between God and him thro this Imputed and believed righteousness 8. The justified one as he draws his first breath of the new man in believing unto righteousness so he lives upon this righteousness in all his Christian course in that Christs righteousness may be called the righteousness of Faith for Meat and Drink John 6.51 53. 9. Faith hath hereby all justifiable ways to God Christ is thereby his way unto the Father he can have access to the grace wherein he stands comes thro this righteousness with boldness to the Throne of grace and receives remission of sins and every good and perfect gift God having not spared his Son but given him for us hence he will not withhold any good thing 10. As it receives all grace in and with justifying grace so it gives and ascribes all to free grace in the Father Son and Holy Spirit both the gift of righteousness and faith it self and the life eternal given to such a poor wretch in and thro Jesus Christ 11. In that this grace being filled with Christs righteousness is leading to all fruits of Christs righteousness imputed and believed all which appear in the exercise of all holy affections graces and duties to the mortification of sin and growth in obedience and conformity to Christ § 14. Now having shewed the Excellency of this Grace in its Nature and Kind we must shew you that it is not Christ nor must not take his Throne or Crown from him yea abhors nothing more if true but will keep a Believer always a poor humble broken and contrite hearted Sinner Therefore we assert and Christ with his whole Word will stand by us in it that our Faith as a Grace of the Spirit or Work of ours is not imputed for Righteousness to Justification I shall but Name a few Arguments convincing enough and shew thereby the way to others to do the same 1. Faith is for the Honour of Christ our High-Priest upon the Throne if it takes to it self justifying Righteousness it takes the Crown from his Head and sets it upon his own for the great end of Christ's Humiliation and Exaltation was the working out of this Righteousness 2. If Faith be our Righteousness then Faith is its own Object when you bid Men believe unto Justification you must bid them believe in themselves and bid them by Faith go to their Faith for Righteousness and Life what 's Absurder 3. If God impute Faith it self as a Work to Justification then Faith must be imputed as meritorious of Justification For 1. Christs Righteousness is so imputed 2. No Righteousness can be imputed otherwise to Justification but such as is meritorious of it Justification being a Law-act 4. Faith making it self Righteousness for Justification by a Law makes it self altogether Legal as much as any Works whatever insomuch that it is not an evangelical Work so that it ought not to justifie as a Work by their own Rule that we are not justified by the legal works but we have proved all their Works legal 5. That that can't cover Sin and take off the Imputation of it can't be justifying Righteousness and take off the the Imputation of Sin for faith did not die for Sin or was made a Sacrifice for it to bear the Sin of many 6 The Priests and Sacrifices of Old were Types of Christs Righteousness for Justification of a Sinner not of the Sinners righteousness and the faithful looked upon themselves as sinners Typically justified in the Righteousness Typified and not in their Faith as a Work done 7. If our Faith in it self be our Righteousness then our unbelief is for that Faith must believe that Christs Righteousness is not imputed to us for Justification this his high unbelief according to the Scripture 8. If Faith say it justifie as a Work then Faith excludes it self the very Nature of it the Neonomian say the Law of Faith is the New-law if so then it excludes it self for the Law of Faith excludes boasting and Works of a Law i. e. the very Nature of Faith if it be good is so 9. If Faith justifie as a Work then Faith justifies not without Works for if it be a Work it self and justifying as such then it justifieth not without Works because it is a Work contrary to Rom. 4.6 10. If Faith be Imputed for Righteousness then the Blood of Christ is not but we are to be justified by the Blood of Christ and the Scripture saith we are by Faith in his Blood 11. If Faith Justifies as a Work then no more is ascribed to Faith than to other Graces in the concern of our Justification but the Apostle ascribes more concern to Faith than other Graces and then why doth he oppose Faith to Works Is it not that its more the Office of Faith as to Justification the Neonomian say it is the same with other Graces c. So Mr. Cl. Justifying Faith is the same thing in Substance with Effectual Calling Repentance Regeneration forming Christ in the Soul the new Creature c. Is not a great deal of the Scripture in vain hath not Paul wrote two Epistles in vain where he makes it his Main Business to beat down Justification by Works and oppose them to one another and now he tells us that Faith and Gospel Works i. e. legal are all one 12. That which justifies as a Righteousness justifies eternally Dan. 9. but Faith can't justifie eternally because Faith ceaseth in Heaven but justifying Righteousness doth not yea all the Righteousness of the New-law must cease 1 Cor. 13.10 14. That which is not the faederal Condition of the Covenant of Grace can't be our Righteousness in it self but Faith is not the faederal Condition because Faith is promised in the Covenant given by Grace purchased by Christ part of Eternal Life a means to lay hold of the Condition but I shall not enlarge upon this now only make one Quotation at last Mr. R. Capel who wrote of Temptation saith speaking of the Conditions of the Covenant In this Matter I am of the Opinion of Kendal that the Covenant he means of Grace was not made with us but with Christ this was the Assembly's Judgment for us and for the main I am clear of Opinion that the Covenant of Grace cannot stand with any Condition of ours at all for that I wish the Learned to consult Junius To deliver my Opinion Adam casting himself out of his Estate the Covenant of Works fell void Then it pleased God to fill up this Room with a New Covenant commonly called his last Testament wherein he bequeathed Grace and Glory on no other Condition that I know of out of the Scriptures but the Death of the Testator i. e. Jesus Christ that as the First Covenant was built on the Righteousness of the first Adam so the Second was built on the Righteousness of the second It is beyond my Brain to conceive that God should immediately make a Covenant with us who were Children of Disobedience and of Wrath who could not be capable of any such Covenant or Conditions but it was with Christ for us Adam lost his Righteousness the Foundation of the first Covenant but the Righteousness of Christ the Second can never be lost and therefore the second Covenant or rather Testament can never be broken or disanulled Condition of the Covenant p. 260. Errata PAge 38. line 2. read partaker p. 39. l. 32. r. relaxed p. 42. l. 23. r. Justice p. 43. l. 36. r. we could not p. 46. l. 17. r. per quam p. 48. l. 16. r. Is it by Imputation p. 49. l. 22. r. God justifies p. 50. l. 34. r. their sins p. 57. l. 34. r. the only p. 64. l. 23. dele r. bottom they must be Pelagians p. 66. l. 2. r. is it not so p. 72. l. 27. dele ◠p. ibid. l. 28. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 73. l. 40. r. Christs righteousness and us p. 78. l. 27. r. would not be p. 79. l. prope antep dele no. p. 85. l. 16. r. Gal. 3.21 p. 86. l. 21. r. Gal. 3.21 p. 87. l. 3. ab ult r. for Saviour self p. 88. l 23. r. Gal. 3.21 l. 37. r. is manifest p. 99. l. 16. dele not p. 100. l. 3. dele and l. 6. r. yea 123. l. 13. r. addicted to it l. 35. r. should not be p. 126. l. 10. r. righteousness twice p. 133 l. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 31. false Hebrew p. 134. l. 20. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 148. l. 17. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 29. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 34. dele the before events p. 149. l. 5. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 155. l. 6. a fine r. unprofitable p. 158. l. 6. ab ult r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 159 false Hebrew p. 160. l. 6. ab ult r. Arg. 3 The righteousness for which and by which a sinner is justified
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
God may freely forgive them without disparagement to his wisdom and justice without any Satisfaction But what if God will not He hath revealed this in his word that he will by no means acquit the guilty without satisfaction we are not speaking of God's absolute Power but of his ordinate neither are we speaking of God's acting by his soveraign dominion but by his acting in a way of justice because where there 's sin there is a law transgressed and God's dealing with the sinner must be in a way of justice unless God repeal his law or dispense with it as the Neonom will have it but we can't admit thereof But 2. Why can't God upon the same reason forgive a criminal by his prerogative as well as a debtor An earthly King may why not the King of Kings 3. And why is not sin a debt in a proper sence enough Is it not a debt to God's justice and made so by God's law and treated as such in the very point of Satisfaction It 's such a Debt as must be satisfied 1 Pet. 1.18 19. 1 Cor. 6.23 and 7.23 and elsewhere must it of necessity be a money debt and no other He saith I can't but wonder at the learned author that he doth at the same time assert our sins to be considered as debts and the necessity of vindictive justice for what vindictive justice belongs to a creditor I have rather wondred at the learned Author that he should be taken with such a Delirium as to suppose B. Stillingfleet to be for a Commutation of Persons in sano sensu having been sufficiently informed by his Letters of his Neonom principles before he appeal to him and flattered him so offensively as he did But ad rem 1. The B. knew that similitude or metaphorical expressions are not to be forc'd to run on four feet for tho' sins be most fitly called debts to the justice of God yet God is not therefore a money creditor but with necessity of Vindictive Justice to a creditor sure imprisonment is vindictive justice or seizing on all that a man hath doth not God in justice seize on all a sinner hath by his curse and cast him into prison till he hath paid the utmost Farthing Matth. 5.26 Sure Christ's own Phraseology might be admitted by us but it seems not by this B. and some others see further his Neonom spirit he calls Christ's language in calling sin debts to God and ascribing Vindictive Justice to such an adversary rude and inconsistent and he can hardly think such ever penetrated into these matters but took up with a sett of phrases I always found these Neonom great boasters of their own wit and deep penetration into things answer their adversaries still more by contemptuous and approbrious language than by any fair way of argumentation tho' I must confess I do not find this learned B. so addicted to this foul way of treating those that dissent from him as many others of the Neonom kidney that are far short of him in learning and gentility The main design of this discourse in answer to Mr. Lob's Appeal is to shew how much the good man was mistaken as to believe that he the B. was for Commutation of persons in his sence but he was for Commutation in Mr. W. and the Neonom sence The meaning of all that there hath been such a sputter about and so much foul language unbecoming Christians much more Ministers lyes in this one Question whether Christ was made of God sin and curse for sinners And whether the said sinners believing become the righteousness of God in him The Commutation according to scripture lyes here that Christ instead of the guilty sinner became sin and curse and that the Sinner in Christ becomes righteous and guitless Now saith the B. That the change was not in respect of sin asserting that Christ bore no personal guilt but that he bore only punishment that we should not be punish'd upon our Faith and Repentance so that he must hold the Commutation of persons is not in respect of sin and righteousness for that person that is taken from the guilt of sin in foro justitiae can never be righteous but only in respect of punishment and impunity 4. That Christ was punish'd that the sinner might not but that this change was not absolute but conditional and to be future upon terms to be performed by one party when he should have an actual Being in the world when he should perform the fixed conditions of Faith Repentance and good Works Again he will not have it such a change as is between the surety and debtor but such a change as is between two private persons one doing a good turn for on the behalf and so instead of the other denying Christ to be a publick person to be in his Mediatorship a surety or legal Representative before God's Tribunal of Justice and this I find every where to be the Neonom Doctrine But I shall assert that the B's change of persons is none at all for if it be not of persons as standing in relation to the law it 's none at all in a law sence Christ bearing no guilt by law obligation and the sinner being freed from none thereby this is enough to say of it here my design being to be short I can't fill up my paper with rehearsal of the very Words which I have tired my self too much in already nor enter upon a tedious Litigation about Words or Sense of them and if Dr Crisp or the Bp. have not well express'd themselves I leave those Words to themselves and apply my self only to the true sense and meaning of the Bp. in that point which he mainly prosecutes in this treatise Bp. p. 79. My business at present is about transferring our very faults upon Christ which Dr. Crisp calls the guilt of the fact A. I need not here tell the Reader that the Assertor doth distinguish between the fact and the guilt of the fact the Culpa reatus culpae the Bp. himself hath vindicated him from the charge of saying that the fact it self was charged on Christ p. 77. Dr. Crisp denies Christ to be the actual transgressor but asserted that he had the personal guilt of our Sins upon him and built his whole Hypothesis upon it This then is the Question in short to be discussed Whether Christ in his sufferings bare upon him the personal guilt of Sin The affirmative is the truth in our judgment let who will assert it the Bp. holds the negative throughout his treatise as being the vertical point upon which the whole controversie of change of persons doth turn § 2. I desire to speak as plainly in this matter as may be and as briefly and shall pass over all the proofs that the Bp. hath made that this was the Dr's judgment with this concession that it was so yea and all the needless remarks interpretations and banters that he hath upon what the Doctor hath
said and only take notice of the things of weight But first it is necessary to shew how we understand this Question 1. In what capacity Christ stood when he bore sin and punishment 2. In what sense he bore sin 3. What personal guilt is 4. How Christ came to bear personal guilt A. As to the first that Christ stood in the capacity of a publick person representing the whole body of the Elect under the consideration of the lapsed Estate and Condition in the first Adam As to the second when we say Christ bore Sin it 's neither treason or blasphemy as our Adversaries would have it because we speak in the language of the Spirit of God however to prevent cavilling we will vouchsafe to yeild to the Bp's term personal guilt which can import nothing but the committed Sin remaining on the sinner's person and conscience as a forbidden and condemned fault by the law neither do we say that Christ committed these Sins or was made to have committed them when our Sins were laid upon him neither that his Nature was physically or morally corrupted thereby Lastly We cannot but adore the wisdom of God in calling personal guilt Sin because 1. A bare physical Act as such is not Sin and as all killing is not sin but Sin is a physical Act cloathed with a moral Exorbitancy arising from its relation to and comparing with the law of God therefore to say the substratum of the physical act or defect is transferred from one subject to another is most absurd but the guilt of this fact and its moral relation to the law may be transferred and taken away from the subject transgressor as we shall make it appear As to the third the Bp. tells us what he means by personal guilt and it 's very plain David's personal guilt was of Murder and Adultery so Peter's of denying his Master Now the Bp. will not have personal guilt ever to be taken off from any but that David continues in Heaven under personal guilt of Murder and Adultery to this Day and for ever Lastly Christ came to bear Sin 1. By God's call and his acceptance voluntarily obeying his Father's command 2. In submitting himself to a legal way of proceeding with him when he came under the same law the transgressor was under 3. By a legal accounting and imputing our Sin to him he coming in forum Justitiae and writing himself debtor in the room and stead of all the insolvent debtors to the Law of God Justice accepts of him as a sufficient Paymaster Hence in the law sense Christ was called by God what he was not in a natural sense Rom. 4. He was made Sin who knew no Sin and God calls things that are not as tho' they were both in calling Christ Sin and us Righteous § 3. Now we say that Commutation of Persons was so far and no more nor less than God hath made it to be in his legal way of proceeding in this great mystery That Christ should according to the Preordination and Constitution of the Father freely put himself under a judicial Process for the Sins of all the Elect under the same law that they transgressed and that Justice should deal with him as if he had been the original transgressor and in the stead thereof in transferring the charge upon him and punishing him for Sin Hereupon follows the change that he is made Sin and we Righteousness in him Justice receiving full satisfaction for our Sins Hence we shall not much trouble our selves with the many odious Inferences that the Neonom would draw upon this glorious Mystery nor the dirty Reflections on the unsearchable Wisdom of God the Truth being as fully and plainly made manifest in Holy Writ as any doctrine of Godliness 1. It is plain that Sin was laid on Christ in some sence or other the Scripture being so express in it 2. It 's granted on all hands the physical part of the Act was not transferred to Christ after which that which remains on the Sinner is the guilt of it which is his relation to the law in the moral sense as a transgressor and must be his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the laws condemnation of the Fact making his guilt or desert of punishment 3. The Spirit of God calls this Merit or Desert Sin and shall we call it contrary to Scripture Where doth the Scripture say it was not It saith again and again that it was and what if contrary to the Bp's reason Are we to believe God or Man Is the Bp's reason the rule of our Faith What if the same word be used in Scripture for Sin and Punishment I grant that one word in Hebrew is used for Sin and the Sacrifice for Sin sometimes but when it 's used for the Sacrifice it 's therefore used because Sin was judicially transferred to the Sacrifice that it bore the Sin of the Transgressor so that it became the formalis ratio of its Suffering and therefore it 's denominated from its most essential cause To say it 's a tropical word is not much to the purpose it being such as expresseth the very nature of the thing as often in Scripture by a Metonimy Sensus pornitur pro sensili a Grace of the Spirit put for the Object Faith for the Object and Hope for its Object so here Sin for the personal guilt of Sin the Subject put for an essential or proper Production It 's a Metan of another nature from that this is my Body where Signum is put for Signatum and its true the Scripture doth always denote the guilt of Sin by Sin and the Bp. doth concede that Punishment is not Sin but a Consequent of guilt we say it 's more than a mere Consequent it is a merited effect and Sin always deserves and merits Punishment tho' no Sinner merited that a Surety should be punished for him this is by Gracious Surrogation or Substitution And it 's to contradict Scripture to make Punishment separable from guilt and for good reason to for no just Law punisheth any one but the guilty whereby it 's always said that Sin lyes upon him i. e. the just charge of Sin § 4. Bp. Obj. But Punishment must have relation to Sin as to the same Person This is true it must and always hath Sin is inseparable from Punishment in the same Person according to the just Terms and Constitution of any Law by which any Person is punished To this the Bp. saith he answers distinctly that there are three ways our Sins are said to have relation to Christ's Sufferings 1. As an external impulsive cause no more than occasional no proper reason of Punishment and so for the Socinians This I suppose he leaves to the Socinians with whom Mr. B. is one in this point 2. As an impulsive cause becomes meritorious by the voluntary Act of Christ's undertaking to satisfie Divine Justice for our Sins and not as his own 3. As to the Personal guilt of our
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
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
not in vain but was he delivered from his Personal Guilt of Blood Or else he must at this day be a Blood-guilty Murderer in Heaven Arg. 7. A Surety to God for Sinners bears their Sins in being Punished for them but Christ was a Surety Heb. 7.22 There 's no fence against such a Flail as this one express place 2. The Minor is quarrelled by our Adversaries but not Universally denied yet they would make a seeming Evasion that they will have Christ a Surety for God to us and not for us to God and that Christ was no Money-Surety for us we being Criminals and that Sin must not be lookt on as a Debt the folly of all which hath been made sufficiently manifest Arg. 8. If the Personal guilt of Sin was taken away by Jesus Christ then Christ must bear Personal Guilt But the Guilt of Personal Sins was taken away by Christ as appears by 1 John 3.5 Heb. 9.26 He took away Sin by the Sacrifice of himself Sin cannot be said to be taken away if it be not taken away in the Personal Guilt The Major appears from the Type of the Scape-Goat Levit. 16. Arg. 9. Where there 's no Condemnation there Personal Guilt is taken away nor nothing to be laid to the Charge of a Person but there 's no Condemnation i. e. Reason of Condemnation in the Eye of the Law in a Believer Rom. 8. for there 's no Reason of Condemnation but Guilt of Sin and none takes off the reason of our Charge of Fault to Law Condemnation but Christ by bearing Sin unto Punishment and Satisfaction Rom. 8.33 34. For where there is the Personal Guilt of Sin there 's Condemnation Now this Freedom from Condemnation was fully obtain'd and procured by Christ's Sacrifice but the purchased Right is not received and possessed till Application till then a Sinner is shut up and imprisoned under the Law as to State and Conscience but when he is in Christ Jesus by Faith he is fully instated in the purchased Possession Arg. 10. If Christ's Punishment was without his bearing of our Personal Guilt there was no change of Persons between Christ and us according to 2 Cor. 5.21 for as we were so we remain to be guilty Sinners and so long as we are so we cannot be righteous we can't be made the Righteousness of God in Christ so long as we remain guilty Sinners in our selves Arg. 11. Where Personal Guilt remains there 's no Acceptation with God for all our Acceptation either of Persons or Services is in Christ God professing he will not clear the Guilty Arg. 12. I might argue from all those places of Scripture that speak out this Truth fully and expresly which cannot have any rational Sense put upon them no less than three times in Isa 53. and 1 Pet. 2.24 who his own self bare our Sins in his Body on the Tree There 's no one Truth in the Scripture that is more fully and plainly recorded in the Old Testament and New The Spirit telling us of a Believer's Sin covered not imputed Psal 32. Rom. 4. Of our being made nigh to God and Christ being our Peace Eph. 2.13 14 15. Likewise Christ died the just for the unjust to bring us unto God 1 Pet. 3.18 But this is enough to confirm the weak and to convince Gainsayers and to lead all the Lovers of Truth into the Mind of the Spirit in this great Article of our Faith The Presbyterian Articles against the Dissenting Brethren Answered I Had thought when I began this Task to have passed over the first part altogether for tho' I found it a very false History yet I knowing from whose Hands the Bp. had it I did not think he was chargeable so much with the falshood as with an unjust unwariness and partiality to take up the Report of a Difference and to publish the History of it to the World from one Party only concerned therein I deem'd therefore enough to refer the Reader to the true History of the Union and Breach but upon the review of the said false Historical Account and finding a fresh Presentment brought in against the Dissenting Brethren from the late Union by the grand Rebuker under divers Articles for holding and publishing many poysonsome dangerous Heresies of so mischievous a Nature that he teacheth his tractable Reader a form of Prayer to use still before he reads them to wit that he may not suck in the Bane and Poyson thereof And finding the Bp. received the said Presentment very much like a Gentleman and sends forth his very Christian Summons for our Appearance to the high Charges in these Words The Accusation being now publick and the Nation is concern'd as to the Dishonour done to Religion thereby altho' I had seen the said Reproaches in the Presbyterians Hands and found they had brought the said Brethren under their Censure in their unrighteous way of proceeding without any hearing I thought more expedient to slight than answer their unreasonable Clamours being abundantly conscious of my own Innocency in those Matters my great Mistake was in mistaking them being at my Concurrence with them in the Union for which I have deeply repented but a meer Stranger to their Persons Ways and Actions And before I come to the particular Articles it 's necessary to premise a few things that now 1. I think it necessary for my self to appear to the Accusations and make publick Answer to them but do not undertake that all I say is the Sense of my Brethren in every Particular I suppose they may concur with me so far that some different Apprehensions will make no Breach in our mutual Love and Affections 2. I apprehend it very unreasonable as well as unchristian and ungenteel to charge those things for dangerous Errors upon a whole Party which are pretended to be taken from the Writings or Sayings of one or two only 3. It is very traducing and slanderous 1. Not to prove the Words charged for Error in the Sense they represent them on the Party that wrote or spake them but to make an Accusation at large and at random 2. That they publish these for Errors before they had disputed them with such as they charge and proved them so 4. Let me ask our angry Brethren a few Questions for my Information 1. Whether they think in their Consciences and in the sight of God they have dealt uprightly and sincerely with the Truth and with their Brethren in this Controversie 2. Whether it becomes the Saints to appear such publick bitter Accusers of their Brethren as appears by the foul-mouth'd Rebuker and others whoso have been employ'd and applauded in this dirty Service 3. Whether it be for the Honour of the Nonconformists thus to bewray their own Nests 4. Whether they think not in their Consciences that many things they charge for Errors are great Truths in some Sence or other Therefore is it not very unfair to charge in general and dubious terms without any
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
Similitude to his Personal Holiness and Righteousness but in a way of equality i. e. in respect of a Believer's relation to the Law as Christ hath made full Satisfaction to the Law for a Believer so he is as fully discharged from the Law and condemnation thereof as Christ is i. e. the Law hath no more to do to condemn a Believer than to condemn Christ His full Original Discharge having been in Christ the thing is made plain by an illustration A Rich Alderman pays a Poor Man's Debt of 10 l. and sets him at liberty from the Prosecution of the Law and Imprisonment which done the Poor Man can be no more Prosecuted by the Law than the Rich Alderman being as Righteous in the Eye of the Law as the Alderman But he cann't say he is as Rich as Wise as Valuable in Estate or Person or so Able to pay the Debts of others as the Alderman I know Mr. M. was not the first that insisted on this Notion I have read it in Mr. Shephard of N. E. as I take it in his Sound Believer and I am sure the Rebuker cann't call him an Antinom As for my own part I chuse not to use the Expression tho' it's in Mr. M's Accept a Truth because many that are short in Understanding are apt to abuse it and others to make an advantage thereof to wreak their malice against the great Truths of the Gospel as these Accusers have done But especially because I apprehend the truth therein contained may be delivered in less offensive words The Bp hath pitched upon Ten of the Rebuker's Articles and reduced them to Six there is about Eleven more which he thought had no weight or sence in them As Ac. 1. To talk of a Gospel threat is at best a Catechresis and nothing else can save it from being a Bull I suppose the Bp thought that no Scholar could make an Error of it I am the Man that wrote it and I will stand by it as a very favourable Reflection upon such as talk so improperly and impertinently Ac. As to the Elect there was never any guilt upon them in respect of the Righteous Judgment of God in foro Dei But that which accompanied the Letter of the Law setting in with Conscience This Article it seems the Bp could make nothing of nor I indeed it being one that M. W. hath patcht up For I deny not the Elect are under the Law and Children of Wrath according to it till effectual calling but that God's Vindictive Righteous Judgment is ever executed upon them I do deny Ac. 9. It is denied that God requires Faith as an indispensible Qualification in them whom he will justifie for Christ's Merits A. This smells of Mr. W.'s qualifying Righteousness all is Gospel with the Rebuker which he hears from his Oracle Now to give a brief Answer here because I have disputed this Article with the Gentleman already I do not deny that God requires Faith and will work Faith in all those that God will justifie by Faith but I deny that God requires Faith indispensibly in all that he will justifie by Christ's Merits for he justifies saved Infants by Christ's Merits but who can say Faith is required of them Lastly He doth not require Faith in any as a subordinate qualifying Righteousness to Justification by Christ's for such it is the Gentleman would have which I have formerly refuted but all Men must be Hereticks with the Presbyterians that say not after him Ac. 10. All that a Believer can pray for is the further Manifestation of Pardon for he knows that all his Sins are pardoned A. This is Ejusdem farinae Originis 1. I suppose a Believer may know that all his Sins are pardon'd or else the Scripture speaks much in vain 2. Is it a poysonsome Error to pray for a further Manifestation of pardoning Grace and Confirmation in and Continuance of that Knowledge 3. If a Man do not know his Sins are pardoned or doth doubt of it sure he will pray that he may be Partaker of pardoning Grace and be confirmed in the Knowledge of it I know none of the accused but do pray thus and that daily Forgive us our Trespasses as we pray for daily Bread when we have it in the House for whatever we have of Spiritual or outward good things it is God must give unto us richly to enjoy it Ac. 15. Legal Convictions before Faith are no more than Sin it 's but a filthy Conscience c. A. I believe all that Author and his second can do can't make any better of it So saith the Spirit of God Tit. 1.15 and the Bp. knew that the Articles of the Church of England said so and therefore he inserts it not as an Error Ac. 16. All imperfect Holiness is Sin A. Who said so This is another dab of W.'s Spittle which the Rebuker hath likct up Ac. 17. Turn ye turn ye why will you die Is but the Triumph of the Law over a dead Sinner A. I argued the meaning of that Place with D. W.'s and shew'd that it could be for no other end than to convince the Jews of their Inability in themselves that trusted to their own Strength and Righteousness inherent to work out their justifying Righteousness and Salvation and to bring them to the Grace of God in the Promise the Truth of which I am ready to discuss with any of them Ac. 18. I can't make Head or Tail of he should have told us where he had it or how he came to dream of it Ac. 20. Christ's Incarnation was no part of his Humiliation A. The terms are falsly charged there 's no Man that saith that Christ's Abode in the Flesh was not his Humiliation and what he suffered in it but if he means the Divine Nature's Assumption it self of Flesh this was an Act of Divine Power I say the taking of our Nature for he could not be humbled in the Divine Nature therefore he took Man's that he might be humbled in it after his Assumption This was a wiser and more learned Man's Opinion than they that oppose it If the Rebuker had read Dr. Ames's Medulla one would think he should have been ashamed to put it down as a baneful and poysonsome Error altho' Mr. W.'s did who it may be never heard of it till Mr. M. preached it The Bp. here cast it out and as not consonant to the Rebuker's Form of Prayer Ac. 21. We coaless upon believing into one Mystical Person with Christ which is distinguish'd from Legal Union which is before Faith A. Sure the Rebuker and his learned Master shew'd themselves mighty acute Divines here at last for they seem to take the mystical Body of Christ for a great Error for that the Error lyes in asserting that Believers are Members of the mystical Body of Christ if they mistake not Person for Body 2. If they accuse any for saying Believers make one mystical Person with Christ they should
Sir I shall no longer detain you from the ensuing Discourse but subscribe my self Yours in all Truth and Faithfulness J. C. THE DOCTRINE OF Iustification Explained and Vindicated c. CHAPTER I. Of the Doctrine of Iustification and the Neonomian Opposition thereto Section 1. The Article of the Assembly § 2. How opposed in the universality of Grace and qualification of the person justified § 3. How Neonomianism agrees with Papists and Quakers in Justification by Infused Righteousness § 4. How they oppose in Pardon of Sin and Imputing Righteousness § 5. Their agreement with the Papists in Justification by Works § 6. The Papists Talk of a New Law § 7. Quakers Doctrine of Justification § 8. The Socinian Doctrine of Justification § 9. The Arminian Justification § 10. Inference § 11. They assert Justification not for Christ's sake alone 12. Neonomians affirm Imputation of the Act of Faith § 13. They deny the Imputation of Christs Obedience and Satisfaction § 14. How they account Faith a qualifying Condition § 15. Conclusion Sect. 1. ASsembl conf cap. 11. § 1. Those whom God effectually calleth he also freely justifieth not by infusing Righteousness into them but by pardoning their Sins and by accounting and accepting their Persons as righteous Not for any thing wrought in them or done by them but for Christ's sake alone nor by imputing Faith it self the Act of believing nor any other Evangelical Obedience to them as their righteousness but by imputing the Obedience and Satisfaction of Christ unto them they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith which Faith they have not of themselves it is the gift of God To this Doctrine here delivered with the greatest Exactness according to the Word of God is the Doctrine of Neonomianism diametrically opposite as will abundantly appear § 2. They say Whom God effectually calleth he justifieth Mr. B. saith God justifieth all the World and he and Mr. H. ' That Christ redeemed all the World in which there are Millions that were never or will be effectually called 2. That God freely justifieth This is fuller expressed in the Larger Catechism Q. 70. Justification is an act of God's free grace unto Sinners Rom. 3.21 23 24. for the free Grace is demonstrated in the Object that Justification falls upon Justification considered in it self is an act of Justice but the Free Grace lies in bringing Justification upon a Sinner as such not as qualified by righteousness of his own under any Denomination whatsoever Christ died for the ungodly for enemies while yet sinners Rom. 5.6 7 8 9. it is such chap. 3. that are said to be justified chap. 4.5 by free Grace it is such that have sinned and come short of the glory of God as all he saith have both Jews and Gentiles such as are described from v. 10. of whom none are righteous no not one but full of all sin and wickedness as expressed with the highest aggravation unto v. 19. Now our Neonomians say it s of Free Grace because Justification is an Instance of Grace but by Mr. Cl's favour it must be in the Justification of a Sinner not of a just one and therefore it s said freely by Grace because he hath nothing nor brings any thing in or from himself 2. He saith It s in respect of what is required of us or in us Faith is wrought in us and it s of Free Grace that he accepts of Faith and imputes it to us for righteousness This by the Assembly is rejected as False Doctrine altho Faith and all the Graces of the Spirit are of Grace yet neither Faith or any of them are our righteousness for Justification neither doth God accept it as such nor impute it Mr. Cl. mightily perverts Rom. 4.16 therefore it is of faith ' i. e. the righteousness before spoken of is such as he received by faith he saith not therefore it is faith that it might be of grace because as Grace gives freely so Faith receiveth freely and is not so proud as to call it self righteousness but gladly humbly and thankfully receives the gift of righteousness which Grace bestows and Justice accepts and imputes to Justification § 3. Not by infusing righteousness into them The Assembly doth here exclude the Popish Justification at which Mr. H. inveighs and so doth J. G. for indeed there 's but a pair of Shears between the Papists and Neonomians for the Papists mean only That we have the righteousness for Justification by infusion and so says the other they say indeed Infusion is of Sanctification and it is so and we say Justification is only a relative Grace as it finds nothing in the justified so it puts nothing but the Neonomians say It must find a righteousness infused and there implanted in the justified for which he is justified or by which it s all one as we shall make appear anon in a word tho the Neonomians say The infusion of grace is not justification yet they say Grace infused is our righteousness for Justification and here they do concur with the Papists Quakers and others in confounding Justification and Sanctification together § 4. But by pardoning their sins The Neonomians will not have Pardon to be any part of Justification but an effect of it only we affirm it to be an essential part of Justification By accounting and accepting their persons as righteous The Neonomians say it s by accounting and accepting their imperfect obedience for righteousness God's Justification is first of the Person and then of their Services as Abel's but their Justification is first of their Services and so it is always in legal Justification never in that of Free Grace for in a meer Legal Justification Persons cannot be accepted before the Work done but the Person is accepted for the Work sake Not for any thing wrought in them or done by them The Papists Neonomians Quakers Socinians Arminians all say its for or by what 's wrought in us or done by us Pap. Cons Trid. There is one only formal cause of Justification and that is the righteousness of God not that whereby he is righteous but whereby he makes us righteous with which we being endowed are renewed in the spirit of our minds and are truly called righteous and are righteous c. Upon which Bellarmine saith the State of the whole Controversie may be reduc'd to this plain Question Whether our inherent righteousness be the formal cause of our own absolute Justification which he maintains in the Affirmative and this is the Question in Controversie exactly which our Neonomians plead for in the like manner tho some more obscurely and sophistically but others more honestly in speaking out plainly what they mean such as Mr. B. Mr. H. and Mr. Cl. Bellarmine also blames Kemnitius for dealing fraudulently in not distinguishing between propter and per saying with the Council of Trent That Christ's Righteousness is the propter the cause for which we we are justified and our own inherent
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
as the Law hath to do with him 3. A Man is not charged by one Law and acquitted by another but his imputation is always according to that law where he was charged and therefore his Justification or Condemnation by the same if a Man be found guilty by one Law he cannot be acquitted by another tho requiring milder Terms § 3. Not to impute a fault is to acquit and of the same import as to impute righteousness and therefore where the Spirit of God speaks of non imputation of sin Psalm 32.2 Rom. 4.8 1 Cor. 5.19 it always therein asserts imputation of righteousness for he that is a sinner and hath no sin imputed to him or charged upon him by the Law is righteous and found so by the Law and indeed all proper imputation is by the Law for Sin is not imputed where there is no law therefore it s properly the voice of the Law that imputes Sin or Righteousness where Actions or Claims of Right come to be questioned and tried what the law saith is saith to them that are under it for judgment and condemns therefore all transgressors and makes them guilty before God Rom. 3.19 § 4. To attribute or ascribe are larger Terms than to impute when any thing is imputed to a person it s attributed and ascribed but every thing attributed or ascribed is not said to be imputed because it s spoken of in a Law-sense e. gr we attribute Holiness Justice Power c. to God but do not say we impute them to God we attribute Heat to Fire hardness to Iron but do not say we impute Heat to Fire or hardness to Iron because it s naturally in them § 5. Legal Imputation of Sin or Righteousness is either of that which is a Man 's own unto himself or of that which primarily is his own and imputed unto another The first is when a Man bears his own Sin or stands legally in his own righteousness upon the first the law condemns him upon the other it justifies him he is upon the first Judgment of the Law found guilty or not to have right to the Claim that he makes or to have no right to his Claim to the Promise in a Law-Covenant Hence imputation of righteousness fixeth his right to the promised reward Imputation of sin cuts off his right to the said reward and brings him under the curse of the Law § 6. The second sort of legal Imputation is of a Man 's own Sin or Righteousness unto another It s by way of translation and it s either of Sin or of Righteousness Imputation of Sin by translation is when the Law imputes Sin to any other than the Sinner so that by that Imputation those others are legally made Sinners And this Imputation is twofold by way of Attainder or by way of Suretiship § 7. Imputation by way of Attainder is when the whole Blood is charged with and stained by the Sin of the actual transgressor Such was Achan's Sin such also Adam's First Sin his sin was imputed to himself and all his Posterity he being not only a single person but a Publick Person 1. Naturally containing all Mankind in him 2. Foederally Because God when he covenanted with him covenanted with a Kind he covenanted but with individuals when he covenanted with Angels As Adam was when he stood in respect of Mankind sohe was when he fell Hence it was that all the Kind must needs fall in him when Angels fell each one fell but for himself as each stood for himself but it was not it could not be so with Man Adam therefore was the greatest Representative in respect of the number represented by him that ever was and all Mankind sinned in him Sin did not come upon us by Propagation only tho a sinner can propagate none but a sinner but by imputing Adam's First Sin to all his Posterity for judgment of imputation came upon all to condemnation of the whole kind else Adam's First Sin should affect us no more than any other of his sins and Adam's sins no more than the sins of any other of our Progenitors Hence Adam's sin came upon us federally and by way of Imputation as well as by Propagation and seminal Descent for the Privation of the Image of God by Adam's Sin which was his moral Death was a Publick Loss never to be regained by any that have their standing only in him Hence every Natural Man is in him stands under that first Privation and therefore under that first Guilt and as every Man by Nature stands under that Guilt he also is under the condemnation Wrath and Curse of the Law Death passed upon all men in that all have sinned the Apostle speaks but of Adam's sin Rom. 5.12 16. and of death passing upon all by that sin imputed by the law as appears by the following word that all died in Adam the Apostle is express 1 Cor. 15.22 Undestand it of which Death you please spiritual or corporal that in Adam all died it infers necessarily that Adam was a Publick Person for we cannot be said to live or dy in another's life or death but as he is a Publick Person vers 49. we are said to bear the image of the earthly i. e. in his Fallen State which shews that his Image was of a Publick Nature to all his Posterity and his loss of God's Image a Sin imputed to the whole kind § 8. I cannot stay to insist largely on the proof of the Imputation of Adam's Sin but is a Point of so great concern that the denial of it overthrows the Gospel in the true state thereof I shall only acquaint the Reader That the Neonomians together with the Socinians and Quakers lay this denial in the foundation of their rotten Doctrine Neonomian We were not in Adam as a Publick Person or Representative by a Covenant standing nor his sin imputed to us further than we are guilty by a natural in being or derivation Scr. G. D. p. 86 87. 112 113. End of Controv. 95. See his daring confidence We were not in Adam as a publick Covenanter I would ask whether God covenanted with Adam as the comprehender of all the Kind if he did then Adam was a Publick Covenantee instead of the whole Kind and it appears in that the Covenant reached Eve then in him when the covenant was made Gen. 2 and if the covenant was made with her in him then why not by the same reason with all Mankind in him He saith Adam's sin is imputed no further than we are guilty we say we are not guilty any further than his sin is imputed its imputation of Sin makes us guilty not guilt that makes imputation He saith also no further than by a natural in-being what then doth not a natural in-being in Adam at the time of his Covenant make him a publick Covenanter when the whole Nature was in him and so we were federally in him because naturally but see how the Socinians concur
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
not be the end of the law of works for righteousness to a Believer but that a believer's performance of obedience to the new law should be the end of the law of works for righteousness which is a direct contradiction to the Text. For he faith Christ is the end of the law what law of all law of works in way of Satisfaction of the Moral and concurring Ceremonial as an Antitype he and his righteousness is shadowed forth thereby he saith not that Christ is the end of a law for a righteousness of our performing for that would be a contradiction to fay the end of a law is righteousness and then Christ is the end of it for another righteousness and not his own he should have said believing is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth Lastly What righteousness is it to take us from under a law or relax it or procure that it shall not be satisfied at all and that the offender shall be justified by another Law § 15. The next Text is He hath made him sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him 2 Cor. 5.21 i. e. saith Mr. H. the immaculate lamb made a Sacrifice for our sins that we may become righteous with the righteousness of God which he accepts through him Christ as a Sacrifice redeems us from a Law of Sin and purchaseth for us a law of grace according to that law we have a righteousness which is a righteousness accepted unto life through Christ Medioc p. 28. R. So that Mr. H's meaning must be That Christ was made Sin under the old law that we might have righteousness by him under the new law and that what Christ did under the old law amounted to no righteousness to us But he must be righteousness to us under the New Law and then Christ was made under the New Law which these men will deny and be our righteousness there no say they not himself be our righteousness but procure that we should be our own righteousness then the true meaning is here That Christ was made Sin for us that we should be our own righteousness but how our righteousness in Christs is our righteousness Christs then it is that we may be made Christs righteousness becoming ours by Imputation Christ being made sin for us he glosses upon as the Socinians i. e. Christ the immaculate Lamb was made a sacrifice for sin It is true Christ is expresly said to be a sacrifice for sin but how 1. As the true Sacrifice not as a typical Heb. 9.26 2. As a Sacrifice to bear Sin not less but more than all the Sacrifices of Old and therefore it is said to be made sin for us he was not a sinner by nature neither was his nature corrupted by his being made Sin for us therefore he was made sin by legal imputation made sin because put under the law the Priests and Sacrifices of old had the sins of the People laid upon them sin was charged on them their own first for which they sacrificed then the sins of the People but Christ did not only bear Sin as the Sacrifice that was slain but as Scape Goat also for one Type could not hold forth the fulness of Christ's Righteousness therefore the Apostle saith he did not only bear sin but bore it away Heb. 9.26 28. Now it s a strange thing that these men should spit at this Doctrine of Christ's bearing Sin one of late calling it Poyson another saying he bore not our very sins and all that he bore only suffering for sin I would know how any can suffer for Sin in Law or Justice and not legally bear the charge of sin And how Christ came to be a Curse if he bore not Sin 2. He bore Sin because he bore the Curse of the Law he was made a curse doth curse come upon any but for sin Is there any in the World but for Sin therefore whatever subject hath the curse of the law hath also the charge of sin for they are inseparable 3. How dare any man be so audacious as to give the Spirit of God the lie in that it hath so often and peremptorily asserted We have gone astray and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all he hath caused them to meet upon him will you say that is the punishment of us all when the Spirit of God speaks so distinctly of punishment v. 5. and tells us the reason because he bore sin he was wounded for our transgression because sin was laid upon him so v. 8. for the transgression of my people was he stricken and least you should be at a stand in this Point about Christ's bearing sin it s exprest again as the reason of Christs justifying many v. 11. for he shall bear their iniquities Nay it s added the third time and he bare the sins of many so that Christs bearing Sin distinct from Punishment is no less than three times in this Chapter It is also fully exprest in the New Testament totidem verbis Heb. 9.28 Christ was once offered there 's his suffering for what to bear the sins of many and 1 Pet. 2.24 He his own self bare our sins in his body on the tree and in multitude of places in expressions that are tantamount to these and now to say that Christ did not bear sin and all things that the Law calls Sin let it be as filthy and as vile as you will for it s so because its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we know he was manifest to take away all sin now is there any thing which you call the filth of sin is it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is it not then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the transgression of the law if it be Christ bore it if he did not then it stands yet in Gods sight and the hand-writing of the law is against you and you are not justified and why is Christ's Sacrifice said to be the purging of sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many things might be said to shew how properly it s spoken see Dr. Owen I must for brevity sake only say that it imports Christ's purging us by Sacrifice from all that the law of God calls filthy in sin Then it s objected Christ was unclean Answ Not morally polluted but legally unclean while he was under our sins as the Sacrifices were and therefore he suffered without the camp Obj. Then the Saints have no sin who give sufficient evidence that sin remains in them Answ The Saints are without spot before God in Point of Justification they are justified from all sin and filthy spot in Gods sight 2. Sin remains in them and will do in Point of Sanctification which is not perfect in this life but all in their sins that is a burden to them that is odious and filthy was laid on Christ by