covenant having but two parts the condition and promise made upon the performance of the condition by the party required so to do whereby the good thing promised upon the said performance of the condition is demandable by the performer as due debt to him Hence it 's the faederal nature of the condition not the greatness or smallness of the condition that makes it meritorious If God had said unto man in Paradice Take up this leaf or that straw and thou shalt live for ever eternal life had been his due upon his doing thereof and demandable by him and the covenant made it so viz. a due debt ex pacto i. e. legally so for a due debt is due in a law sense § 2. Now what hinders this desirable accommodation It is the B's opinion that there is a greater mischief in Antinomianism a Snake in the Grass which ought to be laid open to prevent the mischief of it Antinomianism the B. knows in true notation of the word and according to the sense of the Apostle Paul is a denial of the Justification of a sinner by our own works of the law the mischief that attends it is only occasional by reason of men's corruption viz. The vileness of corrupt and reprobate minds in the abuse of the grace of God therein to embolden themselves to sin because grace abounds which the Apostle was aware of and warns us against Rom. 6. It is not any fault in the doctrine it self Well but what is the mischief the B. finds It is saith he this all this dispute about conditions on our part depends upon another and if that hold this must follow as a consequence of it and several other things which Dr. Crisp saw very well had a necessary connexion with each other like a fair dealer in controversie owned them all Here I cannot but acknowledge the greet ingenuity of the B. beyond many others in not only owning him a fair dealer in this controversie that he opposeth him in but in his after vindication of him from those false imputations which others of his adversaries would fasten upon him so far that he leaves him a mere Calvinist and no worse § 3. p. 74. B. I come therefore to the next thing in the first Paper wherein you say i. e. Mr. L. clears the dissenting brethren from the charge of Antinomianism Report p. 13. Rem p. 11. Your words are i. e. Mr. L. 's That touching a Change of Persons between Christ and believers there is no physical change whereby Christ and believers do in stance become one another nor a moral change whereby Christ should become inherently sinful and Believers thereby become immediately innocent and sinless but the change is only in a legal sense by consent between the Father and him putting on the person and coming into the room and stead of sinners c This is laid down for the truth of this change by Mr. L. but yet Mr. L. peremptorily disowns Dr. Crisp's change of Persons as well as Mr. W. Now the B. doth very fairly shew and prove that Dr. Crisp intended no other change of Persons than what Mr. L. asserts to be the truth and a clearing the assertors from the charge of Antinom Now saith he I shall make it appear that you have not herein disowned Dr. Crisp 's sence of the change of persons so far I cannot but say that the B. hath done right to Dr. Crisp and Mr. L. and it 's no other than what I ever thought of the controversie when on foot I shall not give my self the trouble of transcribing what the B. hath done out of Dr. Crisp's Sermons to prove his assertion See p. 2. p. 75 76 77. § 4. This seems to be a great Mystery but is really the foundation of Antinomianism That Christ had the personal guilt of our transgressions charged upon him and so he was as sinful as we He should have added legally or in the eye of the law the guilt of our sins the personal guilt of every saved one being charged upon him the Reatus Culpae non perpetratio culpae the debt non contractio debiti This is the truth of the Gospel which will stand as a pillar of brass when all the wit and malice of the opposers and banterers thereof will be driven away as chaff before the wind Here are two assertions that we must stand by and defend the truth of against the B. and all other opposers In the B.'s first Letter he tells us what the Report saith p. 5. That if there be no change of persons between Christ and us there can be no translation of the guilt nor a just infliction of the punishment of our sins on Christ i. e. there can be no proper satisfaction which is truth without exception But the B. answers That there is a twofold translation of guilt to be considered 1. Of the personal guilt which results from the acts of sin committed by such persons Now the translation of this guilt of sin on Christ the B. all along denies and endeavours to disprove 1. Personal guilt can be no other than the guilt of the Person that had committed the sin for which he is arraign'd at the Bar of God's Law e. gr John hath stolen Thomas hath committed murder and neither the guilt of John's theft nor of Thomas's murder was transferred to Jesus Christ David's murder and adultery in the guilt thereof was not transferred to Jesus Christ nor the guilt of Peter's sin in denying his Master This is the meaning of the B. doctrine 2. He gives his reason If this guilt be translated Christ must become the very person who committed the sins and so become an actual Sinner yea as the Person that committed all the sins of those for whom he died I wonder so learned a man saw not the absurdity of this arguing which he took up from Mr. B. who never stuck at any gross arguments to bespatter the most glorious Gospel truths The force of the argument is thus unfolded and made very plain If a debt be translated from one man to another then he to whom it is translated must be looked upon as the person that contracted the debt but the B. saith We must not look upon sins as debts which we shall speak to in its place but let us use another instance If a thing done by one man be accounted to another e. gr a Representative in Parliament is that thing to be thought to be actually and personally performed by the persons to whom it 's accounted The Representatives of the people in Denmark gave up the liberties of the people to the King's prerogative the people by them are accounted to have done it by the Representatives must therefore every Subject be said actually and personally to have done it when doubtless Hundreds of lovers of the country hated and detested the Action tho' as necessarily included therein as if they had actually done it Many Instances of the like nature
Righteousness is the pâ—r the formal cause by which we are justified This Distinction Mr. H. having taken up from Bellarmine makes very much of More of it anon § 5. Take one or two for all to avoid tediousness to the Reader Mr. H. in Medioc p. 42. Herein doth appear the ground of reconciliation between the Papists and us in this point the sum of what he saith is Provided they say that the works they plead for our righteousness be the works of the new law and not of the old we are agreed and then tells us That Gods judging a man to have performed the condition of the Covenant i. e. the New Law is the accounting and declaring him righteous That righteousness which makes a man righteous and denominates him righteous is that righteousness which does make God account him righteous and that is the righteousness which he doth Note it for it is express and this he saith is not the righteousness of the law of works but of the law of grace which he saith is a righteousness which he doth but not work in doing which is pretty absurd that a man should do works of righteousness and not work but the meaning is he doth not work perfect works I will not wrong him But do not those that work imperfect works work Yea saith he they that do absolutely sinful works are called workers of iniquity A little after he tells us Christ's Redemption was to bring in a New Law for when Man fell it was impossible he should be righteous any more unless there were a new Law brought in by performance whereof he might attain to that again which he lost now this was the main business of Christ's Redemption the procuring a new law or another law with lower Terms which some men performing they do thereby become righteous and so have righteousness according to that Law imputed to them for Remission and life eternal And thus you see what everlasting righteousness Christ brought in Dan. 9. and in his Piece Of Righteousness which comes forth with Episco Approbation p. 3. It is true against the Papists there is no such righteousness inherent as to render God appeased with the sinner or that the Conscience can rest on it then it is good for nothing as that propter quod he is forgiven or saved by his favour Bellarmine doth not say it is but that Christ's righteousness is the propter quam Therefore the Papists and they are agreed in this sence It is true also against the common Protestant therefore the Neonomians are not Protestants unless such as have causa formalis of Papists that there is not any righteousness without us that can be made ours so as we should be accounted righteous in another's righteousness or be that thing per quod we are justified there is no such matter in reality but in notion only This righteousness as imperfect as it is wrought by the Spirit is that and must be that which is the form per quam he is accepted and justified we grant the righteousness of Christ is the meritorious cause per quam we are pardoned and saved § 6. About the New Law there 's little difference between the Papists and Neonomians tho the Papiste are on the surer side of the Notion Mr. Fox Mart. about the difference between Ancient Rome and present p. 34. tells us The Church of Rome teach the People that there 's no difference between Moses and Christ save only that Moses was the giver of the old law but Christ the giver of a new and more perfect law And it s most rational that the new law should be a more perfect law and not a law of imperfection we do not mend perfect things and if there be any reason for particular ends it s with those things that more perfectly answer those ends and therefore their remedying law ought to be perfecter and most compleat § 7. Next a-kin to these men are the Quakers in their most refined Doctrine put out in the name of Barclay but I heard Mr. Keath that was a Neonomian Quaker say Barclay's Book was chiefly his work Works are necessary to Justification as well as Faith James 2. both equally required to Justification works of the Law are excluded as done by us Tit. 3.5 6 7. this is Mr. H. just To be justified by Grace is to be justified or saved by Regeneration which cannot exclude Works wrought by Grace and by the Spirit 1 Cor. 6.11 The law gives not power to obey and so falls short of Justification but there 's power under the Gospel by which the Law comes to be fulfilled inwardly Rom. 8.3 4. Works are the Condition upon which Life is proposed under the New Covenant Tho we place Remission of Sins in the Righteousness and Obedience of Christ performed in the Flesh as to what pertains to the remote procuring cause and that we hold our selves formally justified by Christ formed and brought forth in us yet can we not as some Protestants have done unwarily exclude works from Justification for tho properly we are not justified for them yet are we justified in them c. § 8. The Socinians say No other Imputation is in our eternal Salvation than that whoever sincerely obeys the Commands of Christ is from them accounted of God righteous Socin de serv When God is said to impute Faith for Righteousness the meaning is that God hath so great a value for Faith that he esteems it for a Righteousness to Justification Crel on Gal. 3.6 And Mr. B. saith I abhor the Opinion that Christ's righteousness given us is all without us Preface to Doct. of Chr. p. 3. but more of this in what follows § 9. The Arminians bring up the Rear and I shall name the Man from whom I can prove Mr. B. hath taken up most of his corrupt Notions about General Redemption and Justification and its J. G. The Question in precise Terms is this Whether the Faith of him that truly believes in Christ or whether the righteousness of Christ himself be that which God imputes to a Believer for righteousness or unto Righteousness in his Justification J. G. of Justification p. 7. he concludes it is faith As a Merchant that grows rich by such a Commodity i. e. he grew rich by the Gain and Return he made of that Commodity So we may be said to be justified by the righteousness of Christ and yet not have the righteousness it self upon us by Imputation or otherwise but only a righteousness procured or purchased by it really and essentially differing from it p. 12. This Righteousness of Christ is not that that is imputed unto any man for righteousness but is that for which righteousness is imputed to every man that believeth Paul neither eat his Fingers nor spun out the flesh of his hands into cloathing and yet was both fed and cloathed with them Here 's the true sense of being justified by the effects of Christ's Righteousness So may a
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
their upright walking and no otherwise in the World Resp If Mr. H. means Men of the Orthodox complexion in his Eye Neonomian complexions I believe but few if any for ought I know but are of the Opinion Mr. B. hath declared himself and divers others of that Orthodoxy but if he means the true Protestant Calvinistical complexion there 's enough of them 2. I would know whether or no they did ever hear of a New Law and if they expected to be justified by their own righteousness or whether they thought of any other Law to be justified by than the Law of Works For there was not the least Word of any other Law before the Flood or after none can be pretended to be till Abrahams time at furthest 3. Whether there was one Word of a conditinal promise to Adam after the fall and whether he thinks not that Adam Abel Enock c. Were not saved by Faith in that absolute promise that the seed of the Woman c. who is the Messiah tho' not under the Name of Messiah till Ages afterwards did they not believe in his righteousness as that which should break the Serpents Heads i. e. all the power he had got over Man by the unrighteousness he had brought him into 4. If they did look upon themselves as righteous without the Obedience of the Messiah or by the Name which the Spirit of God reveal'd him to them why did they offer Sacrifice for Sin did they look at no Significancy or typicalness in them were they not taught of God so to do and did he not shew shew them that they were typical of the great Sacrifice the seed of the Woman should offer in the end of the World Was it not by Faith they offered them Heb. 11. And what was that Faith was it not in a righteousness for Noah believed in a righteousness and became heir of righteousness which is by Faith what was he Heir of his own Righteousness did they believe in themselves The Apostle 's design is not to prove that Faith is the Evidence of things not seen the Substance of those things hoped for that those worthys lived in Faith and Hope and dyed so not having received the promise in performance but saluted and embraced it by Faith 5. Had Job and his friends such Principles tho' not of the Jews Church chap. 19.27 I know that my Redeemer liveth was there no Faith in his Words is there no righteousness in a Redeemer and what were the Sentiments of his Friends in this Doctrine sure they were not Neonomians Job 25.4 How can Man be justified with God or how can he be clean that is born of a Woman Saith Bildad A Neonomian would have easily resolved this Question by performing of the conditions of the New-Law but alas they heard not of this New-Law this Nor-West passage to Heaven § 2. Let us consider Abraham whether he did imagine himself righteous by his doing righteously or looked to obtain favour of God thereby and no otherways and whether his Faith was not Eminently carried forth to the Eying of Christ in the promise Christ saith Abraham rejoiced to see my Day and saw it and was glad he saw it and saw it and rejoiced and was glad John 8.58 And where and how did he see it was it not in the promise of his Seed and what did he see in it was it not the blessedness promised Gen. 12. and the Salvation by Redemption and Righteousness did he see nothing in Christ for his own Soul yes you say he saw him as a Neonomian Cypher to stand by his Justification by his own Works to the magnifying his own righteousness but the Spirit of God saith he was not justified by Works how come Men to say he was James saith he was how by approving the Truth of his Faith for he was in a justifyed State long before the offering up his Son but his Faith was proved and approved of by God and witnessed to by this eminent Act of Obedience God testified to his particular Acts of Obedience which the World was ready to Condemn and so to Rabab so to Phineas his Act that whatever the World judged of these Actions yet they were approved of God as righteous and true Obedience Abel was an accepted person of God before his offering then because his person was justified God witnesseth to his gifts that they were accepted as being done in Faith whereas Cain was an unjustified person there 's no Sinner justified by his Works but a Believers Works are accepted because their persons are accepted in another righteousness in which their Works are accepted afterward Abel was first accepted and then his Service § 3. Now we are upon Abraham let us consider him a little further did he imagine himself righteous without the Obedience of Christ and no other way than by his own righteousness What do these Men make of the Gospel preached is it not the preaching of Christ for righteousness for Christ is made Righteousness to us 1 Cor. 1. The Gospel was preached to Abraham what was that The Apostle tells us Gal. 3.8 It was in the first promise whereby he was converted to God in Vr of the Chaldees Gen. 12. In thee shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed and that this contained in it that blessing of righteousness which is after more particularly Explained he was justified as the Heathen and believing Gentiles were to be justified afterwards and the Apostle saith these that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. of that kind of Justification are blessed with faithful Abraham ver 9. but such as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that expect justification from the Works of a Law are under a curse for the Law i. e. Justification by the works of the Law is not of justifying Faith their 's none under Abraham's blesssing expect Justification by the Works of the Law Indeed the Mystery was not so distinctly understood Eph. 3.5 Yet they were saved even as we Acts 15. And how are we Gentiles saved by becoming fellow Heirs of the same Body i. e. mystical and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel Eph. 3.6 The which participation the faithful before Christ was the Gospel had preached to Abraham § 4. The great cry is that Faith i. e. our working Faith our Faith and Obedience is our Subordinate Righteousness or co-ordinate or Supream which our Neonomians please for Justification because it is said Abrahams Faith was imputed to him for Righteousness i. e. say they his Gospel Works not Mosaical or not according to the Old Law but according to the New This assertion is most false for these reasons 1. There was no Mosaical Law in Abraham's days 2. There was no New Law exhibited to Abraham for their promise was absolute Gen. 12. And cannot be pretended to be conditional 3. It s not consistent with the nature of Faith which is the Evidence of something not seen or present but Works
Paul means only Works of Moses's Law § 8. Whether Paul disputes only against some Works § 9. Mr. Cl's Denial and Challenge § 10. What Law the Apostle means § 11. How the Jews looked upon the Law § 12. Of the Law of Faith § 13. What Deeds of the Law § 14. What Works to be boasted of § 15. Of meritorious Works § 16. Of justifying Works § 17. Of the Jews Conceit of Perfect Obedience § 18. 1 Cor. 4.4 considered § 19. Mr. Cl. unfair in his Challenge § 20. Of Rom. 4.5 § 21. Of Rom. 2.20 Sect. 1. OUR Neonomians affirm we are justified by works not of the Old Law which the Apostle Paul every were excludes but of the New Law this is that which we oppose and say the Apostle doth exclude all our works even in the state of Regeneracy from Justification and in this Point we shall take Mr. Cl. because he seems to be most full in the handling of it and take up that Mr. H. saith in a more scattered manner here and there § 2. Chap. 10. He tells us who it is that God Justifies not ungodly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Rom. 4.5 No saith Mr. Cl. the Spirit of God means the godly and he brings against the position of the Spirit of God in this place that of Exod. 23.7 Where the LXX useth the same words Resp To which I shall answer 1. That Mr. Cl. knows the LXX doth not translate the words according to the Heb. Text but rather speaks to the drift of the Text which is to enjoyn unto Men an impartial Execution of distributive Justice and therefore it renders it Thou shalt not justifie the wicked for a reward and that is the plain Drift of the Text by what precedes v. 6. Thou shalt not wrest judgment and thou shalt take no gift v. 8. and the Hebrew in the 7th verse is I will not justifie i. e. will not have thee to justifie for thou art but my Deputy and I sit in the Assemblies and Courts of Earthly Judges and whatever Judgment contrary to Justice and Right thou passest I will call thee to an account for it Then 1. This Text speaks of Man's Judgment not of God's immediately but as supervising the actions of men 2. He might as well or better alledged Exod. 34.7 where God proclaiming himself a sin-pardoning God saith he will by no means clear the guilty but in pardon of sin God doth clear the guilty and so the ungodly in Justification of them by the imputed righteousness of Christ which takes off the ungodliness in that kind tho man cannot provide for the Justification of an unrighteous person by gifts or partiality in a way of Justice yet God can by gracious and just ways and means provide for the acquitting the guilty and justifying the ungodly justly 2. It must be understood Rom. 4. according to the words in a strict sence God justifies the ungodly while such not to remain such For Abraham there spoken of was such an ungodly vile Idolater Josh 24. Had Abraham performed any new-New-Law righteousness before he came out of Vr Mr. C. will understand it he saith in a strict Law sence i. e. that he was a transgressor of the law of works so will I and that 's therefore to be ungodly and I know no ungodliness but such and while he was such God justified him and he did no New-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
meaning is only that Justification of a sinner by the works of the old law is inconsistent but not Justification by the works of a new law whereas the design of the Apostle throughout is to disprove the Justification of a sinner by the works of a law any law he specifies not any one law in particular unless where he led to it but when he opposeth Works to Faith in Justification he speaks of law indefinitely excluding all works of any law whatever signified to us Gal. 3.2 If there had been any law given whereby life is given then righteousness had been by a law but there was no such law given § 6. The Apostle insists largely on this Dispute against Justification by works because it was a received Opinion among the Jews that a man might be justified by the works of the law and it was retained by many of them even after they were converted to the faith of Christ as appears Acts 21.20 Resp The Apostle insisted largely and strenuously on this Dispute in making and proving the direct opposition between Justification by the works of any law performed by us and Justification by faith in the righteousness of another 1. Because the Jews were generally bigotted to a righteousness of some law to be performed by them for Justification 2. Because they were generally ignorant of the righteousness of Christ which made them go about to establish their own righteousness in Point of Justification 3. What he writes to the converted Jews he doth 1. In order to convince them of the danger of joining their own righteousness in obedience to any law in Justification with the righteousness of Christ and this was the danger of the Galatians 2. He warns them of the vanity of the continuance of the works of Moses's law in order to Salvation Now Mr. Cl. brings the words of James to Paul Acts 21.20 to prove that the converted Jews sought Justification by the works of the Law of works To which I answer 1. That the unconverted Jews did none of them expect Justification by the works of the law of works for 1. They did not look upon their works as perfect works though they took the external obedience to be what the law mainly looked for which Christ refutes for they owned that their external works were mixed with much imperfection and sin Else 2dly They could not own the Doctrine of Sacrifices for sin wherein they saw the sinfulness of their works and were convinced at least thereof whether they saw by faith the Antitype signified by them or no and therefore could stand upon their works in themselves perfect in answer to the righteousness of that law but the Justification by works which they looked for was by an imperfect righteousness as the Neonomians do in obedience to the law of Moses which they made their new law as the Neonomians do the Gospel and therefore the Apostle saith that they sought it as it were by the works of the law it was Justification by works in their sence the Apostle preacheth accordingly against works as taken by themselves Rom. 9. Ans 2. As for the converted Jews spoken of Acts 21. they where for the observations of some things in the Obedience of Moses his Law as necessary means of Salvation not abolish'd by Christs coming in the Flesh and as the Apostles did not press harder upon them in that Point than only to leave them under an indifferency of using them or not provided they laid not the stress of their Justification thereon as appears by Acts 15. So here the charge against Paul which the Apostle James would have him clear himself of was that he contradicted the Apostles at Jerusalem in permitting the use of some Jewish Ceremonies as indifferent for the present by reason of the Jews weakness thou teachest the Gentiles to forsake Moses Now he shewed by his complying with James that whatever he taught the Gentiles yet he was not against complying with the Jews so far as to use yet some of Moses his appointment provided they made not such Actions of theirs the righteousness of Justification therefore tells the Galatians running on that Point that if they were circumcised Christ could profit them nothing Now this is clearly the Point he withstands Peter in and opposeth the Galatians in that he made his Saviour a Transgressor by his practice in judaizing contrary to the Doctrine he had preached in Justification by Christs righteousness alone As for the others they brought in another Gospel not one whatever they called it Hence the complaint against some believing Pharisees Acts 15.5 was that they taught the necessity of keeping Moses's Law unto full justification the conjoining our righteousness with his or that his righteousness meritted ours and therefore they were to observe Moses his Law as their own righteousness the New Law with them this Doctrine Peter opposeth in his speech unto ver 11. to which James agrees and proposeth an expedient ver 19 20. so that what the Pharisees attempted at Antioch and what the Galatians were seduced to was only the necessity of the works of a New Law as a sole or social righteousness with Christs for Justification Pro. 9.3 § 7. When he disputes against Justification by Works he means only the Works of the Law Resp He should have told us what Law the Apostles means Moral or Ceremonial or New Law or whether works of any Law whatever which we confidently affirm and if he make Gospel works Law works he disputes against them And this proposition of his he is large in proving with little Proof 1 It appears he saith by the Apostles wary close and restrictive way of speaking Rom. 3.20 The restrictiveness of that place we have spoken to and shewed the place is positively against all works of any Law Again we have shewed that Gal. 2.20 Is an absolute exclusion of the works of a Law any Law for as Mr. C. observes che works of a Law are three times excluded we shall not actum agere as near as may be Gal. 3. The design of the Apostle in that Chapter is to shew 1. That a believer of the Gentiles is blessed i. e. Justified by Faith with faithful Abraham ver 9. to prove this he argues thus either by Faith or by Works not by works of a Law any Law for saith he he that is a sinner and under a Law for Justification is under a Curse nor cannot come from under it by the works of it And that you may take an instance of the Voice of any Law take that of Moses ver 10. cursed is every one that abideth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moses his Law Because by a Law any Law no flesh living is justified with God or before God manifest because the just shall live by faith and shall draw the first breath of the life of Justification by faith and live that life always by
it which is not to get life by our own works but living by and upon the righteousness of another by faith and thus he argues from Moses's Law to every Law that works of neither cannot justifie and when he speaks of Moses his law he seldom understands the meer Ceremonial Law but the Moral also as recognized under Moses and that of Gal. 5.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye are abdicated from Christ whoever of you are justified by the works of a law in Mr. Cl's sence it is whoever of you are justified by the works of some law only so Paul opposeth Christ himself to the works that are of a Law Phil. 3.9 His own righteousness he saith is such viz. this he desires to be found out of but in Christ viz. his righteousness by Faith which he opposeth to his own as that which he calls the righteousness of God in opposition to the righteousness of Man He saith indeed in one place Works are mentioned in general Rom. 4.2 It s true but he takes not Notice how often Law is mentioned in general and so the works of a Law are general where-ever spoken so of But he saith these words must be understood with a limitation too and be meant of the same kind of works Resp And therefore the words import thus if Abraham were justified by some kind of works he hath wherein to Glory but why should some kind of works give Abraham more cause of boasting than others He will say because some are great and perfect others little and imperfect but I say there 's no specifick difference between great and little of the same kind besides he that attains a great End by a small work hath more cause of boasting than he that attains it by great work and Labour therefore a Man may rather boast of the works of the New Law than of the Old and then they are all works opposed by him to Faith for he saith the reward is to him that worketh not that that Expression excludes all works for Paul could not be so absurd to express works by not working § 8. If Paul understood himself c. We must grant and conclude that Paul disputes only against the works of the Law Resp No doubt he knew his own Mind and was consistent with himself and if such plain Expressions are intelligible he excludes all works of any Law what ever but he gives his reason why he means we are justified by works when he saith positively we are not justified by works and that he that worketh not but is ungodly Because they were such works as did frustrate and evacuate the undertakings of Christ Rom. 4.14 Gal. 5.4 Resp So do all works of a Law brought in for righteousness for if the great End of Christ's undertaking was to be our Justifying-righteousness then any works brought into the room thereof frustrate Christ's righteousness but that was the chief End of Christ's undertaking Rom. 4.25 2 Cor. 5.21 The words of Rom. 4.14 are if they that be of a Law be Heirs i. e. such as claim by the works of a Law performed by them Faith is made Void i. e. it s to no purpose to believe on another for righteousness Faith is made empty of the righteousness of another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Promise or Gospel is abdicated for the same thing cannot be Law and Promise or Gospel and the reason is given because you see the law of Moses worketh wrath and where there 's no law there 's no transgression the law determines the transgression and the sinner to wrath for it and this doth every law whatever The other Scriptures were spoken to before 2d Reason They are such works as he opposeth every way to faith and also to Grace Gal. 4.4 therefore they are not faith or any inherent grace Gal. 5.4 But he never opposeth faith and Gospel-Works Resp He always opposeth Faith and all Works in the Point of Justification because Works justifie by themselves but Faith by its Object only Because Gospel-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
produceth works will not save upon any account yet it follows not that works do justify before God 3. He speaks of the person of Abraham being Justified and there was a concurrence of his works with his faith in his Justification R. There was in foro humano for he could not appear unto men that he had faith but by works if Abraham saith he is a believer and righteous before God another man will say shew me such works as will argue it to me So Abraham shews his obedience and his faith concurrs to it for he could do such works but by Faith and God witnesseth to them Heb. 11. coram hominibus 4. He rejects being Justifyed by Faith only R. 1. He cannot be Justifyed by Faith that is dead and barren 2ly He cannot be Justifyed before God and man too without works 3ly There was not any held a mans Faith was justifyed by his faith but his person and that his faith was justifyed to men by his outward demeanour in exercising visible graces 5. The reason that he coucheth in that Similitude v. 26. shews that he speaks of the Justification of the person viz. That such a faith cannot Justify because its dead R. The words are as the body without the spirit is dead so faith without works is dead These words shew only what was the drift of the Apostles discourse from the 14 v. viz. to shew that faith which bringeth not forth good works is not true it will not save it will not profit it is no better than reprobates may have it is not Justifying before God or Man Now then for Mr. Cl. Pairs of Antith he saith A man is justifyed by works as James saith a man is Justifyed without works of the law i. e. saith he A man is Justifyed by such works as are in the nature of living faith but not by such as are works of the law R. All works and faith it self as a qualification are works of a Law and whereby no flesh living shall be justify'd Gal. 3.11 and tho the Apostle speaks of and owns Abraham's Justification by faith before God as Paul doth Rom. 4. yet he no where saith a person is justifyed by works before God if he had said so he had directly contradicted the Apostle Paul but the Reconciliation is thus a believer is not Justified by works before God but he is justifyed by works of faith or fruits of it before man 2d Pair A man is Justifyed by faith and a man is not Justifyed by Faith only Reconc A man is Justifyed by that faith that includes works but not by that faith that is without works Recon A man is Justifyed by faith objectively which produceth works before God and man is not Justifyed without works before man The 3d Pair is thus A man is Justifyed by Faith and a man is Justifyed by Works I reconcile thus a man is justifyed by that faith which brings forth works and a man is justifyed by those works R. Recon a man is justifyed before God by faith a man is justifyed before man by works By all which it appears that Paul and James are agreed in the nature of true Faith and Justification by it in the sight of God but only James speaks of Justification in a larger sence to wit Justification in foro humano as well as Divino and therefore he ascribes a kind of Justification to works so that a man cannot be Justifyed by Faith alone in the largest sence seeing he cannot be Justifyed before man without works Now if he had meant as our Neonom do he must have ascribed all Justification to works only for they hold our Justification by Faith to be no otherwise than as a work Mr. Cl. seems to boast himself in expression of the Psal 106.3 1. concerning Phineas where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used the same root which is used of Abraham 's Faith Gen. 15.6 Where the thing that Abraham believed in the Promise God Imputed to him for righteousness as the Apostle expounds Gal. 3.6.8 for he saw Christ in that Gospel preached to him as our Saviour witnesseth and as the word there is an Active signification It is a Passive in Niph with the Psalm it plainly referrs to the particular Act of Phineas It is said that Phineas stood up and executed Judgment and the Plague was stayed and it was reckoned to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Righteousness for a noble righteous just Act to all Generations it s not said that the Lord accounted it him for the righteousness of his person before God but God bore witness to the seasonableness and justice of the action in staying of the Plague and such an effect being thereof all men have since judged it a righteous just Act to all Generations So that the word is not used impersonally but personally and passively and the Act which he perform'd is the Nominative Case neither is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used impersonally but the thing that God promises and he believes is the Nominative Case CHAP. XVI The Righteousness of Christ is the only Righteousness whereby a sinner is Iustified in God's sight Section 1. The Transition and Subject asserted § 2. Argument 1. § 3. Arg. 2. § 4. Arg. 3. § 5. Arg. 4. § 6. Arg. 5. § 7. Arg. 6. § 8. Arg. 7. § 9. Arg. 8. § 10. Arg. 9. § 11. Arg. 10. § 12. Arg. 11. § 13. Arg. 12. § 14. Arg. 13. § 15. Arg. 14. § 16. Arg. 15. Sect. 1. HAving written hitherto in way of defence against the Adversaries of our Justification by Christ's Righteousness and having in some measure as I trust the mind of the Spirit I dare not let these Adversaries pass without using the Sword of the Spirit to the wounding their Doctrine even in its very Vitals by home thrusts and downright blows For the Lord Jesus Christ who is come forth upon his white Horse with a Bow and a Crown will not return till he hath conquered all the Enemies of this glorious Righteousness of his and triumphed over them I have chearfully thro' grace taken this Service in hand under the Captain of my Salvation thro whose strength and assistance I hope for success to his praise and glory I shall in the first place prove that the Righteousness of Christ is the only righteousness that a Sinner is justified by before God and the Arguments are these briefly § 2. Arg. 1. That is the righteousness only that a sinner can be justified by which fulfils that law which he hath broken But Christs Righteousness is such For the minor our adversaries would have us believe that they mean so however they often talk of satisfaction to the Law their sincerity therein will be tried in due time As to the major its indubitable to any man of sence that it s not another law can excuse him from the condemnation of the law which he hath broken nor a righteousness of another law especially such as is imperfect and
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
of our Sins And Procopius he saith expresseth it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not this as a Surety And yet he saith here is nothing like Suretiship to pay our Debts for us Now if the Bp. had pleased to read out the Chapter he might have seen two Verses more wherein this Truth is litterally express V. 11. He shall bear their Iniquities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shall take their Iniquities as a Burden on his Shoulders to carry them away as the Scape-Goat did the Iniquities of the Children of Israel And the lxx renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall take up their Iniquities upon him And V. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall bear the Sin of many shall the Spirit of God express it self to one thing so fully and plainly and all fly away at the Puff of a Bp. as Chaff before the Wind What is all that this learned Bp. hath said to refute this Doctrine of Christ's bearing our Sins and satisfying for them as our Debts to Divine Justice but this Here 's nothing like Christ's Suretiship to pay our Debts for us we will not take his Word for it till he proves that Sin is not a Debt to the Law of God when Christ hath told us it is 2. Till he shews any other credible way of bearing another's Faults besides this way of Suretiship till 3dly He shews and proves against the Apostle Peter that there is no other way of paying Debts on purchasing or redeeming than with plain Silver and Gold § 17. He proceeds to shew us the great Harm of Christ's being a Surety to pay our Debts of Sin p. 107. 1. Then Christ hath fully discharged our Debts already This is one Mischief of it but God forbid it should that Christ should do Harm in paying any Man's Debts but to do it by halves is to pay some only and leave others for us to pay How did he satisfie God's Justice if he gave not full Satisfaction God forbid that Christ should leave a Farthing for us to pay 2. The second Mischief is that we have nothing to do towards the Payment of our Debt all that we have to do is to believe and to be thankful for all this Transaction was long since past without Consideration of any Act on our parts A. Is it a Harm that Christ hath done so much for us in way of Satisfaction and Purchase that he hath left nothing of ours to put in for a Share in this Honour no not our believing it self I take it to be the Glory of Christ and the blessed Priviledge of Believers that he hath provided for Believers such a Furniture of Grace that they shall believe on him bear his Image walk in his Steps to the Glory of his Name in all Thankfulness and new Obedience The third Mischief is that it nulls all Faederal Conditions on our part but of this more afterward 4. That we can't suffer for those Sins that are already discharged Is this such a Harm It 's neither Reason or Justice that we should pay a Debt to the Law which is already discharged Christ hath born all the Sins of Believers in the deserved Punishments thereof hence the Sufferings of the Saints are not Penal nor can be but are Blessings for their Good purchased by Christ for them § 18. The Bp. saith There 's but one place of Scripture to be found to favour this Sense of the Suretiship of Christ viz. Heb. 7.22 It is easie to instance in many places that favour it and prove it it being as I may say the very Marrow of the Gospel but as to this place it expresly calls Christ a Surety and it is the more remarkable as to our present purpose that as the Spirit of God hath called Sins Debts and Christ's Suffering a Price paid and expresly excluding Payment by Silver or Gold so Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which as Lexicog say doth primarily signifie a Surety for Money Hence it appears the Spirit of God makes much of the Metaphor of Debt and Payment to confirm our Faith in this that there 's no better account of the Nature of Sin than a Debt to God's Justice and no better account of the Sufferings of Christ than that they were a Payment of this Debt to the Justice of God And what if it be but in one place of Scripture When a Truth is so fully and plainly expressed in one Text it is enough there are many Truths of great weight are so besides the marvellous Concurrence of other texts of Scripture to the tenor thereof But he saith this text speaks of a Covenant not of the Surety of a Covenant A. What is it that makes a Debt is not a Covenant or compact But it is of a better Covenant i. e. a Surety to pay the Debts of the old Covenant of Works but brought in by a better Covenant the new Covenant being a Covenant of Grace answering the Ends of God's Grace more than the old doing that which the old could not do to save Sinners by a Righteousness which is not their own but better in that it hath a Surety that it brings in to engage unto God to pay all our Debts due to the Justice of God from us under the old Covenant which had no Surety Heb. 7.19 makes it better in nothing else but the bringing in a better Hope viz. the Surety But he positively denies that Christ was to pay our debts unto God If so what 's the reason the Church prays Forgive us our Debts when God's way of Forgiveness of a Sinner as asserted in Scripture is by bringing in a Surety to pay his debts of Sin Col. 1.14 In whom we have Redemption thro' his Blood even the Forgiveness of Sins But what a Surety is it that he will have Christ to be Sure it is the same the Socinians will have to be only i. e. a Surety to engage for God to us not for us to God but a Surety only for the Truth and Faithfulness of God in his Promises See his Words p. 110. § 18. The Bp. takes notice of some dissenting Brethren he might better said of Protestants dissenting from the Church of Rome who talk much of Surety Righteousness and of Christ's being our Surety as to the Payment of our Debts because the Debtor may be said to pay the Sum the Surety lays down for him and that God doth account that Believers do pay that Debt of Obedience which Christ hath paid in their Stead because they are a legal Person with Christ and all this depends upon this mistaken Notion of Suretiship A. It is very sad that so plain Scripture should corrupt our Minds with mistaken Notions how shall we know we are mistaken or not in any then Or that we do know the Mind of the Spirit in them if when we have a plain text expressing a Truth according to the plain and undeniable Sence of other texts of Scripture not only
agreeing with but essential to the Analogy of Faith If we must look on this received Doctrine to be a mistaken Notion then surely notwithstanding the Revelation that God hath given us in his Word he hath left us under Chymerian Darkness and inextricable Laborinths in the great Points of Life and Salvation but what hath he to say against this received Doctrine by the dissenting Brethren and all true Protestants If once it be supposed that we perfectly obeyed the Law in Christ there can be no room for Remission of Sins for how can Sins be forgiven to them that have obeyed the Law I cannot answer this Argument better than in the very Words of Mr. R. Capel whom none I suppose will call an Antinom in Vindication of Dr. Twiss on this Point There is a double Acception of the Term Remission of Sins 1. There is a meritorious Justification or Remission of Sins this is of Sins before they are committed 2. There 's an actual Justification or Remission of Sin and this is not till after our Sin is committed and we do believe all this none of these Exceptors do or can question Those that lean much to the Doctrine of Arminius and Vortius in this point may see all this expressed in clear terms by Vortius So that it is one thing for all the Sins of all the Elect to be pardoned to Christ for them that was done before we were or our Sins were another thing to be pardoned to them Christ was made a Curse for us by Imputation for that the Father did impute all our Sins as a Judge to Christ as a Surety and did exact all of him as guilty by that Law and this is I conceive all the meaning of Dr. Twiss and is or at least ought to be the meaning of us all and this a learned Man calls a mystical Justification because all the Sins of all the Elect are as laid upon Christ so remitted unto Christ our Head and Husband which Pardon and Absolution he took in our Name and keeps for our Use See Capel of Repentance p. 257 258. For Brevity-sake I shall add nothing further to the Answer of this Argument of the Bp. § 19. He adds It doth not follow because a Debt may be transferred to a Surety that our Sins may be transferred to Christ and his Reasons are 1. Because Sins cannot be transferred as Money A. But doth not the Spirit of God sufficiently acquaint us that it 's a moral Debt Sin is the Debt our owing and not paying Obedience to the Law and that Christ paid not Silver and Gold but his Precious Blood but he saith That altho' the Sinner be said to owe a Debt to the Law yet that Debt lyes in an Obligation to Punishment which he is liable to by the Guilt of the Fact A. Now he owns the Sinner owes a Debt to the Law but that 's not Obedience but Punishment But believe it Punishment is the Debt of the Law to the Sinner the Wages of Sin by the Law is Death But that whereby the Sinner becomes a Debtor to the Law is his Failure in giving due Obedience to the Preceptive Part of the Law for its Obedience the Law doth naturally and primarily enjoin and expect from the Subject Punishment may be transferred by the Legislator's Consent A. Punishment without Merit is but suffering and not legally inflicted and can't be done by a Legislator without Dispensing with his Law Object This Debt ariseth from Guilt of Fact how then can any discharge the Debt without taking the fault I answer That taking the fault can signifie no more than being answerable to the Law for it which must respect the Debt of Punishment Reader But doth not this quite overthrow all the Bp. hath been doing For if Punishment as always it is be answering the Law for Sin this always implies that the punished Person bears the just Demerit of his Sin else why do the Law inflict Punishment It 's not because that Man hath not obeyed but disobeyed wherein the Punished is only passive in suffering tho' active in contracting the Guilt wherein lyes the Demerit of Punishment and makes the Wages due from the Law And he that takes away the Guilt of Punishment doth satisfie the Justice of the Law A. The satisfying the Justice of the Law lyes in inflicting deserved Punishment for Guilt is not in the Law as the Bp. hath said but in a Person whom the Law hath found guilty therefore the Law is not satisfied by afflicting in general but afflicting some Person that is found guilty and faulty by the Law As to the Objection That nothing is the Merit of Punishment but Reatrus culpae he answers so little that it 's not worth our Cognizance and that little is but a Rehearsal of what hath been replied to already § 20. Bp. Suppose the Fault could be transferred as a Debt may how comes it to pass that upon this Translation there must be a present Discharge A. There must be such to him that pays the Debt and this given to him for the Benefit and Use of the Prisoner when he will please to give it Christ must be justified from our Sins and discharged or else not raised from bearing them when he had satisfied Justice all our Sins were pardoned to him but another Act of Grace is shewed in bringing home and applying Pardon to and therefore for discharging us from the Law as Prisoners of Hope thro' what Christ hath fully done and suffered B. This Doctrine tends to incourage Men to neglect or careless Performance of strict Obedience which they owe to God A. This is the Objection against the Doctrine of the Grace of God which Enemies to it made and the Apostle Paul answers Rom. 6. But the Bp. will not take his Answer there he saith it naturally disposeth Men's Minds to a passive careless Temper and wait for Supplies from above A. The Grace of God never enclines the Heart to so ill a Temper but quite contrary Tit. 2.11 12. It is one thing what a Man is by Nature and what by Grace Men by Nature are naturally enclined to abuse the Grace of God but are not so by effectual Grace Bp. They depend upon Gord's working in them to will and to do of his own good Pleasure without setting themselves to work out their own Salvation with fear and trembling A. The Bp. should have known that the Abuse of the Grace of God is no just Argument against it and if some Men do so will he censure all as such God's working in Men to will and to do and their working out their own Salvation are not Contradictions if rightly understood but to shew us that the Grace of God is first in all we do that teacheth and worketh in us to work both to begin and continue to serve God with all our Might but with Fear lest we should give the Glory of all unto our selves in leaning and depending on our own Strength The
all this he will not give up Mr. B. to the Socinians why Because he hath writ of the Doctrine of the Trinity that he might do and yet be a Socin in the Doctrine of Satisfaction But he hath written of the Doctrine of Satisfaction yes he hath retained the word to make his Doctrine go down the better but hath endeavoured to destroy the thing to all intents and purposes Bp. These may be said for his Vindication 1. By laying all the passages together he must mean something more by his promeritous Cause than meerly a remote occasional Cause A. This supposition is very unreasonable when the Bp hath told us from Mr B's own Mouth what he means by his promeritorious Cause It is not hard to conceive what Mr. B. meant by promeritorious it is only that Sin Antecedently to Christ's Death was meritorious of Death but this merit terminated there and never reached as a Cause meritorious of the Sufferings of Christ This merit the Bp saith is antecedent to the Legislator's act in accepting a Sponsor and is but an occasional Cause and what saith he of an occasional Cause It 's really no Cause at all c. just as if a Man said the Fire of London was the occasional Cause of the Monument p. 169. Bp. Now no Man can say the fault antecedently was any more than an occasional cause of the innocent Person 's Suffering A. This is true in Mr B's sense that the fault of the Offender makes him only guilty and deserving of Punishment in general but is not transferred to the Sponsor to be any Guilt or desert of his Punishment which is truly Mr. B's meaning of his term promeritorious And therein Mr. B. is consonant to himself in saying it's but an occasional Cause and that Sin is a remote impulsive Cause viz. remote from Christ tho' immediate and impulsive to Punishment 2. This is true in the Bp's Sense who saith Christ suffered Punishment for Sin and bear the Personal Guilt of none is to make the Sin of Man no more than an occasional Cause But the consistency of the assertion lyes more on Mr. B's side because he knew it to be a great inconsistency to say that Christ bore proper Punishment when he bore the guilt of no Sin Bp. But taking all together when he is admitted to suffer in the place of the Guilty the Law with the Punishment makes the impulsive Cause become meritorious and it is the immediate Reason of his Sufferings R. This the Bp speaks as the truth and intimates as if he would have it Mr. B's Sense but gives no proof that it is so neither is it likely he should being not consonant at all to what Mr. B. every-where maintains and what if the Bp saith so it 's not consonant at all to the Tenet he defends that Christ bore no Personal Guilt For then how can the Guilt of any become the meritorious and immediate reason of his Sufferings Bp. The only question then is whether this can properly be called a meritorious cause A. That may be taken in two Senses 1. In a strict and proper sence so your self deny that Christ merited by his own Sin 2. In the sense of the Law i. e. Sin was legally charged on Christ and so that which was the near impulsive cause the fault of the Transgressor may be truly said to be meritorious as to his sufferings because they made it an act of Justice which otherways had been an act of Power and Dominion R. See now the Bp's clear concession 1. That what is here spoken of Christ it 's in the sense of the Law not in a Physical or Moral sense 2. He makes the near impulsive cause Sin and here Sin in its merits or deserts the immediate reason of Christ's suffering can that be any thing but the Guilt of Men's Persons 3. Sin is such a reason as may distinguish Christ's Punishment from an Act of Dominion and make it an Act of Justice How is it possible that any Man that saith this can say that the guilt of Man's Sin was not charged on Christ as our Representative in a legal Sense i. e. in a way of Judicial proceeding Now doth the Bp lay down this as Mr. B's sense No he dare not for if he did Mr. B. were he living would say he had laid therein the Foundation of Antinomianism Bp. The question between us and the Socinians is not about meritorious and promeritorious Cause R. I wonder the Bp should insinuate so great a falshood when he knows the question between us and the Socinians is whether our Sins were the meritorious cause of Christ's sufferings or occasional And it 's that which hath been at present under hand Promeritorious being a word of Mr. B's bringing in it may be they might not think of it to hide occasional under it as he doth to make Men think he did not deny all merit in this Case Bp. But the question is whether Christ did really undergo the Punishment of our Sins in order to be a Sacrifice of Atonement for them And in this we have Mr. B 's consent express'd on all occasions R. I wonder the Bp can speak thus why doth he not acquaint us then with his consent in one passage if he hath any such passage doth he mean as he speaks No no more than the Bp who could not as long as he held that Christ bore the personal guilt or desert of none It is now evident the Bp hath said nothing to the purpose for vindication of Mr. B. what hath been said hath been for a greater confirmation of the Charge and wounding his own Cause He saith little further but to excuse 1. Liberty must be given to Metaphysick Heads 2. Tells a Story of Lubbertus and Mcacovius 3. He tells us of favourable interpretations that are to be given to Persons that keep to the main point as if this were but a trifling matter between the Socin and us 4. Mr. L. argues that Mr. B. speaks after the Unitarians That Christ did not undergo punishment properly so called but in a popular sense of Punishment The Bp in answer doth fill up p. 162 163 164 165 166. in shewing what slippery Gentlemen the Writers of the Unitarian Doctrine are but nothing to Mr. L's Charge of Mr. B. therefore yields the truth thereof and agrees with Mr. L. in these words Bp. you say Rectoral Justice doth essentially respect the Law in its distributions Whatever a Soveraign may do in acts of Dominion A Rector cannot justly inflict Sufferings on an innocent person as such Here I grant you have come up to the true state of the Case between the Socin and us and therefore we shall leave it and let the Reader judge who is cast at the Bp's Bar. But before I end it 's necessary to consider how the Bp. doth reconcile his two Principles 1. That the Sin of Man was the immediate impulsive and meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferigns This he holds
against the Socinians and Mr. B. 2. That Christ bore not the Personal Guilt of any Legally but that all Personal Guilt remains on the Sinner and was not legally transferred to Christ For this he saith P. 167. Bp. 1. We say that Punishment may be justly inslicted where there was a Translation of Guilt by Relaxation of the Law as to personal Offenders and admitting a Mediator to suffer in their stead R. No Guilt is translated by Relaxation of a Law for that dispenceth only 2. If the Law be relaxed as to Personal Offenders the doing of those things aster the relaxation is not Sin which was so before what needs a transferring to another 3. If the Precept be not relaxt which they will be loath to say it is then the Penalty must and if so either to a part only or to the whole If to the whole what need is there of a Translation If to a part only then part of the Sin only is transferred and Christ Died only for some part of our Sin not all Hence one part of our Salvation is owing to the relaxed Law and the other to Christ Hence Christ did not satisfie the Law in the proper and strict Nature of it and Christ's Sufferings were improper Punishments according to Mr. B. And here the Bp runs on ground Bp. He saith 2. Absolute Promises of the New-Covenant on which so much weight is laid without comparing them with other places speak no more of Christ's Sufferings than they do of any Conditions in us Here our own Qualifications and Performances are made to have an equality of conditionality foederally with Christ's Sufferings and if Christ's Sufferings be meritorious so are they too Bp. 3. The notion of Satisfaction lays the Foundation of Antinomianism which attributes unto God such a sort of vindictive Justice which requires an absolute and perfect Satisfaction in the same kind for the Sins of Mankind R. How much this kind of satisfaction borders upon Socinianism in the true meaning of it it 's easie to judge and what little reason the Bp had to reject the Principles that Mr. B. built upon is manifest being a firmer Foundation for his building And after all that he hath said against them as too much favouring Socinianism he is fain to lay hold on them to support his own Fabrick See here the pitiful shifts Men are put to that wander from the way of truth Arguments to prove that Christ bore the Personal Guilt of all them for whom he Suffered THAT the less intelligent Reeader may not be at loss for the truth not so easily finding it among the Controversal Difficulties of a Dispute I have thought good to make plain proof of this great Question in the affirmative And that we may prevent enlargements I premise 1. That by Personal Guilt is meant the Guilt of every particular Person for whom Christ Died as of Noah David and Peter c. 2. I take Guilt and Sin and the merit and desert of Sin to be equivalent terms in the sense of the Spirit of God and though the Scripture use the word Sin and we most commonly say Guilt this is exegetical to shew that we mean not that the Subjective Physical Act of Sin was transferred to Christ nor the inherent Moral Pollution But whatever is in either that is a Transgression of the Law the Law-relation of all Sin so far as the Law condemns the Sinner for it was charged on Christ i. e. Legally and Juridically in the Just God's distribution of Justice Then I argue Arg. 1. He that was punisht for Sin bore Sin in the Personal Guil i. e. the Legal Charge of it as the reason of his Punishment but Christ was punisht for it by the Concession of our opposites Ergo The Major is true 1. Because God is Just 2. Punishment without a Reason is very unjust 3. There was no reason in Christ absolutely considered for his Punishment therefore in some others therefore the Personal Sin of some or other 4. Without a bearing of Sin in the legal desert of some or other he could not be justly punished by the Law Arg. 2. He that was made Sin for us was made so by charging our Sins upon him bare Personal Guilt for he was made that which he was not in himself Now how could he be made so but by an imputation of the Sins of others to him a legal proceeding with him in judicature which could be no other than by Judging and Punishing him for some Guilt that merits the Wages of Death The Answer the Socinians and others make to 2 Cor. 5.21 is that he was made Sin as the Sacrifices were because a Sin-offering is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I answer 1. It was essential to the Sin-offering to have the the Personal Guilt of the Sinner charged upon it 2. When 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for a Sin-offering it 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. The Prophet Isa doth only use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he speaks of Christ's bearing Sin which last word is never used for Sin-offering 4. He was made Sin as we are made Righteous now we are not made Righteous by being made Sacrifices for Sin but by imputation Arg. 3. He that bore the Curse of the Law to Redeem us from it bore also the Personal Guilt of our Sins but Christ bore the Curse of the Law Gal. 3.13 For the Major it 's as clear as the Sun because Curse is inseparable from Sin the Law curseth no where but where it finds Personal Guilt Let these Men tell me where a Curse falls upon the head of any one but of such wherein there is Sin in some legal sense or other Arg. 4. If the Priests and Sacrifices of old the Types of Christ and his Sufferings had the Personal Guilt of Sin laid upon them then Christ the Antitype in his Sufferings had Personal Guilt laid upon him But the Antecedent is without contradiction yea and the Consequence because the Antitype is to answer the Type in all things wherein it is a Type Arg. 5. If they that were Punished by the Law did bear their Personal Sins by the Law then if Christ was Punished by the Law he also bore Sin by the Law But the Antecedent is true by the Scripture both in them that are recorded to have been Punished in Person for their own Sins Lev. 20.20 and 22.9 and 24.15 Numb 9.13 and 14.34 and 18 22 32. Ezek. 23.49 and in such as are recorded to have been Punished or Suffer for others Isa 53.11 Ezek. 4.4 5 6. The Consequence must be true if Christ was Punished by Law and was one that Suffered for others the proof whereof the Scripture is full of Arg. 6. If Christ bore not Personal Guilt but every one's Personal Guilt still remains then the Spirit of God taught David to pray after his Sin in vain Deliver me from Blood guiltiness O God But David's Prayer was
Distinctions or Explications Doth this become learned Divines The Rebukers Articles which he brought into Court were I find to the number of 21 but it seems the judicious Bp. contracted them to Six which he hath called us to appear to looking upon the rest I suppose as frivolous illiterate or spiteful the Six with my respective Answers are as follows Er. 1. That Pardon is rather the Condition of Faith having a causal Influence thereunto then Faith and Repentance are of Pardon A. The Words were mine in transitu of a Discourse and therefore it is very unfair to expose them without shewing their Dependance 1. I have shewn and proved and will stand by it that Pardon Faith and Repentance belong not to the conditional Part of the new Covenant but to the Promisory 2. That Pardon Faith and Repentance altho' they are not Foederal Conditions yet being connected in the Promise may have a Connexion conditional given to them as if a Man believe he receiveth Pardon in believing if he repent he will believe if he repent and believe he shall be saved and I renounce not the Scripture Language in anything but desire to understand and explain it in its true and genuine Sense 3. I say that if we talk of the Foederal Conditionality of Faith to Pardon Pardon is rather a Foederal Condition of Faith and Repentance than Faith of Pardon I say not that it is but rather because distinguishing Pardon aright into Active and Passive I say Pardon Passive received can't be without Faith to receive it but Pardon Active must be before Faith 1. Because the Object that the Hand receives must be before the Instrument that receives it 2. The Grace of Pardon is in God to be bestowed before we receive it 3. There is Pardon in Christ for all that shall believe Jo. 17.20 See what Mr. Capel saith on this point 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 our Surety the true notion of Imputation that it is not an Act of Grace but a Judicial Act and God did exact all of him as guilty by that Law c. 3. Pardon in God and in Christ hath a causal Influence on Faith and Repentance 1. Pardon is an essential cause of a pardoned Person the Abstract being the formal cause of the Concrete pardoning Grace doth effectually work all Graces of the Spirit in us the pardoning Grace of the Father Son and Spirit 2. The Gospel preached to Sinners which is Pardon of Sin the Gospel preached to Abraham is that which works Faith thro' the effectual Operation of the Spirit Act. 13.39 Rom. 10.15 And it was preached to David by Nathan 2 Sam. 12.17 as done before his particular Repentance express'd Psal 51. therefore if we talk of Foederal Conditions Pardon is rather such than Faith and Repentance because it 's in Nature as well as Time antecedent and such an antecedent as hath a causal Influence And hence I also assert that every necessary antecedent tho' with causal Influence upon the consequent is not a Foederal Condition Er. 2. That Sin it self as opposed to Guilt was laid on Christ and Christ was reputed a Criminal not only by Man but God A. As to the first clause they should have pointed out the Person that said it If I spake it or writ it I was asleep then for when we say Sin was laid on Christ we speak not of it by way of Opposition unto Guilt but by way of Identity or Sameness with Guilt in the Dialect of the Spirit of God our use of the Word Guilt being but an apt Exegetical Term to express the meaning of Sin in this Point because the Physical Substratum of Sin can't be transferred to another but the Law Relation may As to the second charge 1. It will be easily granted by the Accusers that a Sinner's Debts to the Law are Crimes 2. To say he was a reputed Criminal in Law only is by a received Sense to justifie the personal and absolute Innocency of Christ in himself 3. I suppose they will not deny that if Sin was charged on Christ for the delivery of Sinners it was done by God as his Act and not by the false Accusation of Satan or his Instruments for the Salvation of Sinners by his bearing Sin was never their Design and it 's said God laid upon him the Iniquity of us all Isa 53.4 The term Criminal might possibly be used by some or other with a good Meaning but I look not upon it as proper and I don't know that I have used it if I have I have better considered of it 1. Because tho' the Scripture saith Sin was laid on Christ and that he was made Sin yet it saith not that he was a Sinner or a Criminal 2. Because his bearing Sin and being made so it plainly implies that he was not so in himself but made so by Law Imputation and by standing in a Surety relation to the Law for us 3. A Sinner or Criminal doth in an ordinary and common Acceptation import a Committer or Perpetrator of Sin which Christ never was not reputed by God so to be Therefore herein God shews his wonderful Wisdom in teaching us to speak of Christ in this great Mystery with so much Exactness Er. 3. That the Doctrine of Justification before Faith is not an Error but a great and glorious Truth and therefore we believe that we may be justified declaratively A. It is an Error and it is not an Error it is an Error to say Justification by Faith is before Faith in time and a contradiction in Adjecto therefore I never said so for Justification by Faith can't be before Faith is in the Receiver to receive it by But that Justification is before Faith is a glorious Truth and this I must affirm for Truth that there is Justification before Faith if we distinguish of Justification aright as of Pardon and say it 's actively and passively to be understood active Justification is in God that justifieth Rom. 8. the Grace of Justification a Gift to us 2. Christ as the Head and Representative of the Elect was justified and all the Elect fundamentally in him else Jesus Christ's suffering as a publick Person could not have been he was taken from Prison and Judgment 3. Justification in Application is by Nature before Faith because all Grace apprehends the Sinner before he apprehends it and is the immediate cause of a Sinner's apprehending it Again the Grace of Justification is in nature before Sanctification and the Foundation of it by the consent of Protestants and therefore it 's said in that Sence that God justifies the ungodly not that we should be ungodly but that he finds and takes us in that
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
passively taken this we deny and for Justification is active but the justified is the passive where Justification it self is the form Again we deny that our righteousness is the formalis ratio of Justification Remission indeed belongs to the form it self but the formalis ratio of Justification is external to the form and therefore to be considered apart from it This only by the way § 5. I add at last upon the account of Christs Merits or through Christ or for Christs sake because this faith of ours or Evangelick Righteousness hath so many defects in the best Christians that if thro the sacrifice of Christ they were not pardoned and through his Merits those imperfect duties which are done accepted it could not be imputed to us for Righteousness Resp Christ is beholden to him to bring him at last tho but at the fagg end of Justification But how comes Justification to be at last upon the account of Christ for we are formally justified upon the account of our own righteousness i. e. perfectly so for what is formally existent is perfectly so and that by our own righteousness i. e. upon the account of it for the effect quod è causis existit is such upon the account of all the causes but especially upon account of the form now he that is formally thus justified must be upon all accounts justified and needs nothing to be added to it Why then upon the account of Christ's Merits why because Christ purchased a law of righteousness which could not justifie perfectly but leaves the person justified in a need of further righteousness for Justification if the Merits and Sacrifice of Christ must come in upon the account of which a man is justified then he is not justified before and Christ's righteousness is the justifying righteousness only for our own leaves us unjustified by Mr. H's own confession i. e. it leaves us in such a case that no man of sense can say we are justified for by his own words the righteousness of the new law is not cannot be imputed to us for righteousness unless it be pardoned and accepted in Jesus Christ and therefore this law cannot justifie any one upon his inherent righteousness for its most absurd to say it can justifie when it cannot impute its own righteousness by reason of the defects thereof § 6. I find Mr. H. is at a great loss in establishing his Notion upon a right bottom he seems to suspect that Christ may come off a loser by it and he will most fearfully I do more especially signifie thereby that Christs righteousness which cannot be imputed to us as a formal cause of our Justification is and must be very carefully brought to our account and granted to be imputed and the meritorious cause of our acceptation Resp I am glad to see this saying wherein he hath overthrown his own Doctrine tho uttered in a great contradiction for he saith Christ's cannot be imputed and then it must be imputed but why cannot it in the first place That which is put to our account in Justification whether as to the part or to the whole of our righteousness is imputed but according to Mr. H. the Merits of Christ's is put to our account and therefore the Merits of Christ to speak more distinctly thus put to our account are the materialis formalis ratio of our Justification for if the merits of Christ be put to our account in Justification it s but trifling to say it s only the effects if one man pay for another in part or whole it s the money it self paid that is put to his account and therefore imputed to him in Court and indeed he ingeniously confesseth he learned of Mr. B. to mend his Notion and allowed Christ's Merit to be the material cause of our Justification but that which he amends with one hand he spoils with another and thereby runs into grosser logical Absurdities saying Because I make our faith the formal in Justification Resp Very good The matter is in one subject in Christ and the form in us another Causa per qua res est id quod est is in us ex qua in Christ in a legal act Christ's righteousness is but generical matter which is as much for all the world as a Believer but the formal part the proprium differentia is in the subject Man this in law is always the meritorious part Money in general turns no Cause there but it s the Propriety that this or that man hath that doth it now it s not Christ's righteousness in special that doth the business but righteousness in general that Christ hath brought in as a material part but its mans righteousness in special that is the principal essential cause according to Mr. H. § 7. After this I distinguish between this pardoning and bearing with the defects of our Faith Repentance and new Obedience which are the condition of the Gospel Covenant and so our Gospel Righteousness or that which is Imputed for Righteousness and that General or Total Pardon c. Resp If Justification be upon performing these as a law condition what need all this talk about bearing with our defects If the Gospel Covenant run in these Terms he that doth what he can shall live therefore Man doing what he can leaves no room for bearing with defects he fulfils the Law in doing what he can Again if this be imputed to us for righteousness by the law and we discharged and declared righteous thereon it is enough Where also observe what imputation the Neonomians owns its imputation of our own righteousness to our selves And such a righteousness as is none because imperfect and sinful but yet imputed for righteousness to us as if it were perfect what 's the reason then that it s found defective after imputation if imperfect by imputation comes in the room and doth as well as perfect Nay what 's the reason that this righteousness that is such a paultrey one which can do nothing by their own concession in Justification without Christs must have the honour of being imputed to us but Christ must not cannot be imputed and why I pray Because tho' its acknowledged to be perfect and compleatest righteousness yet it may not be imputed to us for ours because performed by Christ and not by us I pray let me ask whether it would not more comport with the honour of God the nature of a Gospel and common Reason to impute legally to a delinquent the payment of another which is perfect full and compleat then to impute to him the payment of his whole debt for 10 per Cent. or 6 d. or 4 d. Nay after this acceptance how honourable would it be to the Court to sue to the King for the pardon of the Prisoner for paying so little § 8. But let us come to the other part of the distinction And that general and total Pardon which the Covenant promises and becomes Absolute upon performing
Consequent § 9. He proceeds with Confidence 2dly I do absolutely deny that a true Gospel justifying Faith and Gospel-Works are ever opposed to one another and do confidently affirm the contrary because I have examined all Places where Faith and Works are mentioned and do not find them if any affirm let him prove it R. Mr. Cl's Confidence is no Proof and his searching the Scriptures and not finding so plain a Truth as that Justification by Faith is opposed to Justification by Works argues but judicial blindness whereby God hath hardned his Heart and blinded his Eyes 1. As was said before all Gospel-works as he calls his New Law Works brought into Justification by a Law are legal not Gospel not accepted of God but leaves a Man under a Curse 2. Those that are Gospel-works are Fruits of the Spirit thro' the Gift of Grace and Fruits of Faith as they are Fruits of Christ's Righteousness believed in to Justification and no cause of Justification in the least neither doth the Believer claim Justification thereby and hence called Gospel-Works but if he claim Justification by them they are Works and opposed to Faith but loose the Name of Gospel are Legal dross and dung and stink in the Nostrils of God neither are any such Works the gracious Gifts of the Spirit or true Faith or the good Fruit of it For such seek Righteousness as it were by the Works of the Law and obtain it not 3. Now whereas Mr. Cl. here throws down his Gantlet in an Ambiguous manner we take it up in the true State of the Difference and confidently affirm that Justification by Faith is positively opposed by the Apostle Paul to Justification by any Works of a Law whatever performed by us the proving of which is the drift of this whole Dispute as now managed 4. He saith there was no Coutroversie about any other Works but the Works of the Law Resp There was no Controversie about any Works but the Works of a Law no more is there now Gal. 5.4 The Apostle saith They are abdicated from Christ and fallen from Grace that are justified by a Law so say we § 10. Proposition 4. This Law was the whole Body of the Mosaical Law consisting of precepts Moral Ceremonial and Judicial what he saith under this proposition about the acceptation of the term Law I think will not hold all of it with his other Doctrine for he saith its taken 1. For any written Declaration or Revelation of the Will of God concerning our Duty 2. It s frequently taken for the Moral Law as Rom. 7.12 and Ch. 3.31 Mat. 5.17 Luke 16.17 3. It s used Indefinitely for the whole Body of the Law given to Moses and therefore he mentions it in such general Terms R. Because Law is used in so many Senses in Scripture and those that would introduce Justification by Works are apt to slip from one Law to another and say as Mr. Cl. doth that though the Apostle deny Justification by one Law yet he intends Justification by Works of another Law therefore the Apostle excludes our Works of any Law whatever as frequently in his Epistles as hath been shewed so in that express and plain Place Gal. 3.21 If there had been a Law given which could have given Life verily Righteousness should have been by the Law And why is it spoken It 's spoken as a Reason that the Law of Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not against the Promise i. e. against Justification by the Promise and Gift of Righteousness no the Law of Moses taken together was so far from being against this way of Justification without the Works of a Law that it witnessed to it as the Apostle expresly speaks Rom. 3.21 It did not appropriate the Grace of the Promise to it self but by the whole Tenor of it witnessed to the Promise and Righteousness The Law of Moses taken as a Law did justifie none Gal. 3.11 For saith the Apostle the Law i. e. as such is not of Faith ver 12. The Condition of it being Works and therefore Justification by the Law is not Justification by Faith the Apostle saying further ver 18. If the Inheritance be of a Law than no more of Promise ver 19. For what end served the Law given by Moses Answ It was added because of Transgression till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made i. e. Christ but why added for two Ends. 1. That Sin might be distinctly known by the Moral Part as the Apostle by the Knowledge of Sin 2. That by the Ceremonial Law there might be a Typical Redemption and Satisfaction held forth unto them through which they might have a sight of Faith and of the true Sacrifice held forth unto them § 11. Proposition 5. The Law was looked upon by the Carnal Jews as a Covenant of Werks Mat. 19.16 Granting that it was yet not to be fulfill'd by a perfect Obedience but by imperfect as appears by his Words What good thing shall I do that I may inherit Eternal Life As much as to say I have done Good and Evil I would know what that good thing is whereby I may be righteous to Life Eternal He depreciates the Law calling it a Ministration of Death and Condemnation 2 Cor. 3.7 9. It was the true Sense of the Apostle that the Law of Moses or any other Commands of God understood used and applied as a Law for Justification by the Works of it is a Ministration of Death and not of Faith and as a Ceremonial Law which Heb. 6.19 is made nothing and by it self perfect it being Typical and the Type absolutely considered could not purifie them as to Conscience The Apostle saith it was weak through our weakness Rom. 8.3 We being not able to come to the Terms of this nor of any other and Rom. 6.14 saith we i. e. Believers are not under a Law but under Grace for Justification as much as to say you take the Doctrine of Grace to be a licentious Doctrine but believe it it s the legal Doctrine that leads to Sin not the Doctrine of Grace besides the Apostle shews plainly that to look for Justification by the Law of Moses or of any other is to be Married to it which he shews Rom. 7. is quite contrary to our Marriage to Christ by Faith while we are in expectation of Justification by a Law we are held in Bondage but being by the true Sence of the Nature of it Dead to it it becomes Dead to us Now we are delivered from the Law that being Dead wherein we were held and there 's no other Husband comes in the room of the Dead Law no new Law but Christ only And the Opposition saith Mr. Cl. is only between the Law of Works and the Law of Faith if he make the Law of Faith to be a Law of Works then it s no Opposition at all because both are a Law of Works and why I pray is Justification by Faith Justification by
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
beloved as he was was ignorant of it but that very day as v. 16. According to thy righteousness I beseech thee let thy anger and thy fury be turned away a Neonomian will Gloss thus i. e. according to our righteousness of the New Law v. 18. We do not present our supplications to thee for our righteousness i. e. say the Neonomians the righteousness of the Old Law not of the New but for thy great mercy that say they is the Law of Grace so they will have their Belly-full of law shortly § 2. Mr. H. gives a wild Gloss upon Eph. 1.4 According as he hath chosen us in Christ before the Foundation of the World he saith the Election of Grace is the Election of Grace and Gods choosing us is the taking the Way and Method of Grace and not of Works a choice way of saving Resp Ay indeed it s a choice way to save by Grace and not by Works but to save by Grace and yet by Works is a Contradiction in Paul's Logick Election is in Christ how according to common Notion of Election is over hard to conceive but take it in this Notion and here is even Day-light if you take it for the Law of Grace the Law is the Will of the Law-giver and that 's all one with the Gospel there 's no difficulty in it Resp This Man is so fond of his New Law that ask him of what Place of Scripture you will what it means and he will tell you its the New Law what is Election The New Law what is Redemption Purchase of the New Law How are you justified by the Righteousness of the New Law how shall you be judged by the New Law what 's the Gospel the New Law may not these Men be fitly call'd Neonomian that thus New Law it its hard to conceive how Election is in Christ why Because he cannot conceive Christ to be a common Person or Head of the Elect and that Christ as such was chosen and the whole Body in him but tell him that we are chosen in the New Law and the Difficulty is removed and you see what he makes of the Gospel it is the Law-giver I think its Time to give over talking with Men whose Wits go a Wool-gathering once more though § 3. 2 Cor. 5.19 God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself not imputing their Trespasses and hath committed to us the Word of Reconciliation the Word is the Gospel declaring to the World this purchased Pardon the Pardon is General a standing Pardon an Act of Grace yet if any will have Benefit by it he must look into the Act and see how he is to be qualified Resp The Gospel he saith is the Declaration of the New Law the making of which was an Act of general Pardon for all the World and for this Pardon Christ atoned none could obtain this but Christ and here all the Rogues and Whores in the World continuing so are pardoned at once now the silly Antinomian talks only of the Pardon of Believers before Faith now a Neonomian doth Antinomize to Purpose and Mr. H. is willing Christ shall have the Honour of saving Peter so far as he saved Judas and so far it 's from the Love of the Father in sending his Son to fulfil the Law how By no Obedience to it or Satisfaction for wrong done to him in it and in this Sence he will allow Grace is without Condition i. e. as much as Creation is Grace and God's giving a Law at first it 's true whatever Act God puts forth at first to a Created Being in a way of Nature or Jurisdiction or Mercy it may be said to proceed from his Sovereignty but it cannot shine forth in a way of Grace unless it be the bestowing some good Thing in a way of Speciality Peculiarity and in Distinction from others not to do something in general for all the World in common this is not that which will bear the Name of Grace likewise considering that what he calls a Law of Grace is but an Exhibition of a Law of Works for it is but do believe God had made the first Law as much a Law of Grace as this had the World been as full of People as since and more for it had been easier to perfect Man to perform than now an un-performable condition is to lapsed man This is Grace without conditions he saith even as much as the first Covenant for God made that Covenant without Man's causing it the Condition was lege constitura in the law enacted the previous causes of a law whether it proceed from the meer pleasure of the Legislator or obtained from him by Petition or Purchace are not considered in the law by the Subject it s the tenour of it that he looks at and is concerned in it therefore the making a law the proper nature whereof is to be conditional and promulgatting of it to all the world is no Pardon therefore he soon trips up the heels of his General Pardon in saying If any come to look for benefit by this Pardon Act of Grace Law Covenant Testament any thing a declaration of the will of God as he saith which being a law is not therefore Grace he must read it and see the conditions or terms that God requires And are not these conditions required of all the World are they therefore pardoned because they are required of them its required of every man he saith to believe repent walk sincerely in order to the benefit if these be the conditions of the Covenant then not free because working conditions are required of all the World which by the World are unperformable The main of the Text he cannot see he is so dazled with his New Law v. 18. All things are of God even the reconciliation of the World as well as its new Creation and therefore the righteousness by which reconciliation is made is of God and therefore saith reconciling us by Expiation and Satisfaction for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying reconciling by an Expiatory Sacrifice to himself the enmity was between the Sinner and God and God in this Grace is the first mover of Reconciliation by or in Jesus Christ in whom the righteousness of Satisfaction is giving to us the word of reconciliation i. e. the Gospel in which this reconciliation is preached whereby the Sinner seeing the preventing love of God in the mystery of Reconciliation by the Impetration of Christ he may have the application of this Grace also by Faith for this is the great doctrin that reconciles the heart and brings him to believe This he repeats v. 9. shewing only exegetically that we who are to be saved are the world in the sense of the Scripture in this truth by an usual synecdoche of the choice part being put for the whole and the whole for the better part not imputing their Trespasses shew which is the great thing done in reconciliation of a Sinner to
Believer be said to be cloathed with the Righteousness of Christ and yet the righteousness of Christ not be his cloathing but only that which procured this cloathing unto him Chap. 7. p. 88. is to evince That that which God imputes for Righteousness in Justification is not the Righteousness of Christ himself in the sense refused in the First Chapter ' but faith in Christ In the conclusion of the Chap. he says If God in the New Covenant of the Gospel i. e. the New Law requires Faith in Christ for our Justification instead of the righteousness of the Law in the old and this faith will not pass with him in account for such righteousness both his Commandment and Covenant for believing and the Obedience it self of believing will become void and of none effect § 10. You see by these instances that by this Doctrine the Neonomions fall into that Sink of Errour that the highest opposers of the Gospel of Christ have professed it s no doubt but they will cease inveighing against the Quakers as introducers of Popery but rather applaud them and bring them into their Pulpits § 11. But for Christ's sake alone This they deny and say Our Justification passively taken that which we do our selves thro Grace is this our formal righteousness and that is the condition of our Justification actively taken i. e. the righteousness of Christ the meritorious cause So that in a large sense here is two righteousnesses for our Justification Christ's and ours p. 6. Mr. Cl. hath a Chapter to prove how the Righteousness of Christ concurs to our Justification the sum of all is this That by the Merits of Christ's Death he has 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 p. 35. Christ hath done his part but hath appointed us a necessary part which must be done by our selves this is not to supply any deficiency in Christ i. e. he hath done well enough for the part alotted him but it is that which subordinately is required of us as the condition of Pardon and Life by his own Law or Covenant of Grace and so far as a part ' it is imputed to us for righteousness Scr. G. p. 35. From what hath been quoted before it is plain the rest also do hold that Christ's Righteousness at best doth but concur to our Justification it is not that only whereby we are justified See Mr. Cl. Chap. 13. § 12. Not by imputing faith it self the act of believing or any other Evangelical Obedience to them for righteousness All this the Neonomians in all their Writings deny Mr. B. in his S. G. def p. 32. quaeries Whether Faith be imputed to us for righteousness or Christ's Righteousness believed on A. A strange and bold Quaery Read over the Text and put but Christ's Righteousness every where instead of the word Faith and see what a scandalous Paraphrase you will make to have righteousness imputed plainly signifieth to be reckoned or judged righteous and it is strange that it must not be our own righteousness that is imputed and reckoned to us as our own The same say Mr. H. and Mr. Cl. This Faith that is our righteousness they will have the same with our Evangelical Obedience as containing all in it So Mr. B. Faith by which we are justified is one moral act containing many physical acts even our fiducial consent to the Baptismal Covenant and Dedication of our selves to God the Father p. 42. Mr. Cl. Faith is our subordinate Gospel-righteousness he gives his reasons p. 64. Mr. H. When a man performs the Evangelick Condition it is the Evangelick Law or God by it as his instrument makes him or constitutes him righteous and being thereby so made God must account him so this constitutive Justification preceeds Pardon and Life in order of nature J. G. denys that Faith justifies in relation to its Object tho it cannot be separated from it but by vertue of the intervention of some Law Covenant or Decree i. e. as a condition of the new Law in the Neonomian sense Mr. H. in his right of God p. 54. Our Effectual Calling doth enter our Justification for the Works of it Faith Repentance new Obedience are imputed to us for that righteousness that justifies us and our Justification and inchoate righteousness does enter and is the infancy of Glory I need not blot Paper by quoting the Council of Trent briefly they damn any man that saith that a man is justified without the righteousness that Christ did merit for us whereby he is formally just and damn such as say that a man is justified only by the righteousness of Christ or Remission of Sins without inherent Grace and Charity § 13. But by imputing the Obedience and Satisfaction of Christ unto them Mr. H. in his Right c. p. 34. says to this part of the Assemblies descript of Justification and seems to flatter them a little and thinks their Catechism may serve the People yea that a grosser sort of the knowledge of the Principles of Religion is better for ordinary People than more exact whereby you may see what high thoughts and apprehensions he hath of the exactness of his gross Divinity In Justification I acknowledge a forgiveness and an imputation of Christ's Obedience but I do not acknowledge either as our formal righteousness Forgiveness is a benefit we receive but not the formal reason I acknowledge Christ's righteousness imputed sub genere causae efficientis modum meriti received by faith but in the merit of it only And I give notice that thinking More doth say that Christ's righteousness in se is made ours legally tho he disowns it as physically and morally that man must make it justifie us sub ratione causa formalis which is an unadvised Position which I look upon as that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of our former great Divines which gave the rise to Antinomianism Now what a happiness is it that so great a Divine is risen up to find out such an Error in the very heart of our Reformation in our great Divines and indeed in our Protestant Religion that we have been all under a Cheat and Delusion in this grand Point of Life and Salvation building upon a wrong righteousness for Justification Again he saith That we should be justified by faith was obtained by Christ's Righteousness or Performance but it is our Faith not Christ's Performance is imputed unto us for righteousness in our sâ—astification Christ's righteousness is that for which not that by which causa propter quam not per quam we have this benefit that upon believing we are justified to the same purpose he hath words above an hundred times Mr. R. B. God never judgeth falsly but knoweth all things to be what they are and therefore he reputeth Christ's Mediatorial Righteousness and Sacrifice to be the meritorious cause for which we are
justified by the law of Grace so he truly reputeth our Faith and Repentance and Covenant-consent to be our moral qualification for the gift and our holiness and perseverance to be our moral qualification for final Justification which qualifications being the matter of the Law of Grace and Condition of its Promise is so far our righteousness therefore God may be said in this sense to impute Righteousness to us i. e. our own and to impute Christ's Righteousness to us i. e. as to the effects 'to impute our faith to us for righteousness See the end of Controv. p. 257 258. and 260 261. Scr. G. d. p. 61.70 71. Socinus No other imputation is in our eternal Salvation than that whosoever sincerely obeys the Commands of Christ is from them accounted of God as righteous De Serv. This is the express sense of the Neonomians § 14. They receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith The Neonomians say to be justified by it as that which God hath promised Justification on as the qualifying condition and saith the quae quâ is a quibbling and juggling about a meer sound of words in a ludicrous Disputation he saith it justifies not instrumentaliter for that is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere in specie Faith in Christ doth not justifie qua talis as that Faith but it is that qualifying condition which the Promise annexeth Justification to Scr. G. d. p. 42 43. Mr. Cl. chap. 12. § 8. From hence I infer that justifying Faith is the same thing in substance with Effectual Calling Repentance Regeneration Conversion Sanctification Renovation c. J. G. It is the common Plea that Faith justifieth in relation to its Object it s not receiving but lawful receiving that justifieth and therefore it justifieth by vertue of that law or agreement men are under i. e. as a Covenant-condition therefore he peremptorily denys that Faith justifies in relation to its Object and our Neonomians are one with him see him Of Justification Bellarmine also spendeth much Paper That Faith alone doth not justifie but that Fear Hope Love and every Grace doth the same § 15. Those Points wherein the Neonomians declare themselves diametrically opposite to the Assembly and other Protestants in the Doctrine of the Obedience and Satisfaction of Christ must be matter of another Treatise it being too much to come within the compass of these Sheets likewise there are two Points which I have already publickly insisted on 1. In shewing the Nullity of any New Law with Sanction 2. To disprove their Vniversal Redemption and shew the Absurdity thereof tho more may be said of both God willing hereafter And the Assembly and we with them asserting the Imputation of the active and passive Obedience of Christ to the Justification of a Sinner and the Neonomians denying the active righteousness to have any influence on our Justification no further than as to the fitness of his Person to the exercise of his Mediatorial Office falling in with Piscator Gataker and others in this Point and cannot be handled here but must be matter of after-consideration in treating of Satisfaction Let not the Reader take it for granted that we grant Mr. Clark that Point viz. the denial of the active righteousness of Christ in our Justification wherein he hath spent a great part of his Treatise CHAP. II. Of Iustification § 1. Wherein we are agreed § 2. Justification what in Scripture acceptation § 3. What it supposeth § 4. God justifies actions § 5. Such a fruit of Justification before God § 6. Of Rahab § 7. Of Justification in foro Conscientiae § 8. Of the Conditions § 9. Of Commutative Justice § 10. Of a Compact § 11. Of Grace purchased § 12. Of the Purchase of the Covenant § 13. Whether God be a Debtor § 14. Particularly asserted against Mr. H. § 1. I Shall not detain the Reader in criticizing on the signification of Justification in the Hebrew and Greek Language it amounting to what our English word means and our adversaries in a great measure agreeing with us therein tho differing enough in the modus as appears in the foregoing Chapter that Justification is directly opposed to Condemnation That it is a forinsick or Law-Term and that properly it is a Law-Sentence distinctly and per se understood That God is the great Justifier That the Person justified is always upon the account of some righteousness of that Law that justifieth That this righteousness must be legally his that is justified i. e. imputed to him without denial of it self and that Justification is the sentential pronouncing a person righteous and accepted by the Lawgiver free from condemnation righteous in his sight and enstated in all advantages that this righteousness of his brings him into Thus far I take it we are agreed what little wordy differences there is we shall not concern our selves about nor trouble the Reader with § 2. Justification in Scripture and in our usual and common acceptation is any Vindication of a Person or Action from a Charge or Accusation brought in or alledged against them and this in the largest sense wherein a man is said to justifie God Psal 51.4 It s one mans justifying another or vindicating their actions and this done by pleading for or defending them Job 27.5 and 33.32 or practically by doing the same thing or worse Ezek. 10.51.55 Or a man is said to justifie himself Job 32. Luke 10.29 § 3. Justification being allowed to be a Forinsick Term it must always suppose a Forum or Court where it is And all Justification must be supposed to be in one at least or all these Courts Forum Dei Mundi Conscientiae a true Believer is sometimes justified in all as to his State and Actions sometimes in one and not in another The Court or Forum Dei is where God sits as Law-giver and righteous Judge of his Law where every one that is saved must find Acquittance and Acceptance Forum Mundi is of two kinds 1. Common wherein the actions of men are judged of either by Vogue and Reports of the Vulgar or by the Courts of Judicature among men 2. It is more special in Ecclesiis to be tried and judged in a Church of Christ 3. Forum Conscientiae where God sits a Judge and brings the Sinner to the Bar and Trial and accordingly Sentence of Condemnation or Justification passeth upon a man or on his Actions As to the first of these all men are tried as unto their State and they are there juridically acquitted or condemned in foro Dei i. e. legis either by a Judgment on their own righteousness which is called legal righteousness or upon a Judgment on them according to the righteousness of another called Evangelical because it s of absolute promise to a Sinner and the freest Gift in the World As to the second Forum the Courts of the World the World many ways call Courts of Judicature and will have Judgment upon men in the