sanctified but where there is the cause working there is the effect wrought and the justified is but the effect and constitutes no distinct species of it But we say the Grace of Justification of a Sinner proceeding from Grace is wholly in and from God and hath no cause in a Sinner material or formal nor is there any cause external of that Grace the moving cause only is the good will and pleasure of God he is gracious to whom he will graciousness pardoning Iniquity is only from his Grace and for the glory of his Grace which cannot be in the Justification of a righteous person but because not simply Grace but also Justice shall be glorified in a sinner's justification and God in his pardon will not clear the guilty he hath graciously provided and bestowed on the sinner a righteousness accepted by the Law and imputed to him that he may appear therein just and so just in administration of righteousness as not to infringe his Justice in the least but to the highest honor of the Law standing in its full force against the sinner without the least Relaxation This is done quite contrary to the Neonomian Doctrine therefore Gods Justification falling upon a Sinner makes actually a correlate to Gods justifying and faith is no more than the Sinners reception of this Grace no part of that righteousness by which faith or for which the Sinner is justified neither is it a grain of that righteousness which is imputed to him § 9. Mr. H. also hath another distinction between condition and duty which I will not stay upon because its frivolous and it is because he will have the duties of the Law to be performed by us tho we be not justified by them he insists upon a Relaxation of the old Law but not a total Abolition Mr. Bax. Opinion is that its abrogated as much as the Ceremonial Law wherein both penalty and duty is taken away and indeed Mr. B. is in the right according to his notion for the introduction of a New Law in the room of it and for the ends that the old Law was establisht is certainly the nulling of the said old Law but how then can Mr. B. be secured from a just charge of Antinomian viz. that moral duties are not required of us which is more Antinomian than I ever saw in any he chargeth with it he hath one poor shift which is that the duties of the old-Law are taken or spunged up in the conditions of the New but however the broken pieces are pickt up the Law it self is gone and there 's no transgression upon that account Mr. H. saith the Law 's only relaxed but his relaxation is no better than a Crack in the middle of a Glass and heart of it and he hath not told us how far this relaxation goes and every man will be ready to plead for his own sin that the Law in that respect is relaxt But he would have us believe that the moral duties still remain how relaxt or not If relaxt then at least to an indifferency a man may do them or not without any sin but he saith they are re-established in the New-Law if so they are re-established without the Relaxation and then the New-Law is as strict as the Old or with the relaxation and then all duties are required with abatement as to quality and quantity with an allowance of sin our posse or velle and what is more Antinomianism But saith he the Conditions are not Duties It was never affirmed by men of reason that the Condition of a Law is not a Duty for that which is required of us upon pain of punishment is always a Duty and to the Condition of the New-Law the highest because it hath the Sanction of a Law of the Highest he that continueth not in all things by way of performance that it requireth is cursed by it if it be but imperfect obedience it saith he that continueth not in imperfect obedience is cursed by it therefore when the Saints come to Heaven and fall into perfect obedience they fall under the Curse of the new law or else it s out of doors before they come there or the last day and the World can't be judged by it Lastly What are the conditions of imperfect obedience are they not Duties of Righteousness by the performance whereof Mr. H. will have us justified Yes this cannot be denied but the distinction will hold with a quatenus as they refer to the absolute relaxed Laws they are Duties i. e. as they respect no Law or a lawless Law and as they refer to the New Law they are Conditions and are not Duties Hence it s no Duty to perform the Conditions of the New Law for Justification thereby and this is the Truth which we stand by though infer'd truly from Mr. H's Logick and Divinity CHAP. IX An Answer to Mr. H's Arguments against Imputation of Christs Righteousness Section 1. Arguments Artificial or Inartificial § 2. His First Argument against the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness answered § 3. His Second Argument Answered § 4. His Third Argument Answered § 5. Mr. H's Argument for Faith and Obedience being the formal part of Justification First Answer § 6. The Assumption by parts § 7. Argument the Second Answered § 8. Mr. H's Third Argument Answered with his Fourth Argument § 9. Of Constitutive Justification Sect. 1. NOw it is time to come to Examine the grounds of Mr. H. and Mr. C's Doctrine in this Point of Justification And First I shall treat of them that are the reasoning Arguments Artificial as called in Logick the weakest in Divinity and then those that are pretended from Scripture which in Logick are called inartificial but if grounded upon Divine Testimony the best and strongest § 2. Against the Imputation of Christs Righteousness he argues thus How can God account our Sins to be Christs and his Righteousness ours when really they are not so and Gods Judgment is according to Truth Resp this is used again and again by Mr. B to which I shall Answer 1. By retorting the Medium and not so tedious to put it into any other form how can God account our own New Law righteousness to be justifying righteousness when in its own nature it s no righteousness Mr. H. saith so over and over and Gods judgment is according to Truth now see the honesty of these Men God must not make a Judgment according to Truth in imputing Christs perfect righteousness to us because it was not personally performed by us and imputing our Sins to Christ because they were not actually committed by him and yet God makes a judgment according to Truth in imputing our own paultry sinful righteousness to us for our righteousness when they themselves say its really no righteousness 2. Is not his righteousness ours The Scripture saith it is and our Sins made his they say it doth not that we will try God willing but for the present we ask what if
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
Paul means only Works of Moses's Law § 8. Whether Paul disputes only against some Works § 9. Mr. Cl's Denial and Challenge § 10. What Law the Apostle means § 11. How the Jews looked upon the Law § 12. Of the Law of Faith § 13. What Deeds of the Law § 14. What Works to be boasted of § 15. Of meritorious Works § 16. Of justifying Works § 17. Of the Jews Conceit of Perfect Obedience § 18. 1 Cor. 4.4 considered § 19. Mr. Cl. unfair in his Challenge § 20. Of Rom. 4.5 § 21. Of Rom. 2.20 Sect. 1. OUR Neonomians affirm we are justified by works not of the Old Law which the Apostle Paul every were excludes but of the New Law this is that which we oppose and say the Apostle doth exclude all our works even in the state of Regeneracy from Justification and in this Point we shall take Mr. Cl. because he seems to be most full in the handling of it and take up that Mr. H. saith in a more scattered manner here and there § 2. Chap. 10. He tells us who it is that God Justifies not ungodly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Rom. 4.5 No saith Mr. Cl. the Spirit of God means the godly and he brings against the position of the Spirit of God in this place that of Exod. 23.7 Where the LXX useth the same words Resp To which I shall answer 1. That Mr. Cl. knows the LXX doth not translate the words according to the Heb. Text but rather speaks to the drift of the Text which is to enjoyn unto Men an impartial Execution of distributive Justice and therefore it renders it Thou shalt not justifie the wicked for a reward and that is the plain Drift of the Text by what precedes v. 6. Thou shalt not wrest judgment and thou shalt take no gift v. 8. and the Hebrew in the 7th verse is I will not justifie i. e. will not have thee to justifie for thou art but my Deputy and I sit in the Assemblies and Courts of Earthly Judges and whatever Judgment contrary to Justice and Right thou passest I will call thee to an account for it Then 1. This Text speaks of Man's Judgment not of God's immediately but as supervising the actions of men 2. He might as well or better alledged Exod. 34.7 where God proclaiming himself a sin-pardoning God saith he will by no means clear the guilty but in pardon of sin God doth clear the guilty and so the ungodly in Justification of them by the imputed righteousness of Christ which takes off the ungodliness in that kind tho man cannot provide for the Justification of an unrighteous person by gifts or partiality in a way of Justice yet God can by gracious and just ways and means provide for the acquitting the guilty and justifying the ungodly justly 2. It must be understood Rom. 4. according to the words in a strict sence God justifies the ungodly while such not to remain such For Abraham there spoken of was such an ungodly vile Idolater Josh 24. Had Abraham performed any New-Law righteousness before he came out of Vr Mr. C. will understand it he saith in a strict Law sence i. e. that he was a transgressor of the law of works so will I and that 's therefore to be ungodly and I know no ungodliness but such and while he was such God justified him and he did no New-Law works before he was justified for Heb. 11.8 for by faith when he was called of God to go forth he went so that he had faith and was justified before he obey'd the Call 3. It s most consistent with the Grace of God to justifie the ungodly and not in the least derogatory from his Justice to justifie a sinner in Gods way of Justification 4. As God justifies none to be ungodly nor justifies ungodliness but that sinners may be godly so there 's none can be godly before he is justified he cannot perform one godly Act nor have the Spirit the natural Man being a stranger to God and Enemy to him 5. Why may not God justifie the ungodly as well as sanctifie the ungodly if God may give one gift to the rebellious why not another if he may give Grace why not all Grace they will have Men justified by works who works in them to will or do Who gives them this righteousness Doth not this gift of God find them ungodly They will say yea undoubtedly then I will say why may not God give Christ to an ungodly one the gift of righteousness and justifie him thereby I hope if God can give one righteousness he can give another unless they will limit his Sovereign Grace § 3.1 But more fully And first Negatively not by the Law Gal. 2.16 viz. the Law of Moses and why so is there any the least word of the Law of Moses its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the works of a law any law when the Apostle speaks of Moses's law he annexeth the pre-positive Article So Rom. 3.20 it s a law from the works of a law no flesh living can be justified now this is not the Ceremonial Law by v. 19. but that law whereby all the world became guilty Jews and Gentiles v. 9 c. for the Gentiles were not guilty by Moses Law neither could the works of the New Law admit of an exception here for its any law that gives the knowledge of sin Now if the New Law gives the knowledge of sin the works of it are here excluded for that is no law that gives no knowledge of sin Hence all works of all Laws are here excluded i. e. such as the righteousness thereof required is our obedience performed by us whence its plain that the Law of VVorks the Ceremonial Law and the New Law are equally excluded Now the next Verse hath it that the righteousness of God is manifested without these excluded works this is no new Notion but witnessed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the law i. e. of Moses and the Prophets VVhat Gal. 3.16 is brought in for I know not I find it not among the Errata's but I think it must be one Hitherto also do belong these places Job 15.14 chap. 25.4 Psalm 143.2 which Places plainly and peremptorily deny righteousness in Man to be found unto Justification Mr. Cl. says according to strict Justice according to the law of works as Paul expounds it Gal. 2.16 Resp The Apostle there doth peremptorily protest against Justification by the works of a Law any Law whatever and if he hath an eye upon the Psalmists words he explains them so far as to us why the Psalmist denies Justification to any man living is because all works that Man can perform must be referred to some law by the works of a law no flesh living could be justified Let me add what the Apostle saith If righteousness be by a law then Christ died in vain It s strange the Apostle should so expresly and positively exclude the works of
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
Works doth the Apostle speak any where of a new Law or the Works of it No he speaks of the Law of Faith Let us see then what is in that Expression Rom. 3.27 28. § 12. The Apostle having told us how we are Justified freely by Grace who are Sinners in all respects ver 24 25 26. Infers elegantly where is boasting then i. e. Of our own Righteousness saith its shut quite out a Doors By what Law doth any Law shut out boasting No saith the Apostle doth not Works Nay they cause boasting what Law then Such a Law if you will have a Law as the Nature of Faith it s in the very Nature of Faith to shut out Works therefore we conclude that we are justified by Faith without the Works of a Law is not Justification by Faith and Works here plainly opposed Now that Law is taken for the Nature of a Thing many Instances might be given but for the present take Rom. 7.23 so Rom. 8.2 The Law is the Nature of the Spirit of Life that is in Christ Let us see what Sense it will be in the Neonomian Interpretation where is boasting then it is excluded by what Law Works i. e. the Old Law of Works nay but by the Works of the New Law Work excludes boasting of Works boasting is excluded not by the Law of Works but by the Law of Works therefore we conclude that a Man is justified by Works without Works not by some but by other Works § 13. Proposition 6. The Works or Deeds of this Law are such as are performed by our own Strength in Obedience thereto such as Adam had in the State of Innocency hence called their own Righteousness Rom. 10.3 R. I enquire whether giving Strength and Power to perform Works hinders them from being Works of the Law or would it have hindred Adams had he stood and I marvel that any Man will say that Adam in innocency had not Strength given him by God but whether he had or had not it makes nothing to the Point in Hand which is the Consideration of the Respect or Relation that Works have to the Law which enquire not how a Man came by his Money but whether it be Good and Current Rom. 10.3 is falsly explained as we shall shew anon neither doth the Spirit of God savingly strengthen us to the performance of any Works of our own for Justification and such as any Man claims by are not Gospel-Obedience nor performed by the Spirit § 14. Proposition 7. They were such Works as did admit of boasting Rom. 3.27 Eph. 2.9 Rom. 4.2 For what we do of our selves without the help of another we may boast of R. Can it be supposed that any understanding Jews or Gentile do think they can do good upon a meer natural or moral Consideration without Help and Strength from God 2. How shall Men know they have supernatural Assistance its certain they have it not graciously when they aim by their Duties to set up themselves for justifying Righteousness 3. The boasting spoken of in the Places mentioned is glorying before God sitting on a Throne of Justice dispensing it by a Law now that Person that doth come with his own Righteousness in his own Hand and will say here are my Works Faith Obedience Repentance Sincerity performed by me justifie me for them or by them this is the glorying the Apostle excludes and Faith always excludes and the Apostle saith Gods giving the Reward upon these Terms is paying of a Debt and not of Grace for whatever is demandable upon our own Performances in a way of Justice is not of Grace The Apostle to Eph. 2. speaks v. 7. of God shewing forth the Riches of his Grace in Justification as appears by foregoing Context of vile miserable Sinners and saith it s in his kindness to us thro' Christ and then v. 8. gives the Reason For by Grace are we saved Justification being an eminent part of Salvation through Faith receiving that Justification and Salvation now least any one should call this Faith Works as the Neonomians do he positively excludes all Works and not of Works not through Faith as a Work and least any one should say he is beholding only to himself for his Faith he tells us it s a Gift of God and its a Gift of Sanctification not of Justification as appears by the Text that 's only the Object of Faith the Righteousness of Christ § 15. Proposition 8. These Works viz. of the Old Law are meritorious implied in that Description Rom. 10.5 Resp The Description the Apostle gives there of Legal Works is such as belongs to all Law-works for there 's no Law that enjoins personal Obedience for the Condition let it be more or less but it makes the said Obedience meritorious and the promised Reward a Debt Rom. 4.4 and this Merit belongs not only to the Law of Works at first but to all Works of any Law for Justification these are the Works a Man may boast of tho' he receive them as Gift from another for if a Man gives the Grace of God in Works in payment to the Law of God he paies God you will say in his own Coyn but yet his presenting them to God for Justification in Satisfaction to a Law is high abuse of the Grace of God perverting to an end that God never intended The Law of Faith which he tells of was never intended to be a Law of Works for the Apostle useth it in Opposition to Works and to prevent the Mistake these Men are run upon viz. that they should understand the Work of Faith to be meant by him where he saith it is of Faith that it may be of Grace because Faith ascribes nothing to it self as fulfilling to any Law it is said by the Law of Faith either according to the nature of true Faith as hath been said or else according to the Ordination of God that we should be justified by Faith without Works Gods Ordination of thing as to the End and Means doth not always make it a Law of Sanction God hath ordained to give Faith to give the Spirit to give the Relation of Children Doth God give them in a Law Do this and live § 16. Proposition 9. These Works are perfect and unsinning Works Resp This is a great Mistake that God hath brought in sinning VVorks for Justification instead of perfect VVorks 1. God never made a Law where sinning VVorks were the Condition of the Law this would be contrary to his Holiness and Justice But if God makes a Law wherein he saith do and live let the doing be more or less perfect or imperfect yet a Man doing the thing commanded his VVork is rewarded as meritorious and its perfect as to the Law that it is to be righteous in the Sence of the Law and to be meritorious He that performs the Condition of a Law and he never sins at all in the Eye of the Law therefore all justifying Righteousness in any
faith and works in Justification he should have said in the Neonomian sense knowing we are not justified by the works of a law but by the works of the law of faith we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ now least any should say this faith in Christ is a work of the new law he saith and not by the works of a law for in thy sight shall no flesh living be justified by them Now I pray were any saved under the Old Testament they will say presently yes by the works of the New Law nay but the Spirit of God saith positively no flesh living was ever justified no not by a new law VVill any man dare then to venture his Justification upon works of a law old or new Doth the Apostle say we have believed in Jesus that we may be justified by the works of the law of faith So he should have said to have expressed his meaning in these mens sence No he saith to prevent all mistakes in this kind not by the work of a law and he proves it And he adds for Conviction of Peter of his Error in complying with the Judaizing Christians if we i. e. you and I seek to be justified by Christ we are worse are found transgressors by endeavouring by our practice to build People up in Justification by their own righteousness the works of a law which we have destroyed by our Ministry § 22. Arg. 7. The opposition is full Rom. 2.20 21 22. where the righteousness of a law is directly opposed to the righteousness of faith as two righteousnesses opposite in Justification there is an opposition But in the Justification of a sinner the righteousness of faith and works are so opposed in the said place for by the righteousness of a law he said shall no flesh living be justified in the sight of God he should have added his exception if he had intended men were to be justified by the righteousness of the new law and his reason is that by a law is the knowledge of sin i. e. conviction of sin but no remedy for the law only makes a sinner guilty before God and his own Conscience but how then justified Answ It is by another righteousness the gift of God which we have not performed but which is received by faith therefore called the righteousness of God which is by faith without our law-performances but the righteousness of Christ who fulfilled the law this is that which is in and upon every Believer But saith Mr. Cl. I infer we are not justified by the active righteousness of Christ p. 46. or his obedience to the law of works imputed to us for then we are justified by the law or Covenant of works c. Resp The same inference will hold if only the passive obedience of Christ be imputed for what was that but fulfilling the Covenant of Works in Satisfaction All that Christ did or suffered was obedience to the Covenant of Works and his righteousness is justifying to us before God in foro legis the difference of Law and Gospel lying here in the Covenant of Grace That our righteousness for Justification is not of our own performance of obedience to the law for that is legal only but our Gospel-righteousness is Christ's perfect performance of the most legal righteousness and this freely bestowed on us and received by faith CHAP. XII Of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness Section 1. Mr. H. insists on Justification by Works § 2. He saith the Imputation of Christ's righteousness is not found in Scripture § 3. His Third Argument against Imputation of Christ's Righteousness § 4. Of Imputation of Christ's passive Obedience § 5. How far his Argument agrees with Socinus § 6. He seeks to avoid the Socinian Rock § 7. Active and passive Obedience of Christ imputed § 8. His further inference § 9. Christ came to procure a New Law § 10. Of the Protestant's Appeal Sect. 1. I Shall here take Mr. H. in hand because I find he is most positive in the denial of it upon all accounts only he tells us of imputation of effects which are not imputable and besides is a total denial of Imputation of Christ's Righteousness it self His Arguments are 1. Taken from the places of Scripture that seem to evince the imputation of our own righteousness to us for Justification VVhat he saith of boasting and merit hath bin spoken to already the latter he doth after many Good Morrows in a manner grant whereby his Doctrine is eradicated by the Apostle He tells us the large extent of Christ's righteousness to all the world in procurement of a law of Grace which Doctrine I have shewed the absurdity and vanity of elsewhere It is manifest in Scripture Mediocr p. 20. that good works holy duties and performances are accepted of God and rewarded Resp It is true but acceptation of good works doth not prove justification of their persons by them nor the rewarding them for Abel's person being justified by faith his services were also accepted in the same righteousness he was justified by and rewarded graciously in Christ yea his works were witnessed to by God before the World but such approbation of works as the fruits of faith is not Justification in God's sight in the strict eye of his Justice That place of Matth. 19.17 If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments where Christ answers him according to the true tenor of his question which was what good may I do that I may inherit eternal life Mr. H. and Mr. Cl. must needs say that he sought for righteousness by an old-old-law righteousness which doth appear by Christ's Answer and his Reply Indeed the whole of Christ's Discourse seems clearly to evince that Christ confuted his Confidence in his own righteousness and convinced him of it because Christ gave him a Command that put him to the non-plus and sent him away sorrowful and therefore is no proof of Justification for he was not justified The Apostle Rom. 2.7 speaks after the tenor of the Covenant of Works which requires perseverance in good works not at all of works or doing as justifying righteousness that of 2 Tim. 4.7 8. speaks of Gods acceptation of the services of the Apostles and rewarding them in Christ but nothing of his righteousness for Justification which was Christ's only that he desired to be found in that of Matth. 25.34 hath the same import come ye blessed c. it holds only God's owning and declaring the acceptance of the works and services of the Saints as performed by faith in Christ alone for the accepting their Persons and Services besides it appears sufficiently by the context they never brought their works to account for Justification He brings in also Ezek. 18.26 27. which is as little to the purpose The Lord there answers a charge the People had against him in not dealing uprightly equally and justly with them v. 25. which the Lord answers That
in a law-sence if so was it for himself or for us if for us then the law saith so for us For the Law of God doth not take Satisfaction in so blind a manner as that God in his Law knows not for whom it is if God in his Law knows for whom it is and accepts it for us then it is accounted to us and imputed to us as to all the ends thereof in Law The taking Satisfaction in Law for any offence against it for any one is the Laws Imputation or accounting it to him for whom it is made whether the satisfaction be given by himself who transgressed or any one for him therefore if Christ satisfied for us and this Satisfaction accepted by God for us God imputes it to us as if we had done it our selves therefore Mr. H. must either renounce the Doctrine of Satisfaction with the Socinians or own its imputed to us as fully yea in this case we may say more fully than if we had made it our selves § 6. Let us see how Mr. H. would avoid the Socinian Rock he saith Christ may have wrought with the father or made him that satisfaction as to procure new Terms so that a man may be justified as a fulfiller of them and yet need pardon for non-performance of the old R. Behold the Neonomian Satisfaction 1. He makes not Satisfaction a payment of a Debt owing to the Law by us but only a procurement a buying something of God whereas Satisfaction is for a wrong done I may purchase a thing of a person whom I never injur'd or if I have the Money whereby I purchase a new thing that refers not to the injury I did before but to the new Purchace observe then he makes Christ's Satisfaction only a New Purchace 2. This New Purchace is of New Terms of Justification hence God is not to stand upon satisfaction to the Old Law but to drop it and bring the Sinner under a New Law Christ died not to satisfie the Law but to translate us from one Law to another whence the old hath no more to do with us and thus all the world are translated therefore the Old Law is gone to all the World unsatisfied 3. A Man is justified on the new Terms they being fulfilled by his own righteousness but not pardoned on these terms by the New Law and this is one of the greatest inconsistencies in the World to say a man is justified by a Law and not pardoned how is he just in the eye of that Law that doth not free from the charge of any transgression of it But 3. He saith he needs Pardon for non-performance of the old if so 1. The New Law is not an Act of Indemnity in respect of sins against the old for if a man condemned by one law be taken from under it to a new law he is indempnified from the old else all pretence of advantage by the said translation is gone for he that stands under the terms of one law condemned by it and brought under new terms to another come now to be liable to the lash of two Laws whereas before he was under but one 2. He saith this Pardon must be had at the Bar of the Old Law I would know of Mr. H. how If he saith and will stand to it according to his own Argument he cannot or else he must deny Christs Satisfaction which is this That Law which is satisfied for the breach of it admits no Pardâ—n from the Legislator but the Old Law say Neonomians in words was satisfied for us therefore there can be no Pardon yea it was satisfied for us in our stead and the satisfaction accepted for us yea therefore imputed to us Here I have the Neonomian fast in this Dilemma from their own Doctrine let them free themselves how they can For if Pardon and Satisfaction imputed are not consistent as to our Doctrine then not in theirs but they say notwithstanding their justification by their New Law they must have Pardon for the breach of the Old and how Not at all in their sence if the Old be not satisfyed or that Satisfaction not imputed as much as to say it is Money laid down in Court indefinitely but not accepted in Court for this and that Mans Sins hence Christ hath satisfyed for none for all satisfaction as such is accepted as such we come now to his attempt to prove that neither the Active or Passive Obedience of Christ is imputed § 7. For saith he If that his Active and Passive Obedience be imputed then must God be made to deal with Man according to the Covenant of Works Resp See how this Gentleman in all his Arguings runs his Head against a Post and Pillar of Gospel Truth his Argument is this if Christ's Active and Passive Obedience be accepted for us as satisfaction for the Law then God deals with Sinners in their justification after the tenor of the Covenant of Works now he may assume either by taking away the Antecedent or by taking away the Consequent he indeed intends both first by taking away the Antecedent viz. But Christ's Active and Passive Obedience is not accepted for satisfaction therefore he doth not deal with Sinners in Justification according to the Covenant of Works therefore Christ hath not satisfied the Covenant of Works for us the Law lies unsatisfyed I would know how the Pardon he speaks of is Subsequent to the New Law Justification is had is it by dealing with us upon the account of satisfaction to the Old Law He suggests that it is then pardoned Sinners are dealt with according to the Old Law if not justified But to have him in his Consequences he assumes that God deals not with Sinners in Justification upon the Terms of the Old Law or Covenant of Works To Answer he deals with them in Christ according to the Terms of the Covenant of Works but in themselves as sinners justifying them in Christ according to the Tenor of the Covenant of Works it is meer Grace the Mystery of Grace is to save sinners in such a way as may not only magnifie rich Grace but Exalt Grace and that in the highest manner Now the Exaltation of Justice cannot be but in the justifying a Sinner in the Eye of the strictest Law by the highest and most acceptable Satisfaction thereof on this account Christs Obedience was the most Legal both active and passive that ever was but that a sinner is brought under this Obedience of Christ unto Justification is meer free Grace he being thereby partaker of the distinguishing Grace of God and the free Gift of Christ and his Righteousness without the intervention of any Mediator or Subordinate Righteousness of his own hence it is that his Faith makes not void the Law but Establisheth it in the highest degree in Exalting Christ as his only and most compleat Righteousness most legal in satisfying the Law for us as a Covenant of Works he saith when nothing is
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
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
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.
but from it proceeds a Dispensation of Justice Thundrings Lightnings c. of Judicial Proceedings to his enemies and a Dispensation of Grace to his Church there being a Rainbow round about the Throne where Christ is a High-Priest who hath satisfied the Justice of God and pleading his Satisfaction as our Advocate and Intercessor did not David do so Psalm 51. 2. Is it not good Doctrine and agreeable to the Appeal to tell the People that nothing else but the perfect Obedience and Satisfaction of Christ imputed to them can save them Is this to bring them back to the Tribunal of meer Justice is not this the Throne of Grace where Justice is satisfied and appeased where Christ the Satisfier is exalted to Gods right hand to be a Prince and Saviour I pray what do Neonomians do they first bring them to a law suppose it were a law of Grace as they call it to be justified by their own righteousness whither do they carry them then is it not to the Tribunal of Justice to be pardoned So that if God in Christ pardoning iniquity on the Throne of Grace through the Shatisfaction of Christ be the Throne of Justice divested of Grace Why are Neonomians to be pardoned there after they are justified at another Bar But he is for the dividing Grace and Justice in a Sinner's Justification as the Socinians are or rather abandoning Justice CHAP. XIII Of the Righteousness of God Section 1. Works of a Law not Gospel § 2. Mr. H. outdone the Papists § 3. The Righteousness of God what § 4. An offer at Faiths being our subordinate Righteousness § 5. Mr. Cl. and Mr. H. Sence of the Righteousness of God § 6. Their Reasons given and Answered § 7. Mr. Cl. Reasons why it is not Christs Righteousness 2 Cor. 5.21 § 8. His second Reason § 9. A distinct Consideration of the said Texts § 10. Christs Righteousness is the Righteousness of God § 11. § 12. Rom. 3.21 22. examin'd § 13. Rom. 10.3 § 14. Mr. H. Explication of Rom. 10.4 examin'd § 15. Mr. H. Explication of 2 Cor. 5.21 Examin'd And § 16. What he further faith on the Place examin'd § 1. IN the last Place There is a Righteousness revealed in the Gospel that God goes by in his dealing with all the World whereby it is that we are Justified in Opposition to the Righteousness of Works Resp If it be a revealed Righteousness it 's that which is the Object of Faith seen without our selves not in our selves for that need not to be revealed which every Man is naturally addicted to see and know Again it must not be our Works in Opposition to our Works for Justification for there is no formal Opposition between Works and Works nor material indeed which have the same Subject and Genns and End as for what he calls them by way of Difference it will not serve he calls some Works Works of the Law some Gospel-works i. e. Works of the Law of Grace now we have shew'd that there are no such Gospel-works which put in for Justification nor doth the Spirit Work such and being both are the Works of a Law they differ not specifically they are legal Works Works of a Law performed for Justification are always Legal never Evangelical § 2. This Revealed Righteousness is in Scripture called the Righteousness of God which the Protestants conceive to be the Righteousness of Christ without us all but Neonomians and Quakers i. e. the Righteousness of Christ which is not ours by Performance but by Faith but neither Protestants since Luther nor Papists since Augustine have hit the Mind of the Apostle Resp But the Scripture hath hit it long before Luther sure then if they were not Right the Reformation was the Deformation in Doctrine the Truth is many of the Protestants were out in this Point all our Reformation so far as I can understand Mr. H. and many Neonomians are gone is not worth a Fig and here indeed Mr. H. boasts again and again that he hath out-done the Papists and I may truly say that he and his Father B. hath and in this only they differ from the Papists that they go beyond them in Self-righteousness and in a most daring scornful Opposition to the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ § 3. The Righteousness of God and Grace opposed to Works is nothing but the Righteousness of the Covenant of Grace accepted for Christs sake instead of the Covenant of Works Resp It is not Christ's Righteousness accepted for us for that alone is the Righteousness of the Covenant of Grace and then only God did not set up Christ to set up our Righteousness because it was impossible for us to have any other to be justified by that he might have the Glory of Being our Righteousness alone but he saith this Righteousness of ours must come instead of the Righteousness of the Covenant of Works to which we Answer that its impossible for us to be Justified by any Righteousness but that which fully and exactly answers the Covenant of Works either our own or anothers the Righteousness of another Law cant Justifie us there For if a Sinner be justified it must be by that Law which he hath broken and by none else if they say Christ hath satisfied that Law for us then we say that Satisfaction is a sufficient Righteousness for our Justification we look for no other Law to be justified by nor no other Righteousness for our Justification He proceeds Herein are two Things comprized the meritorious Righteousness of Christ procuring the pardoning Covenant of Grace and our performing the Condition only we are to know how this Righteousness may be understood in respect to God as it is all one with his Grace or with respect to us as its all one upon which this Grace is vouchsafed Resp This Neonomian Cheat is always to be noted in the Point of Satisfaction that all the Satisfaction they ascribe to Christ is only in making pay unto God for a new Purchase they will not have Christ to have paid any Arrears or old Scores the Law passeth away in sententiam and we found insolvent to this perfect Law therefore Christ buys another Law upon that promiseth Justification upon easier Terms not so Holy but sinful and immoral and therefore called the Law of Indulgence yet justifies us upon those Terms but yet without Pardon which we must have of the Old Law and because we have fulfilled the New Law God out of his Prerogative without any other Satisfaction than the forementioned procurement Pardons for they say Satisfaction and Pardon are inconsistent as the Socinians do and why do they say Christs Satisfaction is not imputed to us because if they were not ashamed to speak out they think there is none yea and that they speak of is only Christs purchasing a new Law which would be madness for to claim an Imputation of to us for that concerns us no further then a new Legal Bondage
and calls him so for the Words are Who of God is made unto us Wisdom c. But he saith Christ is not Wise and Holy in our stead neither doth it follow then that he is Actively Righteous in our stead but the meaning is he is the procuring meritorious Cause by his perfect Obedience hath satisfied the Law and procur'd a new Way of Righteousness by Faith Sanctification Resp The Words are not Christ is Wise and Holy in our stead but that Christ is made of God to us what he is there said to be whether Wisdom as a Prophet to teach us or Righteousness as a Priest to Cloath us with the Garment of Salvation and Robe of Righteousness and that he is made of God to be what he is in the divers Ways and manner of Being or Conveying what we have from him he is our Wisdom by way of teaching Righteousness by way of Sacrifice Sanctification by being the Treasure of all Grace and Holiness which God bestows he is Redemption in that all the Promises of Inchoation and Consummation of Redemption are yea and Amen in him But Mr. Cl. makes Righteousness and Sanctification all one and Christ being to us all these Things one way by meriting and procuring we have as much right to say too that Christ is all these one Way viz. by Imputation because we are sure he is Righteousness to us by Imputation but why is Active annexed to Righteousness he might have excluded his whole Righteousness by what follows both Active and Passive intentionally But is not Christ righteous in our stead when he satisfied Gods Law and Justice in our stead For what For any wrong we had done unto the Law of God I pray is not that our Righteousness which is Righteousness in our stead but these Men will have Satisfaction and no Satisfaction only a new Bargain or Purchase likewise a Satisfaction but not for us so their Satisfaction which they will have Christ make is no Payment for us nor accounted so by God nor any Satisfaction to him for any wrong we have done him that which Christ hath done is a Purchase of a Righteousness he saith we say Righteousness is the Purchase Money accounted to us so that Christ is not only a Procurer and Bestower but he hath something to procure and Purchase by he hath something to offer now as God hath made Christ the satisfying Price and Ransom-mony so he is made of God Righteousness to us but with Mr. Cl. Righteousness and Sanctification is all one this is hard dealing with Jehovah our Righteousness these Men are as the Jews of Old that would not be subject to the Righteousness of God § 5. Mr. Cl. Another is Rom. 4.6 prest to serve this Cause As David describes the blessedness of the Man to whom the Lord imputes Righteousness without Works say they the Righteousness of Christ but its clear it s not meant of any thing in another Person that 's imputed for Righteousness but something in a Mans self by the whole Tenour of the Chapter and by ver 9. where he saith Faith was reckoned for Righteousness so that the Righteousness imputed here spoken of is inherent graciously accounted Righteousness but in strict Justice is not so nor according to the Original Law c. Resp This plain Place which stands a Rock against all Popish and Neonomian Attempts he calls prest into our Service or Cause no it comes in freely it 's a Volunteer and mighty thro' God to cast down all their Confidence and Imaginations where 's the clearness in all this Chapter or Psalm from whence it s taken is it not clear for the Imputation of anothers Righteousness Is there any thing of self-righteousness Faith is spoken of as accounted to Abraham for Righteousness but we have shewn that that which was imputed to Abraham for Righteousness was the Righteousness of the promised Seed for the Gospel which is the Doctrine of Christs Righteousness was Preached to him in the Promise and he by Faith saw Christ's Day of Expiation and Attonement this he reached by Faith and it was imputed to him not Faith it self not the Arm that reached it but the Righteousness it self There 's a Plain Instance in the Gospel where what the Object of Faith doth is ascrib'd by a Metonymy to Faith it self Mat 9.21 22. The diseased Woman touched the Hem of Christ's Garment and was made whole and Christ saith Woman thy Faith hath made thee whole And we see Mark 9.29 30. where is the same Narrative that Christ perceived that Vertue was gone out of him and yet saith ver 34. Thy Faith hath made thee whole now I would know of these Men whether it was Christ's Vertue that healed the Woman or the Vertue of her Faith Faith as an Act of hers that made her whole See Luke 7.39 42 47 48 50. Likewise the stung Israelites were healed by looking on the Brazen Serpent was the healing Vertue in the Brazen Serpent or in their own Eyes Let us now examine then how clear it is that the Place is not meant of the Righteousness of another The Apostle saith that David describeth the righteousness of the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works 1. The Apostles design in the whole Chapter is to prove our Justification by a righteousness which is not made up of works of our own and the Neonomians say his design is to prove Justification by works are not these contradicentia the Apostle negat ubique they say by some works only the Apostle means works of the old law they the works of the new It s strange the Apostle did not except and secure works of the new law but I suppose as for the works of the new law he never heard of them thence his altum silentium about the new law and its works too He saith David was justified or Justification was with a righteousness without works and yet David might plead his own works to Justification as well as any Neonomian 1. He was no carnal Jew that sought Justification by the law of Works as appears by Psal 51. 2. If there was any Justification then by New-Law works as indeed there was not then or now David sure must be under the New Law for Justification and he must needs know the works thereof whereby he expected to be justified and therefore I thus argue If David knew he was justified by works and blessed therein then he deals falsly or the Apostle greatly mistakes him in saying that David proves the blessedness of the man c. the consequent is of absolute necessity and the assumption must tollere anteced ut tollat conseq for they were both inspired and therefore could not deceive themselves nor us in this great Point Arg. If David proves a righteousness without his own works either old or new-law works then it must be works of another that he intends for there 's no righteousness without works of some or another if he
faulty that will serve the turn God never abandoned nor relaxed his original Law though others as branches in positive laws for a time being may be but that was perfectly fulfilled in Christ § 3. Arg. 2. That Righteousness which merits the Justification of a Sinner before God is that righteousness only by which and for which he is justified before God but the Righteousness of Christ is such Ergo. For the minor our adversaries grant it that Christ merited and purchased our Justification i. e. by works of our own and that our Righteousness and Justification are effects thereof and therefore there needs no further Proof here but we must come to the major which pincheth hard upon them but it appears to be true 1. Because there is no legal Discharge of an accused person without a meritorious righteousness appearing Now these men with the Socinians say some at least and others do but lisp at it Mr. B. says it downright he knowing it to be inseparable from the Popish Doctrine that their righteousness is not meritorious being imperfect if it be not it s no justifying righteousness I will stand by it that there is no righteousness can claim Justification but upon the merit of their action in the performance of the preceptive part and if they be justified by the new law they must be justified by the merits thereof but we assert that the righteousness must answer the old law broken and it must be as in Justice it doth so satisfie that law that it lays claim to Justification by vertue of those merits and no other righteousness will pass there but what is such § 5. Arg. 4. The righteousness typified by the Priests Sacrifices of old was the righteousness whereby a sinner is justifi d in the sight of God but the righteousness of Christ a-alone is such Ergo. For the major our adversaries Mr. Bellarmine and Mr. H. say that Christs Righteousness is the thing for which id propter quod not as the End but as an Instrument of the Efficient and a meritorious cause and our Faith and Obedience is the per quam which they say doth not denote Merit and in the Protestant sence per quam denotes only instrumentality but indeed here 's these mens Commutation they make Christ's Righteousness the Instrument and that remote enough too and our own righteousness the Formal Cause of Justification which in truth is their meritorious cause upon their own Positions the major must be granted The minor will be very demonstrable upon these reasons That the Righteousness of Christ is only such the id propter quod and per quod a sinner is justified in Gods sight 1. i. e. The righteousness by which we are justified is not two but one and Christs is that as the Scripture affirms 2. That for which a man is meritoriously justified in tribuno legis is that by which he is justified so the law knows no difference in those terms for it doth nothing by any righteousness but it doth it for that righteousness 3. The Spirit of God therefore useth the Greek Prepositions promiseuously in this case as hath in part been shewed 4. No Sinner therefore can stand in Judgment but by and for this Righteousness of Christ § 5. Arg. 4. The Righteousness typified by the Priestly Sacrifices of old was the righteousness whereby a sinner is justified in the sight of God but this was the Righteousness of Christ only Ergo. The major and minor are so clear that no Christian that hath read the Scripture with any understanding can deny either if any shall say it s not easie to defend it there 's the whole Epistle to the Hebrews yea the whole Scripture to prove them all the Devils in Hell cannot cast down this Fortress and I leave it therefore to the intelligent Reader let him search the Scriptures they testifie of it § 6. Arg. 5. That Righteousness which is a ransoming and redeeming righteousness from a legal Bondage is the justifying righteousness of a sinner before God but Christ's Righteousness is that alone which is a redeeming and ransoming righteousness Ergo. The minor is true none that call themselves Christians dare to fly so audaciously in the face of Christ and deny plain Scripture to deny this if they do there 's enough to prove it to the meanest Christian The major therefore I will prove beyond all contradiction That righteousness which meritoriously dischargeth the sinner from his Bondage under the Law the condemnation and curse of it is justifying Righteousness but Christs Righteousness is such Rom. 8.34 Gal. 3.13 and divers places for a discharge of a person from under the Bonds Imprisonments and Curse of the Law is his Justification and the righteousness for which he is discharged is his Justification § 7. Arg. 6. That Righteousness which only can justifie a Sinner against the Law is the Righteousness whereby a Sinner is Justifyed in the sight of God but Christ's Righteousness is such Ergo I suppose the major is undeniable except men will cavil at the Sun at noon day and will any have the face to say as to the minor 1. That God hath not purer Eyes of Justice than to behold Iniquity 2. That he exerciseth justice by halves and not in the strictest and exactest manner 3. Will they say their righteousness is so perfect as to answer Gods Law The Neonomians say no. How will they dare to say then they are justifyed by a Righteousness which is not answerable in perfection to the Law but they will be justifyed by another Righteousness the worst they can think of by a Law coined adequate to Antinomian and licentious Principles 4. A Sinners unrighteousness is such that the Law could never look upon him for to be righteouss in the sight of God in his own righteousness because he hath been once a transgressor James saith If a man transgress but in one Point he is guilty of all The Saints in Heaven tho glorified with Perfection yet having been sinners and transgressors of the Law they could not stand Justifyed out of Christ's righteousness It is one thing to have perfection of Sanctification as to the present standing and performances and another thing to have perfection of Justification wherein the least believer here on Earth are as perfectly Justifyed and as righteous before God as the glorifyed Saints in Heaven See Col. 1.22 Eph. 6.27 Rev. 14.4.5 § 8. Arg. 7. That Righteousness which repairs all our unrighteousnesses lost in the first Adam is the only righteousness whereby we are Justifyed before God but Christ's righteousness is such and no other righteousness Ergo as to the major for all other righteousness comes short of what we lost in the first Adam our unrighteousness was our breach of the preceptive part of Gods Law this was our unrighteousness our loss and punishment was also very great in respect of moral original righteousness and coming under the wages of sin which is death or liableness thereto by
as well the last as the first and it should have been rendred thus if there had been a Law given which could have given Life then Righteousness had been by a Law therefore this place is fully exclusive of justifying righteousness by a new Law and God never made such a Law The consequence is clear if all other Law righteousness but Christ's be excluded then Christ's righteousness is that alone by which a Sinner is Justified These Arguments are strong and enough to prove what we assert and against all the World if the Scripture and Reason enlightned thereby may take place The Scripture is so full of proof that these Sixteen might be made Sixty but brevity is call'd for by the circumstances that attend Printing CHAP. XVII Of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness Section 1. Christ's Righteousness is Imputed to us and Paul saith so § 2. Argument 1. § 3. Arg. 2. and 3. § 4. Arg. 4. § 5. Arg. 5. § 6. Arg. 6. § 7. Arg. 7. § 8. Arg. 8. § 9. Arg. 9. § 10. Arg. 10.11 Section 1. OUr Adversaries say they own the Imputation of Righteousness to Justification but they say it s there own not Christ's Now we shall prove that Christ's Righteousness is Imputed They say it s no where said that Christ's Righteousness is Imputed We say it is in all that is said by the Apostle Paul so plain that all but he that will shut his Eyes perversly must see it I shall but give brief hints of it 1. The Apostle Paul Rom. 4. speaking so often of Imputation gives us plainly to understand that he means no Imputation but of Christ's Righteousness to Justification for his Discourse in the 4th chap. is continued from ver 25. of the 3d to prove the Doctrine of Justification by the Propitiation Blood and Righteousness of Christ and shews how Faith honours this Righteousness and wrongs not the law by it but establisheth it In the 4th ch he goes on to exclude all Justification by any works and shews in Abraham and David they took Christ's Righteousness viz. that spoken ch 3.25 by Faith for their Imputed righteousness unto justification and remission and covering of them from the Eye of God's justice wherefore Christ is call'd our Propitiation in allusion to the Golden cover of the Ark that hid the Law and was the mercy seat now briefly to shew that by Imputation so often mention'd in this chap. he meant the Righteousness of Christ to our Justification he tells us ver 22. that what God had promised to Abraham viz. the Righteousness of Christ which he was fully by Faith perswaded of was Imputed to him for Righteousness now saith the Apostle it was not written for the sake of Abraham only but for us also to whom it shall be Imputed i. e. the Righteousness in the Promise if we believe on him that raised up the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead who was delivered for our offences and raised again for our Justification i. e. if we believe in God thro' the full perfect and compleat righteousness of Christ for our Righteousness could not have been full and compleat without his Resurrection and his Justification as a publick head of all the Elect who raised was Justified as having wrought out a full and compleat Justifying righteousness for them they are incouraged and invited to take it for their Righteousness by Faith and they might assure themselves of the Imputation thereof and proceeds in the next chap. to say that having taken this Imputed righteousness by Faith they are said to be justified by Faith and to have peace with God and access unto the grace of God thro the said righteousness § 2. Arg. 1. Now then I Argue if Christ in the promise be Imputed for Righteousness to Abraham and every believer and the Apostle saith so then the Imputation here spoken of is the Imputation of Christ's righteousness but the antecedent is true from Gal. 3.21 22. its plain that it was what God had promised to him was Imputed to him The consequence needs no proof for it was Christ was promised and he saw Christ's day in that promise and the Promise of Christ was the Gospel preached to him Again to prove the Apostle means the Righteousness of Christ is imputed If the delivery of Christ for our sins and raising him again for Justification was the Righteousness of Christ for Justification then this is that which was imputed not to Abraham for righteousness only but also to every Believer by the Text and therefore the minor is fully there proved and I think as to the major that none can deny the Life Death and Resurrection of Christ to be his compleat Righteousness § 3. Arg. 2. He that was made of God righteousness to us is made by imputation of his righteousness to us but Christ is made so of God 1 Cor. 1.30 but saith Mr. Cl. he is made righteousness as he is made Wisdom So Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption but it follows not only that he be made of great advantage to a Christian but these several ways that he is not one thing as the other he is not a Prophet as a Priest and if he should mean made righteousness in Mr. Cl's sence then he should be but made sanctification twice taken for Mr. Cl's justifying righteousness is but Sanctification it s he is made the Spring Head and Root of Sanctification and legally made righteousness to us Arg. 3. Again If we be made the righteousness of God in Christ where its plain this righteousness of God is in Christ then the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us but we are made the righteousness of God in him Ergo. the antecedent is proved by 2 Cor. 5.21 as to the major the Neonomians say the righteousness of God is our own righteousness We say nay the righteousness of God is said to be in Christ and we are made so by imputation for Christ could not be made Sin for us but by Imputation and if it is meant of a Sacrifice for Sin even such were made Sin by Imputation and therefore we are made the righteousness of God in Christ by Imputation § 4. Arg. 4. Again If Christ hath merited our Justification Christs Merits are imputed in themselves to Justification but Christ hath merited our Justification The minor is granted by these Gentlemen They tell us that Christs Merits are id propter quod we are justified for the sake or rather by reason of Christs Merits but they mean not that Christ purchased the Sinner's perform'd condition of the New law but that he procured of God a new law for man to perform the condition of Now this is no more to be the cause of Justification than God in making a Law was a cause of Sin for sin is not Imputed where there 's no law and where there is a Law there will be Justification or Condemnation Christ merited a Law and made one therefore for the sake of Christ we are
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
respect of the Old Covenant and Righteous in respect to the New it is to be supposed that the said Person hath those opposite relations really upon him first and last and that the said relations are real and not feigned in their respective way and manner of existing So Christ Jesus in respect of Sinners in whose stead he stood relatively as a Surety was made truly Sin and Curse in a Law-sense reckon'd by God to be really in that Relation not feignedly And this is imputation of Sin to Christ which term ought not to be rejected whoever it is that makes light of it Dr. C. or Mr. B. or any other but most excellently expressive of the Gospel Mystery as not imposing any thing on God but what is most consistent with his Perfections For as God can and hath brought his Son under a Law-relation as a Surety Mediatorial and as such to stand instead of Sinners under a charge of Sin for the Guilt of their Sins he judgeth as things are when he accounts him and calls him what he hath made him Sin and Curse in this Law-respect and relation how pleasing soever his Person is to him being singly and abstractly considered from the said relation § 6. The Bp. excepts against the taking of the immediate discharge of a Sinner upon Christ's bearing of Sin A. It is easie by general and indistinct charges to make Men's Opinions look very absurd if one Man speak not so exactly in a loose and popular Discourse are all the Drs. in the World to look upon it as their great Renown to carp at his Words that are Printed but just as taken from him and not Corrected by him I think Learned Drs. do much undervalue themselves in so doing But to the Point in Hand it is absurd indeed to say that all Sinners have an actual discharge in themselves from the Dominion of the Law immediately upon the Death of Christ most being not then in Being in a Natural Sense much less in a Spiritual But the Bp. knew well enough the distinction of the Protestants that Redemption is considered in Impetration and Application that though the Sacrifice and Propitiation of Christ was compleated and perfect in its self in its Nature and to all intents and purposes Justifying and Pardoning and Sanctifying Grace being fully treasured up therein Yet this Grace is not Applied neither can it be Received actually by the Sinner till 1. He hath a Being Naturally And 2. Till he hath a Spiritual Being whereto he is Created by the Spirit in Christ and made capable of a Reception by a Spiritual Organ bestowed on him 2. He was not ignorant of this Question lately disputed What is the immediate Effect of the Death of Christ We say the great Effects of the Death of Christ are two in General 1. A Right to Life in Christ 2. The Application Reception or Possession of the Life purchased by Christ The 1. We say is the immediate Effect of the Satisfaction and Purchase of Christ all Redeemed Ones have a Right in Christ i. e. latent and hid in Christ and his Fulness even before they are or do Believe from which Pristine Fulness all received Grace doth flow even Faith in it self in us 1. Being in the Soul and acting on its Object and those that have this hidden Right a jus ad rem yet they have not presently jus in re they have not yet received and possessed the Grace of Justification or Sanctification till they Believe through Grace but are in themselves under the Law the Charge and Sentence thereof This Doctrine I know Mr. B. Disputes with all his might against but was fully Answered by Dr. O. § 7. Another thing the Bp. Answers to Is on the Nature of Guilt that Guilt of a Sinner is most truly reatus culpae and not reatus penae reatus culpae being that which is accounted Guilt in all Courts of Judicature To which he answers there 's a twofold Guilt to be considered 1. Guilt of the Fact as it is a Transgression of the Law 2. A Guilt consequent to the Fact by Vertue of the Sanction of the Law Those which are the Foundation Assertions that the Bp. builds all upon are two 1. That Guilt which was charged on Christ was reatus penae or Obligation to Punishment not reatus culpae alicujus not the Guilt of any Fault or of any Person committing it 2. He asserts that the Guilt of a Personal Fault can never be taken away by Transmission no not by Pardon it self Hence we are necessitated to enter the Lists with him upon these two great Points though something hath been said before concerning them § 8. We have shewed before that the first distinction is between the Fact and Guilt of the Fact The Fact is meerly Physical is inherent and inseparable from the Agent not transferrible at all e. gr The Act of borrowing Money is inherent in the borrower and not a Transgression of any Law but to borrow and not to pay is a Transgression of the Law enjoined by commutative Justice Now this is the Guilt of the Fact when the Fact stands as a Fault in the Eye of the Legislator by the preceptive part of the Law 1. The first Relations of an irregular Action is to the preceptive part of the Law being Disobedience Hence it 's a great mistake to place the Sanction of the Law only in its Obligation to Punishment this is but a part of the Sanction consequent to its Obligation to Obedience therefore the primary guilt of a Sinner lies in Disobedience his Fact standing in that Relation to the Law it becomes formally the Reason why the Sinner is obliged to Punishment he in the said relation of the Fact deserving it 2. The Bp. is in the right when he saith That Obligation to Punishment is that which is in the Law and only the exprest Will of the Legislator therefore it can in no true sense be called the Guilt of the Sinner And hence I must needs argue that the Bp. placing all the Guilt charged upon Christ in the Laws Obligation of him to Punishment doth totally renounce the Doctrine of Christ's being made Sin for any Sinner For if he was not made Guilty but only Punished he bore only the Law 's Obligation which must be only the Sin of the Law and not of the Sinner But is the Law Sin God forbid Yet this Doctrine plainly makes the Law Sin because it obligeth a Person to Punishment who in no sence deserves it § 9. For the overthrowing this Hypothesis of Imputation of a Sinner's Guilt of Fact to Jesus Christ he examines how far guilt is separable from the Act of Sin p. 87. 1. As to the Guilt of the Fact for he that hath been an actual transgressor can never be made not to have been so and so the guilt of the Fact must remain A. But methinks a Bp. should not impose such a fallacy upon us that every School-Boy can look through
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
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
acceptation of Punishment in Scripture always used in which sence Christ was Punished because he saith the nature of the Expressions that is of the use of the word Punishment doth imply as it were an impulsive cause when indeed there was none but something that God appointed and accepred in order to Atonement but was not Punishment in strict and proper Sense But yet becomes meritorious by his voluntary undertaking R. That is as much as to say there was nothing in Christ's Sufferings themselves that made them Meritorious but something Antecedent to them viz. The Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ in giving himself to be a ransom but the ransom it self and what he suffered had no merit in it Here the Bp doth basely Baxterize to cast Mr. Lob in this Cause To which I briefly return that Punishment which was appointed by God and accepted for full Satisfaction to his offended Justice was strict and proper Punishment and of it self meritorious but Christ's Punishment was such The Major is true else the Judge of all the World did not deal Righteously in putting his Son to grief for if he put him not to as much as the Law required the Law was not satisfied if he made only a shew of Punishing him and did not do it then the Scripture hath given us but a kind of Romantick account of Christ's Punishment when indeed there was no such thing nor any such cause as the Scripture acquaints us with He acquaints us that Mr. B. not content with Scripture terms falls to enquire into the Nature and Reason of the thing it self suggesting that he would dive deeper into the thing than Scripture 1. That Punishment is a Natural Evil inflicted for a Moral 2. That the Name of Punishment is ambiguous because it relates to Punishment justly inflicted and that which is not the former Proper the latter Analogical So that this Analogical Punishment is that which hath a representation and looks like it but is not so Similia non sunt Idem things alike are not the same And that which is improper is unjustly inflicted ergo and hence Christ's Sufferings would be unjust But he saith the first and most natural Sense of punishment is when the Offender suffers for his own fault but there may be other reasons of Punishment which he calls Analogical and those from nearness of Relation as Subjects for Princes or Vicarious and why I pray must these be called Analogical and Improper Punishments Because it 's Mr. B's pleasure Why would it not be better distributed unless to serve a turn Punishment is either just or unjust Just is either that which falls on the Person committing the fault or on another Relation or Sponsor that suffers on his behalf voluntarily subjecting to the Law in his Place and what need we Analogical when Proper payment is made to the Law Bp From whence he inferrs that since Christ did not Die as a Sinner therefore his Punishment could not be proper in the strictest sense R. But if Christ Died for Sin he Died as Sinners Die though he did no Sin and in that sense was not a Sinner yet he Died for our Sins as the reason of judicial proceeding against him and this being done by a just God for the honour of his Law it could not be but proper Punishment For all just Punishment is proper Punishment The Bp himself shews that this will not hold Water for whereas Mr. B. distinguisheth of Punishment by false imputation and calls it unjust but Analogical and the Punishment of another by consent he calls Analogical but not unjust the Bp Answers If the Punishment be just the Cause must be just and Christ's could not be just with Relation to his own fault for none is supposed therefore there may be a just Punishment for another's fault and if so that viz. the fault of another may be truly said to be the Meritorious cause of it and the Punishment a proper Punishment although for another's fault What can be said more directly and demonstratively against Mr. B. in this Point The Argument is this That Punishment which is just must have a just cause of fault either in the Person suffering or some other and that cause is truly meritorious and the Punishment a proper Punishment But the Punishment of Christ was such therefore a proper Punishment Having thus thrown Mr. B. on his Back he endeavours to make some little excuses for him That which led Mr. B. in denying of it was the Antinomians making Christ to undergo the proper Punishment of our Sin because our Personal Guilt was according to them transferred upon him R. Hence it appears that in the Bp's Judgment Mr. B. was more excuseable in being a Socinian than in being an Antinomian for he finding saith the Bp this Principle to be the Foundation of Antinom that this could not be true and therefore denied Christ's Punishment to be proper But let me speak what is truth as to Mr. B. that I believe he had a further insight into this Controversie than it appears the Bishop had and would have told him that these two Principles are inconsistent and overthrow one another Christ's Suffering was proper Punishment And Christ bore no Personal guilt of any so that the Bp's Argument that refutes Mr. B. redounds back upon himself So that instead of fetching off Mr. B. they both fall irrecoverably together by one blow and it 's easie to take notice how he buffets Mr. B. afterwards quoting Mr. B's words upon this reason he saith But then as you Mr. Lob truly cite his words he makes our Sins not to be the meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings but a kind of promeritorious or occasional Cause Therefore he means no more by promeritorious than occasional and in the Bp's Judgment falls under Mr. L's Charge Yea he saith we must do him right is it to acquit or condemn Mr. B Sure to pass sentence against him So far as to take notice that in stating the Socinian Controversie he makes it to consist in denying that Christ did undergo any Penalty for our Sins as the meritorious or promeritorious Cause but only as occasions and yet here he makes the pro-meritorious cause and the occasional the same and he denies that our Sins were the meritorious cause but only because if we had not Sinned he had not suffered What is this any more than an occasional cause If the World had not been created Man had not fell if there had been no Law there had been no Sin and what saith the Bp truly he is necessitated to give Sentence against Mr. B. though in as soft terms as may be P. 156. These Expressions I grant taken alone yield too much to the Socinians who do not deny our Sins to have been a remote impulsive and occasional cause of Christ's Sufferings but deny them to be the meritorious cause of them What can be more plain and full to prove Mr. B. Socinianizing in these Points For
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
have detected that ignorant Person and not charged it on their dissenting Brethren surely they are not such pitiful Wretches as not to distinguish between the mystical Body of Christ and his Person and to talk of a mystical Person 3. This mystical Person must be distinguished from a legal Union before Faith Where is this Stuff put together I challenge these Men to tell the Man and quote the Place where such a Mess of Nonsense is put together if they do not it must pass for one of the horrid Defamations wherewith they have bespattered their dissenting Brethren to render them odious unto the World I suppose the Bp could make nothing of it The Lord give them Repentance and Remission of these great Sins of the first Magnitude and that they persist not thus to fly in the Face of Christ and his faithful Members and that he leave them not to a reprobate Mind as well as such a persecuting false Tongue whereby we shall be engaged to pray the 120th Psalm against them A POSTSCRIPT BEcause we are so highly reproached by our Adversaries for Antinomians in the great Point of Justication I thought it very needful to transcribe some few Passages out of the Writings of that renowned Servant of Jesus Christ Mr. Tho. Shephard whom none of our bitterest Opponents can call an Antinomian He shews how Christ redeems 1. By Satisfaction 2. By strong Hand 1. By Satisfaction in paying a Price for us 1 Cor. 6. ult Hence Christ satisfieth Justice 1. By standing in the room of all them whom Mercy decreeth to save A Surety standeth in the room of a Debtor Heb. 7.22 As the first Adam stood in the room of all Mankind fallen so Christ standeth in the room of all Men rising or to be restored again 2. By taking from them in whose room he stood the eternal Guilt of all their Sins and by assuming the Guilt of all their Sins unto himself 2 Cor. 5.22 Hence Luther said Christ was the greatest Sinner by Imputation 3. By bearing the Curse and Wrath of God kindled against Sin for God is so holy that when he seeth Sin sticking only by Imputation to his own Son he will not spare him but his Wrath and Curse must he bear Gal. 3.13 Christ drinks up the Cup of all the Elect at one Draught which they should have been sipping and drinking and tormented with Millions of Years 4. By bringing into the Presence of God perfect Righteousness Rom. 5.11 For this also God's Justice required Perfection Conformity to the Law as well as perfect Satisfaction in suffering for the Wrong offered to the Lawgiver Justice requiring these Four Things Christ satisfies Justice by performing them and so pays the Price 2. Christ is a Redeemer by a strong Hand The first Redemption by Price finished in Christ's Person at his Resurrection the second is begun by the Spirit in Man's Vocation and ended at the Day of Judgment c. Sinc. Conv. p. 102 103. By Satisfaction I understand the whole Obedience of Christ unto the very Death both Active and Passive by which we are justified Heb. 10.10 Phil. 2.8 c. This Righteousness of Christ is not that of the Godhead for then what need was there for Christ to do or suffer but that which was wrought in the Manhood And hence it is finite in it self tho' infinite in value in that it was the Righteousness of such a Person This Righteousness of God may be consider'd two ways 1. Absolutely in it self 2. Respectively as done for us Christ's absolute Righteousness is not imputed to us as he is Mediator Head of the Church having the Spirit without measure c. These things are applied for our Good but are not imputed as our Righteousness Here the Objections such as these if Christ's Righteousness be imputed to us then we are Mediators Heads of the Church c. vanisheth 2. The respective or dispensative Righteousness of Christ which some call Justitia fide jussoria Suretiship Righteousness is that whereby Christ is just for us in fulfilling the Law in bearing God's Image we once had and have now lost by Sin And thus we are truly said to be as Righteous as Christ by Imputation because he kept the Law for us and here observe that the Question is not whether all that Christ did or had is imputed to us as our Righteousness But whether all that he did for us as a Surety in fulfilling the Law be not in Substance our Righteousness Because then we are justified by his working Miracles preaching Sermons c. Which is to cast Stumbling-blocks before the Blind so that tho' Christ doth not bestow his Personal Wisdom and Justice upon another yet what hinders but that which Christ doth by his Wisdom and Righteousness for another the same should stand good for him for whom it is done For thus it is among Men. Christ's Essential Righteousness Infinite Wisdom Fulness of the Spirit without Measure c. is not imputed to us yet these have conspired together to do that for us and suffer that for us whereby we come to be righteous before God Jer. 23.6 This Righteousness therefore imputed to us justifies us Rom. 5.18 we are said to be made righteous in him not the Righteousness of God whereby God is just but whereby we are just opposed to the Righteousness of Man called our own Rom. 10.3 Rom. 1.17 Not Righteousness from him as the Papists dream but Righteousness in him Sound Believer p. 265 266. ERRATA PAge 14. l. 2. ab ult r. appealed p. 15. l. 5. r. what necessary p. 16. l. 13. r. not taken p. 20. l. 5. ab ult r. ponitur p. 23. l. 6. ab ult r. not found p. 24. l. 22. f. Men r. more p. 43. l. 13. r. to the Sinner p. 49. l. 1. r. Gods p. 61. l. 8. r. Acquaints p. 69. l. 18. r. meritorious p. 76. l. 7. r. so as to bare l. 16.19.20 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 21. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 87. l. 6. r. 23.21 l. 9. dele at Sins l. 21. r. so as To my old Acquaintance Mr. John Humphry Reverend Sir THE former Civilities that I have receiv'd from you in sending your Books concerning the Doctrine of Justification to me which I always read and seriously considered knowing you to be a Man of Thought and plain-hearted sine fuco which some Men are too much starch'd with These I say first engaged me in this Undertaking for which I must crave your Excuse looking upon this as the best Returns that I am your Apponent in the Doctrine you have deliver'd in the said Books and laboured strenuously to defend for you know the old proverbial Saying Amicus Plato Amicus Aristotiles sed magis Amica Veritas I hope you will not nor Mr. Clerk whom I join with you as one that pleadeth the same bad Cause have any reason to complain of uncivil Treatment for if you find any
Sir I shall no longer detain you from the ensuing Discourse but subscribe my self Yours in all Truth and Faithfulness J. C. THE DOCTRINE OF Iustification Explained and Vindicated c. CHAPTER I. Of the Doctrine of Iustification and the Neonomian Opposition thereto Section 1. The Article of the Assembly § 2. How opposed in the universality of Grace and qualification of the person justified § 3. How Neonomianism agrees with Papists and Quakers in Justification by Infused Righteousness § 4. How they oppose in Pardon of Sin and Imputing Righteousness § 5. Their agreement with the Papists in Justification by Works § 6. The Papists Talk of a New Law § 7. Quakers Doctrine of Justification § 8. The Socinian Doctrine of Justification § 9. The Arminian Justification § 10. Inference § 11. They assert Justification not for Christ's sake alone 12. Neonomians affirm Imputation of the Act of Faith § 13. They deny the Imputation of Christs Obedience and Satisfaction § 14. How they account Faith a qualifying Condition § 15. Conclusion Sect. 1. ASsembl conf cap. 11. § 1. Those whom God effectually calleth he also freely justifieth not by infusing Righteousness into them but by pardoning their Sins and by accounting and accepting their Persons as righteous Not for any thing wrought in them or done by them but for Christ's sake alone nor by imputing Faith it self the Act of believing nor any other Evangelical Obedience to them as their righteousness but by imputing the Obedience and Satisfaction of Christ unto them they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith which Faith they have not of themselves it is the gift of God To this Doctrine here delivered with the greatest Exactness according to the Word of God is the Doctrine of Neonomianism diametrically opposite as will abundantly appear § 2. They say Whom God effectually calleth he justifieth Mr. B. saith God justifieth all the World and he and Mr. H. ' That Christ redeemed all the World in which there are Millions that were never or will be effectually called 2. That God freely justifieth This is fuller expressed in the Larger Catechism Q. 70. Justification is an act of God's free grace unto Sinners Rom. 3.21 23 24. for the free Grace is demonstrated in the Object that Justification falls upon Justification considered in it self is an act of Justice but the Free Grace lies in bringing Justification upon a Sinner as such not as qualified by righteousness of his own under any Denomination whatsoever Christ died for the ungodly for enemies while yet sinners Rom. 5.6 7 8 9. it is such chap. 3. that are said to be justified chap. 4.5 by free Grace it is such that have sinned and come short of the glory of God as all he saith have both Jews and Gentiles such as are described from v. 10. of whom none are righteous no not one but full of all sin and wickedness as expressed with the highest aggravation unto v. 19. Now our Neonomians say it s of Free Grace because Justification is an Instance of Grace but by Mr. Cl's favour it must be in the Justification of a Sinner not of a just one and therefore it s said freely by Grace because he hath nothing nor brings any thing in or from himself 2. He saith It s in respect of what is required of us or in us Faith is wrought in us and it s of Free Grace that he accepts of Faith and imputes it to us for righteousness This by the Assembly is rejected as False Doctrine altho Faith and all the Graces of the Spirit are of Grace yet neither Faith or any of them are our righteousness for Justification neither doth God accept it as such nor impute it Mr. Cl. mightily perverts Rom. 4.16 therefore it is of faith ' i. e. the righteousness before spoken of is such as he received by faith he saith not therefore it is faith that it might be of grace because as Grace gives freely so Faith receiveth freely and is not so proud as to call it self righteousness but gladly humbly and thankfully receives the gift of righteousness which Grace bestows and Justice accepts and imputes to Justification § 3. Not by infusing righteousness into them The Assembly doth here exclude the Popish Justification at which Mr. H. inveighs and so doth J. G. for indeed there 's but a pair of Shears between the Papists and Neonomians for the Papists mean only That we have the righteousness for Justification by infusion and so says the other they say indeed Infusion is of Sanctification and it is so and we say Justification is only a relative Grace as it finds nothing in the justified so it puts nothing but the Neonomians say It must find a righteousness infused and there implanted in the justified for which he is justified or by which it s all one as we shall make appear anon in a word tho the Neonomians say The infusion of grace is not justification yet they say Grace infused is our righteousness for Justification and here they do concur with the Papists Quakers and others in confounding Justification and Sanctification together § 4. But by pardoning their sins The Neonomians will not have Pardon to be any part of Justification but an effect of it only we affirm it to be an essential part of Justification By accounting and accepting their persons as righteous The Neonomians say it s by accounting and accepting their imperfect obedience for righteousness God's Justification is first of the Person and then of their Services as Abel's but their Justification is first of their Services and so it is always in legal Justification never in that of Free Grace for in a meer Legal Justification Persons cannot be accepted before the Work done but the Person is accepted for the Work sake Not for any thing wrought in them or done by them The Papists Neonomians Quakers Socinians Arminians all say its for or by what 's wrought in us or done by us Pap. Cons Trid. There is one only formal cause of Justification and that is the righteousness of God not that whereby he is righteous but whereby he makes us righteous with which we being endowed are renewed in the spirit of our minds and are truly called righteous and are righteous c. Upon which Bellarmine saith the State of the whole Controversie may be reduc'd to this plain Question Whether our inherent righteousness be the formal cause of our own absolute Justification which he maintains in the Affirmative and this is the Question in Controversie exactly which our Neonomians plead for in the like manner tho some more obscurely and sophistically but others more honestly in speaking out plainly what they mean such as Mr. B. Mr. H. and Mr. Cl. Bellarmine also blames Kemnitius for dealing fraudulently in not distinguishing between propter and per saying with the Council of Trent That Christ's Righteousness is the propter the cause for which we we are justified and our own inherent
at God's hand seeing God can be a debtor ex pacto regimine gratiae paterno Resp God can be a Debtor to sinful Man ex pacto but then 1. It s upon pactum absolutum not such a Covenant as makes man's works meritorious 2. It is in and through Christ only that God is a Debtor in the way of Justice 3. It s meerly Free Grace that hath brought about the Sinners Salvation by Christ and not purchased by himself 4. God is not nor ever will be a Debtor to sinful Man to justifie him for or by any works done by him either here or hereafter 5. Therefore whatever is the fruit of Free Grace in us is free in respect of us on whom it is bestowed we do not merit or deserve it in the least neither doth God reward any of his Children regimine foederis operum such as the New Law is and must be which rewards us upon our own fulfilling the condition But upon the account here mentioned before refuted which is a most direct answer because we have shewed the indirectness and falsity of it And I declare that God's Abatement of Terms and requiring a new Condition is that which therefore makes it free seeing it is tendred and obtained without performance of the old Resp The changing of Terms in a covenant doth not make it free if God had changed the terms of the old covenant from perfect obedience to imperfect it had not made it free because the condition is Works still for here the change is but a change from one compact to another viz. Abatement of terms and requiring new terms in the room What if a man gets his Creditor of whom he complains he hath a hard Bargain to make another Bargain upon easier terms this is a favour indeed but its justice considering he had brought him under too hard terms before but yet he doth not therefore give the commodity to him because he allows him easier terms but makes another Bargain upon other terms So here the new law is as much a Bargain as the other tho upon easier terms which cannot be admitted He proceeds to refute Augustine about the works of the law according to Paul's sense which we shall examine when we come upon that Point § 14. We shall here gather the sum of what according to truth is to be asserted and defended against Mr. H. and the rest 1. That the covenant of Works was not made with Man upon equal Terms for his perfectest Obedience could never be equal with the promised Reward 2. That the New-law Covenant is upon as equal Terms according to the nature of the Law and they differ not in nature from the old covenant being works if they differ in degree it s the covenant which hath made it so and the Promise is as much a reward to the imperfection as it was in the old to a perfect condition by God's constitution 3. God is free and can be bound by none but himself and it s his Grace to covenant with the creature any way but when God hath freely without purchase covenanted upon Terms of the creatures performance he maketh himself a Debtor thereupon let the Terms be perfect or imperfect 4. In the pretended new-law covenant where faith and obedience are the conditions Man merits ex pacto and God become a Debtor to him as much as he should have bin to Adam if he had stood hence the Apostle cannot mean justifying freely by grace in Mr. H's sense But when we are said to be justified freely by Gods grace is meant 〈◊〉 That it is of the pleasure of God's Will not upon any external Motive no not of Christ's Death that God exerts the Grace of Justification he is gracious to whom he will 2. It is free in that the Object of it upon whom it falleth is a sinner every way undone and miserable without Works or Qualifications much less deserving of this Grace and this is the chief meaning of the Apostle in Rom. 3. 3. The providing giving and bestowing Christ and his righteousness is an high act of Grace that a sinner may be justified at the Bar of Divine Justice that a sinner according to the Mystery of his Will and gracious Dispensation may be fully acquitted thro Christ from the fiery Law and discharged from all the charges thereof by the highest Justice 4. That as it was Free Grace every way to us considered in our selves therefore a Covenant of Promise without conditions required on our part hence absolute so it was a higher Covenant of Works to the Second Adam than ever the First was under and whereas Mr. H. objects and says then we are justified by the law I answer 1. Where did he ever see Justification but by a Law 2. He makes his to be by the new Law which law we deny to be in rerum natura 3. As we are justified by the Grace of God so it is in Christ Jesus and a Believer in Christ needs no New Law to justifie him he is justified by the Law in Jesus Christ and yet freely by Grace CHAP. III. Of Righteousness Sect. 1. Righteousness what and of what kinds § 2. Of Distributive Justice § 3. Distinctions in respect of Justice § 4. God's Justice in Efficiency § 5. No Justifying Righteousness but perfect § 6. Of the way of God's Execution of his Justice § 7. Righteousness again distinguished § 8. Righteousness of Justification and Sanctification Sect. 1. JVstitia est suum cuique tribuere to give every one his due so Cicero The Spirit of God tells us it s to render every one their due or right Rom. 13.7 Prov. 27. And it s either commutative or distributive commutative when persons mutually perform their Duty to each other which they are bound to by any Law Covenant or Agreement whether they be superiors to inferiors or inferiors to superiors or equals to one another a due conformity in obedience to a Law is commutative Justice Rom. 13. done for Conscience sake giving the Legislator his due but if he is pleased not only to bind me to Duty but promise a Reward upon performance as I am bound to Obedience so on the performance thereof God is bound to Reward whence if Man had stood the Covenant had bin fulfilled by way of commutation it s so between Magistrate and People being bound together by Covenant and each observing his Duty to other it s done by commutative Justice and yet without any derogation from the Authority and Grandeur and just Prerogative of the Magistrate § 2. Distributive Justice or Righteousness is Magistratick for the maintaining commutative Justice by awarding it where it s refused or punishing the breach thereof or in vindicating just persons which are falsly accused upon that account to render to men judicially according to their works All first conformity to Laws and Covenants is by commutative Justice but upon complaint of the breach of the Rules thereof Distributive Justice takes place Hence
God's execution of distributive Justice takes place upon the Fall of Men and Angels § 3. Again Righteousness is to be distinguished in regard of the subject It s either the Righteousness of God or the Righteousness of Man the Righteousness of God is that which peculiarly belongs to himself and that in his Sufficiency or Efficiency the Justice appertaining to God in his Sufficiency is his Essential Attribute whereby he is eternally infinitely and unchangeably righteous this is not a righteousness imputed unto us in Justification but a justifying righteousness it is the just God that justifieth § 4. God's Justice in Efficiency is the execution thereof that his essential Justice may shine forth to his Praise and Glory The Execution of his Justice is a transient Act and is either Legislation or execution of his Laws God's Legislation is his acting from his Sovereign Will and Pleasure in laying what Laws he pleaseth on the creature Laws are not purchased of God any more than Grace therefore they that talk in that manner seem neither to understand Law or Grace In God's Legislation he hath given Man but one Law for Life in the fulfilling where for not Man is liable to be eternally saved or condemned and God never made nor Christ purchased any Remedying Law to amend the faults thereof never abrogated or relaxt it but it stands in its full Sanction preceptive remunerative or vindictive § 5. There neither is nor ever was any justifying righteousness to Man but what is the perfect and compleat righteousness of this Law as imperfect righteousness is renounced and condemned by this Law so it will not stand for Justification with any of God's Laws neither is it Grace in God to relax his Law he cannot deny himself in the perfection of Justice § 6. The execution of this Law upon Man since the Fall is in a way of meer Justice or in a way of exact Justice in consistency with Grace and Mercy In a way of meer Justice to the Glory thereof on the Vessels of Wrath in a way of Justice in consistency with all the designs of Grace and Mercy by setting up a Second Adam and providing such a righteousness in him as might fully answer all the demands of the Law which the Law should accept and and impute to the Sinner the Mediatorial and Surety Righteousness of Christ and this is called the righteousness of God that we are made in Justification Mr. H. denys it but we shall endeavour to prove it § 7. Righteousness of Man is to be distinguished Either as it is of his own performance for Justification and so it s the righteousness of the Law and rejected by the Apostle Or as it s performed by another by Jesus Christ for us and this is called Our Righteousness and is so by real Imputation and Free Gift This is our only Evangelical Righteousness § 8. It s also considered in respect of Justification before God In this respect all Fallen Man's imperfect Righteousness is filthy Rags in respect of Sanctification they are the fruit of the Spirit and accepted in Christ the person being justified and therefore Believers are often denominated righteous in Scripture CHAP. IV. Of Imputation Sect. 1. What Imputation imports § 2. How it differs from Justification § 3. Not to impute is to acquit § 4. To attribute or ascribe what § 5. Legal Imputation § 6. The Second Sort. § 7. Imputation by Attainder § 8. Neonomians deny Imputation of Adam 's Sin § 9. Imputation by way of Suretiship § 10. A Surety a Representative § 11. The difference of Imputation by way of Attainder and by way of Suretiship § 12. Neonomians deny Imputation of Sin to Christ Sect. 1. IMputation for the most part in Scripture is a Forinsick or Law Term as Justification is the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is the accounting things or actions to Persons which they did not do or plead they did not do when a man's action comes to be lis coram Judice the first Enquiry is de facto whether he he guilty of it or not guilty the Judgment of the Court by the Jury is the Imputation or laying Guilt upon him or the acquitting him which is not only non-imputation of Fault to him but imputing righteousness unto him The Sentence of the Judge on the Verdict of Guilty is Condemnation on the Verdict of Not Guilty is Justification I find the word so used 1 Sam. 22.15 when Abimelek is accused by Doeg to Saul for enquiring of the Lord concerning David he saith Let not the King impute any thing unto his servant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let not the King lay it upon or ascribe it to his servant as a fault LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let not the King lay any thing to the charge of his servant This is rendred impute by our Translators so 2 Sam. 19.19 Shimei pleading with David for his Pardon saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let not my lord impute sin to me Likewise in the Plea of a righteous action Lev. 7.18 If the Priest shall eat the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day God saith it shall not be accepted neither shall it be imputed to him that offers it the Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LXX is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So in offering any where but at the Door of the Tabernacle blood shall be imputed * To impute is to lay any thing to the charge so Minst Lat. Imputare aliquid alicui Plin. Caedem alicui imputare So Quint. to that man that doth it Lev. 17.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now these are the words used for imputing in the Old Testament and as the Sept. renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the forequoted places in the same sense the Apostles use it in the New Testament whence it appears that Imputation is a Law Term and it s used when it comes to be argued in Law whether this thing or action whether righteousness or unrighteousness is to be ascribed to a person whereby he stands just or unjust in the eye of the Law and what the Judgment of the Court is is Imputation Such Trials do especially concern two things Right or Actions in matters of Right or Claim the Judgment of the Court imputes it to the Plaintiff or Defendant in matters of Fact the Judgment of the Court determines it or imputes it as righteousness or unrighteousness § 2. Hence 1. Imputation differs from Justification because it s of right or fact It s a Judgment concerning things or actions according to law Justification in this legal sense or Condemnation is of Persons according to Imputation 2. Guilt is the imputation of fault to the charged person in the most proper sense reatus culpae and the acquitting a person from Guilt when charged is the making him righteous by removal of unrighteousness from him so far
intervening Righteousness between Christ and us what to call it Mt. Cl. calls it subordinate and so doth Mr. B. but Mr. H. liking not that Name so well had rather call it co-ordinate but I know not from the Notion of the thing duly considered why they may not go one step further and call it the Principal or supream justifying righteousness for that which hath the principal place in any thing ascribed to it is the principal but our own righteousness hath the principal place in the thing ascribed to it which is Justification therefore it s the chief and supream righteousness For they say we are justified by the imputation of this righteousness only and by no other therefore all conducing righteousnesses to the introducing this are subordinate to it Again That which hath its place only in the external causes and in the modality of their operation as to the production of the effect is much inferiour to the essential causes that enter the very effect and are constitutive to it but Christ's Righteousness by these men is no more and therefore must be a subordinate righteousness to ours ours being causa formalis justificationis an essential cause Christ's being but causa protarch a remote cause adjuvant to the efficient therefore the righteousness of Christ can have no more than a remote causality in purchasing the New Law by the righteousness whereof we are justified which is no better indeed than causa sine qua non it s in ordine ad the justifying righteousness therefore subordinate to it 2. He saith This subordinate Gospel Righteousness is an imperfect righteousness Truly I am sorry for it that Gospel Righteousness should be imperfect I doubt there 's little dependance upon it since the righteousness of the law that condemns us is perfect its little likelihood that an imperfect righteousness should save us from it ay but they will say it s Christ's perfect righteousness must save us from the perfect righteousness of the law condemning us Say you so and therefore why should not this righteousness of Christ have the honour of justifying us it seems we are saved by Christ's righteousness and justified by our own as if Justification were not Salvation But is our Gospel-righteousness imperfect this is no Gospel for its ill News I must tell these men its a rotten foundation they build upon and their Building will drop not being built on Christ the Corner Stone in Justification 3. He saith It s imperfect consistent with many failings and infirmities Resp I pray how comes this to pass is it from the Legislator that constituted such a Law whose condition is obedience consistent with sin or is it from the Operator or Worker under this Law if from the former then the Law makes it in fault if there be any but if he hath made a law with such condition of obedience consistent with sin then performance of such is no sin nor needs a Pardon for sin is the transgression of the law the subject is under Now if Believers are under the New Law for Justification and perform there what 's required what need have they of a Pardon from a righteousness borrowed from another law If it be from the last viz. the fault and defect of the operator of righteousness that his righteousness is not the performance of the condition of the New Law as required then this New Law cannot justifie him our Neonomians in this Point will be on Scilla or Charybdis in spite of the World In a word 1. That righteousness that cannot justifie us at the Bar of the old Law or Covenant of Works is no justifying righteousness but none of our own righteousness New Law or other will not justifie us at the Bar of the Covenant of Works by the Neonomians own confession therefore we cannot be justied by any such righteousness 2. Again that righteousness which needs pardon is no justifying righteousness but is condemned by the law for whatever is pardoned is condemned by the law first neither is that person justified who by the law is unpardoned Pardon being an essential part of Justification in Mens Courts where many Indictments ly against a Man if he be quitted of some and not of all he is not discharged as justified but here it s worse I do not find that at the New Law Bar a man as they say justified is quite discharged from any Indictment at all for there 's none fully pardoned wherefore our Neonomians say that their Justification is not perfect in this life So Mr. Cl. Our Justification in this world is not perfect and compleat c. p. 18. § 6. Mr. Cl. saith There 's a twofold guilt Legal and Evangelical Legal Guilt is an obligation to eternal punishment this is fully pardoned in Justification and can never return again because Christ hath taken it all upon himself and made full satisfaction to his Father's Justice for it but Gospel-guilt which is an obligation to Gospel-Punishment i. e. fatherly chastisements for sins after Justification returns upon commission of new sins and is removed upon repentance sometimes wholly sometimes in part This is also Mr. H's Doctrine Resp The distinction is naught for we deny any Evangelical Guilt Evangelical Guilt Threat or Punishment is a Bull a downright Contradiction if we know what Gospel is and they that will be ignorant and call this Assertion Antinomian Poyson let them be ignorant still I thank God for the knowledge of the Gospel so far as that it is quite contrary to Guilt Threat and Punishment or Obligation to it in the true legal sense thereof Likewise he should have distinguished of Guilt as usual reatus culpae and reatus paenoe the first properly Guilt and that in judicio legis vel judicio conscientiae if a Man be sub reatu culpae judicio legis as they say the justified ones are he is unjustified for the law cannot justifie a man and declare him guilty i. e. not guilty and guilty at the same time Obligation to Punishment is not Guilt in the true sense of it for we say a man cast in Court is guilty of the charged Fault and therefore the Law binds him over to Punishment We never say a Man is guilty of the punishment but deserves he is found guilty and therefore the Sentence of the Law binds him to Punishment but he saith Legal Guilt is fully pardoned in Justification Pardon is always of a fault and includes not punire but is sin pardoned fully in Justification as to an obligation to eternal punishment then 1. Pardon is included in Justification contrary to what he asserts in the foregoing Page 2. Justification is perfect and compleat so far as the taking off eternal punishment 3. He cannot but own this to be the main part of Justification at least and this it seems is owing to the full satisfaction made by Christ to the Justice of God our righteousness of the New Law hath nothing to do here in the matter
of Eternal State Where are we now what a Justification is this by the New Law wherein our eternal state is not concerned Well! but our Justification in this life is not yet perfect not by Christ because he takes off only eternal punishment but temporal he hath left to us to remove by Repentance performing the righteousness of the New Law I hope this righteousness falling in to help Christ's it will produce perfect Justification No it wont this righteousness takes away our Sins and Punishment wholly but sometimes and sometimes only in part and what 's the reason where 's the fault why it falls upon this New Law which is always fulfilling and never fulfilled it will never justifie any one till the last day and it cannot do it then without the perfect righteousness of the Old Law § 7. Let 's take Mr. Cl's Definition of Justification into consideration a little He saith The Definition of Justification so far as it relates to God is thus Justification is an act of God whereby he accounts us righteous at present and treats us as such and will solemnly declare and pronounce us so at the last day of Judgment Resp He should have told us what act of God whether immanent or transient whether an act of Grace or Justice or both he should have told us the object of that act whether a meer sinner or a righteous person he will tell us anon it s a righteous person and he saith accounting him so at present if this accounting him be in a law sense it s but Imputation at most and this is that and all that he doth at present he finds them holy and righteous and judgeth them to be as they be but doth not God declare them righteous at present neither in foro Legis nor in foro Evangelii nor in foro conscientiae in none of these at present when then the very Sentence of Justification is not till the last day so that indeed there is none justified till then for a suspended sentence keeps the person whatever Opinion the Judge hath of him under the Law in Prison and in continual fear of Condemnation so that they are all the day long for fear of Death subject to Bondage § 8. Hence he infers two things 1. That Justification while we are in this life is but partial imperfect and incompleat and that we shall not obtain fully compleat entire and final Justification for all the effects of sin till the Day of Judgment To which I answer Where there is but an imperfect partial Justification there must be a partial Condemnation it cannot be denied but the Apostle denys it and saith there 's no condemnatien to them that are in Christ Jesus 2. The law knows no such thing a man is either perfectly justied for the same thing or perfectly condemned there 's no Medium betwixt Justification and Condemnation 3. If the New Law do not perfectly justifie a person then it condemns too at the same time that when ever the Parator of righteousness takes himself to be justified he is bound to believe himself condemned also and whether will stand good at the last Day he knows not either his Justification or Condemnation CHAP. VI. Of Pardon Section 1. Whether Remission of Sin belongs to Justification § 2. Remission distinguished by Mr. H. § 3. Of general Remission § 4. Conditional Pardon antecedent to a mans Justification § 5. Actual Pardon subsequent to a mans Justification Sect. 1. MR. Cl's Second Inference is That Justification doth not properly consist in Pardon afterward he saith a man is first righteous and then pardoned to which we have spoken something Mr. H. makes a fearful pudder about this Point we will a little inspect his Notions Mediocr p. 44 55. Our Divines do generally place Justification in remission of Sins and so do the Papists and so did I my self Resp Remission of Sins is upon good grounds placed in Justification as an essential part of the Justification of a Sinner and I can boldly deny that sinner to be justified whose sins are not forgiven and to separate them is as possible as to separate homo animal rationale The Law any Law nay your New Law cannot justifie a sinner and declare him righteous unless in that very act of declaring him righteous his sins are taken away in foro legis and this is God's Remission tho not Man 's for his ways are not as mans and whereas Mr. H. makes remission of sins to be a benefit after Justification as an effect of it we say it is a benefit in Justification and the first thing in it in Nature for its impossible any one should stand righteous in the eye of any Law that stands chargeable as a transgressor thereof But remission must not saith Mr. H. be the formal reason of Justification Resp The form of an Act and the formal reason of that Act are two things the material reason of Justification is righteousness and the formal cause is imputation of that righteousness Justification comes in as the acquitting Sentence opposed as Mr. B. saith to condemnation which ex natura rei must formally carry in it forgiveness of sins He proceeds To forgive a mans sins and declare him rigeteous are two inconsistencies one with another in the same respect Resp Cujus contrarium verum in Justification of a Sinner they are most consistent and inseparable that in declaring a sinful man righteous his sins are also done away its true in mans way of Pardon there is some inconsistency because his is by dispensing with his Law but God's way of forgiveness is in and through the satisfaction of his Law but I must tell him that here no Man is looked upon as righteous in the eye of man's law that hath transgressed it till he is first pardoned and therefore when God pronounceth a man just it is according to the law of faith when he pardons his sins it is in respect of the law of works Resp Here are two Bars now he saith elsewhere he likes not two bars I would fain know now at which of these Bars a sinner is most justified either by the law of Works where all his sins are forgiven and therefore consequently must be made righteous or at the Bar of the New Law where he saith the man is declared just but imperfectly so and therefore goes away with his sins upon his Back to the Law of Works to have them pardoned Is it not pretty Divinity then to say a man is declared righteous first at the Bar of the Law of Faith and then all the Bed-role of his sins are pardoned at the Bar of the Law of Works § 2. He comes to distinguish of Remission It s either conditional and universal as it lies in the Covenant and is the purchase of Christ or actual as it lies in application thereof to particular persons upon performance of the conditions Resp This Distinction is a great Point among the Neonomians Mr. B.
the Condition Resp Either the Neonomians have lost their understandings or think all other Men have and so think they may impose what they please upon them for here he distinguishes betwixt a conditional Gospel Covenant and a Gospel Covenant upon conditions a total Covenant and a partial a total upon conditions and a partial absolute upon performance of conditions and all these one new law Covenant a Covenant that pardons upon conditions and a Covenant absolutely pardoning upon conditions The total pardon if that which pardons all the World upon conditions not performed and yet it damns them too for non performances a pardoning Covenant that damns all for it remains not a pardon upon conditions when any one performs the conditions it s then absolute but did ever any one know that a conditional Covenant when the condition is performed absolute i.e. without conditions if any Man buy a House of his Neighbour for a Summ of Money will he say after he has paid his Money my Neighbour gave me this House for an absolute promise is a promise of free Gift He proceeds The one of these is that very Grace or Act of Grace it self as goes into that Act of Imputation or Act that imputes our Faith for Righteousness when the other still is the Effect or benefit following justification Resp The Man is in a Wood The one of these an act of Grace which of them That which hath conditional pardon without performance or that which upon performance becomes absolute the total general or the partial particular which I know not but one it is that is an Act of Grace going into the Act of Imputation Imputation is an Act of Justice in strict acceptation because its never but of righteousness tho' to bring righteousness to a sinner to whom the Law imputes righteousness is an act of Grace as Justification is but it must not be his own righteousness for that excludes Grace § 9. He is a little cautious of Mr. B's opinion that Justification is the making us righteous but he saith he will distinguish there is a making a Man just by infusion or by Imputation that by infusion is Regeneration which the Papists hold and which we distinguish from Justification Res The righteousness by which they 'll have a man justified is that of Regeneration and that of Works the Papists way has more of Grace in it because theirs is Justification of the ungodly as Regeneration is Sanctifying the ungodly Some he saith are for Justification by pardon and so a Man is righteous by non-imputation of Sin but he is not for this neither because he keeps pardon and non imputation of Sin for a consequent of Justification he will have a Man just in the Eye of the Law and yet under the imputation of Sin well how will he have it to be It s by imputation of what righteousness Christs no it s by Imputation of our Faith to us for righteousness Our Faith and Evangelical Obedience being imperfect and sinful and we are unrighteous in the Eye of the Law for all that but God in his judging us according to the Law of Grace doth allow of that i. e. Sin for Christ's sake instead of all which the Law requires to our Justification Resp Here you see what a parcel of righteousness this New Law righteousness is its imperfect sinful as to Sins of omission and commission and we are for all this righteous in the eye of the moral Law but God judging by the Law of Grace he allows all the Sin against his own Law for Christ's sake Christ hath merited Gods allowing our sinful righteousness i. e. Unrighteousness and justified us for it but seeing here is all this done by the Law of Grace how comes it to pass that it doth not pardon these Sins but they must go to another Bar for Pardon Why because the Law of Grace tho' it justifies the performer it pardons no Sin because no Law can suppose its own condition to be sinful but if there be Sin in the condition as these Men say again and again there is the Law of Grace allows it its certainly an Antinomian Law allows that Sin that Gods most Holy Law condemns God here must deny himself and to say he allows it for Christs sake is to make Christ the Minister of Sin die for allowance of Sin and establishing of it by Law and if God by a new Law hath established this sinful Obedience instead of all which the old Law required what need of asking pardon of the said Law Gods abolition or relaxation of the old Law and setting us upon Obedience to a New Law and the performances thereof instead of what the old Law required freed us from Sin and there needs no pardon for not performing perfect obedience for that would have been sin in the eye of the new law it requiring imperfect obedience imperfection and sinfulness being the formality of the condition and therefore it must needs forbid perfection as most contrary to it and condemn all glorified Saints § 10. By this may that expression of the Apostle he rightly understood God justifies the ungodly not in sensu divlso so that he that is so before his Justification is no longer so afterwards but in sensu composito our Faith or Evangelical Obedience in regard to the law he should have said the law of Works or in regard of those Works that are required by the law to our justification are no righteousness within its own nature therefore unrighteous would justifie us but God constitutes it so by the law of the Gospel and according to that law imputes it to us for righteousness Resp I need say no more to this but that it is both in sensu diviso composito an ungodly interpretation That God should make that righteousness by an after law which he had made moral unrighteousness by a former and impute that by one law for righteousness to Justification which he had imputed by another law for sin to condemnation Is God as Man that he should ly or as the Son of Man that he should repent The sence of the place is not difficult it is that justifies a sinner as such or else it s no act of Free Grace that when the Grace of Justification toucheth on the person of a sinner he is no more godly than when the Grace of Regeneration toucheth upon him tho the Grace of God lays hold on a sinner in both these respects finding them ungodly in all respects yet it leaves them not so His ensuing Supposition is very impertinent supposing that which never was nor never will be viz. That a Believer living regenerate can never be justified by the law of works by his own righteousness No he can be justified by no law neither did God ever make any law to account any mans unrighteousness righteousness I can call that unrighteousness which the law of Works condemns and God never intended by his Grace nor Christ
and his Distinction is a Chimaera and if Dr. O. did not trouble his head with such Whims his Consideration is not to be blamed But he tells us that which is not ours comes after imputation as an effect the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ but they become not ours by imputation therefore one leg of his distribution is dropt off for he saith there 's an imputation of a thing ours and a thing not ours this thing not ours which is Christ's satisfaction he saith is not imputed but comes in as an effect of this imputation of our own righteousness but why must Christ's Satisfaction come in the rear because a man must be justified first and then Christ's Satisfaction must come in to mend the faults of his Justification as a remedying righteousness the formal part of his Justification must be pardoned and accepted and before his Justification hath released the man from condemnation and unacceptableness to God he must have the effect of his Justification hence this imputation of ours is the cause of our pardon and acceptation by Christ's Merits an imputation of our immoral righteousness the cause of a perfect But how can we have pardon through the Satisfaction of Christ and acceptance through his merits without God's imputation of them to us for if by the rules of Justice in the New Law Court our righteousness is imputed to us how comes it to pass that when we come sinners into the old law Court we can there become righteous free from condemnation and accepted by Satisfaction and Merit and yet not have it imputed to us this is most extra-judicial for a Court always imputes that satisfaction and merit to the person discharged which is paid into Court for it It were easie to run endlesly upon shewing the gross absurdities of this Divinity for they will have the New Law to impute righteousness which they say is no righteousness and the Old Laws righteousness to be good and perfect but not imputed so that indeed according to their Doctrine the sinner is ruin'd for want of righteousness Under the New Law is no righteousness and under the Old Law good righteousness but no imputation without which a sinner can never be justified now if they would permit these two laws to meet and agree the matter something might be done then the New Law might borrow the Old Laws righteousness and the Old the New Laws Imputation CHAP. VIII Of the Formal Cause of Iustification Section 1. Mr. H's Distinction of by and for according to Bellarmine § 2. The Distinction considered § 3. Justification purchased by Christ. § 4. They advance not God's Grace in Justification § 5. Papists truer than Neonomians in the Doctrine § 6. They say the same with the Papists and confess it § 7. The Errors and Weaknesses of their Opinions § 8. Of Active and Passive Justification § 9. Of Condition and Duty Sect. 1. MR. H. for the better establishment of the Neonomian Doctrine hath taken up a distinction from his friend Cardinal Bellarmine The Protestants saith Mr. H. have denied that Faith is our formal Righteousness Righ p. 46. the reason of the denial hath bin much because they have confounded the causa per quam propter quam by Faith saith the Scripture we are justified by is id per quod causa formalis but Christs Righteousness is id propter quod Let us see out of whose Shop he took this Distinction Bellarmine de just lib. 2. c. 2. having stated the Question Whether Righteousness inherent in us be the formal cause of absolute Justification or not In order to his defence of it in the Affirmative hath this distinction and chargeth Kemnitius with fraudulent dealing in stating the Question because he put id propter quod instead of per quam saith If one will speak properly he must not use the Word propter but per when he will point out the formal cause of Justification If any one ask by what doth a Man live By what do the Stars shine By what is the Fire hot It will be answer'd by his Soul by the Light by the Heat which are the formal causes but if any ask wherefore did the Emperour Triumph wherefore did the Souldiers fight It will be answered not by giving the formal cause but the meritorious and final the Souldiers fight that they may overcome the Emperour triumphs because he overcame so Kemnitius if he had spoken without fraud and properly should have said what is that by which a Man is Justified whether the Righteousness given to him of God and inherent through the Merits of Christ or the Merits of Christ from without him imputed Now Bellarmine having so fully acquainted us with the distinction according to the full sense of Mr. H. I think it will be but loss of Paper and Time to transcribe what Mr. H. saith of it again and again being but all to the same intention of the Cardinal § 2. This distinction duly considered is but one of the Papists shifts and Evasions for First In all juridical proceedings causa per quam est causa propter quam for a Mans righteousness is that by which and for which he is justified and so his transgression is that by which and reason wherefore he is condemned and if meritorious righteousness of a Man 's own or of anothers is brought into Plea and be admitted he is said to be justified by it if it be enquired how came such an one to be acquitted the Answer will be by his Innocency how came such an one to be condemned the Answer will as soon be by as for Wickedness all Righteousness by which any one is Justified is propter quam it s that by Reason whereof he is Justified why doth the New Law justifie him that hath performed the condition is his Righteousness the Justifying condition is not the Justification propter conditionem if it doth refuse to Justifie because the condition is not performed then it justifies not because it is not performed in all conditional Covenants the promise is performed by reason of the performance of the condition 2. Again if this Distinction were True as applied then we should be said to be justified or reconciled still propter sanguinem Christi but we are said to be justified by his Death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred ' by ' not for Rom. 5.9 Are reconciled to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the Death of his Son for dia with a Genitive Case signifies per with an Accusative propter ver 10. So we have Redemption 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Colos 1.14.20 Is rendred through but they that have knowledge of the prepositions know by or through are the same when a thing is done by it s done through See Acts 20.28 the Church of God which he hath purchased 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that its evident that the distinction will not hold to make Evangelick Obedience causa per quam and Christs Obedience propter quam
because Christs Obedience is said to be per quam when it is intended thereby to be the very righteousnes unto Justification ergo per quam and propter quam are of the same import in a juridical sence but that which our Nâ—onomâ—ans and Papists aim at is an immediate and mediare righteousness that we are justified by one as immediate for the sake of Christ's the mediate § 3. The Papists by this distinction would make way for a double righteousness in our Justification for the Council of Trent doth anathematize those that say a man is justified only by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ or only by remission of sins without inherent Grace and Charity To this purpose our Neonomian Mr. Cl. p. 35. That the merit of Christ's Death and Sufferings he excluding his active obedience hath purchased this priviledge for us among others that sincere faith should be accounted for righteousness and that God will account us righteous if we be possest thereof Resp In both these we see Christ's righteousness is made the propter quam and our own the per quam Christ's the meritorious of our Justification by our own righteousness whereby the ascribing any essential causality to Christ's righteousness is out of doors For 1. The Justification by our own ' is entire in all essential causes without Christ's for our righteousness imputed must be the material as well as the formal part of our Justification 2. It must be first imputed and we justified by it for they make not only the Condition but the Imputation thereof and Justification thereby ' to be conditional of our pardon and acceptance by Christ's Righteousness 3. The very righteousness of our own is imputed not Christs Righteousness at all only the effects cause and effects are opposita therefore if the effects only then not the righteousness it self 4. To say that Christ purchased Justification by our own righteousness is but to make Christ such a remote cause of Justification as Election is Now to talk that the condition by which we are justified is a formal cause and yet to be no cause is non-sence for a formal cause altho it be sine qua non and so is every cause yet the four immediate causes are not only so and this distinguisheth them as propter immediate causes whose vis caters the effect when causa sine qua non as to the effect is only antecedent or causa causae and enters not the effect spoken of But Mr. H. saith it s a cause as well as a condition it is both if we made our works to justifie us sub genere causae efficientis procatarct and so the meritorious cause it were to bring our works into the office of Christ's Righteousness and derogate from Grace Resp So they do notwithstanding all they say for if they thrust out Christ's Righteousness from any essential part of our Justification as they do not allowing it materiality or formality therein they put our own Works into Christ's Office and nothing can be more derogatory to the Grace of God they say they make it medus efficientis causa procatarchtica an external motive to the efficient the effect then in that respect falls on the efficient but the effect of the efficient is another thing Supposing God justifies as Judge Christ's Righteousness by way of Merit falls upon him and procures of him that he takes our righteousness in payment We may use this Similitude a Man is prosecuted before a Judge for an hundred Pounds a Friend of the Defendant tampers with the Jury and Judge and procures of them that the Debtor pay but 10 l. I pray whether is he justified by paying the 10 l. in Court or by that which the Judge and Jury received which is not brought in Plea at all so that all meritorious righteousness is brought in Plea coram Judice and accordingly being imputed or not Judgment passeth The Righteousness of Christ whatever it may purchase out of the Court of the New Law it s not allowed there as a Plea and is never nay cannot be imputed these men say though pleaded therefore no Justification thereby for no man is justified legally but by what is imputed § 4. But when we make it the formal cause only of our passive Justification we do nothing thereby but advance God's Grace and Christ's Merits as having obtained for us not only that God should require of us no othâ—r condition but our Faith or inchoate Righteousness unto life but also that he should corstitute by his New Law this condition performed to be our righteousness in the room of that perfect one required of the old p. 47. of right Resp Note 1. They do something besides advancing the Grace of God because it makes Justification due to us upon Debt for he that hath a formal right-ousness of his own legally imputed to him he may demand Justification as due to him by the law it self and this is not to advance Grace but contrary if the Apostle speak sence Rom. 4. 2. It is not an advance of Christ's Merits for it casts it out of Imputation and Justification and makes it but a causa sine quanon it casts them out of the essential causes and it makes them but an adjuvant cause or con-cause a co-ordinate according to Mr. H. it makes not Christ's Merits the only righteousness it makes our own righteousness the inchoate and foundation righteousness the Corner Stone of our Justification and whereas the Scriptures make Christ's it makes Christ's Righteousness but to belong to another law whereby they say we are not justified and our own to that which justifies and the only justifying righteousness of the new law it makes Christ's Righteousness and our Pardon by it to be a consequent of Justification by our own and that without imputation thereof extra-judicial but our own very righteousness to be imputed to us it makes that righteousness within its self and own nature saith Mr. H. again and again to be righteousness legal for our Justification and rejects Christ's perfect Righteousness as to Imputation and Justification which is contrary to the Holiness and Justice of God 3. He makes the Grace of God to consist in constituting a Law for Justification which is but part of distributive Justice the exercise of a Legislative Power and not of Grace to Sinners 4. The constitution of this inchoste righteousness is harder terms than the constitution of the righteousness of the Covenant of Works for Reasons before given 5. We see what their meaning is of Christ's Merits its only that he purchased a new Law and we see what is the Neonomian Commutation that they have of late made such a stir about they are for a Commutation what 's that its a commutation of our righteousness i. e. bringing into the room of the righteousness of the law i. e. Christ's in Justification they deny it in Dr. C's sence i. e. that our sins were imputed to Christ and his
and Faith as such is both seen in us and present with us 4. If Faith be the very righteousness then Faith believes in Faith as righteousness Doth the Scripture bid us believe in our selves or believe in another Faith believes in Faith for our very righteousness by these Men which is most absurd when they preach they should bid Men believe in themselves did Abraham believe in his Faith Was that his believing or did he believe that which was held out in the Promise the same thing that God imputes to us for righteousness we do make the Object of our Faith for Righteousness Now then if God imputes our believing to us then we believe in our believing these are inevitable Rocks this Doctrine will bring these Men unto 5. God cannot impute Faith as a Work and in the Neonomian sence for righteousness it being as Mr. H. confesseth again and again no righteousness sinful in need of pardon for 1. This would not be according to truth to call evil good nor to do it in a way of administration of Justice as in Justification would it be just But most unjust God is a God of Truth and Holiness and the Judge of all the World and therefore must deal righteously for tho' he pardons Iniquity yet will by no means clear the Guilty 2. It s contrary to their own assertions that Justification is an Act of Justice whereas such an Imputation and Justification as they speak of would be far from an Act of justice and is a meer dispensation with justice for where a Law must be abrogated or relaxed there is an absolute dispensation with Justice and without one of these they confess there cannot be Justification by their New Law 6. This cannot be justification because Sin is not pardoned in it nor the person accepted Imputation of righteousness to the work before it s to the person and if the person must do good works before he 's justifi'd which is absurd because the works he doth are imputed to him and he is justified by 'em as they say § 5. But let us hear what Mr. Cl. hath to say for the Proof of this Position that Faith is our Subordinate righteousness i. e. in his sence an interveening righteousness coming between Christs righteousness whereby we are justified before we come at Christ or pardon both being consequent to our Justification by this New-Law-Righteousness which he calls Faith see p. 64. His reason are these 1. What else can be the plain and proper meaning of that Phrase it was accounted to him for righteousness Without putting it upon the Rack of Tropes and Figures and the like Engines of Cruelty c. Resp Doth Mr. Cl. pretend to be an interpreter of Scripture and will not allow the use of a Trope or Figure but to call them Engines of Cruelty is to say where a Trope is said to be used in a Scripture there is a wresting of Scripture I must tell him that a Tropical sence of many Places of Scripture is the true plain and proper sence and meaning of the Spirit of God in many most eminent Expressions and for this he must expect to be watched in the adjusting his New-found righteousness whether he doth no where interpret Scripture Tropically What answer will he give the Papist in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation founded on This is my Body Mr. B. saith it s as credible as the Doctrine of imputation of Christs Righteousness And what saith Mr. Cl. to the Covenant of Circumcision Well let us make a little Impartial Examination of this Expression If Abraham were justified by works Rom. 4.2 he hath boasting but not before God not in the Presence of God for his Justification yea he may rejoice that through Grace he hath performed any action by faith which God witnesseth to as James speaks of but he dare not plead it before God for Justification of his Person Now he brings in Justification by Faith in diametrical opposition to it for the Scripture saith Abraham believed in God and it was accounted to him for righteousness so translated the words in the Hebrew may run thus He believed on Jehovah and he accounted it i. e. what he believed of him for righteousness to him the Words are rendred by the Septuagint and the New Testament Abraham believed God it was accounted to be unto righteousness The Seed promised before was the thing believed by Abraham the blessing unto all Nations which Seed was to proceed from his and Sarah his Wife's Loins this was the promise of God to him and this was accounted to him for righteousness he believed Jehovah graciously promising and the thing promised Jehovah imputed to him for righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he accounted the thing believed not the Faith it self therefore the Targum hath its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he believed the word of promise and the thing promised was imputed to him in this sense the Apostle takes it Rom. 4.3 Gal. 3.6 where in both places he opposeth a righteousness of faith i. e. which is believed on unto a righteousness within which is no object of faith for it is within us and an object of sense he believed God in the Promise of Christ and this that he believed was reckoned to him he argues presently that this imputation was not to Abraham as a work of any kind for to him that worketh as much as if he should say O do not mistake me I do not nor doth the Scripture speak of Abraham's Faith as a work the reward should not be of grace but debt but to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly as Abraham was when first justified Josh 24. his faith is esteemed to be unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. he believes upon the righteousness which is imputed to him And why may not Faith be taken objectively by a Metonomy for the thing believed for 't is not unusual in Scripture Christ is said to be our hope the object of our hope 1 Tim. 1.1 and so the hope laid up for us in Heaven i e. the things hoped for Coloss 1.5 so looking for that blessed hope Tit. 2.14 the things hoped for what 's more frequent than these Metonomies yea proper plain and elegant in matters of sense or perception its most frequent to put the object for the sence and sence for the object Matth. 6.22 the light of the body is the eye and there the light is for the eye and after the eye for the light besides it s a rule that when a word in Scripture taken in the direct sense will cross other Scriptures and the signification lies fair for the Analogy of Faith then the true sense lies in the Trope as here we are justified by faith but how as it lays hold on the justifying blood of Christ or else we contradict Rom. 5.9 being now justified by his blood now either Faith or the justifying Blood of Christ must fall into a Trope for which
Evangelical But alas Mr. Cl. to prevent misconstruction after he hath bin disputing for the work of Faith to be our righteousness yet we must not expect Mercy Justification Pardon Reconciliation or Favour with God upon the account of our sincerity Faith or Obedience as the procuring cause but we are to look up to Christ confessing our best works to be but filthy rags in strict justice c. Resp One may see how frail a righteousness these men have feigned to themselves it is as the Spider's Web that they dare not lean upon it tho they will swagger and vapour with it to out-dare them whom they call Antinomians who will cleave immediately to Christ's righteousness alone as their only righteousness without the intervention of these filthy Rags their righteousness must have Christ stand behind the Curtain to patch their ragged raiment their House cannot stand without Bellarmine's propter quod their Pageantry is all dead Images unless one behind the Curtain move them which no body must see here is no Mercy Pardon and Reconciliation for and by their Righteousness but Christ procured something of it I know not what but Christ's Procurement was long ago the Law is in their own hands now he only procured the New Law they must shift as well as they can to perform the Conditions Christ did not purchase those neither died he to forgive any fault in their righteousness but oh their righteousness comes not up to the old Law what need they trouble themselves about that Christ hath fetcht them from under that faulty Perfection and brought them under a faultless unrighteousness of the Remedial Law and faults their Righteousness must have or else it would be an adequate condition but they must acknowledge their unworthiness and desert of all evil and when we have done God looks upon us as righteous in a Gospel sense I had thought in the beginning of this Paragraph Christ had bin to have pardoned and mended the faults of our remedial righteousness but it seems here is some pretence to it only that Christ may not think he is put off with nothing but the compleating of these rough Garments to deceive lies in their own doings if we do this God looks upon us as righteous in a Gospel-sense and pardons us first justified and not pardoned and then pardoned and not justified VVhat a great matter of Lamentation is it to see the corrupt minds of men thus vainly and mischievously sport themselves with the rich Grace of God and his strict Justice § 9. Before I leave this Chapter let us talk a little further with Mr. Humph. about his great challenge if it be as he saith that no Man or Woman before Christ coming did Imagine they were righteous before God or accepted for the Obedience of Christ it must follow that they had a hard task under the New Law for they wanted the propter quod and both Mr. Cl. and he saith their righteousness wants pardon and they must go to the id propter quod for pardon and acceptance Now I would Query whether if they could not imagine Christs Obedience to be their righteousness how could they imagine that Christs Obedience could be the procuring cause so that they were altogether destitute of the id propter quod I would know whether the Faith of Gods Children before Christ had no Eye unto Christ and his righteousness in the Sacrifices and sin Offerings which they offered daily did they not look at them as shadows and types of a better and more perfect Sacrifice the Apostle saith that the righteousness of God which we shall by and by shew to be the righteousness of Christ was witnessed by the Law i. e. the Law of Moses and the Prophets and if so its strange that they should have no imagination of it when as the Apostle Peter 1 Ep. c. 1.10 Saith the Prophets have Enquired after and searched diligently for this Salvation prophesied of Searching what and what manner of times the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signifie when it testified before hand the sufferings of Christ and the glory which should follow The Apostle Peter was clear in this Point Acts 2.31 He saith that David foresaw the Resurrection of Christ and spake of it and Christ himself affirms this after his Resurrection to the two Disciples going to Immaus that he ought thus to suffer and enter into Glory beginning at Moses and all the Prophets he expounded unto them in all the Scripture the things concerning himself Now if Moses and all the Prophets yea all the Scriptures should so eminently and expresly foretel Christs sufferings and resurrection and why it was viz. to bear Sin and satisfie Gods justice as the Prophet Isa c. 53. and David and Jer. and all the Sacrifices of old and his Redemption was also for them to the transgressions under the first Testament Heb. 9.15 It is strange that none of them from Adam to Christ should in the least imagine their acceptance with God should be for his righteousness but that they should look for Justification by their own righteousness only and none others § 10. Mr. Cl. in the conclusion of his Book undertakes to disprove the Imputation of the Active righteousness of Christ when as all a long his Book he holds that Christ's righteousness Active or Passive is not imputed but as to Effects now he can mean nothing by the non-imputation of Either but as to Effects So that he must intend by the non-imputation of Christs active Obedience of the Effect and then either it had no effects or no effects pro bono nostro now sure if I mistake not he grants that whatever Christ was it was for our good and therefore have some benefit by it and God reckons it a benefit for that 's their Imputation when we have a benefit God reckons it so i. e. Imputes it to be what it is surely if Christ active Obedience did but fit him to redeem us by passive it was a benefit to us His Incarnation was it not a benefit In their way of Imputation they may say after Mr. B. because he did not obey that we should not obey Resp Neither did he suffer that we should not suffer but Christ suffered that we might not suffer penally and obey that we might not obey legally and its strange that the second Adam should have actual righteousness for us as well as the first had actual sin that all should not be repaired as to the preceptive as well as the vindicative part of the Law which was fallen upon us in the first Adam by the second Adam Why was he made under the Law Was it not for active as well as passive Obedience CHAP. XI Of Iustification by Works Section 1. The Neonomian Doctrine opposed § 2. Who it is God justifies § 3. More fully Answer'd § 4. Arguments against Justification by Works § 5. Mr. Cl's Proposition § 6. Of the Jews Opinion about Justification § 7. Whether
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
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
Counsels and Covenant-Compact with the Son as the Apostle saith expresly 1 Pet. 1.19 20. Christ as redeemer by his precious bloud as of a lamb without spot this is his righteousness who verily i. e. really as such was fore-ordained of God before the foundation of the world It was then the Plot and Contrivance of God and therefore may well be called the righteousness of God This Purpose and Grace to poor Sinners was first given us in the Person and Righteousness of Christ before the World began but was manifested since and especially at the first appearance of Christ in the flesh actually to work out this righteousness in abolishing Death and bringing Life and Immortality to Light in the said Gospel of Christ which he was a Preacher of this Head I might be large in insisting on from other places as Eph. 1.6 7 8 9. Prov. 8 30. Heb. 10.8 9. 2. It is the Righteousness of the Person who is God Acts 20.28 3. It s the only righteousness that God is well pleased with a sinner for and in which he makes his law honourable Isa 42.21 3. God hath called and anointed Christ thereto in righteousness Isa 42.6 i. e. to answer my law and righteousness therein and to perform the work of righteousness the Condition of the Covenant I have given thee for so Heb. 8.3 chap. 5.5 9.12 4. It s a Righteousness becoming the Grace of God as the gift of righteousness Rom. 5. and becoming the Perfect Justice and Law of God and therefore magnifies his Law c. and becoming the Wisdom of God therefore Christ is called the Wisdom of God and answers all the ends of God's Glory in Man's Salvation 5. It s the Righteousness of God in regard of the stateliness and highness thereof as the Trees of Lebanon were called the Trees of Jehovah Psal 104.16 6. In a way of opposition to all mens inherent righteousness which is humane mans righteousness only this is God's righteousness and be hath made Christ to be righteousness to us 1 Cor. 1.30 § 10. Now here is reason enough why Christ's Righteousness should be called the righteousness of God and that its plainly so intended in the Text appears 1. Because its a revealed righteousness that Man saw not before they can easily see their own own righteousness without Revelation they are addicted 2. It s the righteousness of Christ that is the righteousness of the Gospel of Christ the Gospel of Christ is called so because its the preaching Christ and him crucified 1 Cor. 3. and because it s his Gospel whereby he cometh and preacheth peace through his righteousness Eph. 2.14 15. 3. It s the righteousness of Christ because its the great object of Faith in Justification for its absurd to say our faith is the object of faith it s something without a man first that he believes upon faith is the evidence or Hypostacy of things not seen 4. It s opposed to the Anger and Wrath of God revealed in the Law v. 18. as that righteousness which answers it 5. The Apostle throughout this Epistle casts off and abandons all righteousness of ours as insufficient therefore this must be the righteousness intended 6. The Text is plain that the righteousness of God is spoken of objectively as to faith for a thing is revealed that it may be seen it s revealed from one act of faith to another and it is confirmed by the words of the Prophet the just shall live by faith on this righteousness believing in it and feeding upon it as their food of life and therefore is not in themselves but in the Gospel there as revealed for the import of the words should be according to those men I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ it is the power of God to Salvation for therein i. e. in the Gospel preached not in our selves is the righteousness of God revealed from one act of faith to another to be seen by it it is not said that faith is revealed to be the righteousness of God but the righteousness of God in the Gospel because it is the power of God to Salvation is revealed to our faith and to be that righteousness which is Gospel righteousness therefore not in our selves 3. The preaching thereof is the power of God to Salvation and that which a believers faith lives upon § 11. The next place Rom. 3.21 22. The Apostle in the 9th verse saith he proved both Jews and Gentiles under sin viz. under the transgression of the Moral Law as plainly appears by his Proof unto v. 19. now saith he they are under the law in that they are convict by the law even the whole World by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that law not the Ceremonial but Moral against which all the forementioned transgressions are committed and Gentiles who were never under the Ceremonial Law as well as Jews Now saith the Apostle seeing that by this Moral Law the World is condemned its impossible that any works of obedience to any law whatever should for if any other law comes to milder terms unless this law be rescinded its impossible any man can be righteous before God hence he concludes therefore by the deeds of the law i. e. any law no flesh can be justified in Gods sight whatever Law men may pretend to God will judge and try all by the Moral Law for a sinner and transgressor of God's law can have the knowledge of sin by it i. e. Conviction but no Salvation by any righteousness of his performance What then must all the World perish therefore for want of a righteousness No God hath provided a righteousness he doth not say God hath repealed his Law and made a new one the righteousness of God without a new law is evident or made manifest in the Gospel which is witnessed by the Law i. e. of Moses in the Doctrine of Sacrifices and by the Prophets that have prophesied of Christ v. 22. even the righteousness of God which is by the faith of Jesus Christ viz. the righteousness of Christ which faith lays hold on which is by faith i. e. which we receive by faith for it may be said what is this righteousness of God saith the Apostle it is in Christ how have it we in Christ by faith Now saith he it s unto all i. e. imputed unto all and upon all as a covering or robe of righteousness by the faith of every Believer by the least as well as the greatest by a Gentile Believer as well as a Jew there 's no difference in the degree of righteousness nor in the imputation of it nor application of it all Believers are equally and alike righteous in Christ's righteousness which is the righteousness of God and the reason added for all have sinned and justified freely by Gods grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ § 12. Now it appears that the righteousness of God is Christ's righteousness That righteousness that fully and compleatly satisfied
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
Gospel-goodness of God whereby he imputeth righteousness to us when we have none according to the law of Creation signifying that God hath found out a means to demonstrate his Justice no less fully and his goodness more fully in saving us by this new law through his Sons Mediation than if we had kept our first Innocency or underwent eternal Judgment Resp I find Mr. H. talks by roat I suppose he did not so much as turn to Text when he wrote for he speaks too so absurdly as that he manifests plain Ignorance of the Text as to say that it s not appropriate to the Son and indeed all that follows but I find Mr. H. takes his blowing upon a Place of Scripture to be enough to carry away all the Sence and Authority of it I find Mr. Cl. hath lookt much further into the Text and so far contradicts Mr. H. as that it is appropriate to Christ but takes it to belong to his Kingly Office what is their said but is not so peremptory as to deny but it may be understood of Christ being our Righteousness in other Senses we plead but for one Sense and that we shall endeavour to make good The Prophesie as Mr. Cl. says belongs to Christ who is often entituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Prophets and the Prophet foretels at least the Days of his Incarnation and Exaltation the rising up of his Glory from small unlikely and contemptible Beginnings Isa 53.2 3. he is called Isa 11.1 a Science 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the Stemm of Jesse and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Branch or Sprout out of Davids Roots and he is called a Branch especially in that he sprung out of the then obscure House of David as to his Humane Nature and sprang up in a State of Humiliation and Suffering yet he should arise to a glorious Throne for he should sit upon the Throne of David to Order and Establish it c. Isa 9.9 I deny not but the Kingly Reign and Government is here spoken of but this is not all that is said of him when he is entitled the Branch we have not only his Kingly Qualifications spoken of but his Prophetical and Priestly Isa 11.1 2 3 4. As it s said he should Judge in Righteousness so it s said Righteousness should be the girdle of his Loins as the High-Priests and so here he speaks not only of his Kingly Justice but of his Priestly Righteousness for he saith as King he shall Reign and Prosper so he shall Work Judgment and Righteousness in the Earth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall Work Judgment and Righteousness i. e. shall in the State of his Humiliation Work out Judgment and Righteousness or while on Earth and it seems to be the genuine meaning in that he had spoken of his Kingly Reign before and immediately speaks of Judah's Salvation and Security therein and the Reason of it should be that he should be called the Lord our Righteousness because he should be so famous not only for Reigning Righteousness but also for Redeeming and it 's in this respect the Righteousness of God and then Gods in Jehovab Christ and then ours by giving it to us and in imputing it to us for we find that not only the Kingly Righteousness as is ascribed to the Branch but also a Priestly Zech. 6.13 and what is it that shall be done by this Kingly Priest The removal of the Iniquities of the Land in one Day Zech. 3.9 § 3. Hence we see this Branch is Jesus Christ this Branch is set forth to be a King and Priest He shall bear the Glory and Rule and be a Priest upon the Throne Zech. 6.13 And he shall be such a Branch as to be the Stone of Israel i. e. the Corner Stone as the Lamb Rev. 5. with seven Eyes and should remove and take away the Iniquity of the Land in one Day i. e. by his Righteousness but you say how comes he to be our Righteousness God makes him so read the Text right for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not Passive in Niph but Active therefore it s thus this is the Name which he shall call him i. e. The Lord that would raise up to David a righteous Branch as King and Priest a Priest of the Tribe of Judah a Melchizedeck This God shall put this Name upon him the Lord our Righteousness let us go a little further yet and the Spirit of God will tell us the full intent and meaning of this great Name of Christ see Jer. 33.15 And there we shall find the very same Prophesie repeated with a little Alteration before God saith The Day is come that I will perform the good thing promised to the House of Israel and the House of Judah what 's that I will cause the Branch of Righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inde by way of Eminency the Branch that shall flourish in all Righteousness Kingly and Priestly and Israel shall be saved c. He shall be Jesus a Saviour of his People by Righteousness and this is the Name by which she i. e. Israel and Judah shall be called the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jehovah our Righteousness Jehovah-zidkenu now this Place I find is a Noli me tangere to some Divines let the Men that look upon the Place as so dangerous read the Hebrew Text and they must understand a great Gospel Mystery that this great Name whereby the Father hath graciously as to us and honourably as to him should be put upon the Church sure it s to shew that the Righteousness of God in Christ is put upon the Church that she is made the Righteousness of Jehovah in Christ and you 'll say why so great and sacred a Name on the Church is not this the Name of God only whose Name alone is Jehovah Yes Jehovah is but Jehovah-zidkenu is Christ's and the Churches and this is the new Name she is called by which the Mouth of the Lord hath spoken Isa 62.5 but you 'll say it seems too great for the Church and it makes Christ a Publick Person there 's no doubt of the last the Church is called Christ being one Mystical Body with him 1 Cor. 12.12 But seemeth it too great for the Church to be thus called It s the new Name which the Mouth of the Lord hath given and its a Name of a real Thing God hath made it righteous in Christ's Righteousness and why not as well as the Place on Mount Moriah which Abraham called Jehovah Jireh and it s said saith Moses to this Day in the Mount the Lord will be seen and so Moses Builds an Altar and calls it Jehovah Nissi the Lords my Banner Likewise Gideon calls an Altar Jehovah Shalom Judg. 6.24 § 4. Mr. Cl. saith that 1 Cor. 1.30 seems to have a great Affinity to this for he is our Righteousness and made unto us Righteousness is much alike Resp Especially when God makes him our Righteousness
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
offence of one death reigned by one much more they which receive abundance of Grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ § 8. Mr. Cl. Christ is called the Surety of a better Covenant Heb. 7.22 Whence some infer that he hath paid the debt of obedience to God for us Interpreters generally assign two ways wherein Christ is a Surety 1. By undertaking for God to us or his becoming Security for God that he should make good his Covenant to us on his part 2. By undertaking for us to God that we should perform the Condition of the Covenant the first the Polonian Merchants Grotius and Hammond are for the Protestants generally stick to this latter that Christ is our Surety by undertaking for us to God that we shall fulfil the Condition of the Covenant by yielding that obedience that is required of us therein Resp Mr. Cl. tells of the Merchants that they the Neonomians do trade with and indeed most of their Commodities have Polonian stamps not to treat so large as to handle all that might be said of the Suretiship of Christ it being the very Hinge of our Salvation though the Neomonian as well as the Polonian Merchants make very slight of it and Mr. H. in Particular because he saith it s but once used in the New Testament I say it is therefore a Pearl of great Price for I could Instance in several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Spirit of God hath used in the Old and New which do express singular Truths and Mysteries not common I shall only Note some things generally that are Truths I will stand by as 1. That Christ is not a Metaphorical Surety but the most proper Surety that ever was and the Exemplar of all Sureties 2. That the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Surety for Debt 3. That is a Surety of the better Covenant i. e. of the Covenant of Grace not that he was a Surety of the Performance of that Covenant but that he is the Surety in that Covenant that is bound to pay the Debt that we owe to the Justice of God in the Covenant of Works which we have broken and he is not such a Surety as to be bound to the Justice of God that we should pay the Debt the Lord have Mercy on Neonomians but he hath undertaken to pay the whole Debt for us every Farthing if he had been such a Surety as Mr. Cl. speaks of we were in a miserable Condition I know the Neonomians do mostly incline to be with their Polonian Merchants in Mr. Cl. first Point mentioned as to God's Suretiship to us but it 's no great Matter where they be the second Particular being worse than the former for Christ to be engaged to God that we shall pay the Debt that we owe to the Law of God by Adams fall and our Sin i. e. that we shall satisfie Gods Justice for the wrong done and that we shall perform perfect Obedience to the Law thus much Man must pay tho a poor insolvent wretched Creature and Christ hath engaged to see it done but not to pay any thing of the Debt himself And indeed I can prove this to be the true Account of their Doctrine for they say Christ hath procured and merited of God a new Law whereby the old Law is relaxed or repealed not paid or satisfied a new one is set up the Condition whereof we performing we shall be justified but procured not nor merited the Condition to be performed by us Now I would fain know whether Christ was a Surety for that which he never Purchased is Christ a Surety that we shall perform the Condition of the Covenant and never merited Faith and Obedience what a kind of Surety will they have Christ to engage for our Performance and not take care that we should have the cum quo But Mr. Cl. seems not to be quite satisfied with this second Way He adds a Third to mend the Matter a little at least to put a gloss upon it viz. 3. To discharge that Debt of Suffering which we did owe the Law for the Transgressing of it Resp Ay Sir now you say something you bring a Surety with Mony in his Hands we use indeed to say that a Man should never be bound for another unless he resolve to pay the Debt Christ knew well enough how Poor we should be when he undertook this Suretiship Well let us see whether Christ clears the score for us or whether he doth leave a considerable part of the Debt for us to pay our selves It may be that which the Law is primarily and mostly concern'd at and that for a wise Neonomian End viz. That if he should pay all the Sinner would prove an Idle Antinomian and Shabby-fellow having nothing to do himself and nothing to pay therefore Christ indeed paies some of the Debt but laies up the Sinner in a Work-house to pay the rest at his Fingers ends For saith Mr. Cl. Now take it in which of these Three Ways you will yet there 's nothing of his paying the Debt of Active Obedience Resp A very sad Story indeed a great noise of a Surety that would pay the whole Debt of the poor Man in Prison and when the Matter is strictly enquired into he hath only prevailed that he should not be whipt so often in Bridewel though agreed that he should have the Lash too pretty severely sometimes but as for the greatest Part of the Debt he must Work it out at least so far as a new Law of his which he hath procured and made doth require Well when all comes to all here 's nothing done to free the Sinner but he must pay all the good Money by the Sweat of his Brows for Active Obedience to the Law is indeed that which the Law sets a High value upon being the first and main Thing that it designs and aims at and it doth expect not only to be satisfied for Disobedience but must be obeyed yea and it must be paied by perfect Obedience too not by imperfect Now saith our Neonomian Christ was no Surety to pay any of our Debt of Active Obedience how then hath he made no Provision in this Case Yes truly he hath done something that may help a little He hath taken down the old strict Law that kept the Sinner at continual hard-work and brought in a new easie remedying Law then he makes choice of his own Work and business and his own Time and work at leisure only must have the Lash now and then and besure that he Work when he is going to Die and the Condition shall be performed and the Debt paid Now I only briefly argue if Christ was a Surety it was to pay all our Debt in Active and Passive Obedience or none for Christ paid not by halves though the Passive Obedience is hardest yet the active is hardest to do the damned can suffer and shall but can pay
nothing of the debt by active obedience to the preceptive part of the Law Well Christ was a Surety to pay all our Debt by active and passive obedience for else his righteousness would be imperfect the law left unsatisfied and we most certain to perish that could never pay there is no obedience of the Saints that satisfies the Law Christ performed that as a Publick Person in their Stead as well as he bore the passive too whence the payment of the Debt was full and compleat but the Neonomians will have this part of active obedience left for us to pay and our active obedience shall be imputed to us for righteousness though Christ's shall not So to gather up these mens Suretiship of Christ it is thus Christ in his transaction with the Father agrees with him 1. That he would pay one half of the Debt and we should pay the other and the best half too 2. That seeing therefore if we should grow insolvent as not to be able to make the payment of our part in currant Money according to the first Law that he would purchase a new law and not satisfie the old but repeal it and the new law should make all our Brass Money currant and that God should take that Money for our part and for his accepting it he becomes Surety for God to us and thus they come to agree with the Polonian Merchants § 9. The Word used Heb. 7.22 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it signifieth praes satisfactionibus obnoxius one made liable to make satisfaction for another and therefore sponsor fide-jussor Praes we are told was an ancient Title of a Surety being one that answer'd the cause of the Commonwealth to which he was bound for any it had a complaint against therefore he was asked by the Magistrate when he appeard num praes sit he answered Praes sum which imported two things 1. That he appeared praes sum quia prae sum i. e. coram I appear before you 2. That he appeared not for himself but for another in his place or room as a publick Person and Representative of the person or persons for whom he appear'd what he did he did in the person of him that was represented by him and so owns himself either fide-jussor on his behalf or sponsor for that the person charged should give satisfaction or he himself would do it but when the person represented is apparently insolvent and never likely to be otherwise the Sponsor's obligation is not upon conditional terms if the Principal do not but he becomes bound absolutely to pay the whole Debt Christ was thus an absolute Surety for Man insolvent to God in his Law and Justice to pay the whole Debt due from Man to God For it was clear to both the Father and the Son that upon the foreseen Fall Man would be an absolute Bankrupt and never able to pay a Farthing of the Debt hence saith Dr. Gouge Christ was a Surety to God for Man of whom the Law required two things 1. Perfect obedience to the Laws Precepts 2. Full satisfaction for sin both these Christ performed Rom. 5.19 2 Cor. 5.21 Gal. 3.13 according to whose judgment we hold the Doctrine of the Suretiship of Christ Then from what hath been said we may conclude That the Suretiship of Christ doth eminently belong to his Mediatorial Office whereby he hath absolutely engaged himself in the Covenant of Grace to stand and appear for to answer for us and satisfie all the Demands of Justice in the Law according to the full true and perfect tenor of it on the behalf of all the Elect and hath answered satisfied and doth appear for them accordingly I shall speak to this Description particularly in Brief 1. This Suretiship eminently belongs to his Mediators Office because hereby he Mediates to make up the Difference between God and Man and was called to it by his Father 2. Because it belongs to his Priestly Office as the Text shews in so much that his Father constituted him Surety by that Oath whereby he made him Priest after the Order of Melchizedeck ver 20 21. And by so much he was a better Surety and Priest than any of Old in that God never sware that any of them should be Priests for ever after the Order of Melchizedeck 3. It essentially belongs to his Mediators Office in making Reconciliation as might be amply shewn if these and other Places be considered Heb. 2.17 Eph. 2.17 Col. 1.20 21. Rom. 5.10 2 Cor. 5.18 2. In that he is a Surety of the better Testament because its that better Testament that his Mediators Office more eminently and fully according to the Tenor of the Covenant of Grace shines forth in called the New Testament Heb. 9.15 The fuller and clearer and most lasting Revelation of Christ where he is set as the only High priest over the House of God and the Surety thereof here in better Testament or New Testament is an express Opposition to the Old Testament Dispensation which was the Exhibition of the Covenant of Grace more legally and vaild and under temporal Promises and therefore the Apostle calls faulty compare Heb. 8. with 2 Cor. 3. wherefore Christ is called the High-priest and Surety of this better Testament the Covenant being therein more perspicuous and manifest wherein Christ hath his Constitution and Establishment as Surety to his Church 3. He hath become Surety by Covenant engagement unto God if thou shalt make thy Soul an Offering for Sin c. Lord I come to do thy Will c. all this is by way of Covenant-Agreement freely engaging on both sides therefore he is Surety by this Covenant and not for himself but for Sinners Debtors to Gods Law therefore a Publick Person 4. He is to stand for others to represent them before God for what Promises are made to him is to them in him and its i. e. what he doth is for them what he engageth to pay is in their Persons and Room 5. He promiseth absolutely to pay their Debts and all the Debts and Demands of that Law both as to Active Obedience and Passive both as to Obedience and Suffering the Debt of Obedience to the Preceptive Part of the Law and the Debt of Punishment as to the vindictive Part of the Law and in order thereto to write himself Debtor to bear their Sins and to be made Sin by Imputation and this he doth not conditionally if they don't Pay but absolutely knowing they could never Pay nor upon Terms of their performing the Condition of a New Law but by absolute Obligation to perform the Conditions of this Law which they had offended and broke and by bearing this Sin and Curse of this Law and reconciling them to God in respect of this Law and that not by giving an equivalent but by paying the same according to the true intent and meaning of the Tenor of the Law 6. This Engagement he performed as to us in Time but to God that
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