confirmation of this Argument those places which speak of the righteousness of God which they bring as a great Block in their way and therefore take much pains to remove it Mr. Cl. saith this Phrase hath been much mistaken by many who have been led into error thereby and therefore he will endeavour to give the true sence of it to this purpose also Mr. H. we will therefore very diligently mark what they say The places are Rom. 1.17 3.21 22. 10.3 2 Cor. 5.22 Phil. 3.9 We say by the righteousness of God is meant the righteousness of Christ but these men say it s our own inherent righteousness Mr. H. saith That our righteousness is called Gods in opposition meerly to that of works let a man do what he can by his own strength or by God's aid he can never come to the law of works or Moses God hath therefore been pleased to make us a new law a law of faith or grace or new covenant having lower terms in performance whereof the sinner in respect of the law may be righteous it s a righteousness performed by Grace which God mercifully condescends to accept instead of that which is perfect through the merits of our Saviour and in regard of that acceptation N. B. or this good will it s called his or the righteousness which is of him Lo here is the true Key which opens the Mind of the Apostle therefore Mr. H. takes it to be the new-law-righteousness which in these places is called the righteousness of God becouse opposed to the old-law-righteousness because also wrought of God Mr. Cl's resolution is in a manner the same That the imperfect new-law-righteousness is the righteousness of God because it is of his Institution as for perfect obedience to the law which is legal righteousness that is righteousness in the strictest sence and in strict justice can be taken for no other and therefore the reward must be debt But that an imperfect work such as Faith and Obedience should be accounted righteousness must arise from the gracious Appointment Designation and Ordination of God who hath set up this Way and Method of becoming righteous under the Gospel and hence it s said reckoned accounted imputed for righteousness which Phrase imports Grace and Favour as some note § 6. Mr. Cl's reasons for his Opinion are 1. Because the Phrase of submitting to the righteousness Rom. 10.3 of God seems to import that this is a new law institution or way naturally we are not acquainted with Resp The Text runs quite against him being ignorant of the righteousness of God how doth that appear seeking to establish their own righteousness they submitted not to yielded not to accept of the righteousness of God 1. God's righteousness and man's are here directly opposed to each others 2. It is directly against Mr. Cl's reason in that man need not be taught to set up his own righteousness they naturally adhere to it 3. They
not be the end of the law of works for righteousness to a Believer but that a believer's performance of obedience to the new law should be the end of the law of works for righteousness which is a direct contradiction to the Text. For he faith Christ is the end of the law what law of all law of works in way of Satisfaction of the Moral and concurring Ceremonial as an Antitype he and his righteousness is shadowed forth thereby he saith not that Christ is the end of a law for a righteousness of our performing for that would be a contradiction to fay the end of a law is righteousness and then Christ is the end of it for another righteousness and not his own he should have said believing is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth Lastly What righteousness is it to take us from under a law or relax it or procure that it shall not be satisfied at all and that the offender shall be justified by another Law § 15. The next Text is He hath made him sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him 2 Cor. 5.21 i. e. saith Mr. H. the immaculate lamb made a Sacrifice for our sins that we may become righteous with the righteousness of God which he accepts through him Christ as a Sacrifice redeems us from a Law of Sin and purchaseth for us a law of grace according to that law we have a righteousness which is a righteousness accepted unto life through Christ Medioc p. 28. R. So that Mr. H's meaning must be That Christ was made Sin under the old law that we might have righteousness by him under the new law and that what Christ did under the old law amounted to no righteousness to us But he must be righteousness to us under the New Law and then Christ was made under the New Law which these men will deny and be our righteousness there no say they not himself be our righteousness but procure that we should be our own righteousness then the true meaning is here That Christ was made Sin for us that we should be our own righteousness but how our righteousness in Christs is our righteousness Christs then it is that we may be made Christs righteousness becoming ours by Imputation Christ being made sin for us he glosses upon as the Socinians i. e. Christ the immaculate Lamb was made a sacrifice for sin It is true Christ is expresly said to be a sacrifice for sin but how 1. As the true Sacrifice not as a typical Heb. 9.26 2. As a Sacrifice to bear Sin not less but more than all the Sacrifices of Old and therefore it is said to be made sin for us he was not a sinner by nature neither was his nature corrupted by his being made Sin for us therefore he was made sin by legal imputation made sin because put under the law the Priests and Sacrifices of old had the sins of the People laid upon them sin was charged on them their own first for which they sacrificed then the sins of the People but Christ did not only bear Sin as the Sacrifice that was slain but as Scape Goat also for one Type could not hold forth the fulness of Christ's Righteousness therefore the Apostle saith he did not only bear sin but bore it away Heb. 9.26 28. Now it s a strange thing that these men should spit at this Doctrine of Christ's bearing Sin one of late calling it Poyson another saying he bore not our very sins and all that he bore only suffering for sin I would know how any can suffer for Sin in Law or Justice and not legally bear the charge of sin And how Christ came to be a Curse if he bore not Sin 2. He bore Sin because he bore the Curse of the Law he was made a curse doth curse come upon any but for sin Is there any in the World but for Sin therefore whatever subject hath the curse of the law hath also the charge of sin for they are inseparable 3. How dare any man be so audacious as to give the Spirit of God the lie in that it hath so often and peremptorily asserted We have gone astray and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all he hath caused them to meet upon him will you say that is the punishment of us all when the Spirit of God speaks so distinctly of punishment v. 5. and tells us the reason because he bore sin he was wounded for our transgression because sin was laid upon him so v. 8. for the transgression of my people was he stricken and least you should be at a stand in this Point about Christ's bearing sin it s exprest again as the reason of Christs justifying many v. 11. for he shall bear their iniquities Nay it s added the third time and he bare the sins of many so that Christs bearing Sin distinct from Punishment is no less than three times in this Chapter It is also fully exprest in the New Testament totidem verbis Heb. 9.28 Christ was once offered there 's his suffering for what to bear the sins of many and 1 Pet. 2.24 He his own self bare our sins in his body on the tree and in multitude of places in expressions that are tantamount to these and now to say that Christ did not bear sin and all things that the Law calls Sin let it be as filthy and as vile as you will for it s so because its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we know he was manifest to take away all sin now is there any thing which you call the filth of sin is it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is it not then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the transgression of the law if it be Christ bore it if he did not then it stands yet in Gods sight and the hand-writing of the law is against you and you are not justified and why is Christ's Sacrifice said to be the purging of sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many things might be said to shew how properly it s spoken see Dr. Owen I must for brevity sake only say that it imports Christ's purging us by Sacrifice from all that the law of God calls filthy in sin Then it s objected Christ was unclean Answ Not morally polluted but legally unclean while he was under our sins as the Sacrifices were and therefore he suffered without the camp Obj. Then the Saints have no sin who give sufficient evidence that sin remains in them Answ The Saints are without spot before God in Point of Justification they are justified from all sin and filthy spot in Gods sight 2. Sin remains in them and will do in Point of Sanctification which is not perfect in this life but all in their sins that is a burden to them that is odious and filthy was laid on Christ by
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
Justified by this Law here 's Christs law causa sine qua non with a Witness As to the consequence if Justification be an effect of Merits and it be a Juridical effect then Merits which is the cause must be imputed to the person on whom these effects must fall What moves the Court or Judge to justify this or that person his own Merits or the Merits of another Not his own but the Merits of another Then these Merits are imputed for it quickly and plainly appears what is imputed to any whether merits of Condemnation or merits of Justification for Justice goes by nothing but Merit and therefore mens own righteousness cannot justify-because it cannot Merit And do not our Neonomians speak as the Socinians in this point and mumble as if their mouths were full of plumbs Now therefore if Christs Merit be brought into Court as a meritorious cause of the Sinners Justification they are imputed to him for his Justification as if he had merited himself § Arg. 5. They say Christs Merits cannot be Imputed but the Effects are Imputed And I Argue If Christs Righteousness be Imputed its Imputed as a cause of Justification or in the Effect It should be as an Effect or the Disjunction is ridiculous but it s not Imputed in the Effect Ergo. In and as the Cause for the Effect is not the Cause but contrary it s another thing so that to say Christs Merits are imputed and so imputed to the person Justified is nonsense But what are the effects imputed All the Benefits purchased by Christ For is Justification an effect imputed Sure not Is Justification imputed to Justification Sure that 's most absur'd Is Mortification imputed to Justification That looks very odd Is Vocation and Adoption or Glorification all or any of them Imputed to Justification for they are Effects of Christs Merits But suppose they say some of these or all are to us imputed for righteousness unto Justification I then Query Whether the Righteousness perform'd by us in the new law Justification be merited by Christ as an Effect Do not I see them sneak away now and give no Answer but upon another Subject they will tell you that Faith and the condition of the New law was not purchased by Christ but are by the gift of Election only And now I pray what 's become of Justification by Effects of Christs Merits They will say we are Justified by Imputing the Spirits operations to us for righteousness Now this cannot be 1. The Spirit never was incarnate nor his Office to work a Righteousness for Justification this was peculiar to Christ 2. The fruits of the Spirit when they come to be exerted are called our works and justly so because Graces exercised or Duties performed by us are so these are all renounced as such by the Apostle Paul Phil. 3.8 and elsewhere 3. What the Spirit doth in Justification its office is by way of Application it takes of Christs and gives it to us it applies and brings home to a sinner the Impetration of Christ as Righteousness unto his Justification hence the Spirit is said to justifie 1 Cor. 6.11 in bringing to the Soul the Grace of Justification and enstating him therein by faith as he sanctifies by bringing in the Grace of Sanctification Now then if Christ's Righteousness cannot be imputed in the effect and is imputed at all then as the cause meritorious of Justification But they say God cannot impute Christs Righteousness to us because we did not perform it and God is a God of Truth he cannot impute that to us which we did not To which I answer 1. That God doth not reckon we performed Christs Righteousness 2. God may give us his Son for righteousness Rom. 8. and give us this righteousness Rom. 5.5 3. He may accept it for us on law terms as our righteousness to Justification and all this is according to Truth and Righteousness imputing it to us in a Law Sense 4. The Argument will fall upon Neonomian Justification for that 's to call that righteousness which is unrighteousness and not according to Truth as hath been shewed Mr. Cl. makes it a great Argument that the active righteousness of Christ must not be imputed because Christ did not obey that we should not obey and where 's the Antinomian that says so but we say that Christ did and suffered all that the law required of him as a Second Adam and our Surety and his obeying in doing is no hindrance but a Gospel ground and reason of our doing and obeying As Christ did not suffer that we should not suffer but not suffer the Penally so Christs doing was not that we should not obey Evangelically but that we should but not obey legally with expectation of our Justification by our works or from a law for that is to be under a Law and not under Grace and to sin instead of obeying Rom. 6 c. Lastly If Christ's righteousness be taken as a meritorious cause in a sinner's Justification it is imputed as such to the person justified the effect of this cause is the sinner's Justification which is his proper Discharge and this is not Imputation but Judgment upon it and Delivery in Law and suppose the effects of Merit could be imputed the cause and reason thereof must be first imputed for the Law doth nothing in way of Condemnation or Justification but upon a meritorious cause imputed unto Condemnation or Justification and how absurd is it to say Condemnation is imputed but its proper to say the sin that merits it is imputed § 6. Arg. 6. That Righteousness which is accepted in law unto Justification is imputed to the person justified but Christ's Merits are accepted of God to the Sinner's Justification The major must be owned for Truth by the Neonomians otherwise they could not assert their Justification by Works The minor hath been counted sound Divinity by most Protestants and many Papists but whether it be or be not the Scripture affirms it roundly see for a taste Eph. 5.2 chap. 1.6 for an acceptation in law must be an imputation of Merit to Justification and can be upon no other account either of a man 's own or of another's for him the law looks at the value of his Money or Works that he brings into Court not how he came by either whether by Gift or otherwise § 7. Arg. 7. That righteousness through which Sin is not imputed to condemnation is the righteousness through which a man is imputed righteous unto Justification But Christs righteousness is that through which sin is not imputed to condemnation Ergo. The minor is very clear from Rom. 8.1.34 who is he that condemneth it is Christ that died chap. 4.6 7 8 Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven to whom God doth not impute sin and this is told us is a righteousness without works that which comes on Jews and Gentiles that which covers Sin from the Eye of God's Justice therefore that which
lies in the Death and Resurrection of Christ v. 24 25. likewise 2 Cor. 5.15 God was in Christ reconciling the world i. e. justifying for God reconciles none but by Justification reconciliation is essential to it and therefore non imputation of sin for while a man lies under a law charge of sin he is unrighteous till he be imputed righteous by the law The major is evident from what is said in proof of the minor for non imputation of sin to a sinner is essential to his Justification which can be no otherwise then by a covering righteousness and when a law imputes sin the same law must justify by imputing to him an adequate and satisfactory righteousness § 8. Arg. 8. The Sins of Sinners under the old Testament were Imputed Typically to the High-Priest and Sacrifices which is very easie to make appear Ergo. The Sins of all sav'd sinners are Imputed really to Christ and his righteousness to them See 1 Cor. 5.21 Rom. 3.25 Heb. 9.15 § 9. Arg. 9. That which cannot be pleaded for Pardon or Justification unless it be Imputed is when it s pleadibly imputed unto Justification But Christs very righteousness is pleadible c. Ergo. The minor I suppose these Gentlemen dare not deny for I find tho they will not have it their immediate righteousness by imputation yet they will have it for some remote and as a reserve at a dead lift when conscience sees that neither the New Law nor the righteousness thereof will serve the turn Now that Christs righteousness is not pleadible without Imputation to us neither by Christ in heaven nor by us on earth its plain for if Christ be never so righteous his plea is answerered in saying thou art righteous for thy self I never imputed thy righteousness to these let them plead for their own Justification If they plead it with God the answer is Christ is righteous for himself his righteousness not imputed to thee no more then the righteousness of one of the Angels and therefore Christs righteousness being pleadible its imputed without Imputation it s not pleadible for us or by us § 10. Arg. 10. That righteousness which is a Suretiship righteousness must be imputed else it s of no value to the offender but Christs righteousness is a Suretiship righteousness he being a Surety his righteousness must be such And as for the major its plain that the justice that accepts one person to be Surety for another doth impute or account the righteousness of the Surety to that other or else it accepts not the Surety is rejected now that Christ was accepted as a Surety is beyond all question Heb. 7.22 § 11. Arg. 11. The righteousness of the second Adam is an Imputed righteousness for 1. as Adam was a Publick person that had a Covenant standing for all his Seed so the 2d Christ was and had for his 2. As Adam 's Sin came by Imputation upon his Seed so Christs righteousness on his as fully appears from Rom. 5. But this I must not now enlarge upon the Apostle is so full and plain therein that I never could see any thing said to oppose that could have weight with any learned and rational Interpreter if unprejudiced against Truth CHAP. XVIII What Interest and concern Faith hath in our Iustification Section 1. Of the Nature of Faith as spoken of § 2. What this Faith is § 3. And how we are said to be Justified by Faith § 4. Arg. To prove that Faith is not our Righteousness Section 1. HAving proved Christ's Righteousness to be the only Righteousness for a Sinner's Justification in Gods sight and that this Righteousness is certainly Imputed to every one that believes we shall in the last place enquire what concern and intrest Faith hath in our Justification I shall not speak of Faith accompanying Salvation at large as the Apostle doth Heb. 11 Wherein he also comprehends Justifying among the other Senses there spoken of but only of Faith as it referrs to Justification and the righteousness thereof § 2. Justifying Faith is a gift of God whereby a poor sinner believes in God unto eternal life thro Jesus Christ 1. It is a gift of God in respect of the grace of God and the work of the Spirit Eph. 2.8 2. It is a purchased benefit for an Elect person 2 Pet. 1. 3. It 's a Gift to a Sinner there 's no grace lives tell Faith then Christ lives in him it s to a poor undone broken Sinner 4. This is a gift of grace to believe in God and Christ 1. To be perswaded of the truth of the Law his certain curse under it impossibility of coming to the works thereof That its a saying worthy of all acceptance that Christ came into the world to save Sinners whereof Paul saith he was one of the chiefest not that he was righteous subordinately to Christ's to qualify him for it This is that which is properly call'd fides but its hard to distinguish this from the Faith of a natural man and hipocrite therefore 2. There is believing in i. e. resting upon God and Christ resting on the faithfulness of God in his promise of a good thing to us as for eternal life and for righteousness in Christ now faithfulness belongs to persons truth unto things when the Soul doth not only believe the thing promised true but believes him faithful who hath promised and from thence doth stay himself and his Soul acquisce in it This is properly fiducia trusting in God 3. There 's a particular application of Christ in the promise and the Soul unto God in Christ believing that all the promises especially those that concern eternal life and justification by Christ's righteousness are yea and Amen in him made and perform'd in him § 3. Hence by Faith we are said to be justified 1. Because the righteousness of Christ is the object of our Faith it is that we believe to and come unto believing Rom. 10.10 We believe unto righteousness 2. By Faith a man is devorced from the Law and legal righteousness and comes into a new marriage relation to Christ for righteousness and life Rom. 7.3 Because its that grace only whereby a man can go out of himself and fetch in the righteousness of another 4. It is that grace which from the very law of its nature which it hath thro grace doth always deny it self any thing of righteousness for Justification and gives all the glory of righteousness unto Christ alone 5. In that it doth fiducially rest and depend thereon believing 6. It dwells upon an object of righteousness which is not seen by sence or reason yea it is the hypostasis of Christ's righteousness in the Soul Christ lives as it were in our Faith take away Christ from it and you leave it a dead nothing or worse it returns to unbelief 7. Because by this Faith the Soul sees God at peace with him and he hath peace in himself and the controversy is at an end