Alexipharmacon, or, A fresh antidote against neonomian bane and poyson to the Protestant religion being a reply to the late Bishop of Worcester's discourse of Christ's satisfaction, in answer to the appeal of the late Mr. Steph. Lob : and also a refutation of the doctrine of justification by man's own works of obedience, delivered and defended by Mr. John Humphrey and Mr. Sam. Clark, contrary to Scripture and the doctrine of the first reformers from popery / by Isaac Chauncey.

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 Pa∣pists and Quakers in Justification by Infused Righteous∣ness. §. 4. How they oppose in Pardon of Sin and Im∣puting Righteousness. §. 5. Their agreement with the Papists in Justification by Works. §. 6. The Papists Talk of a New Law. §. 7. Quakers Doctrine of Justi∣fication. §. 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 effectu∣ally 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, ac∣cording to the Word of God, is the Doctrine of Neonomianism dia∣metrically 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 Justi∣fication 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, un∣der 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 wicked∣ness, as expressed with the highest aggravation unto v. 19. Now our Neonomians say, its of Free Grace, because Justification is an Instance of Grace; but by Mr. Cl's. favour, it must be in the Justi∣fication of a Sinner, not of a just one; and therefore its said freely by Grace, because he hath nothing, nor brings any thing in or from himself. 2. He saith,

Its in respect of what is required of us, or in us, Faith is wrought in us, and its of Free Grace that he accepts of Faith,

and imputes it to us for righteousness: This by the As∣sembly is rejected as False Doctrine; altho Faith, and all the Gra∣ces of the Spirit, are of Grace, yet neither Faith, or any of them, are our righteousness for Justification, neither doth God ac∣cept 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 glad∣ly, 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 no∣thing 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; its 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 on∣ly; we affirm it to be an essential part of Justification. [By ac∣counting and accepting their persons as righteous.] The Neonomians say, its 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 tru∣ly 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 Affirma∣tive, and this is the Question in Controversie exactly, which our Neonomians plead for in the like manner, tho some more obscure∣ly and sophistically, but others more honestly in speaking out plain∣ly what they mean, such as Mr. B. Mr. H. and Mr. Cl. Bellarmine also blames Kemnitius for dealing fraudulently in not distinguish∣ing 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 Righteousness is the p••r, the formal cause by which we are justified.

This Distinction Mr. H. having taken up from Bellarmine, makes very much of. More of it anon.

§. 5. Take one or two for all, to avoid tediousness to the Rea∣der. Mr. H. in Medioc. p. 42. Herein doth appear the ground of reconciliation between the Papists and us in this point; the sum of what he saith is, Provided they say that the works they plead for our righte∣ousness, be the works of the new law, and not of the old, we are agreed, and then tells us, That Gods judging a man to have performed the condition of the Covenant (i. e. the New Law) is the accounting and declaring him righteous, That righteousness which makes a man righte∣ous, and denominates him righteous, is that righteousness which does make God account him righteous, and that is the righteousness which he doth. Note it, for it is express; and this he saith is not the righteousness of the law of works, but of the law of grace, which he saith is a righteous∣ness which he doth, but not work in doing, which is pretty absurd, that a man should do works of righteousness and not work; but the meaning is, he doth not work perfect works (I will not wrong him:) But do not those that work imperfect works work? Yea, saith he, they that do absolutely sinful works, are called workers of ini∣quity. A little after he tells us, Christ's Redemption was to bring in a New Law— for when Man fell it was impossible he should be righteous any more unless there were a new Law brought in, by perfor∣mance whereof he might attain to that again which he lost—now this was the main business of Christ's Redemption, the procuring a new law, or another law with lower Terms, which some men performing, they do thereby become righteous, and so have righteousness, according to that Law imputed to them for Remission and life eternal — And thus you see what everlasting righteousness Christ brought in, Dan. 9. and in his Piece, Of Righteousness, which comes forth with Episco. Ap∣probation, p. 3. It is true against the Papists, there is no such righte∣ousness inherent, as to render God appeased with the sinner, or that the Conscience can rest on it [then it is good for nothing] as that prop∣ter quod he is forgiven or saved [by his favour Bellarmine doth not say it is] but that Christ's righteousness is the propter quam. There∣fore the Papists and they are agreed in this sence. —It is true also against the common Protestant, [therefore the Neonomians are not Protestants, unless such as have causa formalis of Papists] that there is not any righteousness without us that can be made ours, so as we should be accounted righteous in another's righteousness, or be that thing per quod we are justified, there is no such matter in reality, but in no∣tion only— This righteousness, as imperfect as it is (wrought by the Spirit) is that, and must be that which is the form per quam, he is ac∣cepted and justified, we grant the righteousness of Christ is the merito∣rious cause per quam we are pardoned and saved.

§. 6. About the New Law there's little difference between the Papists and Neonomians, tho the Papiste are on the surer side

of the Notion, Mr. Fox Mart. about the difference between An∣cient Rome and present, p. 34. tells us, The Church of Rome teach the People that there's no difference between Moses and Christ, save only that Moses was the giver of the old law, but Christ the giver of a new and more perfect law. And its most rational, that the new law should be a more perfect law, and not a law of imperfection; we do not mend perfect things, and if there be any reason for parti∣cular ends, its with those things that more perfectly answer those ends, and therefore their remedying law ought to be perfecter and most compleat.

§. 7. Next a-kin to these men are the Quakers in their most refined Doctrine, put out in the name of Barclay, but I heard Mr. Keath, that was a Neonomian Quaker, say, Barclay's Book was chie∣fly his work.

Works are necessary to Justification as well as Faith, James 2. both equally required to Justification; works of the Law are excluded as done by us,

Tit. 3.5, 6, 7. [this is Mr. H. just]

To be justified by Grace is to be justified or saved by Rege∣neration, which cannot exclude Works wrought by Grace and by the Spirit, 1 Cor. 6.11. The law gives not power to obey, and so falls short of Justification; but there's power under the Gospel by which the Law comes to be fulfilled inwardly, Rom. 8.3, 4. Works are the Condition upon which Life is proposed un∣der the New Covenant. Tho we place Remission of Sins in the Righteousness and Obedience of Christ performed in the Flesh, as to what pertains to the remote procuring cause, and that we hold our selves formally justified by Christ formed and brought forth in us; yet can we not (as some Protestants have done un∣warily) exclude works from Justification, for tho properly we are not justified for them, yet are we justified in them, &c.

§. 8. The Socinians say,

No other Imputation is in our eter∣nal Salvation than that whoever sincerely obeys the Commands of Christ is from them accounted of God righteous, Socin. de serv. When God is said to impute Faith for Righteousness, the mean∣ing is, that God hath so great a value for Faith, that he esteems it for a Righteousness to Justification,

Crel. on Gal. 3.6. And Mr. B. saith,

I abhor the Opinion that Christ's righteousness given us is all without us,

Preface to Doct. of Chr. p. 3. but more of this in what follows.

§. 9. The Arminians bring up the Rear, and I shall name the Man from whom I can prove Mr. B. hath taken up most of his corrupt Notions about General Redemption and Justification, and its J. G.

The Question in precise Terms is this, Whether the Faith of him that truly believes in Christ, or whether the righteous∣ness of Christ himself— be that which God imputes to a Belie∣ver

for righteousness,

or unto Righteousness in his Justification, J. G. of Justification, p. 7. he concludes it is faith—

As a Mer∣chant that grows rich by such a Commodity, i. e. he grew rich by the Gain and Return he made of that Commodity— So we may be said to be justified by the righteousness of Christ, and yet not have the righteousness it self upon us by Imputation, or otherwise, but only a righteousness procured or purchased by it really and essentially differing from it, p. 12. This Righteousness of Christ is not that that is imputed unto any man for righteous∣ness, but is that for which righteousness is imputed to every man that believeth— Paul neither eat his Fingers, nor spun out the flesh of his hands into cloathing, and yet was both fed and cloathed with them

[Here's the true sense of being ju∣stified by the effects of Christ's Righteousness.]

So may a Believer be said to be cloathed with the Righteousness of Christ, and yet the righteousness of Christ not be his cloathing but only that which procured this cloathing unto him.

Chap. 7. p. 88. is to evince,

That that which God imputes for Righteous∣ness in Justification is not the Righteousness of Christ himself (in the sense refused in the First Chapter,)

'but faith in Christ. In the conclusion of the Chap. he says,

If God in the New Covenant of the Gospel (i. e. the New Law) requires Faith in Christ for our Justification, instead of the righteousness of the Law in the old, and this faith will not pass with him in account for such righteousness, both his Commandment and Covenant for believ∣ing, and the Obedience it self of believing, will become void, and of none effect.

§. 10. You see by these instances, that by this Doctrine the Neonomions fall into that Sink of Errour, that the highest opposers of the Gospel of Christ have professed; its no doubt but they will cease inveighing against the Quakers, as introducers of Popery, but rather applaud them, and bring them into their Pulpits.

§ 11. But for Christ's sake alone.] This they deny and say,

Our Justification passively taken, that which we do our selves thro Grace is this our formal righteousness, and that is the conditi∣on of our Justification actively taken (i. e. the righteousness of Christ the meritorious cause) So that in a large sense here is two righteousnesses for our Justification,

Christ's and ours, p. 6. Mr. Cl. hath a Chapter to prove how the Righteousness of Christ concurs to our Justification, the sum of all is this,

That by the Merits of Christ's Death, he has purchased this Priviledge for us among others, that sincere Faith should be accounted for righteousness, and that God will account us righteous if we be

possest thereof, p. 35. Christ hath done his part, but hath ap∣pointed us a necessary part which must be done by our selves; this is not to supply any deficiency in Christ

[i. e. he hath done well enough for the part alotted him]

but it is that which subordinately is required of us as the condition of Pardon and Life by his own Law or Covenant of Grace,

and so far [as a part] 'it is imputed to us for righteousness, Scr. G. p. 35. From what hath been quoted before, it is plain the rest also do hold, that Christ's Righteousness at best doth but concur to our Justifi∣cation, it is not that only whereby we are justified. See Mr. Cl. Chap. 13.

§. 12. Not by imputing faith it self, the act of believing, or any other Evangelical Obedience to them for righteousness.] All this the Neonomians in all their Writings deny, Mr. B. in his S. G. def. p. 32. quaeries,

Whether Faith be imputed to us for righ∣teousness, or Christ's Righteousness believed on? A. A strange and bold Quaery—

Read over the Text and put but [Christ's Righteousness every where instead of the word Faith] and see what a scandalous Paraphrase you will make—to have righte∣ousness imputed, plainly signifieth to be reckoned or judged righteous, and it is strange that it must not be our own righte∣ousness that is imputed and reckoned to us as our own.

The same say Mr. H. and Mr. Cl. This Faith that is our righteousness they will have the same with our Evangelical Obedience, as contain∣ing all in it. So Mr. B.

Faith by which we are justified is one moral act, containing many physical acts, even our fiducial con∣sent to the Baptismal Covenant, and Dedication of our selves to God the Father,

p. 42. Mr. Cl.

Faith is our subordinate Go∣spel-righteousness, he gives his reasons,

p. 64. Mr. H.

When a man performs the Evangelick Condition, it is the Evangelick Law (or God by it as his instrument) makes him, or constitutes him righteous, and being thereby so made, God must account him so; this constitutive Justification preceeds Pardon and Life in order of nature.

J. G. denys that Faith justifies in relation to its Object, tho it cannot be separated from it, but by vertue of the intervention of some Law, Covenant or Decree, i. e. as a con∣dition of the new Law in the Neonomian sense. Mr. H. in his right. of God, p. 54.

Our Effectual Calling doth enter our Justi∣fication, for the Works of it, Faith, Repentance, new Obedience, are imputed to us for that righteousness that justifies us, and our Justification and inchoate righteousness does enter, and is the in∣fancy of Glory.

I need not blot Paper by quoting the Council of Trent; briefly, they damn any man that saith, that a man is justified without the righteousness that Christ did merit for us,

whereby he is formally just, and damn such as say, that a man is justified only by the righteousness of Christ, or Remission of Sins, without inherent Grace and Charity.

§. 13. But by imputing the Obedience and Satisfaction of Christ unto them.] Mr. H. in his Right. &c. p. 34. says to this part of the Assemblies descript. of Justification, and seems to flatter them a little, and thinks their Catechism may serve the People, yea, that a grosser sort of the knowledge of the Principles of Religi∣on is better for ordinary People than more exact, whereby you may see what high thoughts and apprehensions he hath of the exactness of his gross Divinity.

In Justification I acknowledge a forgiveness, and an imputation of Christ's Obedience, but I do not acknowledge either as our formal righteousness, Forgiveness is a benefit we receive, but not the formal reason. I acknow∣ledge Christ's righteousness imputed sub genere causae efficientis & modum meriti, received by faith, but in the merit of it only. And I give notice, that thinking More doth say, that Christ's righteousness in se, is made ours legally (tho he disowns it as physically and morally) that man must make it justifie us sub ra∣tione causa formalis, which is an unadvised Position, which I look upon as that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of our former great Divines, which gave the rise to Antinomianism.

Now what a happiness is it that so great a Divine is risen up, to find out such an Error in the very heart of our Reformation, in our great Divines, and indeed in our Protestant Religion, that we have been all under a Cheat and De∣lusion in this grand Point of Life and Salvation, building upon a wrong righteousness for Justification. Again he saith,

That we should be justified by faith, was obtained by Christ's Righteous∣ness or Performance; but it is our Faith, not Christ's Perfor∣mance, is imputed unto us for righteousness in our s••astification, Christ's righteousness is that for which, not that by which causa propter quam. not per quam, we have this benefit, that upon be∣lieving we are justified:

to the same purpose he hath words above an hundred times. Mr. R. B.

God never judgeth falsly, but knoweth all things to be what they are, and therefore he re∣puteth Christ's Mediatorial Righteousness and Sacrifice to be the meritorious cause for which we are justified by the law of Grace, so he truly reputeth our Faith and Repentance, and Covenant∣consent to be our moral qualification for the gift, and our holiness and perseverance to be our moral qualification for final Justificati∣on, which qualifications being the matter of the Law of Grace, and Condition of its Promise, is so far our righteousness, therefore God may be said in this sense,

to impute Righteousness to us [i. e. our own] and to impute Christ's Righteousness to us [i. e. as to the

effects] 'to impute our faith to us for righteousness. See the end of Controv. p. 257, 258. and 260, 261. Scr. G. d. p. 61.70, 71.

Socinus.

No other imputation is in our eternal Salvation than that whosoever sincerely obeys the Commands of Christ is from them accounted of God as righteous,

De Serv. This is the ex∣press sense of the Neonomians.

§. 14. They receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith.] The Neonomians say,

to be justified by it as that which God hath promised Justification on, as the qualifying condition, and saith the quae & quâ is a quibbling and juggling about a meer sound of words in a ludicrous Disputation;

he saith it justifies not instrumentaliter, for that is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 credere in specie; Faith in Christ doth not justifie qua talis, as that Faith, but it is that qua∣lifying condition which the Promise annexeth Justification to, Scr. G. d. p. 42, 43.

Mr. Cl. chap. 12. §. 8.

From hence I infer, that justifying Faith is the same thing in substance with Effectual Calling, Re∣pentance, Regeneration, Conversion, Sanctification. Renovation, &c.

J. G.

It is the common Plea, that Faith justifieth in rela∣tion to its Object, its not receiving, but lawful receiving that ju∣stifieth, and therefore it justifieth by vertue of that law or agree∣ment men are under,

i. e. as a Covenant-condition; therefore he peremptorily denys that Faith justifies in relation to its Object, and our Neonomians are one with him, see him Of Justification.

Bellarmine also spendeth much Paper, That Faith alone doth not justifie, but that Fear, Hope, Love, and every Grace doth the same.

§. 15. Those Points wherein the Neonomians declare them∣selves diametrically opposite to the Assembly, and other Protestants in the Doctrine of the Obedience and Satisfaction of Christ, must be matter of another Treatise, it being too much to come within the compass of these Sheets; likewise, there are two Points which I have already publickly insisted on. 1. In shewing the Nullity of any New Law with Sanction. 2. To disprove their Ʋniversal Re∣demption, and shew the Absurdity thereof, tho more may be said of both (God willing) hereafter. And the Assembly, and we with them, asserting the Imputation of the active and passive Obedience of Christ to the Justification of a Sinner, and the Neonomians de∣nying the active righteousness to have any influence on our Justi∣fication, no further than as to the fitness of his Person to the exer∣cise of his Mediatorial Office, falling in with Piscator, Gataker and others in this Point, and cannot be handled here, but must be mat∣ter of after-consideration in treating of Satisfaction. Let not the Reader take it for granted that we grant Mr. Clark that Point, viz. the denial of the active righteousness of Christ in our Justification, wherein he hath spent a great part of his Treatise.

CHAP. II. Of Iustification.

§. 1. Wherein we are agreed. §. 2. Justification, what in Scripture acceptation. §. 3. What it supposeth. §. 4. God justifies actions. §. 5. Such a fruit of Justifica∣tion before God. §. 6. Of Rahab. §. 7. Of Justifi∣cation in foro Conscientiae §. 8. Of the Conditi∣ons. §. 9. Of Commutative Justice. § 10. Of a Compact. §. 11. Of Grace purchased. §. 12. Of the Purchase of the Covenant. §. 13. Whether God be a Debtor. §. 14. Particularly asserted against Mr. H.

§. 1. I Shall not detain the Reader in criticizing on the significa∣tion of Justification in the Hebrew and Greek Language, it amounting to what our English word means, and our adversa∣ries in a great measure agreeing with us therein (tho differing enough in the modus (as appears in the foregoing Chapter) that Justification is directly opposed to Condemnation, That it is a forin∣sick or Law-Term, and that properly it is a Law-Sentence, distin∣ctly and per se understood. That God is the great Justifier. That the Person justified is always upon the account of some righte∣ousness of that Law that justifieth. That this righteousness must be legally his that is justified, i. e. imputed to him without denial of it self; and that Justification is the sentential pronouncing a person righteous and accepted by the Lawgiver, free from con∣demnation, righteous in his sight, and enstated in all advantages that this righteousness of his brings him into. Thus far I take it we are agreed, what little wordy differences there is, we shall not concern our selves about, nor trouble the Reader with.

§. 2. Justification in Scripture, and in our usual and com∣mon acceptation, is any Vindication of a Person or Action from a Charge or Accusation brought in or alledged against them, and this in the largest sense wherein a man is said to justifie God, Psal. 51.4. Its one mans justifying another, or vindicating their acti∣ons, and this done by pleading for, or defending them, Job 27.5. and 33.32. or practically, by doing the same thing or worse, Ezek. 10.51.55. Or a man is said to justifie himself, Job 32. Luke 10.29.

§. 3. Justification being allowed to be a Forinsick Term, it must always suppose a Forum or Court where it is. And all Justi∣fication must be supposed to be in one at least, or all these Courts, Forum Dei, Mundi, Conscientiae, a true Believer is sometimes justi∣fied in all, as to his State and Actions; sometimes in one, and not in another. The Court, or Forum Dei, is where God sits as Law∣giver, and righteous Judge of his Law, where every one that is saved must find Acquittance and Acceptance. Forum Mundi, is of two kinds, 1. Common, wherein the actions of men are judged of, either by Vogue and Reports of the Vulgar, or by the Courts of Judicature among men. 2. It is more special in Ecclesiis, to be tried and judged in a Church of Christ. 3. Forum Conscien∣tiae, where God sits a Judge, and brings the Sinner to the Bar, and Trial, and accordingly Sentence of Condemnation or Justifi∣cation passeth upon a man, or on his Actions. As to the first of these, all men are tried as unto their State, and they are there ju∣ridically acquitted or condemned in foro Dei, i. e. legis, either by a Judgment on their own righteousness, which is called legal righteousness, or upon a Judgment on them according to the righte∣ousness of another, called Evangelical, because its of absolute pro∣mise to a Sinner, and the freest Gift in the World. As to the se∣cond Forum, the Courts of the World, the World many ways call Courts of Judicature, and will have Judgment upon men, in the former Court the Judgment is always according to truth, but its not so here, for a man may be acquitted there, and condemned here, both Persons and Actions; nay, let me say, a person may be acquitted in foro Dei, and yet his Actions justly condemned in fo∣ro humano, i. e. mundi, but then I do not say, those actions are ac∣cepted in foro Dei, but are burnt for Hay and Stubble, as men do justifie themselves and others in this foro mundi very often; so doth God himself justifie his children and their actions that are so condemned by, and ungrateful to the World: God doth as it were come into it, and vindicate his accused Saints, where Satan takes it upon him as his Prerogative to accuse the Brethren, when his Accusations run high, God looks upon his Honour engaged to vindicate such, in those eminent, unaccountable, and condem∣ned Actions which they do for his Names sake. Here we read of God's own vindicating and bearing Testimony to the actions of his children that looked strange in the eye of the World. God's justi∣fying those Actions before the World is called Justification, and their Actions Righteousness; not that the persons were justified thereby, but that they were approved fruits of Christ's Righte∣ousness, received by Faith; yea we find, when God comes into the Court of the World to declare Persons or Actions, to be

approved by him, its usually in some extraordinary thing wherein they were Eminent, and suffered much thereupon, at least in their good Name, if not otherwise.

§. 4. In this case, God justifies the Act of Phineas, in taking upon him to execute Judgment in the case of Zimri and Cosbi, the action lay condemnable in Phineas, as a rash action, which pro∣ceeded from an usurped Authority, he being not High-Priest, nor having any particular Commission from Moses. This Action God testifies to as a holy and righteous Act, (tho it looked so extra∣judicial) and should be looked upon as a righteous act to all Ge∣nerations. Phineas was a justified person long before, Numb. 25.12, 13. Psal. 106.30, 31. So Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, was he not in an accepted and justified state before God? for God first accepted Abel, and then his Offering, and be∣cause his Offering, notwithstanding God's acceptation, was con∣demned by Cain, and no doubt by his Posterity, he obtained witness that he was righteous, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whereby he was witnessed unto, for God witnessed in foro mundi, to the righteousness of Abel, i. e. to his Justification, in that he made it appear by his manifested acceptance, undoubtedly Fire came down from Hea∣ven and consumed the Sacrifice; here the Apostle saith, God testify∣ing of his Gifts, and this was a testimony of his Person that he was righteous, but this is not the justification of his Person, for if he had not been justified in foro Dei, yea Conscientiae too, he could not by faith have offered a Sacrifice so well pleasing to God, wherefore to shew to the World that he was an accepted person, God testifies to his Services. So Enoch, he had some eminent Te∣stimony from God before his Translation, against all the calum∣niating and blaspheming Posterity of Cain. So Noah also, in his Generation a Preacher of the righteousness of faith, he had a Testi∣mony in the Ark, and the Salvation that he and his House had to both the Worlds and yet this Testimony was not that Justifica∣tion which he had before God, for he was heir of the righteousness of God by faith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he was become the heir, not upon building the Ark, but was so before.

§. 5. God's appearing then to witness to the Ways and Acti∣ons of his People in the World, which the children of men are still condemning of, and their Persons and Profession for, is not their Justification before God, but an eminent fruit thereof. Abraham when he offered up his Son Isaac, he exerted the eminent fruit of a tried Faith, which the World would be apt to condemn as one of the heinousest and most unnatural in the World, therefore God justifies this Action of his, and therein recommends him for the

most Eminent Believer, he not staggering in his faith of the pro∣mise notwithstanding, believing that God could raise his son from the dead, and if he should slay his son, that God would do it rather than not fulfil his Promise. Now I dare appeal to our most inge∣nuous Opposers, whether they think Abraham was not justified before this great Action of his, and what can James his Justifica∣tion be more than God's declaring in foro mundi, that this strange action of his, wherein he was a Wonder to the World, and for which he stood ready to be condemned by it, was highly approv'd by him, and an eminent Fruit and Testimony of his Faith. It ap∣pears by the context that James understood nothing but that a True Faith brings forth Works, witnessing in foro mundi, to the truth of it, and James 2.10. and that the offender of the Law in one point, is guilty of all, and that he that is saved by faith, is saved by a lively faith, such as will shew it self by works, and such as God will testifie to by his Word or Providence, or both, that they are wrought of God.

§. 6. The like may be said of Rahab, The World would con∣demn her for a treacherous Harlot in betraying her Native Coun∣try to destruction: But this action of justified Rahab being a sig∣nal fruit of her Eminent Faith, is signally owned by God himself, and her strange action justified to the World, that when the Walls of Jericho fell, her house stood only, and she saved with the Honour and Renown of an exemplary believer in the Church, yea God honoured her so far, as to come into the Line of the Messiah. Hath not God gloriously justified his Saints, i. e. by te∣stifying to their Gifts and Services to the World, whence else hath been that eminent Spirit visible and astonishing to the World, whereby they have not only rejoiced to suffer for the Name of Jesus in the spoil of their goods, but in giving their bodies to death, and overcame all the Reproaches and Blasphemies of their cruel enemies, by faith in the blood of the Lamb, and Word of the Te∣stimony: Was not that admirable Presence of God with them, not only which we read of Heb. 11. but in other Martyrologies. The Witness of God to their Gifts in and to the convincing the World, to which they had never come, had they not been freely justified by God before. I am ashamed to see that Men should think that the Saints in their great Services and Sufferings should be of such servile and base Spirits, as to be bargaining with God by their Works when they were frying in the Flames.

§. 7. There is also a Justification in foro Conscientiae, which is received by faith, and cannot be received but by faith, and its a closing in with the judgment of God according to truth. Justi∣fication must be before any person can receive it; the Assembly

do most accurately tell us what Justification by faith is, We say not, that no man that says he believes not his Justification is not justified, nor every one that says he believes it, is justified, but we say, That eve∣ry one that believes truly is justified, and every one that's justified, shall believe.

God's Justification of a Sinner, is his Juridical Sentence con∣cerning his Eternal State and Condition, which admits not of ma∣jus and minus in God, but admits of different times of applica∣tion, and of degrees of manifestation; it finds nothing in the creature, nor makes any change but relative, wherein God is first in relation, justifying and applying that Grace to us, and therefore we are wholly passive, till by vertue of Union with Christ by the Spirit, the Spirit of Life raising us from the dead, we are enabled to believe whereby we make a sensible re-application of the Grace of Justification to our selves, and being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. But more of this infra.

§. 8. The Judge of all the World must judge righteously, i. e. according to his righteous Law, for as that is norma officii to us, so it is of judicii to him; now here is the Mystery, How God can justifie a sinner according to most perfect law, and do it free∣ly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Mr. H. in his Medio. p. 5. hath this Quaery, The Go∣spel requires Faith, Repentance, new Obedience, how then are we justi∣fied and saved by Grace? how is it free when it is not vouchsafed but upon condition? This difficulty hath made some run into the Extream, that the Covenant of Grace is without conditions. Resp. It is such an extream Argument against the Neonomian Doctrine, that all their Skill and Sophistry neither hath, nor can answer, and the Argument stands thus, If nothing doth essentially distinguish a Covenant of Works from a Covenant of Grace, but the Conditi∣onality of it, then a Covenant of Grace must have no Condition, and whatever Covenant hath a Condition, is a Covenant of Works; but there's nothing can distinguish; because the Antece∣dent is true, therefore the Consequence. There can be nothing in sense to invalidate either Proposition, for the distinguishing formal difference between the one Covenant and the other, must be Condition, and no Condition, where the true Opposition lieth, for the promise of both Covenants are life, therefore the special and formal difference lieth in conditionality, & none; now to say, it lies in the nature of the condition, will appear most absurd. 1. If it be the littleness of the Condition makes a Covenant of Grace; this I deny, for the promulgated Covenant of Works was laid up∣on the least condition imaginable, the forbearing to eat in Apple, but let us hear what Mr. H. will say to make a Covenant of

Works a Covenant of Grace, p. 5. I say readily the Grace of God and of the Gospel is free, and therefore not conditional; well, but how, wherein is the freedom? In that it accepts of the sinners Faith and Repentance, when he needs not, or when according to the law he was not tied to it. Resp. Was the Man awake or asleep when he said this, he says its free because God accepts of his Faith and Repentance, that's the same freedom whereby I may be said to give a Man a Horse when I accept of Money which he was to pay me for it: Is not a Covenant a Bargain? Was it not so to Adam? Was it possible he should say, he need not accept it? What doth he make of his New-Law-Covenant? need not God keep it? where was God's Faithfulness and Truth when he made that Covenant? doth not that bind him to accept our Faith and Obedience as the Condition? According to the law he is not tied; Why will an honest Man speak so equivocally to justifie a cause his Conscience tells him, or ought to do, that it is nought, he says, according to the law, I pray what law? the Old or New? Doth he not say, that Faith and Repentance is the Condition of the New Law? and is not God bound to accept of them by that Law? Oh but he is not bound to accept of them by the old law: It is just as if a Man brings the Money that I sold such a Commodity for, and I tell him, I will not take the Money unless he will confess, I gave him it freely, no saith he, I make a ten∣der of the Money with which I bought it, I will neverly for the Bargain, and say you gave it me, when I bought it, to which I reply, I am not bound by law to accept the Money. What law? the law that the King and Parliament made for the Pole-Tax. H.

Un∣less Man's Obedience were perfect, but he is bound by the new law to accept imperfect. Obedience. H. our Divines say usu∣ally,

because its not of merit— but this labours with some defect of light,

if man had performed the condition of the cove∣nant of Works, it might have bin said upon this reason that Life and Salvation had bin still of Grace and Free, as not merit∣ed, while these considerations hinder merit.

How might Man's Obedience in the Covenant of Works be said to be of Free Grace? because his were not proportionable to the reward; no more are good Angels works to this day, there was Grace in making the Co∣venant on easie Terms, but when the Covenant is made, the Re∣ward is merited ex pacto, by the performed Conditions: Hence the Apostle's reasoning remains unshaked, they that are justified of debt, are not of grace.

§. 9. Mr. Humphry makes a fearful bungling about this busi∣ness, and lends us for our help a distinction about merit, and saith, There is a debt or merit of Commutative Justice, and of distributive;

it is impossible that any should engage the Almighty in the former. Resp. But the Almighty may engage himself in it to the creature, may there not be place for commutative Justice between a supe∣riour and inferiouur? between a King and People all obligatory Covenants upon terms of mutual performances are primarily ful∣filled in a way of commutative Justice; distributive Justice comes in for redress in case of non-performance of mutual agreements, or upon complaint thereof. Of the latter [i. e. distributive Justice] there is a merit or debt upon compact or strict retaliation; it is true, that there is nothing Man does, or can do in the state of innocency could merit upon strict retaliation. Resp. I suppose he means by his term of strict retaliation, rewarding just so much as the value of the work, more, i. e. to reward man just as much as the value of not eating an Apple, but the reward promised, was infinitely more, and it was promised upon so small a Condition, therefore upon the per∣formance of the condition, the reward, as great as it was, would have become due ex pacto, and hence a true debt. But he tells us what a Compact is.

§. 10. Mr. H. A Compact may be two-fold, Ʋpon Terms equal or unequal: Ʋpon terms equal, we know the reward doth become debt, and may he said to be merit; notwithstanding by way of strict Retalia∣tion, or upon account of equal benefit, the performance of the condition would require no such matter. Resp. Equality of Terms in an A∣greement is, so much for so much, the mutual performance where∣of is strict retaliation. Tho the Term is foreign to the matter in hand, for it belongs to revenge in giving a man as good, or ra∣ther bad as he brings. I deny, that Compact upon Terms equal or unequal, do alter the nature thereof, so that the Condition is not a Merit, and the Promise a Reward. He saith, If I agree to give a man 2 s. 6 d. for his days work, I must pay the debt tho the Emolument be not worth half the money. Here he answers himself in his strict retaliation, and tho the condition is worth little, yet it is the Compact that makes the Debt upon the performance. And he says, If I promise a poor man a shilling for leading my Horse to the next Stile, its Alms, an act of Grace. Resp. It seems here's but 18 d. difference between Works and Grace. An agreement to give a man 2 s. 6 d. for a Days Work makes a Debt, but an agreement to give a shilling for leading his Horse, is Alms; he allowed the mans Days-work prov'd not to be worth above a shilling, and yet ex pacto, he was indebted to him 2 s. 6 d. and why I pray, Is it not as good a Debt to the poor man that he bar∣gains with to lead his Horse to the next Stile? he will say, it was not worth so much in strict Retaliation, no more was the other man's Days-work; if he had given the man the shilling, and af∣terward

said, prethee lead my Horse to the next Stile, he would have said, ay Master, and thank you too; but if he agree with him, when he hath done his work, he could demand the Wages as Debt, tho it may be he would thank him for so easie a Bar∣gain. He tells us, The first Covenant was upon Terms equal, and if man did his duty, tho with the ability God gives him (as if I agree with a man to work with my Tools) the reward is of Merit or Debt. Answ. If he means equal in value, I deny that the First Cove∣nant was so any more than the New Law covenant: Ay, but if he means equal as to obligation in a way of commutative Justice, i. e. that God is as much bound to perform his part after cove∣nanting, as Man to perform his, then I say the New Covenant is as equal as the old, for each is but equality of obligation; but he goes on, When he gives us the reward, which is eternal life thro his Son, upon obedience which is imperfect [that is upon a new covenant upon terms unequal] he gives it freely. R. Here it plainly appears what he means by terms equal and unequal, that it is as to in∣trinsick value, that a covenant of works are terms equal (where∣in also he contradicts himself) i. e. man's perfect obedience in the said covenant is so much for so much, as good as the reward, its a days-work in it self worth the Wages promised, whereas be∣fore he saith it was not; but now he saith, when the wages are more worth than the work, its on terms unequal; but the terms un∣equal do not change the nature of a Bargain to make it none; for there are different Bargains, some better, and some worse; but is the new law covenant a better Bargain or worse than that of the covenant of Works? I take it to be much the harder, because of the incapacity of the Covenantee: Man in the state of Perfecti∣on could much easier perform the condition of the covenant by perfect obedience than he can now in his lapst state perform the condition of the new law by imperfect, as may easily be demon∣strated from these mens Principles, they affirming, that the perfor∣ming the condition is not by natural power and strength.

§. 11. But Mr. H. returns after this excursion in saying, p. 7. That the grace of Justification is purchased by Christ, is apparent by Rom. 3.24. The purchase of Grace (being free in the exerting its self) is a contradiction; for what God doth by Grace, he doth sua sponte, without motion thereto by externals, and its meerly of his own good will and pleasure, I will have mercy on whom I will: Our Divines say, the covenant of Grace was not purchased, no not by Christ; but the way of the execution of this covenant was in and through Christ and his Purchase; that God might not in∣fringe his Justice in the least in exerting his Grace to the Salva∣tion of Sinners. This Mr. H. opposeth and saith, If the Notion

of free did ly in the conception our Divines ordinarily frame, then could it not be the fruit of Christ's purchase; for how can that which is purchased in their sense, be free? Resp. There's much more reason to say, how can that which is purchased in Mr. H.'s sense be free? There's less reason that a thing purchased in the Original and Fountain should be free, than what is purchased in the Streams; therefore Mr. H's. Answer cuts off his own legs; for if the Grace of God be not free because it comes to us in and through Christ, and as the fruits of Christ's Purchase, then when this gratia dans is purchased how can that be free? He proceeds

§ 13. Whereas it is this Grace certainly is the main fruit of Christ's Redemption, viz. that the new Covenant should be established. Resp. Here it appears that he asserts, That the Grace whereby the New Covenant was made, was purchased grace, therefore not free by his own assertion, because purchas'd, he says, Christ purchased the Grace of the New Covenant, therefore the covenant and all in it: So you see, he will have Purchase in our sense, inconsistent with Free Grace; but purchase in his sense more comprehensive, to be Free Grace; but now he will have the freeness to ly in be∣stowing freely the works which should make the reward due to him; To which I answer, its one thing to justifie for the Works wrought, and another to give them: Mr. H. calls this latter, in∣fusion of Grace and Sanctification; but Justification is declaring a man righteous by the said Works.: Now if this Grace giving the condition be purchased, then Faith and Obedience was purchased by Christ, contrary to Mr. H. who saith it comes only as the gift of election: Hence it appears, that he will have Grace in the root to be purchased as to exhibition of the whole covenant, but not as to the performance of the main part of it.

§. 13. See then how the Grace of God is made free in the sense of the Apostle, not upon the account that man cannot merit at God's hand, seeing God can be a debtor ex pacto regimine gratiae paterno. Resp. God can be a Debtor to sinful Man ex pacto, but then 1. Its upon pactum absolutum, not such a Covenant as makes man's works meritorious. 2. It is in and through Christ only that God is a Debtor in the way of Justice. 3. Its meerly Free Grace that hath brought about the Sinners Salvation by Christ, and not purchased. by himself. 4. God is not, nor ever will be a Debtor to sinful Man, to justifie him for or by any works done by him either here or here∣after. 5. Therefore whatever is the fruit of Free Grace in us, is free in respect of us on whom it is bestowed; we do not merit or deserve it in the least, neither doth God reward any of his Children regi∣mine foederis operum, such as the New Law is and must be, which rewards us upon our own fulfilling the condition, But upon the account

here mentioned (before refuted) which is a most direct answer, because we have shewed the indirectness and falsity of it— And I declare, that God's Abatement of Terms, and requiring a new Condition, is that which therefore makes it free, seeing it is tendred and obtained with∣out performance of the old. Resp. The changing of Terms in a co∣venant doth not make it free, if God had changed the terms of the old covenant from perfect obedience to imperfect, it had not made it free, because the condition is Works still, for here the change is but a change from one compact to another, viz. Abatement of terms, and requiring new terms in the room. What if a man gets his Creditor, (of whom he complains he hath a hard Bargain) to make another Bargain upon easier terms, this is a favour indeed, but its justice, considering he had brought him under too hard terms before, but yet he doth not therefore give the commodity to him because he allows him easier terms, but makes another Bargain upon other terms. So here, the new law is as much a Bargain as the other, tho upon ea∣sier terms, which cannot be admitted. He proceeds to refute Augustine, about the works of the law, according to Paul's sense, which we shall examine when we come upon that Point.

§. 14. We shall here gather the sum of what according to truth, is to be asserted and defended against Mr. H. and the rest.

1. That the covenant of Works was not made with Man upon equal Terms, for his perfectest Obedience could never be equal with the promised Reward.

2. That the New-law Covenant is upon as equal Terms, ac∣cording to the nature of the Law, and they differ not in nature from the old covenant being works, if they differ in degree, its the covenant which hath made it so, and the Promise is as much a reward to the imperfection, as it was in the old to a perfect con∣dition, by God's constitution.

3. God is free, and can be bound by none but himself, and its his Grace to covenant with the creature any way, but when God hath freely, without purchase, covenanted upon Terms of the creatures performance, he maketh himself a Debtor thereupon, let the Terms be perfect or imperfect.

4. In the pretended new-law covenant, where faith and obedi∣ence are the conditions, Man merits ex pacto, and God become a Debtor to him as much as he should have bin to Adam if he had stood, hence the Apostle cannot mean justifying freely by grace in Mr. H's sense: But when we are said to be justified freely by Gods grace, is meant, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. That it is of the pleasure of God's Will, not upon any external Motive, no not of Christ's Death, that God exerts the Grace of Justification, he is gracious to whom he will.

2. It is free in that the Object of it, upon whom it falleth, is a sinner every way undone and miserable, without Works or Quali∣fications, much less deserving of this Grace, and this is the chief meaning of the Apostle in Rom. 3.

3. The providing, giving and bestowing Christ and his righte∣ousness is an high act of Grace, that a sinner may be justified at the Bar of Divine Justice, that a sinner, according to the Mystery of his Will and gracious Dispensation may be fully acquitted thro Christ from the fiery Law, and discharged from all the charges thereof by the highest Justice.

4. That as it was Free Grace every way to us, considered in our selves, therefore a Covenant of Promise without conditions re∣quired on our part, hence absolute; so it was a higher Covenant of Works to the Second Adam than ever the First was under, and whereas Mr. H. objects and says, then we are justified by the law: I answer, 1. Where did he ever see Justification but by a Law. 2. He makes his to be by the new Law, which law we de∣ny to be in rerum natura. 3. As we are justified by the Grace of God, so it is in Christ Jesus, and a Believer in Christ needs no New Law to justifie him, he is justified by the Law in Jesus Christ, and yet freely by Grace.

CHAP. III. Of Righteousness.

Sect. 1. Righteousness what, and of what kinds. §. 2. Of Distributive Justice. §. 3. Distinctions in respect of Justice. §. 4. God's Justice in Efficiency. §. 5. No Justifying Righteousness but perfect. §. 6. Of the way of God's Execution of his Justice. §. 7. Righ∣teousness again distinguished. §. 8. Righteousness of Justification and Sanctification.

Sect. 1. JƲstitia est suum cuique tribuere, to give every one his due; so Cicero. The Spirit of God tells us, its to render every one their due or right, Rom. 13.7. Prov. 27. And its either commutative or distributive; commutative when persons mutually perform their Duty to each other which they are bound

to by any Law, Covenant or Agreement, whether they be superi∣ors to inferiors, or inferiors to superiors, or equals to one ano∣ther; a due conformity in obedience to a Law, is commutative Justice, Rom. 13. done for Conscience sake, giving the Legislator his due; but if he is pleased not only to bind me to Duty, but promise a Reward upon performance, as I am bound to Obedi∣ence, so on the performance thereof God is bound to Reward; whence if Man had stood, the Covenant had bin fulfilled by way of commutation; its so between Magistrate and People, being bound together by Covenant, and each observing his Duty to other, its done by commutative Justice, and yet without any de∣rogation from the Authority and Grandeur, and just Prerogative of the Magistrate.

§. 2. Distributive Justice or Righteousness, is Magistratick, for the maintaining commutative Justice, by awarding it where its refused, or punishing the breach thereof, or in vindicating just persons, which are falsly accused upon that account, to render to men judicially according to their works. All first conformity to Laws and Covenants is by commutative Justice; but upon com∣plaint of the breach of the Rules thereof, Distributive Justice takes place. Hence God's execution of distributive Justice takes place upon the Fall of Men and Angels.

§. 3. Again, Righteousness is to be distinguished in regard of the subject, Its either the Righteousness of God, or the Righte∣ousness of Man; the Righteousness of God is that which peculi∣arly 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 Justifi∣cation, but a justifying righteousness, it is the just God that ju∣stifieth.

§. 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 Legisla∣tion, 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 righte∣ousness to Man, but what is the perfect and compleat righteous∣ness of this Law, as imperfect righteousness is renounced and con∣demned 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 consist∣ency 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 its the righte∣ousness of the Law, and rejected by the Apostle; Or as its per∣formed 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. Its 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 Spi∣rit, and accepted in Christ, the person being justified, and there∣fore 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 Im∣putation. §. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 on∣ly 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: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let not the King lay it upon, or ascribe it to his servant as a fault. LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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. Shi∣mei pleading with David for his Pardon, saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 LXX is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: So in offering any where but at the Door of the Tabernacle, blood shall be imputed * 1.1 to that man that doth it, Lev. 17.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, LXX. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; now these are the words used for imputing in the Old Testament, and as the Sept. renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 its used when it comes to be argued in Law, whether this thing or action, whe∣ther righteousness or unrighteousness is to be ascribed to a per∣son, 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 unrighte∣ousness.

§. 2. Hence 1. Imputation differs from Justification, because its of right or fact. Its a Judgment concerning things or actions according to law, Justification in this legal sense, or Condemna∣tion is, of Persons according to Imputation. 2. Guilt is the im∣putation of fault to the charged person in the most proper sense, reatus culpae, and the acquitting a person from Guilt when charg∣ed, 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 im∣putation 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 ano∣ther, tho requiring milder Terms.

§. 3. Not to impute a fault is to acquit, and of the same im∣port 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 charg∣ed 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 im∣puted where there is no law; therefore its 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 im∣pute; when any thing is imputed to a person, its attributed and ascribed, but every thing attributed or ascribed, is not said to be imputed, because its 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 its 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 up∣on 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. Imputa∣tion 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. Its by way of translation, and its either of Sin or of Righteousness. Imputation of Sin by transla∣tion, 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 trans∣gressor. 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 cove∣nanted 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 great∣est 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, ne∣ver to be regained by any that have their standing only in him. Hence every Natural Man is in him, stands under that first Pri∣vation, and therefore under that first Guilt; and as every Man by Nature stands under that Guilt, he also is under the con∣demnation. 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 ne∣cessarily 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 Per∣son, 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 Im∣putation 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 Re∣presentative 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, Socin. They are greatly deceived who gather that all the posterity of Adam sinned in Adam the Parent, and truly to have deserved the punishment of death— for sins and merits, such as are meerly personal, go not out of the person which hath sinned, neither do Parents represent their Children. Altho there may be some hurt, and that not a little, to Children by their Parents sin, as indeed it fell out in Adam's sin; but the very Sin and Merit of Adam was not communicated in, nor imputed to Adam's Posterity, and hence the Posterity of Adam was not truly punished for Adam's sin, unless they imitated their Parents, Schlicting on Heb. 7.10. Whereas it appears plainly, by Rom. 5.12. that the merit passed upon all by Adam's sin, for death passed upon all and the merit of Death cannot be without imputation of sin, and it passed upon all that have not finned actually, even Infants, before they are capable of imitation of their Parents. Quakers, We do not ascribe any whit of Adam's guilt to men, till they make it theirs by the like acts of disobedience. Barchl. This is also Pelagian Doctrine, That Adam's sin is not im∣puted to his Posterity.

§. 9. Imputation is also by way of Suretiship, and it is when the Sins or Debts of one person, are by law charged upon, or imputed to another in order to the Salvation of the Principal or personal transgressor. Here it is always understood that the pay∣ment of a Surety is as good and acceptable to the Law as that of the Principal. 2. That the Surety cannot become Pay-master in Law, unless he take the Debt or Sin upon him instead of the pro∣per transgressor he must be charged as transgressor, else the Law can make no demand upon him. 3. He must freely offer him∣self to be a Surety, no person can be forced in any case to be Surety for another. 4. When he hath engaged himself in Sureti∣ship, the law takes him person for person, the principal Debt be∣comes his, and his righteousness and payment becomes the Prin∣cipals in a real legal commutation, here is no natural or moral Change, but sponsorial and legal, nay, no logical change, i. e. one relation is not changed into another, the Surety into the Principal, nor Principal into the Surety; but in the Judg∣ment of the Law the Principal Debt becomes the Surety's, and the Surety's Payment is the Principals. whereupon the Principal in respect of that Sin or Debt for which Satisfaction is made, hath the discharge in full, and is as perfectly righteous as to that, as the Surety himself; he is not it may be so rich and honourable as his Surety, but in respect of the Debt satisfied, the

Law hath no more to say to him than to the Surety, An Alder∣man fetcheth a Prisoner, and with him many more out of Lud∣gate, owing Five or Ten Pounds a piece, this little money being all that's owing in the World by the poor Man, when discharged the Law hath no more to say to him than to the Alderman, and he is as righteous in the eye of the Law, tho he will not pretend to be so great and so rich, or a ransomer of others out of Pri∣son, as the Alderman himself is.

§. 10. He that bears the sins of others must be a Representa∣tive and Publick Person, that must personate or bear the persons of them whose sins he bears, and must be either substituted by the Court, or if by some other, he must be allowed to be capa∣ble and able to make Payment, must be accepted and dealt with in the name and upon the account of the other, and becomes a Debtor or Transgressor in and for the person he doth represent in Court, and becomes a Delinquent in the eye of the Law, the Law imputing sin to him makes him sin, because he is supposed to owe nothing on his own account; he that doth in foro represent one or more, and stands not, nor acts for himself, but others, is a publick Person and Representative, as a Burgess or Citizen in Parliament, and they that he represents are said to act in and by him. Its a contradiction to common sense and reason, to say, that he that stands legally or civilly in the place of another, to act his part, and in his name, should not be a publick Person, but men will throw down common sense and reason to establish their own fond Conceits and Errors.

§. 11. The difference between Imputation by way of Attain∣der, and by way of Suretiship is, that this Imputation is in or∣der to the Salvation of the Sinner, but that is as to legal single effects only to the Sinners Destruction. 2. That in this Imputa∣tion in the way of Suretiship, as there is Imputation of the sinners sin to the Surety, so there is a re-imputation of the Surety's righteousness to the sinner, but in Imputation of Sin by way of Attainder, there's no re-imputation of righteousness to the first sinner. 3. The Imputation doth differ in the manner of transa∣ction. In Imputation of sin by way of Attainder, sin is trans∣ferred from the Representative to the Represented; but in Im∣putation by way of Suretiship, sin is transferred from the Repre∣sented to the Representative, and that's the reason, that tho we are fitly said to sin in Adam because he was our Representative; yet its not so fitly said that Christ sinned in us, because that we were never Representatives to Christ; but its fitly said, we are righteous in Christ, because he is our Representative, and that we satisfied in Christ, which saying doth not rob Christ of his Glory

of Satisfaction, but gives it him, affirming that Christ satisfied, and for us, and that God is well pleased with us through him; If a man that hath owed Money to A. and paid him by his Surety B. be charged that he owes A. so much Money; he denys it, and saith, I paid you by B. doth he speak true or false? doth he not speak properly? doth he hereby say, I paid you by my own Money? No, he only saith, that B. paid for me my Debt with his Money: But we see how Neonomians will pick quarrel with common sense and reason, as they do in their denial of this high and fundamental Point Of Imputation of Sin to Christ, and charge it for an Error to say, we satisfied in Christ.

§. 12. Neonom. Christ neither was a Sinner, nor reputed a Sin∣ner by God. R. B. End of Contr. p. 122. Christ took not reatum facti, nor reatum culpae [as if there were any difference between them] He took reatum poenae, the guilt of punishment [that's al∣ways in the fault, for nothing deserves punishment but faults] Scr. G. d. p. 89. They dangerously affirm [meaning those he calls Antinomians] that Christ took not only the punishment of our Sins, and that guilt and reatum paenae, which is an assumed obligation to suffer the punishment deserved by us, but all our very sins themselves, the very essence of the sins of all the elect [a slander, and imposed ex∣pression that none ever said] the reatum culpae, or guilt of fault and so he bore the sins of all the Elect by real imputation [this is truth, which Mr. B. chargeth as one of his hundred Antinomian Errors, Er. 18. p. 10. Again being made sin for us, is meant a sacrifice for sin [so Mr H.] and used as a sinner [why should he be used as a sin∣ner, if sin was not charged upon him? sure very unjustly] If God imputed sin to Christ, or accounted Christ a sinner, he must be by sin hate∣ful to God, &c. and Christ suffered for his own sins, &c. Scr. G. d. p. 30, 31. If Christ had bin a sinner, in his individual person, these consequences might have held, but Christ being by Law-impu∣tation made sin in order to the Salvation of Sinners, its otherwise, therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life for my sheep. Is a rich person and honourable, hated in the Court, and detested, because he enters himself Debtor for some Ludgate Pri∣soners?

Socin. The meaning of these words, 2 Cor. 5.21. is not that he was made sin for us by God's imputation, but that he was made a sacri∣fice for sin, the word made is a word of Election and Ordination, Pinct. Dial. to which Mr. Norton answers thus, He was made sin for us as we are made righteousness, i. e. by judicial imputation, with∣out the violation, yea with establishing of Justice, as he was made curse, Gal. 3.13. because he was the sin-offering in truth, therefore be was made sin by real imputation. Nort. against Pinch.

Quak. We deserved those things that Christ endured, and much more for our sins, but that God ever reputed him a sinner is denied, neither did he ever dy that we should be reputed righteous; by his being made sin for us must be understood his suffering for our sins, that we might be made partakers of the grace purchased by him, by the working whereof we are made the righteousness of God in him. Barch. Apol. of Just. p. 376. Thus you see how Sister Sects run hand in hand together.

Thus far of Imputation here, which should have bin continu∣ed to imputation of Righteousness, The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness being the main Point which the Neonomians op∣pose; but because it will be the main subject of our ensuing Dis∣course, we pass it over in this Chapter.

CHAP. V. Of Imputation of Righteousness unto the Iustification of a Sinner.

Sect. 1. Righteousness imputed, and what? §. 2. Car∣dinal Bellarmine a Middle-way-man, and so Quakers too, and Socinians. §. 3. How consonant Neono∣mians are to that Fraternity. §. 4. They make inhe∣rent Holiness to be our Righteousness. §. 5. Why par∣doned after justified, and of subordinate righteousness. §. 6. Of Legal and Evangelical Guilt. §. 7. Of Mr. Cl's definition of Justification, and of incompleat Justi∣fication in this life.

Sect. 1. THat Righteousness is imputed to the Justification of a sinner before God, is held on all sides; but the great Controversie lies here, What Righteousness is it? Is it our own inherent righteousness, or the righteousness of another? the Neonomians with the Papists say, its our own which is the formal cause of our Justification; we say, that Christ's Righteousness is the material cause of our Justification, and Imputation the formal. Mr. H. excludes the Merits of Christ from any of the essential causes, and makes it only modum efficientis, something in the hand of the efficient, it may be an instrument, but at the best

its but causa ministrans, by way of efficiency, but enters not that effect as any essential Cause. Mr. H. would find out some little Difference between the Papists and himself, but its so little that he can hardly render it visible. The Counsel of Trent saith thus, There is only one formal Cause of Justification which is the Righteousness of God, not whereby he is Righteous, but whereby he makes us Righteous; viz. which he hath bestowed on us, whereby we are renewed in the Spirit of our minds, and are not only reputed Just, but are truly cal∣led Righteous and are so — and it follows, In this is the Justification of the Ʋngodly, whilst for the Merit of that most Holy Passion, the Love of God is shed abroad by the Holy Ghost in the Hearts of them that are justified, and inherent in them, whence in Justification it self with Remission of Sins this is together with it infused, &c. Sess. 6. c. 7.

Mr. H. agrees with them, that our inherent Righteousness is the formal Cause, and that it is for the Merits of Christ, that this Righteousness is wrought in us, that therefore it's called the Righ∣teousness of God. Bellarmine in Defence of the Doctrine of the C. of Tr. says, the State of this whole Controversie may be reduced to this one Question. Whether or no the formal Cause of Absolute Justification be Righteousness inhering in us? Which he endeavours to maintain in the Affirmative. Mr. H. would have some diffe∣rence from the Papists in that they say Justification is by Infusion of Righteousness, whereas he saith Infusion of Grace is Sanctifica∣tion, but Justification is by Grace infused; of the two, I take the Papist to be rightest in constitutive Justification, and to have less of Merit in it; whereas Mr. H. Justification is by Sanctification wrought first, which carries more of Merit and less of Grace, for here Justification appears at first sight to be ex condigno the good qualification of the Subject. Yea the Papists go further then Mr. H. for he will not have Imputation of Christs Righteousness nor Remission of Sins to have any place in Justification, which the Pa∣pists own to be Parts of our Justification, for the Council of Trent do Anathametize those only that teach, that a Man is justified on∣ly by Imputation of Christs Righteousness and Remission of Sins, without inherent Grace and Charity; yea I do not find that this Neonomian Doctrine comes any whit short of the Popish Doctrine of Justification, nay it out-does it in daring Contradiction to the the Gospel.

§. 2. See what a Middle-way Man the Cardinal is if he go far enough. He gives his Sense of Rom. 3.24. Justified freely, i.e. from his mere liberality as to our Merits, for we cannot deserve to be justified by any Work of ours, and this Bounty of God is the efficient Cause, but we are justified by his Grace, i. e. by a Righteousness given and infused by him [is not this Mr. H. exactly, what doth he

trifle for about Infusion] and this is the formal Cause, we are justi∣fied also by the Redemption of Christ, and this is the meritorious Cause, Lastly, we are justified by Faith in the Blood of a Propitiator, and this the disposing Cause; from hence we may learn that every sincere Neonomian is a Papist in the Point of Justification, and that the Po∣pish Doctrine of Justification is the Middle-way between the Cal∣vinists and Arminians. See but a Taste, how the Quakers and So∣cinian fall in with this Doctrine of Justification by Works. Qua∣kers, Works and Faith are equally required to Justifie, Works of the Law are excluded as done by us, to be justified by Grace is to be justi∣fied by Regeneration, which cannot exclude Works wrought by Grace, since the Law gives not Power to obey and so fall short of Justification, there's Power under the Gospel whereby the Law comes to be fulfilled inwardly, Works through the Power of the Spirit is a Condition upon which Life is proposed under the New Covenant. It appears from divers Scriptures, that the Apostle excludes only our own Righteousness, as be∣ing the Righteousness of the Law from being necessary to Justification, Barcl. Socinian, There was never but one way of Justification by Faith—This Faith is nothing else but under the hope of Eternal Life to obey the Commands of Christ, and this we apprehend to be understood in Scripture where-ever we read of Salvation promised to them that be∣lieve in Christ. Socin. de offic. Chr. Them. 42.43. To believe in Christ is nothing else than to obey God, according to the Rule and Prescription of Crist, and in doing it to expect of Christ a Crown of Eternal Lise, Socin. de Servatori. To the attaining Eternal Life not any Merits are required, but the obeying Christs Precepts, to which Eternal Life is the constituted Price, or Reward; not that Obedience it self deserved it, but because it hath pleased the most gracious God to deal so with Mankind. Socin. Respon. ad Obj. cut.

§. 3. Now let us see how Consonant our Neonomians be to this Fraternity in the Doctrine, we'll take it from Mr. H. one of the honestest of the Pack and freest from Juggling. Medeocr. p. 16, 17. Our Works do not Merit, because they are not perfect [i. e. therefore do not Merit as related to the Old-Covenant, but Merit not∣withstanding, ex pacto in relation to the New-law-Covenant] but we are justified by Works as we are by Faith, because Faith justifies only as productive of Works [thence you see he placeth the Righteous∣ness of Faith in it self as a Work done, and that it justifies only so, and hath no more justifying Nature or End then the Fruits there∣of] — It is Faith as productive of Works, that receive the Reward of perfect Righteousness [in that this imperfect stands in the Room of perfect] but we are still to remember for Christs sake. [Bellarmine remembred that and the Council of Trent] God judgeth and will judge all Men according to the Gospel, those who perform the Condition of it,

he accounts and pronounceth righteous; those whom he accounts righteous are justified; I will add that the righteousness of Christ which is the meritorious cause of our Justification, and always comes under the efficient, cannot by the same reason be the formal and material cause of it: It is not infusion of righteousness with the Papist which is our Sanctification, nor the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness with the Protestant, which is not to be understood in genere causae efficiente, nor Remission of Sin with Protestant and Papist [you see here how far he goes beyond the Papist] but to impute to a person his perfor∣mance of the New Covenant for Righteousness, or pronouncing him righteous according to that Covenant, is the formal cause of his Justi∣fication. Med. p. 46. Here is to be remarkt that Mr. H. doth peremptorily exclude from our Justification the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, and Remission of Sins, and places the whole of it in imputation of our own works for righteousness, as active obedience.

§. 4. These Men do as the Papists and the rest, make our in∣herent Holiness in Sanctification, to be that very righteousness by which we are justified. Take Mr. Cl's words wherein he fully expresseth Mr. H's sense in differing from the Papist about Infu∣sion. Herein lieth the true difference between Justification and Sancti∣fication: In Sanctification we are made holy, righteous and good, by the infusion of those Graces into us; but in Justification we are only accounted and declared such; in the one the change is but relative, and in the other real. Come in Quakers, and shake this Friend by the hand as one of you, you have quarrelled with the Pulpits a great while, and now you may ascend them your selves when you please, and be not so angry at them, for you shall not hear these men call your Doctrine Popish any more; but you'll hear them call all men that are not of your Opinion Antinomians briskly. See now the depth of this distinction. Justification is not by infusi∣on of Sanctification, but yet Justification is by Sanctification infused. Is it not much more rational to say, that Justification is by mak∣ing a man righteous that was not so before; for Justification of a sinner must be such: Besides, is it not much more Evvngelical as to justifying the ungodly? as Bellarmine saith. But these Men say, We are first made righteous [that is godly] and then pardoned [he should have said justified, for his Justification comes in between his sanctifying Righteousness and Pardon] and not on the contrary, first pardoned, and then righteous, Mr. C. p. 19.

Resp. Were ever such Absurdities asserted by Men of Reason?

1. We are first made righteous, and quatenus made so, are sanctified and not justified; therefore Justification makes no man righteous, but finds them so; but it declares Men, what? what it

finds them, i. e. sanctified. Hence to declare a Man sanctified is his Justification: and I pray now, how comes in Mr. H's. causa formalis? how doth Justification differ formally (nam ad for∣mam pertinet proprium & differentia) from Sanctification, when Imputation, or God's accounting a man holy and sanctified is his Justification? Is not God's Judgment according to Truth? Is it not certain that God accounts every thing to be as it is, a holy man holy? If this be all your Justification, its no more than as God justified at the Creation, he saw that every thing was good.

2. If we are first made righteous, and then justified because we are so, its meritum ex condigno, whereon we are justified, all the World cannot hinder it.

3. First righteous, and then pardoned; What sense is in that? for a righteous person needs no Pardon in that thing wherein he is righteous; for therein to be righteous and want Pardon, is to speak Daggers, and the absurdest contradiction in the World.

§. 5. Well, But why must our Neonomians be pardoned when righteous and justified before? because indeed their Righteous∣ness and Justification by it is not worth a Fig by their own con∣fession; for Mr. Cl. saith, —for since subordinate Gospel Righte∣ousness is an imperfect righteousness, consistent with manifold failings and infirmities, therefore notwithstanding that, there's need of pardon, and that continually: This is also Mr. H's Doctrine, therefore I need not transcribe his very words which are to this purpose in many places. Resp. I find they are not fully agreed about the intervening Righteousness between Christ and us, what to call it. Mt. Cl. calls it subordinate, and so doth Mr. B. but Mr. H. liking not that Name so well, had rather call it co-ordinate; but I know not from the Notion of the thing duly considered, why they may not go one step further, and call it the Principal or supream justifying righteousness, for that which hath the principal place in any thing ascribed to it, is the principal, but our own righteous∣ness hath the principal place in the thing ascribed to it, which is Justification, therefore its the chief and supream righteousness: For they say we are justified by the imputation of this righteous∣ness only, and by no other, therefore all conducing righteousnesses to the introducing this, are subordinate to it. Again, That which hath its place only in the external causes, and in the modality of their operation as to the production of the effect, is much inferi∣our to the essential causes that enter the very effect, and are constitutive to it, but Christ's Righteousness by these men is no more, and therefore must be a subordinate righteousness to ours; ours being causa formalis justificationis, an essential cause, Christ's

being but causa protarch. a remote cause, adjuvant to the effici∣ent, therefore the righteousness of Christ can have no more than a remote causality in purchasing the New Law, by the righteous∣ness whereof we are justified, which is no better indeed than causa sine qua non, its in ordine ad the justifying righteousness, there∣fore subordinate to it. 2. He saith, This subordinate Gospel Righte∣ousness is an imperfect righteousness. Truly I am sorry for it, that Gospel Righteousness should be imperfect; I doubt there's little dependance upon it, since the righteousness of the law that con∣demns us is perfect, its little likelihood that an imperfect righteous∣ness should save us from it; ay, but they will say, its Christ's per∣fect righteousness must save us from the perfect righteousness of the law condemning us. Say you so? and therefore why should not this righteousness of Christ have the honour of justifying us? it seems we are saved by Christ's righteousness, and justified by our own, as if Justification were not Salvation: But is our Go∣spel-righteousness imperfect? this is no Gospel, for its ill News; I must tell these men its a rotten foundation they build upon, and their Building will drop not being built on Christ, the Corner Stone in Justification. 3. He saith, Its imperfect, consistent with many failings and infirmities. Resp. I pray how comes this to pass? is it from the Legislator that constituted such a Law, whose condi∣tion is obedience consistent with sin; or is it from the Operator or Worker under this Law? if from the former, then the Law makes it in fault, if there be any; but if he hath made a law with such condition of obedience consistent with sin, then perfor∣mance of such is no sin, nor needs a Pardon, for sin is the transgres∣sion of the law the subject is under: Now if Believers are under the New Law for Justification, and perform there what's requir∣ed, what need have they of a Pardon from a righteousness bor∣rowed from another law? If it be from the last, viz. the fault and defect of the operator of righteousness, that his righteousness is not the performance of the condition of the New Law, as re∣quired, then this New Law cannot justifie him, our Neonomians, in this Point, will be on Scilla or Charybdis in spite of the World. In a word, 1. That righteousness that cannot justifie us at the Bar of the old Law, or Covenant of Works, is no justifying righteousness, but none of our own righteousness, New Law or other, will not justifie us at the Bar of the Covenant of Works by the Neonomians own confession, therefore we cannot be justi∣ed by any such righteousness. 2. Again, that righteousness which needs pardon is no justifying righteousness, but is condem∣ned by the law, for whatever is pardoned is condemned by the law first, neither is that person justified, who by the law is unpar∣doned,

Pardon being an essential part of Justification in Mens Courts, where many Indictments ly against a Man, if he be quit∣ted of some, and not of all, he is not discharged as justified; but here its worse, I do not find that at the New Law Bar a man (as they say) justified, is quite discharged from any Indictment at all, for there's none fully pardoned; wherefore our Neonomians say that their Justification is not perfect in this life. So Mr. Cl. Our Justification in this world is not perfect and compleat, &c. p. 18.

§. 6. Mr. Cl. saith, There's a twofold guilt, Legal and Evange∣lical, Legal Guilt is an obligation to eternal punishment; this is fully pardoned in Justification, and can never return again, because Christ hath taken it all upon himself, and made full satisfaction to his Father's Justice for it, but Gospel-guilt which is an obligation to Gospel-Punishment, i. e. fatherly chastisements for sins after Justification, returns upon commission of new sins, and is removed upon repentance, sometimes wholly, sometimes in part. This is also Mr. H's Doctrine.

Resp. The distinction is naught, for we deny any Evangelical Guilt, Evangelical Guilt, Threat or Punishment is a Bull, a down∣right Contradiction, if we know what Gospel is, and they that will be ignorant, and call this Assertion Antinomian Poyson, let them be ignorant still, I thank God for the knowledge of the Gospel so far, as that it is quite contrary to Guilt, Threat and Punishment, or Obligation to it in the true legal sense thereof: Likewise he should have distinguished of Guilt as usual, reatus culpae, and reatus paenoe, the first properly Guilt, and that in judi∣cio legis, vel judicio conscientiae, if a Man be sub reatu culpae judicio legis, as they say the justified ones are, he is unjustified, for the law cannot justifie a man and declare him guilty, i. e. not guilty and guilty at the same time. Obligation to Punishment is not Guilt in the true sense of it; for we say a man cast in Court is guilty of the charged Fault, and therefore the Law binds him over to Punishment. We never say a Man is guilty of the punish∣ment but deserves, he is found guilty, and therefore the Sentence of the Law binds him to Punishment; but he saith, Legal Guilt is fully pardoned in Justification: Pardon is always of a fault, and in∣cludes not punire: but is sin pardoned fully in Justification as to an obligation to eternal punishment, then 1. Pardon is included in Justification, contrary to what he asserts in the foregoing Page. 2. Justification is perfect and compleat, so far as the taking off eternal punishment. 3. He cannot but own this to be the main part of Justification at least, and this it seems is owing to the full satisfaction made by Christ to the Justice of God, our righteous∣ness of the New Law hath nothing to do here in the matter of Eternal State: Where are we now? what a Justification is this

by the New Law, wherein our eternal state is not concerned. Well! but our Justification in this life is not yet perfect; not by Christ because he takes off only eternal punishment, but temporal he hath left to us to remove by Repentance, performing the righte∣ousness of the New Law, I hope this righteousness falling in to help Christ's, it will produce perfect Justification. No it wont, this righteousness takes away our Sins and Punishment wholly but sometimes. and sometimes only in part, and what's the rea∣son? where's the fault? why it falls upon this New Law, which is always fulfilling and never fulfilled; it will never justifie any one till the last day, and it cannot do it then without the per∣fect righteousness of the Old Law.

§. 7. Let's take Mr. Cl's Definition of Justification into con∣sideration a little, He saith, The Definition of Justification so far as it relates to God is thus, Justification is an act of God whereby he accounts us righteous at present, and treats us as such, and will solemn∣ly declare and pronounce us so at the last day of Judgment.

Resp. He should have told us what act of God, whether im∣manent or transient, whether an act of Grace or Justice, or both, he should have told us the object of that act, whether a meer sin∣ner or a righteous person? he will tell us anon, its a righteous person, and he saith, accounting him so at present, if this accounting him be in a law sense, its but Imputation at most, and this is that, and all that he doth at present, he finds them holy and righteous, and judgeth them to be as they be; but doth not God declare them righteous at present, neither in foro Legis, nor in foro Evangelii, nor in foro conscientiae? in none of these at pre∣sent, when then? the very Sentence of Justification is not till the last day; so that indeed there is none justified till then; for a suspended sentence keeps the person (whatever Opinion the Judge hath of him) under the Law, in Prison, and in continual fear of Condemnation; so that they are all the day long for fear of Death subject to Bondage.

§. 8. Hence he infers two things. 1. That Justification while we are in this life is but partial, imperfect and incompleat, and that we shall not obtain fully compleat, entire and final Justification for all the effects of sin till the Day of Judgment. To which I answer, Where there is but an imperfect, partial Justification there must be a partial Condemnation; it cannot be denied but the Apostle de∣nys it, and saith, there's no condemnatien to them that are in Christ Jesus.

2. The law knows no such thing, a man is either perfectly justi∣ed for the same thing, or perfectly condemned, there's no Medi∣um betwixt Justification and Condemnation.

3. If the New Law do not perfectly justifie a person, then it condemns too at the same time, that when ever the Parator of righteousness takes himself to be justified, he is bound to believe himself condemned also; and whether will stand good at the last Day he knows not, either his Justification or Condemnation.

CHAP. VI. Of Pardon.

Section 1. Whether Remission of Sin belongs to Justifica∣tion. §. 2. Remission distinguished by Mr. H. §. 3. Of general Remission. §. 4. Conditional Pardon ante∣cedent to a mans Justification. §. 5. Actual Pardon subsequent to a mans Justification.

Sect. 1. MR. Cl's Second Inference is, That Justification doth not properly consist in Pardon; afterward he saith, a man is first righteous and then pardoned; to which we have spoken something. Mr. H. makes a fearful pudder about this Point, we will a little inspect his Notions, Mediocr. p. 44, 55. Our Divines do generally place Justification in remission of Sins, and so do the Pa∣pists, and so did I my self. Resp. Remission of Sins is upon good grounds placed in Justification as an essential part of the Justifica∣tion of a Sinner, and I can boldly deny that sinner to be justified, whose sins are not forgiven, and to separate them is as possible as to separate homo & animal rationale. The Law, any Law, nay your New Law cannot justifie a sinner and declare him righte∣ous, unless in that very act of declaring him righteous his sins are taken away in foro legis, and this is God's Remission (tho not Man's) for his ways are not as mans; and whereas Mr. H. makes remission of sins to be a benefit after Justification as an effect of it, we say it is a benefit in Justification, and the first thing in it in Nature; for its impossible any one should stand righteous in the eye of any Law, that stands chargeable as a transgressor thereof. But remission must not (saith Mr. H.) be the formal reason of Justi∣fication. Resp. The form of an Act, and the formal reason of that Act are two things, the material reason of Justification is righteousness, and the formal cause is imputation of that righte∣ousness, Justification comes in as the acquitting Sentence, oppos∣ed

(as Mr. B. saith) to condemnation, which ex natura rei, must for∣mally carry in it forgiveness of sins. He proceeds, To forgive a mans sins and declare him rigeteous are two inconsistencies one with another in the same respect. Resp. Cujus contrarium verum; in Justificati∣on of a Sinner they are most consistent, and inseparable, that in declaring a sinful man righteous his sins are also done away; its true, in mans way of Pardon there is some inconsistency, because his is by dispensing with his Law, but God's way of forgiveness is in and through the satisfaction of his Law; but I must tell him, that here no Man is looked upon as righteous in the eye of man's law that hath transgressed it, till he is first pardoned, —and therefore when God pronounceth a man just, it is according to the law of faith, when he pardons his sins it is in respect of the law of works. Resp. Here are two Bars, now he saith elsewhere, he likes not two bars, I would fain know now at which of these Bars a sinner is most justified, either by the law of Works, where all his sins are forgiven, and therefore consequently must be made right∣eous; or at the Bar of the New Law where he saith, the man is declared just, but imperfectly so, and therefore goes away with his sins upon his Back to the Law of Works to have them pardoned: Is it not pretty Divinity then, to say a man is declared righteous first at the Bar of the Law of Faith, and then all the Bed-role of his sins are pardoned at the Bar of the Law of Works?

§. 2. He comes to distinguish of Remission, Its either condi∣tional and universal, as it lies in the Covenant, and is the purchase of Christ, or actual, as it lies in application thereof to particular persons upon performance of the conditions. Resp. This Distinction is a great Point among the Neonomians, Mr. B. makes much use of it in his Ʋniversal Redemption, the Story is this, They feign that God find∣ing the inconvenience of the law of works, by reason of the Fall, his Son satisfied not the law broken, but compounded with God as Lord above Law, that this law should be relapsed; saith Mr. H. Mr. B. saith that it might be abrogated, which is more rational, tho it is more downright Antinomianism, which scares Mr. H. Christ accordingly dies to purchase a New Law, with condition of imperfect obedience instead of the perfect, the propounding or promulgating this New Law to all the world is universal remission, it being the offer of Remission on the condition of imperfect obe∣dience to all the World; in this sence all the world, they say, is redeemed, justified and forgiven before they perform that condi∣tion. Now, if any others, besides Neonomians should talk at this rate, they would be in danger of being taken up and sent to Beth∣lem for Madmen. As if a Company, suppose the E. India, set up their Bills for a Sale at a certain time after prefixt, with the re∣spective

Prizes; if one or all should run about the City before the day of Sale prefixt, and say, they had sold their Goods at such and such Prizes, all men will call them Liars or Madmen. So, because God proffers eternal life upon performance of a con∣dition, therefore all men are redeemed, justified and forgiven, i. e. say they, conditionally, and that's not at all till they perform the condition; but Neonomians may talk non-sence, and contradict by the New Law, yea and assert Justification before Faith, while they call others Antinomians who do it, when they are the greatest Antinomians themselves in the World. Now the noise that they make about the Merit and Purchase of Christ, its no more than his purchasing the New Law of Works, and they are justified by the performing the condition of the new law for the sake of Christ's Merits, its only because, as Mr. H. tells us, that Christ by his Merits was an efficient of the New Law; so that generally, in all they talk of Christ's Satisfaction and Merits, there's some cheat or Amphibology. Mr. H. indeed speaks out most honestly, in as good as telling us, that Neonomians are Papists in the Point of Justification. But to proceed,

§. 3. When Divines say we can do nothing our selves for procur∣ing reconciliation and remission, it is to be understood of conditional, universal remission. Resp. What Divines understand so? they are not the Protestants, its only the Neonomians who are no Protestants in the Point of Justification: These Divines understand only, that we cannot purchase the conditional, universal Remission, the Purchase of that it seems was peculiar to Christ; but as for par∣ticular Remission, these men purchase, and Reconciliation too; Christ purchased that we might purchase, and tho he purchased the new law, and promulgation of it, yet he purchased not the performance of the Condition; for such hard terms they will keep Christ too that he may not entrench on their Dignity.

§. 4. Conditional Pardon is antecedent to a mans Justification, and contained in our redemption, in whom we have redemption through his blood the forgiveness of sins. Resp. Conditional Pardon is none, its no more than the offer of a Bargain to any that will come to the Terms: As if I should offer to Lett my House for so much Money by a Bill over the Door, and then say, I have Lett my House to all the men in London. And its strange, that all men should be pardoned and redeemed and not justified, but I think R. B. saith they are justified, and I am sure they may be as well justified as pardoned. However he owns Pardon in Re∣demption, and this antecedent to Faith; sure then Justification (which with us) is inseparable from Faith, is not Antinomianism. And is it possible any Divine should abuse the Scripture so, as to

wrest it to such a sense, that the Apostle should by Remission there, mean such as is contained in universal Redemption, Col. 1.14. whereas the Apostle speaks of Redemption in particular application, for the words preceeding, v. 13. are who hath deli∣vered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son. verse 14. In whom we have redemp∣tion.

§. 5. Actual Remission is subsequent to Justification, for we must be supposed first to have performed the condition, and be pronounced righteous, and then pardoned, when there is no remission then but doth go before or follow Justification, it cannot be made the very act it self of Justification. Resp. Let us try a little for it: 1. He saith, actual remission is subsequent to Justification; now we are come in∣to Mr. Cl's. road, he seems not to be so well acquainted with the Mystery of the antecedent remission, and its so indeed, for it seems it is but potential remission, its not actual, nay its a contingent potentia, there is pardon, and none pardoned, the meaning is, that the New Law made all the world pardonable upon a contingent condition.

2. We find a pretty odd invention, here's Justification beset with Remission, before and behind, and yet no Remission in it; a man pardoned and not justified, and then justified and not pardoned; and truly, if this subsequent Pardon be no better than the antecedent, the Neonomian Justification is destitute of Pardon before and behind too. I wonder all Protestant Divines do not nauseate such Whims as these.

3. But is it possible that he should say, that pardon cannot be made the act of Justification; surely these forget what they are talking of, is it not conditional Pardon the New Law promiseth, how can there be Justification by the New Law of him that per∣forms the condition, but by pardon in the act of Justification; for if the New Law saith, believe and thou shalt be pardoned, the new law when it justifies the Believer must pardon him, and now we have help at a dead lift, just now it was, that tho our new law could justifie, yet it could not pardon; but we are fain to go to the old Law Bar to fetch a Pardon, and trouble Christ about it too, but we have found now that the new law can pardon; for if it pardon all the World conditionally, it can pardon particular per∣sons actually, when they perform the conditions.

CHAP. VII. The Neonomian Doctrine of Iustification Examined.

Section 1. Mr. H's. Definition of Justification. §. 2. Imperfect Obedience not to be accepted by God to Justi∣fication. §. 3. Justification not without Life. §. 4. Of the Form of Justification. 5. What is the account of Christ's righteousness. §. 6. Christ's Merits put to account are imputed. §. 7. Distinction between Par∣don, and bearing with our defects. §. 8. A Pardon general, becomes absolute. §. 9. Justification by In∣fusion and by Imputation distinguished. §. 10. Of Justifying the Ʋngodly. §. 11. Whether Old Law Righteousness or New be best. §. 12. Mr. H's. My∣stery, which he saith Dr. O. did not understand.

MR. H. defines Justification thus, It is an act of God's free Grace, whereby God imputes to every sound Believer his Faith for Righteousness, upon the account of Christ's Satisfaction and Merit, giving him Pardon and Life as the benefits of it. Right. of God, p. 25.

Resp. For the Genus he refers the proof to the Assembly, but he representeth himself short of the Assembly, who say, Justifica∣tion is an act of God's free Grace unto sinners, for which they quote Rom. 3.21, 24, 25. Now Justification barely considered as such, is an act of Justifice, unless it be spoken with this condition, and I find Mr. H's. Notion of it will not bear this connection; for his Justification is of a person only, that is sub∣jectively righteous, our Justification and his are distinguished toto genere, for he saith, the object of his Justification is a righ∣teous person, to such an one Justification is due; its no act of Grace to justifie such an one, a sound Believer. By Faith he means Repentance and New Obedience, as the conditional terms of the New Law, which being performed by any one, he is not justified by free Grace, but legally he can challenge it by the New Law.

§. 2. This Faith and New Obedience, tho imperfect, God accepts in the room of perfect righteousness, not accounting it perfect. Resp. It is absurd to say, God accepts it in the room of perfect; for if so, it should come in, in place and room of the perfect in the Cove∣nant of Works, God putting out that condition, and putting in this, but this imperfect comes as terms in another law, so it hin∣ders not the terms of another. 2. No, why should God account it perfect if it be as they say, but the law of God is perfect, and tho God judgeth the righteousness morally imperfect in compari∣son of the righteousness of the first law, yet he must reckon it a perfect condition of the new law, it being as much as the law re∣quires, and therefore a condition perfectly performed, for else it can never be pleaded or imputed at its Bar; but he saith, he ac∣cepts it, if he accept it its by its self, or for the sake of a better righteousness; now no law can accept any righteousness by its self, but it must be esteemed by its self to be a full righteousness compleatly to answer the demands of the said law; if the law ac∣cept it for or in the righteousness of another, it thereby declares the insufficiency of the man's own righteousness being such as the law cannot justifie him for; but the sufficiency of the other righ∣teousness for which he justifies him, this now will bring in Christ and his obedience into the new law, where our Neonomians will permit him to have nothing to do, but only as a Legislator, as for his Obedience and Satisfaction, it belonged to the old law only, with purchase of the new-remedying law. Lastly, its Nonsence, that any law, or God in a law, should impute Faith and Obedi∣ence for righteousness which is not perfectly so, according to the law constitution, but he doth it upon the account of the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ: How upon the account? and is the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ put in the Ballance with our imperfect righteousness to make it up? or is Christ's righteous∣ness imputed to it that it cannot be, unless imputed to the per∣son? which he denies, how then must we understand this Gentle∣man? for the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ is only effective, because Christ was so kind as to purchase Merit, and satisfie God for the new law, without which he could not have been justified by our imperfect righteousness, and this is all they intend by it, for the Merits of Christ's sake, a plain and facile simile may be given, A Man ows a great deal of Money to his Creditor that's suing of him in Court, a friend of the Debtor and Creditor inter∣poseth and brings the Creditor to a Composition of 10 s. 5 s. or 1 s. in the pound; these Writings brought into the Court, the Action is dismissed for the Merits, Purchase and procurement of this person, who now brought the Debtor under the new law of

Composition, which if the Debtor do not pay he is suible upon his Composition: Now this is all these men make of the Me∣rits of Christ, its only his bringing God to the New Law Com∣position.

§. 3. Pardon and Life, he adds, as effects of Justification: We have already shewed what an absurd thing Justification is without Pardon, Pardon being essential to it; but it seems to be as ab∣surd, if not more, that there should be Justification without life; for if by condemnation a man be dead in law, then certainly, by Justification, wherein Condemnation is taken off, the person is made alive in law. But Mr. H. will have a man to be justified, and both ly under the guilt and condemnation of sin; for he adds to these which he calls Benefits. a right to impunity; so that Justi∣fication lays but in the foundation of impunity, they are not from under punity, Justification brings only an expectation of Pardon, Life, Impunity hereafter, but none of these are in hand.

§. 4. When I say, this Righteousness (or Faith) is the form, I understand it in the sence as these Divines do, who say, Christs righte∣ousness is the form, or Remission is the form, not the form of that Im∣putation, but of Justification passively taken. Resp. Then the plain meaning is that Mr. Humph. understands our righteousness to have that place in causality of Justification, which others give to the righteousness of Christ; if other Divines say, that Christ's is the formal reason of Justification, in the sense that they take Christ's righteousness to be the formal cause in the person justified, he takes a man's own righteousness to stand in genere causalitatis, this is Diametrical Opposition, and therefore not only to be scrupled, but to be contradicted and detested. Hum. Not the form of that Imputation, but of Justification passively taken. Resp. Mr. H. con∣founds his Notion by his obscure Logick; for there is a great difference between the form of a thing, and formalis ratio agentis, the form is an essential cause, and enters the effect, the effect made up of the vis of all the causes hath existence from concourse of all the causes, the formalis ratio is causa movens efficientem, & non ingreditur effectum, tho the form doth, which is another thing. Now Justification in the abstract is forma justificationis in con∣creto, or in the person justified, and there is not any other form, as Justitia is the form of justus, or of a man imputed just, that the imputation makes him legally just, to be just and imputed so is one thing in law, and to be justified is another. Now the ju∣stice of a man is the form of the just man, and the formalis ratio of Justification, and this he saith is the form of Justification passively taken; this we deny, and for Justification is active, but

the justified is the passive, where Justification it self is the form. Again, we deny that our righteousness is the formalis ratio of Ju∣stification; Remission indeed belongs to the form it self, but the formalis ratio of Justification is external to the form, and there∣fore to be considered apart from it. This only by the way

§. 5. I add at last upon the account of Christs Merits, or through Christ, or for Christs sake, because this faith of ours or Evangelick Righteousness, hath so many defects in the best Christians, that if thro the sacrifice of Christ they were not pardoned, and through his Merits those imperfect duties which are done accepted, it could not be imputed to us for Righteousness. Resp. Christ is beholden to him to bring him at last, tho but at the fagg end of Justification: But how comes Justification to be at last upon the account of Christ, for we are formally justified upon the account of our own righteous∣ness, i. e. perfectly so, for what is formally existent is perfectly so, and that by our own righteousness, i. e. upon the account of it, for the effect quod è causis existit, is such upon the account of all the causes, but especially upon account of the form; now he that is formally thus justified, must be upon all accounts justi∣fied, and needs nothing to be added to it: Why then upon the account of Christ's Merits? why, because Christ purchased a law of righteousness which could not justifie perfectly, but leaves the person justified in a need of further righteousness for Justificati∣on, if the Merits and Sacrifice of Christ must come in upon the account of which a man is justified, then he is not justified be∣fore, and Christ's righteousness is the justifying righteousness only; for our own leaves us unjustified by Mr. H's own confes∣sion, i. e. it leaves us in such a case that no man of sense can say we are justified; for by his own words, the righteousness of the new law is not, cannot be imputed to us for righteousness, unless it be pardoned and accepted in Jesus Christ, and therefore this law cannot justifie any one upon his inherent righteousness, for its most absurd to say, it can justifie, when it cannot impute its own righteousness by reason of the defects thereof.

§. 6. I find Mr. H. is at a great loss in establishing his Noti∣on upon a right bottom, he seems to suspect that Christ may come off a loser by it, and he will most fearfully. I do more es∣pecially signifie thereby that Christs righteousness which cannot be imputed to us as a formal cause of our Justification is and must be very carefully brought to our account, and granted to be imputed, and the meritorious cause of our acceptation.

Resp. I am glad to see this saying, wherein he hath over∣thrown his own Doctrine, tho uttered in a great contradiction; for he saith, Christ's cannot be imputed, and then it must be im∣puted;

but why cannot it in the first place? That which is put to our account in Justification, whether as to the part or to the whole of our righteousness is imputed, but according to Mr. H. the Merits of Christ's is put to our account, and therefore the Merits of Christ (to speak more distinctly) thus put to our ac∣count, are the materialis & formalis ratio of our Justification; for if the merits of Christ be put to our account in Justifica∣tion, its but trifling to say, its only the effects, if one man pay for another in part or whole, its the money it self paid that is put to his account, and therefore imputed to him in Court; and indeed he ingeniously confesseth he learned of Mr. B. to mend his Notion, and allowed Christ's Merit to be the material cause of our Justification; but that which he amends with one hand he spoils with another, and thereby runs into grosser logi∣cal Absurdities, saying, Because I make our faith the formal in Ju∣stification. Resp. Very good, The matter is in one subject, in Christ, and the form in us another; Causa per qua res est id quod est is in us, ex qua in Christ in a legal act, Christ's righte∣ousness is but generical, matter which is as much for all the world as a Believer; but the formal part, the proprium & diffe∣rentia is in the subject, Man; this in law is always the merito∣rious part; Money in general turns no Cause there, but its the Propriety that this or that man hath that doth it; now its not Christ's righteousness in special that doth the business, but righte∣ousness in general that Christ hath brought in, as a material part, but its mans righteousness in special that is the principal essential cause, according to Mr. H.

§. 7. After this I distinguish between this pardoning, and bearing with the defects of our Faith, Repentance and new Obedience, which are the condition of the Gospel Covenant, and so our Gospel Righteousness, or that which is Imputed for Righteousness; and that General or Total Pardon, &c. Resp. If Justification be upon performing these as a law condition, what need all this talk about bearing with our de∣fects? If the Gospel Covenant run in these Terms, he that doth what he can shall live; therefore Man doing what he can, leaves no room for bearing with defects, he fulfils the Law in doing what he can. Again, if this be imputed to us for righteousness by the law, and we discharged and declared righteous thereon, it is enough. Where also observe what imputation the Neonomians owns, its imputation of our own righteousness to our selves: And such a righteousness as is none, because imperfect and sinful; but yet imputed for righteousness to us, as if it were perfect; what's the reason then that its found defective after imputation, if imper∣fect by imputation comes in the room and doth as well as perfect?

Nay, what's the reason that this righteousness that is such a paul∣trey one, which can do nothing (by their own concession) in Ju∣stification without Christs, must have the honour of being imput∣ed to us? but Christ must not, cannot be imputed, and why I pray? Because tho' its acknowledged to be perfect and compleat∣est righteousness, yet it may not be imputed to us for ours, be∣cause performed by Christ and not by us. I pray let me ask, whe∣ther it would not more comport with the honour of God, the na∣ture of a Gospel and common Reason, to impute legally to a delin∣quent the payment of another which is perfect full and compleat, then to impute to him the payment of his whole debt, for 10 per Cent. or 6 d. or 4 d. Nay, after this acceptance how honourable would it be to the Court, to sue to the King for the pardon of the Prisoner for paying so little.

§. 8. But let us come to the other part of the distinction — And that general and total Pardon which the Covenant promises, and becomes Absolute upon performing the Condition. Resp. Either the Ne∣onomians have lost their understandings, or think all other Men have, and so think they may impose what they please upon them; for here he distinguishes betwixt a conditional Gospel Covenant, and a Gospel Covenant upon conditions, a total Covenant and a parti∣al, a total upon conditions, and a partial absolute upon perfor∣mance of conditions, and all these one new law Covenant; a Cove∣nant that pardons upon conditions, and a Covenant absolutely par∣doning upon conditions. The total pardon, if that which pardons all the World upon conditions not performed, and yet it damns them too for non performances, a pardoning Covenant that damns all, for it remains not a pardon upon conditions when any one per∣forms the conditions, its then absolute; but did ever any one know that a conditional Covenant when the condition is performed abso∣lute, i.e. without conditions? if any Man buy a House of his Neigh∣bour for a Summ of Money, will he say after he has paid his Mo∣ney, my Neighbour gave me this House, for an absolute promise is a promise of free Gift. He proceeds, The one of these is that ve∣ry Grace, or Act of Grace it self, as goes into that Act of Imputation, or Act that imputes our Faith for Righteousness when the other still is the Effect or benefit following justification. Resp. The Man is in a Wood: The one of these an act of Grace, which of them? That which hath con∣ditional pardon without performance, or that which upon perfor∣mance becomes absolute, the total general, or the partial, particu∣lar, which I know not, but one it is; that is an Act of Grace going into the Act of Imputation: Imputation is an Act of Justice in strict acceptation, because its never but of righteousness, tho' to bring righteousness to a sinner, to whom the Law imputes righte∣ousness

is an act of Grace, as Justification is, but it must not be his own righteousness, for that excludes Grace.

§. 9. He is a little cautious of Mr. B's. opinion, that Justificati∣on is the making us righteous, but he saith he will distinguish, there is a making a Man just by infusion or by Imputation; that by infusion, is Regeneration, which the Papists hold, and which we distinguish from Justification.

Res. The righteousness by which they'll have a man justified is that of Regeneration, and that of Works, the Papists way has more of Grace in it, because theirs is Justification of the ungodly, as Rege∣neration is Sanctifying the ungodly. Some he saith are for Justi∣fication by pardon, and so a Man is righteous by non-imputation of Sin, but he is not for this neither, because he keeps pardon and non imputation of Sin for a consequent of Justification; he will have a Man just in the Eye of the Law, and yet under the impu∣tation of Sin; well how will he have it to be? Its by imputation of what righteousness? Christs? no, its by Imputation of our Faith to us for righteousness.—Our Faith and Evangelical Obedience be∣ing imperfect and sinful, and we are unrighteous in the Eye of the Law for all that, but God in his judging us according to the Law of Grace, doth allow of that, [i. e. Sin] for Christ's sake, instead of all which the Law requires to our Justification.

Resp. Here you see what a parcel of righteousness this New Law righteousness is, its imperfect sinful as to Sins of omission and commission and we are for all this righteous in the eye of the moral Law, but God judging by the Law of Grace, he allows all the Sin against his own Law for Christ's sake, Christ hath merited Gods allowing our sinful righteousness, i. e. Unrighteousness and justi∣fied us for it, but seeing here is all this done by the Law of Grace, how comes it to pass that it doth not pardon these Sins, but they must go to another Bar for Pardon? Why, because the Law of Grace, tho' it justifies the performer it pardons no Sin, because no Law can suppose its own condition to be sinful, but if there be Sin in the condition (as these Men say again and again there is) the Law of Grace allows it, (its certainly an Antinomian Law) allows that Sin that Gods most Holy Law condemns, God here must de∣ny himself; and to say he allows it for Christs sake, is to make Christ the Minister of Sin, die for allowance of Sin, and establish∣ing of it by Law, and if God by a new Law hath established this sinful Obedience instead of all which the old Law required, what need of asking pardon of the said Law? Gods abolition or relaxati∣on of the old Law, and setting us upon Obedience to a New Law, and the performances thereof instead of what the old Law requir∣ed, freed us from Sin and there needs no pardon for not perform∣ing

perfect obedience, for that would have been sin in the eye of the new law, it requiring imperfect obedience, imperfection and sinfulness being the formality of the condition, and therefore it must needs forbid perfection as most contrary to it, and condemn all glorified Saints.

§. 10. By this may that expression of the Apostle he rightly under∣stood, God justifies the ungodly, not in sensu divlso, so that he that is so before his Justification is no longer so afterwards, but in sensu com∣posito, our Faith or Evangelical Obedience in regard to the law [he should have said the law of Works] or in regard of those Works that are required by the law to our justification, are no righteousness within its own nature [therefore unrighteous] would justifie us; but God constitutes it so by the law of the Gospel, and according to that law imputes it to us for righteousness.

Resp. I need say no more to this, but that it is both in sensu diviso & composito an ungodly interpretation, That God should make that righteousness by an after law, which he had made mo∣ral unrighteousness by a former; and impute that by one law for righteousness to Justification, which he had imputed by another law for sin to condemnation: Is God as Man that he should ly, or as the Son of Man that he should repent? The sence of the place is not difficult, it is that justifies a sinner as such, or else its no act of Free Grace, that when the Grace of Justification toucheth on the person of a sinner, he is no more godly than when the Grace of Regeneration toucheth upon him; tho the Grace of God lays hold on a sinner in both these respects, finding them ungodly in all respects, yet it leaves them not so: His ensuing Supposition is very impertinent, supposing that which never was nor never will be, viz. That a Believer living regenerate can ne∣ver be justified by the law of works, by his own righteousness; No, he can be justified by no law, neither did God ever make any law to account any mans unrighteousness, righteousness: I can call that unrighteousness which the law of Works condemns, and God never intended by his Grace, nor Christ never died to purchase such a Justification; far be it.

§. 11. Mr. H. shewing some disrelish of Mr. B. for agreeing with Bellarmine and the Council of Trent in the Doctrine of Infu∣sion, which he saith he took up of Le Blanc, That God doth make men righteous by inherent Grace before he doth justifie them. A thing that Mr. H. must grant according to his Principles, tho he will distinguish nomine tenus only, as to the same thing, calling in∣herent Grace in respect of Justification righteousness, and in re∣spect of Sanctification Holiness, according to a supposed disserent imputation. He accordingly distinguisheth of a threefold making

a man just. 1. By Conversion or Regeneration, and this Augustine and the Papists [he might have added Mr. B. and the Quakers.] 2. By Pardon, and this is Mr. Wotton's. Or 3. By the righteousness of God, and this is my Justification, I will call it mine.

Resp. As he understands the righteousness of God much good may it do him. I desire it not, I know no sound Protestant will put in for a share in his Righteousness or Justification, nor desire either like his. We will let him alone to chide the Papists about infusion of righteousness, and let him clear himself from being a Papist in the Point of Justification if he can; let us see how he ac∣quits himself, The Papists Opinion is, that the Grace of God infused is the formal righteousness that justifies us according to the law of works; they of Trent thought of no other; but our imperfect Faith and new Obedience is a conformity to that which God hath made a condition of life by the law of Grace, and is our formal righteousness according to that law, being made so by God when he imputes it to us for righteousness. By the Evangelical Law this is our righteousness; we are made righteous, i. e. not guilty of the non-performance of the condition, according to Mr. B.

Resp. According to his own Quotation the Papists hold as Mr. B. and he, that habitual righteousness is infused by God, so far as that a man endued therewith may be accounted truly righteous; they do suggest that they do not intend a perfect righteousness, but so much as may admit at least of an acceptillation, which Mr. H. gives us to understand the Neonomians approve of, and Mr. Fox and others tell us the Notion of a New Law was long ago among the Papists, and there's no doubt now our Neonomians have so briskly Trumpt up that old musty piece of Popery, they will willingly fall in Hand-and-Glove with them, and rectifie their flaws according to the Neonomian Edition, they will call their works Evangelical, and calculate them to the height of the new Law, and carry all their merits thither, seeing there's in all probability the fairest Market, and they bear the best Price there, their unrighteousness will be called righteousness, and his sins will be allowed, there is no need of so many Indulgences, for one new-law-allowance will pass for all. Again, do not the Papists speak of the same Works, Faith, Repentance, New Obedience? and what if they say they are the measure of conformity to the Law of Works? do they say they are justified by them absolute∣ly considered? do they not say for the sake of Christ's Merits? why may not they be as well justified by the old-law-works for the merits of Christ's righteousness as our Neonomians, by a new-law-righteousness through the merits of Christ's righteousness; for of the two, I had a thousand times rather trust to Justification by an old

law righteousness through the merits of Christ, than to a new-law-righteousness through our own merits; for Paul we know, and the old law we know, but as for the new law and the righte∣ousness thereof, we say, who are ye? and what is the Evangeli∣cal? in plain English, it is a plain contradiction to the law of works; when that chargeth all the world as guilty before God, this new law saith sin maketh them not guilty, but is their righ∣teousness; and the Evangelical Law finds them not guilty of non performance of the condition. The Moral law saith, if a man kills another he is guilty of non-performance of the condition, but the Evangelical saith, tho he kills a man, if he repent, and give some Alms, his killing a man makes his other obedience but imper∣fect, which is the true nature of the condition, and therefore he is not guilty of the non-performance of the condition.

§. 12. There's a mystery here which he saith Dr. O. nor Mr. B. never gave its due consideration, for Dr. O. saith, There's an imputation of a thing to us that is ours, and that is judging it ours, and dealing with us accordingly, or of a thing that is not ours, and that is by donation, and dealing with us according to it made ours, our righte∣ousness cannot, but Christs righteousness must be imputed to our Justi∣fication. To which he thus answers, As there is an imputing to a man a thing that is his, and a thing not his, so there is an imputing to a person that which is partly his, and partly not his, but that which in the effect becomes his by imputation, this never sunk into the Dr's mind.

Resp. Sure the Doctor was a very shallow man, that he could think of the imputation of a thing that is ours, and of a thing not ours, and could not think of a thing partly ours, and partly not ours, but the reason of his not mentioning of it was because he did not think any man of consistent Brains, would propose such a Justification. For saith Mr. H. there are two things in the mat∣ter, our Faith and God's Imputation —Faith, Repentance and new Obedience is one thing, and having it accepted is another. Now here lies the mystery, its the making one thing two, our new obe∣dience is ours, and sanctification, but God's Imputation makes it ours for Justification, but its being ours, doth not God esteem and judge it ours? how comes it now ours? if God esteem it our righteousness, how is it less ours than before? unless it be in this manner, a man hath a Cloth Coat on, this is his, another calls it a Silk Coat, this is not his because he had no Silk Coat, but his Cloth Coat is made a Silk Coat by another in imputing it Silk; but he tells us, God's imputation brings nothing with it (in the effect, I say) that which was not ours, i. e. the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ. Doth the imputation of ours, at the same time

impute the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ? if so, then it doth bring something not ours, and then we are juftified by two righ∣teousnesses, by ours and not ours; or will he have this a single imputation, and both these made one, by mixture partly ours and partly Christs? for this answers his Notion best, partly his, and partly not his; but he excludes Christ's merits from impu∣tation again and again. ergo the imputation is only of that which is ours, and his Distinction is a Chimaera, and if Dr. O. did not trouble his head with such Whims his Consideration is not to be blamed. But he tells us, that which is not ours comes after impu∣tation as an effect, the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ; but they become not ours by imputation, therefore one leg of his distri∣bution is dropt off, for he saith, there's an imputation of a thing ours, and a thing not ours; this thing not ours, which is Christ's sa∣tisfaction, he saith is not imputed, but comes in as an effect of this imputation of our own righteousness; but why must Christ's Satis∣faction come in the rear? because a man must be justified first, and then Christ's Satisfaction must come in to mend the faults of his Justification, as a remedying righteousness, the formal part of his Justification must be pardoned and accepted, and before his Justification hath released the man from condemnation and un∣acceptableness to God, he must have the effect of his Justification; hence this imputation of ours is the cause of our pardon and ac∣ceptation by Christ's Merits, an imputation of our immoral righ∣teousness the cause of a perfect▪ But how can we have pardon through the Satisfaction of Christ, and acceptance through his merits, without God's imputation of them to us? for if by the rules of Justice in the New Law Court our righteousness is im∣puted to us, how comes it to pass that when we come sinners into the old law Court, we can there become righteous, free from con∣demnation, and accepted by Satisfaction and Merit, and yet not have it imputed to us? this is most extra-judicial, for a Court al∣ways imputes that satisfaction and merit to the person discharg∣ed, which is paid into Court for it: It were easie to run endlesly upon shewing the gross absurdities of this Divinity; for they will have the New Law to impute righteousness which they say is no righteousness, and the Old Laws righteousness to be good and perfect, but not imputed; so that indeed, according to their Doctrine, the sinner is ruin'd for want of righteousness: Under the New Law is no righteousness, and under the Old Law good righ∣teousness but no imputation, without which a sinner can never be justified; now if they would permit these two laws to meet and agree the matter, something might be done, then the New Law might borrow the Old Laws righteousness, and the Old, the New Laws Imputation.

CHAP. VIII. Of the Formal Cause of Iustification.

Section 1. Mr. H's Distinction of by and for, accord∣ing to Bellarmine. §. 2. The Distinction considered. §. 3. Justification purchased by Christ. §. 4. They advance not God's Grace in Justification. §. 5. Pa∣pists truer than Neonomians in the Doctrine. §. 6. They say the same with the Papists, and confess it. §. 7. The Errors and Weaknesses of their Opinions. §. 8. Of Active and Passive Justification. §. 9. Of Condition and Duty.

Sect. 1. MR. H. for the better establishment of the Neonomian Doctrine hath taken up a distinction from his friend Cardinal Bellarmine. The Protestants (saith Mr. H.) have denied that Faith is our formal Righteousness; (Righ. p. 46.) the rea∣son of the denial hath bin much, because they have confounded the cau∣sa per quam, & propter quam, by Faith saith the Scripture we are justified, by is id per quod causa formalis, but Christs Righteousness is id propter quod: Let us see out of whose Shop he took this Dist∣inction, Bellarmine (de just. lib. 2. c. 2.) having stated the Question. Whether Righteousness inherent in us, be the formal cause of abso∣lute Justification or not? In order to his defence of it in the Affirma∣tive, hath this distinction, and chargeth Kemnitius with fraudu∣lent dealing in stating the Question, because he put id propter quod, instead of per quam, saith: If one will speak properly, he must not use the Word propter, but per, when he will point out the formal cause of Justification. If any one ask by what doth a Man live? By what do the Stars shine? By what is the Fire hot? It will be answer'd by his Soul, by the Light, by the Heat, which are the formal causes; but if any ask wherefore did the Emperour Triumph, wherefore did the Souldiers fight. It will be answered not by giving the formal cause, but the meritorious and final, the Souldiers fight that they may overcome, the Emperour triumphs because he overcame; so Kemnitius if he had spoken without fraud and properly should have said, what is that by which a

Man is Justified; whether the Righteousness given to him of God, and inherent through the Merits of Christ, or the Merits of Christ from without him imputed? Now Bellarmine having so fully acquainted us with the distinction, according to the full sense of Mr. H. I think it will be but loss of Paper and Time to transcribe what Mr. H. saith of it, again and again, being but all to the same intenti∣on of the Cardinal.

§. 2. This distinction duly considered is but one of the Papists shifts and Evasions, for First, In all juridical proceedings causa per quam est causa propter quam, for a Mans righteousness is that by which and for which he is justified, and so his transgression is that by which and reason wherefore he is condemned, and if meritori∣ous righteousness of a Mans own or of anothers is brought into Plea and be admitted, he is said to be justified by it, if it be enqui∣red how came such an one to be acquitted, the Answer will be by his Innocency; how came such an one to be condemned, the An∣swer will as soon be by, as for Wickedness, all Righteousness by which any one is Justified is propter quam, its that by Reason where∣of he is Justified, why doth the New Law justifie him that hath performed the condition, is his Righteousness the Justifying con∣dition, is not the Justification propter conditionem, if it doth refuse to Justifie, because the condition is not performed, then it justifies not, because it is not performed; in all conditional Covenants the promise is performed, by reason of the performance of the conditi∣on. 2. Again, if this Distinction were True as applied, then we should be said to be justified or reconciled still propter sanguinem Christi, but we are said to be justified by his Death. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is rendred (') by (') not, for, Rom. 5.9. Are reconciled to God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, By the Death of his Son, for dia with a Genitive Case signifies per, with an Accusative propter, ver. 10. So, we have Redemption, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, So, Colos. 1.14.20. Is ren∣dred through, but they that have knowledge of the prepositions know by or through are the same, when a thing is done by, its done through, See, Acts 20.28. the Church of God which he hath pur∣chased, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so that its evident that the distincti∣on will not hold to make Evangelick Obedience causa per quam, and Christs Obedience propter quam, because Christs Obedience is said to be per quam, when it is intended thereby to be the very righteousnes unto Justification, ergo, per quam and propter quam are of the same import in a juridical sence; but that which our N••onom••ans and Papists aim at is an immediate and medi∣are righteousness, that we are justified by one as immediate for the sake of Christ's the mediate.

§. 3. The Papists by this distinction would make way for a double righteousness in our Justification; for the Council of Trent doth anathematize those that say, a man is justified only by the im∣putation of the righteousness of Christ, or only by remission of sins, with∣out inherent Grace and Charity. To this purpose our Neonomian Mr. Cl. p. 35. That the merit of Christ's Death and Sufferings [he excluding his active obedience] hath purchased this priviledge for us among others, that sincere faith should be accounted for righteous∣ness, and that God will account us righteous if we be possest thereof.

Resp. In both these we see Christ's righteousness is made the propter quam, and our own the per quam, Christ's the meritori∣ous of our Justification by our own righteousness, whereby the ascribing any essential causality to Christ's righteousness is out of doors: For

1. The Justification by our own (') is entire in all essential causes without Christ's; for our righteousness imputed must be the material as well as the formal part of our Justification.

2. It must be first imputed and we justified by it, for they make not only the Condition but the Imputation thereof, and Justification thereby (') to be conditional of our pardon and ac∣ceptance by Christ's Righteousness.

3. The very righteousness of our own is imputed, not Christs Righteousness at all, only the effects; cause and effects are opposita, therefore if the effects only, then not the righteousness it self.

4. To say that Christ purchased Justification by our own righte∣ousness, is but to make Christ such a remote cause of Justifica∣tion as Election is. Now to talk that the condition by which we are justified is a formal cause, and yet to be no cause, is non-sence, for a formal cause, altho it be sine qua non, and so is every cause, yet the four immediate causes are not only so, and this distinguisheth them as propter immediate causes, whose vis caters the effect, when causa sine qua non, as to the effect, is only antecedent, or causa causae, and enters not the effect spoken of.

But Mr. H. saith, its a cause as well as a condition, it is both, if we made our works to justifie us sub genere causae efficientis, procatarct and so the meritorious cause, it were to bring our works into the office of Christ's Righteousness, and derogate from Grace.

Resp. So they do notwithstanding all they say, for if they thrust out Christ's Righteousness from any essential part of our Justifi∣cation, as they do, not allowing it materiality or formality there∣in, they put our own Works into Christ's Office; and nothing can be more derogatory to the Grace of God; they say, they make it medus efficientis, causa procatarchtica, an external motive to the

efficient; the effect then in that respect falls on the efficient, but the effect of the efficient is another thing: Supposing God justifies as Judge, Christ's Righteousness by way of Merit falls upon him, and procures of him that he takes our righteousness in payment. We may use this Similitude, a Man is prosecuted be∣fore a Judge for an hundred Pounds, a Friend of the Defendant tampers with the Jury and Judge, and procures of them that the Debtor pay but 10 l. I pray, whether is he justified by paying the 10 l. in Court, or by that which the Judge and Jury received, which is not brought in Plea at all? so that all meritorious righ∣teousness is brought in Plea coram Judice, and accordingly being imputed or not, Judgment passeth. The Righteousness of Christ, whatever it may purchase out of the Court of the New Law, its not allowed there as a Plea, and is never, nay cannot be imput∣ed (these men say) though pleaded, therefore no Justification thereby, for no man is justified legally, but by what is impu∣ted.

§. 4. But when we make it the formal cause only (of our passive Justification) we do nothing thereby but advance God's Grace and Christ's Merits, as having obtained for us, not only that God should require of us no oth••r condition but our Faith or inchoate Righteous∣ness unto life, but also that he should corstitute by his New Law this condition performed to be our righteousness, in the room of that perfect one required of the old. p. 47. of right.

Resp. Note, 1. They do something besides advancing the Grace of God, because it makes Justification due to us upon Debt, for he that hath a formal right-ousness of his own legally imputed to him, he may demand Justification as due to him by the law it self, and this is not to advance Grace, but contrary, if the Apo∣stle speak sence, Rom. 4.

2. It is not an advance of Christ's Merits, for it casts it out of Imputation and Justification, and makes it but a causa sine quanon, it casts them out of the essential causes, and it makes them but an adjuvant cause, or con-cause, a co-ordinate (according to Mr. H.) it makes not Christ's Merits the only righteousness; it makes our own righteousness the inchoate and foundation righteousness, the Corner Stone of our Justification; and whereas the Scriptures make Christ's, it makes Christ's Righteousness but to belong to another law, whereby they say we are not justified and our own to that which justifies, and the only justifying righteousness of the new law; it makes Christ's Righteousness and our Pardon by it, to be a consequent of Justification by our own, and that without imputation thereof extra-judicial, but our own very righteous∣ness to be imputed to us; it makes that righteousness within its

self and own nature, (saith Mr. H. again and again) to be righteous∣ness legal for our Justification, and rejects Christ's perfect Right∣eousness as to Imputation and Justification, which is contrary to the Holiness and Justice of God.

3. He makes the Grace of God to consist in constituting a Law for Justification, which is but part of distributive Justice, the ex∣ercise of a Legislative Power, and not of Grace to Sinners.

4. The constitution of this inchoste righteousness is harder terms than the constitution of the righteousness of the Cove∣nant of Works, for Reasons before given.

5. We see what their meaning is of Christ's Merits, its only that he purchased a new Law, and we see what is the Neonomian Commutation that they have of late made such a stir about, they are for a Commutation; what's that? its a commutation of our righteousness, i. e. bringing into the room of the righteousness of the law (i. e. Christ's) in Justification, they deny it in Dr. C's sence, i. e. that our sins were imputed to Christ, and his Righteousness to us; for they expresly deny both the one and the other.

§. 5. Mr. H. So as Adam, if he had perfectly obeyed, his obedi∣ence had been his formal righteousness in regard of the law.

Resp. His Obedience had bin his material Righteousness, and this imputed to Justification had bin his Righteousness clothed with the Form and End, and unless we have a material and for∣mal righteousness in regard to the same law, we can never be ju∣stified. So is this ours in regard to the Gospel. Resp. The Gospel is not a new Law, neither doth it allow our own righteousness, for any in our Justification; and is therefore Gospel, because it doth not. He tells us, both Protestant and Papist are both out in saying the Law is the rule of that Righteousness which both say is the formal reason of their Justification.

Resp. It is the Neonomians are out, and worse than the Papists in this Point, in that they will bring any other rule of Righteous∣ness for Justification, the Law of Works is only norma officii & judicii for Righteousness and Justification. They are both out, for the Papists speaks for inherent Grace, and his Works, so as he would have them meritorious, and perfect (pleading for Merit and Perfection) but can never bring them to answer the law, but must still pray for∣give us our trespasses.

Resp. The Papists are righter and more rational here than Neo∣nomians, if they differ from them in Merit, they ought not, and Mr. B. asserts it in his End of Controversies; but whereever the performance of the condition of a law requires Justification by the law, there is Merit and must be; for such a Performer de∣serves

and merits Justification, and the remuneration thereof as much as Adam's standing and performing the condition of the Law of Works, had merited Justification thereby. Likewise, as to Perfection they are right, for that is a man's Perfection which the Law makes so, and justifies a man by, the Law matters not what other laws make perfect performance; the Old Law is no rule to the New Law, that's a man's Perfection which the Law that justifies him saith is the performance of the condition. Mr. H. quotes Mr. B. for saying, the New Law acquits a man from non-performance of the condition; and what need such an one pray for Pardon any more than they that say, they are justified in Christ's Righteousness (the great Cry they make against Justi∣fication in Christ's Righteousness, what need such an one pray for Pardon?) for if their Justification in and by their own righte∣ousness, be not as perfect discharging from guilt by Pardon, as ours is in Christ's Righteousness, its not worth a Fig, we desire no such trifling Justifications.

§. 6. The Protestants on the other side plead for Christ's righte∣ousness which arswers the Rule; but this being without us (though it be upon the account thereof) id propter quod, or cujus merito, we are justified; the Papists say stiffly it can never be made formally ours, so as to be propter quod we are justified, ••••d I must say the same, for the Truth is Truth.

Resp. Here you have Mr. H. plainly confessing himself a Papist in the Point of Justification, and hence its no wrong to him to say he is a Papist upon his own Confession, and the truth is the truth. He saith with the Papists, that this being without us cannot o•• im∣puted; can nothing but what is personally done by us be Imputed to us? I find no Proof that he makes any where that one man's righteousness cannot be imputed to another, and here it is only because it is without us: What is more common than Sureties to pay the De••ts of insolvent Persons? and that Christ made Payment and Satisfaction for Sinners is most plain from Scriptures, though these men will deny that the Scripture saith any thing thereof, which denial will be tried by us whether there is any weight in it? There are two great Points to be cleared in this Controversie:

1. Whether the Scripture excludes all inherent righteousness from the Justification of a Sinner before God?

2. Whether the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to a Sin∣ner for his Justification before God? These Questions shall be maintained by us in the Affirmative, God willing, in their due place.

§. 7. Whereas Mr. H. Prides himself exceedingly in the

singularity of his Notion of our Righteousness being the formal cause of our Justification, any one may see it in Cardinal Bellar∣mine and J. Goodwyn, from both whom its easie to shew how the Neonomians have taken up their Doctrine; as for the Notion it self it labours under many weaknesses.

1. That Righteousness in it self is not the formal but the ma∣terial reason of Justification, that which induceth the form is a legal Imputation; for if a man be never so innocent and righte∣ous, if the Court do not impute him so, he shall not be justified, and if a man be never so unrighteous, if the Court impute righte∣ousness to him, he shall be justified; so its here, Imputation is the legal form of Justification, and righteousness is but the material only.

2. He makes a formal reason without material; for if our own righteousness be the formal reason where's the material? he will not make Christ's Merits the material; for he brings in them sub genere causae efficientis, besides he cannot, for it would be very absurd to place the matter in one subject, and the form in ano∣ther, therefore his formal reason is immaterial, and its indeed but an imagenary Chymaera, both his New Law and his Formal Righteousness.

3. Our Righteousness if it be the formal reason of our Justi∣fication, its such as per quam homo justus est, and that is in law al∣ways propter quod, for no law justifies any one; but because he is righteous, his righteousness must constitute him just, and the law esteeming him so, he is justified as legally meritorious thereof: the noise Mr. B. J. G. and others make of the distinction between constitutive and declarative Justification, is Popish, and hath no∣thing in it; constitutive Justification is no more than Imputa∣tion, it is that which in law constitutes any one just and meri∣torious of declarative Justification.

§. 8. Mr. H. makes a distinction of Justification, that its active and passive, whereas Justification is but one, and it doth not constitute properly a physical effect, but a legal relation, it doth neither find nor make any sinner inherently righteous (for Justification of a righteous person finds him inherently so, this Justification we speak not of) but Mr. H. will have a passive Justification upon this account, because it finds the sinner righte∣ous inherently; he saith indeed, the infusion of this preceeding righteousness is not his Justification, according to the Papists, but his Justification is for the righteousness which it finds infused, and so its the formal cause of Justification: He might with much better rea∣son say, that Sanctification is double, active sanctifying, and pas∣sive sanctified; but where there is the cause working, there is the

effect wrought, and the justified is but the effect, and constitutes no distinct species of it. But we say, the Grace of Justification of a Sinner, proceeding from Grace, is wholly in and from God, and hath no cause in a Sinner material or formal, nor is there any cause external of that Grace, the moving cause only is the good will and pleasure of God; he is gracious to whom he will; gracious∣ness, pardoning Iniquity is only from his Grace and for the glory of his Grace, which cannot be in the Justification of a righteous per∣son, but because, not simply Grace, but also Justice shall be glori∣fied in a sinner's justification, and God in his pardon, will not clear the guilty, he hath graciously provided and bestowed on the sinner a righteousness accepted by the Law, and imputed to him, that he may appear therein just, and so just in administration of righteous∣ness as not to infringe his Justice in the least, but to the highest ho∣nor of the Law standing in its full force against the sinner, with∣out the least Relaxation. This is done quite contrary to the Neo∣nomian Doctrine; therefore Gods Justification falling upon a Sinner, makes actually a correlate to Gods justifying, and faith is no more than the Sinners reception of this Grace; no part of that righteousness by which faith or for which the Sinner is justified, neither is it a grain of that righteousness which is imputed to him.

§. 9. Mr. H. also hath another distinction between condition and duty, which I will not stay upon because its frivolous and it is because he will have the duties of the Law to be performed by us, tho we be not justified by them, he insists upon a Relaxation of the old Law but not a total Abolition, Mr. Bax. Opinion is that its abrogated as much as the Ceremonial Law, wherein both penalty and duty is taken away, and indeed Mr. B. is in the right according to his notion, for the introduction of a New Law in the room of it and for the ends that the old Law was establisht is cer∣tainly the nulling of the said old Law, but how then can Mr. B. be secured from a just charge of Antinomian viz. that moral duties are not required of us, which is more Antinomian than I ever saw in any he chargeth with it, he hath one poor shift, which is that the duties of the old-Law are taken or spunged up in the conditi∣ons of the New; but however the broken pieces are pickt up, the Law it self is gone, and there's no transgression upon that account, Mr. H. saith the Law's only relaxed but his relaxation is no bet∣ter than a Crack in the middle of a Glass and heart of it; and he hath not told us how far this relaxation goes, and every man will be ready to plead for his own sin that the Law in that respect is relaxt. But he would have us believe, that the moral duties still remain, how relaxt or not? If relaxt then at least to an indiffe∣rency, a man may do them or not without any sin; but he saith they

are re-established in the New-Law, if so they are re-established without the Relaxation and then the New-Law is as strict as the Old, or with the relaxation, and then all duties are required with abatement as to quality and quantity, with an allowance of sin, our posse or velle, and what is more Antinomianism? But, saith he, the Conditions are not Duties, It was never affirmed by men of reason, that the Condition of a Law is not a Duty; for that which is required of us upon pain of punishment is al∣ways a Duty, and to the Condition of the New-Law the highest, because it hath the Sanction of a Law of the Highest, he that continueth not in all things by way of performance that it re∣quireth is cursed by it, if it be but imperfect obedience; it saith, he that continueth not in imperfect obedience is cursed by it, therefore when the Saints come to Heaven, and fall in∣to perfect obedience they fall under the Curse of the new law, or else its out of doors before they come there, or the last day, and the World can't be judged by it. Lastly, What are the conditions of imperfect obedience? are they not Duties of Righteousness by the performance whereof Mr. H. will have us justified? Yes, this cannot be denied, but the distin∣ction will hold with a quatenus, as they refer to the absolute, relaxed Laws they are Duties, i. e. as they respect no Law, or a lawless Law; and as they refer to the New Law they are Conditions and are not Duties. Hence its no Duty to per∣form the Conditions of the New Law for Justification thereby, and this is the Truth which we stand by, though infer'd truly from Mr. H's Logick and Divinity.

CHAP. IX. An Answer to Mr. H's Arguments against Im∣putation of Christs Righteousness.

Section 1. Arguments Artificial or Inartificial. §. 2. His First Argument against the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness answered. §. 3. His Second Argument Answered. §. 4. His Third Argument Answered. §. 5. Mr. H's Argument for Faith and Obedience, being the formal part of Justification, First Answer. §. 6. The Assumption by parts. §. 7. Argument the Second Answered. §. 8. Mr. H's Third Argument Answered, with his Fourth Argument. §. 9. Of Con∣stitutive Justification.

Sect. 1. NOw it is time to come to Examine the grounds of Mr. H. and Mr. C's Doctrine, in this Point of Justi∣fication. And First, I shall treat of them that are the reasoning Arguments, Artificial as called in Logick, the weakest in Divi∣nity, and then those that are pretended from Scripture, which in Logick are called inartificial, but if grounded upon Divine Testi∣mony, the best and strongest.

§. 2. Against the Imputation of Christs Righteousness, he ar∣gues thus. How can God account our Sins to be Christs and his Righ∣teousness ours when really they are not so, and Gods Judgment is accord∣ing to Truth.

Resp. this is used again and again by Mr. B, to which I shall Answer, 1. By retorting the Medium and not so tedious to put it in∣to any other form, how can God account our own New Law righte∣ousness to be justifying righteousness, when in its own nature its no righteousness (Mr. H. saith so over and over) and Gods judg∣ment is according to Truth, now see the honesty of these Men, God must not make a Judgment according to Truth in imputing Christs perfect righteousness to us, because it was not personally performed by us, and imputing our Sins to Christ, because they were not actually committed by him, and yet God makes a judg∣ment

according to Truth, in imputing our own paultry sinful righ∣teousness to us for our righteousness, when they themselves say its really no righteousness. 2. Is not his righteousness ours? The Scripture saith it is, and our Sins made his; they say it doth not, that we will try, God willing, but for the present we ask what if God give us this Righteousness? What is freer than Gift? and what makes a better propriety than Free Gift? Is not Gods Judgment according to Truth, when he imputes that to us which he hath given? Its the Gift of Righteousness, Rom. 5. E. gr. A poor debtor is sued in Court for an 100 l. and upon Trial he is found insolvent, and Verdict is going to be given against him, the Judge throws him a Bag of 100 l. in Court and bids him pay the debt, shall not the Court impute this to him a law∣ful Payment, and give him a discharge, and is not the Judgment according to Truth? on the other hand another hath the like Try∣al, but is found insolvent, the Judge or some other gives him a Bag of Counters, and bids him to pay his Creditor, he refuseth the Money, saith its Brass; well saith the Judge we will impute it to him for a lawful tender and good Payment, we will make that which is no righteousness by our imputation to be a legal righteous∣ness, so the Creditor may take the Bags of Counters and go shake his Ears, we call it good Money; now I appeal to these Men whether this be a Judgment according to Truth? And let them weigh it well and make application thereof, and if they can't make a rational reply, let them lay their Hands on their Mouth, and hold their peace for ever hereafter.

§. 3. A second great Argument taken from Mr. B. is, That if it be so that Christs righteousness is imputed to us for Justification, then should the Elect be immediately freed from punishment, and immediately justified before they believed and repented, for no Terms could be Impo∣sed on them in order to their Justification and Glory, if they be ac∣counted already to have fulfilled the Law of Christ. And this is one (as he saith) of the Antinomian consequences.

Resp. Let it be so, we say then First, If it be an Antinomian con∣sequence, what is the reason Mr. B. and Mr. H. are such Antino∣mians, to say all the World are pardoned before Faith and Repen∣tance, yea, whether they believe or no? Why doth Mr. B. assert two Justifications before Faith? 2. We reckon it no Antinomianism to say, that Election perfectly freed the Elect from coming under the execution of the Vindictive Wrath of God and Curse of the Law: Why else should the Scripture say, who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect? and whereas it may be said before Conver∣sion, the Law will charge, for they are under the Law, its replied, its Christ that died, yea rather is risen, having fully satisfied the

Law of God, that they shall not fall under the Execution of the Curse of it, and they are secured before God both by Election and Redemption, or else Christ died and rose again in vain; and as they have this security, so they have an immediate right in Christ to the Life of Grace and Glory; They want the application and the receiving of this righteousness, and a possession thereof, which reception is by Faith that is not their own, but purchased and giv∣en by Christ; which was never purchased and given for their righteousness, but as an Organ of Spiritual Life, whereby a Man created in Christ Jesus may be sensible, and have the comfort of what is freely given to him of God; for by Faith a Man takes up the Peace which Christ hath made, and hath access into the justi∣fying Grace of God wherein he stands, and therefore comes from under the Law in his own Conscience, and rejoiceth in the hope of the glory of God. 3. As for imposing of Terms, its Idle, to think that Christ should do what he did for Sinners in his Priestly Office, their Justification, and Salvation, and then to impose an impossibility upon them, without the performance of which all that he hath done should be nothing to them; and do Men talk Sence when they talk of imposing Terms upon Sinners for Eternal Life, the Terms should be put upon them to be performed before they have Spiritual Life in their meer natural Estate, and then to make their notion to stand on its right bottom; they must be Pe∣lagians, its Eternal Life that is begun in Justification applied to the Believer and his Person by the Spirit, and its received Vitally and Sensibly by Faith, when the Sinner is made a live by the San∣ctifying work of the Spirit, his Life of Faith is part of the Eternal Life purchased: Can any Terms of Life be imposed on a dead Man, what Terms were imposed upon Lazarus; if the roling away the Grave-Stone was the Term, it was not imposed on him, it was on them that stood about the Grave, if they say God will give these Terms, as they must say to save themselves from Pelagia∣nism, then the Term lies upon God, and its Idle to say they are imposed upon incapable Subjects, neither is that Imposed upon me as a Term that cannot be expected from me, unless by the donati∣on of another, by any rational Man. 4. The clause follows not according to Mr. H.'s Principles, who saith Christ satisfied the Law (tho I know what the Neonomians talk of, they intend no true satisfaction) did Christ satisfie the Law in what Sence they will? Was it for himself or for us? if for himself, then he offended it, this they will not say, then for us; if for us, our Offence was taken of before God, thereby God was in him by reason of his satisfacti∣on not imputing our Trespasses; how can it be otherwise but we must be accounted by God to have fulfilled the Law in Christ, if

Gods judgment be according to Truth, and why may not this sa∣tisfaction be, and our fulfilling in Christ be before we had a being in the World? this was actually performed for the Saints before his coming, long after most of them were dead, why not for those that are to come before they have life? and why may they not be called to a fellowship with Christ, and participation of the righte∣ousness of Christ in Satisfaction by Faith? when the day of their Regeneration comes. This is the dangerous Doctrine that these poor blind men are so afraid of.

§. 4. There is another Argument of Mr. H's. which he takes to be Herculean, and admires, and it looks as if it were out of his own Forge and he chargeth Mr. L. to hearken to it. Animadv. p. 67. There is nothing can be imputed to us, but either that which we have not, and then it is that we may have it, that is, to have it made ours, or reputed as ours.

Resp. There is nothing can be imputed to a Sinner for righte∣ousness but that which he hath not first, but is given (so saith Mr. H.) and here's the difference, he saith, inherent Grace is given for righteousness, we say, the obedience of Christ is given for our righteousness, which the Scripture saith; now it is given that it may be imputed ours legally, and its imputed that we may be justified; it is not imputed that we may have it, but because we have it it is imputed; Mr. H. herein goes against himself.

Or else if we have it, it must be imputed to some other end than to have it. Answ. Yes, its imputed legally that we may be justifi∣ed; we have it by gift, prius natura, by gift of Grace, for we must have the righteousness before the Law can judge we have it, because legal Judgment is according to Truth. Mr. H's Ju∣stification runs thus far, that we must have a righteousness be∣fore it is imputed, nay, and he saith its by Gift too. Now if Christ did obey or suffer in our persons, or as our legal person, so as in law sence we have, and are accounted to have obeyed and suffered in him, then can his righteousness (consisting of his Obedience and Suf∣ferings) be neither imputed to us that we may have it, or be made ours, or reckoned to us as ours, seeing we have it already; it is ours, it is reckoned as ours, in that it was performed in our persons; nor can it be imputed to us to any other end, or thing, but ad justitiam, which is to the same end, and for the same thing, and can be no other.

Resp. Mr. H. thinks this Argument irrefrigable, and that it will carry all before it, but poor men (as most opposers of truth) have the unhappiness to smite with the backs of their Swords, and cut themselves with the edge. Mr. H. argues, if we have Christ's righteousness, we cannot have it by Imputation.

We do not say we have it by imputation any other than a le∣gal

allowance that we have it, having it is antecedent to the le∣gal allowance, it is not so in their Principles? we have our own righteousness before it is imputed to us. But if in a law-sence we are accounted to have obeyed and suffered in Christ, then his righte∣ousness cannot be imputed unto us, cujus contrarium verum, yea, therefore its imputed unto us, for one man's payment is not reck∣oned and imputed to another, unless the payment be made in his person in a law-sence; it is ours, and reckoned as ours in that it was performed in our persons, he saith, therefore as such it is reckoned and imputed to us, nor can it be imputed to us for any other end than for righteousness, we say and you say.

§. 5. Mr. H's Arguments for Faith and Obedience being the Formal Cause of our Justification, we shall examine in the next place, they are, as Mr. Cl. hath gathered them up, By the consent of all Divines, That righteousness which denominates us righteous in the sight of God, must be the form or formal part of our Justification; But neither Regeneration, nor Christ's Righteousness, nor Pardon is that which justifies per modum causae formalis, and therefore it must be Faith. Resp. 1. He should have added imputed, to the things enume∣rated in the minor; for he saith to Mr. C. he means so. 2. If he doth mean so, he putteth the material and formal cause together, and therefore I shall deny his Minor under the term of essential causes, which takes in his formal: As to the major I except, that all the Di∣vines do not hold that righteousness that denominates us righteous before God is the formal cause, but insist on the minors denial, that the righteousness of Christ doth not denominate us righteous before God, for so should the assumption be; the Syllogism as it stands is false, having one medium in Major, another in the Minor. Dare Mr. H. be so scandalous as to speak out his Minor as he ought by his Medium, That Christ's Righteousness doth not denominate us righteous in the sight of God, its plain that he shifts it off by a wrong Assump∣tion, and according to that fault makes his Proof. And I only say, that there's no righteousness can denominate us righteous in the sight of God, but what is fully satisfactory to the Law that con∣demns us; but there's no righteousness fully satisfactory to the Law that condemns us, but Christ's. let Mr. H. shew any other if he can; and as for the righteousness of the New Law which he pleads for, he acknowledgeth that its no righteousness in its own nature, that it needs Pardon at the Bar of the Old Law, and therefore it cannot denominate us righteous in the sight of God.

§. 6. He proceeds to prove his false Assumption by parts. 1. That Christ's righteousness is not that righteousness whereby we are denominated righteous in the sight of God: why? be∣cause

saith he, it is the meritorious case: I answer, therefore it is, for no righteousness makes any one righteous coram Judice, but a meritorious righteousness, not regenerating grace; see how he shifts, he said in his Minor, not regeneration, i. e. inherent renova∣tion; which he all along asserts for our justifying righteousness; and now he has brought it to the active infusion of Grace, as he quibbles with the Papists, and why not Regenerating Grace? be∣cause that must precede Justification, and must not the righteous∣ness precede the Justification by his own Doctrine? and doth not the formalis ratio precede the effect; but what doth regenerating Grace preceed? Is it not regeneration it self, it being the working cause of it, but as for the Grace of regeneration wrought, that's the very righteousness which he means, and yet saith in his As∣sumption not regeneration, this is but juggling, it is not plain deal∣ing. He goes on, not pardon for that comes after it, Mr. H. saith so I know no better authority for it, and I will believe it ad Grae∣cas calendas, I have shewed the absurdity and folly of it, yea, and of his pardon preceeding Justification. And if none of these be the formal cause, i. e. the Essential causes denominating us Righteous in Gods sight, it must be something else: What's that? The righte∣ousness of God revealed in the Gospel, i. e. Faith and Obedience. Mr. Cl. saith something else. Imputation, its that which is the form, one essential cause, in this they differ, but as to the matter they agree; that Faith and imperfect Obedience, is the righte∣ousness whereby we are denominated righteous in the sight of God, and is not the Grace of regeneration inherent; whether Faith be the righteousness of God, shall be examined anon by its self, because Mr. H. puts so much stress upon it.

§. 7. Arg. 2. Adam if he had perfectly obeyed, his Obedience had been his formal Righteousness in regard to the Law, so is this ours in regard to the Gospel. Again, works were the formal righteousness in regard to the Law, therefore Faith is the formal righteousness of Justi∣fication by the Gospel. And two things go to this formal Righteousness, Faith and the imputation of it.

Resp. It seems Mr. H. understands formal cause, matter form∣ed, and that is an effect not a cause, the materia formata, is the formal cause; I must tell him his Notion is neither Divinity nor Logick. 2. What consequence is there in this Argument, works were the formal cause of Justification as to the Law of Works, therefore works must be the formal cause in relation to the Gos∣pel, it follows not but vice versa, and if the consequence be true, then there's no formal difference between Law and Gospel. 3. Hereby he yields that New Law conditions, are Old Law works, and consequently his Gospel is no Gospel, but a Law of works

which is contrary to Scripture, and accordingly Mr. Cl. saith, Gospel works must merit the reward, as works should have done in Adams Covenant; Mr. H's reply is so weak, that its not worth taking Notice of.

§. 3. Argum. 1. Justification hath a form, and that must be some righteousness. Resp. It may have a form, and yet Righteousness be the matter. What righteousness is it whereby we are justi∣fied? I answer against Mr. Cl. and him, that its no righteousness inherent in the justification of a sinner: He saith, its not regene∣rating grace infused, but imputed. Answer. What makes the dif∣ference then between Sanctification and Justification? its nothing but the divers respect in Mr. H's. Divinity, and wherein lies that re∣spect, is it not in imputation? and this Logick he yields in his Notes,

Argument 4. Divines generally fix it upon some righteousness.

Resp. If some Divines speak improperly, it doth not justi∣fie Mr. H. to do so; but he saith, a distinction is made of a genus and differentia, and therefore righteousness must be the form.

Resp. Non sequitur, for genus is the matter, and but part of the form at most sometimes, but the differencing part of the Defini∣tion is the form distinct from the genus. Mr. Cl. saith, the most plausible Argument of all (because it is Scripture) you have omitted, we are justified by faith. This, saith Mr. H. is my id per quod that runs through all my Books, its true, and what would Mr. H. have done to support his Notion, if the Cardinal had not helpt him to this id per quod, and id propter quod, he takes himself safe enough between the Cardinal and Bishops. Well, Mr. Cl. is not so well pleased, I find, with his formalis causa, but rather than break with Mr. H. he will comport with him; especially finding him very uncertain and unsettled, sometimes our righteousness is the formal cause, and sometimes the material, and imputation the formal. Mr. Cl. hath another denomination for our own righteousness, he calls it our subordinate righteousness: Our Justi∣fication by Faith, or accounting it to us for righteousness. will be considered anon.

§. Cl. also gathering and applauding Mr. H's. constitutive Justification, let it be a little inspected, Mr. Cl. saith, That Mr. H. doth clearly distinguish his Opinion from the Papists in that he makes infused righteousness only Sanctification, and imputation of the same to be Justification; its only to distinguish up our own righte∣ousness several ways: I would ask these Gentlemen whether they do not hold the infusion of their righteousness, and Justification upon it imputed; if they do, so do the Papist; for if the Papist did hold making a man's righteousness inherent to be Justificati∣on, then must they hold some merit of condignity to precede in

the natural man; for a meer free gift as such, is an infusion, can∣not be Justification. I do not see but Mr. H's constitutive Justi∣fication and the Papists is all one; for if they say, God infuseth righteousness, and imputeth righteousness, its the same thing, and God cannot constitute any just by infusion but he must impute him so. I have said this constitutive Justification, as they take it, can be no other than Imputation if they will make it differ from declarative Justification. 2. The constituting us as just doth in order of nature go before accounting or using us as just.

Resp. God neither constitutes any man just in and by his own righteousness, nor accounts them so; But we can say, God first gives us Christ's righteousness by his Grace, then accounts us righteous therein, Constitutive Justification consists in three things, in making us just, accounting us just, and using us as just, all these the Papists have, Therefore more fully, Justification is a judicial act, and that by the law of Grace, God by that Law, and the act of God's law, makes, pronounces, and by pronouncing makes a Believer a righte∣ous person, and being so made, accounts him so. Resp. The Scrip∣ture speaks of Justification of a Sinner, and therefore saith, its an act of free Grace, Indeed Mr. H's. Justification can be no other than a judicial Act, its no way consistent with Grace, because he saith its by a Law and Act of it, whereby it makes and pronounc∣eth a believer righteous, and it seems he is first declaratively justified, and after imputed righteous, when God hath pro∣nounced him righteous, then accounts him so, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Cart before the Horse. Our righteousness wrought in us by Vocation, and is the same materially, but not formally, with this righteousness of Justification.

Resp. Now here's the reason why he sticks so hard for our righ∣teousness, being the formal part of our Justification, so that the same righteousness (as he saith materially the same) Sanctifies us materially, and Justifies us formally. So as that, as Sanctifying it hath no form, and as Justifying no matter. Now this is a Quatenus with a witness, so in Mr. Cl's sence he doth well, making the matter real, and the form relative. These things Mr. H. in his several middle-way Pages, and Letters repeats a hundred times, you cannot look into a Page hardly, but you have the sum of his Doctrine; therefore it must not be expected that I should follow him Page by Page, unless I should Tautologize as he doth.

CHAP. X. Whether Faith be our justifying Righteousness.

Section 1. Whether the Saints before Christs did not look upon themselves as righteous by their own righteousness. §. 2. Abraham considered. §. 3. Abraham considered. §. 4. Abraham's Justification further considered. §. 5. Of Subordinate righteousness. §. 6. Mr. Cl's. defence of a Subordinate righteousness. §. 7 Oppositi∣on of Faith and Works in Justification, Mr. Cl's 2d. and 3d. Arg. §. 8. Mr. Cl. fourth Argument Answer'd. §. 9. Argument 5, 6. §. 10. More to Mr. H's challenge.

Sect. 1. MR. H's. Enquiry about the Saints before Christs coming is, He would know of any Man who is most Orthodox in his Complexion, whether he does or is able to think that Enoch, Noah, Job, who were before the Law, Samuel, the Kings and Prophets under the Law, or any Man or Woman whatsoever before the coming of Christ, did ever imagine that they were righteous or ac∣cepted with God for the Obedience which the Messiah should perform on their behalf when he came into the World, and believing this was an In∣strument of making him to be theirs &c. And whether they did not look upon themselves righteous by their own righteousness, their doing righ∣teo••sn••ss, and to obtain favour by their upright walking, and no other∣wise 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 Cal∣vinistical complexion, there's enough of them. 2. I would know whether or no they did ever hear of a New Law, and if they ex∣pected 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 pro∣mise 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 of∣fer Sacrifice for Sin, did they look at no Significancy or typical∣ness 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 righ∣teousness and became heir of righteousness which is by Faith, what was he Heir of his own Righteousness? did they believe in them∣selves? 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 re∣ceived 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 Redeem∣er? and what were the Sentiments of his Friends in this Do∣ctrine, 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 Que∣stion, by performing of the conditions of the New-Law; but alas they heard not of this New-Law, this Nor-West passage to Hea∣ven.

§. 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 pro∣mised? Gen. 12. and the Salvation by Redemption and Righte∣ousness, 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 per∣son was justified, God witnesseth to his gifts, that they were ac∣cepted as being done in Faith; whereas Cain was an unjustified person, theres 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 preach∣ing 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 Ʋr 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 be∣lieving Gentiles were to be justified afterwards, and the Apostle saith these that are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. of that kind of Justification, are blessed with faithful Abraham, ver. 9. but such as are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that expect justification from the Works of a Law are un∣der a curse, for the Law i. e. Justification by the works of the Law. is not of justifying Faith, theirs none under Abraham's bless∣sing, 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-ordi∣nate or Supream, which our Neonomians please, for Justification, be∣cause 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. Its not consistent with the nature of Faith, which is the Evidence of something not seen, or present, but Works and Faith as such is both seen in us, and present with us. 4. If Faith be the very righteousness, then Faith believes in Faith as righteousness. Doth the Scripture bid us believe in our selves, or believe in another. Faith believes in Faith, for our very righteousness by these Men, which is most ab∣surd, when they preach, they should bid Men believe in them∣selves, did Abraham believe in his Faith? Was that his believing, or did he believe that which was held out in the Promise? the same thing that God imputes to us for righteousness, we do make the Object of our Faith for Righteousness. Now then if God im∣putes our believing to us, then we believe in our believing, these are inevitable Rocks this Doctrine will bring these Men unto. 5. God cannot impute Faith as a Work, and in the Neonomian sence for righteousness, it being as Mr. H. confesseth again and again, no righteousness, sinful, in need of pardon, for, 1. This would not be according to truth to call evil good, nor to do it in a way of administration of Justice, as in Justification, would it be just? But most unjust, God is a God of Truth and Holiness, and the Judge of all the World, and therefore must deal righteously, for tho' he pardons Iniquity, yet will by no means clear the Guilty. 2. Its contrary to their own assertions, that Justificati∣on is an Act of Justice, whereas such an Imputation and Justifica∣tion as they speak of, would be far from an Act of justice, and is a meer dispensation with justice, for where a Law must be abrogat∣ed, or relaxed, there is an absolute dispensation with Justice, and without one of these they confess there cannot be Justification by their New Law. 6. This cannot be justification, because Sin is not pardoned in it, nor the person accepted, Imputation of righte∣ousness to the work, before its to the person, and if the person must do good works before he's justifi'd, which is absurd, because the works he doth are imputed to him, and he is justified by 'em, as they say.

§. 5. But let us hear what Mr. Cl. hath to say for the Proof of this Position, that Faith is our Subordinate righteousness (i. e. in his sence an interveening righteousness coming between Christs righteousness) whereby we are justified before we come at Christ, or pardon, both being consequent to our Justification, by this New-Law-Righteousness which he calls Faith, see, p. 64. His rea∣son are these, 1. What else can be the plain and proper meaning of that Phrase, it was accounted to him for righteousness? (Without put∣ting

it upon the Rack of Tropes and Figures, and the like Engines of Cruelty, &c.

Resp. Doth Mr. Cl. pretend to be an interpreter of Scripture, and will not allow the use of a Trope or Figure, but to call them Engines of Cruelty, is to say, where a Trope is said to be used in a Scripture, there is a wresting of Scripture; I must tell him that a Tropical sence of many Places of Scripture, is the true plain and proper sence and meaning of the Spirit of God, in many most eminent Expressions, and for this he must expect to be watched in the adjusting his New-found righteousness, whether he doth no where interpret Scripture Tropically. What answer will he give the Papist in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation founded on, This is my Body? Mr. B. saith, its as credible as the Doctrine of imputation of Christs Righteousness: And what saith Mr. Cl. to the Covenant of Circumcision. Well let us make a little Impartial Examination of this Expression, If Abraham were justified by works, Rom. 4.2. he hath boasting, but not before God; not in the Presence of God for his Justification, yea he may rejoice, that through Grace he hath performed any action by faith which God witnesseth to, as James speaks of, but he dare not plead it before God for Justifi∣cation of his Person. Now he brings in Justification by Faith in diametrical opposition to it; for the Scripture saith, Abraham be∣lieved in God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness, so tran∣slated, the words in the Hebrew may run thus, He believed on Je∣hovah, and he accounted it (i. e. what he believed of him) for righ∣teousness to him, the Words are rendred by the Septuagint and the New Testament. Abraham believed God, it was accounted to be unto righteousness. The Seed promised before was the thing believed by Abraham, the blessing unto all Nations, which Seed was to pro∣ceed from his and Sarah his Wife's Loins, this was the promise of God to him, and this was accounted to him for righteousness; he believed Jehovah graciously promising, and the thing promised, Jehovah imputed to him for righteousness 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he accounted the thing believed, not the Faith it self, therefore the Targum hath its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he believed the word of promise, and the thing promised was imputed to him; in this sense the Apostle takes it, Rom. 4.3. Gal. 3.6. where in both places he opposeth a righteousness of faith, i. e. which is believed on, unto a righteousness within which is no object of faith, for it is within us, and an object of sense, he believed God in the Promise of Christ, and this that he believed was reckoned to him; he argues presently that this imputation was not to Abraham as a work of any kind, for to him that worketh (as much as if he should say, O do not mistake me, I do not, nor doth the Scripture speak of Abraham's Faith as

a work) the reward should not be of grace but debt, but to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, (as Abra∣ham was when first justified, Josh. 24.) his faith is esteemed to be unto 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. he believes upon the righteousness which is imputed to him. And why may not Faith be taken objective∣ly, by a Metonomy, for the thing believed? for 'tis not unusual in Scripture, Christ is said to be our hope, the object of our hope, 1 Tim. 1.1. and so the hope laid up for us in Heaven, i e. the things hoped for, Coloss. 1.5. so looking for that blessed hope, Tit. 2.14. the things hoped for; what's more frequent than these Metonomies, yea proper, plain and elegant; in matters of sense or perception its most frequent to put the object for the sence, and sence for the object, Matth. 6.22. the light of the body is the eye, and there the light is for the eye, and after, the eye for the light; besides, its a rule, that when a word in Scripture taken in the direct sense, will cross other Scriptures, and the significa∣tion lies fair for the Analogy of Faith, then the true sense lies in the Trope; as here, we are justified by faith, but how? as it lays hold on the justifying blood of Christ, or else we contra∣dict, Rom. 5.9. being now justified by his blood; now either Faith or the justifying Blood of Christ must fall into a Trope; for which is it fittest, and to which doth it suit best? Paul Rom. 4. argues strenuously against justification by works, and therefore, against Justification by Faith as a Work. To this kind of Justification he opposeth that of Faith, its being accounted for righteousness; if faith be understood as a work of righteosness, then the Apo∣stle contradicts himself, and maketh justification by faith to be justification by works, and so disputes vainly, making no opposi∣tion; but if in Justification by Faith the righteousness is imputed to us, and that be the drift of it, then his Argumentation hath the greatest weight, the righteousness of Faith is Christ's righteous∣ness, and the righteousness of works our righteousness inherent, wrought by us, or in us, utterly excluded from Justification.

§. 6. Mr. Cl's Second Argument, Because the Apostle fre∣quently opposeth working and believing, faith and works, Works as a perfect obedience to the Law, Faith as a sincere obedience to the Gospel.

Resp. Then the Apostle should have opposed works and works, and distinguished between Law-works and Gospel works; or when he had opposed Faith unto Works in two Epistles so largely, he should have excepted Gospel-works, or said, I do not mean Faith as a work; but to be short, for I shall not need to be long on the re∣maining Arguments: We say only, that this Argument is against Mr. Cl. because the Apostle still makes so clear an oppo∣sition

betwixt Faith and Works without any Exception.

Arg. 3. It is expresly called the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4.11, 13. chap. 9.30. chap. 10.16. by faith, Gal. 5.5. Heb. 11.5.

Resp. This affects us not, The righteousness of faith, is but as the light of the eye, the righteousness which is the object of faith, Rom. 4.11. he received the sign of circumcision, called the covenant of Circumcision by a plain Trope, not cruel at all, the seal of the righteousness of faith: Is this a Seal only that we are righteous, or is it a Seal of the righteousness of Christ promised to Abraham, v. 13. there's a positive denial that the Promise was to Abraham and his Seed through a Law, any Law, Old or New, but thro the righteousness of faith the proper and peculiar object in Justi∣fication, Rom. 9.30. the righteousness of Faith is opposed to the righteousness of Works the Jews depended on. By Faith, is but righteousness received by Faith, or waited for in faith, Gal. 5.5. we by the Spirit (i. e. its assistance) wait for the hope of righteous∣ness) (i. e. the righteousness hoped for) by faith, or from faith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, its not called the righteousness of faith there; to what purpose quoted, I know not, and Heb. 11.5. where it is said, by faith Enoch was translated, what's Enoch's Translation here to his Justification which was three hundred years before?

§. 7. Argument 4. Because Faith is a conformity to the rule of the promise (wherein the nature of righteousness doth consist) viz. the Gospel or Covenant of Grace, which requires only sincere believ∣ing, not perfect doing, Rom. 10.8.10. and therefore tho it be not righteousness in strict Justice, according to the law of nature (i. e. works) yet it is righteousness according to the favourable constructi∣on of the Gospel, i. e. God upon the account of Christ's righteousness is pleased to accept of this for righteousness, so as to account it, whence its called the righteousness of God.

Resp. The rule of the promise is an uncouth Term which I have examined elsewhere, and therefore shall not now stand upon it, only, A rule of the promise must be either by which it is made, or upon which it is performed; there's no Rule God makes any Promise by, but his own good Will and Pleasure; but its the Rule its performed by that must be a Rule in us, by which God walks, i. e. the condition of the New Law performed by us, a Law indeed hath such a Rule, but no Gospel hath; do and live, do is the Rule, and live the Promise, to be performed upon our doing; and this is these mens Gospel or Govenant of Grace, a downright Law; and where is it proved that Faith is a confor∣mity to this Rule of the Promise, or legal Condition? Rom. 10.8. there's something said of a believing the Word preached, but what's that to the Rule of the Promise, and verse 10. with the

heart man believes unto righteousness, &c. who denies Faith, if it be true to be as sincere as any other Grace, but this proves it not to be our righteousness; the words of the Text are against it, it believes unto righteousness, it goes out of it self for righteous∣ness, takes not its self for righteousness, v. 11. the object, believed on, where this righteousness is, is told v. 11 whosoever believeth on him, but these men will have believing unto righteousness, to be faith believing it self unto righteousness. VVell, when Faith hath done its do to make its self righteousness, yet it is not righte∣ousness in the sense of the law of works which is the true Rule of a Law-righteousness that God never abates in the least of) yet it is Gospel-righteousness, according to the favourable construction of the Gospel; God forbid that that should be our justifying-righteousness, which strict Justice will not allow to be righteous∣ness: Here they bring in God's dispensing with Justice, and make him a favourer of unrighteousness, in making it such for Justification; this is Antinomianism with a witness, for God to fa∣vour sin, and justifie him for that which a just Law and strict Ju∣stice condemns for unrighteousness; the righteousness of the new Law is condemn'd at the Bar of the old law; hence it can be no bet∣ter than the law of Sin and Death, and yet this unrighteous conditi∣on must be father'd on God's favourable construction, yea, on Jesus Christs Undertaking and Performance; he undertook and died for this end, that our unrighteousness should have the honour of justifying us, his was but subservient to that end; it seems God would have it so, that his Son should be made a Sacrifice to pur∣chace the imputation of our own righteousness, for righteousness unto justification, and therefore it is called the righteousness of God, why, because its ours and not Christs: Of this in another place.

§. 8. That Faith is our Gospel-righteousness appears further from Rom. 10. this being the same with the Fourth, and answered there, I need say nothing to it.

Argument 6. There are but two sorts of righteousness, Legal and Evangelical, but this is not legal righteousness, and therefore it must be Evangelical.

Resp. There is but one sort of righteousness, and that is legal, and its a legal righteousness though graciously bestowed, that we are justified by, and its impossible that it should be otherwise; its only the legal righteousness of Christ made ours, which is our Evangelical, Christ's own righteousness, as it respects the Justice of God and his Law, is Legal; as it respects a Sinner, is graci∣ously bestowed, its Evangelical. But alas, Mr. Cl. to prevent mis∣construction, after he hath bin disputing for the work of Faith to be our righteousness, yet we must not expect Mercy, Justifica∣tion,

Pardon, Reconciliation or Favour with God, upon the account of our sincerity, Faith or Obedience, as the procuring cause; but we are to look up to Christ, confessing our best works to be but filthy rags in strict justice, &c.

Resp. One may see how frail a righteousness these men have feigned to themselves; it is as the Spider's Web that they dare not lean upon it, tho they will swagger and vapour with it to out-dare them whom they call Antinomians, who will cleave im∣mediately to Christ's righteousness alone as their only righteous∣ness without the intervention of these filthy Rags; their righte∣ousness must have Christ stand behind the Curtain to patch their ragged raiment; their House cannot stand without Bellarmine's propter quod, their Pageantry is all dead Images, unless one be∣hind the Curtain move them, which no body must see; here is no Mercy, Pardon, and Reconciliation for and by their Righte∣ousness, but Christ procured something of it, I know not what, but Christ's Procurement was long ago, the Law is in their own hands now, he only procured the New Law, they must shift as well as they can to perform the Conditions; Christ did not pur∣chase those, neither died he to forgive any fault in their righte∣ousness; but oh, their righteousness comes not up to the old Law, what need they trouble themselves about that? Christ hath fetcht them from under that faulty Perfection, and brought them under a faultless unrighteousness of the Remedial Law, and faults their Righteousness must have, or else it would be an ade∣quate condition, but they must acknowledge their unworthiness, and desert of all evil, and when we have done, God looks upon us as righte∣ous in a Gospel sense. I had thought in the beginning of this Pa∣ragraph Christ had bin to have pardoned and mended the faults of our remedial righteousness; but it seems here is some pretence to it only that Christ may not think he is put off with nothing; but the compleating of these rough Garments to deceive, lies in their own doings; if we do this, God looks upon us as righteous in a Gospel-sense, and pardons us, first justified and not pardon∣ed, and then pardoned and not justified: VVhat a great matter of Lamentation is it to see the corrupt minds of men thus vain∣ly and mischievously sport themselves with the rich Grace of God, and his strict Justice.

§. 9. Before I leave this Chapter, let us talk a little further with Mr. Humph. about his great challenge, if it be as he saith, that no Man or Woman before Christ coming, did Imagine they were righteous before God, or accepted for the Obedience of Christ, it must follow that they had a hard task under the New Law, for they wanted the propter quod, and both Mr. Cl. and he

saith their righteousness wants pardon, and they must go to the id propter quod for pardon and acceptance: Now I would Query, whether if they could not imagine Christs Obedience, to be their righteousness, how could they imagine that Christs Obedience could be the procuring cause, so that they were altogether desti∣tute of the id propter quod. I would know whether the Faith of Gods Children before Christ, had no Eye unto Christ and his righteousness, in the Sacrifices and sin Offerings which they offered daily; did they not look at them as shadows and types of a better and more perfect Sacrifice, the Apostle saith that the righteousness of God (which we shall by and by shew to be the righteousness of Christ) was witnessed by the Law (i. e. the Law of Moses) and the Prophets, and if so, its strange that they should have no imagination of it, when as the Apostle Peter, 1 Ep. c. 1.10. Saith, the Prophets have Enquired after and searched diligently for this Salvation prophesied of, Searching what and what manner of times the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signifie, when it testified before hand the sufferings of Christ and the glory which should follow: The Apostle Peter was clear in this Point, Acts 2.31 He saith that David foresaw the Resurrection of Christ, and spake of it, and Christ himself affirms this after his Resurrection to the two Disciples going to Immaus, that he ought thus to suffer and en∣ter into Glory, beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, he expound∣ed unto them in all the Scripture, the things concerning himself? Now if Moses and all the Prophets, yea all the Scriptures should so emi∣nently and expresly foretel Christs sufferings and resurrection, and why it was? viz. to bear Sin and satisfie Gods justice, as the Pro∣phet Isa. c. 53. and David, and Jer. and all the Sacrifices of old, and his Redemption was also for them, to the transgressions under the first Testament, Heb. 9.15. It is strange that none of them from Adam to Christ, should in the least imagine their acceptance with God should be for his righteousness, but that they should look for Justification by their own righteousness only, and none others.

§. 10. Mr. Cl. in the conclusion of his Book, undertakes to dis∣prove the Imputation of the Active righteousness of Christ, when as all a long his Book he holds that Christ's righteousness Active or Passive, is not imputed but as to Effects; now he can mean nothing by the non-imputation of Either, but as to Effects: So that he must intend by the non-imputation of Christs active Obe∣dience, of the Effect, and then either it had no effects or no ef∣fects, pro bono nostro; now sure if I mistake not, he grants that whatever Christ was, it was for our good, and therefore have some benefit by it, and God reckons it a benefit, for that's their

Imputation when we have a benefit, God reckons it so, i. e. Im∣putes it to be what it is; surely if Christ active Obedience, did but fit him to redeem us by passive, it was a benefit to us: His Incarnation was it not a benefit? In their way of Imputation they may say, [after Mr. B.] because he did not obey, that we should not obey.

Resp. Neither did he suffer, that we should not suffer; but Christ suffered that we might not suffer penally, and obey that we might not obey legally; and its strange that the second Adam should have actual righteousness for us, as well as the first had actual sin; that all should not be repaired as to the preceptive, as well as the vindicative part of the Law, which was fallen upon us in the first Adam, by the second Adam. Why was he made under the Law? Was it not for active as well as passive Obedience.

CHAP. XI. Of Iustification by Works.

Section 1. The Neonomian Doctrine opposed. §. 2. Who it is God justifies. §. 3. More fully Answer'd. §. 4. Arguments against Justification by Works. §. 5. Mr. Cl's Proposition. §. 6. Of the Jews Opini∣on about Justification. §. 7. Whether Paul means only Works of Moses's Law. §. 8. Whether Paul disputes only against some Works. §. 9. Mr. Cl's Denial and Challenge. §. 10. What Law the Apostle means. §. 11. How the Jews looked upon the Law. §. 12. Of the Law of Faith. §. 13. What Deeds of the Law. §. 14. What Works to be boasted of. §. 15. Of meritorious Works. §. 16. Of justifying Works. §. 17. Of the Jews Conceit of Perfect Obedience. §. 18. 1 Cor. 4.4. considered. §. 19. Mr. Cl. unfair in his Challenge. §. 20. Of Rom. 4.5. §. 21. Of Rom. 2.20.

Sect. 1. OUR Neonomians affirm we are justified by works, not of the Old Law (which the Apostle Paul every were excludes) but of the New Law, this is that which we op∣pose, and say the Apostle doth exclude all our works, even in the state of Regeneracy, from Justification, and in this Point we shall take Mr. Cl. because he seems to be most full in the handling of it, and take up that Mr. H. saith, in a more scattered manner here and there.

§. 2. Chap. 10. He tells us who it is that God Justifies, not ungodly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to Rom. 4.5. No saith Mr. Cl. the Spi∣rit of God means the godly, and he brings against the position of the Spirit of God in this place, that of Exod. 23.7. Where the LXX useth the same words.

Resp. To which I shall answer, 1. That Mr. Cl. knows the LXX doth not translate the words according to the Heb. Text; but ra∣ther

speaks to the drift of the Text, which is to enjoyn unto Men an impartial Execution of distributive Justice, and therefore it renders it, Thou shalt not justifie the wicked for a reward; and that is the plain Drift of the Text by what precedes, v. 6. Thou shalt not wrest judgment, and thou shalt take no gift, v. 8. and the Hebrew in the 7th verse is, I will not justifie, i. e. will not have thee to justifie, for thou art but my Deputy, and I sit in the Assemblies and Courts of Earthly Judges, and whatever Judgment contrary to Justice and Right thou passest, I will call thee to an account for it. Then 1. This Text speaks of Man's Judgment, not of God's immediately, but as supervising the acti∣ons of men. 2. He might as well, or better alledged Exod. 34.7. where God proclaiming himself a sin-pardoning God, saith, he will by no means clear the guilty; but in pardon of sin God doth clear the guilty, and so the ungodly, in Justification of them by the imputed righteousness of Christ which takes off the ungodliness in that kind, tho man cannot provide for the Justification of an unrighteous person by gifts or partiality in a way of Justice, yet God can by gracious and just ways and means provide for the acquitting the guilty, and justifying the ungodly justly. 2. It must be understood, Rom. 4. according to the words in a strict sence, God justifies the ungodly, while such, not to remain such. For Abraham there spoken of, was such an ungodly vile Idolater, Josh. 24. Had Abraham performed any New-Law righteousness before he came out of Ʋr? Mr. C. will understand it, he saith, in a strict Law sence, i. e. that he was a transgressor of the law of works, so will I, and that's therefore to be ungodly, and I know no ungodliness but such, and while he was such God justified him, and he did no New-Law works before he was justified, for Heb. 11.8. for by faith, when he was called of God to go forth he went; so that he had faith, and was justified before he obey'd the Call. 3. Its most consistent with the Grace of God to justifie the un∣godly, and not in the least derogatory from his Justice to justifie a sinner in Gods way of Justification 4. As God justifies none to be ungodly, nor justifies ungodliness, but that sinners may be godly; so there's none can be godly before he is justified, he can∣not perform one godly Act, nor have the Spirit, the natural Man being a stranger to God and Enemy to him. 5. Why may not God justifie the ungodly, as well as sanctifie the ungodly, if God may give one gift to the rebellious, why not another? if he may give Grace, why not all Grace? they will have Men justified by works; who works in them to will or do? Who gives them this righteousness? Doth not this gift of God find them ungodly? They will say, yea undoubtedly, then I will say, why may not God give

Christ, to an ungodly one the gift of righteousness, and justifie him thereby, I hope if God can give one righteousness, he can give another, unless they will limit his Sovereign Grace.

§. 3.1. But more fully: And first Negatively, not by the Law, Gal. 2.16. viz. the Law of Moses; and why so? is there any the least word of the Law of Moses, its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the works of a law, any law; when the Apostle speaks of Moses's law, he annexeth the pre-positive Article, So Rom. 3.20. its a law, from the works of a law no flesh living can be justified; now this is not the Ceremonial Law, by v. 19. but that law whereby all the world became guilty, Jews and Gentiles, v. 9, &c. for the Gentiles were not guilty by Moses Law, neither could the works of the New Law admit of an exception here; for its any law that gives the knowledge of sin. Now if the New Law gives the knowledge of sin, the works of it are here excluded, for that is no law that gives no knowledge of sin. Hence all works of all Laws are here excluded, i. e. such as the righteousness thereof required is our obedience performed by us; whence its plain, that the Law of VVorks, the Ceremonial Law, and the New Law are equally excluded. Now the next Verse hath it, that the righteousness of God is manifested without these excluded works, this is no new Notion, but witnessed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the law, i. e. of Moses and the Prophets. VVhat Gal. 3.16. is brought in for I know not, I find it not among the Errata's, but I think it must be one, Hitherto also do belong these places, Job 15.14. chap. 25.4. Psalm 143.2. which Places plainly and peremptorily deny righteousness in Man to be found unto Justification; Mr. Cl. says, according to strict Justice, according to the law of works, as Paul expounds it, Gal. 2.16.

Resp. The Apostle there doth peremptorily protest against Ju∣stification by the works of a Law, any Law whatever; and if he hath an eye upon the Psalmists words, he explains them so far as to us, why the Psalmist denies Justification to any man living, is, because all works that Man can perform, must be referred to some law, by the works of a law no flesh living could be justified. Let me add what the Apostle saith, If righteousness be by a law, then Christ died in vain: Its strange the Apostle should so ex∣presly and positively exclude the works of a Law from Justifica∣tion, and yet all this while intend that we are justified by the works of a Law, and that he should never tell us, he doth not mean works of the New Law, nor so much as mention it.

§. 4. From the forementioned places, these Arguments will arise against Justification by our works. 1. Justification of a sin∣ner or ungodly one as such, cannot be by any works of a Law,

performed by him, but Gods Justification of any fallen Man is such, for the Major its plain, against Neonomian Justification, unless they will say, that a natural Man may be godly while such, or that which the old law calls ungodliness, the new law calls god∣liness; yea, a man must be sanctified in their sense, before justified, while under condemnation, and bound over to wrath. Again, the Text is clear, that Abraham was ungodly when justified, both by History and the Apostles, for he could not do any good, and all his obedience was after his Justification by Faith. Now the Mi∣nor is as Evident, that Gods Justification of fallen Man is such, for if we be justified by the works of a Law, its not consistent with Grace; for justification singly considered, speaks nothing but Ju∣stice: And Justification by the works of a Law performed by us, speaks nothing but Justice; but Justification by Grace, is only as the Apostle saith, when its without the deeds of the Law per∣formed by us.

2. That Doctrine that excludes the works of every Law, by which is the knowledge of Sin, excludes the works of every Law performed by us; but the Apostles Doctrine excludes the works of every Law that gives the knowledge of Sin. Ergo the works of every Law, Old, New, and Moral Law, are excluded. This Argument stands firm from Rom. 3.20.

3. If the holiest Men have not expected to be justified by their own righteousness, who have lived by Faith, then justification is not by works of a Law: But the Antecedent is true, therefore the consequence. The consequence appears, in that David had lived long by Faith, and in Holiness, when he penned, Psal. 143.2. And if he thought to be justified by New Law works, he need not have said, Enter not into Judgment with thy Servant, unless he had added, by the Old Law, but, Enter into Judgment with thy Servant by the New Law, for in thy sight, New-Law works will justifie any Flesh, Minor, David, Job, Paul expected not to be justified by New Law Works.

4. Those works that will not make a sinner clean and pure in the sight of God, cannot justifie him; but no New Law righte∣ousness, will take away Moral Pollution in the sight of God, so as to make him clean. Ergo, the Major is so clear as none can deny, for by Justification, the justified is purged and clean from Sin in the sight of God; he can Enter into Judgment with God, upon the account of the righteousness he is justified by. The Minor is true, 1. From the confession of our Adversary, that its a sinful righteousness, its condemned by the Moral Law, its not adequate to exact Justice, therefore it will not cover Sin from the Eve of Gods Justice. 2. From so many express Places of Scrip∣ture,

Job. 15.4. He that is righteous before God, must be clean before God. Imperfect righteousness, can never make us clean in the sight of God, Job. 15.4. Its not to be found of man born of a Woman, i. e. meer man, nor in any flesh living, Believers are flesh living, and born of women; Job saith chap. 9.30. If I wash my self in snow water, and make my self never so clean, yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch, and mine own cloaths shall abhor me; now will Job's new-law-works justifie him; he had been long a holy man, yet he often pleaded his uprightness towards God, and his integrity against his friends charge, and yet you see what his new-law-righteousness amounted to, chap. 40.4. & 42 6.

5. Let me add a Fifth Argument before I leave his Negative: If there was never any Law given to fallen Man that could give Life upon the Terms thereof, then there could be no righteous∣ness to Justification by a Law; but the antecedent is true, there∣fore the consequent, and both from Gal. 3.1. the Apostle's un∣answerable Argument against Justification by any Law. The words are very plain and full to any one that can construe Greek.

§. 5. He proceeds to his further Proof, in divers Propositi∣ons, which are many, so little to the purpose, that it would be lost time to follow them particularly, but that there's in them ma∣ny places of Scripture perverted from their true Interpretation.

His first Proposal is, The whole scope of the Apostle is to assert and establish Justification by faith, as the only way of Salvation to lapsed men.

Resp. What if so? Doth it therefore follow that the Apostle teacheth, that Faith is the way of Justification by Works? or quite contrary, that Justification by Faith is not by the works of righteousness which we have done, but by these that Christ hath done? This I gather, saith he, from that place Rom. 1.17. The righteous∣ness of God is revealed from faith to faith, which words I paraphrase thus, That the Gospel alone discovers the method and way appointed by God, whereby we may become righteous in his account, viz. by faith in Christ, and by continuance, increase and exercise thereof.

Resp. Its the Office of the Gospel, to teach Sinners the way, the truth and life, who is Christ; there's no other righteousness that the Gospel can teach a sinner to Justification, John 14.6. and that Faith lays hold on that way, is the Gospel; to teach a man that he is to be justified by the works of a law, is it Good News to a sinner? That this Text is grosly abused, appears,

1. Because the righteousness of God here spoken of, is a righteous∣ness revealed, and therefore not in us; for things already in us, are not said to be revealed to us.

2. Its the righteousness of God, and not of Man.

3. Its an objective righteousness that is here spoken of, such as is made known to our Faith by Revelation, therefore not Faith it self.

4. It appears by the Proof, in that the life of a just one is by faith feeding upon another's righteousness, not his own. In a word, according to Mr. Cl's sence, it should be this, The Gospel is the Method of God unto Salvation, for therein is the righte∣ousness of man revealed from faith to faith, viz. the more a man believes in Christ, the more he believes he is justified by his own works, and this is that he lives by, he lives by faith, i. e. by be∣lieving his faith to be works.

He disproves Justification by works of a law as inconsistent therewith, because all are sinners, and therefore none can be justified by their works, and on the other hand, that they must be justified by faith.

Resp. One would think this man spake now good Divinity, but his meaning is, only that Justification of a sinner by the works of the old law, is inconsistent, but not Justification by the works of a new law; whereas the design of the Apostle throughout is to dis∣prove the Justification of a sinner by the works of a law, any law; he specifies not any one law in particular, unless where he led to it, but when he opposeth Works to Faith in Justification, he speaks of law indefinitely excluding all works of any law whatever, signified to us, Gal. 3.2. If there had been any law given, whereby life is given, then righteousness had been by a law, but there was no such law given.

§. 6. The Apostle insists largely on this Dispute against Justificati∣on by works, because it was a received Opinion among the Jews, that a man might be justified by the works of the law, and it was retained by many of them, even after they were converted to the faith of Christ, as appears. Acts 21.20.

Resp. The Apostle insisted largely and strenuously on this Dis∣pute, in making and proving the direct opposition between Justi∣fication by the works of any law performed by us, and Justifica∣tion by faith in the righteousness of another, 1. Because the Jews were generally bigotted to a righteousness of some law to be per∣formed by them for Justification. 2. Because they were generally ignorant of the righteousness of Christ, which made them go about to establish their own righteousness in Point of Justification. 3. What he writes to the converted Jews, he doth, 1. In order to convince them of the danger of joining their own righteous∣ness in obedience to any law in Justification, with the righteous∣ness of Christ, and this was the danger of the Galatians. 2. He warns them of the vanity of the continuance of the works of Mo∣ses's

law in order to Salvation. Now Mr. Cl. brings the words of James to Paul, Acts 21.20. to prove that the converted Jews sought Justification by the works of the Law of works: To which I answer.

1. That the unconverted Jews did none of them expect Justi∣fication by the works of the law of works, for 1. They did not look upon their works as perfect works (though they took the ex∣ternal obedience to be what the law mainly looked for which Christ refutes) for they owned that their external works were mixed with much imperfection and sin. Else 2dly. They could not own the Doctrine of Sacrifices for sin, wherein they saw the sinfulness of their works, and were convinced at least thereof, whether they saw by faith the Antitype signified by them or no, and therefore could stand upon their works in themselves perfect, in answer to the righteousness of that law, but the Justification by works which they looked for, was by an imperfect righteous∣ness (as the Neonomians do) in obedience to the law of Moses, which they made their new law, as the Neonomians do the Gospel, and therefore the Apostle saith, that they sought it as it were by the works of the law, it was Justification by works in their sence, the Apostle preacheth accordingly against works, as taken by them∣selves, Rom. 9.

Ans. 2. As for the converted Jews, spoken of, Acts 21. they where for the observations of some things in the Obedience of Moses his Law, as necessary means of Salvation, not abolish'd by Christs coming in the Flesh; and as the Apostles did not press harder upon them in that Point, than only to leave them under an indifferency of using them or not, provided they laid not the stress of their Justification thereon, as appears by Acts 15. So here the charge against Paul, which the Apostle James would have him clear himself of, was, that he contradicted the Apostles at Jerusalem in permitting the use of some Jewish Ceremonies as indifferent for the present, by reason of the Jews weakness, thou teachest the Gentiles to forsake Moses: Now he shewed by his complying with James, that whatever he taught the Gentiles, yet he was not against complying with the Jews, so far as to use yet some of Moses his appointment, provided they made not such Actions of theirs the righteousness of Justification, therefore tells the Galatians running on that Point, that if they were circumcis∣ed, Christ could profit them nothing. Now this is clearly the Point he withstands Peter in, and opposeth the Galatians, in that he made his Saviour a Transgressor by his practice in judaizing contrary to the Doctrine he had preached in Justification, by Christs righteousness alone: As for the others, they brought in

another Gospel, not one, whatever they called it. Hence the complaint against some believing Pharisees, Acts 15.5. was that they taught the necessity of keeping Moses's Law unto full justifi∣cation, the conjoining our righteousness with his, or that his righ∣teousness meritted ours; and therefore they were to observe Mo∣ses his Law as their own righteousness (the New Law with them) this Doctrine Peter opposeth in his speech unto ver. 11. to which James agrees, and proposeth an expedient, ver. 19, 20. so that what the Pharisees attempted at Antioch, and what the Galatians were seduced to, was only the necessity of the works of a New Law, as a sole or social righteousness with Christs for Justification, Pro. 9.3.

§. 7. When he disputes against Justification by Works, he means only the Works of the Law.

Resp. He should have told us what Law the Apostles means, Moral, or Ceremonial, or New Law; or whether works of any Law whatever, which we confidently affirm, and if he make Gos∣pel works, Law works, he disputes against them. And this pro∣position of his, he is large in proving with little Proof. 1 It appears, he saith, by the Apostles, wary, close and restrictive way of speaking, Rom. 3.20. The restrictiveness of that place, we have spoken to; and shewed the place is positively against all works of any Law. Again, we have shewed that Gal. 2.20. Is an absolute exclusion of the works of a Law, any Law, for as Mr. C. observes che works of a Law, are three times excluded; we shall not actum agere as near as may be. Gal. 3. The design of the Apostle in that Chapter, is to shew, 1. That a believer of the Gentiles is blessed, i. e. Justified by Faith with faithful Abraham, ver. 9. to prove this, he argues thus; either by Faith, or by Works, not by works of a Law, any Law, for (saith he) he that is a sinner, and under a Law for Justification, is under a Curse, nor cannot come from under it by the works of it: And that you may take an instance of the Voice of any Law, take that of Moses, ver. 10. cursed is every one that abideth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them, i. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Moses his Law. Because by a Law, any Law, no flesh living is justified with God, or before God, manifest, because the just shall live by faith, and shall draw the first breath of the life of Justification by faith, and live that life al∣ways by it, which is not to get life by our own works, but living by and upon the righteousness of another by faith, and thus he ar∣gues from Moses's Law to every Law, that works of neither cannot justifie; and when he speaks of Moses his law, he seldom understands the meer Ceremonial Law, but the Moral also, as re∣cognized under Moses, and that of Gal. 5.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

ye are abdicated from Christ whoever of you are justified by the works of a law; in Mr. Cl's. sence it is whoever of you are justified by the works of some law only; so Paul opposeth Christ himself to the works that are of a Law, Phil. 3.9. His own righteousness, he saith, is such, viz. this he desires to be found out of, but in Christ, viz. his righteousness by Faith, which he opposeth to his own, as that which he calls the righteousness of God, in opposition to the righteousness of Man. He saith indeed in one place, Works are men∣tioned in general, Rom. 4.2. Its true, but he takes not Notice how often Law is mentioned in general, and so the works of a Law are general where-ever spoken so of. But he saith, these words must be understood with a limitation too, and be meant of the same kind of works.

Resp. And therefore the words import thus, if Abraham were justified by some kind of works he hath wherein to Glory, but why should some kind of works give Abraham more cause of boasting than others? He will say, because some are great and perfect, others little and imperfect, but I say there's no specifick difference between great and little of the same kind; besides he that attains a great End by a small work, hath more cause of boasting than he that attains it by great work and Labour; therefore a Man may rather boast of the works of the New Law, than of the Old, and then they are all works opposed by him to Faith, for he saith, the reward is to him that worketh, not that that Expression excludes all works, for Paul could not be so absurd to express works by not working.

§. 8. If Paul understood himself, &c. We must grant and conclude that Paul disputes only against the works of the Law.

Resp. No doubt he knew his own Mind, and was consistent with himself, and if such plain Expressions are intelligible, he excludes all works of any Law what ever, but he gives his rea∣son why he means we are justified by works, when he saith posi∣tively, we are not justified by works, and that, he that worketh not, but is ungodly. Because they were such works as did frustrate and evacuate the undertakings of Christ, Rom. 4.14. Gal. 5.4.

Resp. So do all works of a Law brought in for righteousness, for if the great End of Christ's undertaking, was to be our Justi∣fying-righteousness, then any works brought into the room there∣of frustrate Christ's righteousness, but that was the chief End of Christ's undertaking, Rom. 4.25, 2 Cor. 5.21. The words of Rom. 4.14. are, if they that be of a Law be Heirs, i. e. such as claim by the works of a Law performed by them, Faith is made Void, i. e. its to no purpose to believe on another for righteous∣ness, Faith is made empty of the righteousness of another, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

and the Promise or Gospel is abdicated, for the same thing cannot be Law and Promise, or Gospel, and the reason is given, because you see the law of Moses worketh wrath, and where there's no law there's no transgression, the law determines the transgres∣sion, and the sinner to wrath for it, and this doth every law whatever. The other Scriptures were spoken to before.

2d Reason, They are such works as he opposeth every way to faith, and also to Grace, Gal. 4.4. therefore they are not faith, or any in∣herent grace, Gal. 5.4. But he never opposeth faith and Gospel-Works.

Resp. He always opposeth Faith and all Works, in the Point of Justification, because Works justifie by themselves, but Faith by its Object only.

Because Gospel-works suppose Faith, or Grace, being the fruit of Faith, and product of Grace.

Resp. A pitiful Reason, because a man that runs apace is sup∣posed to see, therefore a man runs by his eyes, and after this manner he applies, 1 Cor. 15.10. by the Grace of God I am what I am— and laboured more abundantly than they all; ergo, Paul was justified by works, is not this a very learned consequence?

I grant, saith he, faith and works of the law are frequently opposed by the Apostle.

Resp. Then faith and works of a law are not the same, in this he gives us the Cause. Let us see his Concessions further:

I grant, saith he, a meer profession of faith is opposed to works, James 2.14.

Resp. True Faith, fruitful in good works, is opposed to false faith that has no fruits.

3. I grant that even Gospel-works are opposed to Grace, (tho not to faith) both in Election, Rom. 11.5, 6. and in Vocation, 2 Tim. 1.9.

Resp. Works of a law, by which a man claims Justification, are not Gospel-works, but Legal, and they are opposed to Grace, both in Election, Vocation and Justification; but as Election is not on the foresight of any works or righteousness, no not of Christ's, and Vocation is not upon our performance of any works, no more is Justification.

I grant, God chooseth not upon foresight of good works, or faith in us, neither call any because they have faith or good works, but that they may have them, his Grace is antecedent to any good in us; but now the case is otherwise in reference to those priviledges which follow Vo∣cation, for God justifies and glorifies us, yet not as the meritorious cause thereof, but only as a way, means and qualification, &c.

Resp. Well now the Case is altered, Grace goes no further than

Vocation, there it makes a stand, and man does the rest himself; but let us enquire a little into this Mystery: Is a man effectually called and made holy, and yet not justified? for he that is made holy in order to Justification, suppose qualified and conditionated for it, is in order of Nature, holy before justified, i. e. hath the Spirit of Holiness, the Gift of Grace, and inherent righteousness, whilst a child of wrath, and actually under the curse of the law. 2. All Justification for Holiness, because it is the work of a law, is meritorious righteousness; for there's no law justifies but be∣cause the performance of the condition deserves it in Justice. Hence all Qualifications and Means made legally, conditionally to the remunerative part of the Law are deserving thereof, and me∣ritorious, and undeniably so; for if the absence of the Qualifi∣cation and the Means, or Non-performance of the Condition, doth merit or deserve the Wages of the Sin from the Law, en∣joyning the said Qualifications or Conditions, then having, and performance thereof, doth upon the same Reason merit and de∣serve the Reward of Righteousness; but the Antecedent is true, therefore the Consequent.

§. 9. He proceeds with Confidence. 2dly. I do absolutely de∣ny, that a true, Gospel justifying Faith, and Gospel-Works, are ever opposed to one another, and do confidently affirm the contrary, because I have examined all Places where Faith and Works are mentioned, and do not find them, if any affirm, let him prove it.

R. Mr. Cl's Confidence is no Proof, and his searching the Scriptures, and not finding so plain a Truth, as that Justification by Faith, is opposed to Justification by Works; argues, but judi∣cial blindness, whereby God hath hardned his Heart, and blinded his Eyes.

1. As was said before all Gospel-works (as he calls his New Law Works) brought into Justification by a Law are legal not Gospel, not accepted of God but leaves a Man under a Curse.

2. Those that are Gospel-works are Fruits of the Spirit, thro' the Gift of Grace, and Fruits of Faith, as they are Fruits of Christ's Righteousness, believed in to Justification; and no cause of Justification in the least, neither doth the Believer claim Justi∣fication thereby, and hence called Gospel-Works; but if he claim Justification by them, they are Works and opposed to Faith, but loose the Name of Gospel, are Legal, dross and dung, and stink in the Nostrils of God, neither are any such Works the gracious Gifts of the Spirit, or true Faith or the good Fruit of it. For such seek Righteousness as it were, by the Works of the Law, and ob∣tain it not.

3. Now whereas Mr. Cl. here throws down his Gantlet in an

Ambiguous manner, we take it up in the true State of the Diffe∣rence, and confidently affirm, that Justification by Faith is po∣sitively opposed by the Apostle Paul to Justification by any Works of a Law whatever performed by us, the proving of which is the drift of this whole Dispute as now managed.

4. He saith, there was no Coutroversie about any other Works, but the Works of the Law.

Resp. There was no Controversie about any Works, but the Works of a Law, no more is there now, Gal. 5.4. The Apostle saith, They are abdicated from Christ, and fallen from Grace, that are justified by a Law; so say we.

§. 10. Proposition 4. This Law was the whole Body of the Mosa∣ical Law, consisting of precepts Moral, Ceremonial, and Judicial; what he saith, under this proposition, about the acceptation of the term Law, I think will not hold all of it with his other Doctrine, for he saith its taken. 1. For any written Declaration or Revelation of the Will of God concerning our Duty. 2. Its frequently taken for the Moral Law, as Rom. 7.12. and Ch. 3.31. Mat. 5.17. Luke 16.17. 3. Its used Indefinitely, for the whole Body of the Law given to Moses, and therefore he mentions it in such general Terms.

R. Because Law is used in so many Senses in Scripture, and those that would introduce Justification by Works are apt to slip from one Law to another, and say, as Mr. Cl. doth, that though the Apostle deny Justification by one Law, yet he intends Justificati∣on by Works of another Law; therefore the Apostle excludes our Works of any Law whatever, as frequently in his Epistles as hath been shewed, so in that express and plain Place, Gal. 3.21. If there had been a Law given which could have given Life, verily Righ∣teousness should have been by the Law? And why is it spoken? It's spoken as a Reason, that the Law of Moses, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was not against the Promise; i. e. against Justification by the Promise and Gift of Righteousness, no, the Law of Moses taken together was so far from being against this way of Justification without the Works of a Law, that it witnessed to it, as the Apostle expres∣ly speaks, Rom. 3.21. It did not appropriate the Grace of the Pro∣mise to it self, but by the whole Tenor of it witnessed to the Pro∣mise and Righteousness. The Law of Moses taken as a Law, did justifie none, Gal. 3.11. For saith the Apostle, the Law (i. e. as such) is not of Faith, ver. 12. The Condition of it being Works, and therefore Justification by the Law is not Justification by Faith, the Apostle saying further, ver. 18. If the Inheritance be of a Law, than no more of Promise. ver. 19. For what end served the Law given by Moses? Answ. It was added, because of Transgression, till the Seed should come to whom the Promise

was made, i. e. Christ, but why? added for two Ends. 1. That Sin might be distinctly known by the Moral Part, as the Apostle by the Knowledge of Sin. 2. That by the Ceremonial Law there might be a Typical Redemption and Satisfaction held forth unto them, through which they might have a sight of Faith, and of the true Sacrifice held forth unto them.

§. 11. Proposition 5. The Law was looked upon by the Car∣nal Jews as a Covenant of Werks, Mat. 19.16. Granting that it was; yet not to be fulfill'd by a perfect Obedience, but by imper∣fect, as appears by his Words, What good thing shall I do that I may inherit Eternal Life? As much as to say, I have done Good and Evil, I would know what that good thing is whereby I may be righteous to Life Eternal. He depreciates the Law calling it a Mi∣nistration of Death and Condemnation, 2 Cor. 3.7, 9. It was the true Sense of the Apostle, that the Law of Moses or any other Commands of God, understood used, and applied as a Law for Justification by the Works of it, is a Ministration of Death, and not of Faith, and as a Ceremonial Law, which Heb. 6.19. is made nothing and by it self perfect, it being Typical, and the Type absolutely considered, could not purifie them as to Consci∣ence. The Apostle saith, it was weak through our weakness, Rom. 8.3. We being not able to come to the Terms of this, nor of any other; and Rom. 6.14. saith we, i. e. Believers are not under a Law, but under Grace for Justification, as much as to say, you take the Doctrine of Grace to be a licentious Doctrine but believe it, its the legal Doctrine that leads to Sin, not the Doctrine of Grace; besides the Apostle shews plainly, that to look for Ju∣stification by the Law of Moses, or of any other is to be Married to it, which he shews Rom. 7. is quite contrary to our Marriage to Christ, by Faith, while we are in expectation of Justification by a Law, we are held in Bondage, but being by the true Sence of the Nature of it Dead to it, it becomes Dead to us; Now we are delivered from the Law, that being Dead wherein we were held, and there's no other Husband comes in the room of the Dead Law, no new Law, but Christ only. And the Opposi∣tion (saith Mr. Cl.) is only between the Law of Works and the Law of Faith, if he make the Law of Faith to be a Law of Works then its no Opposition at all, because both are a Law of Works; and why I pray is Justification by Faith, Justification by Works, doth the Apostle speak any where of a new Law or the Works of it? No he speaks of the Law of Faith. Let us see then what is in that Expression, Rom. 3.27, 28.

§. 12. The Apostle having told us, how we are Justified freely by Grace, who are Sinners in all respects, ver. 24, 25, 26. Infers,

elegantly where is boasting then? i. e. Of our own Righteous∣ness, saith its shut quite out a Doors. By what Law? doth any Law shut out boasting? No saith the Apostle, doth not Works? Nay, they cause boasting what Law then? Such a Law, if you will have a Law, as the Nature of Faith, its in the very Nature of Faith to shut out Works; therefore we conclude, that we are justified by Faith without the Works of a Law; is not Ju∣stification by Faith and Works here plainly opposed? Now that Law is taken for the Nature of a Thing, many Instances might be given, but for the present take Rom. 7.23. so Rom. 8.2. The Law, is the Nature of the Spirit of Life that is in Christ. Let us see what Sense it will be in the Neonomian Interpretation, where is boasting then? it is excluded, by what Law? Works, i. e. the Old Law of Works, nay; but by the Works of the New Law Work, excludes boasting of Works, boasting is excluded not by the Law of Works, but by the Law of Works; therefore we con∣clude, that a Man is justified by Works without Works, not by some, but by other Works.

§. 13. Proposition 6. The Works or Deeds of this Law are such as are performed by our own Strength in Obedience thereto, such as Adam had in the State of Innocency, hence called their own Righteous∣ness, Rom. 10.3.

R. I enquire whether giving Strength and Power to perform Works hinders them from being Works of the Law, or would it have hindred Adams had he stood, and I marvel that any Man will say, that Adam in innocency had not Strength given him by God, but whether he had or had not, it makes nothing to the Point in Hand, which is the Consideration of the Respect or Rela∣tion that Works have to the Law, which enquire not how a Man came by his Money, but whether it be Good and Current, Rom. 10.3. is falsly explained, as we shall shew anon; neither doth the Spirit of God savingly strengthen us to the performance of any Works of our own for Justification, and such as any Man claims by, are not Gospel-Obedience nor performed by the Spirit.

§. 14. Proposition 7. They were such Works as did admit of boasting, Rom. 3.27. Eph. 2.9. Rom. 4.2. For what we do of our selves without the help of another we may boast of?

R. Can it be supposed that any understanding Jews or Gentile, do think they can do good upon a meer natural or moral Consi∣deration without Help and Strength from God. 2. How shall Men know they have supernatural Assistance, its certain they have it not graciously, when they aim by their Duties to set up them∣selves for justifying Righteousness. 3. The boasting spoken of in the Places mentioned, is glorying before God sitting on a Throne

of Justice dispensing it by a Law, now that Person that doth come with his own Righteousness in his own Hand, and will say here are my Works, Faith, Obedience, Repentance, Sincerity perform∣ed by me, justifie me for them, or by them, this is the glorying the Apostle excludes, and Faith always excludes, and the Apo∣stle saith, Gods giving the Reward upon these Terms is paying of a Debt, and not of Grace, for whatever is demandable upon our own Performances in a way of Justice is not of Grace. The Apostle to Eph. 2. speaks v. 7. of God shewing forth the Riches of his Grace in Justification (as appears by foregoing Context) of vile miserable Sinners, and saith, its in his kindness to us thro' Christ, and then v. 8. gives the Reason, For by Grace are we sa∣ved (Justification being an eminent part of Salvation) through Faith (receiving that Justification and Salvation) now least any one should call this Faith, Works, as the Neonomians do, he posi∣tively excludes all Works, and not of Works, not through Faith as a Work, and least any one should say, he is beholding only to himself for his Faith; he tells us, its a Gift of God, and its a Gift of Sanctification not of Justification as appears by the Text, that's only the Object of Faith, the Righteousness of Christ.

§. 15. Proposition 8. These Works [viz. of the Old Law] are meritorious, implied in that Description, Rom. 10.5.

Resp. The Description the Apostle gives there of Legal Works is such as belongs to all Law-works, for there's no Law that en∣joins personal Obedience for the Condition, let it be more or less, but it makes the said Obedience meritorious, and the promised Reward a Debt, Rom. 4.4. and this Merit belongs not only to the Law of Works at first, but to all Works of any Law for Justification, these are the Works a Man may boast of, tho' he receive them as Gift from another, for if a Man gives the Grace of God in Works, in payment to the Law of God, he paies God you will say in his own Coyn, but yet his presenting them to God for Justification, in Satisfaction to a Law, is high abuse of the Grace of God perverting to an end that God never intended. The Law of Faith, which he tells of was never intended to be a Law of Works, for the Apostle useth it in Opposition to Works, and to prevent the Mistake these Men are run upon, viz. that they should understand the Work of Faith to be meant by him, where he saith, it is of Faith that it may be of Grace, because Faith ascribes nothing to it self as fulfilling to any Law, it is said by the Law of Faith, either according to the nature of true Faith, as hath been said, or else according to the Ordination of God, that we should be justified by Faith without Works, Gods Ordi∣nation of thing as to the End, and Means, doth not always make

it a Law of Sanction, God hath ordained to give Faith, to give the Spirit, to give the Relation of Children. Doth God give them in a Law, Do this and live?

§. 16. Proposition 9. These Works are perfect and unsinning Works.

Resp. This is a great Mistake, that God hath brought in sin∣ning VVorks for Justification, instead of perfect VVorks. 1. God never made a Law where sinning VVorks, were the Condition of the Law, this would be contrary to his Holiness and Justice. But if God makes a Law wherein he saith do and live, let the doing be more or less, perfect or imperfect, yet a Man doing the thing commanded, his VVork is rewarded as meritorious, and its per∣fect as to the Law, that it is to be righteous in the Sence of the Law, and to be meritorious. He that performs the Condition of a Law, and he never sins at all in the Eye of the Law, therefore all justifying Righteousness in any Law is unsinning, therefore this Plea will serve no more for Ejection of the VVorks of the Old Law, than for the Ejection of the VVorks of the New Law out of Justification. Hence we see the pretence of casting out the VVorks of the Old Law is frivolous and vain, because they are performed by our Strength, which none can pretend to, no not Adam in Innocency, or because they introduce boasting when the VVorks of any Law do, when Justification is pleaded for thereby, they are meritorious, when the VVorks of any Law are so, or they are unsinning and perfect, when the VVorks, of any Law must be so, or else it justifies not.

§. 17. Prop. 10. The Jews many of them did Conceit and Fancy that they could yield perfect Obedience to this Law so as to need no Pardon. This he would prove from, Luke 16.15. and Luke 18.9.

Resp. It is not to be granted, that a People that offered so ma∣ny Sacrifices for Sin, should think they could yield perfect Obe∣dience to the Law of God. That of Luke 16. proves not his As∣sertion, for Christ speaks only of the Justification before Men by their external Actions, and he shews that neither their external nor internal would justifie them before God, and besides, he tells them that which Men account Righteousness, God looks upon as an Abomination. Nor that Chap. 18.9. for he there condemns, plainly looking for Justification by Mens own Righteousness, and trusting to it. VVhat doth a Neonomian do less then they, when he looks upon himself as Righteous to Justification by his own Righteousness? thence he gives the Instance of the proud Pharisee, and poor Publican, he saith, the Publican of the two lookt more like a Justified Person, because he renounced his own Righteous∣ness, and applied himself wholly to the Mercy of God, as a poor

Sinner not pleading any works at all of any kind. 2. It is to be supposed the carnal Jews did look for Justification by their own Righteousness, tho' they looked not at themselves as Righteous in perfect performance of the Moral Law; for if so, they could not have been so Zealous for Moses his ceremonial Law, the chief∣est part whereof, was the Levitical Priesthood and Sacrifices, they could not but know that the very High-Priest sinned, and offered first for his own Sins, and then for the Sins of the People; yea, that Sin polluted their holiest things, and therefore Sacrifices for Sin were offered for them, yea, all sprinkled with Blood. But they having such apprehensions of their Justification, as the Neonomi∣ans have of theirs; they fall under the severe remarks of the Lord Christ and his Apostles.

1. They looked upon Moses his Law, as that which was their New Law for Justification by imperfect Righteousness, in opposi∣tion to the Old Law, as first given to Adam in Innocency.

2. They looked upon the Sanction of the Law of Works as to perfection, to be abrogated or relaxed, that God would accept them for their sincerity in Imperfect works; so Paul in his unre∣generacy.

3. They looked to the Opus operatum in all Obedience to Moses his Law, for because, 1. They looked for forgiveness by the Offer∣ing up of Sin Offering, meerly without looking to the Antitype by Faith. 2. They looked upon the most material part of the Law of Works to be taken up into Moses his Law, their New Law, now its Impossible but the New Law to them (if ever any such thing was Exhibited and dispensed by Moses his Law, which indeed (being spiritually understood, was the Jews Gospel) therefore saith the Apostle, they sought Righteousness, Rom. 9. As it were, by the Works of a Law, tho' it was impersest, yet the works of a Law, and never attained to a law of Righteousness, and why? Because they went to Establish their own impertect Righteousness, but sought not after a true perfect Righteousness which was not their own, but Christs, Rom. 10.3.4. Now saith the Apostle, these are engaged in a great mistake, for they think to have a Justification by an impepfect partial Obedience, but they become hereby Debtors to keep the whole Law of Moses, Moral and Ceremonial, but such as seek such Justification by Law-Works, either Legal or Evangelical, (for the New-Law must be such, else they were not saved even as we) are abdicated from Christ, and fallen from Grace, Gal. 3.3, 4. As for the words of the rich Man, Luke 11.21. And as to Paul's sentiments in his un∣regeneracy, Phil. 3.6. They are to be understood only as to common account, and gross Actions, not that Paul thought he

was perfect as to Moral-Obedience, but that he was imperfectly righteous, by some degrees of moral obedience, together with his Mosaical Expiation for Sin, and this is no other than his New-Law righteousness, hence Rom. 7.9. he was alive without the law once, i. e. he once laid aside the thoughts of the spirituality and exactness of the righteousness of the true law of God, and there∣fore cast it off, but was wholly taken up with a New-Law righte∣ousness, imperfect, and that God would accept this to Justifica∣tion; but when he came to see the true law, and what righteous∣ness he must be justified by, or perish eternally, then sin revived, then he could see sin with a vengeance in himself, and died to all Justification by his works, or by a law, of what kind soever it was.

§. 18. There's one place yet behind under the branch of Negative, 1 Cor. 4.4. I know nothing by my self, yet am I not hereby justified.

Resp. This place is against Mr. Cl. for here are two things in it: He tells us of a twofold Judgment of God that he looked for. 1. That of his Person. 2. The regularity and sincerity of his Actions and Deportment. Whatever Censures Men were ready to pass upon him, yet he had the testimony of a good conscience, as chap. 1. but whatever his simplicity and godly sincerity was, he expected not to be justified by it; but it might be said, your acti∣ons are condemned by men, and there's none that doeth good and sinneth not, and so may you in discharge of your Apostleship: He saith, as to my actions, God knows what they are, and he will testifie to them before the World that condemns them, when he shall come and lay open the secret and hidden things of darkness; therefore he disowns plainly Justification by New-law-works, and he appeals plainly to the Judgment of God, as to his ways and works, to be such wherein he is Evangelically, thro Christ, ap∣proved of God, as such as are regular, sincere, and from a true Principle, renouncing Justification thereby, but desiring to walk in all well-pleasing to God in Sanctification.

§. 19. It is now time to look back a little, and take notice of the great Challenge Mr. Cl. makes, I do absolutely deny true Gospel works and justifying faith are opposed one to another; which is very un∣fairly made as to the Terms, whereas, Justifying-Faith and Gos∣pel-Works, as the fruits of justifying are consentaneous, as Cause and Effects, and therefore as such, in their due place, they are not opposite one to another; but let the Question be stated right, and we will receive the Challenge, Whether the Scripture doth not oppose faith and works, as such, of all sorts in the point of Justification? We affirm that it doth, and a little Logick-Light here is not amiss, to consider that distinguishing Properties of Opposites for dissen∣taneous

Arguments are diversa vel opposita, diversa's dissent only in a certain respect, may be in the same subject at the same time; a man may be rich and wise too, in a different respect, at the same time. But as for opposites, they do disagree both in respect, and indeed really in their nature, and must have their proper distin∣guishing Properties, which are, that they cannot be attributed to the same thing, to the same place, and in the same respect, nor at the same time; so that one of the opposites being affirmed, the other must be denied. Now then, according to the true logical accepta∣tion of faith and works in Justification, they are opposed expre∣sly, and they are contraria opposita unum uni & adversa contraria affirmantia quae inter se velut è regione perpetuò adversantur. Now then,

Arg. 1. If Faith and Works of a Law are not opposed in Justifica∣tion, then a Man may be justified by Faith and Works in the sense of the Apostle, and in the same respect: But the consequence is not true, the minor is proved, that Paul doth not intend that any Man is justified at the same time, and in the same respect, by Faith and Works too; for then all his dispute against one and for the other, would be very unfair, to say a Man is not justified by the Works of a Law, and yet that he is justified by the Works of a Law, let us take Rom. 3.28. a conclusion drawn from the Exclusion of the deeds of a Law from Justification, therefore we conclude that a Man is justified by Faith, without the deeds of a Law. Let Mr. Cl. construe it better if he can: yes, saith he, his meaning is without the deeds of the Law of Innocency, but not without the deeds of the New Law; i. e. the Law of Faith: Its strange the Apostle should speak then Exclusively, of all works indefinitely; the Apostle might as well have said, therefore we conclude a Man is justified by the deeds of a Law, and it had been a more pro∣bable conclusion, seeing he just before had mentioned the Law of Faith, by which might be understood only the Nature and Or∣dination of Faith, as a receptive Grace of the objective Grace of Justification: It is plain, the Apostle hath not the least intention to understand the Fruit of Faith, nor Faith as a Work of a Law, for if he had, he would not have said so positively, therefore we conclude that a Man is justified by Faith, without the deeds of a Law; and its impossible to speak any thing as opposites, if these are not so spoken, they are not spoken as diversa, but one is af∣firmed of the Subject, and the other absolutely denyed, a Man cannot be justified by Faith in the Apostles sence, and by Works at once; but if Faith justifie as works, then Works and Faith are the same in the Apostles sense, and to be justified by Faith and by Works the same, and so the Apostle speaks non-sense.

Arg. 2. That which excludes Works of a Law in Justification, is opposed to Works of a Law in Justification; but Faith excludes Works of a Law in Justification: Ergo, and Minor, Its the Law, Nature and Ordination of Faith to exclude Works, or it self as a Work, yea. Faith becomes useless in Justification, its abdicated from Ju∣stification, if it puts in as a work of a Law, yet it cannot be a Gospel work, nor can any other work be so, that puts in for Justifi∣cation; it is impossible any thing should have a jot of Gospel in it, that is a deed of a Law for Justification, it is a legal work, it makes it so. It is the greatest contradiction in the world to say, we are justified by our Gospel works.

Again, to prove the Minor further, That which excludes the deeds of a law by an essential proparty, is opposite to works; but the law, nature or ordination of faith excludes the deeds of a law by an essential property, viz. boasting in claiming the reward for the work done; this faith, or the law of faith doth, it renounceth all self-righteousness, and renounceth it self; as such it comes to Christ, and for his righteousness, naked and empty; its not true faith un∣less it be so, unless it take Christ only for himself, and his righte∣ousness alone to Justification.

§. 20. Arg. 3. Faith also is opposed to works, Rom. 4.5. where the righteousness of faith is imputed to him that worketh not, but is ungodly; there faith is opposed to works, but in the Justi∣fication of Abraham it was so, and is so in every Believer, accord∣ing to the Apostle, for Justification cannot be there by faith as a work, for then it were false to say, righteousness is imputed to him that worketh not, viz. for Justification; for if faith justifieth as a work, then God justifieth him that worketh.

Arg. 4. If faith and works in the point of Justification evacuate one another, then they are opposed, but faith and works do thus evacuate each other, Ergo, &c. The consequence cannot be denied, where one destroys another they cannot be together in the same subject, therefore contrary; for the Minor the Apostle is clear, Rom. 4.14. if they that be of the law be heirs, i. e. those that are of the works of the law for Justification, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, faith is evacuated, and the promise abdicated; for faith making it self a work, is felo de se, and throws off the free pro∣mise, and takes the reward as Debt, and not of Grace.

§. 21. Arg. 5. That which is not of faith in Justification, is op∣posed to faith in Justification, at least in genere disparatorum, but the law and deeds of it is not of faith, i. e. he that works for Ju∣stification on legal terms, is not one that's justified by faith: And what's these terms, the man that doth them shall live in them; now then, if its of faith to say, I am of the works of a law, and I shall live

in my faith, because its the term of a law, if so, the law should be of faith, and faith of the law, contrary to the Apostle, Galatians 3.12.

Arg. 6. There's nothing more plain than the opposition the Apostle makes between Justification by faith and works, Gal. 2.16. The Apostle says it was a known thing to Peter and the Apostles, that a man is not justified by the works of a law (if he meant an exception of the law of faith, why did he not express it) but by the faith of Jesus; wherefore is this Antithesis, if no opposition between faith and works in Justification? (he should have said in the Neonomian sense, knowing we are not justified by the works of a law, but by the works of the law of faith.) we have believ∣ed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ (now least any should say, this faith in Christ is a work of the new law) he saith, and not by the works of a law, for in thy sight shall no flesh living be justified by them. Now I pray, were any saved under the Old Testament, they will say presently, yes, by the works of the New Law; nay, but the Spirit of God saith posi∣tively, no flesh living was ever justified, no not by a new law. VVill any man dare then to venture his Justification upon works of a law old or new? Doth the Apostle say, we have believed in Jesus that we may be justified by the works of the law of faith? So he should have said to have expressed his meaning in these mens sence: No, he saith, to prevent all mistakes in this kind, not by the work of a law, and he proves it: And he adds, for Conviction of Peter of his Error in complying with the Judaizing Christians, if we, i. e. you and I, seek to be justified by Christ, we are worse, are found transgressors, by endeavouring by our pra∣ctice to build People up in Justification by their own righteous∣ness, the works of a law, which we have destroyed by our Mi∣nistry.

§. 22. Arg. 7. The opposition is full, Rom. 2.20, 21, 22. where the righteousness of a law is directly opposed to the righteous∣ness of faith as two righteousnesses opposite in Justification; there is an opposition: But in the Justification of a sinner, the righteous∣ness of faith and works are so opposed in the said place for by the righteousness of a law, he said, shall no flesh living be justified in the sight of God, he should have added his exception, if he had intended men were to be justified by the righteousness of the new law, and his reason is, that by a law is the knowledge of sin. i. e. conviction of sin, but no remedy; for the law only makes a sinner guilty before God and his own Conscience; but how then justified? Answ. It is by another righteousness (the gift of God) which we have not performed, but which is received by

faith, therefore called the righteousness of God which is by faith, [without our law-performances] but the righteousness of Christ who fulfilled the law, this is that which is in and upon every Believer; But, saith Mr. Cl. I infer, we are not justified by the active righteousness of Christ (p. 46.) or his obedience to the law of works imputed to us— for then we are justified by the law or Co∣venant of works, &c.

Resp. The same inference will hold if only the passive obedi∣ence of Christ be imputed; for what was that but fulfilling the Covenant of Works in Satisfaction. All that Christ did or suf∣fered was obedience to the Covenant of Works, and his righte∣ousness is justifying to us before God in foro legis, the differ∣ence of Law and Gospel lying here, in the Covenant of Grace, That our righteousness for Justification is not of our own performance of obedience to the law, for that is legal only; but our Gospel-righteousness is Christ's perfect performance of the most legal righteousness, and this freely bestowed on us, and received by faith.

CHAP. XII. Of the Imputation of Christs Righte∣ousness.

Section 1. Mr. H. insists on Justification by Works. §. 2. He saith, the Imputation of Christ's righteousness is not found in Scripture. §. 3. His Third Argument against Imputation of Christ's Righteousness. §. 4. Of Imputation of Christ's passive Obedience. §. 5. How far his Argument agrees with Socinus. §. 6. He seeks to avoid the Socinian Rock. §. 7. Active and pas∣sive Obedience of Christ imputed. §. 8. His fur∣ther inference. §. 9. Christ came to procure a New Law. §. 10. Of the Protestant's Appeal.

Sect. 1. I Shall here take Mr. H. in hand, because I find he is most positive in the denial of it upon all accounts, on∣ly he tells us of imputation of effects, which are not imputable,

and besides is a total denial of Imputation of Christ's Righte∣ousness it self. His Arguments are 1. Taken from the places of Scripture that seem to evince the imputation of our own righteousness to us for Justification. VVhat he saith of boast∣ing and merit hath bin spoken to already, the latter he doth af∣ter many Good Morrows, in a manner grant, whereby his Do∣ctrine is eradicated by the Apostle, He tells us, the large extent of Christ's righteousness to all the world in procurement of a law of Grace, which Doctrine I have shewed the absurdity and vanity of elsewhere. It is manifest in Scripture (Mediocr. p. 20.) that good works, holy duties, and performances are accepted of God and re∣warded.

Resp. It is true, but acceptation of good works doth not prove justification of their persons by them, nor the rewarding them; for Abel's person being justified by faith, his services were also accepted in the same righteousness he was justified by, and re∣warded graciously in Christ; yea, his works were witnessed to by God before the World; but such approbation of works as the fruits of faith, is not Justification in God's sight, in the strict eye of his Justice. That place of Matth. 19.17. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments, where Christ answers him ac∣cording to the true tenor of his question, which was, what good may I do that I may inherit eternal life? Mr. H. and Mr. Cl. must needs say, that he sought for righteousness by an old-law righ∣teousness, which doth appear by Christ's Answer and his Reply. Indeed the whole of Christ's Discourse seems clearly to evince that Christ confuted his Confidence in his own righteousness, and convinced him of it, because Christ gave him a Command that put him to the non-plus, and sent him away sorrowful, and there∣fore is no proof of Justification, for he was not justified The Apostle, Rom. 2.7. speaks after the tenor of the Covenant of Works, which requires perseverance in good works, not at all of works or doing, as justifying righteousness; that of 2 Tim. 4.7, 8. speaks of Gods acceptation of the services of the Apostles, and rewarding them in Christ, but nothing of his righteousness for Justification, which was Christ's only that he desired to be found in; that of Matth. 25.34. hath the same import, come ye blessed, &c. it holds only God's owning and declaring the accept∣ance of the works and services of the Saints, as performed by faith in Christ alone for the accepting their Persons and Servi∣ces; besides, it appears sufficiently by the context they never brought their works to account for Justification. He brings in also Ezek. 18.26, 27. which is as little to the purpose. The Lord there answers a charge the People had against him, in not deal∣ing

uprightly, equally and justly with them, v. 25. which the Lord answers, That he always had and would deal with them that stood upon their own righteousness according to the tenor of the law; if you are able to stand the test of your own righte∣ousness you shall be tried by it, yea, I will deal not only righte∣ously with you according to my law, but condescendingly, if you are able to turn from sin to righteousness, and abide in it, and not turn to sin again, but all this is to shew them their folly in trusting to their own righteousness and ability to perform it, for he saith, v. 31. cast away all your transgressions, i. e. there's not the guilt of any must ly upon you, and make you a new heart, and a new spirit; where he challengeth them to do that which no natural man can do; but because they stood upon their own righteousness and natural abilities, God brings them to the test for their Conviction, that they might fly to his Grace both for Justification and Sanctification, which fully appears by the Pro∣mise, chap 36.25, 26, 27. where both are said to be of God, and not of our selves. He alledgeth also the tenor of the Law, he that doth them shall live in them, i. e. saith he, he shall be justified in them.

Resp. Now its strange a man should be so absurd to bring the express tenor of the Covenant of Works to be that of the Cove∣nant of Grace, when its positively affirmed, that this tenor of the law is not of faith, directly opposed to that righteousness of faith, Gal. 3.12. Nay, he is not content with this downright contradiction to the Spirit of God, he goes on. If you make a que∣stion, there is another Text must convince you, The just shall live by faith, to live by our faith is to be justified by it.

Resp. The man, I suppose, said these things by roat, not minding the Text, he says there's another Text, but names not where, but its applied to the matter in hand, Gal. 3.11. the ve∣ry reciting whereof will be answer enough to him. The Apostle was proving, a man is not justified by the works of the law, [per∣fectly or imperfectly performed] is evident, for the just shall live by faith, i. e. he that is righteous, is righteous by the righteous∣ness of faith, and this is the righteousness which his faith, as its food, feeds upon during his life of Justification.

§. 2. His second Argument is, (Medioc. p. 19, 20.) When this very Phrase of the imputation of Christs righteousness is not found in Scripture. So saith Mr. Cl.

Resp. That imputation of righteousness is found in Scri∣pture, it cannot be denied, as in the instance of Abraham, Rom. 4. Now our adversaries will grant us this Dilemma, that either it was Christ's righteousness was imputed to him, or his own, not

his own, because he was ungodly when justified, for when he was ungodly, saith the Text, faith was imputed to him for righteousness; what of faith? sure it was no other than the thing he believed, Jesus Christ and his righteousness, whose day of expiation he saw, this was imputed to him for righteousness. For if Abraham saw Christ's day, it was the day of his Sacrifice and Expiation; for this end he came into the world, and the Good News or Gospel preached unto him was Christ in the Promise, Gal. 3.8. and the same righteousness the heathen was to be justified by, Ibid. Faith wherever its said to be accounted for righteousness, or wherever we are said to be accounted righteous, its to be understood obje∣ctively, and put for the righteousness that it does eye and lay hold upon. But 2dly, Is not Christs righteousness said in Scri∣pture to be imputed to us? let us a little examine Scripture: First, whether its not in Rom. 4. where Imputation is often men∣tioned. The Apostle Rom. 4.21, 22. observes Abraham believing the promise, viz. of Christ, saith, therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness, viz. the thing promised, and the thing believed, for he believed that God was able to perform what he promised, there∣fore the thing promised was that which was imputed to him. Now saith the Apostle, do not believe you are told this, because it was peculiar to Abraham, and none had it but Abraham, but its written not for him only, but for us, that have the same Faith, Righteousness and Imputation, to us to whom it shall be imputed if we believe, i. e. receive that righteousness by faith which Abra∣ham received, embracing the promises, viz. believing on him that justifies, and on the righteousness of Christ by which we are ju∣stified; and then the Argument stands thus, The death of Christ for our sins, and resurrection for Justification, is the righteousness of Christ, this none can deny, but the death of Christ for our sins, and his resurrection for or because of our Justification, is imputed to every believer, as is plain in the Text, chap. 4.24, 25. and hence it follows, that all the Justification spoken of, and imputation of righteousness, throughout the Chapter, is Christs righteousness, the Apostle asserting here and Gal. 3. that the Gentiles should be justi∣fied by faith as Abraham was.

3. The Scripture saith we are justified by his blood, Rom. 5.9. and through faith in his blood, Rom. 4.28. therefore, They that be justified by the blood of Christ, are justified by the imputation of his righteousness, but we are so justified, by the places mentioned. Now then, none cna deny that Christs shedding his blood is his righteousness, and we cannot be justified by it unless it be impu∣ted to us, and if any thing else be imputed, then not that; if Mr.

Humph. will say, its effective only, its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in his blood, as in the blood of a Sacrifice shed for us, where in the blood of the Sacrifice is accepted, as if it were the very blood of the Sin∣ner.

4th. That by which we have redemption is the righteousness of Christ, but the death and satisfaction of Christ is that whereby we have redemption, and therefore that redeeming righteousness is imputed to us, Rom 3.25, 26. Col. 4.14. but more of this by and by, for the Scripture is full of it, blessed be God. Neonomian Doctrine, I am fully assured, is far from Gospel, as far as Darkness is from Light.

§. 3. His third Argument against the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, is, If the righteousness of Christ be imputed to us (as if it were ours in it self) it must be the righteousness of his active or passive obedience, or both, But its neither.

Resp. We say both: He goes to prove his active obedience is not imputed, If it be, then must we be looked upon in him as having committed no Sin, nor omitted no Duty, and then what need will there be of Christ's Death?

Resp. The same consequent may be corruptly drawn upon impu∣tation of his passive, as he doth: But the consequent follows not, for the Imputation of Christs active obedience, is upon suppo∣sal that the Law of God is not, nor cannot be perfectly kept by us; for if we were perfect in our selves, there would not need the Perfection of another to be imputed to us; for all Imputation by Transaction, supposeth the person not to be that personally, and in himself, which he is made to be by Imputation; so Imputation of our Sins to Christ, supposeth Christ was not Sin in himself, but made so by imputation of ours; therefore the Imputation of Christs active obedience supposeth us to be sinners in our selves. 2. As Christ was the Second Adam, and made under the law in all respects for us, so he was to come under it for us as to active obedience, and to answer that way as well as the other, for it was needful that he fulfil all righteousness for us; and the first and chief thing the Law required, was active obedience; the Law is not satisfied without a performance of the righteousness which it re∣quires; there must be therefore a fulfilling of the Law as to act∣ive obedience, else the righteousnes, of Christ is lame and imper∣fect. Its true, if the righteousness imputed were inherent, ac∣cording to the Neonomian Doctrine, then the inference might hold; if we are imputed righteous for our internal righteous∣ness, that would bring us under this consequence; but our Im∣putation is of the active righteousness of another, which makes us compleat in Christ, and without spot in the eye of God's Justice.

Let me return the Argument upon him, If our active obedience to the new Law be imputed to us for justifying righteousness, then must we he lookt upon in this righteousness as such as have committed no sin. I hope Mr. H. will not say, that the righteousness of the new law is not active obedience: I say, is it imputed or not? if imputed, the consequence follows, but to see the baseness of these men, to draw odious consequences upon the Mystery of Christ, when the same would follow with much more odium up∣on their own Doctrine that they set up against Christ, their act∣ive obedience must be imputed to them for righteousness, but Christ's must not be imputed to us. They say then, what need would there be of Christ's Death? We say, as much as there is of paying the wages of sin where the law is actually broken: The law requires two things, 1. The death of the sinner. 2. The obedience of the sinner to the preceptive part of the law, both which Christ hath performed, and a Believer in him, as his Re∣presentative, Priest and Surety; and whereas he saith we must be looked upon as such as have committed no sin; we must not be lookt upon as such by our selves; but there is no true Believer but is lookt upon by God in foro Justitiae, as if he had commit∣ted no sin; for if our sins stand in the light of God's Counte∣nance, in the eye of his Justice, we must needs be odious to him, whence is it then that the sins of Gods children are cast behind his back, and that they stand without spot before the Throne; and to conclude this Point, now let him consider only one verse of Rom. 5.19. As by the disobedience of one many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous. I would know of him what will become of so plain an Antithesis, if obedience be not active obedience there meant.

§. 4. If Christs passive obedience be imputed, then must we look on our selves as such who in Christ have suffered and satisfied the law, and born the curse of it, and then how shall there be room for any par∣don? a man that pays his full debt by himself or Surety cannot be for∣given by the Creditor.

Resp. And here he would cover himself not to be seen a Soci∣nian; we shall see how well by and by. 1. He lays it down as a gross absurdity to say, we satisfied in Christ, here and elsewhere often, to which we answer, that it is not absurd for any man to say, I paid my Debt by another, viz. a Surety, for the law looks upon it as the payment of his Debt, and he is discharged by it. 2. He makes not himself the Surety, for he ascribes the payment to the Surety, and the Debt to himself; so the words are not ho∣nouring himself, but honour to the Surety, therefore to say, Be∣lievers have satisfied the law in their Surety Christ, is giving glo∣ry

to him, and a proper usual Speech. But he infers with the Soci∣nians, that then there's no room for Pardon; indeed it is easie to see how their mouths water at a plain Denial of Christ's Satisfa∣ction, though they do it interpretatively as much as the Socini∣ans; you may likewise see the Design in dividing Justification and Pardon one from the other. Its true, when a righteous per∣son is justified by his own righteousness (as in the Neonomian Justification) there's no room for Pardon, for he hath paid all his due, and by his own Money; but it is otherwise in God's Justifi∣cation of a sinner.

1. That is his Pardon, God pardons none but in Justification, we have forgiveness through the blood of Christ, tho Man pardons often with injury to Justice, but God declares his righteousness for the remission of sins, Rom. 3.25. and without shedding of blood there is no remission, Heb. 9.

2. God's justifying sinners, ungodly, &c. by a righteousness given unto them, is a pardon of them.

3. It is the highest, noblest Pardon in the World, where sins are nailed to the Cross of Christ, when it is to the Satisfaction of Justice, as Grace, so Justice are magnified therein: A true Be∣liever, and broken-hearted sinner will not speak in the proud So∣cinian or Neonomian Dialect, O Lord, we thank thee not for, or ex∣pect Pardon, if Christ hath died to satisfie; with them, either Gods Pardon, or the Sinners Justification must fall to the ground; but bless God for the noblest Pardon in the World.

§. 5. But methinks this Argument is purely Socinian, for they say, there's nothing more contrary to Gods forgiving freely than Satisfaction: But Mr. H. that he might not seem to run a Tilt against Satisfaction, saith indeed. The Argument of the Socinian from Pardon against Christ's Satisfaction is not valid, but it is good against imputation of it to us, as if we had satisfied.

Resp. And why is it not good against Satisfaction in the So∣cinian sence? he gives no reason, for he saith, that he that pays the full Debt by himself or Surety, there's no room for pardon; and will not Mr. H. say, that Christ hath not paid the full Debt for him; if he will, let him pay what remains, or try for Pardon for that which is not paid another way than by remission through his blood; but what do they Socinians say more; if God be satis∣fied where is Pardon? we say, God's Pardon is by way of Satisfa∣ction to his Law; No, saith Mr. H. it is good against Imputati∣on, so the Socinians hold too. I pray, did Christ satisfie at all? if he did, was it in a law-sence? if so, was it for himself, or for us? if for us, then the law saith so, for us: For the Law of God doth not take Satisfaction in so blind a manner, as that God in his

Law knows not for whom it is; if God in his Law knows for whom it is, and accepts it for us, then it is accounted to us, and imputed to us, as to all the ends thereof in Law. The taking Satisfaction in Law for any offence against it for any one, is the Laws Imputation or accounting it to him for whom it is made, whether the satisfaction be given by himself who trans∣gressed, or any one for him; therefore if Christ satisfied for us, and this Satisfaction accepted by God for us, God imputes it to us, as if we had done it our selves, therefore Mr. H. must either renounce the Doctrine of Satisfaction, with the Socinians, or own its imputed to us as fully (yea in this case we may say) more fully than if we had made it our selves.

§. 6. Let us see how Mr. H. would avoid the Socinian Rock, he saith, Christ may have wrought with the father (or made him that satisfaction as) to procure new Terms, so that a man may be justified as a fulfiller of them, and yet need pardon for non-performance of the old.

R. Behold the Neonomian Satisfaction! 1. He makes not Sa∣tisfaction a payment of a Debt owing to the Law by us, but on∣ly a procurement. a buying something of God, whereas Satisfa∣ction is for a wrong done. I may purchase a thing of a person whom I never injur'd, or if I have the Money whereby I pur∣chase a new thing that refers not to the injury I did before, but to the new Purchace; observe then, he makes Christ's Satisfaction only a New Purchace.

2. This New Purchace is of New Terms of Justification; hence God is not to stand upon satisfaction to the Old Law, but to drop it, and bring the Sinner under a New Law; Christ died not to satisfie the Law, but to translate us from one Law to ano∣ther, whence the old hath no more to do with us, and thus all the world are translated, therefore the Old Law is gone to all the World unsatisfied.

3. A Man is justified on the new Terms, they being fulfilled by his own righteousness, but not pardoned on these terms by the New Law; and this is one of the greatest inconsistencies in the World, to say a man is justified by a Law, and not pardoned; how is he just in the eye of that Law that doth not free from the charge of any transgression of it, But

3. He saith, he needs Pardon for non-performance of the old, if so, 1. The New Law is not an Act of Indemnity in respect of sins against the old; for if a man condemned by one law, be taken from under it to a new law, he is indempnified from the old, else all pretence of advantage by the said translation is gone, for he that stands under the terms of one law, condemned by it,

and brought under new terms to another, come now to be liable to the lash of two Laws, whereas before he was under but one.

2. He saith, this Pardon must be had at the Bar of the Old Law. I would know of Mr. H. how? If he saith, and will stand to it ac∣cording to his own Argument, he cannot, or else he must deny Christs Satisfaction, which is this, That Law which is satisfied for the breach of it, admits no Pard••n from the Legislator, but the Old Law (say Neonomians in words) was satisfied for us, therefore there can be no Pardon; yea, it was satisfied for us in our stead, and the satisfaction accepted for us, yea therefore imputed to us, Here I have the Neonomian fast in this Dilemma from their own Doctrine, let them free themselves how they can. For if Pardon and Sa∣tisfaction imputed are not consistent as to our Doctrine, then not in theirs; but they say, notwithstanding their justification by their New Law, they must have Pardon for the breach of the Old, and how? Not at all in their sence, if the Old be not satis∣fyed, or that Satisfaction not imputed; as much as to say, it is Money laid down in Court indefinitely, but not accepted in Court for this and that Mans Sins; hence Christ hath satisfyed for none, for all satisfaction as such, is accepted as such; we come now to his attempt, to prove that neither the Active or Passive Obedience of Christ is imputed.

§. 7. For (saith he) If that his Active and Passive Obedience be imputed, then must God be made to deal with Man according to the Covenant of Works.

Resp. See how this Gentleman in all his Arguings runs his Head against a Post and Pillar of Gospel Truth, his Argument is this, if Christ's Active and Passive Obedience be accepted for us as satisfaction for the Law, then God deals with Sinners in their justification, after the tenor of the Covenant of Works; now he may assume either by taking away the Antecedent, or by taking away the Consequent, he indeed intends both, first, by taking away the Antecedent, viz. But Christ's Active and Passive Obedience is not accepted for satisfaction, therefore he doth not deal with Sinners in Justification according to the Covenant of Works, therefore Christ hath not satisfied the Covenant of Works for us, the Law lies unsatisfyed. I would know how the Pardon he speaks of is Subsequent to the New Law. Justificati∣on is had, is it by dealing with us upon the account of satisfacti∣on to the Old Law? He suggests that it is, then pardoned Sin∣ners are dealt with according to the Old Law, if not justified. But to have him in his Consequences, he assumes that God deals not with Sinners in Justification upon the Terms of the Old Law, or Covenant of Works. To Answer, he deals with them

in Christ, according to the Terms of the Covenant of Works, but in themselves as sinners, justifying them in Christ according to the Tenor of the Covenant of Works, it is meer Grace, the Mystery of Grace is to save sinners in such a way, as may not on∣ly magnifie rich Grace, but Exalt Grace, and that in the highest manner. Now the Exaltation of Justice cannot be but in the ju∣stifying a Sinner in the Eye of the strictest Law, by the highest and most acceptable Satisfaction thereof, on this account, Christs Obedience was the most Legal, both active and passive that ever was; but that a sinner is brought under this Obedience of Christ unto Justification, is meer free Grace, he being thereby partaker of the distinguishing Grace of God, and the free Gift of Christ and his Righteousness, without the intervention of any Mediator, or Subordinate Righteousness of his own; hence it is, that his Faith makes not void the Law, but Establisheth it in the highest degree, in Exalting Christ as his only, and most compleat Righ∣teousness, most legal in satisfying the Law for us, as a Covenant of Works; he saith, when nothing is more apparent in Scripture then that by Grace it is that we are justified, and by Grace saved.

Resp. But will Mr. H. affirm that Grace doth justifie us with∣out Justice? Doth not the Apostle say a sinner is justifyed by Grace, in and through Christs Redemption, that God may be just? Doth not Mr. H. say Justification is an Act of Justice, again and again? Doth not this setting up our own righteousness in per∣formance of the Condition of the New Law, make his Justificati∣on an Act of Justice, yea, and without Grace? What do these Men mean so often and positively to contradict the Scripture and themselves, to draw their dirty Inferences upon the Truth, with holding it in unrighteousness?

§. 8. If nothing less then a Righteousness as doth Answer and sa∣tisfie the Law fully, will suffice for the sinners Plea to flee from Con∣demnation, he is not judged by the Law of Grace, but by the Law of Works.

R. The inference hath no danger in it; for 1. We know of no Judgment in freeing any from Condemnation, but a Dis∣charge in Christ from the Law of Works, before which every Believer is discharged here and hereafter through Grace.

2. We know of no New Law, either to quit or condemn, a Law of Grace in that sense is a Bull, Grace and a Law are di∣rectly opposite. 2. He here insinuates as if Christs satisfaction were compleat and imperfect: If nothing else will suffice for a Plea. 1. What can be better than a perfect satisfaction for a Plea. 2. Either Christs is not perfect, or else perfect will not do, without an imperfect added to it, which indeed he means,

that Christs perfect satisfaction must have our Imperfect added, to make our Plea compleat. 3. What is freeing from condem∣nation but Pardon of Sin? I pray, what righteousness doth a Ne∣onomian flee to for the pardon of Sin? Do they tell us its Christs, tho' they be justified by their own? I would know whether they esteem Christs Righteousness full and compleat for the pardon of Sin? Or do they plead for some of their pardon at the Bar of the New Law, where they are justifyed, and some of their pardon at the Bar of the Old Law, where they are condemned? But this im∣puted righteousness is a mistake of the Protestants (poor Man I pitty him) and he hath found the mistake, so it seems indeed by his Writing.

§. 8. Christ came into the World to procure and tender a New Law, and in this regard he is called our Law giver; not that he hath given any other Moral rules of Life to us, but that he hath given the same Precepts, with Indulgence.

Resp. Now mark the Neonomian Spirit, but Two or Tree Lines off he was for Justification only by Grace without Law, that he might dethrone Christ, but now again, that he may Enthrone Mans Righteousness, he is altogether for Law, his Language is half Ashdod, take him where you will. 1. He tells you what he means by Satisfaction, which he saith is procurement, Christ came into the World not to satisfie the Law of God, which we had broken, but to procure a Law, a remedial Law, a better Law to answer Gods Ends than the First; it was a great mistake sure in Divine Wisdom to make such a Law at first as would not do. 2. It was another oversight at least that Christ did not come to procure a right law at first. 3. Its very strange that God would not af∣ford a right law without procurement, Laws are not used to be purchased or procured; Legislators make Laws according to their pleasure, without procurement. 4. And wh••t's the World the better? Christ hath procured the putting the World under New-Law Terms, and not satisfied the Old Law, and now they must perform the condition of the New Law, and be pardoned by the old Law unsatisfied, else they cannot be saved. 5. After all the noise about saving by Grace, its but by a law which requires personal obedience in fulfilling the condition; this is the Grace of the Law, and Law of Grace; a Law of Grace it is, such where∣in Grace is no more Grace, and the Law is no more a Law, that indeed a law of Grace is a Contradiction in proprio adjuncto, a meer Hobgoblin. But how is these mens New Law compounded? It is, they say, of Grace and a Law; and it lies In that he hath not given new Moral Laws of life to us, other than what was contained in the old law before; but that he hath given the same precepts with in∣dulgence.

Answ. Well, Christ is not our Lawgiver according to purchase (for these Men make Christ to have died for himself, to make himself a Lawgiver) to devise and constitute any new Moral Pre∣cepts, but first to pluck down the old house, and then to take the broken and scattered pieces, and make a new one; he takes the Moral Materials of the old Law, cuts and hews them pretty much, makes the Duties more indifferent, the sins forbidden Ve∣nial and allowable, yea necessary, to come into the righteousness of the new law; for if the Condition be not mixt of Morality and Immorality its good for nothing, it will not serve this turn, therefore the old law with indulgence of sin is the New Law. I pray let me know from the Wits of our Age, whether this be not Antinomianism? Now he tells us, this is a law of indulgence, &c. the plain English of it is, that its a Law of Dispensation with a Law of Justice, i. e. a lawless law; that all the Satisfaction he means, is Gods Dispensation with Law and Justice, and a law to call Sin by one law Sin, and righteousness by another; the truth is, the whole Doctrine tends to deny God in his glorious Proper∣ties, and to change him into the similitude of an Ox that eateth Hay, interpretativè, and if God doth not act now, and at Judgment, by this lay of Dispensation with Law, and indulgence of Sin, he says, the main business of Christ's coming and Redemption, is lost, that can be no other in his sence than to be Minister of Sin.

§. 10. You shall hear a Protestant [i. e. Neonomians, they are Papists, according to the Profession of this downright Papist] in his Prayer, appealing from the Tribunal of Gods Justice, to the Throne of his Grace, yet in his Sermon telling the People, that it is nothing else but the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ imputed to them that saves them, which is to bring them back from the throne of Grace to the Bar of his Justice to be judged.

Resp. I am ashamed to read such a Banter of Christianity from any man that professeth himself a Christian, tho a Papist and Socinian. 1. Is it a good Appeal or no for a sinner to make from the Tribunal of Justice, i. e. meer Justice, where God beholds the Sinner as he is in himself, by his most righteous law, a con∣demned transgressor, to the Throne of Grace (not that God hath two Thrones, Rev. 4.) but from it proceeds a Dispensation of Justice, Thundrings, Lightnings, &c. of Judicial Proceedings to his enemies, and a Dispensation of Grace to his Church, (there being a Rainbow round about the Throne;) where Christ is a High-Priest, who hath satisfied the Justice of God, and plead∣ing his Satisfaction as our Advocate and Intercessor? did not Da∣vid do so, Psalm 51. 2. Is it not good Doctrine, and agreeable to the Appeal, to tell the People that nothing else but the per∣fect

Obedience and Satisfaction of Christ imputed to them can save them: Is this to bring them back to the Tribunal of meer Justice? is not this the Throne of Grace where Justice is sa∣tisfied and appeased, where Christ the Satisfier is exalted to Gods right hand to be a Prince and Saviour?

I pray, what do Neonomians? do they first bring them to a law, suppose it were a law of Grace, as they call it, to be justifi∣ed by their own righteousness; whither do they carry them then? is it not to the Tribunal of Justice to be pardoned? So that if God in Christ pardoning iniquity on the Throne of Grace, through the Shatisfaction of Christ, be the Throne of Justice divested of Grace: Why are Neonomians to be pardon∣ed there, after they are justified at another Bar? But he is for the dividing Grace and Justice in a Sinner's Justification, as the Socinians are, or rather abandoning Justice.

CHAP. XIII. Of the Righteousness of God.

Section 1. Works of a Law not Gospel. §. 2. Mr. H. outdone the Papists. §. 3. The Righteousness of God what? §. 4. An offer at Faiths being our subordinate Righte∣ousness. §. 5. Mr. Cl. and Mr. H. Sence of the Righ∣teousness of God. §. 6. Their Reasons given and An∣swered. §. 7. Mr. Cl. Reasons why it is not Christs Righteousness, 2 Cor. 5.21. §. 8. His second Rea∣son. §. 9. A distinct Consideration of the said Texts. §. 10. Christs Righteousness is the Righteousness of God. §. 11. §. 12. Rom. 3.21, 22. examin'd. §. 13. Rom. 10.3. §. 14. Mr. H. Explication of Rom. 10.4. examin'd. §. 15. Mr. H. Explication of 2 Cor. 5.21. Examin'd. And §. 16. What he further faith on the Place examin'd.

§. 1. IN the last Place, There is a Righteousness revealed in the Gospel, that God goes by in his dealing with all the World, whereby it is that we are Justified in Opposition to the Righteousness of Works.

Resp. If it be a revealed Righteousness, it's that which is the Object of Faith seen without our selves not in our selves, for that need not to be revealed, which every Man is naturally ad∣dicted to see and know. Again, it must not be our Works in Opposition to our Works for Justification, for there is no for∣mal Opposition between Works and Works, nor material indeed which have the same Subject, and Genns, and End; as for what he calls them by way of Difference, it will not serve, he calls some Works, Works of the Law, some Gospel-works, i. e. Works of the Law of Grace; now we have shew'd that there are no such Gospel-works which put in for Justification, nor doth the Spirit Work such, and being both are the Works of a Law, they differ not specifically, they are legal Works, Works of a Law

performed for Justification are always Legal never Evangelical.

§. 2. This Revealed Righteousness is in Scripture called the Righ∣teousness of God, which the Protestants conceive to be the Righte∣ousness of Christ without us [all but Neonomians and Quakers] i. e. the Righteousness of Christ, which is not ours by Performance but by Faith, but neither Protestants since Luther, nor Papists since Augustine, have hit the Mind of the Apostle.

Resp. But the Scripture hath hit it long before Luther, sure then, if they were not Right, the Reformation was the Deforma∣tion in Doctrine; the Truth is, many of the Protestants were out in this Point; all our Reformation so far as I can understand Mr. H. and many Neonomians are gone, is not worth a Fig; and here indeed Mr. H. boasts again and again, that he hath out∣done the Papists; and I may truly say, that he and his Father B. hath, and in this only they differ from the Papists, that they go beyond them in Self-righteousness, and in a most daring scorn∣ful Opposition to the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ.

§. 3. The Righteousness of God and Grace opposed to Works, is no∣thing but the Righteousness of the Covenant of Grace accepted for Christs sake, instead of the Covenant of Works.

Resp. It is not Christ's Righteousness accepted for us, for that alone is the Righteousness of the Covenant of Grace, and then only God did not set up Christ to set up our Righteousness, be∣cause it was impossible for us to have any other to be justified by, that he might have the Glory of Being our Righteousness alone, but he saith, this Righteousness of ours must come instead of the Righteousness of the Covenant of Works; to which we Answer, that its impossible for us to be Justified by any Righte∣ousness, but that which fully and exactly answers the Covenant of Works, either our own, or anothers, the Righteousness of ano∣ther Law cant Justifie us there. For if a Sinner be justified, it must be by that Law which he hath broken, and by none else; if they say Christ hath satisfied that Law for us, then we say that Satisfaction is a sufficient Righteousness for our Justification, we look for no other Law to be justified by, nor no other Righte∣ousness for our Justification. He proceeds, Herein are two Things comprized, the meritorious Righteousness of Christ, procuring the par∣doning Covenant of Grace, and our performing the Condition, only we are to know how this Righteousness may be understood in respect to God, as it is all one with his Grace, or with respect to us as its all one upon which this Grace is vouchsafed.

Resp. This Neonomian Cheat is always to be noted in the Point of Satisfaction, that all the Satisfaction they ascribe to Christ is only in making pay unto God for a new Purchase, they will not

have Christ to have paid any Arrears or old Scores, the Law passeth away in sententiam, and we found insolvent to this perfect Law, therefore Christ buys another Law, upon that promiseth Justification upon easier Terms, not so Holy, but sinful and im∣moral, and therefore called the Law of Indulgence, yet justifies us upon those Terms, but yet without Pardon which we must have of the Old Law, and because we have fulfilled the New Law, God out of his Prerogative without any other Satisfaction than the forementioned procurement Pardons, for they say Satis∣faction and Pardon are inconsistent as the Socinians do, and why do they say Christs Satisfaction is not imputed to us, because if they were not ashamed to speak out they think there is none, yea and that they speak of is only Christs purchasing a new Law, which would be madness for to claim an Imputation of to us, for that concerns us no further then a new Legal Bondage, if Christs Righteousness be not accepted for our Justification from the Old Law, and imputable to us, its not desirable to be imputed to us to bring us under a new Law and further Bondage. Besides, if Christ purchased this Law-making Power, its for himself, and not for us, for they will tell you he did not Purchase the Performance of the Condition, and when they say, we are justi∣fied by our Works for the sake of Christs Merits, their meaning is, because Christ purchased the Law and Promulgation of it, just as if they should say, if Adam had stood, he had been justified by his Works for the sake of God who made the Law, for if there had been no Law there had been no Justification by it; so we are justified say they by the Law of Grace, for the sake of Christ who merited the Law and became Law-maker; this is all they mean, and this is the Neonomian Cheat in the great Point of Sa∣tisfaction, whereby they would by retaining the Word, only without the Sence, cover themselves from the odious Name of Socinians. Lastly, He makes Grace and Justice in respect of God to be all one, so that to be justified by Works of our own, and by Grace is all one, and Paul's Epistles are all Non-sense.

§. 4. Mr. Cler. p. 64. tells us, He will offer his Reasons, why Faith is our subordinate Righteousness; to the First and Second we have spoken sufficiently already. The Third is, Because we frequently read of the Righteousness of Faith, which he saith is our Conformity to the Rule of the New-Law in sincere Believing and im∣perfect Doing; the Places he mentions are, Rom. 4.11, 13, Chap. 9.30. Chap. 10.6. Gal. 5.5. Heb. 11.5.

Resp. The Righteousness of Faith is the Righteousness of Christ apprehended and received by Faith, for Rom. 4.11. tells us, that Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, which

Righteousness of Faith Abraham had being uncircumcised, that the same righteousness may be imputed to them; and what righte∣ousness is that? it is that through which iniquity is forgiven, and Sin covered, that it might not be imputed, and this is the righteousness that's imputed without works. Hence I argue. That that righteousness through which iniquity is forgiven, and sin covered, and is imputed without works, is the righteousness of Christ, and not ours; but the righteousness of Faith, accord∣ing to the Apostle in that place, is such, as appears, v. 6, 7, 9, 10. Is there any iniquity forgiven in the New Law Righteousness? no, they say, pardon is consequent to it, its had of the old law: Is any Sin cover'd by it from the Eye of God's Justice? no, they say, God sees their Sins by the old Law: Is righteousness im∣puted without works? no, it cannot be, because its faith as a work is imputed, v. 13. The Promise that he should be the heir of the world, was not through a law [then not through any works of a law] but through the righteousness of faith, therefore it was the the righteousness of Christ; the righteousness of a law is exclu∣ded, therefore works; and its here also what the righteousness of faith apprehends. That of Rom. 9.31. and chap. 10.6 we shall shew by and by was the righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith: The Apostle, Gal. 5.5. intends Christ's righteousness; for what should men do for the hope of that righteousness which they have in themselves; for by faith, all, saith he, are one in Christ Jesus, true faith bringing forth love, as such apprehends and waits for more and more comfort in the righteousness of Christ. That spoken of Hebrews 11.7. is the righteousness of Christ promised, the Seed of the Woman, that was the great Promise be∣lieved by the Antidiluvian Patriarchs, and by the Death and Sa∣tisfaction of the Seed of the Woman promised, they believed he should break the Serpents head; Noah became heir of this righte∣ousness which he received and lived comfortably in the enjoyment of, by faith in the Promise.

§. 5. Mr. Cl. brings for a further confirmation of this Argu∣ment, those places which speak of the righteousness of God, which they bring as a great Block in their way, and therefore take much pains to remove it: Mr. Cl. saith, this Phrase hath been much mi∣staken by many, who have been led into error thereby, and therefore he will endeavour to give the true sence of it; to this purpose also Mr. H. we will therefore very diligently mark what they say. The places are, Rom. 1.17. & 3.21, 22. & 10.3. 2 Cor. 5.22. Phil. 3.9. We say, by the righteousness of God is meant the righteousness of Christ, but these men say, its our own inherent righteousness.

Mr. H. saith, That our righteousness is called Gods in opposition meerly to that of works; let a man do what he can by his own strength, or by God's aid he can never come to the law of works or Moses; God hath therefore been pleased to make us a new law, a law of faith, or grace, or new covenant, having lower terms, in perform∣ance whereof the sinner, in respect of the law, may be righteous, its a righteousness performed by Grace, which God mercifully condescends to accept instead of that which is perfect, through the merits of our Savi∣our, and in regard of that acceptation (N. B.) or this good will its called his, or the righteousness which is of him. Lo here is the true Key which opens the Mind of the Apostle, therefore Mr. H. takes it to be the new-law-righteousness which in these places is called the righteousness of God, becouse opposed to the old-law-righte∣ousness, because also wrought of God.

Mr. Cl's resolution is in a manner the same, That the imper∣fect new-law-righteousness is the righteousness of God because it is of his Institution; as for perfect obedience to the law, (which is legal righteousness) that is righteousness in the strictest sence, and in strict justice can be taken for no other, and therefore the reward must be debt: But that an imperfect work, such as Faith and Obedience should be accounted righteousness, must arise from the gracious Appointment, Designation and Ordination of God, who hath set up this Way and Method of becoming righteous under the Gospel; and hence its said, reckoned, accounted, imputed for righteousness, which Phrase imports Grace and Favour, as some note.

§. 6. Mr. Cl's. reasons for his Opinion, are 1. Because the Phrase of submitting to the righteousness (Rom. 10.3.) of God seems to import, that this is a new law, institution or way naturally we are not acquainted with.

Resp. The Text runs quite against him, being ignorant of the righteousness of God; how doth that appear? seeking to establish their own righteousness, they submitted not to [yielded not to accept of] the righteousness of God.

1. God's righteousness and man's are here directly opposed to each others.

2. It is directly against Mr. Cl's reason, in that man need not be taught to set up his own righteousness, they naturally adhere to it.

3. They did so closely adhere to it that they would not submit to the Doctrine of Justification by the righteousness of another, viz. the righteousness of Christ; see how the words will run in Mr. Cl's. sence, being ignorant of an imperfect righteousness of their own performing, going about to establish a righteousness of their own performing, they submitted not to a righteousness of their own perform∣ing,

which is Gods righteousness; besides, its not sence to say, a man submits or not to that which is his own righteousness, but it is to say, he submits to take the righteousness of another.

2. As the righteousness of the law is that which the law requires, Rom. 2.26. so this righteousness of God is that which God requires under the Gospel.

Resp. 1. The righteousness both under the Law and Gospel is the righteousness of God; what the law requires, God by the law requires, and indeed God requires but one righteousness un∣der the Law and Gospel, and there's the righteousness of the law, and the strictest righteousness; and if there must be a di∣stinction between the righteousness of the Law and Gospel, as our Neonomians make, its most proper to call the perfect righteous∣ness of the law, God's righteousness, it being his more than an imperfect, sinful righteousness, which would be very dishonoura∣ble to him to be called his; But Christ's righteousness is Legal, in that it answers the Law and Gospel unto the Sinner, because it answers it for him, and his peace with God is made thereby.

3. As the Sacrament of the Supper is called the Lord's Supper, because its his Institution, and the Lord's Day because his Designa∣tion.

Answer, The Supper is not called the Lord's Supper, only because its his Institution, but because our Lord's Body and Blood is shewed forth therein to be the righteousness of God for our Justi∣fication. Neither is the Lord's Day so called from his Design of it, but because it is to remember the resurrection of our Lord, who rose for our Justification, having accomplished justifying righte∣ousness for us. 4. Its opposed to their own righteousness, Rom. 10.3. therefore not any righteousness of their own, as is already shewed, supra, from Rom. 10.3.

§. 7. Next let us see how Mr. Cl. will prove that its not the righteousness of Christ that's meant by the righteousness of God in the aforesaid places; he saith it cannot be for these reasons, p. 33. 1. Because the Apostle here distinguisheth, 2 Cor. 5.21. be∣tween God and Christ, the righteousness of God is one thing, and being in Christ another; whereas, if they were all one, the sence would be, that we might be made the righteousness of Christ in Christ: And p. 65. The Apostle also, in most places where he mentions it, distin∣guisheth between God and Christ, Rom. 3.22. Phil. 3.9.

Resp. This Reason is so frivolous, that it needs little answer, There is no distinction at all in respect of righteousness, but an exact account thereof, that the righteousness of God, which the Apostle speaks of Christ, that which is in Christ, that the righte∣ousness of God in Christ is that which is imputed to us; we

need not look far to the meaning of the Apostle in the Phrase, its but in verse 19. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing unto them their trespasses, i. e. in the righte∣ousness of Christ God was working out reconciliation, and non-imputation of sin, and if so, imputation of Christ's righteousness, and he saith, if the righteousness were one, its that they might be made the righteousness of Christ in Christ; but I pray, why may not Christs righteousness be called the righteousness of God, as well as our own, because they say, our own was God's Institu∣tion: Is it ours, God's and ours too? and Christs righteousness may not be God's and Christ's too; but this reasoning is very absurd, more of this as we proceed; and as for the other places, we shall come to them by and by.

§. 8. P. 65. Reason 2. He always calls it, the righteousness of God, and never the righteousness of Christ.

Resp. Mr. Cl. himself saith, it cannot be understood of that righte∣ousness which is inherent in God, p. 33. I suppose he means of the Attribute of God's Justice, because its something revealed in the Gospel, and he speaks true in it, but why may not the redeeming righteousness of Christ be called the righteousness of God?

1. Because it was the righteousness of the Person who is God, and Acts 20.28. God is said to purchase his Church with his own blood, by a communication of Properties; But 2. Why may not Christ's righteousness be called the righteousness of God for the same reason that you say our righteousness is so called, because it is the way and method through which he hath designed to justifie us, Christ saith, he is the way, and if so, then the instituted and ordained way; now if this interpretation of the Text will serve for them, why not for us? I am sure the righteousness we plead for is the most deserving.

Reason 3. He calls it, The righteousness which is of God, not which is in God or Christ.

Resp. According to Mr. Cl. its not the Attribute of Gods righteousness, but its the work of righteousness wrought by Go'd in the Person of his Son, therefore its properest to express it as the Apostle, of God, and its often enough said in Christ, therefore its not true. I find not any thing said further, by either of them, to support this Notion. Mr. H. talks here and there, in divers places about it, but the substance of all is put together more me∣thodically by Mr. Cl. and with more modesty.

§. 9. It remains now, that we take the said Texts into di∣stinct Consideration, and examine what righteousness is by them intended, which is called the righteousness of God.

1. Rom. 1.16, 17. The Subject the Apostle treats of is, the

Gospel of Christ, the glad tidings brought to Sinners of Life and Salvation in him.

2. This he gives an account of as the reason why he is far from being ashamed of it, in receiving it for its appointed Ends, for his own Salvation, or in preaching it for those ends unto others. 1. Because it is the power of God to Salvation of every one that believes, both of Jews and Gentiles. 2. In this is the power of God in effectual Grace seen, in that its the Doctrine of Righteousness. 3. He shews its the Doctrine of righteousness by two things. 1. In that this righteousness of God is revealed in it. 2. In that its the object of a Believer's Faith from time to time, its revealed to his first faith, and always of faith justifying afterwards, he lives upon this righteousness from time to time, as he proves from the Prophet, the just shall live by faith. Now then its called the righteousness of God. 1. Because its a righ∣teousness provided by God before the foundation of the World in his wise Counsels, and Covenant-Compact with the Son, as the Apostle saith expresly, 1 Pet. 1.19, 20. Christ as redeemer by his precious bloud, as of a lamb without spot [this is his righteous∣ness] who verily [i. e. really as such] was fore-ordained of God before the foundation of the world: It was then the Plot and Con∣trivance of God, and therefore may well be called, the righteous∣ness of God. This Purpose and Grace to poor Sinners was first given us in the Person and Righteousness of Christ before the World began, but was manifested since, and especially at the first appearance of Christ in the flesh, actually to work out this righ∣teousness in abolishing Death, and bringing Life and Immorta∣lity to Light in the said Gospel of Christ, which he was a Preach∣er of; this Head I might be large in insisting on, from other places, as Eph. 1.6, 7, 8, 9. Prov. 8 30. Heb. 10.8, 9. 2. It is the Righteousness of the Person who is God, Acts 20.28. 3. Its the only righteousness that God is well pleased with a sin∣ner for, and in which he makes his law honourable, Isa. 42.21.

3. God hath called and anointed Christ thereto in righteous∣ness, Isa. 42.6. i. e. to answer my law and righteousness therein, and to perform the work of righteousness, the Condition of the Covenant I have given thee for, so Heb. 8.3. chap. 5.5. & 9.12.

4. Its a Righteousness becoming the Grace of God, as the gift of righteousness, Rom. 5. and becoming the Perfect Justice and Law of God, and therefore magnifies his Law, &c. and becom∣ing the Wisdom of God, therefore Christ is called, the Wisdom of God; and answers all the ends of God's Glory in Man's Salva∣tion.

5. Its the Righteousness of God, in regard of the stateliness and highness thereof, as the Trees of Lebanon were called the Trees of Jehovah, Psal. 104.16.

6. In a way of opposition to all mens inherent righteousness, which is humane, mans righteousness only; this is God's righte∣ousness, and be hath made Christ to be righteousness to us, 1 Cor. 1.30.

§. 10. Now here is reason enough why Christ's Righteous∣ness should be called the righteousness of God, and that its plainly so intended in the Text appears.

1. Because its a revealed righteousness that Man saw not be∣fore, they can easily see their own own righteousness, without Revelation they are addicted.

2. Its the righteousness of Christ that is the righteousness of the Gospel of Christ, the Gospel of Christ is called so, because its the preaching Christ and him crucified, 1 Cor. 3. and because its his Gospel whereby he cometh and preacheth peace through his righteousness, Eph. 2.14, 15.

3. Its the righteousness of Christ, because its the great object of Faith in Justification; for its absurd to say, our faith is the object of faith, its something without a man first, that he be∣lieves upon; faith is the evidence or Hypostacy of things not seen.

4. Its opposed to the Anger and Wrath of God revealed in the Law, v. 18. as that righteousness which answers it.

5. The Apostle throughout this Epistle casts off, and aban∣dons all righteousness of ours as insufficient, therefore this must be the righteousness intended.

6. The Text is plain, that the righteousness of God is spoken of objectively, as to faith; for a thing is revealed that it may be seen, its revealed from one act of faith to another, and it is con∣firmed by the words of the Prophet, the just shall live by faith, on this righteousness believing in it, and feeding upon it as their food of life, and therefore is not in themselves, but in the Gos∣pel there as revealed; for the import of the words should be, ac∣cording to those men, I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, it is the power of God to Salvation, for therein [i. e. in the Gospel preached, not in our selves] is the righteousness of God revealed, from one act of faith to another, to be seen by it [it is not said that faith is revealed to be the righteousness of God, but the righteousness of God in the Gospel,] because it is the power of God to Salvation, is revealed to our faith, and to be that righte∣ousness which is Gospel righteousness, therefore not in our selves. 3. The preaching thereof, is the power of God to Salvation, and that which a believers faith lives upon.

§. 11. The next place, Rom. 3.21, 22. The Apostle in the 9th verse saith, he proved both Jews and Gentiles under sin, viz. under the transgression of the Moral Law, as plainly appears by his Proof unto v. 19. now saith he, they are under the law in that they are convict by the law, even the whole World, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that law, not the Ceremonial but Moral, against which all the forementioned transgressions are committed, and Gentiles, who were never under the Ceremonial Law, as well as Jews. Now, saith the Apostle, seeing that by this Moral Law the World is condemned, its impossible that any works of obedience to any law whatever should; for if any other law comes to milder terms, unless this law be rescinded, its impossible any man can be righteous before God, hence he concludes, therefore by the deeds of the law, i. e. any law, no flesh can be justified in Gods sight; whatever Law men may pretend to, God will judge and try all by the Moral Law, for a sinner and transgressor of God's law, can have the knowledge of sin by it, i. e. Conviction but no Salvation by any righteousness of his performance: What then, must all the World perish therefore for want of a righteous∣ness? No, God hath provided a righteousness, [he doth not say, God hath repealed his Law, and made a new one] the righte∣ousness of God without a new law is evident, or made manifest in the Gospel, which is witnessed by the Law, i. e. of Moses, in the Doctrine of Sacrifices, and by the Prophets that have prophesied of Christ, v. 22. even the righteousness of God, which is by the faith of Jesus Christ, viz. the righteousness of Christ which faith lays hold on, which is by faith, i. e. which we receive by faith, for it may be said, what is this righteousness of God? saith the Apostle, it is in Christ; how have it we in Christ? by faith: Now, saith he, its unto all, i. e. imputed unto all, and upon all, as a cover∣ing or robe of righteousness by the faith of every Believer, by the least as well as the greatest, by a Gentile Believer as well as a Jew; there's no difference in the degree of righteousness, nor in the imputation of it, nor application of it, all Believers are equally, and alike righteous in Christ's righteousness which is the righteousness of God, and the reason added, for all have sinned, and justified freely by Gods grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ.

§. 12. Now it appears that the righteousness of God is Christ's righteousness: That righteousness that fully and com∣pleatly satisfied that law which convicted all the world as guilty, is the righteousness of Christ; but such is the righteousness here spoken of, as is apparent by the whole Text. 2. That righteous∣ness which we have by faith in another to justification, is the

righteousness of Christ; but this righteousness is that which we have by and in another; for faith is said to act upon what is without us, and not on that which is within us. 3. That which is imputed to Sinners, devoid of any righteousness by the law, or by any law, is the righteousness of Christ; but this righteous∣ness of God is so, ergo, the Propositions of these Syllogisms lies plainly proved in the Text. 4. If all righteousness be here pe∣remptorily rejected, which is performed by us in obedience to any law, then the righteousness here introduced, the righteous∣ness of God, is Christ's righteousness; but the Antecedent is true, v. 20. 5. If the righteousness of Christ is our justifying righteousness, which the Apostle intends throughout this Di∣scourse, then God's righteousness is Christ's, but ergo, the Mi∣nor, which is the Antecedent, is proved. The redemption and pro∣pitiation of Christ is the righteousness by which we are justified, v. 24.6. That righteousness which the law of Moses witnesseth to, be∣ing the reason and sign thereof, is the righteousness of Christ, as such: For what did the sacrifices for sin, but witness to Christ's great propitiatory sacrifice? but the sacrifices of the law all held forth, Christ offering himself a sacrifice for sin, and the Gospel was therein preached. Now it's plain the Apostle brings in the law of Moses witnessing to this righteousness of God.

§. 13. The next place is Rom. 10.3. The Jews had a zeal for God, and a blind devotion, but were extreme ignorant of Gos∣pel-Mysteries, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, being ignorant of God' righteousness in the law, viz. the perfection there∣of, and going about to establish their own imperfect righteousness unto justification, they submitted not to justification by God's righte∣ousness, being ignorant of Christ's righteousness; for it's expresly said to be the righteousness of God, v. 4. Submitted not to the righ∣teousness of God; for Christ is the end of the law, for righteousness to every one that believeth. Take the Argument then, that Christ's righteousness is God's:

1. That righteousness which is directly opposed to our own in justification, is Christ's righteousness; but God's righteousness here is so.

2. That righteousness which a man being ignorant of, tho' he know his own righteousness, falls short of justification, is Christ's righteous∣ness; but the righteousness of God in the Text is such; ergo,

3. That which is the end of the law for righteousness, [i.e. answers the law] is the righteousness of God; but Christ is the end of the law. This Argument is so plain and fall in the Text, that it cannot be answered with any fair pretence, tho' they make a blundering at it to no purpose; and you shall see the Apostle

opposeth it, v. 5. to the righteousness of the law, consisting in doing; and at once tells us, the righteousness of God, the righteousness of Christ, and the righteousness of Faith, is but one righteousness, and opposed to the righteousness of the law which the Jews established; thinking, as our Neonomians do, that it was sufficient to justifica∣tion to have some imperfect sincere obedience to Moses's law, (For I bear them record, saith the Apostle, they have a zeal of God, that's their sincerity) which was the new law; for if they were saved by the law of Grace, this was dispensed to them in Mo∣ses's law; they knew not that God's law required perfect right, and its perfect right must answer it. Hence it appears that they had the same opinion that the Neonomians now have, that Moses's law, was a new law, requiring only obedience to the moral part of it, so far as they could, and for their sins to offer sacrifice, ac∣cording to the ceremonial part; and resting therein, without faith in the Antitype, they reckoned themselves fully righteous for justification: Hence, upon the annual day of atonement, they reckoned themselves as innocent as Adam in his innocency, i. e. as free from guilt, propitiation being made, till they had contra∣cted more guilt: Therefore the Apostle saith, Heb. 10.1. That the law being a shadow of good things to come, could never with those sacrifices, which they offered year by year, make the co∣mers thereto perfect; and the most carnal of them reckoned themselves perfected by those sacrifices but for a time. There∣fore it's most absurd, to assert, that the carnal Jews, whom the Apostle writes against, did endeavour after a perfection of the law of works; 1. Because they offered sacrifices, and made atone∣ment for sin. 2. Because, when they did make atonement, they reckoned they contracted new guilt, and were perfect but for a time: Therefore the Apostle saith, Rom. 9.30, 31, 32. they at∣tained not to the righteousness of faith, because they sought their righte∣ousness as it were by the works of the law, not directly by perfect obedience, but by such as they had, and not by faith in Christ's obedience, for the Apostle is express in it, for they stumbled at that stumbling stone, which was Christ, as the Apostle proves, Be∣hold I lay in Sion a stumbling stone, &c. 3. When they offered they confessed Sin.

§. 14. Mr. H. gives his Explication of this place, Rom. 10.4. thus, For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness, i. e. as I construe it, Christ by his satisfaction, hath procured that we should not he judged by the law of works, and consequently, that righteousness or justification be attained if we do perform the terms of the Gospel.

Resp. Can Mr. H. be so irrational, as to think in his Judgment and Conscience, that this is a genuine Interpretation- Here lies

in the Text very fairly these two things, 1. That the righte∣ousness of God is explained by him particularly to be the righte∣ousness of Christ— have not submitted to, i. e. accepted the righteousness of God: What is that? the righteousness of Christ, for Christ is the righteousness that answers the righte∣ousness of the law, and this is the righteousness of God. 2. The Design and great End of the Law was righteousness, and perfect righteousness, unto Justification of Man, perfect cannot be per∣formed by fallen man, therefore God hath provided a perfect righteousness in Christ and he is this end of the law to every one that believeth, and herein, by justifying him by this righteousness, God is just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus; and its the righteousness of faith, because its not for Justification by any thing that evacuates or relaxeth the law of God, but establisheth it in seeking for, and laying hold upon Justification by a righteous∣ness that fully answers the law. How will it hold in Mr. H's. sence, That Christ by his Satisfaction hath procured, that we should not answer the law of works, or that he should 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 righte∣ousness, 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 Sacri∣fice 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, accord∣ing to that law we have a righteousness which is a righteousness ac∣cepted 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 un∣der the new law, and that what Christ did under the old law,

amounted to no righteousness to us; But he must be righteous∣ness to us under the New Law, and then Christ was made un∣der the New Law, which these men will deny, and be our righ∣teousness 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 Imputa∣tion: Christ being made sin for us, he glosses upon as the Socini∣ans, 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; there∣fore the Apostle saith, he did not only bear sin, but bore it away, Heb. 9.26, 28. Now its 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 suf∣fer 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 insepa∣rable.

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 di∣stinctly 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, its exprest again, as the reason of Christs justifying many, v. 11. for he shall bear their iniquities. Nay, its added the third time, and he bare the sins of many; so that Christs bear∣ing Sin distinct from Punishment, is no less than three times in this Chapter. It is also fully exprest in the New Testament, to∣tidem verbis, Heb. 9.28. Christ was once offered [there's his suf∣fering] 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 multi∣tude 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 its so, because its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for all 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is it not then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, many things might be said to shew how properly its 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 its objected, Christ was unclean. Answ. Not morally pol∣luted, 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 Sancti∣fication, 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 Imputation, or else Christ died in vain, or made not full sa∣tisfaction for their sins, and they are yet in their sins, and bear them, and so unjustified. This I have a little the more enlarged upon for some reasons.

§. 16. I pray note it, its not said that his righteousness might be∣come ours, nor that we might be made his righteousness, but that we might be made the righteousness of God.

Resp. Its said, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him, and what is the righteousness of God in him but his righte∣ousness? in him, shews where this righteousness of God is, its in him, the Apostle speaks not of two Subjects, but of one that is Christ; and is it not said, that his righteousness may become ours? what is more plain? 1. Its said, as Christ was made

sin, viz. by Imputation, for its a legal making, so righteousness is made ours. 2. As our sins are made Christs, not by his Cor∣ruption, but being imputed to him juridically; so his Righteous∣ness is made ours in Justification before God. As he was made Sin in our sins, so we are made Righteousness, in the righteous∣ness of God that is in him: The Phrase in him, determines ex∣presly what the righteousness of God is, unless men will be wil∣fully blind to plain Truth.

Lastly, What he saith is in uncouth Terms, he saith Christ re∣deemed us from the law of sin, I find not the Moral Law any where so called, but the law of sin is the Bent, Propensity and Inclination of our natures to sin, and so used Rom. 7.23.

2. He calls meer procurement, Satisfaction, which we have excepted against before.

3. Its no sence to say, that Christ was made Sin in making agreement of procuring to obtain any good thing for himself or us.

4. Why doth he talk of Christs Procurement, when he denys that which is the thing here mentioned, as the next end of Christ's being made Sin, which is, that we should be made the righteousness of God in Christ.

5. If he hath procured that we should not be judged by the law of works, then he hath procured the repeal of the law, then it ceaseth to be norma judicii, and what satisfied it.

6. He hath procured a new law, what's that to the righteous∣ness of it, which they deny to be procured by Christ? the Par∣liament procures an Act to pay the King Taxes, but we the Peo∣ple must pay the Money.

CHAP. XIV. Other Places of Scripture Vindicated from False Glosses.

Section 1. Mr. Cl's False Gloss on Isa. 45.24. §. 2. His Gloss on Jer. 23.6. Examined. §. 3. The Branch is Christ Priest as well as King. §. 4. 1 Cor. 1.30. Examined. §. 5. Rom. 4.6. Examined. §. 6. Phil. 3.9. Examined. §. 7. Rom. 5.19. §. 8. And Heb. 7.22. Examined. 9. Further of Christ's Suretiship.

Section 1. THE false Glosses of Mr. Cl. are first upon Isa. 45.24. Surely shall one say, in the Lord I have righteousness and strength; which, he saith, are words of the Deity in opposition to Idols, and that the most rebellious shall submit to him, and the seed of Israel shall confess they have righteousness by him, i.e. of his bestowing upon them in the same manner as they have strength; for as he strengthens us, so he makes us righteousness, upon which he deals with us as righteous persons, and justifies us.

Resp. The words are the words of Christ who is called Jeho∣vah in divers places by the Prophets, but that they are the words of Jehovah in the Person of Christ, I am told plainly by the Holy Ghost, Phil. 2.10. and Christ, Jehovah swares, that every knee should bow, and every tongue confess, as the Apostle saith, at the Name of Jesus, for he saith, he is a just God and a Saviour, so is Jesus, and there is no God or Saviour but he; there is no other Name given, therefore this Homage that he calls for is to him as Jehovah, Saviour, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Acts 4.12. 2. Its him, the ends of the earth, i.e. the Gentiles should look to, to be saved by. 3. The great thing that hereby we are assured of, and promised irreversibly is, that at the time when the Gentiles shall submit to Christ, they shall acknowledge that in Jehovah the Saviour, Christ, they have righteousness and strength, its a force to the Text to render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by (from or by) for its plainly in Jehovah, for in Christ is our righteousness and strength, and because here is two things named, its no reason to say they come

to us the same way, the fulness of Christ both of righteousness for Justification, by way of imputation, and strength for Sanctifica∣tion: Now according to these Men, to say, in Jehovah I have righteousness, is to say, in my self I have righteousness and strength; but it denotes that the righteousness that we are justi∣fied by is in Jehovah, v. 25. and its that which is in Jehovah, for in the Lord shall all the seed of Israel, i. e. the true seed, he justi∣fied, and glory, they shall also give God the Glory of the strength they receive in Grace; for as Christ is made of God the righteous∣ness, so he is made the Fountain, Head and Root of their Sancti∣fication, and this is a special Prophecy of the latter days, when the Vail shall be removed, and the Glory of Christ shine more brightly than to the Jews of old, who sought for righteousness in themselves for the most part, and lived upon a Neonomian righte∣ousness, Christ Jehovah saith it should not be so when the ends of the earth came to be his inheritance, then men should re∣nounce their own righteousness, and acknowledge Christs right∣eousness alone to be their justifying righteousness, yet that all Grace and Holiness is treasured up in him. 1. Its the righteous∣ness of God, such Paul calls so. 2. Its the righteousness of Justi∣fication. 3. Its a Righteousness of God in Christ Jehovah. 4. Its a righteousness made ours by Imputation. 5. Its the righte∣ousness that every true Believer is justified by, for such are the Seed of Israel in the days of the Gospel. 6. It is that righteous∣ness not only to be received to Justification, but to be rejoiced in; they shall rejoice in Christ Jesus, having no confidence in their own fleshly righteousness.

§. 2. Mr. Cl. p. 31. The next is Jer. 23.6. He shall be call∣ed the Lord our Righteousness, Much of the same import with the for∣mer, the words are very general without assigning how: Here are four Verses treating of Christ: I observe every passage refers to his Kingly Office— v. 6. must be understood in a sence correspondent to the rest. v. That he is the Lord that doth execute Judgment and Righteousness for us; and I deny not but it may refer to a be∣ing our Righteousness in sences agreeable to Scripture, as to be the author of our righteousness.

Mr. H. Its not appropriated to the Second Person, but to be under∣stood of the Gospel-goodness of God, whereby he imputeth righteousness to us, when we have none according to the law of Creation — signi∣fying that God hath found out a means to demonstrate his Justice no less fully (and his goodness more fully) in saving us by this new law through his Sons Mediation, than if we had kept our first Innocency, or underwent eternal Judgment.

Resp. I find Mr. H. talks by roat, I suppose he did not so

much as turn to Text when he wrote, for he speaks too, so ab∣surdly, as that he manifests plain Ignorance of the Text, as to say, that its not appropriate to the Son; and indeed all that follows, but I find Mr. H. takes his blowing upon a Place of Scripture to be enough to carry away all the Sence and Authori∣ty of it. I find Mr. Cl. hath lookt much further into the Text, and so far contradicts Mr. H. as that it is appropriate to Christ, but takes it to belong to his Kingly Office what is their said; but is not so peremptory as to deny, but it may be understood of Christ being our Righteousness in other Senses, we plead but for one Sense, and that we shall endeavour to make good. The Pro∣phesie, as Mr. Cl. says, belongs to Christ who is often entitu∣led 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Prophets; and the Prophet foretels at least the Days of his Incarnation and Exaltation, the rising up of his Glo∣ry from small unlikely and contemptible Beginnings, Isa. 53.2, 3. he is called, Isa. 11.1. a Science 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, out of the Stemm of Jesse, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Branch, or Sprout out of Davids Roots, and he is called a Branch especially in that he sprung out of the then obscure House of David as to his Humane Nature, and sprang up in a State of Humiliation and Suffering, yet he should arise to a glorious Throne, for he should sit upon the Throne of David to Order and Establish it, &c. Isa. 9.9. I deny not, but the Kingly Reign and Government is here spoken of, but this is not all that is said of him, when he is entitled the Branch, we have not only his Kingly Qualifications spoken of but his Prophetical and Priestly, Isa. 11.1, 2, 3, 4. As its said, he should Judge in Righteousness, so its said, Righteousness should be the girdle of his Loins, as the High-Priests; and so here he speaks not only of his Kingly Justice, but of his Priestly Righteousness; for he saith, as King he shall Reign and Prosper, so he shall Work Judgment and Righteousness in the Earth; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He shall Work Judgment and Righteousness, i. e. shall in the State of his Humiliation Work out Judgment and Righteousness, or while on Earth, and it seems to be the genu∣ine meaning in that he had spoken of his Kingly Reign before, and immediately speaks of Judah's Salvation and Security there∣in, and the Reason of it should be that he should be called the Lord our Righteousness, because he should be so famous not on∣ly for Reigning Righteousness, but also for Redeeming; and it's in this respect the Righteousness of God, and then Gods in Jeho∣vab Christ, and then ours by giving it to us, and in imputing it to us; for we find that not only the Kingly Righteousness as is ascribed to the Branch, but also a Priestly, Zech. 6.13. and what is it that shall be done by this Kingly Priest? The remo∣val

of the Iniquities of the Land in one Day, Zech. 3.9.

§. 3. Hence we see this Branch is Jesus Christ, this Branch is set forth to be a King and Priest, He shall bear the Glory, and Rule, and be a Priest upon the Throne, Zech. 6.13. And he shall be such a Branch as to be the Stone of Israel, i. e. the Corner Stone as the Lamb, Rev. 5. with seven Eyes, and should remove and take away the Iniquity of the Land in one Day, i. e. by his Righteousness, but you say, how comes he to be our Righteous∣ness? God makes him so, read the Text right, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not Passive in Niph, but Active, therefore its thus, this is the Name which he shall call him, i. e. The Lord that would raise up to David a righteous Branch, as King, and Priest, a Priest of the Tribe of Judah, a Melchizedeck. This God shall put this Name upon him, the Lord our Righteousness; let us go a little further yet, and the Spirit of God will tell us the full intent and mean∣ing of this great Name of Christ, see Jer. 33.15. And there we shall find the very same Prophesie repeated with a little Altera∣tion, before God saith, The Day is come, that I will perform the good thing promised to the House of Israel, and the House of Judah, what's that, I will cause the Branch of Righteousness 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 inde, by way of Eminency, the Branch that shall flourish in all Righteousness, Kingly and Priestly, and Israel shall be saved, &c. He shall be Jesus a Saviour of his People by Righteousness, and this is the Name by which she, i. e. Israel and Judah shall be cal∣led, the Church, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jehovah our Righteousness, Jehovah-zidkenu; now this Place, I find is a Noli me tangere to some Di∣vines, let the Men that look upon the Place as so dangerous, read the Hebrew Text, and they must understand a great Go∣spel Mystery, that this great Name whereby the Father hath graciously as to us, and honourably as to him should be put upon the Church, sure its to shew that the Righteousness of God in Christ is put upon the Church; that she is made the Righteous∣ness of Jehovah in Christ, and you'll say, why so great and sacred a Name on the Church, is not this the Name of God only, whose Name alone is Jehovah? Yes, Jehovah is, but Jehovah-zidkenu is Christ's and the Churches, and this is the new Name she is called by, which the Mouth of the Lord hath spoken, Isa. 62.5. but you'll say, it seems too great for the Church, and it makes Christ a Publick Person, there's no doubt of the last, the Church is cal∣led Christ, being one Mystical Body with him, 1 Cor. 12.12. But seemeth it too great for the Church to be thus called? Its the new Name which the Mouth of the Lord hath given, and its a Name of a real Thing, God hath made it righteous in Christ's Righteousness, and why not as well as the Place on Mount

Moriah, which Abraham called Jehovah Jireh, and its said (saith Moses) to this Day, in the Mount the Lord will be seen, and so Moses Builds an Altar, and calls it Jehovah Nissi, the Lords my Banner. Likewise Gideon calls an Altar Jehovah Shalom, Judg. 6.24.

§. 4. Mr. Cl. saith, that 1 Cor. 1.30. seems to have a great Affinity to this, for he is our Righteousness, and made unto us Righte∣ousness is much alike.

Resp. Especially when God makes him our Righteousness, and calls him so, for the Words are, Who of God is made unto us, Wis∣dom, &c. But he saith, Christ is not Wise and Holy in our stead, neither doth it follow then that he is Actively Righteous in our stead; but the meaning is, he is the procuring meritorious Cause, by his per∣fect Obedience hath satisfied the Law, and procur'd a new Way of Righ∣teousness by Faith, Sanctification.

Resp. The Words are not, Christ is Wise and Holy in our stead, but that Christ is made of God to us what he is there said to be, whether Wisdom as a Prophet to teach us, or Righteous∣ness as a Priest, to Cloath us with the Garment of Salvation and Robe of Righteousness; and that he is made of God to be what he is in the divers Ways and manner of Being or Conveying, what we have from him, he is our Wisdom by way of teaching, Righteousness by way of Sacrifice, Sanctification by being the Treasure of all Grace and Holiness which God bestows, he is Re∣demption, in that all the Promises of Inchoation and Consum∣mation of Redemption are yea and Amen in him. But Mr. Cl. makes Righteousness and Sanctification all one, and Christ being to us all these Things one way by meriting and procuring, we have as much right to say too, that Christ is all these one Way, viz. by Im∣putation, because we are sure he is Righteousness to us by Imputa∣tion, but why is Active annexed to Righteousness, he might have excluded his whole Righteousness by what follows, both Active and Passive intentionally. But is not Christ righte∣ous in our stead, when he satisfied Gods Law and Justice in our stead? For what? For any wrong we had done unto the Law of God; I pray, is not that our Righteousness which is Righteousness in our stead; but these Men will have Satisfaction, and no Satisfa∣ction, only a new Bargain or Purchase; likewise a Satisfaction, but not for us, so their Satisfaction which they will have Christ make is no Payment for us nor accounted so by God, nor any Sa∣tisfaction to him for any wrong we have done him, that which Christ hath done is a Purchase of a Righteousness; he saith, we say Righteousness is the Purchase Money, accounted to us; so that Christ is not only a Procurer and Bestower, but he hath

something to procure and Purchase by, he hath something to of∣fer, now as God hath made Christ, the satisfying Price and Ransom-mony, so he is made of God Righteousness to us; but with Mr. Cl. Righteousness and Sanctification is all one, this is hard dealing with Jehovah our Righteousness, these Men are as the Jews of Old, that would not be subject to the Righteousness of God.

§. 5. Mr. Cl. Another is Rom. 4.6. prest to serve this Cause. As David describes the blessedness of the Man to whom the Lord imputes Righteousness without Works; say they, the Righteous∣ness of Christ, but its clear, its not meant of any thing in another Per∣son that's imputed for Righteousness, but something in a Mans self, by the whole Tenour of the Chapter, and by ver. 9. where he saith, Faith was reckoned for Righteousness; so that the Righteousness impu∣ted here spoken of is inherent, graciously accounted Righteousness, but in strict Justice is not so, nor according to the Original Law, &c.

Resp. This plain Place which stands a Rock against all Popish and Neonomian Attempts, he calls prest into our Service, or Cause; no it comes in freely, it's a Volunteer, and mighty thro' God to cast down all their Confidence and Imaginations, where's the clearness in all this Chapter, or Psalm from whence its ta∣ken? is it not clear for the Imputation of anothers Righteousness? Is there any thing of self-righteousness? Faith is spoken of as ac∣counted to Abraham for Righteousness, but we have shewn that, that which was imputed to Abraham for Righteousness, was the Righteousness of the promised Seed; for the Gospel, which is the Doctrine of Christs Righteousness was Preached to him in the Promise, and he by Faith saw Christ's Day of Expiation and At∣tonement, this he reached by Faith, and it was imputed to him not Faith it self, not the Arm that reached it, but the Righte∣ousness it self. There's a Plain Instance in the Gospel, where what the Object of Faith doth, is ascrib'd by a Metonymy to Faith it self, Mat 9.21, 22. The diseased Woman touched the Hem of Christ's Garment, and was made whole, and Christ saith, Wo∣man thy Faith hath made thee whole. And we see Mark 9.29, 30. where is the same Narrative, that Christ perceived that Vertue was gone out of him, and yet saith, ver. 34. Thy Faith hath made thee whole; now I would know of these Men, whether it was Christ's Vertue that healed the Woman, or the Vertue of her Faith, Faith as an Act of hers that made her whole? See Luke 7.39, 42, 47, 48, 50. Likewise the stung Israelites were healed by looking on the Brazen Serpent, was the healing Vertue in the Brazen Serpent, or in their own Eyes. Let us now examine then how clear it is, that the Place is not meant of the Righteousness

of another. The Apostle saith, that David describeth the righte∣ousness of the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works.

1. The Apostles design in the whole Chapter is to prove our Justification by a righteousness which is not made up of works of our own, and the Neonomians say, his design is to prove, Justifi∣cation by works, are not these contradicentia? the Apostle, negat ubique, they say, by some works only, the Apostle means works of the old law, they the works of the new; Its strange the Apostle did not except and secure works of the new law; but I suppose, as for the works of the new law he never heard of them, thence his altum silentium about the new law and its works too. He saith David was justified, or Justification was with a righteousness without works, and yet David might plead his own works to Justification, as well as any Neonomian.

1. He was no carnal Jew that sought Justification by the law of Works, as appears by Psal. 51.

2. If there was any Justification then by New-Law works (as indeed there was not then or now) David sure must be under the New Law for Justification, and he must needs know the works thereof, whereby he expected to be justified; and therefore I thus argue, If David knew he was justified by works, and blessed therein, then he deals falsly, or the Apostle greatly mistakes him, in saying that David proves the blessedness of the man, &c. the conse∣quent is of absolute necessity, and the assumption must, tollere ante∣ced. ut tollat conseq. for they were both inspired, and therefore could not deceive themselves nor us in this great Point.

Arg. If David proves a righteousness without his own works, ei∣ther old or new-law works, then it must be works of another that he in∣tends, for there's no righteousness without works of some or another; if he plainly mean the exclusion of his own works, then he must mean some righteousness of another, and not his own, as appears by this Psal. 31. and also 51. Now we shall prove that David means the Righteousness of Christ, and not of the New Law.

1. That righteousness by which sin is forgiven is not New-Law righteousness, but Christ's, and without our works, but the righte∣ousness is such here. The major is proved from the Neonomians themselves, who say, there's no forgiveness in Justification by Works, but forgiveness is consequent of it, for that they go to the old Law Bar, that the righteousness whereby sin is forgiven is the righteousness of Christ, because its expressed by blood, re∣mission is not without blood, and forgiveness being one Medium by which the Apostle proves Justification without works.

2. That righteousness which covers from the eye of God's Justice in

the law, is a righteousness without our works, and anothers, and no•• of the New Law, but such is the righteousness here spoken of,; such as covers sin from the eye of God's Justice in the Law, such co∣vering David meant, as appears Psal. 51.9. Hide thy face from my sin, and blot out all mine iniquity; now its such righteousness as will take off the Eye of Divine Justice from our sins, yea cancel and blot out iniquity. Now as to the major it appears by the Neonomian Doctrine, that their righteousness in Justification doth not cover sin; for they say, its a sinful righteousness, and needs pardon, therefore their righteousness cannot cover sin, which is sinful in it self, and there can be no righteousness but Christ's that can cover sin; Mens own righteousnesses are far from being such covering.

3. That righteousness through which God imputeth not sin to any chargeable therewith is a righteousness of another, but this righteous∣ness without works is such, Ergo. The minor is plain by the Apo∣stle, for what the Apostle rehearseth from the Prophet, is David's description of this righteousness without works. The major is clear from what went before, no man hath righteousness enough to cover his own sin. Neither can God not impute sin where he sees sin to be more than righteousness, God must impute Sin where Sin is seen uncovered by righteousness; there∣fore if there be a righteousness through which God imputeth not sin, its certain its not ours, but Christ's only.

4. That Righteousness through which God imputeth not Sin is justifying Righteousness, and Christs alone, but the Apostle speaks of such a Righteousness. Now the major is plain, that Christ's Righteousness is that through which God imputes not sin, for he saith, Cor. 5.9. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses.

§. 4. And so likewise, Phil. 3.9. is of the same import [they have one answer for all] This Place should have been handled in the former Chapter, but Mr. Cl. missing it there, led me out. Here Mr. Cl. saith, Paul disclaims only his legal righteousness which he had before Conversion, not his Gospel Righteousness, viz. his Re∣pentance, Faith, Love, Humility, &c. And its the same thing Mr. H. saith, Med. 31. and tells us, the Protestants are mistaken in their interpretation. 1. Because the righteousness of God is not the same with the righteousness of Christ, as hath been observed.

R. That we have disproved, and proved it a false Assertion, and proved, that the righteousness of God is the righteousness of Christ in all the forementioned places, and is as easily proved here, for the righteousness which he opposeth to his own righte∣ousness, indefinitely, without any exception, is Christs, that I

may be found in him, in Christ, not having mine own righteousness, therefore in Christ, is anothers, which righteousness of mine own working is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, legal, as all righteousness of our own by which we seek Justification is legal, it cannot in any sence be called Evangelical, therefore Paul would be found in Gospel right∣eousness, which is Christs only, and this is God's righteousness which we receive by believing, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

2. You are to know that this righteousness which Paul calls his own, in this Text, is the righteousness of a Jew and Pharisee, not his own as a Christian, this appeareth from the Verses before v. 4. and this appears further from Rom. 10.1, 2.

R. The righteousness of a Jew or Pharisee was a new-law righ∣teousness, for they were all Neonomian. Paul could not look upon himself as Perfect, but as to his moral conversation, com∣paratively blameless; he was sincere, for he had great zeal, and verily thought he did God good Service in persecuting the Church. But Mr. H. should have looked to the beginning of the Chapter, where he bids them beware of absolutely prophane, of evil workers, that carry on mischievous Designs under fair Shews, and lastly, of the concision, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, those that were so fond of their new-law Notions, so as to cast off Christ, or cut themselves off from him, but we are of the true circum∣cision, whereby all our fleshly Conceits are cut off, and worship God in the Spirit, rejoicing in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, a fleshly conceit of our own righteousness, in which I had more ground to rejoice than any; and accordingly he tells how exactly he had conformed to Mose's Law, and performed the condition of it as much as any Pharisee of them all, and had as much reason to expect Justification by this new imperfect righte∣ousness as any that now do, but Christ had now taught him bet∣ter things, what then I counted gain, I now count loss for Christ, I find I had nothing that advantaged while I was ignorant of Christ, and therefore I find now, that not only my Pharisaical righteousness was loss to me, but any present self-righteousness, even now at this time, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I do now esteem all things to be damage, for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, &c. and account them dung that I may gain Christ, and he tells us what he means by that, that I may be now found in him, what in respect of holiness, yea especially in respect of righteousness, not having now my own righteousness, viz. that of the works of the law, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that which is legal, for so all his righteousness that a man seeks Justification by is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it is of a law, but what is the righteousness he would be found in? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that righteousness which I have by the faith of Christ, the righte∣ousness

which is of God, for such is that by faith, the righteousness which God giveth, and Christ hath, in whom it is, and I do re∣ceive by faith; this whole verse treats of his Justification and the righteousness thereof, and the following verses treat of the the Sanctification he looks after in Christ; and v. 9. there its certain that Paul opposeth the righteousness of Christ not only to the righteousness of the law, but to his own righte∣ousness in the largest consideration, any thing of his own now: What he saith to Rom. 10.1. is answered before. The Christi∣ans Faith, and new Obedience, out of doubt, by God's help, are his righteousness.

Resp. These men will hold their Conclusion, let the Scripture say what it will. Then the import of the Apostle must be thus, That I may be found in Christ not having mine own righteous∣ness, which is of the old law, but my righteousness of the New Law through faith, the righteousness which is of God by faith.

Paul's righteousness as a Jew and Pharisee was one thing, and Paul's Faith and Obedience, which is his righteousness as a Christian, is another. To which I answer, 1. That Paul's righteousness af∣ter Conversion is here directly opposed to the righteousness of Christ, for he would not be found in his own, but this righte∣ousness of Christ, to be found in it, i. e. by judicial Enquiry, his own righteousness can't be holiness, or the having it, for he doth not, nor would say, he would not be found having of holi∣ness.

2. There can be no Gospel-righteousness of our own that stands in competition with the righteousness of Christ for Justi∣fication, for then its legal and fleshly.

3. A man's own righteousness, whether before or after pre∣tended Conversion, is his own, of the same nature and kind, whatever he himself may think of it.

4. If it was Paul's Judgment that his works was only chang'd from one law to another, and thought that he was now to be ju∣stified by his Gospel-Works, he was as far from the Kingdom of Heaven as before; for one law can no more justifie a man by his own works than another, therefore rejects all righteousness of a law.

5. He is very full in expressing what righteousness he would be found in, in no righteousness of his own, for all such is legal, in the righteousness of Christ, in him, this he tells us is the righ∣teousness which faith lays hold on, and this is the righteousness of God, which God imputes to Justification, and the sinner re∣ceives by faith.

6. He intends not any thing here of Sanctification in this v.

but speaks singly and by it self, of it in the next; neither doth he call it his righteousness, but in this ver. sets aside all his works, tho he shews his value of them in their place, yet as for any place in Justification, he counted them but Dross and Dung. He adds the Words of our Saviour, except your righteousness exceeds the righte∣ousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, which is against him, for no mans righteousness exceeds theirs, which stand in his own for Justification before God: It must not be our own that can, it must be Christs alone, for no other exceeds theirs.

§. 7. Mr. Cl. The next Text is, by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Rom. 5.19. Here Mr. Cl. and Mr. H. both exclude Christ's active obedience, as having nothing to do. Mr. H. saith, this is perfect Antinomian Faith, and excludes Re∣pentance quite out of this life. I must tell him, I am sorry he understands Repentance no better; those that he calls Antino∣mian knows how to reconcile Christs Perfections and their Du∣ties together, I see, better than he doth, as if Christ being a per∣fect Second Adam, did exclude Grace from us, where it is of his fulness for righteousness and holiness that we receive and exer∣cise Grace, but so much only by the way, as a Mark upon the Dirt that he often throws on the Protestants and Reformers, and upon the Lord Jesus Christ himself; I must confess, that I an∣swer him with more mildness than he deserves. As to the exclu∣sion of the active obedience of Christ, there's no ground for it in the Text, but quite contrary; the design of the Apostle in the 2d part of the Chapter, from v. 12. is to shew how Sin and Death entered by the First Adam, and how Righteousness and Life entered by the Second Adam. He accordingly compares them together as contraries, shews that the first was a Figure of the other, in his general nature, but after shews notwithstand∣ing their agreement in a general nature, how greatly they differ specifically, sin entred into the World by the First Adam, by im∣putation of his Sin and by Propagation; so Righteousness by Im∣putation, and Life as the Promise annexed unto the Second Adam. The First Adam was a Type or Figure of the Second.

1. In that the First was a Publick Foederal and Seminal Head, to all his Posterity, so the Second was to all his; and therefore upon the Fall of Man from the Perfection of the Law, the Second is made under the Law, and stands in all the Perfection of it, as a Publick Head to all his spiritual Seed: Now that Christ's active obedience is not excluded in the Text, appears by the plain Antithesis of the First Adam's disobedience, to the Second's obedience; for where disobedience and obedience are set one against another, then as the one is actual sin, so the other is po∣sitive

obedience; for if only passive obedience be here meant, then it should be said, as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners, so by the Sufferings or Satisfactions of one many were made righteous.

2. The First in the Figure was a Publick Person, in respect of his actual obedience or disobedience to the Law of God, there∣fore the Second Adam must be a Publick Person also in respect of his active obedience, or else he answers not to the Figure.

3. Christ could not be without active obedience as the Head and Root of his Church, the Root must be actually holy, or else the Branches cannot be so.

4. It was essential to his High-Priesthood to be holy, harmless, &c. as such, and a High Priest is a Publick Person, and stands for the People, I could be very large in proving that Christ's active obedience belongs to that righteousness of Christ by which we are justified; but I shall not have room here. Mr. Cl. makes as if he would exclude Christ's active obedience only from righte∣ousness, but it is the passive also which both he and Mr. H. strikes at, for he saith, As by Adam's sin all his posterity were brought in∣to a state of sin, so that by the Merits of Christ's sufferings they are brought into such a state as that they may be made righteous.

Resp. i. e. They are brought into such a capacity by Christ's purchasing a new law, that they may possibly be righteous by their own righteousness; So that Adam by his sin brought his into a state of sin, but Christ by his righteousness doth procure a possibility of a righteousness for his; so that the Second Adam comes short of the First in Conveiance, whereas the Apostle hath much more, Rom. 5.17. If by one mans offence death reigned by one, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, hath abounded unto many, v. 15. So if by the offence of one, death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of Grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ.

§. 8. Mr. Cl. Christ is called the Surety of a better Covenant Heb. 7.22. Whence some infer, that he hath paid the debt of obedi∣ence to God for us; Interpreters generally assign two ways wherein Christ is a Surety, 1. By undertaking for God to us, or his becoming Security for God, that he should make good his Covenant to us on his part. 2. By undertaking for us to God, that we should perform the Condition of the Covenant, the first the Polonian Merchants, Grotius and Hammond are for; the Protestants generally stick to this latter, that Christ is our Surety, by undertaking for us to God; that we shall fulfil the Condition of the Covenant by yielding that obe∣dience that is required of us therein.

Resp. Mr. Cl. tells of the Merchants that they the Neonomians

do trade with, and indeed most of their Commodities have Po∣lonian stamps, not to treat so large as to handle all that might be said of the Suretiship of Christ, it being the very Hinge of our Salvation; though the Neomonian, as well as the Polonian Mer∣chants make very slight of it, and Mr. H. in Particular, because he saith, its but once used in the New Testament. I say it is therefore a Pearl of great Price, for I could Instance in several 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Spirit of God hath used in the Old and New; which do express singular Truths and Mysteries not common, I shall only Note some things generally that are Truths I will stand by, as 1. That Christ is not a Metaphorical Surety, but the most proper Surety that ever was, and the Exemplar of all Sureties. 2. That the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifies a Surety for Debt. 3. That is a Surety of the better Covenant, i. e. of the Covenant of Grace, not that he was a Surety of the Performance of that Covenant, but that he is the Surety in that Covenant, that is bound to pay the Debt that we owe to the Justice of God in the Covenant of Works which we have broken; and he is not such a Surety, as to be bound to the Justice of God, that we should pay the Debt [the Lord have Mercy on Neonomians] but he hath undertaken to pay the whole Debt for us; every Far∣thing, if he had been such a Surety as Mr. Cl. speaks of; we were in a miserable Condition. I know the Neonomians do most∣ly incline to be with their Polonian Merchants, in Mr. Cl. first Point mentioned as to God's Suretiship to us, but it's no great Matter where they be, the second Particular being worse than the former; for Christ to be engaged to God, that we shall pay the Debt that we owe to the Law of God by Adams fall and our Sin; i. e. that we shall satisfie Gods Justice for the wrong done, and that we shall perform perfect Obedience to the Law; thus much Man must pay, tho a poor insolvent wretched Creature, and Christ hath engaged to see it done, but not to pay any thing of the Debt himself: And indeed I can prove this to be the true Account of their Doctrine; for they say, Christ hath procured and meri∣ted of God a new Law, whereby the old Law is relaxed or repeal∣ed (not paid or satisfied) a new one is set up, the Condition whereof we performing we shall be justified, but procured not, nor merited the Condition to be performed by us. Now I would fain know, whether Christ was a Surety for that which he never Purchased, is Christ a Surety, that we shall perform the Condi∣tion of the Covenant, and never merited Faith and Obedience, what a kind of Surety will they have Christ, to engage for our Performance, and not take care that we should have the cum quo? But Mr. Cl. seems not to be quite satisfied with this se∣cond

Way. He adds a Third to mend the Matter a little, at least to put a gloss upon it, viz. 3. To discharge that Debt of Suf∣fering, which we did owe the Law for the Transgressing of it.

Resp. Ay Sir, now you say something, you bring a Surety with Mony in his Hands, we use indeed to say, that a Man should never be bound for another, unless he resolve to pay the Debt; Christ knew well enough how Poor we should be, when he un∣dertook this Suretiship: Well, let us see whether Christ clears the score for us, or whether he doth leave a considerable part of the Debt for us to pay our selves: It may be, that which the Law is primarily and mostly concern'd at, and that for a wise Neonomian End, viz. That if he should pay all, the Sinner would prove an Idle Antinomian, and Shabby-fellow, having nothing to do himself, and nothing to pay; therefore Christ indeed paies some of the Debt, but laies up the Sinner in a Work-house to pay the rest at his Fingers ends; For saith Mr. Cl. Now take it in which of these Three Ways you will, yet there's nothing of his paying the Debt of Active Obedience.

Resp. A very sad Story indeed, a great noise of a Surety, that would pay the whole Debt of the poor Man in Prison, and when the Matter is strictly enquired into, he hath only prevail∣ed that he should not be whipt so often in Bridewel, though a∣greed that he should have the Lash too pretty severely sometimes; but as for the greatest Part of the Debt he must Work it out, at least so far as a new Law of his which he hath procured and made doth require. Well, when all comes to all, here's nothing done to free the Sinner, but he must pay all the good Money by the Sweat of his Brows, for Active Obedience to the Law is in∣deed that which the Law sets a High value upon, being the first and main Thing that it designs and aims at; and it doth ex∣pect not only to be satisfied for Disobedience but must be obeyed, yea and it must be paied by perfect Obedience too not by imper∣fect: Now saith our Neonomian, Christ was no Surety to pay any of our Debt of Active Obedience; how then, hath he made no Provision in this Case? Yes truly, he hath done something that may help a little, He hath taken down the old strict Law that kept the Sinner at continual hard-work, and brought in a new ea∣sie remedying Law, then he makes choice of his own Work and bu∣siness and his own Time, and work at leisure, only must have the Lash now and then, and besure that he Work when he is going to Die, and the Condition shall be performed and the Debt paid. Now I only briefly argue, if Christ was a Surety, it was to pay all our Debt in Active and Passive Obedience or none; for Christ paid not by halves, though the Passive Obedience is hardest, yet

the active is hardest to do, the damned can suffer, and shall, but can pay nothing of the debt by active obedience to the preceptive part of the Law. Well, Christ was a Surety to pay all our Debt by active and passive obedience, for else his righteousness would be imperfect, the law left unsatisfied, and we most certain to per∣ish that could never pay, there is no obedience of the Saints that satisfies the Law, Christ performed that as a Publick Person in their Stead, as well as he bore the passive too, whence the pay∣ment of the Debt was full and compleat; but the Neonomians will have this part of active obedience left for us to pay, and our active obedience shall be imputed to us for righteousness, though Christ's shall not: So to gather up these mens Suretiship of Christ it is thus, Christ in his transaction with the Father agrees with him, 1. That he would pay one half of the Debt, and we should pay the other and the best half too. 2. That seeing there∣fore if we should grow insolvent as not to be able to make the payment of our part in currant Money according to the first Law, that he would purchase a new law, and not satisfie the old, but repeal it, and the new law should make all our Brass Money currant, and that God should take that Money for our part, and for his accepting it he becomes Surety for God to us, and thus they come to agree with the Polonian Merchants.

§. 9. The Word used Heb. 7.22 is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it signifieth, praes satisfactionibus obnoxius, one made liable to make satisfaction for another, and therefore sponsor & fide-jussor; Praes we are told was an ancient Title of a Surety being one that answer'd the cause of the Commonwealth, to which he was bound, for any it had a complaint against, therefore he was asked by the Magistrate when he appeard, num praes sit, he answered Praes sum, which im∣ported two things, 1. That he appeared praes sum quia prae sum, i. e. coram, I appear before you. 2. That he appeared not for himself, but for another, in his place or room, as a publick Per∣son, and Representative of the person or persons for whom he appear'd; what he did he did in the person of him that was repre∣sented by him, and so owns himself either fide-jussor on his be∣half, or sponsor, for that the person charged should give satisfa∣ction, or he himself would do it; but when the person repre∣sented is apparently insolvent, and never likely to be otherwise, the Sponsor's obligation is not upon conditional terms, if the Prin∣cipal do not, but he becomes bound absolutely to pay the whole Debt; Christ was thus an absolute Surety for Man insolvent to God in his Law and Justice, to pay the whole Debt due from Man to God: For it was clear to both the Father and the Son, that upon the foreseen Fall Man would be an absolute Bankrupt,

and never able to pay a Farthing of the Debt; hence saith Dr. Gouge, Christ was a Surety to God for Man, of whom the Law re∣quired two things, 1. Perfect obedience to the Laws Precepts. 2. Full satisfaction for sin, both these Christ performed, Rom. 5.19. 2 Cor. 5.21. Gal. 3.13. according to whose judgment we hold the Doctrine of the Suretiship of Christ. Then from what hath been said, we may conclude. That the Suretiship of Christ doth emi∣nently belong to his Mediatorial Office, whereby he hath abso∣lutely engaged himself in the Covenant of Grace, to stand and ap∣pear for, to answer for us, and satisfie all the Demands of Justice in the Law, according to the full, true and perfect tenor of it, on the behalf of all the Elect, and hath answered, satisfied, and doth appear for them accordingly. I shall speak to this Description particularly, in Brief. 1. This Suretiship eminently belongs to his Mediators Office, because hereby he Mediates to make up the Difference between God and Man; and was called to it by his Father. 2. Because it belongs to his Priestly Office, as the Text shews, in so much that his Father constituted him Surety, by that Oath whereby he made him Priest after the Order of Mel∣chizedeck, ver. 20, 21. And by so much, he was a better Surety and Priest than any of Old, in that God never sware that any of them should be Priests for ever after the Order of Melchize∣deck. 3. It essentially belongs to his Mediators Office in making Reconciliation, as might be amply shewn, if these and other Pla∣ces be considered, Heb. 2.17. Eph. 2.17. Col. 1.20, 21. Rom. 5.10. 2 Cor. 5.18. 2. In that he is a Surety of the better Testa∣ment, because its that better Testament that his Mediators Of∣fice, more eminently and fully, according to the Tenor of the Covenant of Grace shines forth in, called the New Testament, Heb. 9.15. The fuller and clearer, and most lasting Revelation of Christ, where he is set as the only High priest over the House of God, and the Surety thereof, here in better Testament or New Testament, is an express Opposition to the Old Testament Dispensation, which was the Exhibition of the Covenant of Grace more legally and vaild, and under temporal Promises; and there∣fore the Apostle calls faulty, compare Heb. 8. with 2 Cor. 3. wherefore Christ is called the High-priest and Surety of this bet∣ter Testament, the Covenant being therein more perspicuous and manifest; wherein Christ hath his Constitution and Esta∣blishment as Surety to his Church. 3. He hath become Surety by Covenant engagement unto God, if thou shalt make thy Soul an Offering for Sin, &c. Lord I come to do thy Will, &c. all this is by way of Covenant-Agreement, freely engaging on both sides; therefore he is Surety by this Covenant, and not for himself;

but for Sinners, Debtors to Gods Law, therefore a Publick Per∣son. 4. He is to stand for others to represent them before God, for what Promises are made to him is to them in him; and its i. e. what he doth is for them, what he engageth to pay is in their Persons and Room. 5. He promiseth absolutely to pay their Debts, and all the Debts and Demands of that Law both as to Active Obedience and Passive, both as to Obedience and Suffer∣ing, the Debt of Obedience to the Preceptive Part of the Law, and the Debt of Punishment as to the vindictive Part of the Law, and in order thereto to write himself Debtor, to bear their Sins, and to be made Sin by Imputation, and this he doth not conditi∣onally, if they don't Pay, but absolutely knowing they could ne∣ver Pay, nor upon Terms of their performing the Condition of a New Law; but by absolute Obligation to perform the Con∣ditions of this Law which they had offended and broke, and by bearing this Sin and Curse of this Law, and reconciling them to God in respect of this Law, and that not by giving an equivalent but by paying the same, according to the true intent and mean∣ing of the Tenor of the Law. 6. This Engagement he perform∣ed as to us in Time, but to God that dwells in Eternity, there's no Time, nor Succession; Christ was set up from Eternity, Prov. 8. as Surety, a Thousand Years are to God but as one Day, and much less, therefore Christs Execution of his Suretiship on Earth in the Days of his Flesh was Eternally before the Lord; hence he is said to be slain from the Foundation of the World; hence the faithful before his coming had a full 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Remission of Sin through this Covenant Relation of Christ, there was not a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or passing them by for Remission, till Christ was actual∣ly Slain, but they had the Vertue of his Death as fully as we, Heb. 4.15. 7. He continues our Surety that hath paid, stand∣ing and pleading his full Satisfaction for us, therefore is our Surety now since Payment, carrying his own Blood into the Holi∣est of all, and there making Intercssion for us.

CHAP. XV. More Places of Scripture Vindicated from False Glosses.

Section 1. Of Daniel 9.24. §. 2. Of Ephes. 1.4. §. 3. 2 Cor. 5.19. examined. §. 4. Of Gal. 5.7, 8. §. 5. The Sence of the Apostle James. §. 6. Mr. H. and Mr. Cl. Answered.

Section 1. MR. Hum. interprets Daniel 9.24. thus, He shall make reconciliation for iniquity, and so shall bring in an everlasting righteousness, i. e. he should by his death procure a Covenant or Law of Grace; by our performance whereof (without the law) we are righteous and must be saved. 'Tis that is our righ∣teousness, if Christ had not procured for us this New Law we could not be saved.

Resp. Let us see how Mr. H's. Gloss will hold with the Text, for I am sure it holds not with the Analogy of Faith, Seventy weeks shall be distributed [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in which word lies the Key of the Pro∣phesie, not to our purpose now to speak to] upon thy People [i.e. the Church of the Jews here] and upon the City of thy Holiness [or Holy City] to finish transgression, to make an end of sin [these Events seem in our English to be the same, but they are not in the Original, the first is most agreeable to the Margent] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to restrain transgression, i. e. by the Reformation of Ezra and Ne∣hemiah, in the compass of these 72 Weeks, but to make an end 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 make an end of sins or sin-offerings, by the offering up of Christ within the 72 Weeks] and to make expiation for sin [true, not typical, and perfect Expiation by the Expiation made by the Blood of Christ] and to bring everlasting righteousness [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to bring in eternal righteousness, or the righteousness of ages Lxx 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: We shall go no further in the Prophecy, This Prophecy is generally own∣ed to belong to the first coming of Christ, and in this Verse the time is set in a mysterious manner to the coming of Christ, his offering up and erecting the Gospel Church, the Angels the Events that should fall out in this compass of time, especially to∣ward the latter end, in the Sacrifice of Christ, wherein he should

make an end of sin 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the abolishing Sin by the sacrifice of himself, Heb. 9.26. wherein he also finished all sin-offerings. 2. He should put it away by making atonement and Expiation, Lxx. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to blot out, and attone for transgression. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in pih. signi∣fieth to make Expiation and Atonement by Sacrifice, even to the blotting them out, and full satisfaction to Divine Justice, for then sin is expiated when the Debt-Book is cancell'd; thus the bloud of the Sacrifice was sprinkled on the Book of the Law, and on all the People, so that there is plenary satisfaction in the bloud of Christ, and thereby a righteousness everlasting brought in, i. e. preached, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rev. 14.6.2. Thereby revealed and made manifest, freed from the Vails and Shadows of the Old Testament, for tho it was given us in Christ before the World began, and lay obscured long under the Old Testament Types, yet now was made manifest by the ap∣pearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath abolished Death [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nulling or abandoning death] and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel, the Apostle seem∣ing plainly to allude to these expressions of Daniel, the bringing in of righteousness, is plainly no more than the bringing the sa∣crifice and satisfaction of Christ for everlasting righteousness, opposed to the righteousness of the legal Sacrifices, which was but temporary, offered every year, but this Expiation of Christ was one offering and the righteousness of Ages; or if it carry any thing distinct from preceding Events, that it be not to be under∣stood of the passive obedience of Christ, the Spirit of God expres∣seth to all the fulness thereof; he adds this to signifie the active obedience of Christ, which is also everlasting, and to be under∣stood always as a complement of that perfect righteousness of Christ.

In Answer to Mr. H. I say, 1. Christ himself is the everlast∣ing righteousness, its not procured, but its that which procures. 2. The Righteousness of Christ is here prophesied of, not the righteousness of our selves. 3. Its the Righteousness that expi∣ates the old transgressions, and therefore here is nothing of a New-Law spoken of. 4. Justifying righteousness is such as sa∣tisfies the Law broken, and therefore there must be at least Ex∣piation in it. 5. Its very absurd, and contradictio in adjecto, to talk of a Law of Grace, if thereby be meant a law for Justifica∣tion; and again absurder, to talk of performing the condition of a law without law. 6. How is new-law-righteousness, for its but imperfect obedience, and therefore will be quite wipt away at death; for when things that are perfect are come, those that

are imperfect are done away; you will say, it may last in a per∣fect righteousness, than the New Law will turn into he old; for they make imperfection to be a proper adjunct of the works of the New-Law, and appropriate to it to distinguish it from the old law. So that here they are justified by the New Law, and in Heaven by the Old Law: What a stir do these men make with the Law? and how do they shift and shirk from one law to ano∣ther, swerving from Faith and Truth, to laws singly, making themselves great teachers of the laws, but understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm, I would fain know whe∣ther Daniel was justified by his own New Law righteousness? it seems he did not understand that that kind of Justification was then a-foot, and its a Wonder the Angel Gabriel could come to tell him, that in a few years hence the Messias should come and bring in old self righteousness again for Justification, which is so choice and precious a Commodity, that it shall cost him his blood to purchase, Would not Daniel be amazed at it, that a man so beloved as he was, was ignorant of it, but that very day, as v. 16. According to thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thy anger and thy fury be turned away; a Neonomian will Gloss thus, i. e. according to our righteousness of the New Law, v. 18. We do not present our supplications to thee for our righteousness [i. e. say the Neonomians, the righteousness of the Old Law, not of the New] but for thy great mercy, that, say they, is the Law of Grace, so they will have their Belly-full of law shortly.

§. 2. Mr. H. gives a wild Gloss upon Eph. 1.4. According as he hath chosen us in Christ. before the Foundation of the World; he saith, the Election of Grace is the Election of Grace, and Gods choo∣sing us, is the taking the Way and Method of Grace, and not of Works, a choice way of saving.

Resp. Ay indeed its a choice way to save by Grace, and not by Works, but to save by Grace and yet by Works is a Contradicti∣on in Paul's Logick. Election is in Christ, how according to common Notion of Election is over hard to conceive, but take it in this Notion, and here is even Day-light, if you take it for the Law of Grace, the Law is the Will of the Law-giver, and that's all one with the Gospel, there's no difficulty in it.

Resp. This Man is so fond of his New Law, that ask him of what Place of Scripture you will, what it means, and he will tell you its the New Law, what is Election? The New Law, what is Redemption? Purchase of the New Law? How are you justified by the Righteousness of the New Law; how shall you be judged by the New Law? what's the Gospel? the New Law; may not these Men be fitly call'd Neonomian, that thus New Law it, its

hard to conceive how Election is in Christ, why? Because he can∣not conceive Christ to be a common Person or Head of the Elect, and that Christ as such was chosen, and the whole Body in him; but tell him, that we are chosen in the New Law, and the Diffi∣culty is removed; and you see what he makes of the Gospel, it is the Law-giver, I think its Time to give over talking with Men whose Wits go a Wool-gathering, once more though

§. 3. 2 Cor. 5.19. God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself, not imputing their Trespasses, and hath committed to us the Word of Reconciliation; the Word is, the Gospel declaring to the World this purchased Pardon, the Pardon is General, a standing Par∣don, an Act of Grace; yet if any will have Benefit by it, he must look into the Act, and see how he is to be qualified.

Resp. The Gospel, he saith, is the Declaration of the New Law, the making of which was an Act of general Pardon, for all the World; and for this Pardon Christ atoned, none could obtain this but Christ; and here all the Rogues and Whores in the World continuing so, are pardoned at once; now the silly Anti∣nomian talks only of the Pardon of Believers before Faith, now a Neonomian doth Antinomize to Purpose, and Mr. H. is willing Christ shall have the Honour of saving Peter, so far as he saved Judas, and so far it's from the Love of the Father in sending his Son to fulfil the Law, how? By no Obedience to it, or Satisfacti∣on for wrong done to him in it, and in this Sence he will allow Grace is without Condition; i. e. as much as Creation is Grace, and God's giving a Law at first; it's true, whatever Act God puts forth at first to a Created Being, in a way of Nature, or Ju∣risdiction, or Mercy; it may be said to proceed from his Sove∣reignty, but it cannot shine forth in a way of Grace, unless it be the bestowing some good Thing in a way of Speciality, Peculia∣rity, and in Distinction from others; not to do something in ge∣neral, for all the World in common, this is not that which will bear the Name of Grace; likewise, considering that what he calls a Law of Grace is but an Exhibition of a Law of Works; for it is but, do believe; God had made the first Law as much a Law of Grace, as this, had the World been as full of People as since, and more, for it had been easier to perfect Man to perform than now, an un-performable condition is to lapsed man. This is Grace without conditions (he saith) even as much as the first Covenant; for God made that Covenant without Man's causing it, the Con∣dition was lege constitura, in the law enacted, the previous causes of a law, whether it proceed from the meer pleasure of the Legislator, or obtained from him by Petition or Purchace, are not considered in the law by the Subject, its the tenour of it that

he looks at, and is concerned in it, therefore the making a law, the proper nature whereof is to be conditional, and promulgat∣ting of it to all the world, is no Pardon; therefore he soon trips up the heels of his General Pardon, in saying, If any come to look for benefit by this Pardon, Act of Grace, Law, Covenant, Testament, (any thing, a declaration of the will of God, as he saith, which being a law is not therefore Grace) he must read it, and see the conditions or terms that God requires. And are not these conditions required of all the World? are they therefore pardoned because they are required of them? its required of every man (he saith) to believe, repent, walk sincerely in order to the benefit, if these be the conditi∣ons of the Covenant, then not free, because working conditions are required of all the World, which by the World are unperform∣able. The main of the Text he cannot see, he is so dazled with his New Law, v. 18. All things are of God [even the reconcilia∣tion of the World, as well as its new Creation, and therefore the righteousness by which reconciliation is made, is of God, and there∣fore saith] reconciling us [by Expiation and Satisfaction, for so the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifying reconciling by an Expiatory Sacrifice] to himself [the enmity was between the Sinner and God, and God in this Grace is the first mover of Reconciliation] by or in Jesus Christ [in whom the righteousness of Satisfaction is] giving to us the word of reconciliation [i. e. the Gospel in which this reconciliation is preached, whereby the Sinner seeing the pre∣venting love of God in the mystery of Reconciliation, by the Im∣petration of Christ, he may have the application of this Grace al∣so by Faith, for this is the great doctrin that reconciles the heart and brings him to believe. This he repeats v. 9. shewing only exegetically, that we who are to be saved are the world in the sense of the Scripture in this truth, by an usual synecdoche of the choice part being put for the whole, and the whole for the better part not imputing their Trespasses] shew which is the great thing done in reconciliation of a Sinner to God, its non-Imputation of sin, which contains Imputation of righteousness, for wherever sin is not Imputed to condemnation, righteousness is Imputed to Ju∣stification so here its manifest that its not our own righteousness that is Imputed to Justification, but his only by which reconcilia∣tion is made, and sin not imputed, whence it follows also that our sins were Imputed to Christ, or else there could not be the non-Imputation of them unto us.

§. 4. Mr. Cl. makes a long Discourse to acquaint us, that Paul and James do both mean Justification by Faith to be Justifi∣cation by Works; that Paul in denial of Justification by works only, means works of the law; then, I say, he excludes all works,

for all works performed for Justification are works of the law, and to say that such are Gospel-works, is to say, the Sea burns. And that James speaks of Abraham's Justification before God by Faith in conjunction with Works; That Paul makes a perfect ex∣clusion of all works of any law from Justification, i e. works of our own performance hath been sufficiently made to appear; what he alledgeth for Paul's meaning, p. 70. may be a little spo∣ken to, and undertakes to tell us, from Gal. 5.5, 6. compared with chap. 6.15. that Paul intends works as well as faith when he rejects works from Justification: I must say as I have said, If Paul was of their mind, it is strange that in Two Epistles he had not acquainted us what he meant, when he shall only intend Jewish Services which the Gentiles are not concerned in, and perfect works of the Moral Law, which none ever performed, since the Fall, but Christ alone, that he should mean Gospel-works, and not tell us, what were the Gospel-works which he meant, when Gospel-works whereby any man seeks Justification, are law-works, and therefore contradictio in adjecto. The Apostle to the Galati∣ans, v. 4. makes a solemn Protestation, that whoever is [i. e. professeth to be] justified by law [by his own works of a law] hath abdicated Christ, and fallen from Grace, where there cannot be a law of Grace; for to assert a law in our Justification by our performance of the works of it, is to fall from Grace; now it is strange that he did not specifie the Law and Works that he in∣tended we are justified by. Mr. Cl. saith he did, in his specify∣ing Love and the New Creature. Verse 6. in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith that work∣eth by love; the Apostle had said before, as for us our expectati∣on of righteousness is only by faith, for its nothing that availeth at all in Christ but a true faith, and that is true which worketh by love, which bringeth forth goodfruits, and one of the more emi∣nent is instanced in, which is love; now he doth here set by all the other Graces and Duties, in comparison of faith, because it hath a peculiar nature of receiving a justifying righteousness from without, and in denying and rejecting it self, or any doing by us for that end; hence he saith, its not any works of the cir∣cumcision, that is of those that profess Justification by Works in the Jewish Religion, nor of the works of the uncircumcision, i.e. works of the Christian Religion, that signifies any thing, but true Faith only; this is the plain meaning of the Apostle. As for Chap. 6.15. it signifies nothing as to our adversaries. v. 14. He shewed how his glorying was always in the Cross of Christ, both unto Justification and Sanctification; for to be in Christ, implies both, and he desires and looks for no other ground of rejoicing

than the Cross of Christ; neither is there any other ground to any one, Jew or Gentile; there is nothing in either that is to be valued but the new Creature, which is the life of Justification and Sanctification, both which is by being in Christ Jesus, he be∣ing to every Believer whatever he is for Righteousness and Life; so that here is nothing to exalt the new creature to righteousness for Justification, but to exalt Christ Jesus to be all and in all to the new creature for righteousness in Justification; and as the Head and Root of Holiness in Sanctification.

§. 5. And now it will appear what the sence of James is, The main Scope of the Apostle in chap. 2. is, to exhort to the impartial exercise of Charity to the Saints, and after many Ar∣guments, v. 14. he tells us, not to exercise Love and Charity is a sign of a false Faith, such as will not save us, as plainly appears by, v. 15.16, 17. Even as the Apostle Paul saith, true faith is that which worketh by love; so he saith, that which doth not work by love in the exercise of true and faithful charity is dead faith, being alone, i. e. having no fruits but an outward Name and Pro∣fession only; and further, v. 18. How, saith he, wilt thou demon∣strate to another person that thou hast faith, thou saist to another, I have faith, but saith that other, demonstrate it to me by thy works, that it may appear to me by thy works, I will shew thee my works, whereby thou shalt conclude I have faith, and justifie me and my pro∣fession before all men that have a question or doubt thereof: Thou believest it may be, by an historical or dogmatical faith, as to some things, so do the Devils: But (v. 20.) wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead, i. e. wilt thou have de∣monstration of it, how dead? It is not justifying faith, and there∣fore not saving, for all true, saving faith is justified against all objections men can make against it. 1. He instances in Abra∣ham, the obedience of Abraham to God was a ground of mens ju∣stification of Abraham as a true Believer, provided his action was good obedience which seemed so unnatural, wherefore God him∣self witnesseth to his obedience, as good, and an eminent effect of true Faith, therefore he was justified by works, not as to his state before God, for he was in a justified state before, but first, pro∣vided his obedience were good, all men must justifie Abraham to be an eminent Believer. Again, God bore witness to Abraham's obedience as good, therefore Abraham was justified to be a true Believer from his works. So that Abraham was justified as to his faith, as true, good and eminent, by his, or from his obedience; therefore the Apostle saith, thou seest how his faith co-works with his works, i. e. he did these actions in faith, and faith car∣rying

him on to such works, his faith was perfected thereby, i. e. as a Tree that hath its fruits growing upon it, all true faith thriv∣ing and flourishing in that manner. He insists upon Abraham's again, and tells us, That the Scripture was fulfilled, [or is pro∣ved to be true] in two great things. 1. That it saith, he was justified by faith, i. e. he believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness; what was imputed, his faith? No, it was the blessing in the Promise, the Lord Jesus Christ and his righteous∣ness, that he believed. 2. The Scripture saith, his faith worked by love, therefore it was not a dead faith; he was called the friend of God, he was from the greatness of love he had to God, ready to yield any obedience to God, thence the Apostle denies not, that he was justified by faith only, as to his Person, but that God declared and witnessed also to his obedience, as approved of by him, which in the sence the Apostle is speaking of, was a Justification as to his Faith, and the goodness of it in his par∣ticular acts of obedience, v. 24. you see therefore that a man is justified by works, [a man may have an approbation of his works, and a commendation from God for them] and not of his faith on∣ly [God may commend and approve of a mans works as well as his faith, for indeed it is a Justification by way of commendation and approbation of a mans faith and works which the Apostle James here speaks of.] Likewise v. 25. Rahab the harlot was she not justified by works [i. e. did she not approve her self to be a true Believer?] when she received the messengers, and had sent them out another way. The World would be apt to condemn this action of Rahab, as treachery to her Native Country, and therefore God justifies her in this particular action, that it was good, being done in faith, God witnesseth to it in his Word, and justifies her as a Believer, in foro mundi, by this eminent act of her, v. 26. whence having given these instances, he concludes, as a body with∣out a spirit is dead, so is faith without works dead; and that was the thing which he undertook to prove, that faith, i. e. supposed or professed, is dead, if it be fruitless; hence, he saith, Believers have been justified to be so by God, in giving Testimony to their works, as true fruits of saving faith. Wherefore we may conclude, that James and Paul are agreed in all. 1. That James speaks of faith in general, a Profession of Christian Faith, and that such Pro∣fession is empty and profitable to our selves and others, as also dead in it self, if it is not justified by good works; so the Apostle Paul often speaks of saving faith, and our Saviour Christ, that we can have no better Argument of each others truth of faith than the fruit growing upon the tree, this is without question to v. 19. 2. He proves it in that they were true Believers, had

a double Justification. 1: By Faith only, and here he concurs with Paul concerning his Justification before God, v. 23. and yet he had such a faith as wrought by love, for the Scripture calls him the friend of God. 2. That there is a Justification of a Per∣son as to a particular act, as well as his Person and State, and therefore the instance of Abraham's offering his Son, and Rahab is brought in, and this is that Justification which the Apostle Paul speaks not so much of, but the Spirit of God doth in several cases, as Abel and Enoch, God testifying some way to their Ser∣vices in foro mundi, and so Job, whom God justified against the unjust charges of his Friends; so Phineas his zeal for the glory of God in the matter of Cosbi, that seemed a rash and mutinous piece of Usurpation. God justified him in it, declared his high approbation thereof. Hence James speaks of faith that accom∣panies salvation, at large, and condemns that as false and hypo∣critical, that is not fruitful. 2. He speaks of Justification at large, which is by faith in foro divino, before God, and in foro humano, before Men; by works and fruits of faith, that in foro divino, is by faith only without works. 1. In that he saith, no works of ours can answer God's law, v. 10. He that keeps, or pretends to keep, the whole law, and offends in one point, is guilty of all; whence ariseth this unanswerable Argument, They that cannot keep the whole law of God without offending in out point, can never be justified be∣fore God by works, but none can do so, Ergo. 2. He asserts Justifi∣cation by faith before God in the instance of Abraham's faith, using the same Expression, and doth not deny this to be true Justifica∣tion, and full before God, but only Abraham brought forth the fruits before Men, from his faith working by love he is called the friend of God; thus God justified him in his obedience as a true Believer, Ergo, he concludes, as all true faith, so true ju∣stifying faith hath such fruit. 3. James shews how God often bears witness and approves of particular actions which men are ready to condemn, such as Abraham's offering up his Son, and Rahab's giving up the City, and such a Testimony that they per∣formed it by faith in Christ and his Righteousness; for no other are approved of by God as Gospel-Works, and thus you have the full scope of James, not contradicting the Apostle Paul at all, but speaking only of another Justification in foro humano, in the effects that Men see, and the approbation that God gives.

§. 6. Hence I answer Mr. Cl. who saith, the same Justifica∣tion is intended by Paul and James, I say, James intends the same Justification before God, in foro Dei, aut ••egis, when he speaks of Justification by Faith, but he intends not the same when he speaks of Justification by works; he intends, as Paul doth, so

far as he speaks of Justification by Faith, but when he speaks of the same persons justification by works, it intends only Gods de∣claration of his approbation of the particular Acts of obedience and bearing witness thereto, of the true faith in foro humano by word or evidences, as in that whole of Hebr. 11. And in divers other Scripture James speaks of Justification of a mans person; It is true and here its ascribed to his faith, the righteousness he receives by faith is imputed to him, but the faith is not all the approbation that he hath, not all his Justification he is also justi∣fied coram hominibus. He doth not say works were imputed to him for righteousness? But he and his works for his person, then his obedience being accepted by God in Christ, God witnesseth before men to his faith and obedience, and to his faith by own∣ing his obedience. So that he speaks both of the Justification of his person and of his faith too but in divers respects.

2. Can his faith save him, Implying, that tho faith without works cannot save, yet faith with works will; for Saved, and Justi∣fied, both belong to the same Subject.

R. True, but that doth not prove that Justifying and Saving is in all respects the same, for there may be works as well as faith in that respect saving, because both accompany Salvation, but its not therefore that Saving in all respects is Justifying, for there's saving in sanctification and glorification; and tho faith without it be such as in time produceth works will not save upon any ac∣count, yet it follows not that works do justify before God.

3. He speaks of the person of Abraham being Justified, and there was a concurrence of his works with his faith in his Justifi∣cation.

R. There was in foro humano, for he could not appear unto men that he had faith but by works, if Abraham saith he is a believer and righteous before God, another man will say shew me such works as will argue it to me? So Abraham shews his obedience, and his faith concurrs to it for he could do such works but by Faith, and God witnesseth to them Heb. 11. coram hominibus.

4. He rejects being Justifyed by Faith only.

R. 1. He cannot be Justifyed by Faith that is dead and bar∣ren. 2ly, He cannot be Justifyed before God and man too with∣out works. 3ly, There was not any held a mans Faith was justi∣fyed by his faith but his person, and that his faith was justifyed to men by his outward demeanour in exercising visible gra∣ces.

5. The reason that he coucheth in that Similitude, v. 26. shews, that he speaks of the Justification of the person. viz. That such a faith cannot Justify because its dead.

R. The words are, as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead. These words shew only what was the drift of the Apostles discourse from the 14 v. viz. to shew that faith which bringeth not forth good works is not true, it will not save, it will not profit, it is no better than reprobates may have, it is not Justifying before God or Man. Now then for Mr. Cl. Pairs of Antith. he saith, A man is justifyed by works, as James saith, a man is Justifyed without works of the law, i. e. saith he, A man is Justifyed by such works as are in the nature of living faith, but not by such as are works of the law.

R. All works and faith it self as a qualification are works of a Law, and whereby no flesh living shall be justify'd, Gal. 3.11. and tho the Apostle speaks of, and owns Abraham's Justification by faith before God as Paul doth Rom. 4. yet he no where saith a person is justifyed by works before God, if he had said so he had directly contradicted the Apostle Paul, but the Reconciliation is thus, a believer is not Justified by works before God, but he is justifyed by works of faith or fruits of it before man. 2d. Pair, A man is Justifyed by faith, and a man is not Justifyed by Faith only. Reconc. A man is Justifyed by that faith that includes works, but not by that faith that is without works. Recon. A man is Justifyed by faith objectively which produceth works before God, and man is not Justifyed without works before man. The 3d, Pair is thus, A man is Justifyed by Faith and a man is Justifyed by Works, I reconcile thus, a man is justifyed by that faith which brings forth works, and a man is justifyed by those works.

R. Recon. a man is justifyed before God by faith, a man is justifyed before man by works. By all which it appears that Paul and James are agreed in the nature of true Faith and Ju∣stification by it in the sight of God; but only James speaks of Justification in a larger sence, to wit, Justification in foro humano, as well as Divino, and therefore he ascribes a kind of Justificati∣on to works, so that a man cannot be Justifyed by Faith alone, in the largest sence, seeing he cannot be Justifyed before man with∣out works. Now if he had meant as our Neonom. do, he must have ascribed all Justification to works only, for they hold our Justification by Faith to be no otherwise than as a work. Mr. Cl. seems to boast himself in expression of the Psal. 106.3. 1. con∣cerning Phineas, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used the same root, which is used of Abraham's Faith, Gen. 15.6. Where the thing that Abraham be∣lieved in the Promise, God Imputed to him for righteousness as the Apostle expounds Gal. 3.6.8. for he saw Christ in that Gospel preached to him as our Saviour witnesseth, and as the word there is an Active signification. It is a Passive in Niph. with

the Psalm. it plainly referrs to the particular Act of Phineas. It is said, that Phineas stood up and executed Judgment and the Plague was stayed, and it was reckoned to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for Righteousness, for a noble righteous just Act, to all Generations, its not said that the Lord accounted it him for the righteousness of his person before God, but God bore witness to the seasonable∣ness and justice of the action in staying of the Plague, and such an effect being thereof, all men have since judged it a righteous just Act to all Generations. So that the word is not used im∣personally but personally and passively, and the Act which he perform'd is the Nominative Case, neither is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used im∣personally but the thing that God promises and he believes is the Nominative Case.

CHAP. XVI. The Righteousness of Christ is the only Righ∣teousness whereby a sinner is Iustified in God's sight.

Section 1. The Transition, and Subject asserted. §. 2. Argument 1. §. 3. Arg. 2. §. 4. Arg. 3. §. 5. Arg. 4. §. 6. Arg. 5. §. 7. Arg. 6. §. 8. Arg. 7. §. 9. Arg. 8. §. 10. Arg. 9. §. 11. Arg. 10. §. 12. Arg. 11. § 13. Arg. 12. §. 14. Arg. 13. §. 15. Arg. 14. §. 16. Arg. 15.

Sect. 1. HAving written hitherto in way of defence, against the Adversaries of our Justification by Christ's Righteousness, and having in some measure (as I trust) the mind of the Spirit, I dare not let these Adversaries pass without using the Sword of the Spirit, to the wounding their Doctrine even in its very Vitals, by home thrusts and downright blows. For the Lord Jesus Christ who is come forth upon his white Horse, with a Bow and a Crown, will not return till he hath conquered all the Enemies of this glorious Righteousness of his, and tri∣umphed over them. I have chearfully thro' grace taken this Service in hand, under the Captain of my Salvation, thro whose strength and assistance I hope for success to his praise and glory.

I shall in the first place prove that the Righteousness of Christ is the only righteousness that a Sinner is justified by before God, and the Arguments are these briefly:

§. 2. Arg. 1. That is the righteousness only that a sinner can be justified by, which fulfils that law which he hath broken; But Christs Righteousness is such: For the minor our adversaries would have us believe that they mean so, however, they often talk of satisfaction to the Law, their sincerity therein will be tried in due time. As to the major its indubitable to any man of sence, that its not another law can excuse him from the condem∣nation of the law which he hath broken; nor a righteousness of another law, especially such as is imperfect and faulty, that will serve the turn. God never abandoned nor relaxed his original Law, (though others as branches in positive laws for a time be∣ing, may be) but that was perfectly fulfilled in Christ.

§. 3. Arg. 2. That Righteousness which merits the Justifica∣tion of a Sinner before God, is that righteousness only by which, and for which he is justified before God; but the Righteousness of Christ is such, Ergo. For the minor our adversaries grant it, that Christ merited and purchased our Justification, i. e. by works of our own, and that our Righteousness and Justification are effects thereof, and therefore there needs no further Proof here; but we must come to the major which pincheth hard upon them; but it appears to be true, 1. Because there is no legal Discharge of an accused person, without a meritorious righteous∣ness appearing; Now these men, with the Socinians say (some at least, and others do but lisp at it, Mr. B. says it downright, he knowing it to be inseparable from the Popish Doctrine) that their righteousness is not meritorious, being imperfect, if it be not, its no justifying righteousness; I will stand by it, that there is no righteousness can claim Justification but upon the merit of their action in the performance of the preceptive part, and if they be justified by the new law, they must be justified by the merits thereof; but we assert that the righteousness must answer the old law broken, and it must be, as in Justice it doth so satisfie that law, that it lays claim to Justification by vertue of those merits, and no other righteousness will pass there, but what is such.

§. 5. Arg. 4. The righteousness typified by the Priests Sa∣crifices of old, was the righteousness whereby a sinner is justifi d in the sight of God; but the righteousness of Christ a-alone is such, Ergo. For the major our adversaries, Mr. Bellar∣mine and Mr. H. say, that Christs Righteousness is the thing for which id propter quod, not as the End but as an Instrument of

the Efficient, and a meritorious cause, and our Faith and Obedi∣ence is the per quam, which they say doth not denote Merit, and in the Protestant sence per quam denotes only instrumentality; but indeed here's these mens Commutation, they make Christ's Righteousness the Instrument, and that remote enough too, and our own righteousness the Formal Cause of Justification, which in truth is their meritorious cause; upon their own Positions the major must be granted. The minor will be very demonstrable upon these reasons, That the Righteousness of Christ is only such, the id propter quod, and per quod a sinner is justified in Gods sight. 1. i. e. The righteousness by which we are justified, is not two, but one, and Christs is that, as the Scripture affirms. 2. That for which a man is meritoriously justified in tribuno legis, is that by which he is justified; so the law knows no difference in those terms, for it doth nothing by any righteousness but it doth it for that righteousness. 3. The Spirit of God therefore useth the Greek Prepositions, promiseuously in this case, as hath in part been shewed. 4. No Sinner therefore can stand in Judgment, but by and for this Righteousness of Christ.

§. 5. Arg. 4. The Righteousness typified by the Priestly Sacrifices of old, was the righteousness whereby a sinner is justi∣fied in the sight of God, but this was the Righteousness of Christ only, Ergo. The major and minor are so clear that no Christi∣an that hath read the Scripture with any understanding, can deny either; if any shall say, its not easie to defend it, there's the whole Epistle to the Hebrews, yea, the whole Scripture to prove them; all the Devils in Hell cannot cast down this Fortress, and I leave it therefore to the intelligent Reader, let him search the Scrip∣tures, they testifie of it.

§. 6. Arg. 5. That Righteousness which is a ransoming and redeeming righteousness from a legal Bondage is the justifying righteousness of a sinner before God, but Christ's Righteousness is that alone which is a redeeming and ransoming righteousness, Ergo. The minor is true, none that call themselves Christians dare to fly so audaciously in the face of Christ, and deny plain Scri∣pture, to deny this, if they do, there's enough to prove it, to the meanest Christian; The major therefore, I will prove beyond all contradiction; That righteousness which meritoriously dischar∣geth the sinner from his Bondage under the Law, the condem∣nation and curse of it, is justifying Righteousness; but Christs Righteousness is such, Rom. 8.34. Gal. 3.13. and divers places, for a discharge of a person from under the Bonds, Imprisonments, and Curse of the Law, is his Justification, and the righteousness for which he is discharged is his Justification:

§. 7. Arg. 6. That Righteousness which only can justifie a Sinner against the Law, is the Righteousness whereby a Sinner is Justifyed in the sight of God, but Christ's Righteousness is such. Ergo, I suppose the major is undeniable, except men will cavil at the Sun at noon day, and will any have the face to say, as to the minor, 1. That God hath not purer Eyes of Justice than to be∣hold Iniquity, 2. That he exerciseth justice by halves and not in the strictest and exactest manner, 3. Will they say their righte∣ousness is so perfect, as to answer Gods Law? The Neonomians say no. How will they dare to say then they are justifyed by a Righteousness which is not answerable in perfection to the Law, but they will be justifyed by another Righteousness the worst they can think of by a Law coined adequate to Antinomian and li∣centious Principles? 4. A Sinners unrighteousness is such, that the Law could never look upon him for to be righteouss in the sight of God in his own righteousness, because, he hath been once a transgressor. James saith, If a man transgress but in one Point he is guilty of all. The Saints in Heaven tho glorified with Perfection, yet having been sinners and transgressors of the Law, they could not stand Justifyed out of Christ's righteousness, It is one thing to have perfection of Sanctification as to the pre∣sent standing and performances, and another thing to have per∣fection of Justification, wherein the least believer here on Earth are as perfectly Justifyed and as righteous before God as the glorifyed Saints in Heaven. See Col. 1.22. Eph. 6.27. Rev. 14.4.5.

§. 8. Arg. 7. That Righteousness which repairs all our un∣righteousnesses lost in the first Adam, is the only righteousness whereby we are Justifyed before God: but Christ's righteous∣ness is such and no other righteousness. Ergo, as to the major, for all other righteousness comes short of what we lost in the first Adam, our unrighteousness was our breach of the preceptive part of Gods Law, this was our unrighteousness, our loss and pu∣nishment was also very great, in respect of moral original righ∣teousness, and coming under the wages of sin which is death or liableness thereto by the Law in all acceptations. Now Christ as a second Adam brought in a righteousness upon both these ac∣counts. 1. His perfect compleat active Obedience in opposition to Adam's Sin, obedience to disobedience. Rom. 5.14. If thro the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God and the gift by grace [which is Christ's obedience] which is by one man, hath abounded un∣to many. So in every v. to the end of the chapter Christ's obedi∣ence was not only to save us from punishment but to take of all the spots of sin in the sight of God. Will Neonomian righteous∣ness,

take away Original sin in the sight of God, bring us into the perfection of the Law in the sight of God, repair the pre∣ceptive part of God's Law? Nay, will it do any thing to take us of from punishment? No, they say not, if not its worth nothing.

§. 9. Arg. 8. That Righteousness whereby a Sinner is at peace with God, reconciled to him, and hath access unto his presence with boldness, is the Righteousness whereby he is Justified: but the Righteousness of Christ is such, the minor is evident. Rom. 5.1, 2. Eph. 2.13, 14. Rom. 5.10. Col. 1.20. The major appears, Justification is our reconciling peace with God Ground of bold∣ness of access in Faith and Prayer. Rom. 5.1. Heb. 4.15, 16.

§. 10. Arg. 9. That Righteousness which Christ pleads in Heaven for us, is our Justifying righteousness, but it is his own righteousness which he pleads in Heaven, for us. Ergo, This righteousness is our Justification righteousness. Doth Christ plead our righteousness or his own? Not ours sure, he pleads for accep∣tance of our services thro' his righteousness, he entred into the holyest of all with his blood. What was it to procure? A Ju∣stifying righteousness of ours for him to plead before his Fa∣ther?

§. 11. Arg. 10. If there be no name of any other, nor Sal∣vation in any other among men besides Christ's, than there's no righteousness for Justification of a Sinner but Christ's; but the antecedent is true, Acts. 4.12. the place so full and express there's no disputing it. But our Neonomians will deny the antecedent; for this is the stone that is set at naught by our new Gospel builders; they will say that there's justification righteousness in men, and in the name of themselves and their own righteousness they shall be Justified; but then I say, there's another name, and salvation in some other among men, if that justifying righteous∣ness is our salvation only. For what is in Christ, is it not in them? And tho Christ purchased it, the salvation is in them not in Christ.

§. 12. Arg. 11. If Christ be the end of the law for Righte∣teousness to every one that believeth, then his righteousness is the only Justifying righteousness, but Christ is so, the Antecedent is true, Rom. 10.4. all the aim and design of God in his law in making it, is that it may be answered in righteousness, Christ is this end as to all saved ones, and as to believers; he said not, that we are the end of the law by our own righteousness, or that Christ merited that we should be the end of the law, or shou'd be the righteousness of a new law, but Christ is so; if their had been any other end for righteousness, he would have told us of it. The consequence needs no proof for whatever fully answer the

end of the law in active and passive obedience for us, is justifying righteousness in the eye of the law, it looks for no more; but the Neonomians will say, here is the old law meant, and Christ answered that, I say, then if he did justify us as to Old law righ∣teousness, a fig for the New law and the pretended Justification thereby.

§. 13. Arg. 12. That righteousness which in a lively manner is held forth in the seals of the Covenant, and as seals of the righteousness of faith is justifying righteousness: but that is the righteousness of Christ, Ergo. For the minor thats plain, the washing with water held forth his washing us from our sins in his blood; the eating the bread and drinking the wine, it is to signify our feeding upon the Body of Christ by Faith, on which he bore our sins, and drinking of his Blood which he shed for the remission of Sins. As to the major its plain they hold forth Christ to be our justifying righteousness, Act. 2.38. and that we live upon this righteousness (as the Lord's Supper holds forth in a spiritual eating the Body and drinking his Blood,) do we shew forth our own death or life of works or his? that they should be seals of our own righteousness and not of Christs.

§. 14. Arg. 13. If no righteousness but a Suretiship, and Preistly righteousness can justify a Sinner before God, then Christ's righteousness alone can do it, but nothing but a Sureti∣ship and Priestly righteousness can, &c. The minor is proved because we are Bankrouts have nothing to pay, neither in our selves by nature, nor bestowed on us, that which the holiest man hath in sanctification bearing no proportion to our sins and God's demands, therefore it must be the righteousness of a Surety, that's holy, harmless, &c. that pays a righteousness for us adae∣quate to the demands of the Law. The consequence will hold because there was no other Surety to God for Sinners, but Christ; he hath engaged to pay for us, and hath paid and his payment accepted. His Blood was shed for many for the remission of sins, he was the great high Priest, and as such he was a Surety. Heb. 7.21.22. ch. 2.17.

§. 15. Arg. 14. If there be no Gospel righteousness in respect of a Sinner but Christ's righteousness, then Christ's righteous∣ness is our Justifying righteousness; but there's no Gospel righ∣teousness. The minor is thus proved, The righteousness by which a Sinner is Justified is Gospel. 1. Because its not wrought by himself but by another for him. 2. Because its given to him freely; its a Law righteousness in respect of Christ: Now when by our graces and duties we claim Justification as due to us upon per∣forming conditions, we make all our works legal and put them in

the room of Christ's righteousness for Justification. The consequence is clear because a Sinner can be saved only by a Gospel righteous∣ness, that of Christ that is offer'd him, and he receives as the Gospel glad tidings, for its good news and Gospel to any man, to hear of one that is able and willing to pay his debt for him.

§. 16. Arg. 15. If there be no life to be given to a Sinner by the righteousness of any law perform'd by him, then the righteousness of Christ is the only righteousness that he is justi∣fied by; but there is no life to be given to any Sinner, by the righteousness of any law perform'd by him, Ergo. The antece∣dent is fully proved by the Gal. 3.21. where Law is used in∣definitely, in both parts of the Texts as well the last as the first, and it should have been rendred thus, if there had been a Law given which could have given Life, then Righteousness had been by a Law; therefore this place is fully exclusive of justify∣ing righteousness by a new Law, and God never made such a Law. The consequence is clear if all other Law righteousness but Christ's be excluded, then Christ's righteousness is that alone by which a Sinner is Justified. These Arguments are strong and enough to prove what we assert, and against all the World if the Scripture and Reason enlightned thereby may take place. The Scripture is so full of proof, that these Sixteen might be made Sixty, but brevity is call'd for, by the circumstances that attend Printing.

CHAP. XVII. Of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness.

Section 1. Christ's Righteousness is Imputed to us, and Paul saith so. §. 2. Argument 1. §. 3. Arg. 2. and 3. §. 4. Arg. 4. §. 5. Arg. 5. §. 6. Arg. 6. §. 7. Arg. 7. §. 8. Arg. 8. §. 9. Arg. 9. §. 10. Arg. 10.11.

Section 1. OUr Adversaries say they own the Imputation of Righteousness to Justification; but they say, its there own, not Christ's: Now we shall prove that Christ's Righteous∣ness is Imputed. They say, its no where said that Christ's Righ∣teousness

is Imputed. We say, it is in all that is said by the Apo∣stle Paul, so plain, that all but he that will shut his Eyes per∣versly must see it. I shall but give brief hints of it, 1. The Apostle Paul, Rom. 4. speaking so often of Imputation, gives us plainly to understand, that he means no Imputation but of Christ's Righteousness to Justification; for his Discourse in the 4th chap. is continued from ver. 25. of the 3d to prove the Do∣ctrine of Justification by the Propitiation, Blood and Righteous∣ness of Christ; and shews how Faith honours this Righteousness, and wrongs not the law by it, but establisheth it. In the 4th ch. he goes on to exclude all Justification by any works, and shews in Abraham and David, they took Christ's Righteousness. viz. that spoken ch. 3.25. by Faith, for their Imputed righteousness, unto justification and remission, and covering of them from the Eye of God's justice; wherefore Christ is call'd our Propitiation, in allusion to the Golden cover of the Ark, that hid the Law and was the mercy seat; now briefly to shew that by Imputation so often mention'd in this chap. he meant the Righteousness of Christ to our Justification he tells us ver. 22. that what God had pro∣mised to Abraham, viz. the Righteousness of Christ, which he was fully by Faith perswaded of, was Imputed to him for Righ∣teousness; now saith the Apostle, it was not written for the sake of Abraham only, but for us also to whom it shall be Imputed, i. e. the Righteousness in the Promise; if we believe on him, that raised up the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, who was deliver∣ed for our offences and raised again for our Justification i. e. if we believe in God, thro' the full perfect and compleat righteous∣ness of Christ, for our Righteousness could not have been full and compleat without his Resurrection, and his Justification as a pub∣lick head of all the Elect; who raised was Justified, as having wrought out a full and compleat Justifying righteousness for them, they are incouraged and invited to take it for their Righteous∣ness by Faith, and they might assure themselves of the Imputation thereof; and proceeds in the next chap. to say, that having ta∣ken this Imputed righteousness by Faith, they are said to be ju∣stified by Faith, and to have peace with God, and access unto the grace of God thro the said righteousness.

§. 2. Arg. 1. Now then I Argue, if Christ in the promise be Im∣puted for Righteousness to Abraham and every believer, and the Apostle saith so, then the Imputation here spoken of, is the Impu∣tation of Christ's righteousness; but the antecedent is true, from Gal. 3.21, 22. its plain, that it was what God had promised to him was Imputed to him. The consequence needs no proof, for it was Christ was promised, and he saw Christ's day in that promise,

and the Promise of Christ was the Gospel preached to him.

Again, to prove the Apostle means the Righteousness of Christ is imputed, If the delivery of Christ for our sins, and raising him again for Justification, was the Righteousness of Christ for Justification; then this is that which was imputed not to Abraham for righteousness only, but also to every Believer by the Text; and therefore the minor is fully there proved; and I think as to the major, that none can deny the Life, Death and Resurrection of Christ to be his com∣pleat Righteousness.

§. 3. Arg. 2. He that was made of God righteousness to us is made by imputation of his righteousness to us; but Christ is made so of God, 1 Cor. 1.30. but saith Mr. Cl. he is made righteous∣ness as he is made Wisdom. So Righteousness, Sanctification and Re∣demption, but it follows not only that he be made of great advantage to a Christian, but these several ways, that he is not one thing as the other; he is not a Prophet as a Priest; and if he should mean made righteousness in Mr. Cl's. sence, then he should be but made sanctification twice taken, for Mr. Cl's justifying righteous∣ness is but Sanctification; its, he is made the Spring, Head and Root of Sanctification, and legally made righteousness to us.

Arg. 3. Again, If we be made the righteousness of God in Christ, [where its plain this righteousness of God is in Christ] then the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, but we are made the righte∣ousness of God in him, Ergo. the antecedent is proved by, 2 Cor. 5.21. as to the major, the Neonomians say, the righteousness of God is our own righteousness: We say, nay, the righteousness of God is said to be in Christ, and we are made so by imputation, for Christ could not be made Sin for us, but by Imputation, and if it is meant of a Sacrifice for Sin, even such were made Sin by Imputa∣tion, and therefore we are made the righteousness of God in Christ by Imputation.

§. 4. Arg. 4. Again, If Christ hath merited our Justification, Christs Merits are imputed in themselves to Justification; but Christ hath merited our Justification: The minor is granted by these Gentlemen: They tell us, that Christs Merits are id propter quod, we are justified for the sake, or rather by reason of Christs Me∣rits; but they mean not that Christ purchased the Sinner's per∣form'd condition of the New law, but that he procured of God a new law for man to perform the condition of: Now this is no more to be the cause of Justification, than God in making a Law was a cause of Sin; for sin is not Imputed where there's no law; and where there is a Law, there will be Justification or Condem∣nation: Christ merited a Law and made one, therefore for the sake of Christ, we are Justified by this Law; here's Christs law

causa sine qua non with a Witness. As to the consequence, if Justifi∣cation be an effect of Merits, and it be a Juridical effect, then Me∣rits which is the cause, must be imputed to the person on whom these effects must fall: What moves the Court or Judge to ju∣stify this or that person, his own Merits or the Merits of ano∣ther? Not his own, but the Merits of another: Then these Me∣rits are imputed, for it quickly and plainly appears what is im∣puted to any, whether merits of Condemnation or merits of Ju∣stification, for Justice goes by nothing but Merit; and therefore mens own righteousness cannot justify-because it cannot Merit: And do not our Neonomians speak as the Socinians in this point, and mumble as if their mouths were full of plumbs? Now there∣fore, if Christs Merit be brought into Court, as a meritorious cause of the Sinners Justification, they are imputed to him for his Justification as if he had merited himself.

§. Arg. 5. They say, Christs Merits cannot be Imputed, but the Effects are Imputed. And I Argue, If Christs Righteousness be Imputed, its Imputed as a cause of Justification, or in the Effect; [It should be as an Effect or the Disjunction is ridiculous] but its not Imputed in the Effect, Ergo. In and as the Cause, for the Effect is not the Cause but contrary, its another thing; so that to say Christs Merits are imputed, and so imputed to the person Justified is nonsense. But what are the effects imputed? All the Benefits purchased by Christ. For is Justification an effect impu∣ted? Sure not. Is Justification imputed to Justification? Sure that's most absur'd. Is Mortification imputed to Justification? That looks very odd. Is Vocation and Adoption, or Glorificati∣on, all or any of them Imputed to Justification? for they are Effects of Christs Merits. But suppose they say, some of these or all, are to us imputed for righteousness unto Justification; I then Query, Whether the Righteousness perform'd by us in the new law Justification, be merited by Christ as an Effect? Do not I see them sneak away now and give no Answer, but upon ano∣ther Subject, they will tell you that Faith and the condition of the New law, was not purchased by Christ, but are by the gift of Election only. And now I pray what's become of Justification, by Effects of Christs Merits? They will say, we are Justified by Im∣puting the Spirits operations to us for righteousness. Now this cannot be,

1. The Spirit never was incarnate, nor his Office to work a Righteousness for Justification; this was peculiar to Christ.

2. The fruits of the Spirit, when they come to be exerted, are called our works, and justly so, because Graces exercised, or Duties performed by us are so, these are all renounced as such by the Apostle Paul. Phil. 3.8. and elsewhere.

3. What the Spirit doth in Justification, its office is by way of Application, it takes of Christs, and gives it to us; it applies and brings home to a sinner the Impetration of Christ, as Righteous∣ness unto his Justification; hence the Spirit is said to justifie, 1 Cor. 6.11. in bringing to the Soul the Grace of Justification, and enstating him therein by faith, as he sanctifies by bringing in the Grace of Sanctification. Now then, if Christ's Righteous∣ness cannot be imputed in the effect, and is imputed at all, then as the cause meritorious of Justification.

But they say, God cannot impute Christs Righteousness to us, because we did not perform it, and God is a God of Truth, he cannot impute that to us which we did not. To which I answer,

1. That God doth not reckon we performed Christs Righte∣ousness.

2. God may give us his Son for righteousness, Rom. 8. and give us this righteousness, Rom. 5.5.

3. He may accept it for us on law terms, as our righteousness to Justification, and all this is according to Truth and Righteous∣ness imputing it to us in a Law Sense.

4. The Argument will fall upon Neonomian Justification, for that's to call that righteousness which is unrighteousness, and not according to Truth, as hath been shewed: Mr. Cl. makes it a great Argument that the active righteousness of Christ must not be imputed, because Christ did not obey that we should not obey, and where's the Antinomian that says so? but we say, that Christ did and suffered all that the law required of him as a Second A∣dam, and our Surety, and his obeying in doing is no hindrance, but a Gospel ground and reason of our doing and obeying: As Christ did not suffer that we should not suffer, but not suffer the Penally, so Christs doing was not that we should not obey Evangelically, but that we should but not obey legally, with expectation of our Justification by our works, or from a law, for that is to be under a Law, and not under Grace, and to sin instead of obeying, Rom. 6, &c.

Lastly, If Christ's righteousness be taken as a meritorious cause in a sinner's Justification, it is imputed as such to the per∣son justified; the effect of this cause is the sinner's Justification, which is his proper Discharge, and this is not Imputation, but Judgment upon it, and Delivery in Law, and suppose the effects of Merit could be imputed, the cause and reason thereof must be first imputed; for the Law doth nothing in way of Condem∣nation or Justification but upon a meritorious cause imputed unto Condemnation or Justification; and how absurd is it to say Con∣demnation is imputed, but its proper to say, the sin that merits it is imputed.

§. 6. Arg. 6. That Righteousness which is accepted in law unto Justification is imputed to the person justified, but Christ's Merits are accepted of God to the Sinner's Justification. The major must be owned for Truth by the Neonomians, otherwise they could not assert their Justification by Works. The minor hath been counted sound Divinity by most Protestants, and ma∣ny Papists; but whether it be or be not, the Scripture affirms it roundly; see for a taste, Eph. 5.2. chap. 1.6. for an acceptation in law, must be an imputation of Merit to Justification, and can be upon no other account, either of a man's own, or of another's for him, the law looks at the value of his Money or Works that he brings into Court, not how he came by either, whether by Gift or otherwise.

§. 7. Arg. 7. That righteousness through which Sin is not im∣puted to condemnation is the righteousness through which a man is im∣puted righteous unto Justification: But Christs righteousness is that through which sin is not imputed to condemnation, Ergo. The minor is very clear from Rom. 8.1.34. who is he that condemneth, it is Christ that died, chap. 4.6, 7, 8: Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven, to whom God doth not impute sin; and this is told us is a righteousness without works, that which comes on Jews and Gen∣tiles, that which covers Sin from the Eye of God's Justice, there∣fore that which lies in the Death and Resurrection of Christ, v. 24, 25. likewise 2 Cor. 5.15. God was in Christ reconciling the world, i. e. justifying, for God reconciles none but by Justifica∣tion; reconciliation is essential to it, and therefore non imputation of sin; for while a man lies under a law charge of sin he is un∣righteous, till he be imputed righteous by the law. The major is evident from what is said in proof of the minor, for non impu∣tation of sin to a sinner is essential to his Justification, which can be no otherwise then by a covering righteousness; and when a law imputes sin, the same law must justify by imputing to him an adequate and satisfactory righteousness.

§. 8. Arg. 8. The Sins of Sinners under the old Testament were Imputed Typically to the High-Priest and Sacrifices, which is very ea∣sie to make appear, Ergo. The Sins of all sav'd sinners are Impu∣ted really to Christ, and his righteousness to them. See 1 Cor. 5.21. Rom. 3.25. Heb. 9.15.

§. 9. Arg. 9. That which cannot be pleaded for Pardon or Justi∣fication unless it be Imputed, is when its pleadibly imputed unto Ju∣stification: But Christs very righteousness is pleadible, &c. Ergo. The minor I suppose these Gentlemen dare not deny, for I find tho they will not have it their immediate righteousness by impu∣tation, yet they will have it for some remote and as a reserve at a

dead lift, when conscience sees that neither the New Law, nor the righteousness thereof will serve the turn. Now that Christs righteousness is not pleadible without Imputation to us, neither by Christ in heaven nor by us on earth its plain, for if Christ be never so righteous, his plea is answerered in saying thou art righteous for thy self; I never imputed thy righteousness to these, let them plead for their own Justification. If they plead it with God, the answer is, Christ is righteous for himself; his righteousness not impu∣ted to thee, no more then the righteousness of one of the An∣gels; and therefore Christs righteousness being pleadible its imputed; without Imputation its not pleadible for us or by us.

§. 10. Arg. 10. That righteousness which is a Suretiship righ∣teousness must be imputed, else its of no value to the offender; but Christs righteousness is a Suretiship righteousness, he being a Surety his righteousness must be such. And as for the major its plain that the justice that accepts one person to be Surety for another, doth im∣pute or account the righteousness of the Surety to that other, or else it accepts not, the Surety is rejected now that Christ was accepted as a Surety is beyond all question, Heb. 7.22.

§. 11. Arg. 11. The righteousness of the second Adam is an Imputed righteousness, for 1. as Adam was a Publick person that had a Covenant standing for all his Seed, so the 2d Christ was, and had for his. 2. As Adam's Sin came by Imputation upon his Seed so Christs righteousness on his as fully appears from Rom. 5. But this I must not now enlarge upon, the Apostle is so full and plain therein, that I never could see any thing said to oppose, that could have weight with any learned and rational Interpreter, if unprejudiced against Truth.

CHAP. XVIII. What Interest and concern Faith hath in our Iustification.

Section 1. Of the Nature of Faith as spoken of. §. 2. What this Faith is? §. 3. And how we are said to be Justified by Faith. §. 4. Arg. To prove that Faith is not our Righteousness.

Section 1. HAving proved Christ's Righteousness to be the only Righteousness for a Sinner's Justification in Gods sight, and that this Righteousness is certainly Imputed to every one that believes; we shall in the last place enquire, what concern and intrest Faith hath in our Justification? I shall not speak of Faith accompanying Salvation at large (as the Apostle doth Heb. 11: Wherein he also comprehends Justifying, (among the other Senses there spoken of) but only of Faith as it referrs to) Justification and the righteousness thereof.

§. 2. Justifying Faith is a gift of God, whereby a poor sin∣ner believes in God unto eternal life thro Jesus Christ. 1. It is a gift of God, in respect of the grace of God and the work of the Spirit, Eph. 2.8. 2. It is a purchased benefit for an Elect person. 2 Pet. 1. 3. It's a Gift to a Sinner; there's no grace lives tell Faith, then Christ lives in him; its to a poor undone broken Sinner. 4. This is a gift of grace to believe in God and Christ; 1. To be perswaded of the truth of the Law, his certain curse under it, impossibility of coming to the works thereof; That its a saying worthy of all acceptance, that Christ came into the world to save Sinners, whereof Paul saith, he was one of the chiefest; not that he was righteous subordinately to Christ's to qualify him for it: This is that which is properly call'd fides, but its hard to distin∣guish this from the Faith of a natural man and hipocrite; there∣fore, 2. There is believing in i. e. resting upon God and Christ, resting on the faithfulness of God in his promise of a good thing to us, as for eternal life, and for righteousness in Christ; now faithfulness belongs to persons; truth unto things, when the Soul doth not only believe the thing promised true, but believes him

faithful who hath promised, and from thence doth stay himself and his Soul acquisce in it. This is properly fiducia, trusting in God. 3. There's a particular application of Christ in the pro∣mise and the Soul unto God in Christ, believing that all the promises, especially those that concern eternal life and justificati∣on by Christ's righteousness, are yea and Amen in him, made and perform'd in him.

§. 3. Hence, by Faith we are said to be justified. 1. Because the righteousness of Christ is the object of our Faith; it is that we believe to, and come unto believing, Rom. 10.10. We believe unto righteousness. 2. By Faith a man is devorced from the Law and legal righteousness, and comes into a new marriage relation to Christ for righteousness and life. Rom. 7.3. Because its that grace only whereby a man can go out of himself, and fetch in the righteousness of another. 4. It is that grace which from the very law of its nature which it hath thro grace, doth always deny it self any thing of righteousness for Justification and gives all the glory of righteousness unto Christ alone. 5. In that it doth fiducially rest and depend thereon believing. 6. It dwells upon an object of righteousness which is not seen, by sence or reason, yea it is the hypostasis of Christ's righteousness in the Soul; Christ lives as it were in our Faith, take away Christ from it, and you leave it a dead nothing or worse, it returns to unbelief. 7. Because by this Faith the Soul sees God at peace with him, and he hath peace in him∣self, and the controversy is at an end between God and him, thro this Imputed and believed righteousness. 8. The justi∣fied one as he draws his first breath of the new man in believ∣ing unto righteousness, so he lives upon this righteousness in all his Christian course, in that Christs righteousness may be call∣ed 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 per∣fect 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 righ∣teousness and faith it self, and the life eternal given to such a poor wretch in and thro Jesus Christ. 11. In that this grace be∣ing filled with Christs righteousness, is leading to all fruits of Christs righteousness imputed and believed, all which ap∣pear

in the exercise of all holy affections, graces and duties to the mortification of sin and growth in obedience and confor∣mity 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 no∣thing more if true, but will keep a Believer always a poor, hum∣ble, 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 Argu∣ments 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 work∣ing out of this Righteousness.

2. If Faith be our Righteousness, then Faith is its own Ob∣ject, 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 merito∣rious 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 what∣ever, 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 Imputa∣tion 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 unbe∣lief is, for that Faith must believe that Christs Righteousness is not imputed to us for Justification, this his high unbelief accord∣ing 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 Justifi∣cation; 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, form∣ing 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 Justifi∣cation 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 Righ∣teousness 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 Cove∣nant, given by Grace purchased by Christ, part of Eternal Life, a means to lay hold of the Condition; but I shall not enlarge up∣on 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 con∣sult 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 Testa∣ment, 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 Righte∣ousness of the first Adam, so the Second was built on the Righteous∣ness 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 Co∣venant or Conditions, but it was with Christ for us, Adam lost his Righteousness, the Foundation of the first Covenant, but the Righteous∣ness 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 l. 31. false Hebrew. p. 134. l. 20. r. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 148. l. 17. r. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, l. 29. r. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. l. 34. dele the be∣fore events. p. 149. l. 5. r. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 155. l. 6. a fine, r. unprofitable. p. 158. l. 6. ab ult. r. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 159 false Hebrew. p. 160. l. 6. ab ult. r. Arg. 3, The righteousness for which, and by which a sinner is justi∣fied.

Notes

• * 1.1

  To impute is to lay any thing to the charge, so Minst. Lat. Impu∣tare aliquid alicui. Plin. Caedem alicui imputare. So Quint.