and Faith as such is both seen in us and present with us 4. If Faith be the very righteousness then Faith believes in Faith as righteousness Doth the Scripture bid us believe in our selves or believe in another Faith believes in Faith for our very righteousness by these Men which is most absurd when they preach they should bid Men believe in themselves did Abraham believe in his Faith Was that his believing or did he believe that which was held out in the Promise the same thing that God imputes to us for righteousness we do make the Object of our Faith for Righteousness Now then if God imputes our believing to us then we believe in our believing these are inevitable Rocks this Doctrine will bring these Men unto 5. God cannot impute Faith as a Work and in the Neonomian sence for righteousness it being as Mr. H. confesseth again and again no righteousness sinful in need of pardon for 1. This would not be according to truth to call evil good nor to do it in a way of administration of Justice as in Justification would it be just But most unjust God is a God of Truth and Holiness and the Judge of all the World and therefore must deal righteously for tho' he pardons Iniquity yet will by no means clear the Guilty 2. It s contrary to their own assertions that Justification is an Act of Justice whereas such an Imputation and Justification as they speak of would be far from an Act of justice and is a meer dispensation with justice for where a Law must be abrogated or relaxed there is an absolute dispensation with Justice and without one of these they confess there cannot be Justification by their New Law 6. This cannot be justification because Sin is not pardoned in it nor the person accepted Imputation of righteousness to the work before it s to the person and if the person must do good works before he 's justifi'd which is absurd because the works he doth are imputed to him and he is justified by 'em as they say § 5. But let us hear what Mr. Cl. hath to say for the Proof of this Position that Faith is our Subordinate righteousness i. e. in his sence an interveening righteousness coming between Christs righteousness whereby we are justified before we come at Christ or pardon both being consequent to our Justification by this New-Law-Righteousness which he calls Faith see p. 64. His reason are these 1. What else can be the plain and proper meaning of that Phrase it was accounted to him for righteousness Without putting it upon the Rack of Tropes and Figures and the like Engines of Cruelty c. Resp Doth Mr. Cl. pretend to be an interpreter of Scripture and will not allow the use of a Trope or Figure but to call them Engines of Cruelty is to say where a Trope is said to be used in a Scripture there is a wresting of Scripture I must tell him that a Tropical sence of many Places of Scripture is the true plain and proper sence and meaning of the Spirit of God in many most eminent Expressions and for this he must expect to be watched in the adjusting his New-found righteousness whether he doth no where interpret Scripture Tropically What answer will he give the Papist in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation founded on This is my Body Mr. B. saith it s as credible as the Doctrine of imputation of Christs Righteousness And what saith Mr. Cl. to the Covenant of Circumcision Well let us make a little Impartial Examination of this Expression If Abraham were justified by works Rom. 4.2 he hath boasting but not before God not in the Presence of God for his Justification yea he may rejoice that through Grace he hath performed any action by faith which God witnesseth to as James speaks of but he dare not plead it before God for Justification of his Person Now he brings in Justification by Faith in diametrical opposition to it for the Scripture saith Abraham believed in God and it was accounted to him for righteousness so translated the words in the Hebrew may run thus He believed on Jehovah and he accounted it i. e. what he believed of him for righteousness to him the Words are rendred by the Septuagint and the New Testament Abraham believed God it was accounted to be unto righteousness The Seed promised before was the thing believed by Abraham the blessing unto all Nations which Seed was to proceed from his and Sarah his Wife's Loins this was the promise of God to him and this was accounted to him for righteousness he believed Jehovah graciously promising and the thing promised Jehovah imputed to him for righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he accounted the thing believed not the Faith it self therefore the Targum hath its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he believed the word of promise and the thing promised was imputed to him in this sense the Apostle takes it Rom. 4.3 Gal. 3.6 where in both places he opposeth a righteousness of faith i. e. which is believed on unto a righteousness within which is no object of faith for it is within us and an object of sense he believed God in the Promise of Christ and this that he believed was reckoned to him he argues presently that this imputation was not to Abraham as a work of any kind for to him that worketh as much as if he should say O do not mistake me I do not nor doth the Scripture speak of Abraham's Faith as a work the reward should not be of grace but debt but to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly as Abraham was when first justified Josh 24. his faith is esteemed to be unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. he believes upon the righteousness which is imputed to him And why may not Faith be taken objectively by a Metonomy for the thing believed for 't is not unusual in Scripture Christ is said to be our hope the object of our hope 1 Tim. 1.1 and so the hope laid up for us in Heaven i e. the things hoped for Coloss 1.5 so looking for that blessed hope Tit. 2.14 the things hoped for what 's more frequent than these Metonomies yea proper plain and elegant in matters of sense or perception its most frequent to put the object for the sence and sence for the object Matth. 6.22 the light of the body is the eye and there the light is for the eye and after the eye for the light besides it s a rule that when a word in Scripture taken in the direct sense will cross other Scriptures and the signification lies fair for the Analogy of Faith then the true sense lies in the Trope as here we are justified by faith but how as it lays hold on the justifying blood of Christ or else we contradict Rom. 5.9 being now justified by his blood now either Faith or the justifying Blood of Christ must fall into a Trope for which
lies in the Death and Resurrection of Christ v. 24 25. likewise 2 Cor. 5.15 God was in Christ reconciling the world i. e. justifying for God reconciles none but by Justification reconciliation is essential to it and therefore non imputation of sin for while a man lies under a law charge of sin he is unrighteous till he be imputed righteous by the law The major is evident from what is said in proof of the minor for non imputation of sin to a sinner is essential to his Justification which can be no otherwise then by a covering righteousness and when a law imputes sin the same law must justify by imputing to him an adequate and satisfactory righteousness § 8. Arg. 8. The Sins of Sinners under the old Testament were Imputed Typically to the High-Priest and Sacrifices which is very easie to make appear Ergo. The Sins of all sav'd sinners are Imputed really to Christ and his righteousness to them See 1 Cor. 5.21 Rom. 3.25 Heb. 9.15 § 9. Arg. 9. That which cannot be pleaded for Pardon or Justification unless it be Imputed is when it s pleadibly imputed unto Justification But Christs very righteousness is pleadible c. Ergo. The minor I suppose these Gentlemen dare not deny for I find tho they will not have it their immediate righteousness by imputation yet they will have it for some remote and as a reserve at a dead lift when conscience sees that neither the New Law nor the righteousness thereof will serve the turn Now that Christs righteousness is not pleadible without Imputation to us neither by Christ in heaven nor by us on earth its plain for if Christ be never so righteous his plea is answerered in saying thou art righteous for thy self I never imputed thy righteousness to these let them plead for their own Justification If they plead it with God the answer is Christ is righteous for himself his righteousness not imputed to thee no more then the righteousness of one of the Angels and therefore Christs righteousness being pleadible its imputed without Imputation it s not pleadible for us or by us § 10. Arg. 10. That righteousness which is a Suretiship righteousness must be imputed else it s of no value to the offender but Christs righteousness is a Suretiship righteousness he being a Surety his righteousness must be such And as for the major its plain that the justice that accepts one person to be Surety for another doth impute or account the righteousness of the Surety to that other or else it accepts not the Surety is rejected now that Christ was accepted as a Surety is beyond all question Heb. 7.22 § 11. Arg. 11. The righteousness of the second Adam is an Imputed righteousness for 1. as Adam was a Publick person that had a Covenant standing for all his Seed so the 2d Christ was and had for his 2. As Adam 's Sin came by Imputation upon his Seed so Christs righteousness on his as fully appears from Rom. 5. But this I must not now enlarge upon the Apostle is so full and plain therein that I never could see any thing said to oppose that could have weight with any learned and rational Interpreter if unprejudiced against Truth CHAP. XVIII What Interest and concern Faith hath in our Iustification Section 1. Of the Nature of Faith as spoken of § 2. What this Faith is § 3. And how we are said to be Justified by Faith § 4. Arg. To prove that Faith is not our Righteousness Section 1. HAving proved Christ's Righteousness to be the only Righteousness for a Sinner's Justification in Gods sight and that this Righteousness is certainly Imputed to every one that believes we shall in the last place enquire what concern and intrest Faith hath in our Justification I shall not speak of Faith accompanying Salvation at large as the Apostle doth Heb. 11 Wherein he also comprehends Justifying among the other Senses there spoken of but only of Faith as it referrs to Justification and the righteousness thereof § 2. Justifying Faith is a gift of God whereby a poor sinner believes in God unto eternal life thro Jesus Christ 1. It is a gift of God in respect of the grace of God and the work of the Spirit Eph. 2.8 2. It is a purchased benefit for an Elect person 2 Pet. 1. 3. It 's a Gift to a Sinner there 's no grace lives tell Faith then Christ lives in him it s to a poor undone broken Sinner 4. This is a gift of grace to believe in God and Christ 1. To be perswaded of the truth of the Law his certain curse under it impossibility of coming to the works thereof That its a saying worthy of all acceptance that Christ came into the world to save Sinners whereof Paul saith he was one of the chiefest not that he was righteous subordinately to Christ's to qualify him for it This is that which is properly call'd fides but its hard to distinguish this from the Faith of a natural man and hipocrite therefore 2. There is believing in i. e. resting upon God and Christ resting on the faithfulness of God in his promise of a good thing to us as for eternal life and for righteousness in Christ now faithfulness belongs to persons truth unto things when the Soul doth not only believe the thing promised true but believes him faithful who hath promised and from thence doth stay himself and his Soul acquisce in it This is properly fiducia trusting in God 3. There 's a particular application of Christ in the promise and the Soul unto God in Christ believing that all the promises especially those that concern eternal life and justification by Christ's righteousness are yea and Amen in him made and perform'd in him § 3. Hence by Faith we are said to be justified 1. Because the righteousness of Christ is the object of our Faith it is that we believe to and come unto believing Rom. 10.10 We believe unto righteousness 2. By Faith a man is devorced from the Law and legal righteousness and comes into a new marriage relation to Christ for righteousness and life Rom. 7.3 Because its that grace only whereby a man can go out of himself and fetch in the righteousness of another 4. It is that grace which from the very law of its nature which it hath thro grace doth always deny it self any thing of righteousness for Justification and gives all the glory of righteousness unto Christ alone 5. In that it doth fiducially rest and depend thereon believing 6. It dwells upon an object of righteousness which is not seen by sence or reason yea it is the hypostasis of Christ's righteousness in the Soul Christ lives as it were in our Faith take away Christ from it and you leave it a dead nothing or worse it returns to unbelief 7. Because by this Faith the Soul sees God at peace with him and he hath peace in himself and the controversy is at an end
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
acceptation of Punishment in Scripture always used in which sence Christ was Punished because he saith the nature of the Expressions that is of the use of the word Punishment doth imply as it were an impulsive cause when indeed there was none but something that God appointed and accepred in order to Atonement but was not Punishment in strict and proper Sense But yet becomes meritorious by his voluntary undertaking R. That is as much as to say there was nothing in Christ's Sufferings themselves that made them Meritorious but something Antecedent to them viz. The Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ in giving himself to be a ransom but the ransom it self and what he suffered had no merit in it Here the Bp doth basely Baxterize to cast Mr. Lob in this Cause To which I briefly return that Punishment which was appointed by God and accepted for full Satisfaction to his offended Justice was strict and proper Punishment and of it self meritorious but Christ's Punishment was such The Major is true else the Judge of all the World did not deal Righteously in putting his Son to grief for if he put him not to as much as the Law required the Law was not satisfied if he made only a shew of Punishing him and did not do it then the Scripture hath given us but a kind of Romantick account of Christ's Punishment when indeed there was no such thing nor any such cause as the Scripture acquaints us with He acquaints us that Mr. B. not content with Scripture terms falls to enquire into the Nature and Reason of the thing it self suggesting that he would dive deeper into the thing than Scripture 1. That Punishment is a Natural Evil inflicted for a Moral 2. That the Name of Punishment is ambiguous because it relates to Punishment justly inflicted and that which is not the former Proper the latter Analogical So that this Analogical Punishment is that which hath a representation and looks like it but is not so Similia non sunt Idem things alike are not the same And that which is improper is unjustly inflicted ergo and hence Christ's Sufferings would be unjust But he saith the first and most natural Sense of punishment is when the Offender suffers for his own fault but there may be other reasons of Punishment which he calls Analogical and those from nearness of Relation as Subjects for Princes or Vicarious and why I pray must these be called Analogical and Improper Punishments Because it 's Mr. B's pleasure Why would it not be better distributed unless to serve a turn Punishment is either just or unjust Just is either that which falls on the Person committing the fault or on another Relation or Sponsor that suffers on his behalf voluntarily subjecting to the Law in his Place and what need we Analogical when Proper payment is made to the Law Bp From whence he inferrs that since Christ did not Die as a Sinner therefore his Punishment could not be proper in the strictest sense R. But if Christ Died for Sin he Died as Sinners Die though he did no Sin and in that sense was not a Sinner yet he Died for our Sins as the reason of judicial proceeding against him and this being done by a just God for the honour of his Law it could not be but proper Punishment For all just Punishment is proper Punishment The Bp himself shews that this will not hold Water for whereas Mr. B. distinguisheth of Punishment by false imputation and calls it unjust but Analogical and the Punishment of another by consent he calls Analogical but not unjust the Bp Answers If the Punishment be just the Cause must be just and Christ's could not be just with Relation to his own fault for none is supposed therefore there may be a just Punishment for another's fault and if so that viz. the fault of another may be truly said to be the Meritorious cause of it and the Punishment a proper Punishment although for another's fault What can be said more directly and demonstratively against Mr. B. in this Point The Argument is this That Punishment which is just must have a just cause of fault either in the Person suffering or some other and that cause is truly meritorious and the Punishment a proper Punishment But the Punishment of Christ was such therefore a proper Punishment Having thus thrown Mr. B. on his Back he endeavours to make some little excuses for him That which led Mr. B. in denying of it was the Antinomians making Christ to undergo the proper Punishment of our Sin because our Personal Guilt was according to them transferred upon him R. Hence it appears that in the Bp's Judgment Mr. B. was more excuseable in being a Socinian than in being an Antinomian for he finding saith the Bp this Principle to be the Foundation of Antinom that this could not be true and therefore denied Christ's Punishment to be proper But let me speak what is truth as to Mr. B. that I believe he had a further insight into this Controversie than it appears the Bishop had and would have told him that these two Principles are inconsistent and overthrow one another Christ's Suffering was proper Punishment And Christ bore no Personal guilt of any so that the Bp's Argument that refutes Mr. B. redounds back upon himself So that instead of fetching off Mr. B. they both fall irrecoverably together by one blow and it 's easie to take notice how he buffets Mr. B. afterwards quoting Mr. B's words upon this reason he saith But then as you Mr. Lob truly cite his words he makes our Sins not to be the meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings but a kind of promeritorious or occasional Cause Therefore he means no more by promeritorious than occasional and in the Bp's Judgment falls under Mr. L's Charge Yea he saith we must do him right is it to acquit or condemn Mr. B Sure to pass sentence against him So far as to take notice that in stating the Socinian Controversie he makes it to consist in denying that Christ did undergo any Penalty for our Sins as the meritorious or promeritorious Cause but only as occasions and yet here he makes the pro-meritorious cause and the occasional the same and he denies that our Sins were the meritorious cause but only because if we had not Sinned he had not suffered What is this any more than an occasional cause If the World had not been created Man had not fell if there had been no Law there had been no Sin and what saith the Bp truly he is necessitated to give Sentence against Mr. B. though in as soft terms as may be P. 156. These Expressions I grant taken alone yield too much to the Socinians who do not deny our Sins to have been a remote impulsive and occasional cause of Christ's Sufferings but deny them to be the meritorious cause of them What can be more plain and full to prove Mr. B. Socinianizing in these Points For
all this he will not give up Mr. B. to the Socinians why Because he hath writ of the Doctrine of the Trinity that he might do and yet be a Socin in the Doctrine of Satisfaction But he hath written of the Doctrine of Satisfaction yes he hath retained the word to make his Doctrine go down the better but hath endeavoured to destroy the thing to all intents and purposes Bp. These may be said for his Vindication 1. By laying all the passages together he must mean something more by his promeritous Cause than meerly a remote occasional Cause A. This supposition is very unreasonable when the Bp hath told us from Mr B's own Mouth what he means by his promeritorious Cause It is not hard to conceive what Mr. B. meant by promeritorious it is only that Sin Antecedently to Christ's Death was meritorious of Death but this merit terminated there and never reached as a Cause meritorious of the Sufferings of Christ This merit the Bp saith is antecedent to the Legislator's act in accepting a Sponsor and is but an occasional Cause and what saith he of an occasional Cause It 's really no Cause at all c. just as if a Man said the Fire of London was the occasional Cause of the Monument p. 169. Bp. Now no Man can say the fault antecedently was any more than an occasional cause of the innocent Person 's Suffering A. This is true in Mr B's sense that the fault of the Offender makes him only guilty and deserving of Punishment in general but is not transferred to the Sponsor to be any Guilt or desert of his Punishment which is truly Mr. B's meaning of his term promeritorious And therein Mr. B. is consonant to himself in saying it's but an occasional Cause and that Sin is a remote impulsive Cause viz. remote from Christ tho' immediate and impulsive to Punishment 2. This is true in the Bp's Sense who saith Christ suffered Punishment for Sin and bear the Personal Guilt of none is to make the Sin of Man no more than an occasional Cause But the consistency of the assertion lyes more on Mr. B's side because he knew it to be a great inconsistency to say that Christ bore proper Punishment when he bore the guilt of no Sin Bp. But taking all together when he is admitted to suffer in the place of the Guilty the Law with the Punishment makes the impulsive Cause become meritorious and it is the immediate Reason of his Sufferings R. This the Bp speaks as the truth and intimates as if he would have it Mr. B's Sense but gives no proof that it is so neither is it likely he should being not consonant at all to what Mr. B. every-where maintains and what if the Bp saith so it 's not consonant at all to the Tenet he defends that Christ bore no Personal Guilt For then how can the Guilt of any become the meritorious and immediate reason of his Sufferings Bp. The only question then is whether this can properly be called a meritorious cause A. That may be taken in two Senses 1. In a strict and proper sence so your self deny that Christ merited by his own Sin 2. In the sense of the Law i. e. Sin was legally charged on Christ and so that which was the near impulsive cause the fault of the Transgressor may be truly said to be meritorious as to his sufferings because they made it an act of Justice which otherways had been an act of Power and Dominion R. See now the Bp's clear concession 1. That what is here spoken of Christ it 's in the sense of the Law not in a Physical or Moral sense 2. He makes the near impulsive cause Sin and here Sin in its merits or deserts the immediate reason of Christ's suffering can that be any thing but the Guilt of Men's Persons 3. Sin is such a reason as may distinguish Christ's Punishment from an Act of Dominion and make it an Act of Justice How is it possible that any Man that saith this can say that the guilt of Man's Sin was not charged on Christ as our Representative in a legal Sense i. e. in a way of Judicial proceeding Now doth the Bp lay down this as Mr. B's sense No he dare not for if he did Mr. B. were he living would say he had laid therein the Foundation of Antinomianism Bp. The question between us and the Socinians is not about meritorious and promeritorious Cause R. I wonder the Bp should insinuate so great a falshood when he knows the question between us and the Socinians is whether our Sins were the meritorious cause of Christ's sufferings or occasional And it 's that which hath been at present under hand Promeritorious being a word of Mr. B's bringing in it may be they might not think of it to hide occasional under it as he doth to make Men think he did not deny all merit in this Case Bp. But the question is whether Christ did really undergo the Punishment of our Sins in order to be a Sacrifice of Atonement for them And in this we have Mr. B 's consent express'd on all occasions R. I wonder the Bp can speak thus why doth he not acquaint us then with his consent in one passage if he hath any such passage doth he mean as he speaks No no more than the Bp who could not as long as he held that Christ bore the personal guilt or desert of none It is now evident the Bp hath said nothing to the purpose for vindication of Mr. B. what hath been said hath been for a greater confirmation of the Charge and wounding his own Cause He saith little further but to excuse 1. Liberty must be given to Metaphysick Heads 2. Tells a Story of Lubbertus and Mcacovius 3. He tells us of favourable interpretations that are to be given to Persons that keep to the main point as if this were but a trifling matter between the Socin and us 4. Mr. L. argues that Mr. B. speaks after the Unitarians That Christ did not undergo punishment properly so called but in a popular sense of Punishment The Bp in answer doth fill up p. 162 163 164 165 166. in shewing what slippery Gentlemen the Writers of the Unitarian Doctrine are but nothing to Mr. L's Charge of Mr. B. therefore yields the truth thereof and agrees with Mr. L. in these words Bp. you say Rectoral Justice doth essentially respect the Law in its distributions Whatever a Soveraign may do in acts of Dominion A Rector cannot justly inflict Sufferings on an innocent person as such Here I grant you have come up to the true state of the Case between the Socin and us and therefore we shall leave it and let the Reader judge who is cast at the Bp's Bar. But before I end it 's necessary to consider how the Bp. doth reconcile his two Principles 1. That the Sin of Man was the immediate impulsive and meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferigns This he holds
State and so doth the sanctifying Grace of God in Regeneration God doth both justifie and sanctifie the ungodly by his active apprehending Grace Phil. 3.12 As to the second clause I suppose none can deny that therefore we believe that we may be justified Rom. 10.10 and elsewhere and as to the last Word wherein they lay the stress of the Error they might put it in unexceptionable Terms by adding a monosyllable they believe that they may be justified and declaratively they believe that they may receive and have Eternal Life and that they may know they have it according to the express Words of the Apostle 1 John 5.12 13. Er. 4. Union to Christ is before Faith at least by Nature and we partake of the Spirit by virtue of that Union and there 's a compleat Union with Christ before the Act of Faith A. For the first clause of the charge I own it and have defended it as Truth and shall stand by it and am ready to dispute it with the Accusers when they please in the mean time let them tell me whether Faith be not a vital Act of the Soul If so how came the Fruit to grow on the Branch before it was in the Root Christ Jesus Again if Faith be the Effect of Union to Christ then Union is the cause and in Nature antecedent to it There 's no need to enlarge upon so plain a Truth the second clause is as true that by virtue of this Union or in this Union we first partake of the Spirit because the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ Rom. 8. The Spirit is the Bond of this Union for 3. I know not whether it be mine in the terms expressed but if it were there was something said to explain it the Sense I am ready to defend it in is this that whatever Union Christ makes is compleat in it self such is vital Union in Regeneration where the Regenerated is altogether passive and all Regeneration is perfect tho' the regenerated is not every one conceived is perfectly conceived tho' the conceived is not perfectly grown every one born is perfectly born tho' every one born is not perfect so is every one born of the Spirit he hath compleat Life tho' he is not compleat in the Acts of Life compleatness of Life and compleatness in exercising the Acts of Life are to be distinguished Er. 5. It is a great Truth that God sees no Sin in a Believer and Sin can do no Hurt to a Believer God is not displeased with his People and is not angry with the Persons of Believers for their Sins A. Here are the 12 13 14 of the Rebuker's Articles crowded together As to the first I say 1. They are the Words of Scripture let the Exceptors shew and prove that the Spirit of God means quite contrary to what it saith in that Place Num. 21.21 and that all other Places of Scripture that confirm this Truth are false and mean quite contrary as when it saith a Believer is blessed his Sins being covered and not imputed Psal 32.1 2. This is Poyson but the meaning is He is blessed whose Sin is uncovered before God and his Iniquity imputed when God saith he doth not remember our Iniquities you must read it He doth remember our Iniquity Let them give a rational Sense of Jer. 50.20 Mic. 7.19 Jer. 31.34 Heb. 8.12 ch 10.17 But let them not take us to be so stupid as to understand this of the Eye of his Omnisciency but in respect of the Eye of his Justice Psal 51.9 when they give us any probable Interpretation of the forementioned Places of Scripture so to prove the Word of God false Num. 23. In the Sense we take it as I could never see yet the greatest of them ever did we will acknowledge it an Error in the mean time let them give us leave to believe it and receive it as an Article of Faith The second Clause the Rebukers 13 is That Sin can't do any real Hurt to a Believer A. Why is this charged upon the dissenting Brethren Did they ever hear any one of them assert it in Terminis he that uttered it in the Ardency of a popular Discourse was above 50 Years since and is it Blasphemy or Heresie to defend a good Man's Discourse by a charitable Interpretation If they had a Grain of Charity they may easily see that he meant not according to that gross Sense they would put upon the saying that he intended not to countenance Professors living in Sin nor in respect of Grief Sorrow and Darkness occasioned by a Believer's Fall into Sin but his meaning was 1. That their Falls into Sin should not prejudice that State of Union to Christ according to Rom. 8.35 36 37 38. 2. That tho' Sin remain in them yet they shall not have Dominion over them according to Rom. 6.14 15. 3. That tho' they fall they shall arise according to Mic. 7.8 4. That God will over-rule all the Falls of his Children for their Spiritual Good and Advantage according to Rom. 8.28 and therefore he saith real hurt The third thing here which is the Rebuker's 14th God is not displeased with his People i. e. their Persons A. Why do they not explain what they mean by God's displeasure do they mean Paternal or Vindictive If they mean Paternal in a way of Rebuke and Chastisment who denies it If they mean Vindictive we deny it Again why do they not tell us what they mean by God's People do they mean a Collection of Professing People Church or Nation Such may be the general Defection of these from their Profession never real and true that God's Vindictive Wrath may go forth against them as often against his People of Old Lastly God is never pleased with the Sins of his People therefore condemned all their Sins in the Flesh of Christ Rom. 8.3 But God is not displeased with the Persons of his People such as are called according to purpose because he loved them with an Eternal Love and he is a God that changeth not Art 6. Believers are as Righteous as Christ A. Most know who is Charged here it is one that is gone to give up his Account to his Lord and Master I doubt not but it is with Joy and that he hath received a Crown of Glory that fadeth not Tho' the Rebuker hath trampled upon his Bones and Memory in his Pride and Insolency and not only upon his but on those of that other Eminent Servant of God that is at rest with him And why Because both of them in their Life-time served their Generation in bearing faithful Testimony to the Truths of Jesus I need say nothing to this Article That worthy Servant of Christ spake enough to explain himself in that Position in his Printed Sermons which he Preached at Pinner's-Hall The sum of it was that he meant not in respect of Sanctification for there our best Holiness is imperfect therefore he means not in a way of
he tells us what a Compact is § 10. Mr. H. A Compact may be two-fold Vpon Terms equal or unequal Vpon terms equal we know the reward doth become debt and may he said to be merit notwithstanding by way of strict Retaliation or upon account of equal benefit the performance of the condition would require no such matter Resp Equality of Terms in an Agreement is so much for so much the mutual performance whereof is strict retaliation Tho the Term is foreign to the matter in hand for it belongs to revenge in giving a man as good or rather bad as he brings I deny that Compact upon Terms equal or unequal do alter the nature thereof so that the Condition is not a Merit and the Promise a Reward He saith If I agree to give a man 2 s. 6 d. for his days work I must pay the debt tho the Emolument be not worth half the money Here he answers himself in his strict retaliation and tho the condition is worth little yet it is the Compact that makes the Debt upon the performance And he says If I promise a poor man a shilling for leading my Horse to the next Stile its Alms an act of Grace Resp It seems here 's but 18 d. difference between Works and Grace An agreement to give a man 2 s. 6 d. for a Days Work makes a Debt but an agreement to give a shilling for leading his Horse is Alms he allowed the mans Days-work prov'd not to be worth above a shilling and yet ex pacto he was indebted to him 2 s. 6 d. and why I pray Is it not as good a Debt to the poor man that he bargains with to lead his Horse to the next Stile he will say it was not worth so much in strict Retaliation no more was the other man's Days-work if he had given the man the shilling and afterward said prethee lead my Horse to the next Stile he would have said ay Master and thank you too but if he agree with him when he hath done his work he could demand the Wages as Debt tho it may be he would thank him for so easie a Bargain He tells us The first Covenant was upon Terms equal and if man did his duty tho with the ability God gives him as if I agree with a man to work with my Tools the reward is of Merit or Debt Answ If he means equal in value I deny that the First Covenant was so any more than the New Law covenant Ay but if he means equal as to obligation in a way of commutative Justice i. e. that God is as much bound to perform his part after covenanting as Man to perform his then I say the New Covenant is as equal as the old for each is but equality of obligation but he goes on When he gives us the reward which is eternal life thro his Son upon obedience which is imperfect that is upon a new covenant upon terms unequal he gives it freely R. Here it plainly appears what he means by terms equal and unequal that it is as to intrinsick value that a covenant of works are terms equal wherein also he contradicts himself i. e. man's perfect obedience in the said covenant is so much for so much as good as the reward it s a days-work in it self worth the Wages promised whereas before he saith it was not but now he saith when the wages are more worth than the work it s on terms unequal but the terms unequal do not change the nature of a Bargain to make it none for there are different Bargains some better and some worse but is the new law covenant a better Bargain or worse than that of the covenant of Works I take it to be much the harder because of the incapacity of the Covenantee Man in the state of Perfection could much easier perform the condition of the covenant by perfect obedience than he can now in his lapst state perform the condition of the new law by imperfect as may easily be demonstrated from these mens Principles they affirming that the performing the condition is not by natural power and strength § 11. But Mr. H. returns after this excursion in saying p. 7. That the grace of Justification is purchased by Christ is apparent by Rom. 3.24 The purchase of Grace being free in the exerting its self is a contradiction for what God doth by Grace he doth sua sponte without motion thereto by externals and it s meerly of his own good will and pleasure I will have mercy on whom I will Our Divines say the covenant of Grace was not purchased no not by Christ but the way of the execution of this covenant was in and through Christ and his Purchase that God might not infringe his Justice in the least in exerting his Grace to the Salvation of Sinners This Mr. H. opposeth and saith If the Notion of free did ly in the conception our Divines ordinarily frame then could it not be the fruit of Christ's purchase for how can that which is purchased in their sense be free Resp There 's much more reason to say how can that which is purchased in Mr. H.'s sense be free There 's less reason that a thing purchased in the Original and Fountain should be free than what is purchased in the Streams therefore Mr. H's Answer cuts off his own legs for if the Grace of God be not free because it comes to us in and through Christ and as the fruits of Christ's Purchase then when this gratia dans is purchased how can that be free He proceeds § 13. Whereas it is this Grace certainly is the main fruit of Christ's Redemption viz. that the new Covenant should be established Resp Here it appears that he asserts That the Grace whereby the New Covenant was made was purchased grace therefore not free by his own assertion because purchas'd he says Christ purchased the Grace of the New Covenant therefore the covenant and all in it So you see he will have Purchase in our sense inconsistent with Free Grace but purchase in his sense more comprehensive to be Free Grace but now he will have the freeness to ly in bestowing freely the works which should make the reward due to him To which I answer it s one thing to justifie for the Works wrought and another to give them Mr. H. calls this latter infusion of Grace and Sanctification but Justification is declaring a man righteous by the said Works Now if this Grace giving the condition be purchased then Faith and Obedience was purchased by Christ contrary to Mr. H. who saith it comes only as the gift of election Hence it appears that he will have Grace in the root to be purchased as to exhibition of the whole covenant but not as to the performance of the main part of it § 13. See then how the Grace of God is made free in the sense of the Apostle not upon the account that man cannot merit
Socin They are greatly deceived who gather that all the posterity of Adam sinned in Adam the Parent and truly to have deserved the punishment of death for sins and merits such as are meerly personal go not out of the person which hath sinned neither do Parents represent their Children Altho there may be some hurt and that not a little to Children by their Parents sin as indeed it fell out in Adam 's sin but the very Sin and Merit of Adam was not communicated in nor imputed to Adam's Posterity and hence the Posterity of Adam was not truly punished for Adam's sin unless they imitated their Parents Schlicting on Heb. 7.10 Whereas it appears plainly by Rom. 5.12 that the merit passed upon all by Adam's sin for death passed upon all and the merit of Death cannot be without imputation of sin and it passed upon all that have not finned actually even Infants before they are capable of imitation of their Parents Quakers We do not ascribe any whit of Adam 's guilt to men till they make it theirs by the like acts of disobedience Barchl This is also Pelagian Doctrine That Adam 's sin is not imputed to his Posterity § 9. Imputation is also by way of Suretiship and it is when the Sins or Debts of one person are by law charged upon or imputed to another in order to the Salvation of the Principal or personal transgressor Here it is always understood that the payment of a Surety is as good and acceptable to the Law as that of the Principal 2. That the Surety cannot become Pay-master in Law unless he take the Debt or Sin upon him instead of the proper transgressor he must be charged as transgressor else the Law can make no demand upon him 3. He must freely offer himself to be a Surety no person can be forced in any case to be Surety for another 4. When he hath engaged himself in Suretiship the law takes him person for person the principal Debt becomes his and his righteousness and payment becomes the Principals in a real legal commutation here is no natural or moral Change but sponsorial and legal nay no logical change i. e. one relation is not changed into another the Surety into the Principal nor Principal into the Surety but in the Judgment of the Law the Principal Debt becomes the Surety's and the Surety's Payment is the Principals whereupon the Principal in respect of that Sin or Debt for which Satisfaction is made hath the discharge in full and is as perfectly righteous as to that as the Surety himself he is not it may be so rich and honourable as his Surety but in respect of the Debt satisfied the Law hath no more to say to him than to the Surety An Alderman fetcheth a Prisoner and with him many more out of Ludgate owing Five or Ten Pounds a piece this little money being all that 's owing in the World by the poor Man when discharged the Law hath no more to say to him than to the Alderman and he is as righteous in the eye of the Law tho he will not pretend to be so great and so rich or a ransomer of others out of Prison as the Alderman himself is § 10. He that bears the sins of others must be a Representative and Publick Person that must personate or bear the persons of them whose sins he bears and must be either substituted by the Court or if by some other he must be allowed to be capable and able to make Payment must be accepted and dealt with in the name and upon the account of the other and becomes a Debtor or Transgressor in and for the person he doth represent in Court and becomes a Delinquent in the eye of the Law the Law imputing sin to him makes him sin because he is supposed to owe nothing on his own account he that doth in foro represent one or more and stands not nor acts for himself but others is a publick Person and Representative as a Burgess or Citizen in Parliament and they that he represents are said to act in and by him It s a contradiction to common sense and reason to say that he that stands legally or civilly in the place of another to act his part and in his name should not be a publick Person but men will throw down common sense and reason to establish their own fond Conceits and Errors § 11. The difference between Imputation by way of Attainder and by way of Suretiship is that this Imputation is in order to the Salvation of the Sinner but that is as to legal single effects only to the Sinners Destruction 2. That in this Imputation in the way of Suretiship as there is Imputation of the sinners sin to the Surety so there is a re-imputation of the Surety's righteousness to the sinner but in Imputation of Sin by way of Attainder there 's no re-imputation of righteousness to the first sinner 3. The Imputation doth differ in the manner of transaction In Imputation of sin by way of Attainder sin is transferred from the Representative to the Represented but in Imputation by way of Suretiship sin is transferred from the Represented to the Representative and that 's the reason that tho we are fitly said to sin in Adam because he was our Representative yet it s not so fitly said that Christ sinned in us because that we were never Representatives to Christ but it s fitly said we are righteous in Christ because he is our Representative and that we satisfied in Christ which saying doth not rob Christ of his Glory of Satisfaction but gives it him affirming that Christ satisfied and for us and that God is well pleased with us through him If a man that hath owed Money to A. and paid him by his Surety B. be charged that he owes A. so much Money he denys it and saith I paid you by B. doth he speak true or false doth he not speak properly doth he hereby say I paid you by my own Money No he only saith that B. paid for me my Debt with his Money But we see how Neonomians will pick quarrel with common sense and reason as they do in their denial of this high and fundamental Point Of Imputation of Sin to Christ and charge it for an Error to say we satisfied in Christ § 12. Neonom Christ neither was a Sinner nor reputed a Sinner by God R. B. End of Contr. p. 122. Christ took not reatum facti nor reatum culpae as if there were any difference between them He took reatum poenae the guilt of punishment that 's always in the fault for nothing deserves punishment but faults Scr. G. d. p. 89. They dangerously affirm meaning those he calls Antinomians that Christ took not only the punishment of our Sins and that guilt and reatum paenae which is an assumed obligation to suffer the punishment deserved by us but all our very sins themselves the very essence of the sins
God give us this Righteousness What is freer than Gift and what makes a better propriety than Free Gift Is not Gods Judgment according to Truth when he imputes that to us which he hath given It s the Gift of Righteousness Rom. 5. E. gr A poor debtor is sued in Court for an 100 l. and upon Trial he is found insolvent and Verdict is going to be given against him the Judge throws him a Bag of 100 l. in Court and bids him pay the debt shall not the Court impute this to him a lawful Payment and give him a discharge and is not the Judgment according to Truth on the other hand another hath the like Tryal but is found insolvent the Judge or some other gives him a Bag of Counters and bids him to pay his Creditor he refuseth the Money saith its Brass well saith the Judge we will impute it to him for a lawful tender and good Payment we will make that which is no righteousness by our imputation to be a legal righteousness so the Creditor may take the Bags of Counters and go shake his Ears we call it good Money now I appeal to these Men whether this be a Judgment according to Truth And let them weigh it well and make application thereof and if they can't make a rational reply let them lay their Hands on their Mouth and hold their peace for ever hereafter § 3. A second great Argument taken from Mr. B. is That if it be so that Christs righteousness is imputed to us for Justification then should the Elect be immediately freed from punishment and immediately justified before they believed and repented for no Terms could be Imposed on them in order to their Justification and Glory if they be accounted already to have fulfilled the Law of Christ And this is one as he saith of the Antinomian consequences Resp Let it be so we say then First If it be an Antinomian consequence what is the reason Mr. B. and Mr. H. are such Antinomians to say all the World are pardoned before Faith and Repentance yea whether they believe or no Why doth Mr. B. assert two Justifications before Faith 2. We reckon it no Antinomianism to say that Election perfectly freed the Elect from coming under the execution of the Vindictive Wrath of God and Curse of the Law Why else should the Scripture say who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect and whereas it may be said before Conversion the Law will charge for they are under the Law it s replied its Christ that died yea rather is risen having fully satisfied the Law of God that they shall not fall under the Execution of the Curse of it and they are secured before God both by Election and Redemption or else Christ died and rose again in vain and as they have this security so they have an immediate right in Christ to the Life of Grace and Glory They want the application and the receiving of this righteousness and a possession thereof which reception is by Faith that is not their own but purchased and given by Christ which was never purchased and given for their righteousness but as an Organ of Spiritual Life whereby a Man created in Christ Jesus may be sensible and have the comfort of what is freely given to him of God for by Faith a Man takes up the Peace which Christ hath made and hath access into the justifying Grace of God wherein he stands and therefore comes from under the Law in his own Conscience and rejoiceth in the hope of the glory of God 3. As for imposing of Terms its Idle to think that Christ should do what he did for Sinners in his Priestly Office their Justification and Salvation and then to impose an impossibility upon them without the performance of which all that he hath done should be nothing to them and do Men talk Sence when they talk of imposing Terms upon Sinners for Eternal Life the Terms should be put upon them to be performed before they have Spiritual Life in their meer natural Estate and then to make their notion to stand on its right bottom they must be Pelagians its Eternal Life that is begun in Justification applied to the Believer and his Person by the Spirit and it s received Vitally and Sensibly by Faith when the Sinner is made a live by the Sanctifying work of the Spirit his Life of Faith is part of the Eternal Life purchased Can any Terms of Life be imposed on a dead Man what Terms were imposed upon Lazarus if the roling away the Grave-Stone was the Term it was not imposed on him it was on them that stood about the Grave if they say God will give these Terms as they must say to save themselves from Pelagianism then the Term lies upon God and its Idle to say they are imposed upon incapable Subjects neither is that Imposed upon me as a Term that cannot be expected from me unless by the donation of another by any rational Man 4. The clause follows not according to Mr. H.'s Principles who saith Christ satisfied the Law tho I know what the Neonomians talk of they intend no true satisfaction did Christ satisfie the Law in what Sence they will Was it for himself or for us if for himself then he offended it this they will not say then for us if for us our Offence was taken of before God thereby God was in him by reason of his satisfaction not imputing our Trespasses how can it be otherwise but we must be accounted by God to have fulfilled the Law in Christ if Gods judgment be according to Truth and why may not this satisfaction be and our fulfilling in Christ be before we had a being in the World this was actually performed for the Saints before his coming long after most of them were dead why not for those that are to come before they have life and why may they not be called to a fellowship with Christ and participation of the righteousness of Christ in Satisfaction by Faith when the day of their Regeneration comes This is the dangerous Doctrine that these poor blind men are so afraid of § 4. There is another Argument of Mr. H's which he takes to be Herculean and admires and it looks as if it were out of his own Forge and he chargeth Mr. L. to hearken to it Animadv p. 67. There is nothing can be imputed to us but either that which we have not and then it is that we may have it that is to have it made ours or reputed as ours Resp There is nothing can be imputed to a Sinner for righteousness but that which he hath not first but is given so saith Mr. H. and here 's the difference he saith inherent Grace is given for righteousness we say the obedience of Christ is given for our righteousness which the Scripture saith now it is given that it may be imputed ours legally and it s imputed that we may be
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
but from it proceeds a Dispensation of Justice Thundrings Lightnings c. of Judicial Proceedings to his enemies and a Dispensation of Grace to his Church there being a Rainbow round about the Throne where Christ is a High-Priest who hath satisfied the Justice of God and pleading his Satisfaction as our Advocate and Intercessor did not David do so Psalm 51. 2. Is it not good Doctrine and agreeable to the Appeal to tell the People that nothing else but the perfect Obedience and Satisfaction of Christ imputed to them can save them Is this to bring them back to the Tribunal of meer Justice is not this the Throne of Grace where Justice is satisfied and appeased where Christ the Satisfier is exalted to Gods right hand to be a Prince and Saviour I pray what do Neonomians do they first bring them to a law suppose it were a law of Grace as they call it to be justified by their own righteousness whither do they carry them then is it not to the Tribunal of Justice to be pardoned So that if God in Christ pardoning iniquity on the Throne of Grace through the Shatisfaction of Christ be the Throne of Justice divested of Grace Why are Neonomians to be pardoned there after they are justified at another Bar But he is for the dividing Grace and Justice in a Sinner's Justification as the Socinians are or rather abandoning Justice CHAP. XIII Of the Righteousness of God Section 1. Works of a Law not Gospel § 2. Mr. H. outdone the Papists § 3. The Righteousness of God what § 4. An offer at Faiths being our subordinate Righteousness § 5. Mr. Cl. and Mr. H. Sence of the Righteousness of God § 6. Their Reasons given and Answered § 7. Mr. Cl. Reasons why it is not Christs Righteousness 2 Cor. 5.21 § 8. His second Reason § 9. A distinct Consideration of the said Texts § 10. Christs Righteousness is the Righteousness of God § 11. § 12. Rom. 3.21 22. examin'd § 13. Rom. 10.3 § 14. Mr. H. Explication of Rom. 10.4 examin'd § 15. Mr. H. Explication of 2 Cor. 5.21 Examin'd And § 16. What he further faith on the Place examin'd § 1. IN the last Place There is a Righteousness revealed in the Gospel that God goes by in his dealing with all the World whereby it is that we are Justified in Opposition to the Righteousness of Works Resp If it be a revealed Righteousness it 's that which is the Object of Faith seen without our selves not in our selves for that need not to be revealed which every Man is naturally addicted to see and know Again it must not be our Works in Opposition to our Works for Justification for there is no formal Opposition between Works and Works nor material indeed which have the same Subject and Genns and End as for what he calls them by way of Difference it will not serve he calls some Works Works of the Law some Gospel-works i. e. Works of the Law of Grace now we have shew'd that there are no such Gospel-works which put in for Justification nor doth the Spirit Work such and being both are the Works of a Law they differ not specifically they are legal Works Works of a Law performed for Justification are always Legal never Evangelical § 2. This Revealed Righteousness is in Scripture called the Righteousness of God which the Protestants conceive to be the Righteousness of Christ without us all but Neonomians and Quakers i. e. the Righteousness of Christ which is not ours by Performance but by Faith but neither Protestants since Luther nor Papists since Augustine have hit the Mind of the Apostle Resp But the Scripture hath hit it long before Luther sure then if they were not Right the Reformation was the Deformation in Doctrine the Truth is many of the Protestants were out in this Point all our Reformation so far as I can understand Mr. H. and many Neonomians are gone is not worth a Fig and here indeed Mr. H. boasts again and again that he hath out-done the Papists and I may truly say that he and his Father B. hath and in this only they differ from the Papists that they go beyond them in Self-righteousness and in a most daring scornful Opposition to the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ § 3. The Righteousness of God and Grace opposed to Works is nothing but the Righteousness of the Covenant of Grace accepted for Christs sake instead of the Covenant of Works Resp It is not Christ's Righteousness accepted for us for that alone is the Righteousness of the Covenant of Grace and then only God did not set up Christ to set up our Righteousness because it was impossible for us to have any other to be justified by that he might have the Glory of Being our Righteousness alone but he saith this Righteousness of ours must come instead of the Righteousness of the Covenant of Works to which we Answer that its impossible for us to be Justified by any Righteousness but that which fully and exactly answers the Covenant of Works either our own or anothers the Righteousness of another Law cant Justifie us there For if a Sinner be justified it must be by that Law which he hath broken and by none else if they say Christ hath satisfied that Law for us then we say that Satisfaction is a sufficient Righteousness for our Justification we look for no other Law to be justified by nor no other Righteousness for our Justification He proceeds Herein are two Things comprized the meritorious Righteousness of Christ procuring the pardoning Covenant of Grace and our performing the Condition only we are to know how this Righteousness may be understood in respect to God as it is all one with his Grace or with respect to us as its all one upon which this Grace is vouchsafed Resp This Neonomian Cheat is always to be noted in the Point of Satisfaction that all the Satisfaction they ascribe to Christ is only in making pay unto God for a new Purchase they will not have Christ to have paid any Arrears or old Scores the Law passeth away in sententiam and we found insolvent to this perfect Law therefore Christ buys another Law upon that promiseth Justification upon easier Terms not so Holy but sinful and immoral and therefore called the Law of Indulgence yet justifies us upon those Terms but yet without Pardon which we must have of the Old Law and because we have fulfilled the New Law God out of his Prerogative without any other Satisfaction than the forementioned procurement Pardons for they say Satisfaction and Pardon are inconsistent as the Socinians do and why do they say Christs Satisfaction is not imputed to us because if they were not ashamed to speak out they think there is none yea and that they speak of is only Christs purchasing a new Law which would be madness for to claim an Imputation of to us for that concerns us no further then a new Legal Bondage
did so closely adhere to it that they would not submit to the Doctrine of Justification by the righteousness of another viz. the righteousness of Christ see how the words will run in Mr. Cl's sence being ignorant of an imperfect righteousness of their own performing going about to establish a righteousness of their own performing they submitted not to a righteousness of their own performing which is Gods righteousness besides it s not sence to say a man submits or not to that which is his own righteousness but it is to say he submits to take the righteousness of another 2. As the righteousness of the law is that which the law requires Rom. 2.26 so this righteousness of God is that which God requires under the Gospel Resp 1. The righteousness both under the Law and Gospel is the righteousness of God what the law requires God by the law requires and indeed God requires but one righteousness under the Law and Gospel and there 's the righteousness of the law and the strictest righteousness and if there must be a distinction between the righteousness of the Law and Gospel as our Neonomians make it s most proper to call the perfect righteousness of the law God's righteousness it being his more than an imperfect sinful righteousness which would be very dishonourable to him to be called his But Christ's righteousness is Legal in that it answers the Law and Gospel unto the Sinner because it answers it for him and his peace with God is made thereby 3. As the Sacrament of the Supper is called the Lord's Supper because it s his Institution and the Lord's Day because his Designation Answer The Supper is not called the Lord's Supper only because it s his Institution but because our Lord's Body and Blood is shewed forth therein to be the righteousness of God for our Justification Neither is the Lord's Day so called from his Design of it but because it is to remember the resurrection of our Lord who rose for our Justification having accomplished justifying righteousness for us 4. It s opposed to their own righteousness Rom. 10.3 therefore not any righteousness of their own as is already shewed supra from Rom. 10.3 § 7. Next let us see how Mr. Cl. will prove that it s not the righteousness of Christ that 's meant by the righteousness of God in the aforesaid places he saith it cannot be for these reasons p. 33. 1. Because the Apostle here distinguisheth 2 Cor. 5.21 between God and Christ the righteousness of God is one thing and being in Christ another whereas if they were all one the sence would be that we might be made the righteousness of Christ in Christ And p. 65. The Apostle also in most places where he mentions it distinguisheth between God and Christ Rom. 3.22 Phil. 3.9 Resp This Reason is so frivolous that it needs little answer There is no distinction at all in respect of righteousness but an exact account thereof that the righteousness of God which the Apostle speaks of Christ that which is in Christ that the righteousness of God in Christ is that which is imputed to us we need not look far to the meaning of the Apostle in the Phrase it s but in verse 19. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing unto them their trespasses i. e. in the righteousness of Christ God was working out reconciliation and non-imputation of sin and if so imputation of Christ's righteousness and he saith if the righteousness were one it s that they might be made the righteousness of Christ in Christ but I pray why may not Christs righteousness be called the righteousness of God as well as our own because they say our own was God's Institution Is it ours God's and ours too and Christs righteousness may not be God's and Christ's too but this reasoning is very absurd more of this as we proceed and as for the other places we shall come to them by and by § 8. P. 65. Reason 2. He always calls it the righteousness of God and never the righteousness of Christ Resp Mr. Cl. himself saith it cannot be understood of that righteousness which is inherent in God p. 33. I suppose he means of the Attribute of God's Justice because its something revealed in the Gospel and he speaks true in it but why may not the redeeming righteousness of Christ be called the righteousness of God 1. Because it was the righteousness of the Person who is God and Acts 20.28 God is said to purchase his Church with his own blood by a communication of Properties But 2. Why may not Christ's righteousness be called the righteousness of God for the same reason that you say our righteousness is so called because it is the way and method through which he hath designed to justifie us Christ saith he is the way and if so then the instituted and ordained way now if this interpretation of the Text will serve for them why not for us I am sure the righteousness we plead for is the most deserving Reason 3. He calls it The righteousness which is of God not which is in God or Christ Resp According to Mr. Cl. it s not the Attribute of Gods righteousness but it s the work of righteousness wrought by Go'd in the Person of his Son therefore its properest to express it as the Apostle of God and it s often enough said in Christ therefore it s not true I find not any thing said further by either of them to support this Notion Mr. H. talks here and there in divers places about it but the substance of all is put together more methodically by Mr. Cl. and with more modesty § 9. It remains now that we take the said Texts into distinct Consideration and examine what righteousness is by them intended which is called the righteousness of God 1. Rom. 1.16 17. The Subject the Apostle treats of is the Gospel of Christ the glad tidings brought to Sinners of Life and Salvation in him 2. This he gives an account of as the reason why he is far from being ashamed of it in receiving it for its appointed Ends for his own Salvation or in preaching it for those ends unto others 1. Because it is the power of God to Salvation of every one that believes both of Jews and Gentiles 2. In this is the power of God in effectual Grace seen in that its the Doctrine of Righteousness 3. He shews its the Doctrine of righteousness by two things 1. In that this righteousness of God is revealed in it 2. In that its the object of a Believer's Faith from time to time it s revealed to his first faith and always of faith justifying afterwards he lives upon this righteousness from time to time as he proves from the Prophet the just shall live by faith Now then it s called the righteousness of God 1. Because its a righteousness provided by God before the foundation of the World in his wise