Alexipharmacon: OR, A FRESH ANTIDOTE AGAINST Neonomian Bane and Poison 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. Sane. Clark, contrary to Scripture, and the Doctrine of the first Reformers from Popery.  If there had been a Law given, which could have given Life; verily Righteousness had been by the Law: But the Scripture hath concluded all under Sin, that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe, Gal. 3.21, 22. 
By ISAAC CHAUNCY, M. A.  
London: Printed for, and Sold by W. Martial at the Bible in Newgate-Street, 1700.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
THE Points Controverted in this small Treatise, are not of the least moment to the Christian Religion, all Reducible to these two great Questions.  

1. Whether our Lord Jesus Christ in his Suffering, bore the Personal guilt of any or no?  
2. Whether our Inherent Obedience to the New Law, be the Righteousness by which a Believer is Justified before God?   
The first Question comes to be discussed upon the Controversy about change of Persons, Mr. Job asserting, That the change of Persons between Christ and Believers, consisted in Christ being made sin for us by the Imputation of our sins to him in a legal Sense, and a Believers being made the Righteousness of Christ by Imputation; and both by transaction of our Personal guilt and punishment (due to us) for Sin, to Christ; and of his righteousness in bearing sin and punishment, to us. This change of Persons the Scripture asserts in plain Words 2 Cor. 5.21. This Mr. Job asserts, Report, p. 13. and the Bishop denies, and saith, That the change was not in respect of the guilt of Sin, because Christ bore the Personal guilt of none, and whatever Christ did or suffered, the personal guilt of sin remains on Believers and can never be taken away. But he tells us of a kind of Change that he is for, viz. That Christ was punished, that we might not be punished, and this is all our stead that Christ stood in; now if Christ stood not in our stead as Sinners, and he was not made Sin for us, it's to assert that which is Expressly contrary to Scripture, and most irrational to men of Understanding as shall be made appear. And the Change which is pretended by the Bishop is no change in the sense of the Spirit of God, at best it can be but a partial change, neither as a Public person, nor in the Room of the Sinner as such: It is such a change as when three persons are condemned, and they are through the mercy of the Legislator to cast Lots for their lives, one only to die; now be on whom Death's Lot falls, dieth that in the event the other may not die, yet this Person dieth but in Relation to his own Sins, not upon the account of the others Sins: Many Instances might be given of the like Nature, where a Man does or suffer for another, that the other may not; and here is a change of Persons in respect of Punity and Impunity, but Note, that it's no true Change, if Desert remains on the Original Transgressor; and the Sufferer suffer under no Desert, neither is such Sufferings Punishment in any Law Sense, neither can that Person be ever Righteousness, that standeth in the Personal Gild of his Sin unremoved; but this is not the Place to enlarge on this Point.  
I shall only Note, that in one thing the Bishop got the Weather-gage of Mr. Job, Mr. Job having in express Terms renounced that Change of Persons, which Dr. Crisp Asserts. The Bishop very honestly proves, that Dr. Crisp asserted not other Change of Persons, than what Mr. Job contends for, and therein he hath done Justice both to Dr. Crisp, and Mr. Job; and truly its but a sorry Business of any Man of Learning and Ingenuity, to inveigh highly against the Opinion of another, as erroneous, when he himself is necessitated by his Principles to hold the same thing, only a little differing in way of Expressions. Neither let the Reader think, that I appear to Justify Mr. L's appealing to the Bishop, for I was always against it, and declared to him, how much I and others was offended at it, and at his nauseous fawning and flattering of him, as if he intended to lay down his Faith at his Feet, for he could not but know the Bishop's settled Opinion in this Point (as I told him) by the Letters he wrote to Mr. H. and Mr. W. yea, and to himself before his Appeal, and then if so, what a piece of Pageantry was it in him to Appeal to the Bishop? but it must be done, it seems the Wind of his Fantasy without any Reason hurrying him this Way, the Issue whereof is that, were Mr. L. alive, he would see he is inevitably run a ground; and therefore, although I can't get him off as to that matter yet, I hope to see the Truth safe, the main Thing which the Good Man contended for, for I am not to defend Men who will have their Imprudencies and Imperfections, but the good Cause he defended.  
The Second great Thing I contend for, is the Righteousness of Christ, that it is the only Righteousness that a Believer is justified by; Mr. Humphr. and Mr. Clerk Assert our Justification by a Believers own inherent Righteousness, i. e. by their Works of Obedience to the New Law, a Tenent that hath an inseparable Connexion unto the former. I shall not detain the Reader any longer therein, but refer him to the Treatise itself.  
Lastly, I finding in the Bishop's Treatise, a Presentation of the Independants, brought in by the Presbyterians, for holding several Antinomian Principles which the Rebuker calls Bane and Poison, in that Form of Prayer which he hath taught his Disciples. I have thought it requisite to Entitle my Book accordingly Alexipharmacon, and though I take the Rebuker to be of too haughty a Constitution (abounding in Choler) to be my Patient, yet I am not discouraged from exposing this Preparation to Public Advantage, not doubting but some may reap Benefit thereby; and hence I have endeavoured also to correct the Drugs, which the unskilful Rebuker hath cast away with his profane Faugh, for Bane and Poison; and show, that if they be but a little scraped and wiped from the Dirt and Filth, which he and his slovenly Apothecary hath put upon them, they will become a Christians wholesome Food, and substantial Medicine, being the Fruit and Leaves of the Tree of Life for the healing of the Nations, Rev. 22.2.   


A Catalogue of Mr, Isaac Chauncy's Books, Printed for, and Sold by William Martial, at the Bible in Newgate Street.  
1. NEonomianism Unmasked: Or the Ancient Gospel pleaded for, against the other called, a new Law or Gospel, in a Theological Debate, occasioned by a Book lately wrote by Mr. Dan. Williams, entitled, Gospel Truth stated & vindicated, pri. 6 d.  
2. The 2d part of Neonomianism unmasked, or the Ancient Gospel pleaded for, against the other called, the New Law, wherein the following Points are discoursed: 1. What the state of the Elect is before effectual calling. 2. Whether Good laid our Sins on Christ. 3. Whether the Elect were discharged from sin upon Christ's bearing them. 4. Whether the elect cease to her sinners from the time their sins were laid on Christ. 5. What was the time when our sins were laid on Christ. 6. Whether God was separated from Christ while our sins were laid upon him.  
To be had with his whole Works, and not single; any other Part may be had single at the same Price set to them.  
3. The 3d part of Neonomianism Unmasked: Or the Ancient Gospel. Wherein these following Points are discussed: 1. Of a Change of Person between Christ and the Elect. 2. Of the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace. 3. Of the nature of Saving Faith. 4. Of the free offer of Christ to sinners, and of Preparatory Qualifications. 5. Of Union to Christ before Faith. 6. Of Justification by Faith. 7. Of the necessity and benefit of Holiness, Obedience and Good Works, with Perseverance therein. 8. Of intending our Souls Good, by Duties we perform. 9 Of the way to attain Assurance. 10. Of God's seeing Sin in his People. 11. Of the Hurt that sin may do to Believers. 12. Of God's displeasure for sin in the afflictions of his People. 13. Of the Beauty of sincere Holiness. 14. Of Gospel and legal preaching. 15. Mr. John Nisbet's Reply to D W. Price 2 s. 6 d.  
4. A Rejoinder; to Mr. Dan. Williams' Reply to the first part of Neonomianism unmasked; wherein his Defence is examined, and his Arguments answered, whereby he endeavours to prove the Gospel to be a new Law with Sanction, and the contrary is proved, 1. By showing what a Law is. 2. By showing what the Gospel is. 3. Several Arguments proving that the Gospel is not a New Law with Sanction. 4. An Account given of the Beginning and Progress of this Neonomian Error. Price. 6 d.  
5. A friendly Examination of the Pacifick Paper, concerning the consistency of absolute Election of particular Persons, with the Universality of Redemption, and the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace; where also the new Scheme is clearly declared in several Questions and Answers about some great Points of Religion. 1. In understanding what Christ did in the flesh for all. 2. What he did in the Spirit only for his Elect. 3. As concerning the Law. 4. Of Justification. 5. Whether Salvation be possible to all Men by the Law of Grace, etc. Price 4 d.  
Note. All these five Pieces are printed in Quarto, to bind together, and those that will have them complete shall have them all bound together for 5 s.  
6. ☞ Another very useful Book of Isaac Chauncy's, M.A. Being a System, or Body of Divinity, Entitled, The Doctrine which is according to Godliness, grounded upon the holy Scriptures of Truth, and agreeable to the Doctrinal part of the English Protestant Articles and Confessors: to which is annexed, The Congregational Church. Government. 1. Of a visible Gospel Church. 2. Of Church Officers. 3. Of Church Ordinances. 4. Of Ordinances of Gospel Communion; And first of the Seals. 5. Concerning the Keys. 6. Of divers Duties which concern the comfort of Church Communion, pri. bound 2 s.   

A Catalogue of some other Books lately Printed for Will Martial, and sold at the Bible in Newgate Street.  
1. A Discourse of Christian Religion in sundry Points. Preached at the Merchant's Lecture, in Broadstreet, by the late Reverend Mr. Tho. Cole, M. A. and Student of Christ's College in Oxford. Price 2 s. 6 d.  
2. An Answer to six Arguments, produced by Du-pin. Likewise a Refutation of some of the false Conceits in Mr. Lock's Essay of Human Understanding. Price 6 d.  
3. Stated Christian Conference, asserted to be a Christians Duty, 6d.  
4. A new methodised Concordance, Price 6 d.  
5. A Compendium of the Covenant of Grace, as the most solid support under the most terrible Conflicts of Death, though armed with Desertion, decay of Grace, and sense of Gild, by Walter Cross, M. A. 6 d.  
6. Bunyan of Election and Reprobation, Price 6 d.  
7. Christianity the great Mystery, in answer to a late Treatise, entitled Christianity not Mysterious; together with a Postscript Letter to the Author. Price 1 s.  
8. The young Man's Guide for Drawing, Limning and Etching, with printed Directions, Price 1 s.  
At the Bible in Newgate Street, you may be supplied with all sorts of Printed Books of most Authors, Bibles, Testaments, Grammars, with all sorts of School-Books, most sorts of Almanacs, OLD BOOKS New Bound of any sorts: Also all sorts of Stationary Wares, as Paper, Pens, Ink, Wax, Bonds, Bills Funeral Tickets, Printed at reasonable Rates. Also Dr. Daffy's Cordial Elixir; Blagrave's Spirit of Scurvigrass, both purging and plain. Queen of Hungarys Water: Bromfield's PILLS.    

SOME REMARKS UPON The B. of W. sh' discourse concerning the doctrine of Satisfaction, in Answer to Mr. L. 's Appeal.  
I shall not spend time in rectifying what the B. saith concerning the occasion of the present difference, believing the B. saith nothing in this Matter but what he had from one Party concerned, who gave him, as appears, a very unfair and partial representation of these things, as they have done elsewhere; and therefore because I will not actum agere, I refer the Reader to the History of the Union, and of the causes of the Breach thereof, and counsel him as a Lover of Truth, to believe no more of what the B. writes on this account than what he finds is consonant to the said History.  
§. 2. I therefore pass over to the second Chapter of the Mystery of Antinom. laid open; and first, I must take notice of the B. Concession.  
That if there were no more in the controversy than what is contained in these terms, Relative [or Connexive] Conditions, and Faederal, the controversy might fairly and easily been accommodated.  
I suppose this accommodation must have been by granting this disjunction to be true, and according to the rules of distribution, That a condition is that which is Axiomatically expressed by the connexive conjunction Si, If, and is the Logical knitting together of an Antecedent and Consequent, but doth not necessarily import the connexion of cause and effect, but of a usual or requisite dependence; such as is between Antecedent and Consequent. e. gr. If I go to the Exchange, I must go out of my own house; if I pass into Glory, I must pass through the State of Grace; not that the state of Grace is any meritorious cause of Glory, but that there is such a cause of both, and to which both answer as effects equally, altho' one precede the other in order. But faederal conditions are quite of another nature, of a covenant and moral nature; a covenant, having but two parts, the condition and promise made upon the performance of the condition, by the party required so to do, whereby the good thing promised, upon the said performance of the condition is demandable by the performer, as due debt to him. Hence it's the faederal nature of the condition, not the greatness or smallness of the condition that makes it meritorious. If God had said unto man in Paradise, Take up this leaf or that straw, and thou shalt live for ever, eternal life had been his due, upon his doing thereof, and demandable by him, and the covenant made it so; viz. a due debt, ex pacto, i. e. legally so; for a due debt is due in a law sense.  
§ 2. Now what hinders this desirable accommodation? It is the B's opinion that there is a greater mischief in Antinomianism, [a Snake in the Grass] which aught to be laid open, to prevent the mischief of it. Antinomianism the B. knows in true notation of the word, and according to the sense of the Apostle Paul, is a denial of the Justification of a sinner by our own works of the law, the mischief that attends it is only occasional, by reason of men's corruption, viz. The vileness of corrupt and reprobate minds in the abuse of the grace of God therein, to embolden themselves, to sin, because grace abounds; which the Apostle was ware of, and warns us against, Rom. 6. It is not any fault in the doctrine itself. Well, but what is the mischief the B. finds? It is (saith he) this, all this dispute about conditions on our part depends upon another; and if that hold, this must follow as a consequence of it, and several other things which Dr. Crisp saw very well, had a necessary connexion with each other, like a fair dealer in controversy, owned them all. Here I cannot but acknowledge the greet ingenuity of the B. beyond many others, in not only owning him a fair dealer in this controversy that he opposeth him in, but in his after vindication of him from those false imputations, which others of his adversaries would fasten upon him so far, that he leaves him a mere Calvinist, and no worse.  
§. 3. p. 74. B. I come therefore to the next thing in the first Paper, wherein you say [i. e. Mr. L.] clears the dissenting brethren from the charge of Antinomianism, Report, p. 13. Rem. p. 11. Your words are, [i. e. Mr. L. 's] That touching a Change of Persons between Christ and believers, there is no physical change, whereby Christ and believers do in stance become one another, nor a moral change, whereby Christ should become inherently sinful, and Believers thereby become immediately innocent, and sinless, but the change is only in a legal sense by consent between the Father and him, putting on the person, and coming into the room and stead of sinners, &c,  
This is laid down for the truth of this change by Mr. L. but yet Mr. L. peremptorily disowns Dr. Crisp's change of Persons, as well as Mr. W. Now the B. doth very fairly show and prove, that Dr. Crisp intended no other change of Persons than what Mr. L. asserts to be the truth, and a clearing the assertors from the charge of Antinom. Now saith he, I shall make it appear that you have not herein disowned Dr. Crisp 's sense of the change of persons; so far I cannot but say, that the B. hath done right to Dr. Crisp and Mr. L. and it's no other than what I ever thought of the controversy, when on foot. I shall not give myself the trouble of transcribing what the B. hath done out of Dr. Crisp's Sermons, to prove his assertion. See p. 2. p. 75, 76, 77.  
§. 4. This seems to be a great Mystery, but is really the foundation of Antinomianism. That Christ had the personal guilt of our transgressions charged upon him, and so he was as sinful as we. He should have added legally, or in the eye of the law, the guilt of our sins, the personal guilt of every saved one being charged upon him, the Reatus Culpae non perpetratio culpae; the debt, non contractio debiti. This is the truth of the Gospel, which will stand as a pillar of brass, when all the wit and malice of the opposers and banterers thereof will be driven away as chaff before the wind. Here are two assertions that we must stand by and defend the truth of against the B. and all other opposers.  
In the B.'s first Letter he tells us what the Report saith, p. 5. That if there be no change of persons between Christ and us, there can be no translation of the guilt, nor a just infliction of the punishment of our sins on Christ; i. e. there can be no proper satisfaction, which is truth without exception. But the B. answers, That there is a twofold translation of guilt to be considered. 1. Of the personal guilt which results from the acts of sin committed by such persons. Now the translation of this guilt of sin on Christ the B. all along denies, and endeavours to disprove, 1. Personal guilt can be no other than the guilt of the Person that had committed the sin, for which he is arraigned at the Bar of God's Law, e. gr. John hath stolen, Thomas hath committed murder, and neither the guilt of John's theft, nor of Thomas' murder was transferred to Jesus Christ; David's murder and adultery in the guilt thereof was not transferred to Jesus Christ, nor the guilt of Peter's sin in denying his Master. This is the meaning of the B. doctrine.  
2. He gives his reason; If this guilt be translated, Christ must become the very person who committed the sins, and so become an actual Sinner; yea, as the Person that committed all the sins of those for whom he died.  
I wonder so learned a man saw not the absurdity of this arguing, which he took up from Mr. B. who never stuck at any gross arguments to bespatter the most glorious Gospel truths. The force of the argument is thus unfolded, and made very plain. If a debt be translated from one man to another, than he to whom it is translated must be looked upon as the person that contracted the debt; but the B. saith, We must not look upon sins as debts, which we shall speak to in its place; but let us use another instance, If a thing done by one man be accounted to another, e. gr. a Representative in Parliament, is that thing to be thought to be actually and personally performed by the persons to whom it's accounted. The Representatives of the people in Denmark gave up the liberties of the people to the King's prerogative, the people by them are accounted to have done it by the Representatives, must therefore every Subject be said actually and personally to have done it, when doubtless Hundreds of lovers of the country hated and detested the Action, tho' as necessarily included therein, as if they had actually done it. Many Instances of the like nature might be given, tho' these are enough to demonstrate the falseness of the B's odious consequence; and we may as well wonder that any that bear any reverence to our blessed Saviour, should not abhor such dirty and irrational consequences as these are, especially when so expressly contrary to the word of God and common reason. Isa. 53. 2 Cor. 5. 3. Hence these men dare not but say there is a guilt translated to Christ: I pray what guilt? Is it not personal? Is there any guilt in the world besides what is of one Person or another? But our B. will find out a guilt that's not personal, which we will examine.  
§. 5. The other branch of his division of translation of guilt, is of Legal Gild, which he saith lies in an obligation to Punishment by virtue of the Sanction of the Divine Law. Now this guilt implies two things; 1. The desert of Punishment which follows personal guilt, and cannot be transferred by change of persons, etc. 2. The obligation to undergo the deserved punishment, here may intervene a change of persons, etc.  
Reader, Now observe what kind of guilt the B. will have Christ to bear: 1. He saith it's legal guilt, but what's that according to him? It's the obligation to punishment, and that's in the sanction of the law; i. e. it's subjectively in the law, hence it's the guilt of the law that Christ must bear, and not the guilt of any person. It's true, that obligation to punishment is formally in the law, and therefore obligation to punishment cannot be called guilt, but guilt is of a person transgressing the law, not in the law transgressed. 2. He saith this guilt implies two things: What is the meaning of implies? Is it that the laws obligation of a transgressor to punishment essentially contains in it those two things? 1. An actual desert of punishment, and obligation of some Person to undergo it. Surely not, for if the law had never been transgressed, it had contained this in it; that if ever any do deserve it, they shall be obliged to punishment. 2. Doth it imply these integrally their desert of punishment, and obligation to punishment are the parts of the forenamed legal guilt, than the desert of punishment, as well as obligation to punishment; i. e. no other than the fault must lie in the law, for it can't be in more subjects than one, and the B. must come under the force of this Dilemma, if he will allow any such thing as guilt, that it is subjectively in some person, and so personal, or in the law itself. Now there's no fault in the law, therefore no guilt. 3. He saith, desert of punishment follows personal guilt, but by his favour it is personal guilt itself, the merit of punishment is in the fault, the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for what deserves punishment but sin, to which the law makes the wages of Death due; not continuing in all things written in the law? The law inquires no further than it finds the fault, wherein it hath found the desert; it's formally and essentially in it; it's true, the sentence follows this, but the desert lies in the essential moral contrariety of the action to the obedience of the law required it; the wisdom of God saith, the taking away of guilt is to take away sin.  
4. He asserts, but hath not proved, That personal guilt can't be transferred by change of persons: His strong reason is, For no man can cease to deserve punishment for his own faults, nor deserve that another should be punished for them. The assertion is, that personal guilt can't be transferred; then certainly no guilt at all; for there is no guilt but is personally contracted, and personally adhering, and therefore Christ bore no guilt of Sin at all, most contrary to Scripture, and the very known nature of a surety, which always is in bearing the sin of the transgressor by change of persons. 2. He argues to prove it, That no man can cease to deserve punishment for his own faults. An excellent assertion: If so, I am sure God can't cease to punish him, for he renders to every one according to his deserts, he is a just God. 2. This position throws down the whole satisfaction of Christ at one blow; for if Christ hath not taken off the personal desert of sin from any, he hath not satisfied the law; for if according to the B. he takes off the legal obligation of any to punishment, he takes off the desert by the law. 3. It will follow, that not only believers, but the glorified Saints in Heaven, are still under the personal guilt and desert of punishment; and if so, they can't be in the favour of God, they can't be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without spot before the Throne, they are under the personal guilt of all their sins, and this is no spot of God's Children, but an essential form of a Hellish State. The B. here hath very inconsiderately run himself upon the rocks, tho' with the rest of the Neonomians he doth so frequently charge those that are contrary minded with Shallowness, Illiterateness, etc. It is one thing to sin and contract a personal guilt, and another thing to lie under this personal guilt; sure bare pardon of sin by him that hath power to pardon, takes off personal guilt in the B's sense, the obligation of the person to punishment, else after pardon the law may take him up again, and would, even in men's proceed by law; but in God's there's not only the pardon of the sinner, but a just satisfaction to the law, Rom. 8.1.  
§. 6. The B. adds,— Nor deserve that another should be punished for them. What will not men of perverse minds say?  
Whoever asserted that sinners deserved that Christ should suffer for them, I wonder men are not ashamed of such gross impositions, quite contrary to the known minds of others, but to the nature of the thing; for where did any debtor or criminal deserve that another should suffer for him, either by his good works, to deserve so much good of another, or by his evil works, to make another, that is neither criminal nor accessary, guilty? How much less may it be said of us that we deserved that Christ should be punished for us? The B. saith Christ was punished for us, the obligation of the law binding us over to punishment, and that Christ took the punishment in our stead; was it because we deserved it, or not? If it was not because we deserved if, it was not in our stead; we say not that it was in the nature of our sins to deserve his punishment, but in the grace, wisdom and justice of the Legislator. As the B. saith, it was of grace of God to find a ransom, it was of the grace of the Son to give up himself unto justice for this end, it was to the honour of divine justice to accept of his glorious satisfaction in the sinner's room and stead; here's nothing of the sinner's deserving that brought Christ's suffering for the sinners, but the substitution of Christ, for this end, by the Father and himself, tho' the sinner deserves punishment.  
§. 7. The second thing according to the B. implied in Legal guilt, is obligation to undergo the deserved punishment, but because the execution of punishment depends on the wisdom and justice of the Legislator, therefore here a change of person may intervene. A. It behoves us to be exact with the B. here, because he acquaints us with a curiosity in this point of change of persons, that of late men have so shittlecocked it up and down, that it's hard to find what either side would have, but what they both agreed in, that they would not have it to be what Dr. Crisp said it was. 1. What is the reason the B. distinguisheth the obligation to undergo the deserved punishment, and execution of punishment? Why saith he, not execution of deserved punishment? To me it seems to be a very smatch of Socinianism; as if Christ did not undergo any deserved punishment, but only a punishment without desert; i. e. only suffering, and not punishment in any proper sense. 2. If obligation to undergo the deserved punishment be the guilt only transferred to Christ, than it will follow, it's only the guilt of the law is charged on Christ, not of the sinner; and it's plain the B. means so, for he denies that the guilt of any person is charged on Christ. 3. He saith, this obligation to punishment is only in the law and its truth, therefore he means that this law obligation falling on Christ, is all the guilt that falls upon him, and here may be no change of persons; for tho' the law obligation may fall upon John and Thomas, and John be never the better that it falls on Thomas, because it falls not on Thomas for the sake of John: But he saith, that here a change of persons may intervene; how? between two persons to undergo punishments? If so, it must be under one and the same law, not a change from being under one law, to a being under another. 2. It must be a change in respect of deserved punishment; for punishment cannot be without desert, it becomes not the wisdom and justice of God that it should be be so. 3. If the change be in respect of deserved punishment, we have gained as much as we expect; for then the desert of the sinner, which is of his fault, and his guilt is translated to Christ, because his punishment was deserved, e. gr. he bore the deserved punishment of sin, of what or whom, of the law; nay, the law never deserved punishment of any persons; nay, quoth the B. he bore no personal guilt, then there is no change in respect of deserved punishment; Christ suffered for us, but was not punished for any, he suffered no deserved punishment? Hence no punishment at all, for all just punishment is due.  
§. 8. He saith, The execution of punishment depends on the wisdom and justice of the Legislator. It is true, therefore ought not the execution of punishment answer the obligation to it? Is it wisdom and justice in God to oblige in his law, to any punishment not deserved? And is it wisdom or justice in God to oblige in his law to deserved punishment, and not to execute deserved punishments? For if Christ's punishments were not deserved, they were mere sufferings; and if so, no more to us than the suffering of a Martyr to us; if deserved suffering, then, 1. According to some rule of justice. 2. Deserved by himself, or some others; not by himself, and his own individual person, you will say; therefore by some other. Hence if Christ bore deserved punishments of others, he bore the guilt of sin, the Reatus culpae, that being the formal desert of punishment, the law making it so, either of God or Man. He saith, By the wisdom and justice of God a mediator may be accepted in such a manner as himself hath determined, and upon acceptance of his Sacrifice the offenders may be pardoned, and received into grace and favour of God on such terms as he hath declared in the Gospel, and in this sense is the guilt of sins charged on Christ, etc. A. It is much that these men can take upon themselves a power of directing God, and telling him what he may do, when God hath never said that he did or would do so, the true Explanation of the B's sense in this paragraph is by the new-coined law, but we will take him in his own terms: And I say, in God's execution of punishment it becomes the wisdom and justice of God to do it according to a promulgated law, which the Legislator hath in his wisdom and justice made a manifest Norma Justitiae, to show forth his justice, and that God may be justified as Judge of all the world, to deal righteously, and therefore not to accept of a Sinner or a Mediator for them upon other terms than is in his law expressed, and not upon other secret and unknown terms. 2. How may God accept of a Mediator? Is it not in satisfying: for the sinner, in bearing the sinners deserved punishment, and therein taking off the laws obligation of the Sinner to punishment? God can't otherwise do in wisdom or justice. 3. He makes God's acceptance of a sacrifice to be an antecedent of pardon only, not a satisfying and meritorious reason thereof. 4. How doth God accept. Christ's sacrifice, as a single noble act, done by him, wherein none is concerned but himself; or a qualifying act to God himself, to make him able to pardon? Or doth he accept his sacrifice for sinners deserving punishment under the law? Taking their deserts and punishment upon himself, than he is a mediatorial sacrifice; otherwise; if the guilt lies upon persons unremoved, he is neither a sacrifice for their sins, nor accepted of God as such. 5. Is it according to the justice of God to accept a sacrifice for sinners, whose personal guilt he never took away thereby, and pardon and receive them into favour upon other terms afterwards? Sure then the mediator is not accepted till they have performed those conditions, upon which their pardon and acceptance is laid.  
§. 9 In answer to the Reporter, p. 8. he takes occasion to tell him that the Consideration of sins as debts is a wrong notion, and gives up the point of Satisfaction to the Socinians. If it do, it doth but as the B. and his right Reverend Father Mr. B. hath done, from whom he took up this divinity. It seems the spirit of God did not so well consider of it as the B. hath done, nor our master the Lord Jesus, when he taught his disciples to pray so; I know it sticks cruelly in the Neonom. stomaches that our Lord Jesus was so rash and inconsiderate to make use of this word debt for sin; but why doth this give away the cause to Socinians? Because if sins be considered as debts, God may freely forgive them (without disparagement to his wisdom and justice) without any Satisfaction. But what if God will not? He hath revealed this in his word, that he will by no means acquit the guilty without satisfaction; we are not speaking of God's absolute Power, but of his ordinate; neither are we speaking of God's acting by his sovereign dominion, but by his acting in a way of justice; because where there's sin, there is a law transgressed, and God's dealing with the sinner must be in a way of justice, unless God repeal his law, or dispense with it, as the Neonom. will have it, but we can't admit thereof. But, 2. Why can't God upon the same reason forgive a criminal by his prerogative, as well as a debtor? An earthly King may, why not the King of Kings? 3. And why is not sin a debt in a proper sense enough? Is it not a debt to God's justice, and made so by God's law, and treated as such in the very point of Satisfaction? It's such a Debt as must be satisfied, 1 Pet. 1.18, 19 1 Cor. 6.23, and 7.23. and elsewhere, must it of necessity be a money debt, and no other? He saith, I can't but wonder at the learned author, that he doth at the same time assert our sins to be considered as debts, and the necessity of vindictive justice; for what vindictive justice belongs to a creditor? I have rather wondered at the learned Author, that he should be taken with such a Delirium, as to suppose B. Stillingfleet to be for a Commutation of Persons in sano sensu, having been sufficiently informed by his Letters of his Neonom. principles, before he appeal to him, and flattered him so offensively as he did. But ad rem, 1. The B. knew that similitude or metaphorical expressions are not to be forced to run on four feet; for tho' sins be most fitly called debts to the justice of God, yet God is not therefore a money creditor, but with necessity of Vindictive Justice to a creditor; sure, imprisonment is vindictive justice, or seizing on all that a man hath; doth not God in justice seize on all a sinner hath by his curse, and cast him into prison till he hath paid the utmost Farthing? Matth. 5.26. Sure Christ's own Phraseology might be admitted by us, but it seems not by this B. and some others; see further his Neonom. spirit; he calls Christ's language, in calling sin debts to God, and ascribing Vindictive Justice to such an adversary rude and inconsistent, and he can hardly think such ever penetrated into these matters, but took up with a set of phrases. I always found these Neonom. great boasters of their own wit, and deep penetration into things; answer their adversaries still more by contemptuous and approbrious language, than by any fair way of argumentation; tho' I must confess I do not find this learned B. so addicted to this foul way of treating those that dissent from him, as many others of the Neonom. kidney that are far short of him in learning and gentility.  
The main design of this discourse, in answer to Mr. Lob's Appeal, is to show how much the good man was mistaken, as to believe that he, the B. was for Commutation of persons in his sense, but he was for Commutation in Mr. W. and the Neonom. sense. The meaning of all, that there hath been such a sputter about, and so much foul language, unbecoming Christians, much more Ministers, lies in this one Question, whether Christ was made of God sin and curse for sinners? And whether the said sinners believing become the righteousness of God in him? The Commutation according to scripture lies here; that Christ instead of the guilty sinner became sin and curse, and that the Sinner in Christ becomes righteous and guitless. Now saith the B. That the change was not in respect of sin, asserting that Christ bore no personal guilt, but that he bore only punishment, that we should not be punished upon our Faith and Repentance; so that he must hold the Commutation of persons is not in respect of sin and righteousness, (for that person that is taken from the guilt of sin in foro justitiae, can never be righteous) but only in respect of punishment and impunity. 4. That Christ was punished, that the sinner might not, but that this change was not absolute, but conditional; and to be future upon terms to be performed by one party, when he should have an actual Being in the world, when he should perform the fixed conditions of Faith, Repentance, and good Works. Again, he will not have it such a change as is between the surety and debtor, but such a change as is between two private persons; one doing a good turn for, on the behalf, and so instead of the other denying Christ to be a public person, to be in his Mediatorship a surety, or legal Representative before God's Tribunal of Justice; and this I find every where to be the Neonom. Doctrine: But I shall assert, that the B's change of persons is none at all; for if it be not of persons as standing in relation to the law, it's none at all in a law sense; Christ bearing no guilt by law obligation, and the sinner being freed from none thereby, this is enough to say of it here, my design being to be short, I can't fill up my paper with rehearsal of the very Words which I have tired myself too much in already, nor enter upon a tedious Litigation about Words or Sense of them; and if Dr Crisp or the Bp. have not well expressed themselves, I leave those Words to themselves, and apply myself only to the true sense and meaning of the Bp. in that point, which he mainly prosecutes in this treatise.  
Bp. p. 79. My business at present is about transferring our very faults upon Christ, which Dr. Crisp calls the guilt of the fact. A. I need not here tell the Reader that the Assertor doth distinguish between the fact and the guilt of the fact, the Culpa & reatus culpae; the Bp. himself hath vindicated him from the charge, of saying that the fact itself was charged on Christ, p. 77. Dr. Crisp denies Christ to be the actual transgressor, but asserted that he had the personal guilt of our Sins upon him, and built his whole Hypothesis upon it. This then is the Question in short to be discussed, Whether Christ in his sufferings bare upon him the personal guilt of Sin? The affirmative is the truth in our judgement, let who will assert it; the Bp. holds the negative throughout his treatise, as being the vertical point, upon which the whole controversy of change of persons doth turn.  
§. 2. I desire to speak as plainly in this matter as may be, and as briefly, and shall pass over all the proofs that the Bp. hath made, that this was the Dr's judgement, with this concession that it was so, yea, and all the needless remarks, interpretations and banters that he hath upon what the Doctor hath said, and only take notice of the things of weight. But first it is necessary to show how we understand this Question.  
1. In what capacity Christ stood when he bore sin and punishment?  
2. In what sense he bore sin?  
3. What personal guilt is?  
4. How Christ came to bear personal guilt?  
A. As to the first, that Christ stood in the capacity of a public person, representing the whole body of the Elect under the consideration of the lapsed Estate and Condition in the first Adam.  
As to the second, when we say Christ bore Sin, it's neither treason or blasphemy, as our Adversaries would have it, because we speak in the language of the Spirit of God; however, to prevent cavilling, we will vouchsafe to yield to the Bp's term, personal guilt, which can import nothing but the committed Sin remaining on the sinner's person and conscience, as a forbidden and condemned fault by the law; neither do we say that Christ committed these Sins, or was made to have committed them when our Sins were laid upon him, neither that his Nature was physically or morally corrupted thereby. Lastly, We cannot but adore the wisdom of God, in calling personal guilt Sin, because, 1. A bare physical Act as such is not Sin, and as all kill is not sin, but Sin is a physical Act clothed with a moral Exorbitancy arising from its relation to, and comparing with the law of God, therefore, to say the substratum of the physical act or defect, is transferred from one subject to another, is most absurd; but the guilt of this fact, and its moral relation to the law, may be transferred and taken away from the subject transgressor, as we shall make it appear.  
As to the third, the Bp. tells us what he means by personal guilt, and it's very plain. David's personal guilt was of Murder and Adultery, so Peter's of denying his Master. Now the Bp. will not have personal guilt ever to be taken off from any, but that David continues in Heaven under personal guilt of Murder and Adultery to this Day, and for ever.  
Lastly, Christ came to bear Sin; 1. By God's call, and his acceptance, voluntarily obeying his Father's command. 2. In submitting himself to a legal way of proceeding with him when he came under the same law the transgressor was under. 3. By a legal accounting and imputing our Sin to him, he coming in forum Justitiae, and writing himself debtor in the room and stead of all the insolvent debtors to the Law of God, Justice accepts of him as a sufficient Paymaster. Hence in the law sense Christ was called by God, what he was not in a natural sense, Rom. 4. He was made Sin, who knew no Sin; and God calls things that are not, as tho' they were, both in calling Christ Sin, and us Righteous.  
§. 3. Now we say that Commutation of Persons, was so far, and no more nor less than God hath made it to be in his legal way of proceeding in this great mystery: That Christ should according to the Preordination and Constitution of the Father, freely put himself under a judicial Process for the Sins of all the Elect under the same law that they transgressed, and that Justice should deal with him as if he had been the original transgressor; and in the stead thereof, in transferring the charge upon him, and punishing him for Sin. Hereupon follows the change, that he is made Sin, and we Righteousness in him, Justice receiving full satisfaction for our Sins. Hence we shall not much trouble ourselves with the many odious Inferences that the Neonom. would draw upon this glorious Mystery, nor the dirty Reflections on the unsearchable Wisdom of God, the Truth being as fully and plainly made manifest in Holy Writ, as any doctrine of Godliness.  
1. It is plain that Sin was laid on Christ in some sense or other, the Scripture being so express in it. 2. It's granted on all hands the physical part of the Act was not transferred to Christ; after which, that which remains on the Sinner is the guilt of it, which is his relation to the law in the moral sense, as a transgressor, and must be his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the laws condemnation of the Fact making his guilt or desert of punishment. 3. The Spirit of God calls this Merit or Desert, Sin, and shall we call it contrary to Scripture? Where doth the Scripture say it was not? It saith again and again that it was, and what if contrary to the Bp's reason? Are we to believe God or Man? Is the Bp's reason the rule of our Faith? What if the same word be used in Scripture for Sin and Punishment? I grant that one word in Hebrew is used for Sin, and the Sacrifice for Sin sometimes; but when it's used for the Sacrifice, it's therefore used, because Sin was judicially transferred to the Sacrifice; that it bore the Sin of the Transgressor, so that it became the formalis ratio of its Suffering; and therefore it's denominated from its most essential cause. To say it's a tropical word, is not much to the purpose, it being such as expresseth the very nature of the thing as often in Scripture by a Metonimy, Sensus pornitur pro sensili, a Grace of the Spirit put for the Object, Faith for the Object, and Hope for its Object; so here Sin for the personal guilt of Sin, the Subject put for an essential or proper Production: It's a Metan. of another nature from that, this is my Body, where Signum is put for Signatum, and its true the Scripture doth always denote the guilt of Sin by Sin, and the Bp. doth concede, that Punishment is not Sin, but a Consequent of guilt; we say it's more than a mere Consequent, it is a merited effect, and Sin always deserves and merits Punishment, tho' no Sinner merited, that a Surety should be punished for him; this is by Gracious Surrogation or Substitution. And it's to contradict Scripture, to make Punishment separable from guilt, and for good reason to; for no just Law punisheth any one but the guilty, whereby it's always said that Sin lies upon him, i. e. the just charge of Sin.  
§. 4. Bp. Obj. But Punishment must have relation to Sin as to the same Person. This is true, it must, and always hath; Sin is inseparable from Punishment in the same Person according to the just Terms and Constitution of any Law, by which any Person is punished.  
To this the Bp. saith, he answers distinctly, that there are three ways our Sins are said to have relation to Christ's Sufferings. 1. As an external impulsive cause no more than occasional, no proper reason of Punishment; and so for the Socinians. This I suppose he leaves to the Socinians, with whom Mr. B. is one in this point. 2. As an impulsive cause becomes meritorious by the voluntary Act of Christ's undertaking to satisfy Divine Justice for our Sins, and not as his own. 3. As to the Personal guilt of our Sins.  
These three ways of Sin's relation to Christ, we will consider. 1. The fact of Sin, and from it the guilt of it is the proper meritorious cause of Punishment; it's causa proegumena, internal always to the punished, let the Socin. and Mr. B. say what they will, the punished is always the guilty Person, and he is therefore punished, because guilty. 2. This Impulsive of ours becomes meritorious; he saith, how I pray? By Christ voluntary undertaking, etc. This is very absurd, that Christ's free undertaking should make Sin meritorious, was not Sin meritorious of Punishment of itself. What is the Sin of fallen Angels, that Christ never undertook for? But he should have said that Christ's voluntary undertaking brought the guilt and punishment upon himself, by his coming under a Law Transaction; for he saith, it was to satisfy Divine Justice; and can Justice be satisfied by the Sufferings of a Person no way guilty in the Eye of Justice? That's strange Justice. But still saith the Bp. They are considered as our Sins, and not his; true, our Sins originally, but his by a Law Transmission, else he could not be punished by the Law.  
But now see how the Bp. after his brandishing by way of Opposition, is necessitated to fall into rank and file with us. They are not Christ's Sins any further than by consent he took upon himself to bear the guilt which relates to Punishment, and so they come to be justly charged upon him. Now I pray what is it that the Bp. saith in the winding up of the Matter more than what we say; for he saith, 1. The Sins were ours, not his originally and primarily, and the guilt remains in all those for which Christ died not. 2. These Sins of all saved one's become Christ's in the guilt of them, through his free and voluntary Intervention. 3. That he took upon himself that guilt which relates to punishment; i. e. it's proper law relation. 4. And so they come to be justly charged upon him; here the Bp hath given us the whole Point; for, 1. He allows guilt to be distinct from Punishment; for Relata are contraria affirmantia; and it's a true notion that guilt and punishment are proper relata constantia ex mutua alterius affectione, and therefore distinct. 2. That Christ took upon him to bear the guilt that relates to punishment; it came not from the Sinner that Christ bore the guilt, but from God's Ordination and Christ's Submission to law proceeding, and thence wrote himself Debtor to the Law and Justice of God instead of Sinners, and was accepted as plenary Paymaster. 3. He owns that Sin came justly chargeable on him; the charge of Sin on the Sinner is that whereby he becomes guilty before God, Rom. 3.19. for he that's justly punished, is justly charged; as he saith, charged upon him, must be in a way of Law proceeding; and tho' God hath made him to confess the Truth in Words, yet it fully appears by his after Discourse, that he believes not a word of it in sano sensu.  
§. 3. The third thing, wherein our Sins have relation to the Sufferings of Christ, he saith, As to the personal Gild of our Sins, which he denies and decries after he had in the same Breath owned Christ's bearing the guilt of our Sins; now he will have Christ to bear the guilt of our Sins, but not the personal; as if there were or could be any guilt that is not of one person or another; or if there were some generical guilt found in individual Persons; his Exceptions are,  
1. The fault of the Sins are not laid on Christ. 1. Then its Law Relation was not laid on Christ; and Christ being punished for no fault of himself or others, was unjustly punished; nay, he saith he was justly charged; Is any justly charged, when charged with no fault?  
2. He excepts against saying that laying Sin upon Christ makes Christ really a Transgressor; but how is that said? It is in a legal Sense, not physical, therefore Christ is said to be made Sin, viz. Such he was not before, nor was in his own Natures, but was really accepted instead of the guilty Sinner, not Romantickly and Fabulously, the Transaction was real, according to the nature of it. As to the denial of Imputation, it's a gross Error in whoever it is, Dr. Crisp, or Mr. B. the first mistakingly denies the sense of the word, but Mr. B. denies the thing itself, the very Doctrine of Imputation of Sin to Christ, as the Bp. the Righteousness of Christ to us, having these invective Words.  
As the Papists have by no means more alienated the reformed from them irreconcilably, than by obtruding as an Article of Faith, the Impossibilities and Contradictions of Transubstantiation; so some erroneous Protestants have no way Men made the Papists irreconcilable to us, than by holding forth the Impossibilities and Absurdities of imputed Righteousness, as a most necessary part of the Gospel. Meth. Theol. Part iii. Ch. 27. Page 322.  
The great Argument propounded by Dr. Crisp very unwarily, he not seeing how far it would run, but sufficiently improved by Mr. B. is this: That God hath no other Thoughts of things than as they are.— So doth he esteem and think of things, and consequently of Sin; in Knowledge we must distinguish between Things and Relation, and between one Relative and another. God thinks of things as they are under divers respects, God thinks and knows what we are by Nature; yea, the most eminent Believer is by Nature a Child of Wrath as well as the other; but he knows also what he is through Grace, what under a Covenant of Works, and what under a Covenant of Grace; Sinners in the first Adam, Righteous in the second. God calls things that are not, as though they were: God calls his Son Sin, in a Law-sence, who never Sinned; and a Sinner, Righteous in Christ, who never was Righteous in himself: He sees him as acceptable in his sight, he having clothed him with his Righteousness, as if he were perfectly Righteous in himself. God knows and sees all things as he is Omniscient, but yet doth not see reconciled Ones in their Sins, and Gild of them, by the Eye of his Justice: God saw Christ under Sin by the Eye of his Justice, when he was under the charge of Sin, and his Person absolutely considered most pleasing to him.  
It is no way inconsistent with the Nature of God to know what any thing is in its absolute Being, and what it is in this or that relation; to know a Creature is a Man, and to know him to stand under the relation of a Father or a Son; to know what he is Naturally, and what Morally; for this is not inconsistent with Man's knowledge, much less with God's; therefore when God knows a thing, what it is in one respect, and calls it another; it is to be supposed that he really puts that respect or relation upon it; as when God calls a Man a Sinner in respect of the Old Covenant, and Righteous in respect to the New; it is to be supposed that the said Person hath those opposite relations really upon him first and last, and that the said relations are real, and not feigned, in their respective way and manner of existing. So Christ Jesus in respect of Sinners, in whose stead he stood relatively, as a Surety, was made truly Sin and Curse in a Law-sense; reckoned by God to be really in that Relation, not feignedly; And this is imputation of Sin to Christ; which term ought not to be rejected, whoever it is that makes light of it, Dr. C. or Mr. B. or any other, but most excellently expressive of the Gospel Mystery; as not imposing any thing on God but what is most consistent with his Perfections: For as God can and hath brought his Son under a Law-relation, as a Surety Mediatorial, and as such to stand instead of Sinners under a charge of Sin, for the Gild of their Sins; he judgeth as things are, when he accounts him, and calls him what he hath made him, Sin and Curse, in this Law-respect, and relation, how pleasing soever his Person is to him, being singly and abstractly considered from the said relation.  
§. 6. The Bp. excepts against the taking of the immediate discharge of a Sinner, upon Christ's bearing of Sin.  
A. It is easy by general and indistinct charges to make Men's Opinions look very absurd, if one Man speak not so exactly in a lose and popular Discourse; are all the Drs. in the World to look upon it as their great Renown to carp at his Words, that are Printed but just as taken from him, and not Corrected by him? I think Learned Drs. do much undervalue themselves in so doing. But to the Point in Hand, it is absurd indeed to say that all Sinners have an actual discharge in themselves from the Dominion of the Law immediately upon the Death of Christ, most being not then in Being in a Natural Sense, much less in a Spiritual. But the Bp. knew well enough the distinction of the Protestants, that Redemption is considered in Impetration and Application; that though the Sacrifice and Propitiation of Christ was completed and perfect in its self, in its Nature, and to all intents and purposes, Justifying, and Pardoning, and Sanctifying Grace being fully treasured up therein: Yet this Grace is not Applied, neither can it be Received actually by the Sinner, till, 1. He hath a Being Naturally. And, 2. Till he hath a Spiritual Being, whereto he is Created by the Spirit in Christ, and made capable of a Reception by a Spiritual Organ bestowed on him. 2. He was not ignorant of this Question lately disputed, What is the immediate Effect of the Death of Christ? We say the great Effects of the Death of Christ, are two in General. 1. A Right to Life in Christ. 2. The Application, Reception, or Possession of the Life purchased by Christ. The 1. We say is the immediate Effect of the Satisfaction and Purchase of Christ; all Redeemed Ones have a Right in Christ, i. e. latent and hide in Christ and his Fullness, even before they are or do Believe; from which Pristine Fullness all received Grace doth flow; even Faith in itself in us. 1. Being in the Soul, and acting on its Object; and those that have this hidden Right a jus ad rem, yet they have not presently jus in re; they have not yet received and possessed the Grace of Justification or Sanctification till they Believe through Grace, but are in themselves under the Law, the Charge and Sentence thereof. This Doctrine I know Mr. B. Disputes with all his might against, but was fully Answered by Dr. O.  
§. 7. Another thing the Bp. Answers to, Is on the Nature of Gild; that Gild of a Sinner is most truly reatus culpae, and not reatus penae, reatus culpae, being that which is accounted Gild in all Courts of Judicature.  
To which he answers, there's a twofold Gild to be considered.  
1. Gild of the Fact, as it is a Transgression of the Law.  
2. A Gild consequent to the Fact by Virtue of the Sanction of the Law. Those which are the Foundation Assertions that the Bp. builds all upon, are two. 1. That Gild which was charged on Christ was reatus penae, or Obligation to Punishment, not reatus culpae alicujus, not the Gild of any Fault, or of any Person committing it. 2. He asserts that the Gild of a Personal Fault can never be taken away by Transmission, no, not by Pardon itself: Hence we are necessitated to enter the Lists with him upon these two great Points, though something hath been said before concerning them.  
§. 8. We have showed before, that the first distinction is between the Fact, and Gild of the Fact: The Fact is merely Physical, is inherent and inseparable from the Agent, not transferrible at all, e. gr. The Act of borrowing Money is inherent in the borrower, and not a Transgression of any Law; but to borrow and not to pay is a Transgression of the Law enjoined by commutative Justice. Now this is the Gild of the Fact, when the Fact stands as a Fault in the Eye of the Legislator by the preceptive part of the Law. 1. The first Relations of an irregular Action, is to the preceptive part of the Law, being Disobedience. Hence it's a great mistake to place the Sanction of the Law, only in its Obligation to Punishment; this is but a part of the Sanction consequent to its Obligation to Obedience; therefore the primary guilt of a Sinner lies in Disobedience, his Fact standing in that Relation to the Law, it becomes formally the Reason why the Sinner is obliged to Punishment, he in the said relation of the Fact deserving it.  
2. The Bp. is in the right, when he saith, That Obligation to Punishment is that which is in the Law, and only the expressed Will of the Legislator; therefore it can in no true sense be called the Gild of the Sinner: And hence I must needs argue, that the Bp. placing all the Gild charged upon Christ, in the Laws Obligation of him to Punishment, doth totally renounce the Doctrine of Christ's being made Sin for any Sinner: For if he was not made Guilty, but only Punished, he bore only the Law's Obligation, which must be only the Sin of the Law, and not of the Sinner. But is the Law Sin? God forbidden. Yet this Doctrine plainly makes the Law Sin, because it obligeth a Person to Punishment who in no sense deserves it.  
§. 9 For the overthrowing this Hypothesis of Imputation of a Sinner's Gild of Fact to Jesus Christ, he examines how far guilt is separable from the Act of Sin, p. 87.  
1. As to the Gild of the Fact; for he that hath been an actual transgressor can never be made not to have been so, and so the guilt of the Fact must remain.  
A. But methinks a Bp. should not impose such a fallacy upon us, that every Schoolboy can look through; I suppose because he looked upon us as Men very shallow, and of no penetration into matters. For though he that hath been an actual Transgressor can't be said not to have been, because it's past, and can't be made otherwise than that it hath been: Doth it follow from this, that therefore now he is a Transgressor. His Argument doth run thus, A Man hath been an Actual Transgressor, therefore now he is, and ever will be; a Man hath been actually Sick or Poor, and therefore he is so now, and ever will be. It's a truth unalterable that this or that thing hath been, but it follows not that therefore it's now, and always will be so. It is a truth that all the Saints in Heaven have been guilty of Sin, but are they therefore so now? Then Heaven is full of guilty Sinners. He alleges the absurdity of making a Fact past, not to be passed; there's none asserts it; but that the Law may be fully satisfied for the obliquity of Fact, we assert; and in that sense God is said to take away our transgressions; for what is the end of Christ's satisfaction in being a Sin-offering? Is it not to satisfy the Justice of God in a Law-sense, for the exorbitancy of that Fact; for unless this obliquity be taken away before God, the Sinner must be bound over to Punishment: And hence no Flesh could be saved, but all the World must remain Guilty, Unjustified, and Unpardoned.  
§. 10. He excepts against considering Sins as Debts, which, he saith, when once paid are no longer Debts; but there's difference between the guilt of a Fact, and contracting a Debt; for a Debt consists in a thing real, whose property may be altered and transferred, but in criminal matters there's nothing capable of being transferred which is a thing real, but the obliquity and guilt of the Fact, is a privative and personal thing.  
A. If Christ hath directed us to consider of Sin as a Debt, such consideration is most regular and justifiable. 2. If Obedience be that which is due to the Law of God in the strictest consideration of Justice, than Disobedience is a Debt, erg. Sin is a Debt. 3. If a Debt be no more a real thing, (but a Privation) than other transgressions of the Law; then the obliquity may be transferred in one as well as in another; but it is so, Erg. For a Debt is a defect of Payment, and Privation of it; there's nothing but the Payment is real. 4. In criminal matters no wrong subject is capable to be Punished in a way of Justice, but he that is guilty.  
§. 11. He saith, the Desert of Punishment which follows the transgression, cannot be separated from it.  
A. That which is mere consequent to a thing, may be separated from the Essential Nature of the thing, at least in Consideration; but we have showed that the Desert of Punishment is in the formal Nature of Sin: For Sin as such is made by the Law to deserve Punishment, and that is absolutely false if the Scripture be true which he saith, Let what Grace or Favour soever be showed, the desert of Punishment remains still. A. 1. In Man's Proceed, a Man that is Pardoned is taken from desert of Punishment; for it's a slander punishable to call a Pardoned Thief a Thief; and the Law is silenced from dealing with himas such, or calling him so: But here God's ways are not as Man's, when he Pardons he also Justifies: He provides as well for a full satisfaction of his Law, for the very obliquity and exorbitancy of the Fact. But he saith a Privation can't be transferred. A. It's, true a Physical privation can't, but a Moral may; and a Debt may by his own Concession; but a Debt is a Privation of the Creditor's Money. I wonder an Ecclesiastical Man should not know it as well as others, unless they call Men Debtors that own them nothing. Again, the B. saith, No Sinner can deserve that one that was not a Sinner should suffer for his faults. A. It is true, no Sinner can deserve that Christ should suffer for him, no, nor any ordinary Principal Debtor can deserve that any Man should be his Surety; but another in kindness to him may put himself under Obligation to Pay, and Writ himself Debtor in his stead; so tho' Sinners deserved Punishment, yet not that Christ should be Punished for them; and therefore that Christ is punished for their Sins, flows from the love of God, and kindness of the Lord Jesus, from which he putting himself under Law-proceeding, and Suffers in a way of Justice for Sin, i. e. taking upon him the Deserts of Man's Sin. Bp Nor can the Law, or Act of any Person, transfer the desert of Punishment from him that was the actual Transgressor. A. Here's miserable Divinity, it's time sure to come to our Litany, Lord have Mercy upon us. A. 1. Can't a Law transfer a deserved Punishment to another that fully satisfies it? Why doth any one fully satisfy the Law for another, but that the Law should have nothing to say to him, to Charge or Accuse him; which if so, his desert is taken away. If a Child or Wife commit a great Theft, doth not the Gild in Law fall on the Father or Husband; and is not the Personal Desert taken away by the Father or Husband's satisfying the Law. 2. Can no Person? Can't God transfer the Gild? It's strange that the Scripture should be so mistaken in saying Jehovah laid upon him the Iniquities of us all. All the Answers to this are so frivolous, that they are not worth our trouble of Answering them.  
§. 12. B. The Turpitude as to the Act of Sin can't be re moved from it. A. All these things being inseparable, Sin remains in the best, yea, glorified Saints; for Personal Gild remaining and a Turpitude inseparable, as it must needs so long as Personal Gild remains, there can be no Sanctified one on Earth or Heaven; for Gild and Filth is permanent ever, never to be removed according to this Doctrine.  
Bp  the Act of Sin is, it must be displeasing to God, but the Turpitude, as it affects the Person of a Sinner, must have another consideration. A. Is Sin displeasing to God? And can the Sinner be pleasing to him so long as he lies under the fault of Sin, the desert and guilt thereof? For suppose he is taken off from Punishment, can he be received into favour with God? Doth God accept Sinners in all their Gild and Turpitude? 2. I understand not how Turpitude of Sin, is distinguished from the Gild of Sin, the said Gild being the Turpitude the Law finds, punisheth for it, and condemns it, even in Man's Law: And although Sin carries an inherent Privation of good, and an internal pravity; yet there's none of this that hath not personal guilt in it which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so far at least was charged on Christ; and so far a believer washed in the Blood of Christ, is purged from all his Sins, and is perfectly Righteous in the sight of God in Christ, (though not in himself,) notwithstanding all the inherency of remaining corruption in him, after he is partaker of Regenerating and Sanctifying Grace.  
Bp For God may see cause to forgive a Sinner, and receive him into favour, although he still continues to hate and abhor the Sin. A. What cause can God have to forgive a Sinner, and receive him into favour, besides his Freegrace, and the Satisfaction of his Son which he hath made to his Justice, in bearing his Sin, and suffering for it? And this God doth, and yet hates and abhors Sin; for though Christ bore Sin, it was not in kindness to it, but to condemn it in his Flesh: And though God loves and saves the Person of the Sinner, yet he always hated Sin, both of the Elect and Reprobate.  
§ 13. Bp As to the Gild of Sin, as it relates to Punishment, these things are to be considered. He should have told us what Gild of Sin he means, for obligation to Punishment, he told us is in the Law, not in the Delinquent, therefore his Gild is not of Sin, but of the Law. I have not much to say to the three particulars, provided they be rightly meant, viz. 1. Although a Divine Justice require satisfaction for Sin, it is not necessary the actual Transgressor's should undergo the Punishment which they have deserved. [i. e. if another undergo their deserved Punishment by a substitution legally in their stead in regard of Desert and Punishment] for then there would be no room for Grace and Favor [which is not showed by God to any absolutely in a dispensation, with Justice] but in such a way as may glorify Divine Justice. 2. That it is consistent with the Wisdom and Justice of God, to accept of a Mediator [such an one as is a Surety] to interpose between the Severity of the Law, and the Punishment of the Transgressor, upon terms agreeable to Divine Wisdom and Mercy. A. 1. The Mediator ought to be between God and Man, in respect of Sin especially, the cause of Punishment; for its Sin that's contrary to God's Law, Punishment of the Sinner is agreeable to God's Law. 2. He speaks of terms upon which God accepted of a Mediator; I cannot understand what he means by it, for Christ's Mediatorship was the condition of God's acceptance of us. Christ, in respect of himself, was absolutely accepted, not upon any previous conditions performed by him, or after-conditions to be performed by us: Which latter I find he intends. 3. That such a Mediator undertaking to make Atonement for our Sins, by Suffering in our stead and Place, [as Sinners] may truly and properly be said to undergo the Punishment of our Sins; and our Sins to be the Meritorious cause of it. [By no means in Suffering only upon an occasional remote reason from Sin; but he must suffer judicially, taking upon him a Legal Charge of Merit and Desert in the place and stead of the Sinner.  
Now he seems to suspect himself in this Doctrine of his to fall upon the Shelves of marvellous inconsistency, and therefore endeavours to forestall the following Objection.  
If Desert adhere to Personal Gild, [inseparably as before asserted] how can our Sins be the Meritorious cause of another's Punishment? The Argument against his Doctrine he can't Answer, for where there's no Gild, there's no Desert; and where there's no Desert, there's no Punishment in legal Sense. He riggles up and down under the pressure of this Objection, but can't get it off.  
I answer, that a meritorious cause may be considered two ways. 1. In a Natural Course of things; and so Desert follows the Fact, so that the Sinner always deserves Punishment, and no interposition, nor forgiveness, can take off the Desert, etc. A. The subject Act to Sin is Natural, but the formal Nature of Sin, as Gild, is Moral, as it stands in Relation to the Law: So that supposing that Ordine naturae, the Gild or Desert follows the Fact, yet it's not in a Physical course of things. 2. His after Assertion implies that no Sin is pardoned in and through the Satisfaction of Christ, that whether the Sin be Pardoned in a way of Grace, or satisfied for in a way of Justice, the Sin remains in its full strength upon the Sinner for ever; for he that deserves Punishment doth so by the Law, for the strength of Sin is the Law, and therefore must of necessity, for fear of Death, the Wages of Sin, be all the Day long subject unto Bondage; this is a sad Gospel.  
2. He saith, As Desert implies only a just reason of Punishment, and so there may be a Meritorious cause in extraordinary Cases, when the Legislator consents that another bear the Punishment which others have deserved, Immerito quemque punire est injuste punire, as john's. out of Cret. Immerito is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, merito 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & in Cic. Jure & merito, are most commonly put together. A. Here we have the cause given. The Question is in plain terms, whether Christ Died merito for our Sins? He here plainly grants those things, 1. That Desert implies a just reason of Punishment; then I argue, if Christ was punished justly, than he Died with a just reason thereof; and there can be no just reason of Punishment, but Desert; and if this was on Christ, it came from Christ's own Personal Sins, or from ours: The Bp would not say from his, therefore from ours. 2. He grants there may be a meritorious Cause in extraordinary Cases, when the Legislator consents that another shall undergo the Punishment: What's that? 1. Was any Case more extraordinary than this we are speaking of? 2. He must needs mean, that when the Legislator consents that another shall undergo the Punishment, that then the said Person so undergoing, stands under the Desert of that Person for whom he is punished. 3. He grants the truth, and none can deny it, that Immerito aliquem punire est injuste punire, it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 punire sine ratione in juditio. Nothing of Suffering can be reasonable in Judicial Proceed, unless there be a desert, therefore he saith that Cic. puts jure & merito together. Now this is the Mystery that the Bp is to reveal to show how Christ was Punished for a meritorious Cause, and yet stood not under any of our Personal Deserts.  
§. 14. He comes now to Answer what is said for Christ's bearing our Personal Gild; and the most that he saith is, to resay what he said before, and is sufficiently Answered already; but to do him right, we will briefly weigh his strength: The first is, The injustice of Punishing any immerito; this is the sum of it. His Answer lies chief in asserting that this is the Socinian way of Arguing; and so we see the Antinomians join with the Socinians. But how the same way of Arguing? May not one and the same medium be used truly and falsely? How is it the same way of Arguing? Two Ships may Sail two contrary ways with one and the same Wind; but that Answer which overthrows the Socinian, must overthrow the Neonom. For the Position is true, and will be granted on all hands. The Question between the Socin. and Antinom. is, whether Christ Died merito. No, saith the Socin. because he was an innocent Person in himself: The Antinom. (as he calls in this, all Calvinists) saith he Died merito; not upon the merits of his own Sins, but under the merits of ours, in whose stead he Died: Now comes in the Neonom. and says he was punished, but not for any Personal Desert of himself or ours. Let the Candid Reader judge now, who is the Socinian; this is enough to show his unfairness in this matter; and what he talks after to this matter, is but repeating over and over what hath been brought to the test, and found very weak; but tells us still, that what he saith is very agreeable to the Natural Sense of Men's Minds, [he should have said to the Natural Man that knows little of the Spirit] if they would allow themselves the liberty of thinking; [yea, of thinking themselves out of Scripture or any rational Understanding] and therefore I am ware still that Neon. are the most thinking Men in their own conceits in the World, though I find none more abusive and unfair in Argumentation.  
§. 15. Bp. But do we not by this means take away the proper Punishment of Christ for Sins, and so overthrow the Doctrine of Satisfaction. A. I say you certainly do. For, 1. How can you say Christ was properly Punished, is it for such thinking Men as you are? That any Punishment is proper Punishment, which is not deserved Punishment. 2. How is it possible that you say, that that Punishment is Satisfactory to God's Law, which is not for the Sins which break the Law. But the Bp saith no, ☞ For I take away nothing but the Punishment that follows Personal Gild, and if this be not taken away, the Antinom. Sense must be allowed. A. Say you so, stand aside all Protestants, your House is coming down on your Heads: Well, we come upon this Dilemma, you must either deny that ever Christ bore any deserved Punishment, or be Antinom.  
I am sorry to see that my late esteemed Friend Mr. L. gave occasion to such rebukes which he hath received in the Answer to his Appeal; that in a fixed Enmity to Dr. C. he condemned Christ's bearing the Personal Gild of our Sins, as false, blasphemous, and impossible; whereas he declares it as the Opinion he contended for, That the Lord Jesus Christ voluntarily, on the Father's invitation, coming under the Sanction of the violated Law, was justly charged with the Gild of our Sin; found Guilty, Condemned, Sentenced, and Executed as such, even by that God which laid on him the Iniquity of us all. Now the words of the Bp are these, If I do not misunderstand, both Dr. C. and you, you say as much in consequence as he,— And therefore you cannot disown the transferring Personal Gild upon Christ. This he sufficiently proves, and I can't but subscribe to the truth of the Bishop's Judgement in this matter; for this is a fault and a great inconsistency, which I always disliked, to inveigh against some as Erroneous, and yet saying those very things which they spoke.  
For as the Bp saith, What Gild of our Sins could be charged on Christ; if not the Personal Gild? etc. See p. 28, 99, 100 I forbear repeating more in Honour to my Deceased Friend. It is good to own and defend truth as truth, without respect of Persons.  
§. 16. The second proposed by the Bishop for Answer is,  
That without this translation of Personal Gild, no advantage could come to us by Christ's Sufferings, because a Man suffers only for his own fault, unless the fault of another be laid upon. The Argument hath great force in it: For, 1. Without translation of our Gild upon another, either a guilty Person must Die in his Gild, i. e. in his Sins, or he must be absolutely Pardoned without satisfaction; in both these there can be no Benefit by Christ's Sufferings. 2. Another Person's Sufferings will not profit me, unless it be in my room or stead, and taken upon that Law-defect that belonged unto me. In Answer he saith, Here is no question but our Iniquities were laid on Christ, and that he Suffered in our stead; but the Dispute is about the manner how, whether our very Transgressions themselves were laid upon him, and how it doth appear that we can't receive the Benefits of Christ's Sufferings, unless that were done, which is supposed to be done. It is a great Argument with them, our Sins are Debts, and they are reckoned to Christ as our Surety: To show how little force there is in it, we need only these Considerations; 1. That there is no sufficient ground for it in Scripture; as for that of Isa. 53.6. there is not the least ground for it in the Text; for the words properly signify that he made our Iniquities meet, and to fall upon him, i. e. as a Man falls upon his Enemy when he meets him: So the Jewish Interpreters.  
But doth this Man say enough to take off the force of this place of Scripture? 1. He tells us that the meaning is he made our Sins to meet upon him; the words are here, Jehovah made the Iniquities of us all to fall upon him, the word is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is that but Iniquity? Is it ever taken for Sacrifice for Sin? Who made them to meet? Jehovah the Legislator, God the Judge of all, and how can Iniquities of many meet on one Person? Can it be any way but judicially? As the Person is a Surety, chargeable, and charged with the guilt of many. But see what a Sense he would shame off his Reader with. As a Man falls upon his Enemy when he meets him; he should have said, as many Enemies falls upon a Man when they meet him; for it was the Iniquities of many; but how could our Iniquities fall upon Christ to hurt him, if the Gild of them fell not upon him? And why should Jehovah make many Sins fall upon Christ? Was there any reason for it in Christ, or us, or in the Justice of God, to set such Millions of Mastiff Dogs on Jesus Christ, on poor innocent Jesus? Or what Design of Wisdom was it, when those Sins were neither to slay Christ, nor Christ to slay them? And this he tells us was the Jews and Symachus his Interpretation; he knew what Opinion the Jews were of concerning Christ, and this so eminent Prophecy of him; and he might have told us what his Friend Grotius' Opinion was about this place; but he acquaints us how the lxx render, He gave him up to our Iniquities; and is not that against him? How could Christ be given up to our Iniquities? But in bearing the deserved Punishments of our Sins? And Procopius, he saith, expresseth it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not this as a Surety? And yet he saith here is nothing like Suretyship to pay our Debts for us. Now if the Bp. had pleased to read out the Chapter, he might have seen two Verses more, wherein this Truth is literally express; V. 11. He shall bear their Iniquities, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he shall take their Iniquities as a Burden on his Shoulders to carry them away, as the Scape-Goat did the Iniquities of the Children of Israel: And the lxx renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He shall take up their Iniquities upon him. And V 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He shall bear the Sin of many; shall the Spirit of God express itself to one thing so fully and plainly, and all fly away at the Puff of a Bp. as Chaff before the Wind? What is all that this learned Bp. hath said to refute this Doctrine of Christ's bearing our Sins, and satisfying for them as our Debts to Divine Justice, but this? Here's nothing like Christ's Suretyship to pay our Debts for us, we will not take his Word for it, till he proves that Sin is not a Debt to the Law of God, when Christ hath told us it is. 2. Till he shows any other credible way of bearing another's Faults, besides this way of Suretyship; till, 3dly, He shows and proves against the Apostle Peter, that there is no other way of paying Debts, on purchasing or redeeming, than with plain Silver and Gold.  
§. 17. He proceeds to show us the great Harm of Christ's being a Surety to pay our Debts of Sin, p. 107. 1. Then Christ hath fully discharged our Debts already. This is one Mischief of it, but God forbidden it should that Christ should do Harm in paying any Man's Debts; but to do it by halves is to pay some only, and leave others for us to pay. How did he satisfy God's Justice if he gave not full Satisfaction? God forbidden that Christ should leave a Farthing for us to pay. 2. The second Mischief is, that we have nothing to do towards the Payment of our Debt; all that we have to do is to believe, and to be thankful; for all this Transaction was long since past without Consideration of any Act on our parts. A. Is it a Harm that Christ hath done so much for us in way of Satisfaction and Purchase? that he hath left nothing of ours to put in for a Share in this Honour; no, not our believing itself. I take it to be the Glory of Christ, and the blessed Privilege of Believers, that he hath provided for Believers such a Furniture of Grace, that they shall believe on him, bear his Image, walk in his Steps, to the Glory of his Name, in all Thankfulness, and new Obedience. The third Mischief is, that it nulls all Faederal Conditions on our part: but of this, more afterward. 4. That we can't suffer for those Sins that are already discharged. Is this such a Harm? It's neither Reason or Justice that we should pay a Debt to the Law which is already discharged; Christ hath born all the Sins of Believers in the deserved Punishments thereof; hence the Sufferings of the Saints are not Penal, nor can be, but are Blessings for their Good, purchased by Christ for them.  
§. 18. The Bp. saith, There's but one place of Scripture to be found to favour this Sense of the Suretyship of Christ, viz. Heb. 7.22. It is easy to instance in many places that favour it, and prove it, it being, as I may say, the very Marrow of the Gospel; but as to this place, it expressly calls Christ a Surety; and it is the more remarkable, as to our present purpose, that as the Spirit of God hath called Sins Debts, and Christ's Suffering a Price paid, and expressly excluding Payment by Silver or Gold, so Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which, as Lexicog. say, doth primarily signify a Surety for Money. Hence it appears, the Spirit of God makes much of the Metaphor, of Debt and Payment, to confirm our Faith in this, that there's no better account of the Nature of Sin, than a Debt to God's Justice; and no better account of the Sufferings of Christ, than that they were a Payment of this Debt to the Justice of God. And what if it be but in one place of Scripture? When a Truth is so fully and plainly expressed in one Text, it is enough; there are many Truths of great weight are so, besides the marvellous Concurrence of other texts of Scripture, to the tenor thereof. But he saith, this text speaks of a Covenant, not of the Surety of a Covenant. A. What is it that makes a Debt is not a Covenant, or compact? But it is of a better Covenant, i. e. a Surety to pay the Debts of the old Covenant of Works, but brought in by a better Covenant, the new Covenant, being a Covenant of Grace, answering the Ends of God's Grace more than the old, doing that which the old could not do to save Sinners by a Righteousness which is not their own, but better, in that it hath a Surety that it brings in to engage unto God to pay all our Debts due to the Justice of God from us under the old Covenant, which had no Surety, Heb. 7.19. makes it better in nothing else but the bringing in a better Hope, viz. the Surety. But he positively denies that Christ was to pay our debts unto God. If so, what's the reason the Church prays, Forgive us our Debts, when God's way of Forgiveness of a Sinner, as asserted in Scripture, is by bringing in a Surety to pay his debts of Sin, Col. 1.14. In whom we have Redemption through his Blood, even the Forgiveness of Sins.  
But what a Surety is it that he will have Christ to be? Sure it is the same the Socinians will have to be only, i. e. a Surety to engage for God to us, not for us to God, but a Surety only for the Truth and Faithfulness of God in his Promises. See his Words, p. 110.  
§. 18. The Bp. takes notice of some dissenting Brethren, (he might better said of Protestants dissenting from the Church of Rome, who talk much of Surety, Righteousness,— and of Christ's being our Surety as to the Payment of our Debts, because the Debtor may be said to pay the Sum the Surety lays down for him, and that God doth account that Believers do pay that Debt of Obedience, which Christ hath paid in their Stead, because they are a legal Person with Christ, and all this depends upon this mistaken Notion of Suretyship.  
A. It is very sad that so plain Scripture should corrupt our Minds with mistaken Notions, how shall we know we are mistaken or not in any then? Or that we do know the Mind of the Spirit in them, if when we have a plain text, expressing a Truth according to the plain and undeniable Sense of other texts of Scripture, not only agreeing with, but essential to the Analogy of Faith? If we must look on this received Doctrine to be a mistaken Notion, then surely notwithstanding the Revelation that God hath given us in his Word, he hath left us under Chymerian Darkness, and inextricable Labyrinths in the great Points of Life and Salvation; but what hath he to say against this received Doctrine by the dissenting Brethren, and all true Protestants? If once it be supposed that we perfectly obeyed the Law in Christ, there can be no room for Remission of Sins; for how can Sins be forgiven to them that have obeyed the Law?  
I cannot answer this Argument better than in the very Words of Mr. R. Capel, (whom none I suppose will call an Antinom.) in Vindication of Dr. Twiss, on this Point. There is a double Acception of the Term Remission of Sins. 1. There is a meritorious Justification, or Remission of Sins, this is of Sins before they are committed. 2. There's an actual Justification or Remission of Sin; and this is not till after our Sin is committed, and we do believe all this, none of these Exceptors do or can question. Those that lean much to the Doctrine of Arminius and Vortius in this point, may see all this expressed in clear terms by Vortius. So that it is one thing for all the Sins of all the Elect to be pardoned to Christ for them, that was done before we were, or our Sins were; another thing to be pardoned to them; Christ was made a Curse for us by Imputation; for that the Father did impute all our Sins as a Judge, to Christ as a Surety, and did exact all of him as guilty by that Law— and this is (I conceive) all the meaning of Dr. Twiss, and is, or at least ought to be, the meaning of us all; and this a learned Man calls a mystical Justification, because all the Sins of all the Elect are as laid upon Christ, so remitted unto Christ, our Head and Husband; which Pardon and Absolution he took in our Name, and keeps for our Use.— See Capel of Repentance, p. 257, 258. For Brevity-sake I shall add nothing further to the Answer of this Argument of the Bp.  
§. 19 He adds, It doth not follow, because a Debt may be transferred to a Surety; that our Sins may be transferred to Christ; and his Reasons are, 1. Because Sins cannot be transferred as Money. A. But doth not the Spirit of God sufficiently acquaint us, that it's a moral Debt, Sin is the Debt, our owing, and not paying Obedience to the Law; and that Christ paid not Silver and Gold, but his Precious Blood; but he saith, That altho' the Sinner be said to owe a Debt to the Law, yet that Debt lies in an Obligation to Punishment, which he is liable to by the Gild of the Fact. A. Now he owns the Sinner owes a Debt to the Law; but that's not Obedience, but Punishment: But believe it, Punishment is the Debt of the Law to the Sinner, the Wages of Sin (by the Law) is Death: But that whereby the Sinner becomes a Debtor to the Law, is his Failure, in giving due Obedience to the Preceptive Part of the Law; for its Obedience the Law doth naturally and primarily enjoin and expect from the Subject. Punishment may be transferred by the Legislator's Consent. A. Punishment without Merit is but suffering, and not legally inflicted, and can't be done by a Legislator without Dispensing with his Law.  
Object. This Debt ariseth from Gild of Fact, how then can any discharge the Debt, without taking the fault? I answer, That taking the fault can signify no more than being answerable to the Law for it, which must respect the Debt of Punishment. Reader, But doth not this quite overthrow all the Bp. hath been doing? For if Punishment (as always it is) be answering the Law for Sin, this always implies that the punished Person bears the just Demerit of his Sin, else why do the Law inflict Punishment? It's not because that Man hath not obeyed, but disobeyed; wherein the Punished is only passive in suffering, tho' active in contracting the Gild, wherein lies the Demerit of Punishment, and makes the Wages due from the Law;— And he that takes away the Gild of Punishment, doth satisfy the Justice of the Law. A. The satisfying the Justice of the Law lies in inflicting deserved Punishment; for Gild is not in the Law, as the Bp. hath said, but in a Person whom the Law hath found guilty; therefore the Law is not satisfied, by afflicting in general, but afflicting some Person that is found guilty and faulty by the Law.  
As to the Objection, That nothing is the Merit of Punishment but Reatrus culpae, he answers so little, that it's not worth our Cognizance; and that little is but a Rehearsal of what hath been replied to already.  
§. 20. Bp. Suppose the Fault could be transferred, as a Debt may, how comes it to pass that upon this Translation there must be a present Discharge? A. There must be such to him that pays the Debt, and this given to him for the Benefit and Use of the Prisoner when he will please to give it. Christ must be justified from our Sins, and discharged, or else not raised from bearing them; when he had satisfied Justice, all our Sins were pardoned to him; but another Act of Grace is showed, in bringing home, and applying Pardon to; and therefore for discharging us from the Law as Prisoners of Hope, through what Christ hath fully done and suffered.  
B. This Doctrine tends to encourage Men to neglect, or careless Performance of strict Obedience, which they own to God. A. This is the Objection against the Doctrine of the Grace of God, which Enemies to it made, and the Apostle Paul answers, Rom. 6. But the Bp. will not take his Answer; there he saith it naturally disposeth Men's Minds to a passive careless Temper, and wait for Supplies from above. A. The Grace of God never inclines the Heart to so ill a Temper, but quite contrary, Tit. 2.11, 12. It is one thing, what a Man is by Nature, and what by Grace; Men by Nature are naturally inclined to abuse the Grace of God, but are not so by effectual Grace.  
Bp.— They depend upon Gord's working in them, to will and to do of his own good Pleasure, without setting themselves to work out their own Salvation with fear and trembling. A. The Bp. should have known that the Abuse of the Grace of God is no just Argument against it; and if some Men do so, will he censure all as such? God's working in Men to will and to do, and their working out their own Salvation, are not Contradictions, if rightly understood; but to show us that the Grace of God is first in all we do, that teacheth and worketh in us to work, both to begin and continue to serve God with all our Might; but with Fear, lest we should give the Glory of all unto ourselves in leaning and depending on our own Strength. The Bp. might have spared the rest of his Banter, it's not worth Paper and Ink to spend about it.  
§. 21. He makes a great Clutter against the dissenting Brethren, as if in their Doctrine of the Free Grace of God, they would allow no Conditions upon any Account; and saith, here is something beyond mere Gratitude and Service, and what's that? It's a Connexion in away of Duty, and Means in order to the end, and not mere Connexion in a way of Event so that those to whom God will give Glory, he will give Grace to fit Persons for it. A. Hereby it's easy to see what strange Monsters the Opposers of the Doctrine of Christ do ignorantly or maliciously represent the Professors and Defenders thereof to be. Do they deny a firm Connexion between Grace and Glory? Do they deny the Necessity of Holiness? Indeed not as a Faederal Condition of Happiness, but a Condition of necessary Connexion; and as he gallops along, he is pleased to fall upon some Expressions of mine. Some may perhaps say, What is't but to make that Promise to secure Life upon doing of our Duties? And if this be not to make the Gospel a more overgrown and swinging Covenant of Works, than ever the old Law was, I have lost, [not they] my Theological Measures, Neonom. p. 3, and 296. Reader, Upon these few quoted Lines, picked up at a distance, not truly quoted neither, he makes a large Harangue about Theological Measures, (which Words I applied not to any but to myself) and say [they] The Standard of Theological Measures is the Scripture. And so I say. And saith he, St. Paul was as little suspected of setting up a Covenant of Works, as any Penman in the New Testament. I think so too. But he hath said, 2 Tim. 1.19. God hath saved us, and called us with an holy Calling, not according to our Works, etc. I subscribe to the Apostles Doctrine hearty, and it's expressly against the Bp's Doctrine, who would have our Works the Foederal Condition of the Covenant of Grace, when the Apostle says, who hath called us not according to our Works; and what is the Genuine Meaning thereof, but that tho' God hath called us to Holiness, yet it's not according to our Works, as a Covenant Condition thereof, so Tit. 3.5. but it's the manner of these Men to quote Places for themselves, which are Diametrically opposite to them? He makes a needless Sputter about working out of our Salvation, and saith we are told, Neon. part 3. and 296. No more is meant by this than a continual maintaining a holy Jealousy of ourselves, lest we should fail of the Grace of God, by trusting in ourselves, etc. Now doth it become a Bp. to be so false, in representing what he would expose; there's not a word of, No more is meant by this, but that this is meant, it may contain more; but this is every Believer's Duty laboriously to continue in all ways of Holiness and new Obedience, but fear and tremble in Suspicion of his corrupt Heart, which is apt to make his Obedience Hay and Stubble, in ascribing it to his own Strength, and in making it his Righteousness for his Justification; and if any will rationally argue against this Doctrine; I am ready to defend it, as I am other Truths, which I have asserted that some have snarled and bantered at, but have not made any fair show of proving them Errors; and till they do that, I shall not honour them so far, as to blot Paper about them.  
§. 22. What remains is only to draw odious Consequences upon this Doctrine of laying our Sins on Christ, or his bearing the desert of Punishment for our Sins. 1. There's nothing for us to do, but only to sit still, and expect when God will work in us. A. Doth the Text say we must sit still? Doth any one say so? But the Scripture saith, and the Saints have practised, to be continually waiting upon God in the Prayer, and all the means of Grace, to work in them, to will and to do; and as God works it in them, he works them to it, knowing that of themselves they are not able to think a good Thought; but herein being enabled by Divine Assistance to do a good Work, they must keep a Watch over their own Hearts, that they rob not God of the Glory of his Efficiency, and take it to themselves. Bp. Paul gives another Sense when he persuades rich Men to do Good, 1 Tim. 6.18. How another Sense? Doth not the Grace of God persuade and teach Men to do good Works? Doth not the same Apostle tell us; that the Grace of God, that brings Salvation, teach Men to deny Ungodliness, and to live holily, etc. Again, Is laying hold of Eternal Life by good Works a swinging Covenant of Works? No, who said so? But there's a twofold laying hold of a thing; one is by way of Right; that is, not in our Works themselves, but in Christ; and a laying hold by way of Participation and Possession; that is, an effect of the Covenant right in Christ; and so all Believers by the exercise of Faith and Holiness, are continually maintaining their hold of Christ and Eternal Life, given them in Christ; and the Theological Measure holds here, that Paul hath not by this Text thrown down what he taught of the Efficacy of the Grace of God, but only prosecutes that Doctrine; that where it brings Salvation, it teacheth Men to do good Works; therefore he exhorts Timothy to teach by the Word what God's Grace works by the Word and Spirit, neither doth he accommodate himself to rich Men, as if he intended they should be saved in a Covenant of Works, which would be no better than Bargain and Sale of Eternal Life.  
Bp.— The Foundation of the Covenant itself was certainly nothing but the Grace of God through Christ. A. Foundation here's very ambiguous; I know the Neonom. and Papists, and all will say so, when they say Christ purchased the Covenant of Grace, i. e. the new Law, and deny him to be the Condition of it; and therefore he speaks always in their Dialect cunningly;— yea, and the Foundation of our Hopes as to our obtaining the Benefits. A. If so then, how is Christ the Foundation of such Hopes? Is it not Christ believed in, as the great Obtainer of Right to Eternal Life, and the great Bestower of effectual Grace; for without this Faith there can be no Hope, nor any purifying ourselves, as he is pure.  
§. 23.— Not as Works meritorious of a Reward, [so say the Socinians too] but as Means which God hath appointed in order to an end. A. I pray who denies all this of the Calvenists? All which he calls Antin. but doth he not trip up his own Heels by this Concession? I say, and I am sure can prove, that the Condition of a Covenant compact, let the thing required be little or more, it's meritorious of the covenant Reward promised, and is meritum expacto; now than if he concede that our Works are not meritorious of a Reward, he gives us all we contend for, provided he yield that the Condition of a Covenant compact is meritorious of the Reward, which all Men of Sense will acknowledge; well then, what Place [after all this noise] is Works to have? He saith, They are only Means which God hath appointed in order to an end. A. If this be rightly meant, we will grant it, and yet hold our Assertion untouched; for tho' all Foederal Conditions are Means, yet all Means are not Covenant Conditions; antecedent things are Means of coming to consequent, but not always Foederal Conditions. Now if he will say eternal Life is that end, I will say more, that he hath not Eternal Life who hath not such a Faith, which hath its Fruits unto Holiness; and that this Holy Life belongs to, and is that Eternal Life begun in us. Bp. As a Son that hath an Estate promised him of the free Gift of his Father, but yet he requires some Conditions to be performed by him before he comes to the Possession of it; can any one think this to be Bargain and Sale between Father and Son. A. The Comparison is too short to illustrate, much less to prove the thing. For, 1. In this the Father will not enjoin any Conditions but such as the Son hath Ability to perform. As for Example; He will not enjoin a poor lame Cripple to leap over a Hedge first, nor a Stone-blind illiterate Son to read a Chapter in the Hebrew Bible. Now to say that our Case runs parallel, it's false; for if God promise Eternal Life upon the condition of our good Works, who are dead in Trespasses and Sins, it's to do it on an unperformable condition; which becometh not the Wisdom of God. 2. And he saith, Can any one think this to be Bargain and Sale? A. Yes sure, there are such Fools in the World. If all be so who believe not as the Bp. saith, I would ask the Bp. if his Father should tell him, Child, if thou wilt resign up thy Bishopric of Worcester to thy Brother, I will give thee the Bishopric of Durham, would not the Bp. demand the Bishopric of Durham as due to him from his Father upon his Resignation, let the Father be Pater Patriae, the King, or any other?  
§. 24. Now he saith, If these be Theological Measures, they had need to seek for new ones. No sure, for the Bp. hath saved us that Labour, he hath found them for us; but such as are but Trash by the Standard of Scripture and Reason. Now he reckons he hath paid off Theological Measures, but faith, he hath not yet done with them. Sure we may most safely take our Theological Measures from our Saviour, [yes surely, there's no doubt of it] for he knew best how far, and in what Sense the Gild of our Sins was transferred upon him, and whether there followed an immediate Discharge upon it, without regard to Conditions on our parts; the Question of the highest Import being put to him, what shall I do to inherit Eternal Life? A. Where lies the Force of this Argument? It must be here: If Christ had this Question twice put to him, What shall I do to inherit Eternal Life? And his Answer was, Keep the Commandments, and thou shalt live; then the Gild of our Sins were not laid on Christ [non sequitur] so he saith, as to him, Luke 10.25, 28. Had our Saviour only a mind to banter him? No, what was it then? He himself tells us, It was to convince him of the Impossibility of his doing what was necessary for Eternal Life. He should have added under the Covenant of Works; and therefore of performing a Covenant Condition answerable to the Covenant of Works, whereby the Jews expected a merited Reward, they sought Life by the Righteousness of the Law; and he acknowledgeth, That it is not improbable that our Lord intended to convince him of his Folly, who supposeth he had kept those Commandments in the Jewish Sense of them. And this is the true meaning of the Text, why therefore is this Text brought to prove that Christ bore not the Gild of Sins? Baculus stat in Angulo ergo pluit. There's as iittle consequence from the other, Mark 10.17. The same or like Answer may serve, which he suggests himself. There was an immoderate Love to the World in his Heart, which he was not ware of till our Saviour put him upon a severe Trial of himself, Go sell what thou hast, etc. Upon this Trial he shown himself, and went away sorrowful, notwithstanding all his seeming Desire for Heaven, this was the true Reason, and no other; and Christ intended not thereby to establish a Covenant of Works; and what he saith after is to little purpose; it's only to wrest the Sense of a Text from what he thought in his Conscience it would bear. And so Luke 16.9. Make to yourself Friends of the Mammon. What, doth he say of that? Not by way of Merit, or any foolish Imagination of that sort, but in Obedience to the Will of God, who hath made it a necessary Duty. Do they speak otherwise who hold Christ bore their Personal Gild? I wonder a Bp. should trifle so shamefully. Again, he saith, If these be Theological Measures, what doth our Saviour mean, when he saith, Luke 13.24. Strive to enter? etc. A. He means, not that he did not bear the Gild of Sin, or any should strive in his own Strength, or strive as a Foederal Condition; for he saith, Many shall strive, [i. e. falsely in such a manner,] and shall not be able; and who interprets striving here, of faint and weak Endeavours? Certainly he would render all them that holds that Christ bore the Gild of Sin to be a pitiful sort of Christians, that have little or no regard to the Command of Christ. Sure, if they were so, they would not many of them so joyfully have suffered the spoiling of their Goods by the Bishops in the late time of Persecution; and what led them to it but a Conscience of Obedience to the Commands of Christ?  
He saith, One would think it impossible to enter into a Man's Head, to suppose that a Man's own Righteousness should be excluded from being conjunct with the Righteousness of Christ, if he look to V 21, and 24. A. Christ doth not in the least oppose Man's Righteousness to his, nor make it conjunct with his, but gives only a Character of such as be sincere Believers and Professors of his Name, and will be found so at the last Day.  
What he says of immediate Discharge hath been spoken to before, that the immediate Effect of Christ's Death was a Right to a Discharge; the Discharge itself could not be before they have a Natural and Spiritual Being.  
§. 25. Bp. If there be no condition, how can they be satisfied that the Gild of their Sins are laid on Christ? A. In answer to this it's said, believe with all thy Heart, etc. that must be a real receiving of Christ: He that hath the Son hath Life, 1 John 5.11, 12. The Sinner first receives Christ, after sees and knows he hath received Christ himself, V 13, and 20. And we own there may be presumption, where there's an appearance of believing and knowing, only there need not be such sputter as he makes about these matters, neither doth it profit his cause.  
Object. But while we were Sinners Christ Died for us; so saith the Apostle, Rom. 5. and others after him: Two things thereby signified, 1. That Christ Died for us under that Consideration, for he came not to Save those that are Righteous, but those that were Sinners. 2. That it was long ago that Christ Died while we were in the first Adam, and in an unregenerate state, Sinners of the Gentiles; to which he rejoins thus, How then must every Sinner believe that Christ Died for him? A. Every Sinner under the Call of the Gospel, is to believe in Christ for Life and Salvation, according to the constant tenor of the Gospel; but to know Christ did bear his Sins, and die for him, results from this Believing. He that hath the Son, i. e. by believing, hath Life. Receiving is first before knowing that a Man hath Received; and it is Gospel truth, that Christ bore the Sins of every one that truly believes; and every one is an Elect Person, whose Sins Christ bore: For if the Apostle spoke true, he that makes sure his Calling, makes sure his Election.— Then saith the Bp. here is Universal Redemption asserted in its full extent; and what is more, here is Universal Election too; if all Men can believe that their Sins are forgiven. A. Let us examine the Bp's fallacious Arguing. 1. The Gospel is indefinitely preached to all under the Call thereof, and directed to all Sinners without any exception; he that believes on the Lord Jesus, shall be saved; is this an Argument that Redemption is Universal, or that all are Saved, or Elected: It's said as many as were Ordained unto Life believed, therefore it can't be said that every one doth or can believe, John 12.39. 2. See how foully this Man imposeth by charging his opposites with saying, That all Men can believe that their Sins are forgiven, p. 133. or to charge this, as p. 132. That a Man's Sins are forgiven because he believes that they are forgiven, being laid on Christ; whereas a Man believes because his Sins are forgiven and laid on Christ; for Christ bearing our Sin is the Cause of believing, and not the Effect.— At least conditional Election follows upon it he saith. We see he suspected his first consequence, and therefore poacheth in another. This may serve for a Professed Armin. but the Bp. I suppose would not have been accounted so; the Argument is, because Men are Saved in and by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, therefore Election is upon foresight of Faith; but we say Men are as absolutely Elected unto Faith as unto Glory: The controversy of Conditional Election is not here to be entered upon, but we assert that it follows more upon the Bp's Hypothesis than ours.  
§. 26. He adds, its ground enough of presumption as to all such as can believe that their Sins are forgiven. A. Those that can believe their Sins are forgiven, can believe through the Grace of God working it; nay, they have attained to a great measure of Grace; How doth presumption consist with, can Believe?  
B. What can hinder any Man more from Repentance, and forsaking his Sins, than to be told that the first Act of Saving Faith, is to believe his Sins is forgiven?  
R. Where is any one that will teach an Unbeliever, to Believe his Sins are forgiven in the state of Unbelief? But we find the Voice of the Gospel to the Unbeliever, is to invite and call him to believe the Gospel; which saith, that this is a Saying worthy of all acceptation, That Christ came into the World to save Sinners; that he bore Man's Sin, and was made Sin and Curse for them, and that the Sinner should come in particular and apply himself to Christ for this Pardon and Forgiveness that is in Christ; for with him is Pardon and Plentiful Redemption. He is a Fountain opened for Sin and Uncleanness, and if a Fountain, than not an empty Object of Faith, but full of Pardon, and of all the Grounds and Reasons of a Sinner's Faith and Hope. Now how doth such coming to Christ, and closing with him in a free Promise, hinder Repentance, and embolden them unto Sin? For the Apostle saith, Sin shall not have Dominion over you, because you are under the Grace of God in the Promise; and he shows Sin will reign over a Man while he is under the Law.  
— But the Gospel Preacheth Repentance in order to Remission.  
R. It Preacheth Repentance and Remission, to show, that where there is Repentance to Life there is Remission; and where there is Remission received by Faith, there will be Repentance in a Believing, coming to God through Christ. The Soul can't turn from Sin to God, but by a believing Repentance, neither can any Repentance be unto Life, unless it be a turning from Sin to God through Jesus Christ. Hence Faith and Repentance are frequently put for one another, or in one the other included. When the Scripture speaks of the first Act of the Sinners coming unto God, yea, not only the first act of true Faith, but all other are inseparable from Repentance, as from other Graces, Love, Hope, etc. Though both Repentance, Love, and Hope, are distinct Graces and Fruits of the Spirit from Faith, and from each other. This, lastly, I affirm, as the truth of the Gospel, that there can be no true Repentance antecedent in Nature to true Faith, Faith being the first effect of Spiritual Life in one that is effectually called. Bp Repentance is commanded, and Baptism commanded, therefore they are conditions. R. The Antecedent is true, but the consequence follows not, if he meant new Covenant Conditions. For all things, and Duties Commanded are not therefore foederal Conditions: For that Grace which God works by his Word and Spirit, is very absurdly called a Condition of a Covenant that God makes with a Sinner. But observe, he makes Repentance such a condition as Baptism; if so, what inseparable connection is there (as there should be in this Case) between the condition and promise; for will any say that he that is not Baptised shall be Damned? The Scripture saith not so, besides the Seal of a Bond is not the Condition of the Obligation, but only a Ratification.  

Whether Mr. R. B. did Socinianize.  
The Chief thing discussed by the Bp in his third Chapter, is whether Mr. B. was a Socinian, from which Charge he makes as if he would Vindicate him; I shall briefly examine how he acquits himself in this difficult undertaking. The sum and substance of Mr. B's Opinion in this Point was, That our Sins were no proper meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings, they were only premeritorious or occasional Causes. For although the Bp would have Mr. B. mean something more than occasional, by promeritorious, yet he acquits us with Mr. B's own Explication of his meaning of premeritorious, that it is only occasional, which the Bp saith is no cause at all, and Socinianism; and yet he, good Man, would defend him, though he finds it hic labor hoc opus, and fain to leave it re infecta.  
The first proof which he would make is from Mr. B's Confession, wherein all that he saith is no more than what a Socinian will say in this Point, That Christ gave up himself a Sacrifice for our Sins, and a Ransom for us, in suffering for us upon the Cross; which he doth make (according to his way of moulding of Doctrine) comport well enough with Socinian Principles. See what he gives for Antinomianism. 1. That Christ satisfied God's Justice as in the Person of all the Elect, this one Error, whereby he denies Jesus Christ to be a Public Person. 2. That in a Law-sence, and God's account, they themselves did satisfy in and by Christ. Here he denies Christ to have Suffered in our stead, or to have made Payment to Justice for our Sins, either in a Law-sense, nor in God's account; and therefore he made no payment for us, neither can we say we satisfy in and by him: Whereas every Debtor can say so, who hath a Surety that makes payment in his stead, the Law accounting this payment to the Original Debtor; neither is it untrue that he paid in and by his Surety, but an honour to his Surety, and detraction from himself, when he saith he paid in and by his Surety. 3. That Christ's Sufferings were full and proper Executions of the threatening of the Law to Man. Here he denies Christ's Suffering under the Law that Man broke; and that his Punishment was no proper execution of the threatening of the Law, and therefore no proper Punishment. 4. And so acquits them ipso facto on the mere Suffering. Here he makes up his charge by ambiguous Expressions— without any further means of conveyance to give them right in it by Application. 1. Here he insinuates that there was no Discharge of Christ from the Sins of the Elect, which he suffered for: If so, no satisfaction. 2. He makes as if some held that Men have an Actual and Personal discharge, before their being by Grace or Nature; which is a false Charge, and a male Consequent drawn by himself on the Doctrine: As if those that held Christ's full and complete Satisfaction by impetration, denied application. 3. He would have us believe it an Error that Christ purchased a right to Eternal Life for all the Elect, as the immediate effect of his purchase; and that our right comes by application, whereas our right lies in the purchase only; and our claim of that right and possession is by application.  
The Socin. Error he thus represents, That Jesus Christ did not undergo any Penalty for our Sins, as meritorious, or promeritorious Cause, but only as occasional: And doth not Mr. B. say the same thing again and again in his Writings, only he foacheth in his promeritorious; which if the Socin. either did not use, or if they did, they would not deny it in the Sense Mr. B. useth it, and as he hath explained himself. And that he did not make any Satisfaction to God's Justice for us, etc. there is nothing plainer in Mr. B's Writings; both in his Methodus and Universal Redemption. He puts for Truth as follows.  
That Jesus Christ as a Public Sponsor, did bear the Punishment deserved by the Sins of the World, [he means of all and every Man] and made to his Father a Satisfaction sufficient for all.  
It is strange a Bishop of the Church of England should look upon this as an Orthodox and Plain Confession to distinguish a Man from a Socinian; for it's plain he prevaricates in speaking of Christ as a Public Person, for in the Antin. charge, he makes it a marvellous Error to say Christ satisfied Justice in the Person of all the Elect, so he must mean here, that Christ was such a Public Person, that was no Representative or Surety, which is no public Person at all. 2. In that he saith Christ did bear the Punishment deserved by Sin, he also prevaricates, for he doth  deny that our Sins were imputed to Christ; that he suffered the Punishment of our Sins in any proper Sense, and that Sin was but an occasional, no proper Cause thereof, and therefore his Punishment was but Analogical, Equivalent to the Socinian's Metaphorical. He can't mean in respect of proportion in a Mathematical Sense, for that would overthrow his whole Hypothesis.  
Mr. Job quotes enough to overthrow all that the Bp pleads on his behalf: He shows that in his Methodus, he expressly declares that the Sufferings of Christ were only a Natural Evil undergone by occasion, and the remote causality of the Sins of Mankind,— and that Christ's sufferings are only sufferings in an Improper and Analogical Sense. These things saith, the Bp, were long since written. The chief Expression is, Christ's Sufferings had no proper meritorious Cause, but yet Man's Sins were the Pro causa meritoria, etc. and saith nothing to defend it, p. 151. He considers whether Mr. B's own words do lay him open to the suspicion of going too far towards the Socinians in this matter. Now let us see whether Mr. B. hath a fair deliverance at the Bp's Bar.  
Bp In this case we must distinguish the Scripture Notion of Punishment from a Strict and Philosophical Sense of Punishment. R. This is a strange distinction of a Learned Bp; what means he by a Philosophical Punishment? Is it morally Philosophical, i. e. such Punishment as belongs to the breach of a Moral Law? If so, sure the Scripture Punishment can't be distinguished from it; for that is legal Punishment; but he saith its strict Punishment, i. e. according to the exact tenor of a Moral Law; if he mean so, it cannot be excluded from Scripture Punishment.  
Bp The Scripture speaks in General of Christ's bearing our Sins, etc. but not a word of strict and proper Punishment.  
R. No sure, the Bp is mistaken greatly, when he might see in the same Chapter that Christ was wounded for our Transgressions, was not that proper Punishment? Doth the Scripture say nothing of strict and proper Punishment, when it saith the Wages of Sin is Death, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the Book of the Law? Is not the Curse of the Law strict and proper Punishment? If this be his Philosophical Punishment, there's much of it in Scripture, and it can't be distinguished from it. Bp. But of that which was appointed and accepted in order to atonement for our Sins, as the impulsive Cause, which become meritorious by his voluntary undertaking. R. The Bp would suggest that there's some general improper acceptation of Punishment in Scripture always used, in which sense Christ was Punished; because he saith the nature of the Expressions, that is, of the use of the word Punishment, doth imply as it were an impulsive cause; when indeed there was none but something that God appointed and accepred in order to Atonement, but was not Punishment in strict and proper Sense. But yet becomes meritorious by his voluntary undertaking. R. That is as much as to say, there was nothing in Christ's Sufferings themselves, that made them Meritorious, but something Antecedent to them, viz. The Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ in giving himself to be a ransom, but the ransom itself and what he suffered had no merit in it. Here the Bp doth basely Baxterize to cast Mr. Job in this Cause. To which I briefly return, that Punishment which was appointed by God, and accepted for full Satisfaction to his offended Justice, was strict and proper Punishment, and of itself meritorious, but Christ's Punishment was such. The Major is true, else the Judge of all the World did not deal Righteously, in putting his Son to grief; for if he put him not to as much as the Law required, the Law was not satisfied; if he made only a show of Punishing him, and did not do it, than the Scripture hath given us but a kind of Romantic account of Christ's Punishment, when indeed there was no such thing, nor any such cause as the Scripture acquaints us with.  
He acquaints us that Mr. B. not content with Scripture terms, falls to inquire into the Nature and Reason of the thing itself, suggesting that he would dive deeper into the thing than Scripture.  
1. That Punishment is a Natural Evil inflicted for a Moral.  
2. That the Name of Punishment is ambiguous, because it relates to Punishment justly inflicted, and that which is not; the former Proper, the latter Analogical. So that this Analogical Punishment is that which hath a representation, and looks like it; but is not so, Similia non sunt Idem; things alike are not the same. And that which is improper is unjustly inflicted, ergo; and hence, Christ's Sufferings would be unjust. But he saith, the first and most natural Sense of punishment, is when the Offender suffers for his own fault; but there may be other reasons of Punishment which he calls Analogical, and those from nearness of Relation, as Subjects for Princes, or Vicarious; and why I pray must these be called Analogical and Improper Punishments? Because it's Mr. B's pleasure: Why would it not be better distributed, (unless to serve a turn). Punishment is either just or unjust: Just, is either that which falls on the Person committing the fault, or on another Relation, or Sponsor that suffers on his behalf, voluntarily subjecting to the Law in his Place; and what need we Analogical, when Proper payment is made to the Law? Bp From whence he infers, that since Christ did not Die as a Sinner, therefore his Punishment could not be proper in the strictest sense. R. But if Christ Died for Sin, he Died as Sinners Die; though he did no Sin, and in that sense was not a Sinner; yet he Died for our Sins, as the reason of judicial proceeding against him; and this being done by a just God, for the honour of his Law, it could not be but proper Punishment: For all just Punishment is proper Punishment.  
The Bp himself shows, that this will not hold Water; for whereas Mr. B. distinguisheth of Punishment by false imputation, and calls it unjust, but Analogical; and the Punishment of another by consent he calls Analogical, but not unjust, the Bp Answers, If the Punishment be just, the Cause must be just; and Christ's could not be just with Relation to his own fault, for none is supposed; therefore there may be a just Punishment for another's fault; and if so, that [viz. the fault of another] may be truly said to be the Meritorious cause of it, and the Punishment a proper Punishment, although for another's fault. What can be said more directly and demonstratively against Mr. B. in this Point? The Argument is this.  
That Punishment which is just, must have a just cause of fault, either in the Person suffering, or some other; and that cause is truly meritorious, and the Punishment a proper Punishment. But the Punishment of Christ was such, therefore a proper Punishment.  
Having thus thrown Mr. B. on his Back, he endeavours to make some little excuses for him; That which led Mr. B. in denying of it, was the Antinomians making Christ to undergo the proper Punishment of our Sin, because our Personal Gild was according to them transferred upon him.  
R. Hence it appears, that in the Bp's Judgement, Mr. B. was more  in being a Socinian, than in being an Antinomian; for he finding, (saith the Bp) this Principle to be the Foundation of Antinom. that this could not be true, and therefore denied Christ's Punishment to be proper. But let me speak what is truth, as to Mr. B. that I believe he had a further insight into this Controversy than it appears the Bishop had; and would have told him, that these two Principles are inconsistent, and overthrow one another; Christ's Suffering was proper Punishment. And Christ bore no Personal guilt of any; so that the Bp's Argument that refutes Mr. B. redounds back upon himself. So that instead of fetching off Mr. B. they both fall irrecoverably together by one blow; and it's easy to take notice how he buffets Mr. B. afterwards, quoting Mr. B's words upon this reason; he saith, But then as you (Mr. Job) truly cite his words, he makes our Sins not to be the meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings, but a kind of promeritorious or occasional Cause. Therefore he means no more by promeritorious than occasional; and in the Bp's Judgement falls under Mr. L's Charge. Yea, he saith we must do him right, [is it to acquit or condemn Mr. B? Sure to pass sentence against him,] So far as to take notice, that in stating the Socinian Controversy, he makes it to consist in denying that Christ did undergo any Penalty for our Sins, as the meritorious or promeritorious Cause, but only as occasions; and yet here he makes the promeritorious cause and the occasional the same; and he denies that our Sins were the meritorious cause; but only because if we had not Sinned he had not suffered. What is this any more, than an occasional cause? If the World had not been created, Man had not fell; if there had been no Law, there had been no Sin; and what saith the Bp, truly he is necessitated to give Sentence against Mr. B. though in as soft terms as may be. P. 156. These Expressions, I grant, taken alone, yield too much to the Socinians, who do not deny our Sins to have been a remote impulsive and occasional cause of Christ's Sufferings, but deny them to be the meritorious cause of them. What can be more plain and full to prove Mr. B. Socinianizing in these Points?  
For all this, he will not give up Mr. B. to the Socinians; why? Because he hath writ of the Doctrine of the Trinity; that he might do, and yet be a Socin. in the Doctrine of Satisfaction: But he hath written of the Doctrine of Satisfaction; yes, he hath retained the word to make his Doctrine go down the better, but hath endeavoured to destroy the thing to all intents and purposes.  
Bp. These may be said for his Vindication, 1. By laying all the passages together, he must mean something more by his promeritous Cause, than merely a remote occasional Cause.  
A. This supposition is very unreasonable when the Bp hath told us, from Mr B's own Mouth, what he means by his promeritorious Cause. It is not hard to conceive what Mr. B. meant by promeritorious, it is only that Sin Antecedently to Christ's Death was meritorious of Death; but this merit terminated there, and never reached as a Cause meritorious of the Sufferings of Christ: This merit the Bp saith is antecedent to the Legislator's act in accepting a Sponsor, and is but an occasional Cause; and what saith he of an occasional Cause? It's really no Cause at all, etc. just as if a Man said, the Fire of London was the occasional Cause of the Monument, p. 169.  
Bp. Now no Man can say the fault antecedently was any more than an occasional cause of the innocent Person's Suffering.  
A. This is true in Mr B's sense, that the fault of the Offender makes him only guilty and deserving of Punishment in general; but is not transferred to the Sponsor to be any Gild or desert of his Punishment; which is truly Mr. B's meaning of his term promeritorious: And therein Mr. B. is consonant to himself, in saying its but an occasional Cause, and that Sin is a remote impulsive Cause, viz. remote from Christ, tho' immediate and impulsive to Punishment. 2. This is true in the Bp's Sense, who saith, Christ suffered Punishment for Sin, and bear the Personal Gild of none, is to make the Sin of Man no more than an occasional Cause: But the consistency of the assertion lies more on Mr. B's side, because he knew it to be a great inconsistency to say, that Christ bore proper Punishment, when he bore the guilt of no Sin.  
Bp. But taking all together, when he is admitted to suffer in the place of the Guilty, the Law with the Punishment makes the impulsive Cause become meritorious; and it is the immediate Reason of his Sufferings.  
R. This the Bp speaks as the truth, and intimates as if he would have it Mr. B's Sense, but gives no proof that it is so; neither is it likely he should, being not consonant at all to what Mr. B.  maintains; and what if the Bp saith so, it's not consonant at all to the Tenet he defends that Christ bore no Personal Gild? For then how can the Gild of any become the meritorious and immediate reason of his Sufferings?  
Bp. The only question than is, whether this can properly be called a meritorious cause. A. That may be taken in two Senses. 1. In a strict and proper sense; so yourself deny that Christ merited by his own Sin. 2. In the sense of the Law, [i. e. Sin was legally charged on Christ] and so that which was the near impulsive cause [the fault of the Transgressor] may be truly said to be meritorious as to his sufferings, because they made it an act of Justice, which otherways had been an act of Power and Dominion. R. See now the Bp's clear concession. 1. That what is here spoken of Christ, it's in the sense of the Law, not in a Physical or Moral sense. 2. He makes the near impulsive cause Sin, and here Sin in its merits or deserts, the immediate reason of Christ's suffering; can that be any thing but the Gild of Men's Persons? 3. Sin is such a reason as may distinguish Christ's Punishment from an Act of Dominion, and make it an Act of Justice. How is it possible that any Man that saith this, can say that the guilt of Man's Sin was not charged on Christ as our Representative in a legal Sense, i. e. in a way of Judicial proceeding  
Now doth the Bp lay down this as Mr. B's sense? No, he dare not; for if he did, Mr. B. (were he living) would say he had laid therein the Foundation of Antinomianism.  
Bp. The question between us and the Socinians, is not about meritorious, and promeritorious Cause. R. I wonder the Bp should insinuate so great a falsehood, when he knows the question between us and the Socinians, is whether our Sins were the meritorious cause of Christ's sufferings, or occasional? And it's that which hath been at present under hand; Promeritorious being a word of Mr. B's bringing in; it may be they might not think of it, to hid occasional under it, as he doth, to make Men think he did not deny all merit in this Case.  
Bp. But the question is, whether Christ did really undergo the Punishment of our Sins in order to be a Sacrifice of Atonement for them? And in this we have Mr. B 's consent expressed on all occasions. R. I wonder the Bp can speak thus, why doth he not acquaint us then with his consent in one passage; if he hath any such passage, doth he mean as he speaks? No, no more than the Bp, who could not, as long as he held that Christ bore the personal guilt or desert of none.  
It is now evident the Bp hath said nothing to the purpose for vindication of Mr. B. what hath been said hath been for a greater confirmation of the Charge, and wounding his own Cause.  
He saith little further, but to excuse, 1. Liberty must be given to Metaphysic Heads. 2. Tells a Story of Lubbertus and Mcacovius. 3. He tells us of favourable interpretations, that are to be given to Persons, that keep to the main point, as if this were but a trifling matter between the Socin, and us.  
4. Mr. L. argues that Mr. B. speaks after the Unitarians.— That Christ did not undergo punishment properly so called, but in a popular sense of Punishment. The Bp in answer doth fill up p. 162, 163, 164, 165, 166. in showing what slippery Gentlemen, the Writers of the Unitarian Doctrine are, but nothing to Mr. L's Charge of Mr. B. therefore yields the truth thereof, and agrees with Mr. L. in these words. Bp. you say, Rectoral Justice doth essentially respect the Law in its distributions, — Whatever a Sovereign may do in acts of Dominion.— A Rector cannot justly inflict Sufferings on an innocent person as such. Here I grant you have come up to the true state of the Case between the Socin. and us; and therefore we shall leave it, and let the Reader judge who is cast at the Bp's Bar.  
But before I end, it's necessary to consider how the Bp. doth reconcile his two Principles.  
1. That the Sin of Man was the immediate, impulsive and meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferigns: This he holds against the Socinians and Mr. B.  
2. That Christ bore not the Personal Gild of any Legally, but that all Personal Gild remains on the Sinner, and was not legally transferred to Christ. For this he saith, P. 167.  
Bp. 1. We say, that Punishment may be justly inflicted, where there was a Translation of Gild by Relaxation of the Law, as to personal Offenders, and admitting a Mediator to suffer in their stead.  
R. No Gild is translated by Relaxation of a Law, for that dispenceth only. 2. If the Law be relaxed as to Personal Offenders, the doing of those things aster the relaxation, is not Sin, which was so before; what needs a transferring to another? 3. If the Precept be not relaxt (which they will be loath to say it is) than the Penalty must; and if so, either to a part only, or to the whole: If to the whole, what need is there of a Translation? If to a part only, than part of the Sin only is transferred, and Christ Died only for some part of our Sin, not all. Hence one part of our Salvation is owing to the relaxed Law, and the other to Christ. Hence Christ did not satisfy the Law, in the proper and strict Nature of it, and Christ's Sufferings were improper Punishments, according to Mr. B. And here the Bp runs on ground.  
Bp. He saith, 2. Absolute Promises of the New-Covenant, on which so much weight is laid, (without comparing them with other places) speak no more of Christ's Sufferings, than they do of any Conditions in us. Here our own Qualifications and Performances, are made to have an equality of conditionality, federally with Christ's Sufferings; and if Christ's Sufferings be meritorious, so are they too.  
Bp. 3. The notion of Satisfaction lays the Foundation of Antinomianism, which attributes unto God such a sort of vindictive Justice which requires an absolute and perfect Satisfaction in the same kind for the Sins of Mankind. R. How much this kind of satisfaction borders upon Socinianism in the true meaning of it, it's easy to judge; and what little reason the Bp had to reject the Principles that Mr. B. built upon is manifest, being a firmer Foundation for his building; And after all that he hath said against them, as too much favouring Socinianism, he is fain to lay hold on them to support his own Fabric. See here the pitiful shifts Men are put to that wander from the way of truth.   

Arguments to prove that Christ bore the Personal Gild of all them for whom he Suffered.  
THAT the less intelligent Reeader may not be at loss for the truth, not so easily finding it among the Controversal Difficulties of a Dispute, I have thought good to make plain proof of this great Question in the affirmative.  
And that we may prevent enlargements, I premise,  
1. That by Personal Gild, is meant the Gild of every particular Person for whom Christ Died; as of Noah, David, and Peter, etc.  
2. I take Gild and Sin, and the merit and desert of Sin, to be equivalent terms in the sense of the Spirit of God; and though the Scripture use the word Sin, and we most commonly say Gild, this is exegetical, to show that we mean not that the Subjective Physical Act of Sin was transferred to Christ; nor the inherent. Moral Pollution: But whatever is in either, that is a Transgression of the Law, the Law-relation of all Sin, so far as the Law condemns the Sinner for it, was charged on Christ, i. e. Legally and Juridically in the Just God's distribution of Justice. Then I argue,  
Arg. 1. He that was punished for Sin, bore Sin in the Personal Guilford, i. e. the Legal Charge of it, as the reason of his Punishment; but Christ was punished for it by the Concession of our opposites, Ergo, The Major is true. 1. Because God is Just. 2. Punishment without a Reason is very unjust. 3. There was no reason in Christ absolutely considered for his Punishment, therefore in some others; therefore the Personal Sin of some or other. 4. Without a bearing of Sin in the legal desert of some or other, he could not be justly punished by the Law.  
Arg. 2. He that was made Sin for us, was made so by charging our Sins upon him, bare Personal Gild; for he was made that, which he was not in himself: Now how could he be made so, but by an imputation of the Sins of others to him, a legal proceeding with him in judicature; which could be no other than by Judging and Punishing him for some Gild that merits the Wages of Death? The Answer the Socinians and others make to 2 Cor. 5.21. is that he was made Sin as the Sacrifices were, because a Sin-offering is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: But I answer, 1. It was essential to the Sin-offering to have the the Personal Gild of the Sinner charged upon it. 2. When 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for a Sin-offering, it's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 3. The Prophet Isa. doth only use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he speaks of Christ's bearing Sin, which last word is never used for Sin-offering. 4. He was made Sin as we are made Righteous; now we are not made Righteous by being made Sacrifices for Sin, but by imputation.  
Arg. 3. He that bore the Curse of the Law to Redeem us from it, bore also the Personal Gild of our Sins; but Christ bore the Curse of the Law, Gal. 3.13. For the Major it's as clear as the Sun, because Curse is inseparable from Sin; the Law curseth no where but where it finds Personal Gild. Let these Men tell me where a Curse falls upon the head of any one, but of such wherein there is Sin in some legal sense or other.  
Arg. 4. If the Priests and Sacrifices of old, the Types of Christ and his Sufferings, had the Personal Gild of Sin laid upon them, than Christ the Antitype, in his Sufferings, had Personal Gild laid upon him: But the Antecedent is without contradiction, yea, and the Consequence; because the Antitype is to answer the Type, in all things wherein it is a Type.  
Arg. 5. If they that were Punished by the Law, did bear their Personal Sins by the Law; then if Christ, was Punished by the Law, he also bore Sin by the Law. But the Antecedent is true by the Scripture, both in them that are recorded to have been Punished in Person for their own Sins, Leu. 20.20. and 22.9. and 24.15. Numb. 9.13. and 14.34. and 18, 22, 32. Ezek. 23.49. and in such as are recorded to have been Punished or Suffer for others, Isa. 53.11. Ezek. 4.4, 5, 6. The Consequence must be true if Christ was Punished by Law, and was one that Suffered for others; the proof whereof the Scripture is full of.  
Arg. 6. If Christ bore not Personal Gild, but every one's Personal Gild still remains, than the Spirit of God taught David to pray after his Sin in vain, Deliver me from Blood guiltiness, O God. But David's Prayer was not in vain, but was he delivered from his Personal Gild of Blood? Or else he must at this day be a Blood-guilty Murderer in Heaven.  
Arg. 7. A Surety to God for Sinners, bears their Sins in being Punished for them; but Christ was a Surety, Heb. 7.22. There's no fence against such a Flail as this one express place. 2. The Minor is quarrelled by our Adversaries, but not Universally denied, yet they would make a seeming Evasion, that they will have Christ a Surety for God to us, and not for us to God; and that Christ was no Money-Surety for us, we being Criminals; and that Sin must not be looked on as a Debt; the folly of all which hath been made sufficiently manifest.  
Arg. 8. If the Personal guilt of Sin was taken away by Jesus Christ, than Christ must bear Personal Gild: But the Gild of Personal Sins was taken away by Christ, as appears by 1 John 3.5. Heb. 9.26. He took away Sin by the Sacrifice of himself: Sin cannot be said to be taken away, if it be not taken away in the Personal Gild. The Major appears from the Type of the Scape-Goat, Levit. 16.  
Arg. 9 Where there's no Condemnation, there Personal Gild is taken away, nor nothing to be laid to the Charge of a Person; but there's no Condemnation, (i. e. Reason of Condemnation in the Eye of the Law) in a Believer, Rom. 8. for there's no Reason of Condemnation, but Gild of Sin; and none takes off the reason of our Charge of Fault to Law Condemnation, but Christ by bearing Sin unto Punishment and Satisfaction, Rom. 8.33, 34. For where there is the Personal Gild of Sin, there's Condemnation. Now this Freedom from Condemnation was fully obtained and procured by Christ's Sacrifice, but the purchased Right is not received and possessed till Application; till then a Sinner is shut up and imprisoned under the Law, as to State and Conscience; but when he is in Christ Jesus by Faith, he is fully instated in the purchased Possession.  
Arg. 10. If Christ's Punishment was without his bearing of our Personal Gild, there was no change of Persons between Christ and us, according to 2 Cor. 5.21. for as we were, so we remain to be guilty Sinners; and so long as we are so, we cannot be righteous; we can't be made the Righteousness of God in Christ, so long as we remain guilty Sinners in ourselves.  
Arg. 11. Where Personal Gild remains, there's no Acceptation with God; for all our Acceptation, either of Persons or Services, is in Christ, God professing he will not clear the Guilty.  
Arg. 12. I might argue from all those places of Scripture that speak out this Truth fully and expressly, which cannot have any rational Sense put upon them, no less than three times in Isa. 53. and 1 Pet. 2.24. who his own self bore our Sins in his Body on the Tree.  
There's no one Truth in the Scripture, that is more fully and plainly recorded in the Old Testament and New. The Spirit telling us of a Believer's Sin covered, not imputed, Psal. 32. Rom. 4. Of our being made nigh to God, and Christ being our Peace, Eph. 2.13, 14, 15. Likewise Christ died the just for the unjust, to bring us unto God, 1 Pet. 3.18. But this is enough to confirm the weak, and to convince Gainsayers, and to lead all the Lovers of Truth into the Mind of the Spirit in this great Article of our Faith.   

The Presbyterian Articles against the Dissenting Brethren Answered.  
I Had thought when I began this Task to have passed over the first part altogether; for tho' I found it a very false History, yet I knowing from whose Hands the Bp. had it, I did not think he was chargeable so much with the falsehood, as with an unjust unwariness and partiality, to take up the Report of a Difference, and to publish the History of it to the World from one Party only concerned therein, I deemed therefore enough to refer the Reader to the true History of the Union and Breach; but upon the review of the said false Historical Account; and finding a fresh Presentment brought in against the Dissenting Brethren from the late Union, by the grand Rebuker under divers Articles, for holding and publishing many poisonsome dangerous Heresies, of so mischievous a Nature, that he teacheth his tractable Reader a form of Prayer, to use still before he reads them; to wit, that he may not suck in the Bane and Poison thereof.  
And finding the Bp. received the said Presentment very much like a Gentleman, and sends forth his very Christian Summons for our Appearance to the high Charges in these Words: The Accusation being now public, and the Nation is concerned as to the Dishonour done to Religion thereby, altho' I had seen the said Reproaches in the Presbyterians Hands, and found they had brought the said Brethren under their Censure in their unrighteous way of proceeding, without any hearing, I thought more expedient to slight than answer their unreasonable Clamours, being abundantly conscious of my own Innocency in those Matters; my great Mistake was in mistaking them, being at my Concurrence with them in the Union, (for which I have deeply repent) but a mere Stranger to their Persons Ways and Actions. And before I come to the particular Articles, it's necessary to premise a few things; that now,  
1. I think it necessary for myself to appear to the Accusations, and make public Answer to them, but do not undertake that all I say is the Sense of my Brethren in every Particular; I suppose they may concur with me so far, that some different Apprehensions will make no Breach in our mutual Love and Affections.  
2. I apprehend it very unreasonable, as well as unchristian and ungenteel, to charge those things for dangerous Errors upon a whole Party, which are pretended to be taken from the Writings or Say of one or two only.  
3. It is very traducing and slanderous; 1. Not to prove the Words charged for Error in the Sense they represent them, on the Party that wrote or spoke them, but to make an Accusation at large, and at random. 2. That they publish these for Errors before they had disputed them with such as they charge, and proved them so.  
4. Let me ask our angry Brethren a few Questions for my Information. 1. Whether they think in their Consciences, and in the sight of God, they have dealt uprightly and sincerely with the Truth, and with their Brethren in this Controversy? 2. Whether it becomes the Saints to appear such public bitter Accusers of their Brethren, as appears by the foul-mouthed Rebuker, and others, whoso have been employed and applauded in this dirty Service? 3. Whether it be for the Honour of the Nonconformists thus to bewray their own Nests? 4. Whether they think not in their Consciences that many things they charge for Errors are great Truths in some Sense or other? Therefore is it not very unfair to charge in general and dubious terms, without any Distinctions or Explications? Doth this become learned Divines?  
The Rebukers' Articles which he brought into Court were, I find to the number of 21, but it seems the judicious Bp. contracted them to Six, which he hath called us to appear to, looking upon the rest (I suppose) as frivolous, illiterate or spiteful; the Six, with my respective Answers, are as follows.  
Er. 1. That Pardon is rather the Condition of Faith, having a causal Influence thereunto, then Faith and Repentance are of Pardon.  
A. The Words were mine in transitu of a Discourse, and therefore it is very unfair to expose them, without showing their Dependence. 1. I have shown, and proved, and will stand by it, that Pardon, Faith and Repentance, belong not to the conditional Part of the new Covenant, but to the Promisory. 2. That Pardon, Faith and Repentance, altho' they are not Foederal Conditions, yet being connected in the Promise, may have a Connexion conditional given to them, as if a Man believe he receiveth Pardon, in believing; if he repent, he will believe; if he repent, and believe, he shall be saved; and I renounce not the Scripture Language in anything, but desire to understand and explain it in its true and genuine Sense. 3. I say, that if we talk of the Foederal Conditionality of Faith to Pardon; Pardon is rather a Foederal Condition of Faith and Repentance, than Faith of Pardon; I say, not that it is, but rather because distinguishing Pardon aright into Active and Passive; I say, Pardon Passive received can't be without Faith to receive it, but Pardon Active must be before Faith. 1. Because the Object that the Hand receives must be before the Instrument that receives it. 2. The Grace of Pardon is in God to be bestowed before we receive it. 3. There is Pardon in Christ for all that shall believe, Jo. 17.20. See what Mr. Capel saith on this point, It is one thing for all the Sins of all the Elect to be pardoned to Christ for them; that was done before we were, or our Sins were, another thing to be pardoned to them; Christ was made a Curse for us by Imputation, for that the Father did impute all our Sins, as a Judge to Christ, as our Surety, [the true notion of Imputation, that it is not an Act of Grace, but a Judicial Act] and God did exact all of him as guilty by that Law, etc. 3. Pardon in God and in Christ hath a causal Influence on Faith and Repentance: 1. Pardon is an essential cause of a pardoned Person, the Abstract being the formal cause of the Concrete; pardoning Grace doth effectually work all Graces of the Spirit in us, the pardoning Grace of the Father, Son, and Spirit. 2. The Gospel preached to Sinners, which is Pardon of Sin; the Gospel preached to Abraham, is that which works Faith through the effectual Operation of the Spirit, Act. 13.39. Rom. 10.15. And it was preached to David by Nathan, 2 Sam. 12.17. as done before his particular Repentance, expressed Psal. 51. therefore if we talk of Foederal Conditions, Pardon is rather such, than Faith and Repentance, because it's in Nature as well as Time antecedent; and such an antecedent, as hath a causal Influence. And hence I also assert, that every necessary antecedent, tho' with causal Influence upon the consequent, is not a Foederal Condition.  
Er. 2. That Sin itself, as opposed to Gild, was laid on Christ, and Christ was reputed a Criminal, not only by Man, but God.  
A. As to the first clause, they should have pointed out the Person that said it. If I spoke it, or writ it, I was asleep then; for when we say Sin was laid on Christ, we speak not of it by way of Opposition unto Gild, but by way of Identity or Sameness with Gild, in the Dialect of the Spirit of God, our use of the Word Gild, being but an apt Exegetical Term to express the meaning of Sin in this Point, because the Physical Substratum of Sin can't be transferred to another, but the Law Relation may.  
As to the second charge, 1. It will be easily granted by the Accusers, that a Sinner's Debts to the Law are Crimes. 2. To say he was a reputed Criminal in Law only, is by a received Sense to justify the personal and absolute Innocency of Christ in himself. 3. I suppose they will not deny, that if Sin was charged on Christ for the delivery of Sinners, it was done by God as his Act, and not by the false Accusation of Satan or his Instruments; for the Salvation of Sinners, by his bearing Sin, was never their Design; and it's said God laid upon him the Iniquity of us all, Isa. 53.4. The term Criminal might possibly be used by some or other, with a good Meaning, but I look not upon it as proper, and I don't know that I have used it; if I have, I have better considered of it. 1. Because tho' the Scripture saith Sin was laid on Christ, and that he was made Sin, yet it saith not that he was a Sinner, or a Criminal. 2. Because his bearing Sin, and being made so, it plainly implies that he was not so in himself, but made so by Law Imputation, and by standing in a Surety relation to the Law for us. 3. A Sinner or Criminal doth in an ordinary and common Acceptation import a Committer, or Perpetrator of Sin, which Christ never was not reputed by God so to be. Therefore herein God shows his wonderful Wisdom, in teaching us to speak of Christ in this great Mystery with so much Exactness.  
Er. 3. That the Doctrine of Justification before Faith is not an Error, but a great and glorious Truth, and therefore we believe that we may be justified declaratively.  
A. It is an Error, and it is not an Error; it is an Error to say Justification by Faith is before Faith in time, and a contradiction in Adjecto, therefore I never said so for Justification by Faith can't be before Faith is in the Receiver to receive it by: But that Justification is before Faith, is a glorious Truth; and this I must affirm for Truth, that there is Justification before Faith, if we distinguish of Justification aright, as of Pardon, and say it's actively and passively to be understood; active Justification is in God that justifieth, Rom. 8. the Grace of Justification a Gift to us. 2. Christ as the Head and Representative of the Elect, was justified, and all the Elect fundamentally in him, else Jesus Christ's suffering as a public Person, could not have been, he was taken from Prison and Judgement. 3. Justification in Application, is by Nature before Faith, because all Grace apprehends the Sinner before he apprehends it, and is the immediate cause of a Sinner's apprehending it. Again, the Grace of Justification is in nature before Sanctification, and the Foundation of it by the consent of Protestants; and therefore it's said in that Sense, that God justifies the ungodly; not that we should be ungodly, but that he finds and takes us in that State; and so doth the sanctifying Grace of God in Regeneration, God doth both justify and sanctify the ungodly, by his active apprehending Grace, Phil. 3.12. As to the second clause I suppose none can deny, that therefore we believe that we may be justified, Rom. 10.10. and elsewhere; and as to the last Word, wherein they lay the stress of the Error, they might put it in unexceptionable Terms by adding a monosyllable, they believe that they may be justified, and declaratively, they believe that they may receive, and have Eternal Life, and that they may know they have it, according to the express Words of the Apostle, 1 John 5.12, 13.  
Er. 4. Union to Christ is before Faith at least by Nature; and we partake of the Spirit by virtue of that Union, and there's a complete Union with Christ before the Act of Faith.  
A. For the first clause of the charge I own it, and have defended it as Truth, and shall stand by it, and am ready to dispute it with the Accusers when they please; in the mean time, let them tell me whether Faith be not a vital Act of the Soul? If so, how came the Fruit to grow on the Branch before it was in the Root, Christ Jesus? Again, if Faith be the Effect of Union to Christ, than Union is the cause, and in Nature antecedent to it. There's no need to enlarge upon so plain a Truth, the second clause is as true, that by virtue of this Union, or in this Union we first partake of the Spirit, because the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, Rom. 8. The Spirit is the Bond of this Union; for, 3. I know not whether it be mine in the terms expressed, but if it were, there was something said to explain it; the Sense I am ready to defend it in is this, that whatever Union Christ makes is complete in itself, such is vital Union in Regeneration, where the Regenerated is altogether passive; and all Regeneration is perfect, tho' the regenerated is not; every one conceived is perfectly conceived, tho' the conceived is not perfectly grown; every one born is perfectly born, tho' every one born is not perfect; so is every one born of the Spirit, he hath complete Life, tho' he is not complete in the Acts of Life; compleatness of Life, and compleatness in exercising the Acts of Life, are to be distinguished.  
Er. 5. It is a great Truth, that God sees no Sin in a Believer, and Sin can do no Hurt to a Believer; God is not displeased with his People, and is not angry with the Persons of Believers for their Sins.  
A. Here are the 12, 13, 14 of the Rebuker's Articles crowded together. As to the first, I say, 1. They are the Words of Scripture, let the Exceptors show and prove that the Spirit of God means quite contrary to what it saith in that Place; Num. 21.21. and that all other Places of Scripture that confirm this Truth are false, and mean quite contrary; as when it saith a Believer is blessed his Sins, being covered, and not imputed, Psal. 32.1, 2. This is Poison; but the meaning is, He is blessed whose Sin is uncovered before God, and his Iniquity imputed; when God saith he doth not remember our Iniquities, you must read it, He doth remember our Iniquity. Let them give a rational Sense, of Jer. 50.20. Mic. 7.19. Jer. 31.34. Heb. 8.12. ch. 10.17.  
But let them not take us to be so stupid, as to understand this of the Eye of his Omnisciency, but in respect of the Eye of his Justice, Psal. 51.9. when they give us any probable Interpretation of the forementioned Places of Scripture, so to prove the Word of God false, Num. 23. In the Sense we take it, as I could never see yet the greatest of them ever did, we will acknowledge it an Error, in the mean time let them give us leave to believe it, and receive it as an Article of Faith.  
The second Clause the Rebukers 13 is, That Sin can't do any real Hurt to a Believer.  
A. Why is this charged upon the dissenting Brethren? Did they ever hear any one of them assert it in Terminis; he that uttered it in the Ardency of a popular Discourse was above 50 Years since, and is it Blasphemy or Heresy to defend a good Man's Discourse by a charitable Interpretation? If they had a Grain of Charity, they may easily see that he meant not according to that gross Sense they would put upon the saying, that he intended not to countenance Professors living in Sin, nor in respect of Grief, Sorrow and Darkness, occasioned by a Believer's Fall into Sin, but his meaning was, 1. That their Falls into Sin should not prejudice that State of Union to Christ, according to Rom. 8.35, 36, 37, 38. 2. That tho' Sin remain in them, yet they shall not have Dominion over them, according to Rom. 6.14, 15. 3. That tho' they fall, they shall arise, according to Mic. 7.8. 4. That God will overrule all the Falls of his Children for their Spiritual Good and Advantage, according to Rom. 8.28. and therefore he saith real hurt.  
The third thing here, which is the Rebuker's 14th, God is not displeased with his People, i. e. their Persons. A. Why do they not explain what they mean by God's displeasure; do they mean Paternal or Vindictive: If they mean Paternal, in a way of Rebuke and Chastisement, who denies it? If they mean Vindictive, we deny it. Again, why do they not tell us what they mean by God's People, do they mean a Collection of Professing People, Church or Nation? Such may be the general Defection of these from their Profession, never real and true, that God's Vindictive Wrath may go forth against them, as often against his People of Old. Lastly, God is never pleased with the Sins of his People, therefore condemned all their Sins in the Flesh of Christ, Rom. 8.3. But God is not displeased with the Persons of his People, such as are called according to purpose, because he loved them with an Eternal Love; and he is a God that changeth not.  
Art. 6. Believers are as Righteous as Christ. A. Most know who is Charged here, it is one that is gone to give up his Account to his Lord and Master: I doubt not but it is with Joy, and that he hath received a Crown of Glory that fadeth not: Tho' the Rebuker hath trampled upon his Bones and Memory, in his Pride and Insolency; and not only upon his, but on those of that other Eminent Servant of God that is at rest with him: And why? Because both of them in their Life-time served their Generation, in bearing faithful Testimony to the Truths of Jesus.  
I need say nothing to this Article: That worthy Servant of Christ spoke enough to explain himself in that Position, in his Printed Sermons which he Preached at Pinner's-Hall: The sum of it was, that he meant not in respect of Sanctification, for there our best Holiness is imperfect, therefore he means not in a way of Similitude to his Personal Holiness and Righteousness; but in a way of equality, i. e. in respect of a Believer's relation to the Law, as Christ hath made full Satisfaction to the Law for a Believer, so he is as fully discharged from the Law, and condemnation thereof, as Christ is, i. e. the Law hath no more to do to condemn a Believer, than to condemn Christ: His full Original Discharge having been in Christ, the thing is made plain by an illustration. A Rich Alderman pays a Poor Man's Debt of 10 l. and sets him at liberty from the Prosecution of the Law, and Imprisonment; which done, the Poor Man can be no more Prosecuted by the Law, than the Rich Alderman; being as Righteous in the Eye of the Law as the Alderman: But he can't say, he is as Rich, as Wise, as Valuable in Estate or Person; or so Able to pay the Debts of others as the Alderman.  
I know Mr. M. was not the first that insisted on this Notion, I have read it in Mr. Shephard of N. E. as I take it, in his Sound Believer; and I am sure the Rebuker can't call him an Antinom. As for my own part, I choose not to use the Expression, (tho' its in Mr. M's. Accept. a Truth) because many that are short in Understanding, are apt to abuse it; and others to make an advantage thereof to wreak their malice against the great Truths of the Gospel, as these Accusers have done. But especially, because I apprehend the truth therein contained may be delivered in less offensive words.  
The Bp hath pitched upon Ten of the Rebuker's Articles, and reduced them to Six; there is about Eleven more which he thought had no weight or sense in them. As,  
Ac. 1. To talk of a Gospel threat, is at best a Catechresis; and nothing else can save it from being a Bull; I suppose the Bp thought that no Scholar could make an Error of it. I am the Man that wrote it, and I will stand by it as a very favourable Reflection upon such as talk so improperly and impertinently.  
Ac. As to the Elect, there was never any guilt upon them, in respect of the Righteous Judgement of God, in foro Dei: But that which accompanied the Letter of the Law, setting in with Conscience.  
This Article it seems the Bp could make nothing of, nor I; indeed it being one that M. W. hath patched up. For I deny not the Elect are under the Law, and Children of Wrath according to it, till effectual calling; but that God's Vindictive Righteous Judgement is ever executed upon them, I do deny.  
Ac. 9 It is denied that God requires Faith as an indispensible Qualification in them, whom he will justify for Christ's Merits. A. This smells of Mr. W.'s qualifying Righteousness; all is Gospel with the Rebuker, which he hears from his Oracle. Now to give a brief Answer here, because I have disputed this Article with the Gentleman already. I do not deny that God requires Faith, and will work Faith in all those that God will justify by Faith, but I deny that God requires Faith indispensibly in all that he will justify by Christ's Merits; for he justifies saved Infants by Christ's Merits, but who can say Faith is required of them? Lastly, He doth not require Faith in any as a subordinate qualifying Righteousness, to Justification by Christ's, for such it is the Gentleman would have, which I have formerly refuted, but all Men must be Heretics with the Presbyterians, that say not after him.  
Ac. 10. All that a Believer can pray for is, the further Manifestation of Pardon, for he knows that all his Sins are pardoned. A. This is Ejusdem farinae & Originis: 1. I suppose a Believer may know that all his Sins are pardoned, or else the Scripture speaks much in vain. 2. Is it a poisonsome Error to pray for a further Manifestation of pardoning Grace, and Confirmation in, and Continuance of that Knowledge? 3. If a Man do not know his Sins are pardoned, or doth doubt of it, sure he will pray that he may be Partaker of pardoning Grace, and be confirmed in the Knowledge of it; I know none of the accused but do pray thus, and that daily, Forgive us our Trespasses, as we pray for daily Bread when we have it in the House; for whatever we have of Spiritual or outward good things, it is God must give unto us richly to enjoy it.  
Ac. 15. Legal Convictions before Faith are no more than Sin, it's but a filthy Conscience, etc. A. I believe all that Author and his second can do can't make any better of it. So saith the Spirit of God, Tit. 1.15. and the Bp. knew that the Articles of the Church of England said so, and therefore he inserts it not as an Error.  
Ac. 16. All imperfect Holiness is Sin. A. Who said so?  
This is another dab of W.'s Spittle, which the Rebuker hath likct up.  
Ac. 17. Turn ye, turn ye, why will you die? Is but the Triumph of the Law over a dead Sinner. A. I argued the meaning of that Place with D. W.'s, and showed that it could be for no other end than to convince the Jews of their Inability in themselves, (that trusted to their own Strength and Righteousness inherent) to work out their justifying Righteousness and Salvation, and to bring them to the Grace of God in the Promise; the Truth of which I am ready to discuss with any of them.  
Ac. 18. I can't make Head or Tail of; he should have told us where he had it, or how he came to dream of it?  
Ac. 20. Christ's Incarnation was no part of his Humiliation. A. The terms are falsely charged, there's no Man that saith that Christ's Abode in the Flesh was not his Humiliation, and what he suffered in it; but if he means the Divine Nature's Assumption itself of Flesh this was an Act of Divine Power; I say, the taking of our Nature; for he could not be humbled in the Divine Nature, therefore he took Man's, that he might be humbled in it after his Assumption. This was a wiser and more learned Man's Opinion than they that oppose it. If the Rebuker had read Dr. Ames' Medulla, one would think he should have been ashamed to put it down as a baneful and poisonsome Error, altho' Mr. W.'s did, who it may be never heard of it till Mr. M. preached it. The Bp. here cast it out, and as not consonant to the Rebuker's Form of Prayer.  
Ac. 21. We coaless upon believing into one Mystical Person with Christ, which is distinguished from Legal Union, which is before Faith. A. Sure the Rebuker and his learned Master showed themselves mighty acute Divines here at last; for they seem to take the mystical Body of Christ for a great Error; for that the Error lies, in asserting that Believers are Members of the mystical Body of Christ, if they mistake not Person for Body. 2. If they accuse any for saying Believers make one mystical Person with Christ, they should have detected that ignorant Person, and not charged it on their dissenting Brethren; surely they are not such pitiful Wretches, as not to distinguish between the mystical Body of Christ and his Person, and to talk of a mystical Person. 3. This mystical Person must be distinguished from a legal Union before Faith. Where is this Stuff put together? I challenge these Men to tell the Man, and quote the Place where such a Mess of Nonsense is put together; if they do not, it must pass for one of the horrid Defamations, wherewith they have bespattered their dissenting Brethren, to render them odious unto the World. I suppose the Bp could make nothing of it.  
The Lord give them Repentance and Remission of these great Sins of the first Magnitude, and that they persist not thus to fly in the Face of Christ and his faithful Members, and that he leave them not to a reprobate Mind, as well as such a persecuting false Tongue, whereby we shall be engaged to pray the 120th Psalm against them.   

A POSTSCRIPT.  
BEcause we are so highly reproached by our Adversaries for Antinomians in the great Point of Justication, I thought it very needful to transcribe some few Passages out of the Writings of that renowned Servant of Jesus Christ Mr. Tho. Shephard, whom none of our bitterest Opponents can call an Antinomian.  
He shows how Christ redeems, 1. By Satisfaction. 2. By strong Hand. 1. By Satisfaction, in paying a Price for us, 1 Cor. 6. ult. Hence Christ satisfieth Justice.  
1. By standing in the room of all them whom Mercy decreeth to save. A Surety standeth in the room of a Debtor, Heb. 7.22. As the first Adam stood in the room of all Mankind fallen, so Christ standeth in the room of all Men rising, or to be restored again.  
2. By taking from them, in whose room he stood, the eternal Gild of all their Sins, and by assuming the Gild of all their Sins unto himself, 2 Cor. 5.22. Hence Luther said Christ was the greatest Sinner by Imputation.  
3. By bearing the Curse and Wrath of God kindled against Sin; for God is so holy, that when he seethe Sin sticking only by Imputation to his own Son, he will not spare him, but his Wrath and Curse must he bear, Gal. 3.13. Christ drinks up the Cup of all the Elect at one Draught, which they should have been sipping, and drinking, and tormented with Millions of Years.  
4. By bringing into the Presence of God perfect Righteousness, Rom. 5.11. For this also God's Justice required Perfection, Conformity to the Law, as well as perfect Satisfaction, in suffering for the Wrong offered to the Lawgiver. Justice requiring these Four Things, Christ satisfies Justice, by performing them, and so pays the Price.  
2. Christ is a Redeemer by a strong Hand. The first Redemption by Price finished in Christ's Person at his Resurrection, the second is begun by the Spirit in Man's Vocation, and ended at the Day of Judgement, etc. Sinc. Conu. p. 102, 103.  
By Satisfaction I understand the whole Obedience of Christ unto the very Death, both Active and Passive, by which we are justified, Heb. 10.10. Phil. 2.8. etc.  
This Righteousness of Christ, is not that of the Godhead; (for then what need was there for Christ to do or suffer?) but that which was wrought in the Manhood: And hence it is finite in itself, tho' infinite in value, in that it was the Righteousness of such a Person.  
This Righteousness of God may be considered two ways. 1. Absolutely in itself. 2. Respectively, as done for us.  
Christ's absolute Righteousness is not imputed to us, as he is Mediator, Head of the Church, having the Spirit without measure, etc. These things are applied for our Good, but are not imputed as our Righteousness. Here the Objections [such as these, if Christ's Righteousness be imputed to us, than we are Mediators, Heads of the Church, etc.] vanisheth.  
2. The respective or dispensative Righteousness of Christ, which some call Justitia fide jussoria, [Suretyship Righteousness] is that whereby Christ is just for us, in fulfilling the Law, in bearing God's Image we once had, and have now lost by Sin. And thus we are truly said to be as Righteous as Christ by Imputation, because he kept the Law for us; and here observe, that the Question is not, whether all that Christ did or had is imputed to us as our Righteousness? But whether all that he did for us as a Surety, in fulfilling the Law, be not in Substance our Righteousness? Because than we are justified by his working Miracles, preaching Sermons, etc. Which is to cast Stumbling-blocks before the Blind; so that tho' Christ doth not bestow his Personal Wisdom and Justice upon another, yet what hinders but that which Christ doth by his Wisdom and Righteousness for another, the same should stand good for him for whom it is done? For thus it is among Men.  
Christ's Essential Righteousness, Infinite Wisdom, Fullness of the Spirit without Measure, etc. is not imputed to us, yet these have conspired together to do that for us, and suffer that for us, whereby we come to be righteous before God, Jer. 23.6. This Righteousness therefore imputed to us justifies us, Rom. 5.18. we are said to be made righteous in him, not the Righteousness of God, whereby God is just, but whereby we are just, opposed to the Righteousness of Man, called our own, Rom. 10.3. Rom. 1.17. Not Righteousness from him, (as the Papists dream) but Righteousness in him. Sound Believer, p. 265, 266.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 14. l. 2. ab. ult. r. appealed. p. 15. l. 5. r. what necessary. p. 16. l. 13. r. not taken. p. 20. l. 5. ab. ult. r. ponitur. p. 23. l. 6. ab. ult. r. not found. p. 24. l. 22. f. Men, r. more. p. 43. l. 13. r. to the Sinner. p. 49. l. 1. r. Gods. p. 61. l. 8. r. Acquaints. p. 69. l. 18. r. meritorious. p. 76. l. 7. r. so as to bare. l. 16.19.20. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 21. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 87. l. 6. r. 23.21. l. 9 deal, at Sins. l. 21. r. so as,   

To my old Acquaintance Mr. John Humphrey.  
Reverend Sir,  
THE former Civilities that I have received from you, in sending your Books concerning the Doctrine of Justification to me, which I always read, and seriously considered, knowing you to be a Man of Thought, and , sine fuco, which some Men are too much starched with. These, I say, first engaged me in this Undertaking, for which I must crave your Excuse, [looking upon this as the best Returns] that I am your Apponent in the Doctrine you have delivered in the said Books, and laboured strenuously to defend; for you know the old proverbial Saying, Amicus Plato, Amicus Aristotiles sed magis Amica Veritas; I hope you will not (nor Mr. Clerk, whom I join with you as one that pleadeth the same bad Cause,) have any reason to complain of uncivil Treatment; for if you find any thing pungent, it is not in relation to your Persons, but to such things in your Tenants, which I conscientiously take to be very pernicious to the grand Truths of the Gospel, that I have, through the Riches of the Grace of God thankfully received, and not a little experienced the Consolations in Days of great Trial and Temptation, and therefore can't see any reason from all that you or your Copartner in this Controversy hath said, to part with those great Doctrines which you oppose, nor any way approve of the new Scheme which you and others have held forth to the World of late; I need not tell you how contrary it is to the Doctrine of our first Reformers, to the Experiences of the most eminent Christians, and how greedily swallowed by Men of Popish, Arminian and Socinian Principles.  
There was two things, especially of weight with me, that obliged me to this labour. 1. The public Interest and Concern of the Kingdom and Gospel of Christ in the World, which I desire to have a most special regard unto; insomuch, that the least and most favourable that I can say of the Propagators and Promoters of your Opinions in this Neonomian Doctrine, is, that they have been only applauded Captains by Men of blinded Minds, and corrupt Principles, for the conducting of the People back again into our Spiritual Egypt, which through the tender Mercies of the most High, they began to be delivered from by the Reformation; and if we once come to this, that the Doctrine of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness is as incredible a thing as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, as your great General hath asserted, and yourself have insinuated, we may say, Good night to the Protestant Religion; and to the Papists or Atheists (as now most appears in the Issue) take all. I need not instance how apt Men of your Principles have been to dispense with all the parts of instituted Worship, insomuch, that it is a hard thing to know what is Sin by your new Law; but I shall not expatiate as I could upon this Point. The second thing that had not a little Influence upon me, was, the Commiseration that I can't but have to your own Soul, and the Souls of others, looking upon your Deviation from the Truth in these great Points to be by Fundamental Errors, and such as endanger the Eternal Life promised in the Gospel, if a Man live and die in the Cordial Belief and Embracement of them, and may be justly reckoned among the strong Delusions which God doth judicially give up those to who receive not the Truth in the Love of it. It may be you may have read a Pamphlet, entitled, A true Relation of the chief Passages between Mr. Anthony Wotton, [the first Propagator of Neonom. in England, so far as I can find] and Mr. George Walker, An. Dom. 1611. usque ad An. 1615. by George Walker, for the vindicating himself from some Imputations laid upon him by Mr. Thomas Gataker. Wherein amongst other remarkable Accounts that he gives of the unsound doctrinal Opinions which he faithfully opposed, and the most unfair Deal he met with from Mr. Gataker, and some others, in countenancing of Wotton's Doctrine, and prevaricating in those Controversies. P. 25. He hath this Relation: One thing I cannot omit, which was a strong Motive to move divers godly People in London to abhor Mr. Wotton's Opinions; That was the sharp Censure which that holy Man of God, Mr. Alexander Richardson, gave against them on his Deathbed, and which Mr. John Barlow did report to divers from his Mouth. Mr. Richardson being ready to leave this World, Mr. Barlow, who had often before resorted to him for Direction in his Studies, [as divers young Divines did, some of which he mentions, P. 6.) and Resolution of Doubts in many Points of Divinity, was at that time present with him, and told him that he had heard me the Sabbath before propounding the Doctrine of Justification, to be laid open out of Rom. 5. and to be maintained against Papists, Socinians, and other Heretics; some of which were of late revived in the City, and withal desired to know his Judgement concerning Mr. Wotton's Opinions, who denied Christ's fulfilling the Law for Justification of Believers, and the Imputation of his Righteousness, and held Faith to be imputed in a proper Sense without a Trope. Mr. Richardson answered and said, Take these Words of me a dying Man; I have read, and well weighed Mr. Wotton 's Papers, and Opinions, and I know them to be so pestilent and dangerous, that whosoever liveth and dieth in the Belief of them, shall never enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Commend me to Mr. Walker, and desire him from me (as being my last Request to him) to be courageous in the Cause of God, and for that saving Truth, which he hath undertaken to maintain against those dangerous and deadly Errors lately set on foot by Mr. Wotton. This Message being delivered unto me before divers Witnesses, some of which are alive to testify it, did much encourage me, and make me more bold to lay open the Abominations of Mr. Wotton's Opinions publicly in my Sermons, without Fear or Regard of the Slanders and Revile of his factious and furious Disciples. This was An. 1613.  
Now supposing that you will not lay much stress upon the Judgement of one of the most holy, serious and learned Divines since the Reformation, as it appears such weighs little with you; let me be so bold as to ask you one Question, Whether upon the maturest Consideration you do believe you shall in your dying Hour dare to venture your Eternal State upon the Bottom that you have laid? And Lastly, Although I am so much dissatisfied in your Doctrine, that I must needs acknowledge your plainheartedness in the Defence of your Doctrine, (as also Mr. Clerk's) yet you do not endeavour to cover and obscure the Meaning and true Design of the Doctrine of Neonom. but have given it to us unmasked in its proper Colours; Viz. That the genuine and proper Nature thereof lies in the setting aside of the Righteousness of Christ, and the Imputation thereof, to the Justification of a Sinner before God, and to advance the inherent Righteousness of Man into the Room and Place thereof. Moreover I must acknowledge you have done right to Truth in what you say of the Union that the Nonconformists made between Presbyterians and Independants, that they were extremely out in it. And likewise in the plain Proof that you have made, that it is most absurd to hold and assert, that the Righteousness of Christ is imputed in se, and in the Effects too, and that there can be no mixed Medium; either we must hold that the Righteousness of Christ is imputed in see and per se to us for Justification, or the Effects thereof only in our inherent Obedience, for the Reasons you give with full Demonstration. To say no more of this now, but only that I think you have effectually ended Discord upon that Point; Sir, I shall no longer detain you from the ensuing Discourse, but subscribe myself.  
Yours in all Truth and Faithfulness, J. C.    

THE DOCTRINE OF justification Explained and Vindicated, etc.  

CHAPTER I. Of the Doctrine of justification, and the Neonomian Opposition thereto.  
Section 1. The Article of the Assembly. §. 2. How opposed in the universality of Grace, and qualification of the person justified. §. 3. How Neonomianism agrees with Papists and Quakers in Justification by Infused Righteousness. §. 4. How they oppose in Pardon of Sin and Imputing Righteousness. §. 5. Their agreement with the Papists in Justification by Works. §. 6. The Papists Talk of a New Law. §. 7. Quakers Doctrine of Justification. §. 8. The Socinian Doctrine of Justification. §. 9 The Arminian Justification. §. 10. Inference. §. 11. They assert, Justification not for Christ's sake alone. 12. Neonomians affirm, Imputation of the Act of Faith. §. 13. They deny the Imputation of Christ's Obedience and Satisfaction. §. 14. How they account Faith a qualifying Condition. §. 15. Conclusion.  
Sect. 1. Assembls. conf. cap. 11. §. 1. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth, not by infusing Righteousness into them, but by pardoning their Sins, and by accounting and accepting their Persons as righteous: Not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing Faith itself, the Act of believing, nor any other Evangelical Obedience to them as their righteousness, but by imputing the Obedience and Satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith, which Faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.  
To this Doctrine here delivered with the greatest Exactness, according to the Word of God, is the Doctrine of Neonomianism diametrically opposite, as will abundantly appear.  
§. 2. They say, Whom God effectually calleth he justifieth.] Mr. B. saith, God justifieth all the World; and he and Mr. H. ' That Christ redeemed all the World, in which there are Millions that were never, or will be effectually called. 2. That God freely justifieth.] This is fuller expressed in the Larger Catechism, Q. 70. Justification is an act of God's free grace unto Sinners, Rom. 3.21, 23, 24. for the free Grace is demonstrated in the Object that Justification falls upon. Justification considered in itself is an act of Justice, but the Free Grace lies in bringing Justification upon a Sinner, as such, not as qualified by righteousness of his own, under any Denomination whatsoever; Christ died for the ungodly, for enemies, while yet sinners, Rom. 5.6, 7, 8, 9 it is such chap. 3. that are said to be justified (chap. 4.5.) by free Grace; it is such that have sinned, and come short of the glory of God, as all, he saith, have, both Jews and Gentiles; such as are described, from v. 10. of whom none are righteous, no not one, but full of all sin and wickedness, as expressed with the highest aggravation unto v. 19 Now our Neonomians say, it's of Free Grace, because Justification is an Instance of Grace; but by Mr. Cl's. favour, it must be in the Justification of a Sinner, not of a just one; and therefore it's said freely by Grace, because he hath nothing, nor brings any thing in or from himself. 2. He saith, It's in respect of what is required of us, or in us, Faith is wrought in us, and it's of Free Grace that he accepts of Faith, and imputes it to us for righteousness: This by the Assembly is rejected as False Doctrine; although Faith, and all the Graces of the Spirit, are of Grace, yet neither Faith, or any of them, are our righteousness for Justification, neither doth God accept it as such, nor impute it: Mr. Cl. mightily perverts Rom. 4.16. therefore it is of faith; ' i. e. the righteousness before spoken of, is such as he received by faith (he saith not therefore it is faith) that it might be of grace, because as Grace gives freely, so Faith receiveth freely, and is not so proud as to call itself, righteousness, but gladly, humbly and thankfully receives the gift of righteousness, which Grace bestows, and Justice accepts and imputes to Justification.  
§. 3. Not by infusing righteousness into them.] The Assembly doth here exclude the Popish Justification, at which Mr. H. inveighs, and so doth J. G. for indeed there's but a pair of Shears between the Papists and Neonomians; for the Papists mean only, That we have the righteousness for Justification by infusion, and so says the other; they say indeed, Infusion is of Sanctification, and it is so, and we say, Justification is only a relative Grace, as it finds nothing in the justified, so it puts nothing; but the Neonomians say, It must find a righteousness infused, and there implanted in the justified, for which he is justified, or by which; it's all one, as we shall make appear anon; in a word, though the Neonomians say. The infusion of grace is not justification, yet they say, Grace infused is our righteousness for Justification; and here they do concur with the Papists, Quakers and others in confounding Justification and Sanctification together.  
§. 4. But by pardoning their sins.] The Neonomians will not have Pardon to be any part of Justification, but an effect of it only; we affirm it to be an essential part of Justification. [By accounting and accepting their persons as righteous.] The Neonomians say, it's by accounting and accepting their imperfect obedience for righteousness; God's Justification is first of the Person, and then of their Services, as Abel's, but their Justification is first of their Services, and so it is always in legal Justification, never in that of Free Grace; for in a mere Legal Justification, Persons cannot be accepted before the Work done, but the Person is accepted for the Work sake.  
Not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them.] The Papists, Neonomians, Quakers, Socinians, Arminians, all say its for or by what's wrought in us, or done by us, Pap. Cons. Trid. There is one only formal cause of Justification, and that is the righteousness of God, not that whereby he is righteous, but whereby he makes us righteous, with which we being endowed, are renewed in the spirit of our minds, and are truly called righteous, and are righteous, etc. Upon which Bellarmine saith the State of the whole Controversy may be reduced to this plain Question, Whether our inherent righteousness be the formal cause of our own absolute Justification? which he maintains in the Affirmative, and this is the Question in Controversy exactly, which our Neonomians plead for in the like manner, though some more obscurely and sophistically, but others more honestly in speaking out plainly what they mean, such as Mr. B. Mr. H. and Mr. Cl. Bellarmine also blames Kemnitius for dealing fraudulently in not distinguishing between propter and per, saying with the Council of Trent, That Christ's Righteousness is the propter, the cause for which we we are justified, and our own inherent 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 Reader. Mr. H. in Medioc. p. 42. Herein doth appear the ground of reconciliation between the Papists and us in this point; the sum of what he saith is, Provided they say that the works they plead for our righteousness, be the works of the new law, and not of the old, we are agreed, and then tells us, That Gods judging a man to have performed the condition of the Covenant (i. e. the New Law) is the accounting and declaring him righteous, That righteousness which makes a man righteous, and denominates him righteous, is that righteousness which does make God account him righteous, and that is the righteousness which he doth. Note it, for it is express; and this he saith is not the righteousness of the law of works, but of the law of grace, which he saith is a righteousness which he doth, but not work in doing, which is pretty absurd, that a man should do works of righteousness and not work; but the meaning is, he doth not work perfect works (I will not wrong him:) But do not those that work imperfect works work? Yea, saith he, they that do absolutely sinful works, are called workers of iniquity. A little after he tells us, Christ's Redemption was to bring in a New Law— for when Man fell it was impossible he should be righteous any more unless there were a new Law brought in, by performance whereof he might attain to that again which he lost— now this was the main business of Christ's Redemption, the procuring a new law, or another law with lower Terms, which some men performing, they do thereby become righteous, and so have righteousness, according to that Law imputed to them for Remission and life eternal— And thus you see what everlasting righteousness Christ brought in, Dan. 9 and in his Piece, Of Righteousness, which comes forth with Episco. Approbation, p. 3. It is true against the Papists, there is no such righteousness inherent, as to render God appeased with the sinner, or that the Conscience can rest on it [then it is good for nothing] as that propter quod he is forgiven or saved [by his favour Bellarmine doth not say it is] but that Christ's righteousness is the propter quam. Therefore the Papists and they are agreed in this sense.— It is true also against the common Protestant, [therefore the Neonomians are not Protestants, unless such as have causa formalis of Papists] that there is not any righteousness without us that can be made ours, so as we should be accounted righteous in another's righteousness, or be that thing per quod we are justified, there is no such matter in reality, but in notion only— This righteousness, as imperfect as it is (wrought by the Spirit) is that, and must be that which is the form per quam, he is accepted and justified, we grant the righteousness of Christ is the meritorious cause per quam we are pardoned and saved.  
§. 6. About the New Law there's little difference between the Papists and Neonomians, though the papist are on the surer side of the Notion, Mr. Fox Mart. about the difference between Ancient Rome and present, p. 34. tells us, The Church of Rome teach the People that there's no difference between Moses and Christ, save only that Moses was the giver of the old law, but Christ the giver of a new and more perfect law. And it's most rational, that the new law should be a more perfect law, and not a law of imperfection; we do not mend perfect things, and if there be any reason for particular ends, it's with those things that more perfectly answer those ends, and therefore their remedying law ought to be perfecter and most complete.  
§. 7. Next akin 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 chief his work. Works are necessary to Justification as well as Faith, James 2. both equally required to Justification; works of the Law are excluded as done by us, Tit. 3.5, 6, 7. [this is Mr. H. just] To be justified by Grace is to be justified or saved by Regeneration, which cannot exclude Works wrought by Grace and by the Spirit, 1 Cor. 6.11. The law gives not power to obey, and so falls short of Justification; but there's power under the Gospel by which the Law comes to be fulfilled inwardly, Rom. 8.3, 4. Works are the Condition upon which Life is proposed under the New Covenant. Tho we place Remission of Sins in the Righteousness and Obedience of Christ performed in the Flesh, as to what pertains to the remote procuring cause, and that we hold ourselves formally justified by Christ form and brought forth in us; yet can we not (as some Protestants have done unwarily) exclude works from Justification, for though properly we are not justified for them, yet are we justified in them, etc.  
§. 8. The Socinians say, No other Imputation is in our eternal Salvation than that whoever sincerely obeys the Commands of Christ is from them accounted of God righteous, Socin. de serve. When God is said to impute Faith for Righteousness, the meaning is, that God hath so great a value for Faith, that he esteems it for a Righteousness to Justification, Crel. on Gal. 3.6. And Mr. B. saith, I abhor the Opinion that Christ's righteousness given us is all without us, Preface to Doct. of Chr. p. 3. but more of this in what follows.  
§. 9 The Arminians bring up the Rear, and I shall name the Man from whom I can prove Mr. B. hath taken up most of his corrupt Notions about General Redemption and Justification, and its J. G. The Question in precise Terms is this, Whether the Faith of him that truly believes in Christ, or whether the righteousness of Christ himself— be that which God imputes to a Believer for righteousness, or unto Righteousness in his Justification, J. G. of Justification, p. 7. he concludes it is faith— As a Merchant that grows rich by such a Commodity, i. e. he grew rich by the Gain and Return he made of that Commodity— So we may be said to be justified by the righteousness of Christ, and yet not have the righteousness itself upon us by Imputation, or otherwise, but only a righteousness procured or purchased by it really and essentially differing from it, p. 12. This Righteousness of Christ is not that that is imputed unto any man for righteousness, but is that for which righteousness is imputed to every man that believeth— Paul neither eat his Fingers, nor spun out the flesh of his hands into clothing, and yet was both fed and clothed with them [Here's the true sense of being justified by the effects of Christ's Righteousness.] So may a Believer be said to be clothed with the Righteousness of Christ, and yet the righteousness of Christ not be his clothing but only that which procured this clothing unto him. Chap. 7. p. 88 is to evince, That that which God imputes for Righteousness in Justification is not the Righteousness of Christ himself (in the sense refused in the First Chapter,) ' but faith in Christ. In the conclusion of the Chap. he says, If God in the New Covenant of the Gospel (i. e. the New Law) requires Faith in Christ for our Justification, instead of the righteousness of the Law in the old, and this faith will not pass with him in account for such righteousness, both his Commandment and Covenant for believing, and the Obedience itself 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 Error, that the highest opposers of the Gospel of Christ have professed; it's no doubt but they will cease inveighing against the Quakers, as introducers of Popery, but rather applaud them, and bring them into their Pulpits.  
§ 11. But for Christ's sake alone.] This they deny and say, Our Justification passively taken, that which we do ourselves thro' Grace is this our formal righteousness, and that is the condition of our Justification actively taken (i. e. the righteousness of Christ the meritorious cause) So that in a large sense here is two righteousnesses for our Justification, Christ's and ours, p. 6. Mr. Cl. hath a Chapter to prove how the Righteousness of Christ concurs to our Justification, the sum of all is this, That by the Merits of Christ's Death, he has purchased this Privilege for us among others, that sincere Faith should be accounted for righteousness, and that God will account us righteous if we be possessed thereof, p. 35. Christ hath done his part, but hath appointed us a necessary part which must be done by ourselves; this is not to supply any deficiency in Christ [i. e. he hath done well enough for the part allotted him] but it is that which subordinately is required of us as the condition of Pardon and Life by his own Law or Covenant of Grace, and so far [as a part] ' it is imputed to us for righteousness, Scr. G. p. 35. From what hath been quoted before, it is plain the rest also do hold, that Christ's Righteousness at best doth but concur to our Justification, it is not that only whereby we are justified. See Mr. Cl. Chap. 13.  
§. 12. Not by imputing faith itself, 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. queries, Whether Faith be imputed to us for righteousness, or Christ's Righteousness believed on? A. A strange and bold Quaery— Read over the Text and put but [Christ's Righteousness every where instead of the word Faith] and see what a scandalous Paraphrase you will make— to have righteousness imputed, plainly signifieth to be reckoned or judged righteous, and it is strange that it must not be our own righteousness that is imputed and reckoned to us as our own. The same say Mr. H. and Mr. Cl. This Faith that is our righteousness they will have the same with our Evangelical Obedience, as containing all in it. So Mr. B. Faith by which we are justified is one moral act, containing many physical acts, even our fiducial consent to the Baptismal Covenant, and Dedication of ourselves to God the Father, p. 42. Mr. Cl. Faith is our subordinate Gospel-righteousness, he gives his reasons, p. 64. Mr. H. When a man performs the Evangelic Condition, it is the Evangelic 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 precedes Pardon and Life in order of nature. J. G. denys that Faith justifies in relation to its Object, though it cannot be separated from it, but by virtue of the intervention of some Law, Covenant or Decree, i. e. as a condition of the new Law in the Neonomian sense. Mr. H. in his right. of God, p. 54. Our Effectual Calling doth enter our Justification, for the Works of it, Faith, Repentance, new Obedience, are imputed to us for that righteousness that justifies us, and our Justification and inchoate righteousness does enter, and is the infancy of Glory. I need not blot Paper by quoting the Council of Trent; briefly, they damn any man that saith, that a man is justified without the righteousness that Christ did merit for us, whereby he is formally just, and damn such as say, that a man is justified only by the righteousness of Christ, or Remission of Sins, without inherent Grace and Charity.  
§. 13. But by imputing the Obedience and Satisfaction of Christ unto them.] Mr. H. in his Right. etc. p. 34. says to this part of the Assemblies descript. of Justification, and seems to flatter them a little, and thinks their Catechism may serve the People, yea, that a grosser sort of the knowledge of the Principles of Religion is better for ordinary People than more exact, whereby you may see what high thoughts and apprehensions he hath of the exactness of his gross Divinity. In Justification I acknowledge a forgiveness, and an imputation of Christ's Obedience, but I do not acknowledge either as our formal righteousness, Forgiveness is a benefit we receive, but not the formal reason. I acknowledge Christ's righteousness imputed sub genere causae efficientis & modum meriti, received by faith, but in the merit of it only. And I give notice, that thinking More doth say, that Christ's righteousness in se, is made ours legally (though he disowns it as physically and morally) that man must make it justify us sub ratione causa formalis, which is an unadvised Position, which I look upon as that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of our former great Divines, which gave the rise to Antinomianism. Now what a happiness is it that so great a Divine is risen up, to find out such an Error in the very heart of our Reformation, in our great Divines, and indeed in our Protestant Religion, that we have been all under a Cheat and Delusion in this grand Point of Life and Salvation, building upon a wrong righteousness for Justification. Again he saith, That we should be justified by faith, was obtained by Christ's Righteousness or Performance; but it is our Faith, not Christ's Performance, is imputed unto us for righteousness in our 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 believing we are justified: to the same purpose he hath words above an hundred times. Mr. R. B. God never judgeth falsely, but knoweth all things to be what they are, and therefore he reputeth Christ's Mediatorial Righteousness and Sacrifice to be the meritorious cause for which we are justified by the law of Grace, so he truly reputeth our Faith and Repentance, and Covenant-consent to be our moral qualification for the gift, and our holiness and perseverance to be our moral qualification for final Justification, which qualifications being the matter of the Law of Grace, and Condition of its Promise, is so far our righteousness, therefore God may be said in this sense, to impute Righteousness to us [i. e. our own] and to impute Christ's Righteousness to us [i. e. as to the effects]  impute our faith to us for righteousness. See the end of Controu. 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 Seru. This is the express sense of the Neonomians.  
§. 14. They receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith.] The Neonomians say, to be justified by it as that which God hath promised Justification on, as the qualifying condition, and saith the quae & quâ is a quibbling and juggling about a mere sound of words in a ludicrous Disputation; he saith it justifies not instrumentaliter, for that is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere in specie; Faith in Christ doth not justify qua talis, as that Faith, but it is that qualifying condition which the Promise annexeth Justification to, Scr. G. d. p. 42, 43.  
Mr. Cl. chap. 12. §. 8. From hence I infer, that justifying Faith is the same thing in substance with Effectual Calling, Repentance, Regeneration, Conversion, Sanctification. Renovation, etc. J. G. It is the common Plea, that Faith justifieth in relation to its Object, it's not receiving, but lawful receiving that justifieth, and therefore it justifieth by virtue of that law or agreement men are under, i. e. as a Covenant-condition; therefore he peremptorily denys that Faith justifies in relation to its Object, and our Neonomians are one with him, see him Of Justification.  
Bellarmine also spendeth much Paper, That Faith alone doth not justify, but that Fear, Hope, Love, and every Grace doth the same.  
§. 15. Those Points wherein the Neonomians declare themselves diametrically opposite to the Assembly, and other Protestants in the Doctrine of the Obedience and Satisfaction of Christ, must be matter of another Treatise, it being too much to come within the compass of these Sheets; likewise, there are two Points which I have already publicly insisted on. 1. In showing the Nullity of any New Law with Sanction. 2. To disprove their Universal Redemption, and show the Absurdity thereof, though more may be said of both (God willing) hereafter. And the Assembly, and we with them, asserting the Imputation of the active and passive Obedience of Christ to the Justification of a Sinner, and the Neonomians denying the active righteousness to have any influence on our Justification, no further than as to the fitness of his Person to the exercise of his Mediatorial Office, falling in with Piscator, Gataker and others in this Point, and cannot be handled here, but must be matter of after-consideration in treating of Satisfaction. Let not the Reader take it for granted that we grant Mr. Clark that Point, viz. the denial of the active righteousness of Christ in our Justification, wherein he hath spent a great part of his Treatise.   

CHAP. II. Of justification.  
§. 1. Wherein we are agreed. §. 2. Justification, what in Scripture acceptation. §. 3. What it supposeth. §. 4. God justifies actions. §. 5. Such a fruit of Justification before God. §. 6. Of Rahab. §. 7. Of Justification in foro Conscientiae §. 8. Of the Conditions. §. 9 Of Commutative Justice. § 10. Of a Compact. §. 11. Of Grace purchased. §. 12. Of the Purchase of the Covenant. §. 13. Whether God be a Debtor. §. 14. Particularly asserted against Mr. H.  
§. 1. I Shall not detain the Reader in criticising on the signification of Justification in the Hebrew and Greek Language, it amounting to what our English word means, and our adversaries in a great measure agreeing with us therein (though differing enough in the modus (as appears in the foregoing Chapter) that Justification is directly opposed to Condemnation, That it is a forinsick or Law-Term, and that properly it is a Law-Sentence, distinctly and per se understood. That God is the great Justifier. That the Person justified is always upon the account of some righteousness of that Law that justifieth. That this righteousness must be legally his that is justified, i. e. imputed to him without denial of itself; and that Justification is the sentential pronouncing a person righteous and accepted by the Lawgiver, free from condemnation, righteous in his sight, and enstated in all advantages that this righteousness of his brings him into. Thus far I take it we are agreed, what little wordy differences there is, we shall not concern ourselves about, nor trouble the Reader with.  
§. 2. Justification in Scripture, and in our usual and common acceptation, is any Vindication of a Person or Action from a Charge or Accusation brought in or alleged against them, and this in the largest sense wherein a man is said to justify God, Psal. 51.4. It's one man's justifying another, or vindicating their actions, and this done by pleading for, or defending them, Job 27.5. and 33.32. or practically, by doing the same thing or worse, Ezek. 10.51.55. Or a man is said to justify himself, Job 32. Luke 10.29.  
§. 3. Justification being allowed to be a Forinsick Term, it must always suppose a Forum or Court where it is. And all Justification must be supposed to be in one at least, or all these Courts, Forum Dei, Mundi, Conscientiae, a true Believer is sometimes justified in all, as to his State and Actions; sometimes in one, and not in another. The Court, or Forum Dei, is where God sits as Lawgiver, and righteous Judge of his Law, where every one that is saved must find Acquittance and Acceptance. Forum Mundi, is of two kinds, 1. Common, wherein the actions of men are judged of, either by Vogue and Reports of the Vulgar, or by the Courts of Judicature among men. 2. It is more special in Ecclesiis, to be tried and judged in a Church of Christ. 3. Forum Conscientiae, where God sits a Judge, and brings the Sinner to the Bar, and Trial, and accordingly Sentence of Condemnation or Justification passeth upon a man, or on his Actions. As to the first of these, all men are tried as unto their State, and they are there juridically acquitted or condemned in foro Dei, i. e. legis, either by a Judgement on their own righteousness, which is called legal righteousness, or upon a Judgement on them according to the righteousness of another, called Evangelical, because it's of absolute promise to a Sinner, and the freest Gift in the World. As to the second Forum, the Courts of the World, the World many ways call Courts of Judicature, and will have Judgement upon men, in the former Court the Judgement is always according to truth, but it's 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 foro humano, i. e. mundi, but then I do not say, those actions are accepted in foro Dei, but are burnt for Hay and Stubble, as men do justify themselves and others in this foro mundi very often; so doth God himself justify 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 condemned 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 justifying 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 Righteousness, 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, it's 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 Judgement in the case of Zimri and Cosbi, the action lay condemnable in Phineas, as a rash action, which proceeded from an usurped Authority, he being not Highpriest, nor having any particular Commission from Moses. This Action God testifies to as a holy and righteous Act, (though it looked so extrajudicial) and should be looked upon as a righteous act to all Generations. 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 because his Offering, notwithstanding God's acceptation, was condemned by Cain, and no doubt by his Posterity, he obtained witness that he was righteous, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 Heaven and consumed the Sacrifice; here the Apostle saith, God testifying 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 show to the World that he was an accepted person, God testifies to his Services. So Enoch, he had some eminent Testimony from God before his Translation, against all the calumniating and blaspheming Posterity of Cain. So Noah also, in his Generation a Preacher of the righteousness of faith, he had a Testimony in the Ark, and the Salvation that he and his House had to both the Worlds and yet this Testimony was not that Justification which he had before God, for he was heir of the righteousness of God by faith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 Actions 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 promise 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 ingenuous Opposers, whether they think Abraham was not justified before this great Action of his, and what can James his Justification 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 approved by him, and an eminent Fruit and Testimony of his Faith. It appears 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 show itself by works, and such as God will testify 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 condemn her for a treacherous Harlot in betraying her Native Country to destruction: But this action of justified Rahab being a signal 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 testifying 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 Testimony: 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 judgement of God according to truth. Justification 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 every one that believes truly is justified, and every one that's justified, shall believe.  
God's Justification of a Sinner, is his Juridical Sentence concerning his Eternal State and Condition, which admits not of majus and minus in God, but admits of different times of application, 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 virtue 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 ourselves, 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 justify a sinner according to most perfect law, and do it freely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Mr. H. in his Medio. p. 5. hath this Quaery, The Gospel requires Faith, Repentance, new Obedience, how then are we justified and saved by Grace? how is it free when it is not vouchsafed but upon condition? This difficulty hath made some run into the Extreme, that the Covenant of Grace is without conditions. Resp. It is such an extreme 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 Conditionality of it, than 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 Antecedent 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 upon 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 sinner's 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 justify a cause his Conscience tells him, or aught 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 tender 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. Unless Man's Obedience were perfect, but he is bound by the new law to accept imperfect. Obedience. H. our Divines say usually, because it's not of merit— but this labours with some defect of light, if man had performed the condition of the covenant of Works, it might have been said upon this reason that Life and Salvation had been still of Grace and Free, as not merited, 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 Covenant on easy Terms, but when the Covenant is made, the Reward 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. Humphrey makes a fearful bungling about this business, 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 superior and inferiowr? between a King and People all obligatory Covenants upon terms of mutual performances are primarily fulfilled 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 performance 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 twofold, Upon Terms equal or unequal: Upon terms equal, we know the reward doth become debt, and may he said to be merit; notwithstanding by way of strict Retaliation, or upon account of equal benefit, the performance of the condition would require no such matter. Resp. Equality of Terms in an Agreement is, so much for so much, the mutual performance whereof is strict retaliation. Tho the Term is foreign to the matter in hand, for it belongs to revenge in giving a man as good, or rather bad as he brings. I deny, that Compact upon Terms equal or unequal, do alter the nature thereof, so that the Condition is not a Merit, and the Promise a Reward. He saith, If I agree to give a man 2 s. 6 d. for his days work, I must pay the debt though the Emolument be not worth half the money. Here he answers himself in his strict retaliation, and though 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 Style, 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 man's Days-work proved not to be worth above a shilling, and yet ex pacto, he was indebted to him 2 s. 6 d. and why I pray, Is it not as good a Debt to the poor man that he bargains with to lead his Horse to the next Style? he will say, it was not worth so much in strict Retaliation, no more was the other man's Days-work; if he had given the man the shilling, and afterward said, prithee lead my Horse to the next Style, 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, though it may be he would thank him for so easy a Bargain. He tells us, The first Covenant was upon Terms equal, and if man did his duty, though with the ability God gives him (as if I agree with a man to work with my Tools) the reward is of Merit or Debt. Answ. If he means equal in value, I deny that the First Covenant was so any more than the New Law covenant: Ay, but if he means equal as to obligation in a way of commutative Justice, i. e. that God is as much bound to perform his part after covenanting, as Man to perform his, than 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 intrinsic value, that a covenant of works are terms equal (wherein also he contradicts himself) i. e. man's perfect obedience in the said covenant is so much for so much, as good as the reward, it's a days-work in itself worth the Wages promised, whereas before he saith it was not; but now he saith, when the wages are more worth than the work, it's on terms unequal; but the terms unequal do not change the nature of a Bargain to make it none; for there are different Bargains, some better, and some worse; but is the new law covenant a better Bargain or worse than that of the covenant of Works? I take it to be much the harder, because of the incapacity of the Covenantee: Man in the state of Perfection could much easier perform the condition of the covenant by perfect obedience than he can now in his lapsed state perform the condition of the new law by imperfect, as may easily be demonstrated from these men's Principles, they affirming, that the performing the condition is not by natural power and strength.  
§. 11. But Mr. H. returns after this excursion in saying, p. 7. That the grace of Justification is purchased by Christ, is apparent by Rom. 3.24. The purchase of Grace (being free in the exerting its self) is a contradiction; for what God doth by Grace, he doth sua sponte, without motion thereto by externals, and it's merely of his own good will and pleasure, I will have mercy on whom I will: Our Divines say, the covenant of Grace was not purchased, no not by Christ; but the way of the execution of this covenant was in and through Christ and his Purchase; that God might not infringe his Justice in the least in exerting his Grace to the Salvation of Sinners. This Mr. H. opposeth and saith, If the Notion of free did lie in the conception our Divines ordinarily frame, than 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 purchased, 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 lie in bestowing freely the works which should make the reward due to him; To which I answer, it's one thing to justify for the Works wrought, and another to give them: Mr. H. calls this latter, infusion of Grace and Sanctification; but Justification is declaring a man righteous by the said Works.: Now if this Grace giving the condition be purchased, than 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. It's upon pactum absolutum, not such a Covenant as makes man's works meritorious. 2. It is in and through Christ only that God is a Debtor in the way of Justice. 3. It's merely 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 justify him for or by any works done by him either here or hereafter. 5. Therefore whatever is the fruit of Free Grace in us, is free in respect of us on whom it is bestowed; we do not merit or deserve it in the least, neither doth God reward any of his Children regimine foederis operum, such as the New Law is and must be, which rewards us upon our own fulfilling the condition, But upon the account here mentioned (before refuted) which is a most direct answer, because we have showed 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 tendered and obtained without performance of the old. Resp. The changing of Terms in a covenant doth not make it free, if God had changed the terms of the old covenant from perfect obedience to imperfect, it had not made it free, because the condition is Works still, for here the change is but a change from one compact to another, viz. Abatement of terms, and requiring new terms in the room. What if a man gets his Creditor, (of whom he complains he hath a hard Bargain) to make another Bargain upon easier terms, this is a favour indeed, but its justice, considering he had brought him under too hard terms before, but yet he doth not therefore give the commodity to him because he allows him easier terms, but makes another Bargain upon other terms. So here, the new law is as much a Bargain as the other, though upon easier terms, which cannot be admitted. He proceeds to refute Augustine, about the works of the law, according to Paul's sense, which we shall examine when we come upon that Point.  
§. 14. We shall here gather the sum of what according to truth, is to be asserted and defended against Mr. H. and the rest.  
1. That the covenant of Works was not made with Man upon equal Terms, for his perfectest Obedience could never be equal with the promised Reward.  
2. That the New-law Covenant is upon as equal Terms, according to the nature of the Law, and they differ not in nature from the old covenant being works, if they differ in degree, it's the covenant which hath made it so, and the Promise is as much a reward to the imperfection, as it was in the old to a perfect condition, by God's constitution.  
3. God is free, and can be bound by none but himself, and it's his Grace to covenant with the creature any way, but when God hath freely, without purchase, covenanted upon Terms of the creatures performance, he maketh himself a Debtor thereupon, let the Terms be perfect or imperfect.  
4. In the pretended new-law covenant, where faith and obedience are the conditions, Man merits ex pacto, and God become a Debtor to him as much as he should have been 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 God's grace, is meant, 〈◊〉. That it is of the pleasure of God's Will, not upon any external Motive, no not of Christ's Death, that God exerts the Grace of Justification, he is gracious to whom he will.  
2. It is free in that the Object of it, upon whom it falleth, is a sinner every way undone and miserable, without Works or Qualifications, much less deserving of this Grace, and this is the chief meaning of the Apostle in Rom. 3.  
3. The providing, giving and bestowing Christ and his righteousness is an high act of Grace, that a sinner may be justified at the Bar of Divine Justice, that a sinner, according to the Mystery of his Will and gracious Dispensation may be fully acquitted thro' Christ from the fiery Law, and discharged from all the charges thereof by the highest Justice.  
4. That as it was Free Grace every way to us, considered in ourselves, therefore a Covenant of Promise without conditions required on our part, hence absolute; so it was a higher Covenant of Works to the Second Adam than ever the First was under, and whereas Mr. H. objects and says, than we are justified by the law: I answer, 1. Where did he ever see Justification but by a Law. 2. He makes his to be by the new Law, which law we deny to be in rerum natura. 3. As we are justified by the Grace of God, so it is in Christ Jesus, and a Believer in Christ needs no New Law to justify him, he is justified by the Law in Jesus Christ, and yet freely by Grace.   

CHAP. III. Of Righteousness.  
Sect. 1. Righteousness what, and of what kinds. §. 2. Of Distributive Justice. §. 3. Distinctions in respect of Justice. §. 4. God's Justice in Efficiency. §. 5. No Justifying Righteousness but perfect. §. 6. Of the way of God's Execution of his Justice. §. 7. Righteousness again distinguished. §. 8. Righteousness of Justification and Sanctification.  
Sect. 1. JVstitia est suum cuique tribuere, to give every one his due; so Cicero. The Spirit of God tells us, it's to render every one their due or right, Rom. 13.7. Prov. 27. And it's either commutative or distributive; commutative when persons mutually perform their Duty to each other which they are bound to by any Law, Covenant or Agreement, whether they be superiors to inferiors, or inferiors to superiors, or equals to one another; a due conformity in obedience to a Law, is commutative Justice, Rom. 13. done for Conscience sake, giving the Legislator his due; but if he is pleased not only to bind me to Duty, but promise a Reward upon performance, as I am bound to Obedience, so on the performance thereof God is bound to Reward; whence if Man had stood, the Covenant had been fulfilled by way of commutation; it's so between Magistrate and People, being bound together by Covenant, and each observing his Duty to other, it's done by commutative Justice, and yet without any derogation from the Authority and Grandeur, and just Prerogative of the Magistrate.  
§. 2. Distributive Justice or Righteousness, is Magistratick, for the maintaining commutative Justice, by awarding it where it's refused, or punishing the breach thereof, or in vindicating just persons, which are falsely accused upon that account, to render to men judicially according to their works. All first conformity to Laws and Covenants is by commutative Justice; but upon complaint of the breach of the Rules thereof, Distributive Justice takes place. Hence God's execution of distributive Justice takes place upon the Fall of Men and Angels.  
§. 3. Again, Righteousness is to be distinguished in regard of the subject, It's either the Righteousness of God, or the Righteousness of Man; the Righteousness of God is that which peculiarly belongs to himself, and that in his Sufficiency or Efficiency; the Justice appertaining to God in his Sufficiency, is his Essential Attribute, whereby he is eternally, infinitely and unchangeably righteous; this is not a righteousness imputed unto us in Justification, but a justifying righteousness, it is the just God that justifieth.  
§. 4. God's Justice in Efficiency is the execution thereof, that his essential Justice may shine forth to his Praise and Glory, The Execution of his Justice is a transient Act, and is either Legislation, or execution of his Laws. God's Legislation is his acting from his Sovereign Will and Pleasure in laying what Laws he pleaseth on the creature; Laws are not purchased of God, any more than Grace, therefore they that talk in that manner, seem neither to understand Law or Grace. In God's Legislation, he hath given Man but one Law for Life, in the fulfilling where for not, Man is liable to be eternally saved or condemned; and God never made, nor Christ purchased any Remedying Law to amend the faults thereof, never abrogated or relaxt it, but it stands in its full Sanction preceptive, remunerative or vindictive.  
§. 5. There neither is, nor ever was any justifying righteousness to Man, but what is the perfect and complete righteousness of this Law, as imperfect righteousness is renounced and condemned by this Law; so it will not stand for Justification with any of God's Laws, neither is it Grace in God to relax his Law, he cannot deny himself in the perfection of Justice.  
§. 6. The execution of this Law upon Man since the Fall, is in a way of mere Justice, or in a way of exact Justice in consistency with Grace and Mercy. In a way of mere Justice, to the Glory thereof, on the Vessels of Wrath; in a way of Justice in consistency with all the designs of Grace and Mercy, by setting up a Second Adam, and providing such a righteousness in him, as might fully answer all the demands of the Law, which the Law should accept and and impute to the Sinner, the Mediatorial and Surety Righteousness of Christ, and this is called the righteousness of God, that we are made in Justification. Mr. H. denys it, but we shall endeavour to prove it.  
§. 7. Righteousness of Man is to be distinguished, Either as it is of his own performance for Justification, and so it's the righteousness of the Law, and rejected by the Apostle; Or as it's performed by another, by Jesus Christ for us, and this is called Our Righteousness, and is so by real Imputation and Free Gift: This is our only Evangelical Righteousness.  
§. 8. It's also considered in respect of Justification before God, In this respect all Fallen Man's imperfect Righteousness is filthy Rags; in respect of Sanctification they are the fruit of the Spirit, and accepted in Christ, the person being justified, and therefore Believers are often denominated righteous in Scripture.   

CHAP. IU. Of Imputation.  
Sect. 1. What Imputation imports. §. 2. How it differs from Justification. §. 3. Not to impute is to acquit. §. 4. To attribute or ascribe, what. §. 5. Legal Imputation. §. 6. The Second Sort. §. 7. Imputation by Attainder. §. 8. Neonomians deny Imputation of Adam 's Sin. §. 9 Imputation by way of Suretyship. §. 10. A Surety a Representative. §. 11. The difference of Imputation by way of Attainder, and by way of Suretyship. §. 12. Neonomians deny Imputation of Sin to Christ.  
Sect. 1. IMputation for the most part in Scripture is a Forinsick or Law Term, as Justification is; the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is the accounting things or actions to Persons which they did not do, or plead they did not do; when a man's action comes to be lis coram Judice, the first Enquiry is de facto, whether he he guilty of it or not guilty? the Judgement of the Court by the Jury is the Imputation or laying Gild upon him, or the acquitting him, which is not only non-imputation of Fault to him, but imputing righteousness unto him: The Sentence of the Judge on the Verdict of Guilty, is Condemnation; on the Verdict of Not Guilty, is Justification. I find the word so used, 1 Sam. 22.15. when Abimelek is accused by Doeg to Saul, for enquiring of the Lord concerning David, he saith, Let not the King impute any thing unto his servant: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let not the King lay it upon, or ascribe it to his servant as a fault. LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let not the King lay any thing to the charge of his servant. This is rendered impute by our Translators, so 2 Sam. 19.19. Shimei pleading with David for his Pardon, saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let not my lord impute sin to me. Likewise in the Plea of a righteous action, Leu. 7.18. If the Priest shall eat the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day, God saith, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed to him that offers it; the Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LXX is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: So in offering any where but at the Door of the Tabernacle, blood shall be imputed 
* To impute is to lay any thing to the charge, so Minst. Lat. Imputare aliquid alicui. Plin. Caedem alicui imputare. So Quint.  to that man that doth it, Leu. 17.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, LXX. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; now these are the words used for imputing in the Old Testament, and as the Sept. renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the forequoted places, in the same sense the Apostles use it in the New Testament, whence it appears that Imputation is a Law Term, and it's used when it comes to be argued in Law, whether this thing or action, whether righteousness or unrighteousness is to be ascribed to a person, whereby he stands just or unjust in the eye of the Law, and what the Judgement of the Court is, is Imputation. Such Trials do especially concern two things, Right or Actions, in matters of Right, or Claim, the Judgement of the Court imputes it to the Plaintiff or Defendant; in matters of Fact the Judgement of the Court determines it, or imputes it, as righteousness or unrighteousness.  
§. 2. Hence 1. Imputation differs from Justification, because it's of right or fact. It's a Judgement concerning things or actions according to law, Justification in this legal sense, or Condemnation is, of Persons according to Imputation. 2. Gild is the imputation of fault to the charged person in the most proper sense, reatus culpae, and the acquitting a person from Gild when charged, is the making him righteous, by removal of unrighteousness from him, so far as the Law hath to do with him. 3. A Man is not charged by one Law, and acquitted by another, but his imputation is always according to that law where he was charged, and therefore his Justification or Condemnation by the same; if a Man be found guilty by one Law, he cannot be acquitted by another, though requiring milder Terms.  
§. 3. Not to impute a fault is to acquit, and of the same import as to impute righteousness, and therefore where the Spirit of God speaks of non imputation of sin, Psalm 32.2. Rom. 4.8. 1 Cor. 5.19. it always therein asserts imputation of righteousness; for he that is a sinner and hath no sin imputed to him, or charged upon him by the Law, is righteous, and found so by the Law, and indeed all proper imputation is by the Law, for Sin is not imputed where there is no law; therefore it's properly the voice of the Law that imputes Sin or Righteousness, where Actions or Claims of Right come to be questioned and tried; what the law saith, is saith to them that are under it for judgement and condemns therefore all transgressors, and makes them guilty before God, Rom. 3.19.  
§. 4. To attribute, or ascribe, are larger Terms than to impute; when any thing is imputed to a person, it's attributed and ascribed, but every thing attributed or ascribed, is not said to be imputed, because it's spoken of in a Law-sense, e. gr. we attribute Holiness. Justice, Power, etc. to God, but do not say we impute them to God; we attribute Heat to Fire, hardness to Iron, but do not say, we impute Heat to Fire, or hardness to Iron, because it's naturally in them.  
§. 5. Legal Imputation of Sin or Righteousness is either of that which is a Man's own, unto himself, or of that which primarily is his own and imputed unto another. The first is, when a Man bears his own Sin, or stands legally in his own righteousness; upon the first the law condemns him, upon the other it justifies him; he is upon the first Judgement of the Law, found guilty or not, to have right to the Claim that he makes, or to have no right to his Claim to the Promise in a Law-Covenant. Hence imputation of righteousness fixeth his right to the promised reward. Imputation of sin cuts off his right to the said reward, and brings him under the curse of the Law.  
§. 6. The second sort of legal Imputation is of a Man's own Sin or Righteousness unto another. It's by way of translation, and it's either of Sin or of Righteousness. Imputation of Sin by translation, is when the Law imputes Sin to any other than the Sinner, so that by that Imputation those others are legally made Sinners. And this Imputation is twofold by way of Attainder, or by way of Suretyship.  
§. 7. Imputation by way of Attainder is, when the whole Blood is charged with, and stained by the Sin of the actual transgressor. Such was Achan's Sin, such also Adam's First Sin; his sin was imputed to himself and all his Posterity; he being not only a single person, but a Public Person. 1. Naturally, containing all Mankind in him. 2. federally, Because God when he covenanted with him, covenanted with a Kind; he covenanted but with individuals when he covenanted with Angels. As Adam was when he stood, in respect of Mankind, sohe was when he fell; Hence it was that all the Kind must needs fall in him, when Angels fell, each one fell but for himself, as each stood for himself; but it was not, it could not be so with Man; Adam therefore was the greatest Representative in respect of the number represented by him, that ever was, and all Mankind sinned in him; Sin did not come upon us by Propagation only (though a sinner can propagate none but a sinner) but by imputing Adam's First Sin to all his Posterity, for judgement 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 Public Loss, never to be regained by any that have their standing only in him. Hence every Natural Man is in him, stands under that first Privation, and therefore under that first Gild; and as every Man by Nature stands under that Gild, he also is under the condemnation. Wrath and Curse of the Law, Death passed upon all men, in that all have sinned; the Apostle speaks but of Adam's sin. Rom. 5.12, 16. and of death passing upon all by that sin imputed by the law, as appears by the following word, that all died in Adam, the Apostle is express, 1 Cor. 15.22. Undestand it of which Death you please spiritual or corporal that in Adam all died, it infers necessarily that Adam was a Public Person; for we cannot be said to live or die in another's life or death, but as he is a Public Person, vers. 49. we are said to bear the image of the earthly, i. e. in his Fallen State, which shows that his Image was of a Public Nature to all his Posterity, and his loss of God's Image, a Sin imputed to the whole kind.  
§. 8. I cannot stay to insist largely on the proof of the Imputation of Adam's Sin, but is a Point of so great concern, that the denial of it overthrows the Gospel in the true state thereof; I shall only acquaint the Reader, That the Neonomians, together with the Socinians and Quakers, lay this denial in the foundation of their rotten Doctrine.  
Neonomian. We were not in Adam as a Public Person, or Representative by a Covenant standing, nor his sin imputed to us further than we are guilty by a natural in being or derivation, Scr. G. D. p. 86, 87. 112, 113. End of Controu. 95.  
See his daring confidence. We were not in Adam as a public Covenanter, I would ask whether God covenanted with Adam as the comprehender of all the Kind; if he did, than Adam was a Public 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 public 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 merely personal, go not out of the person which hath sinned, neither do Parents represent their Children. Although there may be some hurt, and that not a little, to Children by their Parent's sin, as indeed it fell out in Adam 's sin; but the very Sin and Merit of Adam was not communicated in, nor imputed to Adam's Posterity, and hence the Posterity of Adam was not truly punished for Adam's sin, unless they imitated their Parents, Schlicting on Heb. 7.10. Whereas it appears plainly, by Rom. 5.12. that the merit passed upon all by Adam's sin, for death passed upon all and the merit of Death cannot be without imputation of sin, and it passed upon all that have not finned actually, even Infants, before they are capable of imitation of their Parents. Quakers, We do not ascribe any whit of Adam 's guilt to men, till they make it theirs by the like acts of disobedience. Barchl. This is also Pelagian Doctrine, That Adam 's sin is not imputed to his Posterity.  
§. 9 Imputation is also by way of Suretyship, and it is when the Sins or Debts of one person, are by law charged upon, or imputed to another in order to the Salvation of the Principal or personal transgressor. Here it is always understood that the payment of a Surety is as good and acceptable to the Law as that of the Principal. 2. That the Surety cannot become Paymaster in Law, unless he take the Debt or Sin upon him instead of the proper transgressor he must be charged as transgressor, else the Law can make no demand upon him. 3. He must freely offer himself to be a Surety, no person can be forced in any case to be Surety for another. 4. When he hath engaged himself in Suretyship, the law takes him person for person, the principal Debt becomes his, and his righteousness and payment becomes the Principals in a real legal commutation, here is no natural or moral Change, but sponsorial and legal, nay, no logical change, i. e. one relation is not changed into another, the Surety into the Principal, nor Principal into the Surety; but in the Judgement of the Law the Principal Debt becomes the Surety's, and the Surety's Payment is the Principals. whereupon the Principal in respect of that Sin or Debt for which Satisfaction is made, hath the discharge in full, and is as perfectly righteous as to that, as the Surety himself; he is not it may be so rich and honourable as his Surety, but in respect of the Debt satisfied, the Law hath no more to say to him than to the Surety, An Alderman fetcheth a Prisoner, and with him many more out of Ludgate, owing Five or Ten Pounds a piece, this little money being all that's owing in the World by the poor Man, when discharged the Law hath no more to say to him than to the Alderman, and he is as righteous in the eye of the Law, though he will not pretend to be so great and so rich, or a ransomer of others out of Prison, as the Alderman himself is.  
§. 10. He that bears the sins of others must be a Representative and Public Person, that must personate or bear the persons of them whose sins he bears, and must be either substituted by the Court, or if by some other, he must be allowed to be capable and able to make Payment, must be accepted and dealt with in the name and upon the account of the other, and becomes a Debtor or Transgressor in and for the person he doth represent in Court, and becomes a Delinquent in the eye of the Law, the Law imputing sin to him makes him sin, because he is supposed to owe nothing on his own account; he that doth in foro represent one or more, and stands not, nor acts for himself, but others, is a public Person and Representative, as a Burgess or Citizen in Parliament, and they that he represents are said to act in and by him. It's a contradiction to common sense and reason, to say, that he that stands legally or civilly in the place of another, to act his part, and in his name, should not be a public Person, but men will throw down common sense and reason to establish their own fond Conceits and Errors.  
§. 11. The difference between Imputation by way of Attainder, and by way of Suretyship is, that this Imputation is in order to the Salvation of the Sinner, but that is as to legal single effects only to the Sinners Destruction. 2. That in this Imputation in the way of Suretyship, as there is Imputation of the sinner's sin to the Surety, so there is a re-imputation of the Surety's righteousness to the sinner, but in Imputation of Sin by way of Attainder, there's no re-imputation of righteousness to the first sinner. 3. The Imputation doth differ in the manner of transaction. In Imputation of sin by way of Attainder, sin is transferred from the Representative to the Represented; but in Imputation by way of Suretyship, sin is transferred from the Represented to the Representative, and that's the reason, that though we are fitly said to sin in Adam because he was our Representative; yet it's not so fitly said that Christ sinned in us, because that we were never Representatives to Christ; but it's fitly said, we are righteous in Christ, because he is our Representative, and that we satisfied in Christ, which saying doth not rob Christ of his Glory of Satisfaction, but gives it him, affirming that Christ satisfied, and for us, and that God is well pleased with us through him; If a man that hath owed Money to A. and paid him by his Surety B. be charged that he owes A. so much Money; he denys it, and saith, I paid you by B. doth he speak true or false? doth he not speak properly? doth he hereby say, I paid you by my own Money? No, he only saith, that B. paid for me my Debt with his Money: But we see how Neonomians will pick quarrel with common sense and reason, as they do in their denial of this high and fundamental Point Of Imputation of Sin to Christ, and charge it for an Error to say, we satisfied in Christ.  
§. 12. Neonom. Christ neither was a Sinner, nor reputed a Sinner by God. R. B. End of Contr. p. 122. Christ took not reatum facti, nor reatum culpae [as if there were any difference between them] He took reatum poenae, the guilt of punishment [that's always in the fault, for nothing deserves punishment but faults] Scr. G. d. p. 89. They dangerously affirm [meaning those he calls Antinomians] that Christ took not only the punishment of our Sins, and that guilt and reatum paenae, which is an assumed obligation to suffer the punishment deserved by us, but all our very sins themselves, the very essence of the sins of all the elect [a slander, and imposed expression 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 M H.] and used as a sinner [why should he be used as a sinner, 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 hateful to God, etc. and Christ suffered for his own sins, etc. Scr. G. d. p. 30, 31. If Christ had been a sinner, in his individual person, these consequences might have held, but Christ being by Law-imputation made sin in order to the Salvation of Sinners, it's 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 Prisoners?  
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 sacrifice 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, without 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 die 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 been continued to imputation of Righteousness, The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness being the main Point which the Neonomians oppose; but because it will be the main subject of our ensuing Discourse, we pass it over in this Chapter.   

CHAP. V Of Imputation of Righteousness unto the justification of a Sinner.  
Sect. 1. Righteousness imputed, and what? §. 2. Cardinal Bellarmine a Middle-way-man, and so Quakers too, and Socinians. §. 3. How consonant Neonomians are to that Fraternity. §. 4. They make inherent Holiness to be our Righteousness. §. 5. Why pardoned after justified, and of subordinate righteousness. §. 6. Of Legal and Evangelical Gild. §. 7. Of Mr. Cl's definition of Justification, and of incomplete Justification 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 Controversy lies here, What Righteousness is it? Is it our own inherent righteousness, or the righteousness of another? the Neonomians with the Papists say, it's 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 it's 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 it's 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 called Righteous and are so— and it follows, In this is the Justification of the , 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 itself with Remission of Sins this is together with it infused, etc. 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 Righteousness of God. Bellarmine in Defence of the Doctrine of the C. of Tr. says, the State of this whole Controversy 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 difference from the Papists in that they say Justification is by Infusion of Righteousness, whereas he saith Infusion of Grace is Sanctification, 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 Christ's Righteousness nor Remission of Sins to have any place in Justification, which the Papists own to be Parts of our Justification, for the Council of Trent do Anathametize those only that teach, that a Man is justified only by Imputation of Christ's 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 outdoes 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 justified 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 Popish Doctrine of Justification is the Middle-way between the Calvinists and Arminians. See but a Taste, how the Quakers and Socinian fall in with this Doctrine of Justification by Works. Quakers, Works and Faith are equally required to Justify, Works of the Law are excluded as done by us, to be justified by Grace is to be justified 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 being 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 wherever we read of Salvation promised to them that believe 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 Christ's Precepts, to which Eternal Life is the constituted Price, or Reward; not that Obedience itself 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 notwithstanding, 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 Righteousness of Faith in itself as a Work done, and that it justifies only so, and hath no more justifying Nature or End then the Fruits thereof]— 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 Christ's sake. [Bellarmine remembered 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 efficient, 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 performance of the New Covenant for Righteousness, or pronouncing him righteous according to that Covenant, is the formal cause of his Justification. Med. p. 46. Here is to be remarked 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 inherent 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 Infusion. Herein lieth the true difference between Justification and Sanctification: 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 yourselves 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 infusion of Sanctification, but yet Justification is by Sanctification infused. Is it not much more rational to say, that Justification is by making a man righteous that was not so before; for Justification of a sinner must be such: Besides, is it not much more Ewngelical 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 formam pertinet proprium & differentia) from Sanctification, when Imputation, or God's accounting a man holy and sanctified is his Justification? Is not God's Judgement 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, it's 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 Righteousness and Justification by it is not worth a Fig by their own confession; for Mr. Cl. saith,— for since subordinate Gospel Righteousness 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 ; 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 supreme justifying righteousness, for that which hath the principal place in any thing ascribed to it, is the principal, but our own righteousness hath the principal place in the thing ascribed to it, which is Justification, therefore it's the chief and supreme righteousness: For they say we are justified by the imputation of this righteousness only, and by no other, therefore all conducing righteousnesses to the introducing this, are subordinate to it. Again, That which hath its place only in the external causes, and in the modality of their operation as to the production of the effect, is much inferior to the essential causes that enter the very effect, and are constitutive to it, but Christ's Righteousness by these men is no more, and therefore must be a subordinate righteousness to ours; ours being causa formalis justificationis, an essential cause, Christ's being but causa protarch. a remote cause, adjuvant to the efficient, therefore the righteousness of Christ can have no more than a remote causality in purchasing the New Law, by the righteousness whereof we are justified, which is no better indeed than causa sine qua non, it's in ordine ad the justifying righteousness, therefore subordinate to it. 2. He saith, This subordinate Gospel Righteousness is an imperfect righteousness. Truly I am sorry for it, that Gospel Righteousness should be imperfect; I doubt there's little dependence upon it, since the righteousness of the law that condemns us is perfect, its little likelihood that an imperfect righteousness should save us from it; ay, but they will say, it's Christ's perfect righteousness must save us from the perfect righteousness of the law condemning us. Say you so? and therefore why should not this righteousness of Christ have the honour of justifying us? it seems we are saved by Christ's righteousness, and justified by our own, as if Justification were not Salvation: But is our Gospel-righteousness imperfect? this is no Gospel, for its ill News; I must tell these men its a rotten foundation they build upon, and their Building will drop not being built on Christ, the Corner Stone in Justification. 3. He saith, It's imperfect, consistent with many failings and infirmities. Resp. I pray how comes this to pass? is it from the Legislator that constituted such a Law, whose condition is obedience consistent with sin; or is it from the Operator or Worker under this Law? if from the former, than 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, than performance of such is no sin, nor needs a Pardon, for sin is the transgression of the law the subject is under: Now if Believers are under the New Law for Justification, and perform there what's required, what need have they of a Pardon from a righteousness borrowed from another law? If it be from the last, viz. the fault and defect of the operator of righteousness, that his righteousness is not the performance of the condition of the New Law, as required, than this New Law cannot justify him, our Neonomians, in this Point, will be on Scylla or Charybdis in spite of the World. In a word, 1. That righteousness that cannot justify 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 justify us at the Bar of the Covenant of Works by the Neonomians own confession, therefore we cannot be justied by any such righteousness. 2. Again, that righteousness which needs pardon is no justifying righteousness, but is condemned by the law, for whatever is pardoned is condemned by the law first, neither is that person justified, who by the law is unpardoned, Pardon being an essential part of Justification in men's Courts, where many Indictments lie against a Man, if he be quitted of some, and not of all, he is not discharged as justified; but here it's worse, I do not find that at the New Law Bar a man (as they say) justified, is quite discharged from any Indictment at all, for there's none fully pardoned; wherefore our Neonomians say that their Justification is not perfect in this life. So Mr. Cl. Our Justification in this world is not perfect and complete, etc. p. 18.  
§. 6. Mr. Cl. saith, There's a twofold guilt, Legal and Evangelical, Legal Gild 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 Gild, Evangelical Gild, Threat or Punishment is a Bull, a downright Contradiction, if we know what Gospel is, and they that will be ignorant, and call this Assertion Antinomian Poison, let them be ignorant still, I thank God for the knowledge of the Gospel so far, as that it is quite contrary to Gild, Threat and Punishment, or Obligation to it in the true legal sense thereof: Likewise he should have distinguished of Gild as usual, reatus culpae, and reatus paenoe, the first properly Gild, and that in judicio legis, vel judicio conscientiae, if a Man be sub reatu culpae judicio legis, as they say the justified ones are, he is unjustified, for the law cannot justify a man and declare him guilty, i. e. not guilty and guilty at the same time. Obligation to Punishment is not Gild in the true sense of it; for we say a man cast in Court is guilty of the charged Fault, and therefore the Law binds him over to Punishment. We never say a Man is guilty of the punishment but deserves, he is found guilty, and therefore the Sentence of the Law binds him to Punishment; but he saith, Legal Gild is fully pardoned in Justification: Pardon is always of a fault, and includes not punire: but is sin pardoned fully in Justification as to an obligation to eternal punishment, than 1. Pardon is included in Justification, contrary to what he asserts in the foregoing Page. 2. Justification is perfect and complete, so far as the taking off eternal punishment. 3. He cannot but own this to be the main part of Justification at least, and this it seems is owing to the full satisfaction made by Christ to the Justice of God, our righteousness of the New Law hath nothing to do here in the matter of Eternal State: Where are we now? what a Justification is this by the New Law, wherein our eternal state is not concerned. Well! but our Justification in this life is not yet perfect; not by Christ because he takes off only eternal punishment, but temporal he hath left to us to remove by Repentance, performing the righteousness of the New Law, I hope this righteousness falling in to help Christ's, it will produce perfect Justification. No it wont, this righteousness takes away our Sins and Punishment wholly but sometimes. and sometimes only in part, and what's the reason? where's the fault? why it falls upon this New Law, which is always fulfilling and never fulfilled; it will never justify any one till the last day, and it cannot do it then without the perfect righteousness of the Old Law.  
§. 7. Let's take Mr. Cl's Definition of Justification into consideration a little, He saith, The Definition of Justification so far as it relates to God is thus, Justification is an act of God whereby he accounts us righteous at present, and treats us as such, and will solemnly declare and pronounce us so at the last day of Judgement.  
Resp. He should have told us what act of God, whether immanent or transient, whether an act of Grace or Justice, or both, he should have told us the object of that act, whether a mere sinner or a righteous person? he will tell us anon, it's a righteous person, and he saith, accounting him so at present, if this accounting him be in a law sense, it's but Imputation at most, and this is that, and all that he doth at present, he finds them holy and righteous, and judgeth them to be as they be; but doth not God declare them righteous at present, neither in foro Legis, nor in foro Evangelii, nor in foro conscientiae? in none of these at present, when then? the very Sentence of Justification is not till the last day; so that indeed there is none justified till then; for a suspended sentence keeps the person (whatever Opinion the Judge hath of him) under the Law, in Prison, and in continual fear of Condemnation; so that they are all the day long for fear of Death subject to Bondage.  
§. 8. Hence he infers two things. 1. That Justification while we are in this life is but partial, imperfect and incomplete, and that we shall not obtain fully complete, entire and final Justification for all the effects of sin till the Day of Judgement. To which I answer, Where there is but an imperfect, partial Justification there must be a partial Condemnation; it cannot be denied but the Apostle denys it, and saith, there's no condemnatien to them that are in Christ Jesus.  
2. The law knows no such thing, a man is either perfectly justied for the same thing, or perfectly condemned, there's no Medium betwixt Justification and Condemnation.  
3. If the New Law do not perfectly justify a person, than it condemns too at the same time, that when ever the Parator of righteousness takes himself to be justified, he is bound to believe himself condemned also; and whether will stand good at the last Day he knows not, either his Justification or Condemnation.   

CHAP. VI Of Pardon.  
Section 1. Whether Remission of Sin belongs to Justification. §. 2. Remission distinguished by Mr. H. §. 3. Of general Remission. §. 4. Conditional Pardon antecedent to a man's Justification. §. 5. Actual Pardon subsequent to a man's 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 pother about this Point, we will a little inspect his Notions, Mediocr. p. 44, 55. Our Divines do generally place Justification in remission of Sins, and so do the Papists, and so did I myself. Resp. Remission of Sins is upon good grounds placed in Justification as an essential part of the Justification of a Sinner, and I can boldly deny that sinner to be justified, whose sins are not forgiven, and to separate them is as possible as to separate homo & animal rationale. The Law, any Law, nay your New Law cannot justify a sinner and declare him righteous, unless in that very act of declaring him righteous his sins are taken away in foro legis, and this is God's Remission (though not Man's) for his ways are not as man's; and whereas Mr. H. makes remission of sins to be a benefit after Justification as an effect of it, we say it is a benefit in Justification, and the first thing in it in Nature; for its impossible any one should stand righteous in the eye of any Law, that stands chargeable as a transgressor thereof. But remission must not (saith Mr. H.) be the formal reason of Justification. Resp. The form of an Act, and the formal reason of that Act are two things, the material reason of Justification is righteousness, and the formal cause is imputation of that righteousness, Justification comes in as the acquitting Sentence, opposed (as Mr. B. saith) to condemnation, which ex natura rei, must formally carry in it forgiveness of sins. He proceeds, To forgive a man's sins and declare him rigeteous are two inconsistencies one with another in the same respect. Resp. Cujus contrarium verum; in Justification of a Sinner they are most consistent, and inseparable, that in declaring a sinful man righteous his sins are also done away; its true, in man's way of Pardon there is some inconsistency, because his is by dispensing with his Law, but God's way of forgiveness is in and through the satisfaction of his Law; but I must tell him, that here no Man is looked upon as righteous in the eye of man's law that hath transgressed it, till he is first pardoned,— and therefore when God pronounceth a man just, it is according to the law of faith, when he pardons his sins it is in respect of the law of works. Resp. Here are two Bars, now he saith elsewhere, he likes not two bars, I would fain know now at which of these Bars a sinner is most justified, either by the law of Works, where all his sins are forgiven, and therefore consequently must be made righteous; or at the Bar of the New Law where he saith, the man is declared just, but imperfectly so, and therefore goes away with his sins upon his Back to the Law of Works to have them pardoned: Is it not pretty Divinity then, to say a man is declared righteous first at the Bar of the Law of Faith, and then all the Bead-roll of his sins are pardoned at the Bar of the Law of Works?  
§. 2. He comes to distinguish of Remission, It's either conditional and universal, as it lies in the Covenant, and is the purchase of Christ, or actual, as it lies in application thereof to particular persons upon performance of the conditions. Resp. This Distinction is a great Point among the Neonomians, Mr. B. makes much use of it in his Universal Redemption, the Story is this, They feign that God finding 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, though 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 obedience to all the World; in this sense all the world, they say, is redeemed, justified and forgiven before they perform that condition. Now, if any others, besides Neonomians should talk at this rate, they would be in danger of being taken up and sent to Bethlem for Madmen. As if a Company, suppose the E. India, set up their Bills for a Sale at a certain time after prefixed, with the respective Prizes; if one or all should run about the City before the day of Sale prefixed, 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 condition, 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 nonsense, 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, it's 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 ourselves for procuring reconciliation and remission, it is to be understood of conditional, universal remission. Resp. What Divines understand so? they are not the Protestants, it's 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 particular Remission, these men purchase, and Reconciliation too; Christ purchased that we might purchase, and though 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 man's Justification, and contained in our redemption, in whom we have redemption through his blood the forgiveness of sins. Resp. Conditional Pardon is none, it's no more than the offer of a Bargain to any that will come to the Terms: As if I should offer to Let my House for so much Money by a Bill over the Door, and then say, I have Let 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 Redemption, 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 preceding, v. 13. are who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son. verse 14. In whom we have redemption.  
§. 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 itself of Justification. Resp. Let us try a little for it: 1. He saith, actual remission is subsequent to Justification; now we are come into Mr. Cl's. road, he seems not to be so well acquainted with the Mystery of the antecedent remission, and it's so indeed, for it seems it is but potential remission, it's not actual, nay it's 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 performs 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 though our new law could justify, 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 persons actually, when they perform the conditions.   

CHAP. VII. The Neonomian Doctrine of justification Examined.  
Section 1. Mr. H's. Definition of Justification. §. 2. Imperfect Obedience not to be accepted by God to Justification. §. 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 Pardon, and bearing with our defects. §. 8. A Pardon general, becomes absolute. §. 9 Justification by Infusion and by Imputation distinguished. §. 10. Of Justifying the . §. 11. Whether Old Law Righteousness or New be best. §. 12. Mr. H's. Mystery, 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, Justification 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 subjectively righteous, our Justification and his are distinguished toto genere, for he saith, the object of his Justification is a righteous person, to such an one Justification is due; it's no act of Grace to justify 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, though 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 Covenant of Works, God putting out that condition, and putting in this, but this imperfect comes as terms in another law, so it hinders 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 though God judgeth the righteousness morally imperfect in comparison 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 requires, and therefore a condition perfectly performed, for else it can never be pleaded or imputed at its Bar; but he saith, he accepts 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 completely to answer the demands of the said law; if the law accept 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 justify him for; but the sufficiency of the other righteousness 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 Nonsense, that any law, or God in a law, should impute Faith and Obedience 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 Balance with our imperfect righteousness to make it up? or is Christ's righteousness imputed to it that it cannot be, unless imputed to the person? which he denies, how then must we understand this Gentleman? for the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ is only effective, because Christ was so kind as to purchase Merit, and satisfy God for the new law, without which he could not have been justified by our imperfect righteousness, and this is all they intent by it, for the Merits of Christ's sake, a plain and facile simile may be given, A Man owes a great deal of Money to his Creditor that's suing of him in Court, a friend of the Debtor and Creditor interposeth 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 Merits of Christ, its only his bringing God to the New Law Composition.  
§. 3. Pardon and Life, he adds, as effects of Justification: We have already shown what an absurd thing Justification is without Pardon, Pardon being essential to it; but it seems to be as absurd, 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  under the guilt and condemnation of sin; for he adds to these which he calls Benefits. a right to impunity; so that Justification 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 sense as these Divines do, who say, Christ's righteousness is the form, or Remission is the form, not the form of that Imputation, 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. confounds his Notion by his obscure Logic; 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, though the form doth, which is another thing. Now Justification in the abstract is forma justificationis in concreto, 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 justice 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 itself is the form. Again, we deny that our righteousness is the formalis ratio of Justification; Remission indeed belongs to the form itself, but the formalis ratio of Justification is external to the form, and therefore to be considered apart from it. This only by the way  
§. 5. I add at last upon the account of Christ's Merits, or through Christ, or for Christ's 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, though but at the fag end of Justification: But how comes Justification to be at last upon the account of Christ, for we are formally justified upon the account of our own righteousness, i. e. perfectly so, for what is formally existent is perfectly so, and that by our own righteousness, i. e. upon the account of it, for the effect quod è causis existit, is such upon the account of all the causes, but especially upon account of the form; now he that is formally thus justified, must be upon all accounts justified, and needs nothing to be added to it: Why then upon the account of Christ's Merits? why, because Christ purchased a law of righteousness which could not justify perfectly, but leaves the person justified in a need of further righteousness for Justification, if the Merits and Sacrifice of Christ must come in upon the account of which a man is justified, than he is not justified before, and Christ's righteousness is the justifying righteousness only; for our own leaves us unjustified by Mr. H's own confession, i. e. it leaves us in such a case that no man of sense can say we are justified; for by his own words, the righteousness of the new law is not, cannot be imputed to us for righteousness, unless it be pardoned and accepted in Jesus Christ, and therefore this law cannot justify any one upon his inherent righteousness, for its most absurd to say, it can justify, when it cannot impute its own righteousness by reason of the defects thereof.  
§. 6. I find Mr. H. is at a great loss in establishing his Notion upon a right bottom, he seems to suspect that Christ may come off a loser by it, and he will most fearfully. I do more especially signify thereby that Christ's righteousness which cannot be imputed to us as a formal cause of our Justification is and must be very carefully brought to our account, and granted to be imputed, and the meritorious cause of our acceptation.  
Resp. I am glad to see this saying, wherein he hath overthrown his own Doctrine, though uttered in a great contradiction; for he saith, Christ's cannot be imputed, and then it must be imputed; but why cannot it in the first place? That which is put to our account in Justification, whether as to the part or to the whole of our righteousness is imputed, but according to Mr. H. the Merits of Christ's is put to our account, and therefore the Merits of Christ (to speak more distinctly) thus put to our account, are the materialis & formalis ratio of our Justification; for if the merits of Christ be put to our account in Justification, it's but trifling to say, it's only the effects, if one man pay for another in part or whole, it's the money itself paid that is put to his account, and therefore imputed to him in Court; and indeed he ingeniously confesseth he learned of Mr. B. to mend his Notion, and allowed Christ's Merit to be the material cause of our Justification; but that which he amends with one hand he spoils with another, and thereby runs into grosser logical Absurdities, saying, Because I make our faith the formal in Justification. Resp. Very good, The matter is in one subject, in Christ, and the form in us another; Causa per qua res est id quod est is in us, ex qua in Christ in a legal act, Christ's righteousness is but generical, matter which is as much for all the world as a Believer; but the formal part, the proprium & differentia is in the subject, Man; this in law is always the meritorious part; Money in general turns no Cause there, but it's the Propriety that this or that man hath that doth it; now it's not Christ's righteousness in special that doth the business, but righteousness in general that Christ hath brought in, as a material part, but its man's 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, etc. Resp. If Justification be upon performing these as a law condition, what need all this talk about bearing with our defects? If the Gospel Covenant run in these Terms, he that doth what he can shall live; therefore Man doing what he can, leaves no room for bearing with defects, he fulfils the Law in doing what he can. Again, if this be imputed to us for righteousness by the law, and we discharged and declared righteous thereon, it is enough. Where also observe what imputation the Neonomians owns, its imputation of our own righteousness to ourselves: And such a righteousness as is none, because imperfect and sinful; but yet imputed for righteousness to us, as if it were perfect; what's the reason then that it's found defective after imputation, if imperfect by imputation comes in the room and doth as well as perfect? Nay, what's the reason that this righteousness that is such a paltry one, which can do nothing (by their own concession) in Justification without Christ's, must have the honour of being imputed to us? but Christ must not, cannot be imputed, and why I pray? Because tho' its acknowledged to be perfect and compleatest righteousness, yet it may not be imputed to us for ours, because performed by Christ and not by us. I pray let me ask, whether it would not more comport with the honour of God, the nature of a Gospel and common Reason, to impute legally to a delinquent the payment of another which is perfect full and complete, 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 Neonomians have lost their understandings, or think all other Men have, and so think they may impose what they please upon them; for here he distinguishes betwixt a conditional Gospel Covenant, and a Gospel Covenant upon conditions, a total Covenant and a partial, a total upon conditions, and a partial absolute upon performance of conditions, and all these one new law Covenant; a Covenant that pardons upon conditions, and a Covenant absolutely pardoning upon conditions. The total pardon, if that which pardons all the World upon conditions not performed, and yet it damns them too for non performances, a pardoning Covenant that damns all, for it remains not a pardon upon conditions when any one performs the conditions, it's then absolute; but did ever any one know that a conditional Covenant when the condition is performed absolute, i.e. without conditions? if any Man buy a House of his Neighbour for a Sum of Money, will he say after he has paid his Money, my Neighbour gave me this House, for an absolute promise is a promise of free Gift. He proceeds, The one of these is that very Grace, or Act of Grace itself, as goes into that Act of Imputation, or Act that imputes our Faith for Righteousness when the other still is the Effect or benefit following justification. Resp. The Man is in a Wood: The one of these an act of Grace, which of them? That which hath conditional pardon without performance, or that which upon performance becomes absolute, the total general, or the partial, particular, which I know not, but one it is; that is an Act of Grace going into the Act of Imputation: Imputation is an Act of Justice in strict acceptation, because its never but of righteousness, tho' to bring righteousness to a sinner, to whom the Law imputes righteousness is an act of Grace, as Justification is, but it must not be his own righteousness, for that excludes Grace.  
§. 9 He is a little cautious of Mr. B's. opinion, that Justification is the making us righteous, but he saith he will distinguish, there is a making a Man just by infusion or by Imputation; that by infusion, is Regeneration, which the Papists hold, and which we distinguish from Justification.  
Res. The righteousness by which they'll have a man justified is that of Regeneration, and that of Works, the Papists way has more of Grace in it, because theirs is Justification of the ungodly, as Regeneration is Sanctifying the ungodly. Some he saith are for Justification by pardon, and so a Man is righteous by non-imputation of Sin, but he is not for this neither, because he keeps pardon and non imputation of Sin for a consequent of Justification; he will have a Man just in the Eye of the Law, and yet under the imputation of Sin; well how will he have it to be? It's by imputation of what righteousness? Christ's? no, it's by Imputation of our Faith to us for righteousness.— Our Faith and Evangelical Obedience being imperfect and sinful, and we are unrighteous in the Eye of the Law for all that, but God in his judging us according to the Law of Grace, doth allow of that, [i. e. Sin] for Christ's sake, instead of all which the Law requires to our Justification.  
Resp. Here you see what a parcel of righteousness this New Law righteousness is, its imperfect sinful as to Sins of omission and commission and we are for all this righteous in the eye of the moral Law, but God judging by the Law of Grace, he allows all the Sin against his own Law for Christ's sake, Christ hath merited Gods allowing our sinful righteousness, i. e. Unrighteousness and justified us for it, but seeing here is all this done by the Law of Grace, how comes it to pass that it doth not pardon these Sins, but they must go to another Bar for Pardon? Why, because the Law of Grace, tho' it justifies the performer it pardons no Sin, because no Law can suppose its own condition to be sinful, but if there be Sin in the condition (as these Men say again and again there is) the Law of Grace allows it, (its certainly an Antinomian Law) allows that Sin that Gods most Holy Law condemns, God here must deny himself; and to say he allows it for Christ's sake, is to make Christ the Minister of Sin, die for allowance of Sin, and establishing of it by Law, and if God by a new Law hath established this sinful Obedience instead of all which the old Law required, what need of ask pardon of the said Law? God's abolition or relaxation of the old Law, and setting us upon Obedience to a New Law, and the performances thereof instead of what the old Law required, freed us from Sin and there needs no pardon for not performing perfect obedience, for that would have been sin in the eye of the new law, it requiring imperfect obedience, imperfection and sinfulness being the formality of the condition, and therefore it must needs forbid perfection as most contrary to it, and condemn all glorified Saints.  
§. 10. By this may that expression of the Apostle he rightly understood, God justifies the ungodly, not in sensu diulso, so that he that is so before his Justification is no longer so afterwards, but in sensu composito, our Faith or Evangelical Obedience in regard to the law [he should have said the law of Works] or in regard of those Works that are required by the law to our justification, are no righteousness within its own nature [therefore unrighteous] would justify us; but God constitutes it so by the law of the Gospel, and according to that law imputes it to us for righteousness.  
Resp. I need say no more to this, but that it is both in sensu diviso & composito an ungodly interpretation, That God should make that righteousness by an after law, which he had made moral unrighteousness by a former; and impute that by one law for righteousness to Justification, which he had imputed by another law for sin to condemnation: Is God as Man that he should lie, or as the Son of Man that he should repent? The sense of the place is not difficult, it is that justifies a sinner as such, or else it's no act of Free Grace, that when the Grace of Justification toucheth on the person of a sinner, he is no more godly than when the Grace of Regeneration toucheth upon him; though the Grace of God lays hold on a sinner in both these respects, finding them ungodly in all respects, yet it leaves them not so: His ensuing Supposition is very impertinent, supposing that which never was nor never will be, viz. That a Believer living regenerate can never be justified by the law of works, by his own righteousness; No, he can be justified by no law, neither did God ever make any law to account any man's 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. showing some disrelish of Mr. B. for agreeing with Bellarmine and the Council of Trent in the Doctrine of Infusion, which he saith he took up of Le Blanc, That God doth make men righteous by inherent Grace before he doth justify them. A thing that Mr. H. must grant according to his Principles, though he will distinguish nomine tenus only, as to the same thing, calling inherent Grace in respect of Justification righteousness, and in respect 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 acquits 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 intent 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 rectify 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 absolutely 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 righteousness thereof, we say, who are ye? and what is the Evangelical? 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 righteousness; 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, though he kills a man, if he repent, and give some Alms, his killing a man makes his other obedience but imperfect, 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 righteousness cannot, but Christ's righteousness must be imputed to our Justification. 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 matter, 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, it's the making one thing two, our new obedience 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, than it doth bring something not ours, and then we are juftified by two righteousnesses, by ours and not ours; or will he have this a single imputation, and both these made one, by mixture partly ours and partly Christ's? for this answers his Notion best, partly his, and partly not his; but he excludes Christ's merits from imputation 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 imputation as an effect, the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ; but they become not ours by imputation, therefore one leg of his distribution is dropped off, for he saith, there's an imputation of a thing ours, and a thing not ours; this thing not ours, which is Christ's satisfaction, he saith is not imputed, but comes in as an effect of this imputation of our own righteousness; but why must Christ's Satisfaction come in the rear? because a man must be justified first, and then Christ's Satisfaction must come in to mend the faults of his Justification, as a remedying righteousness, the formal part of his Justification must be pardoned and accepted, and before his Justification hath released the man from condemnation and unacceptableness to God, he must have the effect of his Justification; hence this imputation of ours is the cause of our pardon and acceptation by Christ's Merits, an imputation of our immoral righteousness the cause of a perfect▪ But how can we have pardon through the Satisfaction of Christ, and acceptance through his merits, without God's imputation of them to us? for if by the rules of Justice in the New Law Court our righteousness is imputed to us, how comes it to pass that when we come sinners into the old law Court, we can there become righteous, free from condemnation, and accepted by Satisfaction and Merit, and yet not have it imputed to us? this is most extra-judicial, for a Court always imputes that satisfaction and merit to the person discharged, which is paid into Court for it: It were easy to run endlessly upon showing 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 ruined for want of righteousness: Under the New Law is no righteousness, and under the Old Law good righteousness but no imputation, without which a sinner can never be justified; now if they would permit these two laws to meet and agree the matter, something might be done, than the New Law might borrow the Old Laws righteousness, and the Old, the New Laws Imputation.   

CHAP. VIII. Of the Formal Cause of justification.  
Section 1. Mr. H's Distinction of by and for, according to Bellarmine. §. 2. The Distinction considered. §. 3. Justification purchased by Christ §. 4. They advance not God's Grace in Justification. §. 5. Papists truer than Neonomians in the Doctrine. §. 6. They say the same with the Papists, and confess it. §. 7. The Errors and Weaknesses of their Opinions. §. 8. Of Active and Passive Justification. §. 9 Of Condition and Duty.  
Sect. 1. MR. H. for the better establishment of the Neonomian Doctrine hath taken up a distinction from his friend Cardinal Bellarmine. The Protestants (saith Mr. H.) have denied that Faith is our formal Righteousness; (Right. p. 46.) the reason of the denial hath been much, because they have confounded the causa per quam, & propter quam, by Faith saith the Scripture we are justified, by is id per quod causa formalis, but Christ's Righteousness is id propter quod: Let us see out of whose Shop he took this Distinction, Bellarmine (de just. lib. 2. c. 2.) having stated the Question. Whether Righteousness inherent in us, be the formal cause of absolute Justification or not? In order to his defence of it in the Affirmative, hath this distinction, and chargeth Kemnitius with fraudulent dealing in stating the Question, because he put id propter quod, instead of per quam, saith: If one will speak properly, he must not use the Word propter, but per, when he will point out the formal cause of Justification. If any one ask by what doth a Man live? By what do the Stars shine? By what is the Fire hot? It will be answered by his Soul, by the Light, by the Heat, which are the formal causes; but if any ask wherefore did the Emperor Triumph, wherefore did the Soldier's fight. It will be answered not by giving the formal cause, but the meritorious and final, the Soldiers fight that they may overcome, the Emperor triumphs because he overcame; so Kemnitius if he had spoken without fraud and properly should have said, what is that by which a Man is Justified; whether the Righteousness given to him of God, and inherent through the Merits of Christ, or the Merits of Christ from without him imputed? Now Bellarmine having so fully acquainted us with the distinction, according to the full sense of Mr. H. I think it will be but loss of Paper and Time to transcribe what Mr. H. saith of it, again and again, being but all to the same intention of the Cardinal.  
§. 2. This distinction duly considered is but one of the Papists shifts and Evasions, for First, In all juridical proceed causa per quam est causa propter quam, for a Man's righteousness is that by which and for which he is justified, and so his transgression is that by which and reason wherefore he is condemned, and if meritorious righteousness of a Mans own or of another's is brought into Plea and be admitted, he is said to be justified by it, if it be enquired how came such an one to be acquitted, the Answer will be by his Innocency; how came such an one to be condemned, the Answer will as soon be by, as for Wickedness, all Righteousness by which any one is Justified is propter quam, it's that by Reason whereof he is Justified, why doth the New Law justify him that hath performed the condition, is his Righteousness the Justifying condition, is not the Justification propter conditionem, if it doth refuse to Justify, because the condition is not performed, than it justifies not, because it is not performed; in all conditional Covenants the promise is performed, by reason of the performance of the condition. 2. Again, if this Distinction were True as applied, than we should be said to be justified or reconciled still propter sanguinem Christi, but we are said to be justified by his Death. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is rendered (') by (') not, for, Rom. 5.9. Are reconciled to God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, By the Death of his Son, for dia with a Genitive Case signifies per, with an Accusative propter, ver. 10. So, we have Redemption, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, So, Colos. 1.14.20. Is rendered through, but they that have knowledge of the prepositions know by or through are the same, when a thing is done by, it's done through, See, Acts 20.28. the Church of God which he hath purchased, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so that its evident that the distinction will not hold to make Evangelic Obedience causa per quam, and Christ's Obedience propter quam, because Christ's Obedience is said to be per quam, when it is intended thereby to be the very righteousness unto Justification, ergo, per quam and propter quam are of the same import in a juridical sense; but that which our N●onom●ans and Papists aim at is an immediate and mediare righteousness, that we are justified by one as immediate for the sake of Christ's the mediate.  
§. 3. The Papists by this distinction would make way for a double righteousness in our Justification; for the Council of Trent doth anathematise those that say, a man is justified only by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, or only by remission of sins, without inherent Grace and Charity. To this purpose our Neonomian Mr. Cl. p. 35. That the merit of Christ's Death and Sufferings [he excluding his active obedience] hath purchased this privilege for us among others, that sincere faith should be accounted for righteousness, and that God will account us righteous if we be possessed thereof.  
Resp. In both these we see Christ's righteousness is made the propter quam, and our own the per quam, Christ's the meritorious of our Justification by our own righteousness, whereby the ascribing any essential causality to Christ's righteousness is out of doors: For  
1. The Justification by our own (') is entire in all essential causes without Christ's; for our righteousness imputed must be the material as well as the formal part of our Justification.  
2. It must be first imputed and we justified by it, for they make not only the Condition but the Imputation thereof, and Justification thereby (') to be conditional of our pardon and acceptance by Christ's Righteousness.  
3. The very righteousness of our own is imputed, not Christ's Righteousness at all, only the effects; cause and effects are opposita, therefore if the effects only, than not the righteousness itself.  
4. To say that Christ purchased Justification by our own righteousness, is but to make Christ such a remote cause of Justification as Election is. Now to talk that the condition by which we are justified is a formal cause, and yet to be no cause, is nonsense, for a formal cause, although 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 cators the effect, when causa sine qua non, as to the effect, is only antecedent, or causa causae, and enters not the effect spoken of.  
But Mr. H. saith, it's a cause as well as a condition, it is both, if we made our works to justify us sub genere causae efficientis, procatarct and so the meritorious cause, it were to bring our works into the office of Christ's Righteousness, and derogate from Grace.  
Resp. So they do notwithstanding all they say, for if they thrust out Christ's Righteousness from any essential part of our Justification, as they do, not allowing it materiality or formality therein, they put our own Works into Christ's Office; and nothing can be more derogatory to the Grace of God; they say, they make it medus efficientis, causa procatarchtica, an external motive to the efficient; the effect then in that respect falls on the efficient, but the effect of the efficient is another thing: Supposing God justifies as Judge, Christ's Righteousness by way of Merit falls upon him, and procures of him that he takes our righteousness in payment. We may use this Similitude, a Man is prosecuted before a Judge for an hundred Pounds, a Friend of the Defendant tampers with the Jury and Judge, and procures of them that the Debtor pay but 10 l. I pray, whether is he justified by paying the 10 l. in Court, or by that which the Judge and Jury received, which is not brought in Plea at all? so that all meritorious righteousness is brought in Plea coram Judice, and accordingly being imputed or not, Judgement passeth. The Righteousness of Christ, whatever it may purchase out of the Court of the New Law, it's not allowed there as a Plea, and is never, nay cannot be imputed (these men say) though pleaded, therefore no Justification thereby, for no man is justified legally, but by what is imputed.  
§. 4. But when we make it the formal cause only (of our passive Justification) we do nothing thereby but advance God's Grace and Christ's Merits, as having obtained for us, not only that God should require of us no other condition but our Faith or inchoate Righteousness unto life, but also that he should corstitute by his New Law this condition performed to be our righteousness, in the room of that perfect one required of the old. p. 47. of right.  
Resp. Note, 1. They do something besides advancing the Grace of God, because it makes Justification due to us upon Debt, for he that hath a formal righteousness of his own legally imputed to him, he may demand Justification as due to him by the law itself, and this is not to advance Grace, but contrary, if the Apostle speak sense, 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  (according to Mr. H.) it makes not Christ's Merits the only righteousness; it makes our own righteousness the inchoate and foundation righteousness, the Corner Stone of our Justification; and whereas the Scriptures make Christ's, it makes Christ's Righteousness but to belong to another law, whereby they say we are not justified and our own to that which justifies, and the only justifying righteousness of the new law; it makes Christ's Righteousness and our Pardon by it, to be a consequent of Justification by our own, and that without imputation thereof extra-judicial, but our own very righteousness to be imputed to us; it makes that righteousness within its self and own nature, (saith Mr. H. again and again) to be righteousness legal for our Justification, and rejects Christ's perfect Righteousness as to Imputation and Justification, which is contrary to the Holiness and Justice of God.  
3. He makes the Grace of God to consist in constituting a Law for Justification, which is but part of distributive Justice, the exercise of a Legislative Power, and not of Grace to Sinners.  
4. The constitution of this inchoste righteousness is harder terms than the constitution of the righteousness of the Covenant of Works, for Reasons before given.  
5. We see what their meaning is of Christ's Merits, its only that he purchased a new Law, and we see what is the Neonomian Commutation that they have of late made such a stir about, they are for a Commutation; what's that? its a commutation of our righteousness, i. e. bringing into the room of the righteousness of the law (i. e. Christ's) in Justification, they deny it in Dr. C's sense, i. e. that our sins were imputed to Christ, and his Righteousness to us; for they expressly deny both the one and the other.  
§. 5. Mr. H. So as Adam, if he had perfectly obeyed, his obedience had been his formal righteousness in regard of the law.  
Resp. His Obedience had been his material Righteousness, and this imputed to Justification had been his Righteousness clothed with the Form and End, and unless we have a material and formal righteousness in regard to the same law, we can never be justified. 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 Righteousness 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 forgive us our trespasses.  
Resp. The Papists are righter and more rational here than Neonomians, if they differ from them in Merit, they ought not, and Mr. B. asserts it in his End of Controversies; but wherever the performance of the condition of a law requires Justification by the law, there is Merit and must be; for such a Performer deserves 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 Justification in Christ's Righteousness, what need such an one pray for Pardon?) for if their Justification in and by their own righteousness, be not as perfect discharging from guilt by Pardon, as ours is in Christ's Righteousness, it's not worth a Fig, we desire no such trifling Justifications.  
§. 6. The Protestants on the other side plead for Christ's righteousness 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 it's 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● imputed; 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 Controversy:  
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 Sinner 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 Bellarmine and J. Goodwin, from both whom its easy to show how the Neonomians have taken up their Doctrine; as for the Notion itself it labours under many weaknesses.  
1. That Righteousness in itself is not the formal but the material reason of Justification, that which induceth the form is a legal Imputation; for if a man be never so innocent and righteous, 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 righteousness to him, he shall be justified; so it's 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 another, therefore his formal reason is immaterial, and it's indeed but an imagenary Chimaera, both his New Law and his Formal Righteousness.  
3. Our Righteousness if it be the formal reason of our Justification, it's such as per quam homo justus est, and that is in law always 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 nothing in it; constitutive Justification is no more than Imputation, it is that which in law constitutes any one just and meritorious 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 righteous inherently; he saith indeed, the infusion of this preceding righteousness is not his Justification, according to the Papists, but his Justification is for the righteousness which it finds infused, and so it's the formal cause of Justification: He might with much better reason say, that Sanctification is double, active sanctifying, and passive sanctified; but where there is the cause working, there is the effect wrought, and the justified is but the effect, and constitutes no distinct species of it. But we say, the Grace of Justification of a Sinner, proceeding from Grace, is wholly in and from God, and hath no cause in a Sinner material or formal, nor is there any cause external of that Grace, the moving cause only is the good will and pleasure of God; he is gracious to whom he will; graciousness, pardoning Iniquity is only from his Grace and for the glory of his Grace, which cannot be in the Justification of a righteous person, but because, not simply Grace, but also Justice shall be glorified in a sinner's justification, and God in his pardon, will not clear the guilty, he hath graciously provided and bestowed on the sinner a righteousness accepted by the Law, and imputed to him, that he may appear therein just, and so just in administration of righteousness as not to infringe his Justice in the least, but to the highest honour of the Law standing in its full force against the sinner, without the least Relaxation. This is done quite contrary to the Neonomian Doctrine; therefore God's 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, though 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 established is certainly the nulling of the said old Law, but how then can Mr. B. be secured from a just charge of Antinomian viz. that moral duties are not required of us, which is more Antinomian than I ever saw in any he chargeth with it, he hath one poor shift, which is that the duties of the old-Law are taken or spunged up in the conditions of the New; but however the broken pieces are picked up, the Law itself is gone, and there's no transgression upon that account, Mr. H. saith the Law's only relaxed but his relaxation is no better than a Crack in the middle of a Glass and heart of it; and he hath not told us how far this relaxation goes, and every man will be ready to plead for his own sin that the Law in that respect is relaxt. But he would have us believe, that the moral duties still remain, how relaxt or not? If relaxt then at least to an indifferency, a man may do them or not without any sin; but he saith they are reestablished in the New-Law, if so they are reestablished without the Relaxation and then the New-Law is as strict as the Old, or with the relaxation, and then all duties are required with abatement as to quality and quantity, with an allowance of sin, our posse or velle, and what is more Antinomianism? But, saith he, the Conditions are not Duties, It was never affirmed by men of reason, that the Condition of a Law is not a Duty; for that which is required of us upon pain of punishment is always a Duty, and to the Condition of the New-Law the highest, because it hath the Sanction of a Law of the Highest, he that continueth not in all things by way of performance that it requireth is cursed by it, if it be but imperfect obedience; it saith, he that continueth not in imperfect obedience is cursed by it, therefore when the Saints come to Heaven, and fall into perfect obedience they fall under the Curse of the new law, or else it's out of doors before they come there, or the last day, and the World can't be judged by it. Lastly, What are the conditions of imperfect obedience? are they not Duties of Righteousness by the performance whereof Mr. H. will have us justified? Yes, this cannot be denied, but the distinction will hold with a quatenus, as they refer to the absolute, relaxed Laws they are Duties, i. e. as they respect no Law, or a lawless Law; and as they refer to the New Law they are Conditions and are not Duties. Hence it's no Duty to perform the Conditions of the New Law for Justification thereby, and this is the Truth which we stand by, though inferred truly from Mr. H's Logic and Divinity.   

CHAP. IX. An Answer to Mr. H's Arguments against Imputation of Christ's Righteousness.  
Section 1. Arguments Artificial or Inartificial. §. 2. His First Argument against the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness answered. §. 3. His Second Argument Answered. §. 4. His Third Argument Answered. §. 5. Mr. H's Argument for Faith and Obedience, being the formal part of Justification, First Answer. §. 6. The Assumption by parts. §. 7. Argument the Second Answered. §. 8. Mr. H's Third Argument Answered, with his Fourth Argument. §. 9 Of Constitutive Justification.  
Sect. 1. NOw it is time to come to Examine the grounds of Mr. H. and Mr. C's Doctrine, in this Point of Justification. And First, I shall treat of them that are the reasoning Arguments, Artificial as called in Logic, the weakest in Divinity, and then those that are pretended from Scripture, which in Logic are called inartificial, but if grounded upon Divine Testimony, the best and strongest.  
§. 2. Against the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, he argues thus. How can God account our Sins to be Christ's and his Righteousness ours when really they are not so, and God's Judgement is according to Truth.  
Resp. this is used again and again by Mr. B, to which I shall Answer, 1. By retorting the Medium and not so tedious to put it into any other form, how can God account our own New Law righteousness to be justifying righteousness, when in its own nature it's no righteousness (Mr. H. saith so over and over) and Gods judgement is according to Truth, now see the honesty of these Men, God must not make a Judgement according to Truth in imputing Christ's 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 judgement according to Truth, in imputing our own paltry sinful righteousness to us for our righteousness, when they themselves say its really no righteousness. 2. Is not his righteousness ours? The Scripture saith it is, and our Sins made his; they say it doth not, that we will try, God willing, but for the present we ask what if God give us this Righteousness? What is freer than Gift? and what makes a better propriety than Free Gift? Is not God's Judgement according to Truth, when he imputes that to us which he hath given? It's the Gift of Righteousness, Rom. 5. E. gr. A poor debtor is sued in Court for an 100 l. and upon Trial he is found insolvent, and Verdict is going to be given against him, the Judge throws him a Bag of 100 l. in Court and bids him pay the debt, shall not the Court impute this to him a lawful Payment, and give him a discharge, and is not the Judgement according to Truth? on the other hand another hath the like Trial, but is found insolvent, the Judge or some other gives him a Bag of Counters, and bids him to pay his Creditor, he refuseth the Money, saith its Brass; well saith the Judge we will impute it to him for a lawful tender and good Payment, we will make that which is no righteousness by our imputation to be a legal righteousness, so the Creditor may take the Bags of Counters and go shake his Ears, we call it good Money; now I appeal to these Men whether this be a Judgement 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 Christ's righteousness is imputed to us for Justification, then should the Elect be immediately freed from punishment, and immediately justified before they believed and repent, for no Terms could be Imposed on them in order to their Justification and Glory, if they be accounted already to have fulfilled the Law of Christ. And this is one (as he saith) of the Antinomian consequences.  
Resp. Let it be so, we say then First, If it be an Antinomian consequence, what is the reason Mr. B. and Mr. H. are such Antinomians, to say all the World are pardoned before Faith and Repentance, yea, whether they believe or no? Why doth Mr. B. assert two Justifications before Faith? 2. We reckon it no Antinomianism to say, that Election perfectly freed the Elect from coming under the execution of the Vindictive Wrath of God and Curse of the Law: Why else should the Scripture say, who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect? and whereas it may be said before Conversion, the Law will charge, for they are under the Law, it's replied, its Christ that died, yea rather is risen, having fully satisfied the Law of God, that they shall not fall under the Execution of the Curse of it, and they are secured before God both by Election and Redemption, or else Christ died and risen again in vain; and as they have this security, so they have an immediate right in Christ to the Life of Grace and Glory; They want the application and the receiving of this righteousness, and a possession thereof, which reception is by Faith that is not their own, but purchased and given by Christ; which was never purchased and given for their righteousness, but as an Organ of Spiritual Life, whereby a Man created in Christ Jesus may be sensible, and have the comfort of what is freely given to him of God; for by Faith a Man takes up the Peace which Christ hath made, and hath access into the justifying Grace of God wherein he stands, and therefore comes from under the Law in his own Conscience, and rejoiceth in the hope of the glory of God. 3. As for imposing of Terms, its Idle, to think that Christ should do what he did for Sinners in his Priestly Office, their Justification, and Salvation, and then to impose an impossibility upon them, without the performance of which all that he hath done should be nothing to them; and do Men talk Sense 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 mere natural Estate, and then to make their notion to stand on its right bottom; they must be Pelagians, its Eternal Life that is begun in Justification applied to the Believer and his Person by the Spirit, and it's received Vitally and Sensibly by Faith, when the Sinner is made a live by the Sanctifying work of the Spirit, his Life of Faith is part of the Eternal Life purchased: Can any Terms of Life be imposed on a dead Man, what Terms were imposed upon Lazarus; if the rolling away the Grave-Stone was the Term, it was not imposed on him, it was on them that stood about the Grave, if they say God will give these Terms, as they must say to save themselves from Pelagianism, than the Term lies upon God, and its Idle to say they are imposed upon incapable Subjects, neither is that Imposed upon me as a Term that cannot be expected from me, unless by the donation of another, by any rational Man. 4. The clause follows not according to Mr. H.'s Principles, who saith Christ satisfied the Law (though I know what the Neonomians talk of, they intent no true satisfaction) did Christ satisfy the Law in what Sense they will? Was it for himself or for us? if for himself, than he offended it, this they will not say, then for us; if for us, our Offence was taken of before God, thereby God was in him by reason of his satisfaction not imputing our Trespasses; how can it be otherwise but we must be accounted by God to have fulfilled the Law in Christ, if God's judgement be according to Truth, and why may not this satisfaction be, and our fulfilling in Christ be before we had a being in the World? this was actually performed for the Saints before his coming, long after most of them were dead, why not for those that are to come before they have life? and why may they not be called to a fellowship with Christ, and participation of the righteousness of Christ in Satisfaction by Faith? when the day of their Regeneration comes. This is the dangerous Doctrine that these poor blind men are so afraid of.  
§. 4. There is another Argument of Mr. H's. which he takes to be Herculean, and admires, and it looks as if it were out of his own Forge and he chargeth Mr. L. to hearken to it. Animadv. p. 67. There is nothing can be imputed to us, but either that which we have not, and then it is that we may have it, that is, to have it made ours, or reputed as ours.  
Resp. There is nothing can be imputed to a Sinner for righteousness but that which he hath not first, but is given (so saith Mr. H.) and here's the difference, he saith, inherent Grace is given for righteousness, we say, the obedience of Christ is given for our righteousness, which the Scripture saith; now it is given that it may be imputed ours legally, and it's imputed that we may be 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, it's imputed legally that we may be justified; 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 Judgement is according to Truth. Mr. H's Justification runs thus far, that we must have a righteousness before 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 sense we have, and are accounted to have obeyed and suffered in him, then can his righteousness (consisting of his Obedience and Sufferings) 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 legal allowance that we have it, having it is antecedent to the legal 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, than his righteousness cannot be imputed unto us, cujus contrarium verum, yea, therefore it's imputed unto us, for one man's payment is not reckoned 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 enumerated 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 Divines 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 Assumption, 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 condemns us; but there's no righteousness fully satisfactory to the Law that condemns us, but Christ's. let Mr. H. show any other if he can; and as for the righteousness of the New Law which he pleads for, he acknowledgeth that it's 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? because 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 renovation; 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? because that must precede Justification, and must not the righteousness precede the Justification by his own Doctrine? and doth not the formalis ratio precede the effect; but what doth regenerating Grace preceded? Is it not regeneration itself, 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 Assumption not regeneration, this is but juggling, it is not plain dealing. 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 Graecas calendas, I have showed the absurdity and folly of it, yea, and of his pardon preceding Justification. And if none of these be the formal cause, i. e. the Essential causes denominating us Righteous in God's sight, it must be something else: What's that? The righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel, i. e. Faith and Obedience. Mr. Cl. saith something else. Imputation, it's 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 righteousness 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 Justification 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, 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 Logic. 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 Gospel, 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 Adam's Covenant; Mr. H's reply is so weak, that it's 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 justified? I answer against Mr. Cl. and him, that it's no righteousness inherent in the justification of a sinner: He saith, it's not regenerating grace infused, but imputed. Answer. What makes the difference then between Sanctification and Justification? its nothing but the divers respect in Mr. H's. Divinity, and wherein lies that respect, is it not in imputation? and this Logic he yields in his Notes,  
Argument 4. Divines generally fix it upon some righteousness.  
Resp. If some Divines speak improperly, it doth not justify 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 Definition 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 helped 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 Justification 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 righteousness 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 Justification, then must they hold some merit of condignity to precede in the natural man; for a mere free gift as such, is an infusion, cannot be Justification. I do not see but Mr. H's constitutive Justification and the Papists is all one; for if they say, God infuseth righteousness, and imputeth righteousness, it's 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 righteous person, and being so made, accounts him so. Resp. The Scripture speaks of Justification of a Sinner, and therefore saith, it's an act of free Grace, Indeed Mr. H's. Justification can be no other than a judicial Act, it's no way consistent with Grace, because he saith its by a Law and Act of it, whereby it makes and pronounceth a believer righteous, and it seems he is first declaratively justified, and after imputed righteous, when God hath pronounced him righteous, then accounts him so, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 righteousness, 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 sense 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 Christ's 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 Opposition of Faith and Works in Justification, Mr. Cl's 2d. and 3d. Arg. §. 8. Mr. Cl. fourth Argument Answered. §. 9 Argument 5, 6. §. 10. More to Mr. H 's challenge.  
Sect. 1. MR. H's. Enquiry about the Saints before Christ's 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 accepted with God for the Obedience which the Messiah should perform on their behalf when he came into the World, and believing this was an Instrument of making him to be theirs etc. And whether they did not look upon themselves righteous by their own righteousness, their doing righteousness, and to obtain favour by their upright walking, and no otherwise in the World?  
Resp. If Mr. H. means Men of the Orthodox complexion in his Eye, Neonomian complexions, I believe but few, if any for ought I know but are of the Opinion Mr. B. hath declared himself, and divers others of that Orthodoxy; but if he means the true Protestant Calvinistical complexion, there's enough of them. 2. I would know whether or no they did ever hear of a New Law, and if they expected to be justified by their own righteousness, or whether they thought of any other Law to be justified by, than the Law of Works? For there was not the least Word of any other Law before the Flood or after, none can be pretended to be, till Abraham's time at furthest. 3. Whether there was one Word of a conditinal promise to Adam after the fall, and whether he thinks not that Adam, Abel, Enock, etc. Were not saved by Faith in that absolute promise that the seed of the Woman, etc. (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 Serpent's 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 revealed him to them) why did they offer Sacrifice for Sin, did they look at no Significancy or typicalness in them, were they not taught of God so to do, and did he not show show them that they were typical of the great Sacrifice the seed of the Woman should offer in the end of the World? Was it not by Faith they offered them, Heb. 11. And what was that Faith, was it not in a righteousness? for Noah believed in a righteousness and became heir of righteousness which is by Faith, what was he Heir of his own Righteousness? did they believe in themselves? The Apostle 's design is not to prove that Faith is the Evidence of things not seen, the Substance of those things hoped for, that those worthies lived in Faith and Hope, and died so not having received the promise in performance, but saluted and embraced it by Faith. 5. Had Job and his friends such Principles (tho' not of the Jews Church) chap. 19.27. I know that my Redeemer liveth, was there no Faith in his Words, is there no righteousness in a Redeemer? and what were the Sentiments of his Friends in this Doctrine, sure they were not Neonomians, Job 25.4. How can Man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a Woman? Saith Bildad. A Neonomian would have easily resolved this Question, by performing of the conditions of the New-Law; but alas they heard not of this New-Law, this Nor-West passage to Heaven.  
§. 2. Let us consider Abraham, whether he did imagine himself righteous, by his doing righteously, or looked to obtain favour of God thereby, and no otherways, and whether his Faith was not Eminently carried forth to the Eyeing of Christ in the promise. Christ saith, Abraham rejoiced to see my Day, and saw it and was glad, he saw it, and saw it, and rejoiced and was glad, John 8.58. And where and how did he see it? was it not in the promise of his Seed? and what did he see in it? was it not the blessedness promised? Gen. 12. and the Salvation by Redemption and Righteousness, did he see nothing in Christ for his own Soul; yes, you say he saw him as a Neonomian cipher, 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 justified State long before the offering up his Son, but his Faith was proved, and approved of by God, and witnessed to, by this eminent Act of Obedience, God testified to his particular Acts of Obedience, which the World was ready to Condemn, and so to Rabab, so to Phineas his Act, that whatever the World judged of these Actions, yet they were approved of God as righteous, and true Obedience: Abel was an accepted person of God before his offering, then because his person was justified, God witnesseth to his gifts, that they were accepted as being done in Faith; whereas Cain was an unjustified person, there's no Sinner justified by his Works, but a Believers Works are accepted, because their persons are accepted in another righteousness, in which their Works are accepted afterward: Abel was first accepted, and then his Service.  
§. 3. Now we are upon Abraham, let us consider him a little further, did he imagine himself righteous without the Obedience of Christ, and no other way than by his own righteousness? What do these Men make of the Gospel preached, is it not the preaching of Christ for righteousness, for Christ is made Righteousness to us, 1 Cor. 1. The Gospel was preached to Abraham; what was that? The Apostle tells us, Gal. 3.8. It was in the first promise whereby he was converted to God in Vr of the Chaldees, Gen. 12. In thee shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed, and that this contained in it, that blessing of righteousness which is after more particularly Explained, he was justified as the Heathen, and believing Gentiles were to be justified afterwards, and the Apostle saith these that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. of that kind of Justification, are blessed with faithful Abraham, ver. 9 but such as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that expect justification from the Works of a Law are under a curse, for the Law i e. Justification by the works of the Law. is not of justifying Faith, theirs none under Abraham's blesssing, expect Justification by the Works of the Law. Indeed the Mystery was not so distinctly understood, Eph. 3.5. Yet they were saved even as we, Acts 15. And how are we Gentiles saved? by becoming fellow Heirs of the same Body (i. e. mystical) and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel, Eph. 3.6. The which participation the faithful before Christ was, the Gospel had preached to Abraham.  
§. 4. The great cry is that Faith, i. e. our working Faith, our Faith and Obedience is our Subordinate Righteousness, or  or Supreme, which our Neonomians please, for Justification, because it is said Abraham's: Faith was imputed to him for Righteousness, i. e. say, they his Gospel Works, not Mosaical, or not according to the Old Law, but according to the New.  
This assertion is most false, for these reasons. 1. There was no Mosaical Law in Abraham's days. 2. There was no New Law exhibited to Abraham, for their promise was absolute, Gen. 12. And cannot be pretended to be conditional. 3. It's not consistent with the nature of Faith, which is the Evidence of something not seen, or present, but Works and Faith as such is both seen in us, and present with us. 4. If Faith be the very righteousness, than Faith believes in Faith as righteousness. Doth the Scripture bid us believe in ourselves, or believe in another. Faith believes in Faith, for our very righteousness by these Men, which is most absurd, when they preach, they should bid Men believe in themselves, did Abraham believe in his Faith? Was that his believing, or did he believe that which was held out in the Promise? the same thing that God imputes to us for righteousness, we do make the Object of our Faith for Righteousness. Now than if God imputes our believing to us, than 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 sense for righteousness, it being as Mr. H. confesseth again and again, no righteousness, sinful, in need of pardon, for, 1. This would not be according to truth to call evil good, nor to do it in a way of administration of Justice, as in Justification, would it be just? But most unjust, God is a God of Truth and Holiness, and the Judge of all the World, and therefore must deal righteously, for tho' he pardons Iniquity, yet will by no means clear the Guilty. 2. It's contrary to their own assertions, that Justification is an Act of Justice, whereas such an Imputation and Justification as they speak of, would be far from an Act of justice, and is a mere dispensation with justice, for where a Law must be abrogated, or relaxed, there is an absolute dispensation with Justice, and without one of these they confess there cannot be Justification by their New Law. 6. This cannot be justification, because Sin is not pardoned in it, nor the person accepted, Imputation of righteousness to the work, before it's to the person, and if the person must do good works before he's justified, 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 sense an interveening righteousness coming between Christ's righteousness) whereby we are justified before we come at Christ, or pardon, both being consequent to our Justification, by this New-Law-Righteousness which he calls Faith, see, p. 64. His reason are these, 1. What else can be the plain and proper meaning of that Phrase, it was accounted to him for righteousness? (Without putting it upon the Rack of Tropes and Figures, and the like Engines of Cruelty, etc.  
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 sense of many Places of Scripture, is the true plain and proper sense 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 Newfound righteousness, whether he doth no no where interpret Scripture Tropically. What answer will he give the Papist in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation founded on, This is my Body? Mr. B. saith, it's as credible as the Doctrine of imputation of Christ's Righteousness: And what saith Mr. Cl. to the Covenant of Circumcision. Well let us make a little Impartial Examination of this Expression, If Abraham were justified by works, Rom. 4.2. he hath boasting, but not before God; not in the Presence of God for his Justification, yea he may rejoice, that through Grace he hath performed any action by faith which God witnesseth to, as James speaks of, but he dare not plead it before God for Justification of his Person. Now he brings in Justification by Faith in diametrical opposition to it; for the Scripture saith, Abraham believed in God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness, so translated, the words in the Hebrew may run thus, He believed on Jehovah, and he accounted it (i. e. what he believed of him) for righteousness to him, the Words are rendered by the Septuagint and the New Testament. Abraham believed God, it was accounted to be unto righteousness. The Seed promised before was the thing believed by Abraham, the blessing unto all Nations, which Seed was to proceed from his and Sarah his Wife's Loins, this was the promise of God to him, and this was accounted to him for righteousness; he believed Jehovah graciously promising, and the thing promised, Jehovah imputed to him for righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he accounted the thing believed, not the Faith itself, therefore the Targum hath its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he believed the word of promise, and the thing promised was imputed to him; in this sense the Apostle takes it, Rom. 4.3. Gal. 3.6. where in both places he opposeth a righteousness of faith, i. e. which is believed on, unto a righteousness within which is no object of faith, for it is within us, and an object of sense, he believed God in the Promise of Christ, and this that he believed was reckoned to him; he argues presently that this imputation was not to Abraham as a work of any kind, for to him that worketh (as much as if he should say, O do not mistake me, I do not, nor doth the Scripture speak of Abraham's Faith as a work) the reward should not be of grace but debt, but to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, (as Abraham was when first justified, Josh. 24.) his faith is esteemed to be unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. he believes upon the righteousness which is imputed to him. And why may not Faith be taken objectively, by a Metonymy, 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 sense, and sense for the object, Matth. 6.22. the light of the body is the eye, and there the light is for the eye, and after, the eye for the light; besides, it's a rule, that when a word in Scripture taken in the direct sense, will cross other Scriptures, and the signification lies fair for the Analogy of Faith, than the true sense lies in the Trope; as here, we are justified by faith, but how? as it lays hold on the justifying blood of Christ, or else we contradict, Rom. 5.9. being now justified by his blood; now either Faith or the justifying Blood of Christ must fall into a Trope; for which 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, than the Apostle contradicts himself, and maketh justification by faith to be justification by works, and so disputes vainly, making no opposition; but if in Justification by Faith the righteousness is imputed to us, and that be the drift of it, than his Argumentation hath the greatest weight, the righteousness of Faith is Christ's righteousness, and the righteousness of works our righteousness inherent, wrought by us, or in us, utterly excluded from Justification.  
§. 6. Mr. Cl's Second Argument, Because the Apostle frequently opposeth working and believing, faith and works, Works as a perfect obedience to the Law, Faith as a sincere obedience to the Gospel.  
Resp. Then the Apostle should have opposed works and works, and distinguished between Law-works and Gospel works; or when he had opposed Faith unto Works in two Epistles so largely, he should have excepted Gospel-works, or said, I do not mean Faith as a work; but to be short, for I shall not need to be long on the remaining Arguments: We say only, that this Argument is against Mr. Cl. because the Apostle still makes so clear an opposition betwixt Faith and Works without any Exception.  
Arg. 3. It is expressly called the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4.11, 13. chap. 9.30. chap. 10.16. by faith, Gal. 5.5. Heb. 11.5.  
Resp. This affects us not, The righteousness of faith, is but as the light of the eye, the righteousness which is the object of faith, Rom. 4.11. he received the sign of circumcision, called the covenant of Circumcision by a plain Trope, not cruel at all, the seal of the righteousness of faith: Is this a Seal only that we are righteous, or is it a Seal of the righteousness of Christ promised to Abraham, v. 13. there's a positive denial that the Promise was to Abraham and his Seed through a Law, any Law, Old or New, but thro' the righteousness of faith the proper and peculiar object in Justification, Rom. 9.30. the righteousness of Faith is opposed to the righteousness of Works the Jews depended on. By Faith, is but righteousness received by Faith, or waited for in faith, Gal. 5.5. we by the Spirit (i. e. its assistance) wait for the hope of righteousness) (i. e. the righteousness hoped for) by faith, or from faith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it's not called the righteousness of faith there; to what purpose quoted, I know not, and Heb. 11.5. where it is said, by faith Enoch was translated, what's Enoch's Translation here to his Justification which was three hundred years before?  
§. 7. Argument 4. Because Faith is a conformity to the rule of the promise (wherein the nature of righteousness doth consist) viz. the Gospel or Covenant of Grace, which requires only sincere believing, not perfect doing, Rom. 10.8.10. and therefore though it be not righteousness in strict Justice, according to the law of nature (i. e. works) yet it is righteousness according to the favourable construction of the Gospel, i. e. God upon the account of Christ's righteousness is pleased to accept of this for righteousness, so as to account it, whence it's called the righteousness of God.  
Resp. The rule of the promise is an uncouth Term which I have examined elsewhere, and therefore shall not now stand upon it, only, A rule of the promise must be either by which it is made, or upon which it is performed; there's no Rule God makes any Promise by, but his own good Will and Pleasure; but it's the Rule it's performed by that must be a Rule in us, by which God walks, i. e. the condition of the New Law performed by us, a Law indeed hath such a Rule, but no Gospel hath; do and live, do is the Rule, and live the Promise, to be performed upon our doing; and this is these men's Gospel or Covenant of Grace, a downright Law; and where is it proved that Faith is a conformity to this Rule of the Promise, or legal Condition? Rom. 10.8. there's something said of a believing the Word preached, but what's that to the Rule of the Promise, and verse 10. with the heart man believes unto righteousness, etc. 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 itself for righteousness, takes not its self for righteousness, v. 11. the object, believed on, where this righteousness is, is told v. 11 whosoever believeth on him, but these men will have believing unto righteousness, to be faith believing itself unto righteousness. Well, when Faith hath done its do to make its self righteousness, yet it is not righteousness in the sense of the law of works which is the true Rule of a Law-righteousness that God never abates in the least of) yet it is Gospel-righteousness, according to the favourable construction of the Gospel; God forbidden that that should be our justifying-righteousness, which strict Justice will not allow to be righteousness: Here they bring in God's dispensing with Justice, and make him a favourer of unrighteousness, in making it such for Justification; this is Antinomianism with a witness, for God to favour sin, and justify him for that which a just Law and strict Justice condemns for unrighteousness; the righteousness of the new Law is condemned at the Bar of the old law; hence it can be no better than the law of Sin and Death, and yet this unrighteous condition must be fathered on God's favourable construction, yea, on Jesus Christ's 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 purchase the imputation of our own righteousness, for righteousness unto justification, and therefore it is called the righteousness of God, why, because it's ours and not Christ's: Of this in another place.  
§. 8. That Faith is our Gospel-righteousness appears further from Rom. 10. this being the same with the Fourth, and answered there, I need say nothing to it.  
Argument 6. There are but two sorts of righteousness, Legal and Evangelical, but this is not legal righteousness, and therefore it must be Evangelical.  
Resp. There is but one sort of righteousness, and that is legal, and its a legal righteousness though graciously bestowed, that we are justified by, and its impossible that it should be otherwise; it's only the legal righteousness of Christ made ours, which is our Evangelical, Christ's own righteousness, as it respects the Justice of God and his Law, is Legal; as it respects a Sinner, is graciously bestowed, its Evangelical. But alas, Mr. Cl. to prevent misconstruction, after he hath been disputing for the work of Faith to be our righteousness, yet we must not expect Mercy, Justification, Pardon, Reconciliation or Favour with God, upon the account of our sincerity, Faith or Obedience, as the procuring cause; but we are to look up to Christ, confessing our best works to be but filthy rags in strict justice, etc.  
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, though they will swagger and vapour with it to outdare them whom they call Antinomians, who will cleave immediately to Christ's righteousness alone as their only righteousness without the intervention of these filthy Rags; their righteousness must have Christ stand behind the Curtain to patch their ragged raiment; their House cannot stand without Bellarmine's propter quod, their Pageantry is all dead Images, unless one behind the Curtain move them, which no body must see; here is no Mercy, Pardon, and Reconciliation for and by their Righteousness, but Christ procured something of it, I know not what, but Christ's Procurement was long ago, the Law is in their own hands now, he only procured the New Law, they must shift as well as they can to perform the Conditions; Christ did not purchase those, neither died he to forgive any fault in their righteousness; but oh, their righteousness comes not up to the old Law, what need they trouble themselves about that? Christ hath fetched them from under that faulty Perfection, and brought them under a faultless unrighteousness of the Remedial Law, and faults their Righteousness must have, or else it would be an adequate condition, but they must acknowledge their unworthiness, and desert of all evil, and when we have done, God looks upon us as righteous in a Gospel sense. I had thought in the beginning of this Paragraph Christ had been 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 completing of these rough Garments to deceive, lies in their own do; if we do this, God looks upon us as righteous in a Gospel-sense, and pardons us, first justified and not pardoned, and then pardoned and not justified: What a great matter of Lamentation is it to see the corrupt minds of men thus vainly and mischievously sport themselves with the rich Grace of God, and his strict Justice.  
§. 9 Before I leave this Chapter, let us talk a little further with Mr. Humph. about his great challenge, if it be as he saith, that no Man or Woman before Christ coming, did Imagine they were righteous before God, or accepted for the Obedience of Christ, it must follow that they had a hard task under the New Law, for they wanted the propter quod, and both Mr. Cl. and he saith their righteousness wants pardon, and they must go to the id propter quod for pardon and acceptance: Now I would Query, whether if they could not imagine Christ's Obedience, to be their righteousness, how could they imagine that Christ's Obedience could be the procuring cause, so that they were altogether destitute of the id propter quod. I would know whether the Faith of God's 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 show 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 signify, 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 spoke of it, and Christ himself affirms this after his Resurrection to the two Disciples going to Immaus, that he ought thus to suffer and enter into Glory, beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scripture, the things concerning himself? Now if Moses and all the Prophets, yea all the Scriptures should so eminently and expressly foretell Christ's sufferings and resurrection, and why it was? viz. to bear Sin and satisfy God's justice, as the Prophet Isa. c. 53. and David, and Jer. and all the Sacrifices of old, and his Redemption was also for them, to the transgressions under the first Testament, Heb. 9.15. It is strange that none of them from Adam to Christ, should in the least imagine their acceptance with God should be for his righteousness, but that they should look for Justification by their own righteousness only, and none others.  
§. 10. Mr. Cl. in the conclusion of his Book, undertakes to disprove the Imputation of the Active righteousness of Christ, when as all a long his Book he holds that Christ's righteousness Active or Passive, is not imputed but as to Effects; now he can mean nothing by the non-imputation of Either, but as to Effects: So that he must intent by the non-imputation of Christ's active Obedience, of the Effect, and then either it had no effects or no effects, pro bono nostro; now sure if I mistake not, he grants that whatever Christ was, it was for our good, and therefore have some benefit by it, and God reckons it a benefit, for that's their Imputation when we have a benefit, God reckons it so, i. e. Imputes it to be what it is; surely if Christ active Obedience, did but fit him to redeem us by passive, it was a benefit to us: His Incarnation was it not a benefit? In their way of Imputation they may say, [after Mr. B.] because he did not obey, that we should not obey.  
Resp. Neither did he suffer, that we should not suffer; but Christ suffered that we might not suffer penally, and obey that we might not obey legally; and its strange that the second Adam should have actual righteousness for us, as well as the first had actual sin; that all should not be repaired as to the preceptive, as well as the vindicative part of the Law, which was fallen upon us in the first Adam, by the second Adam. Why was he made under the Law? Was it not for active as well as passive Obedience.   

CHAP. XI. Of justification by Works.  
Section 1. The Neonomian Doctrine opposed. §. 2. Who it is God justifies. §. 3. More fully Answered. §. 4. Arguments against Justification by Works. §. 5. Mr. Cl's Proposition. §. 6. Of the Jews Opinion about Justification. §. 7. Whether Paul means only Works of Moses' Law. §. 8. Whether Paul disputes only against some Works. §. 9 Mr. Cl's Denial and Challenge. §. 10. What Law the Apostle means. §. 11. How the Jews looked upon the Law. §. 12. Of the Law of Faith. §. 13. What Deeds of the Law. §. 14. What Works to be boasted of. §. 15. Of meritorious Works. §. 16. Of justifying Works. §. 17. Of the Jews Conceit of Perfect Obedience. §. 18. 1 Cor. 4.4. considered. §. 19 Mr. Cl. unfair in his Challenge. §. 20. Of Rom. 4.5. §. 21. Of Rom. 2.20.  
Sect. 1. OUR Neonomians affirm we are justified by works, not of the Old Law (which the Apostle Paul every were excludes) but of the New Law, this is that which we oppose, and say the Apostle doth exclude all our works, even in the state of Regeneracy, from Justification, and in this Point we shall take Mr. Cl. because he seems to be most full in the handling of it, and take up that Mr. H. saith, in a more scattered manner here and there.  
§. 2. Chap. 10. He tells us who it is that God Justifies, not ungodly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Rom. 4.5. No saith Mr. Cl. the Spirit of God means the godly, and he brings against the position of the Spirit of God in this place, that of Exod. 23.7. Where the LXX useth the same words.  
Resp. To which I shall answer, 1. That Mr. Cl. knows the LXX doth not translate the words according to the Heb. Text; but rather speaks to the drift of the Text, which is to enjoin unto Men an impartial Execution of distributive Justice, and therefore it renders it, Thou shalt not justify the wicked for a reward; and that is the plain Drift of the Text by what precedes, v. 6. Thou shalt not wrest judgement, and thou shalt take no gift, v. 8. and the Hebrew in the 7th verse is, I will not justify, i. e. will not have thee to justify, for thou art but my Deputy, and I sit in the Assemblies and Courts of Earthly Judges, and whatever Judgement contrary to Justice and Right thou passest, I will call thee to an account for it. Then 1. This Text speaks of Man's Judgement, not of God's immediately, but as supervising the actions of men. 2. He might as well, or better alleged 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, though 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 sense, God justifies the ungodly, while such, not to remain such. For Abraham there spoken of, was such an ungodly vile Idolater, Josh. 24. Had Abraham performed any New-Law righteousness before he came out of Vr? Mr. C. will understand it, he saith, in a strict Law sense, 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 obeyed the Call. 3. It's most consistent with the Grace of God to justify the ungodly, and not in the least derogatory from his Justice to justify a sinner in God's way of Justification 4. As God justifies none to be ungodly, nor justifies ungodliness, but that sinners may be godly; so there's none can be godly before he is justified, he cannot perform one godly Act, nor have the Spirit, the natural Man being a stranger to God and Enemy to him. 5. Why may not God justify the ungodly, as well as sanctify 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, than I will say, why may not God give Christ, to an ungodly one the gift of righteousness, and justify him thereby, I hope if God can give one righteousness, he can give another, unless they will limit his Sovereign Grace.  
§. 3.1. But more fully: And first Negatively, not by the Law, Gal. 2.16. viz. the Law of Moses; and why so? is there any the least word of the Law of Moses, its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the works of a law, any law; when the Apostle speaks of Moses' law, he annexeth the pre-positive Article, So Rom. 3.20. it's a law, from the works of a law no flesh living can be justified; now this is not the Ceremonial Law, by v. 19 but that law whereby all the world became guilty, Jews and Gentiles, v. 9, etc. 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 Works, the Ceremonial Law, and the New Law are equally excluded. Now the next Verse hath it, that the righteousness of God is manifested without these excluded works, this is no new Notion, but witnessed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the law, i. e. of Moses and the Prophets. What Gal. 3.16. is brought in for I know not, I find it not among the Erratas, but I think it must be one, Hitherto also do belong these places, Job 15.14. chap. 25.4. Psalm 143.2. which Places plainly and peremptorily deny righteousness in Man to be found unto Justification; Mr. Cl. says, according to strict Justice, according to the law of works, as Paul expounds it, Gal. 2.16.  
Resp. The Apostle there doth peremptorily protest against Justification by the works of a Law, any Law whatever; and if he hath an eye upon the Psalmists words, he explains them so far as to us, why the Psalmist denies Justification to any man living, is, because all works that Man can perform, must be referred to some law, by the works of a law no flesh living could be justified. Let me add what the Apostle saith, If righteousness be by a law, than Christ died in vain: It's strange the Apostle should so expressly and positively exclude the works of a Law from Justification, and yet all this while intent that we are justified by the works of a Law, and that he should never tell us, he doth not mean works of the New Law, nor so much as mention it.  
§. 4. From the forementioned places, these Arguments will arise against Justification by our works. 1. Justification of a sinner or ungodly one as such, cannot be by any works of a Law, performed by him, but God's Justification of any fallen Man is such, for the Major its plain, against Neonomian Justification, unless they will say, that a natural Man may be godly while such, or that which the old law calls ungodliness, the new law calls godliness; yea, a man must be sanctified in their sense, before justified, while under condemnation, and bound over to wrath. Again, the Text is clear, that Abraham was ungodly when justified, both by History and the Apostles, for he could not do any good, and all his obedience was after his Justification by Faith. Now the Minor is as Evident, that God's Justification of fallen Man is such, for if we be justified by the works of a Law, it's not consistent with Grace; for justification singly considered, speaks nothing but Justice: And Justification by the works of a Law performed by us, speaks nothing but Justice; but Justification by Grace, is only as the Apostle saith, when it's without the deeds of the Law performed by us.  
2. That Doctrine that excludes the works of every Law, by which is the knowledge of Sin, excludes the works of every Law performed by us; but the Apostles Doctrine excludes the works of every Law that gives the knowledge of Sin. Ergo the works of every Law, Old, New, and Moral Law, are excluded. This Argument stands firm from Rom. 3.20.  
3. If the holiest Men have not expected to be justified by their own righteousness, who have lived by Faith, than 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 Judgement with thy Servant, unless he had added, by the Old Law, but, Enter into Judgement with thy Servant by the New Law, for in thy sight, New-Law works will justify 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 justify him; but no New Law righteousness, will take away Moral Pollution in the sight of God, so as to make him clean. Ergo, the Major is so clear as none can deny, for by Justification, the justified is purged and clean from Sin in the sight of God; he can Enter into Judgement with God, upon the account of the righteousness he is justified by. The Minor is true, 1. From the confession of our Adversary, that its a sinful righteousness, it's condemned by the Moral Law, it's not adequate to exact Justice, therefore it will not cover Sin from the Eve of God's Justice. 2. From so many express Places of Scripture, Job. 15.4. He that is righteous before God, must be clean before God. Imperfect righteousness, can never make us clean in the sight of God, Job. 15.4. It's not to be found of man born of a Woman, i. e. mere man, nor in any flesh living, Believers are flesh living, and born of women; Job saith chap. 9.30. If I wash myself in snow water, and make myself never so clean, yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch, and mine own  shall abhor me; now will Job's new-law-works justify him; he had been long a holy man, yet he often pleaded his uprightness towards God, and his integrity against his friends charge, and yet you see what his new-law-righteousness amounted to, chap. 40.4. & 42 6.  
5. Let me add a Fifth Argument before I leave his Negative: If there was never any Law given to fallen Man that could give Life upon the Terms thereof, then there could be no righteousness to Justification by a Law; but the antecedent is true, therefore the consequent, and both from Gal. 3.1. the Apostle's unanswerable Argument against Justification by any Law. The words are very plain and full to any one that can construe Greek.  
§. 5. He proceeds to his further Proof, in divers Propositions, which are many, so little to the purpose, that it would be lost time to follow them particularly, but that there's in them many places of Scripture perverted from their true Interpretation.  
His first Proposal is, The whole scope of the Apostle is to assert and establish Justification by faith, as the only way of Salvation to lapsed men.  
Resp. What if so? Doth it therefore follow that the Apostle teacheth, that Faith is the way of Justification by Works? or quite contrary, that Justification by Faith is not by the works of righteousness which we have done, but by these that Christ hath done? This I gather, saith he, from that place Rom. 1.17. The righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, which words I paraphrase thus, That the Gospel alone discovers the method and way appointed by God, whereby we may become righteous in his account, viz. by faith in Christ, and by continuance, increase and exercise thereof.  
Resp. It's the Office of the Gospel, to teach Sinners the way, the truth and life, who is Christ; there's no other righteousness that the Gospel can teach a sinner to Justification, John 14.6. and that Faith lays hold on that way, is the Gospel; to teach a man that he is to be justified by the works of a law, is it Good News to a sinner? That this Text is grossly abused, appears,  
1. Because the righteousness of God here spoken of, is a righteousness revealed, and therefore not in us; for things already in us, are not said to be revealed to us.  
2. It's the righteousness of God, and not of Man.  
3. It's an objective righteousness that is here spoken of, such as is made known to our Faith by Revelation, therefore not Faith itself.  
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 sense, it should be this, The Gospel is the Method of God unto Salvation, for therein is the righteousness of man revealed from faith to faith, viz. the more a man believes in Christ, the more he believes he is justified by his own works, and this is that he lives by, he lives by faith, i. e. by believing his faith to be works.  
He disproves Justification by works of a law as inconsistent therewith, because all are sinners, and therefore none can be justified by their works, and on the other hand, that they must be justified by faith.  
Resp. One would think this man spoke now good Divinity, but his meaning is, only that Justification of a sinner by the works of the old law, is inconsistent, but not Justification by the works of a new law; whereas the design of the Apostle throughout is to disprove the Justification of a sinner by the works of a law, any law; he specifies not any one law in particular, unless where he led to it, but when he opposeth Works to Faith in Justification, he speaks of law indefinitely excluding all works of any law whatever, signified to us, Gal. 3.2. If there had been any law given, whereby life is given, than righteousness had been by a law, but there was no such law given.  
§. 6. The Apostle insists largely on this Dispute against Justification by works, because it was a received Opinion among the Jews, that a man might be justified by the works of the law, and it was retained by many of them, even after they were converted to the faith of Christ, as appears. Acts 21.20.  
Resp. The Apostle insisted largely and strenuously on this Dispute, in making and proving the direct opposition between Justification by the works of any law performed by us, and Justification by faith in the righteousness of another, 1. Because the Jews were generally  to a righteousness of some law to be performed by them for Justification. 2. Because they were generally ignorant of the righteousness of Christ, which made them go about to establish their own righteousness in Point of Justification. 3. What he writes to the converted Jews, he doth, 1. In order to convince them of the danger of joining their own righteousness in obedience to any law in Justification, with the righteousness of Christ, and this was the danger of the Galatians. 2. He warns them of the vanity of the continuance of the works of Moses' law in order to Salvation. Now Mr. Cl. brings the words of James to Paul, Acts 21.20. to prove that the converted Jews sought Justification by the works of the Law of works: To which I answer.  
1. That the unconverted Jews did none of them expect Justification by the works of the law of works, for 1. They did not look upon their works as perfect works (though they took the external obedience to be what the law mainly looked for which Christ refutes) for they owned that their external works were mixed with much imperfection and sin. Else 2dly. They could not own the Doctrine of Sacrifices for sin, wherein they saw the sinfulness of their works, and were convinced at least thereof, whether they saw by faith the Antitype signified by them or no, and therefore could stand upon their works in themselves perfect, in answer to the righteousness of that law, but the Justification by works which they looked for, was by an imperfect righteousness (as the Neonomians do) in obedience to the law of Moses, which they made their new law, as the Neonomians do the Gospel, and therefore the Apostle saith, that they sought it as it were by the works of the law, it was Justification by works in their sense, the Apostle preacheth accordingly against works, as taken by themselves, Rom. 9  
Ans. 2. As for the converted Jews, spoken of, Acts 21. they where for the observations of some things in the Obedience of Moses his Law, as necessary means of Salvation, not abolished by Christ's 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 shown by his complying with James, that whatever he taught the Gentiles, yet he was not against complying with the Jews, so far as to use yet some of Moses his appointment, provided they made not such Actions of theirs the righteousness of Justification, therefore tells the Galatians running on that Point, that if they were circumcised, Christ could profit them nothing. Now this is clearly the Point he withstands Peter in, and opposeth the Galatians, in that he made his Saviour a Transgressor by his practice in judaizing contrary to the Doctrine he had preached in Justification, by Christ's 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' Law unto full justification, the conjoining our righteousness with his, or that his righteousness merited ours; and therefore they were to observe Moses his Law as their own righteousness (the New Law with them) this Doctrine Peter opposeth in his speech unto ver. 11. to which James agrees, and proposeth an expedient, ver. 19, 20. so that what the Pharisees attempted at Antioch, and what the Galatians were seduced to, was only the necessity of the works of a New Law, as a sole or social righteousness with Christ's for Justification, Pro. 9.3.  
§. 7. When he disputes against Justification by Works, he means only the Works of the Law.  
Resp. He should have told us what Law the Apostles means, Moral, or Ceremonial, or New Law; or whether works of any Law whatever, which we confidently affirm, and if he make Gospel works, Law works, he disputes against them. And this proposition of his, he is large in proving with little Proof. 1 It appears, he saith, by the Apostles, wary, close and restrictive way of speaking, Rom. 3.20. The restrictiveness of that place, we have spoken to; and shown the place is positively against all works of any Law. Again, we have showed that Gal. 2.20. Is an absolute exclusion of the works of a Law, any Law, for as Mr. C. observes i 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 show, 1. That a believer of the Gentiles is blessed, i. e. Justified by Faith with faithful Abraham, ver. 9 to prove this, he argues thus; either by Faith, or by Works, not by works of a Law, any Law, for (saith he) he that is a sinner, and under a Law for Justification, is under a Curse, nor cannot come from under it by the works of it: And that you may take an instance of the Voice of any Law, take that of Moses, ver. 10. cursed is every one that abideth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them, i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Moses his Law. Because by a Law, any Law, no flesh living is justified with God, or before God, manifest, because the just shall live by faith, and shall draw the first breath of the life of Justification by faith, and live that life always by it, which is not to get life by our own works, but living by and upon the righteousness of another by faith, and thus he argues from Moses' Law to every Law, that works of neither cannot justify; and when he speaks of Moses his law, he seldom understands the mere Ceremonial Law, but the Moral also, as recognized under Moses, and that of Gal. 5.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ye are abdicated from Christ whoever of you are justified by the works of a law; in Mr. Cl's. sense it is whoever of you are justified by the works of some law only; so Paul opposeth Christ himself to the works that are of a Law, Phil. 3.9. His own righteousness, he saith, is such, viz. this he desires to be found out of, but in Christ, viz. his righteousness by Faith, which he opposeth to his own, as that which he calls the righteousness of God, in opposition to the righteousness of Man. He saith indeed in one place, Works are mentioned in general, Rom. 4.2. It's true, but he takes not Notice how often Law is mentioned in general, and so the works of a Law are general wherever 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 specific 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, etc. We must grant and conclude that Paul disputes only against the works of the Law.  
Resp. No doubt he knew his own Mind, and was consistent with himself, and if such plain Expressions are intelligible, he excludes all works of any Law what ever, but he gives his reason why he means we are justified by works, when he saith positively, we are not justified by works, and that, he that worketh not, but is ungodly. Because they were such works as did frustrate and evacuate the undertake of Christ, Rom. 4.14. Gal. 5.4.  
Resp. So do all works of a Law brought in for righteousness, for if the great End of Christ's undertaking, was to be our Justifying-righteousness, than any works brought into the room thereof frustrate Christ's righteousness, but that was the chief End of Christ's undertaking, Rom. 4.25, 2 Cor. 5.21. The words of Rom. 4.14. are, if they that be of a Law be Heirs, i. e. such as claim by the works of a Law performed by them, Faith is made Void, i. e. it's to no purpose to believe on another for righteousness, Faith is made empty of the righteousness of another, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Promise or Gospel is abdicated, for the same thing cannot be Law and Promise, or Gospel, and the reason is given, because you see the law of Moses worketh wrath, and where there's no law there's no transgression, the law determines the transgression, and the sinner to wrath for it, and this doth every law whatever. The other Scriptures were spoken to before.  
2d Reason, They are such works as he opposeth every way to faith, and also to Grace, Gal. 4.4. therefore they are not faith, or any inherent grace, Gal. 5.4. But he never opposeth faith and Gospel-Works.  
Resp. He always opposeth Faith and all Works, in the Point of Justification, because Works justify by themselves, but Faith by its Object only.  
Because Gospel-works suppose Faith, or Grace, being the fruit of Faith, and product of Grace.  
Resp. A pitiful Reason, because a man that runs apace is supposed to see, therefore a man runs by his eyes, and after this manner he applies, 1 Cor. 15.10. by the Grace of God I am what I am— and laboured more abundantly than they all; ergo, Paul was justified by works, is not this a very learned consequence?  
I grant, saith he, faith and works of the law are frequently opposed by the Apostle.  
Resp. Then faith and works of a law are not the same, in this he gives us the Cause. Let us see his Concessions further:  
I grant, saith he, a mere 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, (though 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 privileges which follow Vocation, for God justifies and glorifies us, yet not as the meritorious cause thereof, but only as a way, means and qualification, etc.  
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 inquire a little into this Mystery: Is a man effectually called and made holy, and yet not justified? for he that is made holy in order to Justification, suppose qualified and conditionated for it, is in order of Nature, holy before justified, i. e. hath the Spirit of Holiness, the Gift of Grace, and inherent righteousness, whilst a child of wrath, and actually under the curse of the law. 2. All Justification for Holiness, because it is the work of a law, is meritorious righteousness; for there's no law justifies but because the performance of the condition deserves it in Justice. Hence all Qualifications and Means made legally, conditionally to the remunerative part of the Law are deserving thereof, and meritorious, and undeniably so; for if the absence of the Qualification and the Means, or Non-performance of the Condition, doth merit or deserve the Wages of the Sin from the Law, enjoining the said Qualifications or Conditions, then having, and performance thereof, doth upon the same Reason merit and deserve the Reward of Righteousness; but the Antecedent is true, therefore the Consequent.  
§. 9 He proceeds with Confidence. 2dly. I do absolutely deny, that a true, Gospel justifying Faith, and Gospel-Works, are ever opposed to one another, and do confidently affirm the contrary, because I have examined all Places where Faith and Works are mentioned, and do not find them, if any affirm, let him prove it.  
R. Mr. Cl's Confidence is no Proof, and his searching the Scriptures, and not finding so plain a Truth, as that Justification by Faith, is opposed to Justification by Works; argues, but judicial blindness, whereby God hath hardened 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, through the Gift of Grace, and Fruits of Faith, as they are Fruits of Christ's Righteousness, believed in to Justification; and no cause of Justification in the least, neither doth the Believer claim Justification thereby, and hence called Gospel-Works; but if he claim Justification by them, they are Works and opposed to Faith, but lose the Name of Gospel, are Legal, dross and dung, and stink in the Nostrils of God, neither are any such Works the gracious Gifts of the Spirit, or true Faith or the good Fruit of it. For such seek Righteousness as it were, by the Works of the Law, and obtain it not.  
3. Now whereas Mr. Cl. here throws down his Gauntlet in an Ambiguous manner, we take it up in the true State of the Difference, and confidently affirm, that Justification by Faith is positively opposed by the Apostle Paul to Justification by any Works of a Law whatever performed by us, the proving of which is the drift of this whole Dispute as now managed.  
4. He saith, there was no Coutroversie about any other Works, but the Works of the Law.  
Resp. There was no Controversy about any Works, but the Works of a Law, no more is there now, Gal. 5.4. The Apostle saith, They are abdicated from Christ, and fallen from Grace, that are justified by a Law; so say we.  
§. 10. Proposition 4. This Law was the whole Body of the Mosaical Law, consisting of precepts Moral, Ceremonial, and Judicial; what he saith, under this proposition, about the acceptation of the term Law, I think will not hold all of it with his other Doctrine, for he saith its taken. 1. For any written Declaration or Revelation of the Will of God concerning our Duty. 2. It's frequently taken for the Moral Law, as Rom. 7.12. and Ch. 3.31. Mat. 5.17. Luke 16.17. 3. It's used Indefinitely, for the whole Body of the Law given to Moses, and therefore he mentions it in such general Terms.  
R. Because Law is used in so many Senses in Scripture, and those that would introduce Justification by Works are apt to slip from one Law to another, and say, as Mr. Cl. doth, that though the Apostle deny Justification by one Law, yet he intends Justification by Works of another Law; therefore the Apostle excludes our Works of any Law whatever, as frequently in his Epistles as hath been showed, so in that express and plain Place, Gal. 3.21. If there had been a Law given which could have given Life, verily Righteousness should have been by the Law? And why is it spoken? It's spoken as a Reason, that the Law of Moses, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was not against the Promise; i. e. against Justification by the Promise and Gift of Righteousness, no, the Law of Moses taken together was so far from being against this way of Justification without the Works of a Law, that it witnessed to it, as the Apostle expressly speaks, Rom. 3.21. It did not appropriate the Grace of the Promise to itself, but by the whole Tenor of it witnessed to the Promise and Righteousness. The Law of Moses taken as a Law, did justify none, Gal. 3.11. For saith the Apostle, the Law (i. e. as such) is not of Faith, ver. 12. The Condition of it being Works, and therefore Justification by the Law is not Justification by Faith, the Apostle saying further, ver. 18. If the Inheritance be of a Law, than no more of Promise. ver. 19 For what end served the Law given by Moses? Answ. It was added, because of Transgression, till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made, i. e. Christ, but why? added for two Ends. 1. That Sin might be distinctly known by the Moral Part, as the Apostle by the Knowledge of Sin. 2. That by the Ceremonial Law there might be a Typical Redemption and Satisfaction held forth unto them, through which they might have a sight of Faith, and of the true Sacrifice held forth unto them.  
§. 11. Proposition 5. The Law was looked upon by the Carnal Jews as a Covenant of Werks, Mat. 19.16. Granting that it was; yet not to be fulfilled by a perfect Obedience, but by imperfect, as appears by his Words, What good thing shall I do that I may inherit Eternal Life? As much as to say, I have done Good and Evil, I would know what that good thing is whereby I may be righteous to Life Eternal. He depreciates the Law calling it a Ministration of Death and Condemnation, 2 Cor. 3.7, 9 It was the true Sense of the Apostle, that the Law of Moses or any other Commands of God, understood used, and applied as a Law for Justification by the Works of it, is a Ministration of Death, and not of Faith, and as a Ceremonial Law, which Heb. 6.19. is made nothing and by itself perfect, it being Typical, and the Type absolutely considered, could not purify them as to Conscience. The Apostle saith, it was weak through our weakness, Rom. 8.3. We being not able to come to the Terms of this, nor of any other; and Rom. 6.14. saith we, i. e. Believers are not under a Law, but under Grace for Justification, as much as to say, you take the Doctrine of Grace to be a licentious Doctrine but believe it, it's the legal Doctrine that leads to Sin, not the Doctrine of Grace; besides the Apostle shows plainly, that to look for Justification by the Law of Moses, or of any other is to be Married to it, which he shows 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 Sense of the Nature of it Dead to it, it becomes Dead to us; Now we are delivered from the Law, that being Dead wherein we were held, and there's no other Husband comes in the room of the Dead Law, no new Law, but Christ only. And the Opposition (saith Mr. Cl.) is only between the Law of Works and the Law of Faith, if he make the Law of Faith to be a Law of Works than it's 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 any where of a new Law or the Works of it? No he speaks of the Law of Faith. Let us see then what is in that Expression, Rom. 3.27, 28.  
§. 12. The Apostle having told us, how we are Justified freely by Grace, who are Sinners in all respects, ver. 24, 25, 26. Infers, elegantly where is boasting then? i. e. Of our own Righteousness, saith its shut quite out a Doors. By what Law? doth any Law shut out boasting? No saith the Apostle, doth not Works? Nay, they cause boasting what Law then? Such a Law, if you will have a Law, as the Nature of Faith, it's in the very Nature of Faith to shut out Works; therefore we conclude, that we are justified by Faith without the Works of a Law; is not Justification by Faith and Works here plainly opposed? Now that Law is taken for the Nature of a Thing, many Instances might be given, but for the present take Rom. 7.23. so Rom. 8.2. The Law, is the Nature of the Spirit of Life that is in Christ. Let us see what Sense it will be in the Neonomian Interpretation, where is boasting then? it is excluded, by what Law? Works, i. e. the Old Law of Works, nay; but by the Works of the New Law Work, excludes boasting of Works, boasting is excluded not by the Law of Works, but by the Law of Works; therefore we conclude, that a Man is justified by Works without Works, not by some, but by other Works.  
§. 13. Proposition 6. The Works or Deeds of this Law are such as are performed by our own Strength in Obedience thereto, such as Adam had in the State of Innocency, hence called their own Righteousness, Rom. 10.3.  
R. I inquire whether giving Strength and Power to perform Works hinders them from being Works of the Law, or would it have hindered adam's had he stood, and I marvel that any Man will say, that Adam in innocency had not Strength given him by God, but whether he had or had not, it makes nothing to the Point in Hand, which is the Consideration of the Respect or Relation that Works have to the Law, which inquire not how a Man came by his Money, but whether it be Good and Current, Rom. 10.3. is falsely explained, as we shall show 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 ourselves 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 mere natural or moral Consideration without Help and Strength from God. 2. How shall Men know they have supernatural Assistance, its certain they have it not graciously, when they aim by their Duties to set up themselves for justifying Righteousness. 3. The boasting spoken of in the Places mentioned, is glorying before God sitting on a Throne of Justice dispensing it by a Law, now that Person that doth come with his own Righteousness in his own Hand, and will say here are my Works, Faith, Obedience, Repentance, Sincerity performed by me, justify me for them, or by them, this is the glorying the Apostle excludes, and Faith always excludes, and the Apostle saith, Gods giving the Reward upon these Terms is paying of a Debt, and not of Grace, for whatever is demandable upon our own Performances in a way of Justice is not of Grace. The Apostle to Eph. 2. speaks v. 7. of God showing forth the Riches of his Grace in Justification (as appears by foregoing Context) of vile miserable Sinners, and saith, it's in his kindness to us through Christ, and then v. 8. gives the Reason, For by Grace are we saved (Justification being an eminent part of Salvation) through Faith (receiving that Justification and Salvation) now lest any one should call this Faith, Works, as the Neonomians do, he positively excludes all Works, and not of Works, not through Faith as a Work, and lest any one should say, he is beholding only to himself for his Faith; he tells us, it's a Gift of God, and its a Gift of Sanctification not of Justification as appears by the Text, that's only the Object of Faith, the Righteousness of Christ.  
§. 15. Proposition 8. These Works [viz. of the Old Law] are meritorious, implied in that Description, Rom. 10.5.  
Resp. The Description the Apostle gives there of Legal Works is such as belongs to all Law-works, for there's no Law that enjoins personal Obedience for the Condition, let it be more or less, but it makes the said Obedience meritorious, and the promised Reward a Debt, Rom. 4.4. and this Merit belongs not only to the Law of Works at first, but to all Works of any Law for Justification, these are the Works a Man may boast of, tho' he receive them as Gift from another, for if a Man gives the Grace of God in Works, in payment to the Law of God, he pays God you will say in his own Coin, 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 itself 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, God's Ordination of thing as to the End, and Means, doth not always make it a Law of Sanction, God hath ordained to give Faith, to give the Spirit, to give the Relation of Children. Doth God give them in a Law, Do this and live?  
§. 16. Proposition 9 These Works are perfect and unsinning Works.  
Resp. This is a great Mistake, that God hath brought in sinning Works for Justification, instead of perfect Works. 1. God never made a Law where sinning Works, 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 Work is rewarded as meritorious, and its perfect as to the Law, that it is to be righteous in the Sense 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 Works of the Old Law, than for the Ejection of the Works of the New Law out of Justification. Hence we see the pretence of casting out the Works 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 Works of any Law do, when Justification is pleaded for thereby, they are meritorious, when the Works of any Law are so, or they are unsinning and perfect, when the Works, 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 many Sacrifices for Sin, should think they could yield perfect Obedience to the Law of God. That of Luke 16. proves not his Assertion, for Christ speaks only of the Justification before Men by their external Actions, and he shows that neither their external nor internal would justify 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 men's own Righteousness, and trusting to it. What doth a Neonomian do less than 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 looked more like a Justified Person, because he renounced his own Righteousness, 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 chiefest part whereof, was the Levitical Priesthood and Sacrifices, they could not but know that the very Highpriest 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 Neonomians 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 opposition 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 unregeneracy.  
3. They looked to the Opus operatum in all Obedience to Moses his Law, for because, 1. They looked for forgiveness by the Offering up of Sin Offering, merely 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 Christ's, 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 unregeneracy, 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 therefore cast it off, but was wholly taken up with a New-Law righteousness, imperfect, and that God would accept this to Justification; but when he came to see the true law, and what righteousness he must be justified by, or perish eternally, then sin revived, than 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 myself, 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 Judgement 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 actions are condemned by men, and there's none that doth 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 testify 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 Judgement of God, as to his ways and works, to be such wherein he is Evangelically, thro' Christ, approved of God, as such as are regular, sincere, and from a true Principle, renouncing Justification thereby, but desiring to walk in all wellpleasing 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 unfairly made as to the Terms, whereas, Justifying-Faith and Gospel-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 dissentaneous 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 distinguishing 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 acceptation of faith and works in Justification, they are opposed expressly, 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 Justification, than 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 intent 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: It's 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 probable conclusion, seeing he just before had mentioned the Law of Faith, by which might be understood only the Nature and Ordination 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 affirmed of the Subject, and the other absolutely denied, a Man cannot be justified by Faith in the Apostles sense, and by Works at once; but if Faith justify 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 nonsense.  
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, It's the Law, Nature and Ordination of Faith to exclude Works, or itself as a Work, yea. Faith becomes useless in Justification, it's abdicated from Justification, 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 Justification; 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 itself; as such it comes to Christ, and for his righteousness, naked and empty; it's not true faith unless it be so, unless it take Christ only for himself, and his righteousness 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 Justification of Abraham it was so, and is so in every Believer, according to the Apostle, for Justification cannot be there by faith as a work, for than it were false to say, righteousness is imputed to him that worketh not, viz. for Justification; for if faith justifieth as a work, than God justifieth him that worketh.  
Arg. 4. If faith and works in the point of Justification evacuate one another, than they are opposed, but faith and works do thus evacuate each other, Ergo, etc. 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, faith is evacuated, and the promise abdicated; for faith making itself a work, is felo de se, and throws off the free promise, and takes the reward as Debt, and not of Grace.  
§. 21. Arg. 5. That which is not of faith in Justification, is opposed 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 Justification 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 it's 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 believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ (now lest any should say, this faith in Christ is a work of the new law) he saith, and not by the works of a law, for in thy sight shall no flesh living be justified by them. Now I pray, were any saved under the Old Testament, they will say presently, yes, by the works of the New Law; nay, but the Spirit of God saith positively, no flesh living was ever justified, no not by a new law. Will 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 men's sense: No, he saith, to prevent all mistakes in this kind, not by the work of a law, and he proves it: And he adds, for Conviction of Peter of his Error in complying with the Judaizing Christians, if we, i. e. you and I, seek to be justified by Christ, we are worse, are found transgressors, by endeavouring by our practice to build People up in Justification by their own righteousness, the works of a law, which we have destroyed by our Ministry.  
§. 22. Arg. 7. The opposition is full, Rom. 2.20, 21, 22. where the righteousness of a law is directly opposed to the righteousness of faith as two righteousnesses opposite in Justification; there is an opposition: But in the Justification of a sinner, the righteousness of faith and works are so opposed in the said place for by the righteousness of a law, he said, shall no flesh living be justified in the sight of God, he should have added his exception, if he had intended men were to be justified by the righteousness of the new law, and his reason is, that by a law is the knowledge of sin. i e. conviction of sin, but no remedy; for the law only makes a sinner guilty before God and his own Conscience; but how then justified? Answ. It is by another righteousness (the gift of God) which we have not performed, but which is received by faith, therefore called the righteousness of God which is by faith, [without our law-performances] but the righteousness of Christ who fulfilled the law, this is that which is in and upon every Believer; But, saith Mr. Cl. I infer, we are not justified by the active righteousness of Christ (p. 46.) or his obedience to the law of works imputed to us— for then we are justified by the law or Covenant of works, etc.  
Resp. The same inference will hold if only the passive obedience of Christ be imputed; for what was that but fulfilling the Covenant of Works in Satisfaction. All that Christ did or suffered was obedience to the Covenant of Works, and his righteousness is justifying to us before God in foro legis, the difference of Law and Gospel lying here, in the Covenant of Grace, That our righteousness for Justification is not of our own performance of obedience to the law, for that is legal only; but our Gospel-righteousness is Christ's perfect performance of the most legal righteousness, and this freely bestowed on us, and received by faith.   

CHAP. XII. Of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness.  
Section 1. Mr. H. insists on Justification by Works. §. 2. He saith, the Imputation of Christ's righteousness is not found in Scripture. §. 3. His Third Argument against Imputation of Christ's Righteousness. §. 4. Of Imputation of Christ's passive Obedience. §. 5. How far his Argument agrees with Socinus. §. 6. He seeks to avoid the Socinian Rock. §. 7. Active and passive Obedience of Christ imputed. §. 8. His further inference. §. 9 Christ came to procure a New Law. §. 10. Of the Protestant's Appeal.  
Sect. 1. I Shall here take Mr. H. in hand, because I find he is most positive in the denial of it upon all accounts, only he tells us of imputation of effects, which are not imputable, and besides is a total denial of Imputation of Christ's Righteousness itself. His Arguments are 1. Taken from the places of Scripture that seem to evince the imputation of our own righteousness to us for Justification. What he saith of boasting and merit hath been spoken to already, the latter he doth after many Good Morrows, in a manner grant, whereby his Doctrine is eradicated by the Apostle, He tells us, the large extent of Christ's righteousness to all the world in procurement of a law of Grace, which Doctrine I have showed the absurdity and vanity of elsewhere. It is manifest in Scripture (Mediocr. p. 20.) that good works, holy duties, and performances are accepted of God and rewarded.  
Resp. It is true, but acceptation of good works doth not prove justification of their persons by them, nor the rewarding them; for Abel's person being justified by faith, his services were also accepted in the same righteousness he was justified by, and rewarded graciously in Christ; yea, his works were witnessed to by God before the World; but such approbation of works as the fruits of faith, is not Justification in God's sight, in the strict eye of his Justice. That place of Matth. 19.17. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments, where Christ answers him according to the true tenor of his question, which was, what good may I do that I may inherit eternal life? Mr. H. and Mr. Cl. must needs say, that he sought for righteousness by an old-law righteousness, which doth appear by Christ's Answer and his Reply. Indeed the whole of Christ's Discourse seems clearly to evince that Christ confuted his Confidence in his own righteousness, and convinced him of it, because Christ gave him a Command that put him to the nonplus, and sent him away sorrowful, and therefore is no proof of Justification, for he was not justified The Apostle, Rom. 2.7. speaks after the tenor of the Covenant of Works, which requires perseverance in good works, not at all of works or doing, as justifying righteousness; that of 2 Tim. 4.7, 8. speaks of God's 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, etc. it holds only God's owning and declaring the acceptance of the works and services of the Saints, as performed by faith in Christ alone for the accepting their Persons and Services; besides, it appears sufficiently by the context they never brought their works to account for Justification. He brings in also Ezek. 18.26, 27. which is as little to the purpose. The Lord there answers a charge the People had against him, in not dealing uprightly, equally and justly with them, v. 25. which the Lord answers, That 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 righteousness you shall be tried by it, yea, I will deal not only righteously 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 show 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 lie 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 Promise, chap 36.25, 26, 27. where both are said to be of God, and not of ourselves. He allegeth 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 Covenant of Grace, when it's 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 question, 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 rote, not minding the Text, he says there's another Text, but names not where, but it's applied to the matter in hand, Gal. 3.11. the very reciting whereof will be answer enough to him. The Apostle was proving, a man is not justified by the works of the law, [perfectly or imperfectly performed] is evident, for the just shall live by faith, i. e. he that is righteous, is righteous by the righteousness 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 Christ's righteousness is not found in Scripture. So saith Mr. Cl.  
Resp. That imputation of righteousness is found in Scripture, 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 it's said to be accounted for righteousness, or wherever we are said to be accounted righteous, it's to be understood objectively, and put for the righteousness that it does eye and lay hold upon. But 2dly, Is not Christ's righteousness said in Scripture to be imputed to us? let us a little examine Scripture: First, whether it's not in Rom. 4. where Imputation is often mentioned. 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, therefore 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 it's 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 Abraham received, embracing the promises, viz. believing on him that justifies, and on the righteousness of Christ by which we are justified; 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 Christ's righteousness, the Apostle asserting here and Gal. 3. that the Gentiles should be justified 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 Christ's shedding his blood is his righteousness, and we cannot be justified by it unless it be imputed to us, and if any thing else be imputed, than not that; if Mr. Humph. will say, its effective only, its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 Sinner.  
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 itself) it must be the righteousness of his active or passive obedience, or both, But it's 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 imputation of his passive, as he doth: But the consequent follows not, for the Imputation of Christ's active obedience, is upon supposal that the Law of God is not, nor cannot be perfectly kept by us; for if we were perfect in ourselves, 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 Christ's active obedience supposeth us to be sinners in ourselves. 2. As Christ was the Second Adam, and made under the law in all respects for us, so he was to come under it for us as to active obedience, and to answer that way as well as the other, for it was needful that he fulfil all righteousness for us; and the first and chief thing the Law required, was active obedience; the Law is not satisfied without a performance of the righteousness which it requires; there must be therefore a fulfilling of the Law as to active obedience, else the righteousness, of Christ is lame and imperfect. It's true, if the righteousness imputed were inherent, according to the Neonomian Doctrine, than the inference might hold; if we are imputed righteous for our internal righteousness, that would bring us under this consequence; but our Imputation is of the active righteousness of another, which makes us complete 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 looked upon in this righteousness as such as have committed no sin. I hope Mr. H. will not say, that the righteousness of the new law is not active obedience: I say, is it imputed or not? if imputed, the consequence follows, but to see the baseness of these men, to draw odious consequences upon the Mystery of Christ, when the same would follow with much more odium upon their own Doctrine that they set up against Christ, their active obedience must be imputed to them for righteousness, but Christ's must not be imputed to us. They say then, what need would there be of Christ's Death? We say, as much as there is of paying the wages of sin where the law is actually broken: The law requires two things, 1. The death of the sinner. 2. The obedience of the sinner to the preceptive part of the law, both which Christ hath performed, and a Believer in him, as his Representative, Priest and Surety; and whereas he saith we must be looked upon as such as have committed no sin; we must not be looked upon as such by ourselves; but there is no true Believer but is looked upon by God in foro Justitiae, as if he had committed no sin; for if our sins stand in the light of God's Countenance, in the eye of his Justice, we must needs be odious to him, whence is it then that the sins of God's 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 Christ's passive obedience be imputed, then must we look on ourselves as such who in Christ have suffered and satisfied the law, and born the curse of it, and then how shall there be room for any pardon? a man that pays his full debt by himself or Surety cannot be forgiven by the Creditor.  
Resp. And here he would cover himself not to be seen a Socinian; we shall see how well by and by. 1. He lays it down as a gross absurdity to say, we satisfied in Christ, here and elsewhere often, to which we answer, that it is not absurd for any man to say, I paid my Debt by another, viz. a Surety, for the law looks upon it as the payment of his Debt, and he is discharged by it. 2. He makes not himself the Surety, for he ascribes the payment to the Surety, and the Debt to himself; so the words are not honouring himself, but honour to the Surety, therefore to say, Believers have satisfied the law in their Surety Christ, is giving glory to him, and a proper usual Speech. But he infers with the Socinians, that then there's no room for Pardon; indeed it is easy to see how their mouths water at a plain Denial of Christ's Satisfaction, though they do it interpretatively as much as the Socinians; you may likewise see the Design in dividing Justification and Pardon one from the other. It's true, when a righteous person is justified by his own righteousness (as in the Neonomian Justification) there's no room for Pardon, for he hath paid all his due, and by his own Money; but it is otherwise in God's Justification of a sinner.  
1. That is his Pardon, God pardons none but in Justification, we have forgiveness through the blood of Christ, though 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, etc. by a righteousness given unto them, is a pardon of them.  
3. It is the highest, noblest Pardon in the World, where sins are nailed to the Cross of Christ, when it is to the Satisfaction of Justice, as Grace, so Justice are magnified therein: A true Believer, and  sinner will not speak in the proud Socinian or Neonomian Dialect, O Lord, we thank thee not for, or expect Pardon, if Christ hath died to satisfy; 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 God's forgiving freely than Satisfaction: But Mr. H. that he might not seem to run a Tilt against Satisfaction, saith indeed. The Argument of the Socinian from Pardon against Christ's Satisfaction is not valid, but it is good against imputation of it to us, as if we had satisfied.  
Resp. And why is it not good against Satisfaction in the Socinian sense? he gives no reason, for he saith, that he that pays the full Debt by himself or Surety, there's no room for pardon; and will not Mr. H. say, that Christ hath not paid the full Debt for him; if he will, let him pay what remains, or try for Pardon for that which is not paid another way than by remission through his blood; but what do they Socinians say more; if God be satisfied where is Pardon? we say, God's Pardon is by way of Satisfaction to his Law; No, saith Mr. H. it is good against Imputation, so the Socinians hold too. I pray, did Christ satisfy at all? if he did, was it in a law-sence? if so, was it for himself, or for us? if for us, than 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, than it is accounted to us, and imputed to us, as to all the ends thereof in Law. The taking Satisfaction in Law for any offence against it for any one, is the Laws Imputation or accounting it to him for whom it is made, whether the satisfaction be given by himself who transgressed, or any one for him; therefore if Christ satisfied for us, and this Satisfaction accepted by God for us, God imputes it to us, as if we had done it ourselves, 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 ourselves.  
§. 6. Let us see how Mr. H. would avoid the Socinian Rock, he saith, Christ may have wrought with the father (or made him that satisfaction as) to procure new Terms, so that a man may be justified as a fulfiller of them, and yet need pardon for non-performance of the old.  
R. Behold the Neonomian Satisfaction! 1. He makes not Satisfaction a payment of a Debt owing to the Law by us, but only a procurement. a buying something of God, whereas Satisfaction is for a wrong done. I may purchase a thing of a person whom I never injured, or if I have the Money whereby I purchase a new thing that refers not to the injury I did before, but to the new Purchase; observe then, he makes Christ's Satisfaction only a New Purchase.  
2. This New Purchase 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 satisfy the Law, but to translate us from one Law to another, whence the old hath no more to do with us, and thus all the world are translated, therefore the Old Law is gone to all the World unsatisfied.  
3. A Man is justified on the new Terms, they being fulfilled by his own righteousness, but not pardoned on these terms by the New Law; and this is one of the greatest inconsistencies in the World, to say a man is justified by a Law, and not pardoned; how is he just in the eye of that Law that doth not free from the charge of any transgression of it, But  
3. He saith, he needs Pardon for non-performance of the old, if so, 1. The New Law is not an Act of Indemnity in respect of sins against the old; for if a man condemned by one law, be taken from under it to a new law, he is indemnified from the old, else all pretence of advantage by the said translation is gone, for he that stands under the terms of one law, condemned by it, and brought under new terms to another, come now to be liable to the lash of two Laws, whereas before he was under but one.  
2. He saith, this Pardon must be had at the Bar of the Old Law. I would know of Mr. H. how? If he saith, and will stand to it according to his own Argument, he cannot, or else he must deny Christ's 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 Satisfaction imputed are not consistent as to our Doctrine, than 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 sense, if the Old be not satisfied, 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 Man's Sins; hence Christ hath satisfied 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, than God deals with Sinners in their justification, after the tenor of the Covenant of Works; now he may assume either by taking away the Antecedent, or by taking away the Consequent, he indeed intends both, first, by taking away the Antecedent, viz. But Christ's Active and Passive Obedience is not accepted for satisfaction, therefore he doth not deal with Sinners in Justification according to the Covenant of Works, therefore Christ hath not satisfied the Covenant of Works for us, the Law lies unsatisfyed. I would know how the Pardon he speaks of is Subsequent to the New Law. Justification is had, is it by dealing with us upon the account of satisfaction to the Old Law? He suggests that it is, then pardoned Sinners are dealt with according to the Old Law, if not justified. But to have him in his Consequences, he assumes that God deals not with Sinners in Justification upon the Terms of the Old Law, or Covenant of Works. To Answer, he deals with them in Christ, according to the Terms of the Covenant of Works, but in themselves as sinners, justifying them in Christ according to the Tenor of the Covenant of Works, it is mere Grace, the Mystery of Grace is to save sinners in such a way, as may not only magnify rich Grace, but Exalt Grace, and that in the highest manner. Now the Exaltation of Justice cannot be but in the justifying a Sinner in the Eye of the strictest Law, by the highest and most acceptable Satisfaction thereof, on this account, Christ's 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 mere 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 complete Righteousness, 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 justify us without Justice? Doth not the Apostle say a sinner is justified by Grace, in and through Christ's Redemption, that God may be just? Doth not Mr. H. say Justification is an Act of Justice, again and again? Doth not this setting up our own righteousness in performance of the Condition of the New Law, make his Justification an Act of Justice, yea, and without Grace? What do these Men mean so often and positively to contradict the Scripture and themselves, to draw their dirty Inferences upon the Truth, with holding it in unrighteousness?  
§. 8. If nothing less than a Righteousness as doth Answer and satisfy the Law fully, will suffice for the sinner's Plea to flee from Condemnation, he is not judged by the Law of Grace, but by the Law of Works.  
R. The inference hath no danger in it; for 1. We know of no Judgement in freeing any from Condemnation, but a Discharge in Christ from the Law of Works, before which every Believer is discharged here and hereafter through Grace.  
2. We know of no New Law, either to quit or condemn, a Law of Grace in that sense is a Bull, Grace and a Law are directly opposite. 2. He here insinuates as if Christ's satisfaction were complete and imperfect: If nothing else will suffice for a Plea. 1. What can be better than a perfect satisfaction for a Plea. 2. Either Christ's is not perfect, or else perfect will not do, without an imperfect added to it, which indeed he means, that Christ's perfect satisfaction must have our Imperfect added, to make our Plea complete. 3. What is freeing from condemnation but Pardon of Sin? I pray, what righteousness doth a Neonomian flee to for the pardon of Sin? Do they tell us its Christ's, tho' they be justified by their own? I would know whether they esteem Christ's Righteousness full and complete for the pardon of Sin? Or do they plead for some of their pardon at the Bar of the New Law, where they are justified, and some of their pardon at the Bar of the Old Law, where they are condemned? But this imputed righteousness is a mistake of the Protestants (poor Man I pity 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 Man's 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 satisfy the Law of God, which we had broken, but to procure a Law, a remedial Law, a better Law to answer God's Ends than the First; it was a great mistake sure in Divine Wisdom to make such a Law at first as would not do. 2. It was another oversight at least that Christ did not come to procure a right law at first. 3. It's very strange that God would not afford a right law without procurement, Laws are not used to be purchased or procured; Legislators make Laws according to their pleasure, without procurement. 4. And 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, it's but by a law which requires personal obedience in fulfilling the condition; this is the Grace of the Law, and Law of Grace; a Law of Grace it is, such wherein Grace is no more Grace, and the Law is no more a Law, that indeed a law of Grace is a Contradiction in proprio adjuncto, a mere Hobgoblin. But how is these men's New Law compounded? It is, they say, of Grace and a Law; and it lies In that he hath not given new Moral Laws of life to us, other than what was contained in the old law before; but that he hath given the same precepts with indulgence.  
Answ. Well, Christ is not our Lawgiver according to purchase (for these Men make Christ to have died for himself, to make himself a Lawgiver) to devise and constitute any new Moral Precepts, but first to pluck down the old house, and then to take the broken and scattered pieces, and make a new one; he takes the Moral Materials of the old Law, cuts and hews them pretty much, makes the Duties more indifferent, the sins forbidden Venial and allowable, yea necessary, to come into the righteousness of the new law; for if the Condition be not mixed 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, etc. 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 God's Dispensation with Law and Justice, and a law to call Sin by one law Sin, and righteousness by another; the truth is, the whole Doctrine tends to deny God in his glorious Properties, and to change him into the similitude of an Ox that eateth Hay, interpretatiuè, and if God doth not act now, and at Judgement, 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 sense 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 God's 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, though a Papist and Socinian. 1. Is it a good Appeal or no for a sinner to make from the Tribunal of Justice, i. e. mere Justice, where God beholds the Sinner as he is in himself, by his most righteous law, a condemned transgressor, to the Throne of Grace (not that God hath two Thrones, Rev. 4.) but from it proceeds a Dispensation of Justice, Thundrings, Lightnings, etc. of Judicial Proceed to his enemies, and a Dispensation of Grace to his Church, (there being a Rainbow round about the Throne;) where Christ is a Highpriest, who hath satisfied the Justice of God, and pleading his Satisfaction as our Advocate and Intercessor? did not David do so, Psalm 51. 2. Is it not good Doctrine, and agreeable to the Appeal, to tell the People that nothing else but the perfect Obedience and Satisfaction of Christ imputed to them can save them: Is this to bring them back to the Tribunal of mere Justice? is not this the Throne of Grace where Justice is satisfied and appeased, where Christ the Satisfier is exalted to God's right hand to be a Prince and Saviour?  
I pray, what do Neonomians? do they first bring them to a law, suppose it were a law of Grace, as they call it, to be justified by their own righteousness; whither do they carry them then? is it not to the Tribunal of Justice to be pardoned? So that if God in Christ pardoning iniquity on the Throne of Grace, through the Shatisfaction of Christ, be the Throne of Justice divested of Grace: Why are Neonomians to be pardoned there, after they are justified at another Bar? But he is for the dividing Grace and Justice in a Sinner's Justification, as the Socinians are, or rather abandoning Justice.   

CHAP. XIII. Of the Righteousness of God.  
Section 1. Works of a Law not Gospel. §. 2. Mr. H. outdone the Papists. §. 3. The Righteousness of God what? §. 4. An offer at Faiths being our subordinate Righteousness. §. 5. Mr. Cl. and Mr. H. Sense of the Righteousness of God. §. 6. Their Reasons given and Answered. §. 7. Mr. Cl. Reasons why it is not Christ's Righteousness, 2 Cor. 5.21. §. 8. His second Reason. §. 9 A distinct Consideration of the said Texts. §. 10. Christ's Righteousness is the Righteousness of God. §. 11. §. 12. Rom. 3.21, 22. examined. §. 13. Rom. 10.3. §. 14. Mr. H. Explication of Rom. 10.4. examined. §. 15. Mr. H. Explication of 2 Cor. 5.21. Examined. And §. 16. What he further faith on the Place examined.  
§. 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 ourselves not in ourselves, for that need not to be revealed, which every Man is naturally addicted to see and know. Again, it must not be our Works in Opposition to our Works for Justification, for there is no formal Opposition between Works and Works, nor material indeed which have the same Subject, and Genns, and End; as for what he calls them by way of Difference, it will not serve, he calls some Works, Works of the Law, some Gospel-works, i. e. Works of the Law of Grace; now we have showed that there are no such Gospel-works which put in for Justification, nor doth the Spirit Work such, and being both are the Works of a Law, they differ not specifically, they are legal Works, Works of a Law performed for Justification are always Legal never Evangelical.  
§. 2. This Revealed Righteousness is in Scripture called the Righteousness of God, which the Protestants conceive to be the Righteousness of Christ without us [all but Neonomians and Quakers] i. e. the Righteousness of Christ, which is not ours by Performance but by Faith, but neither Protestants since Luther, nor Papists since Augustine, have hit the Mind of the Apostle.  
Resp. But the Scripture hath hit it long before Luther, sure then, if they were not Right, the Reformation was the Deformation in Doctrine; the Truth is, many of the Protestants were out in this Point; all our Reformation so far as I can understand Mr. H. and many Neonomians are gone, is not worth a Fig; and here indeed Mr. H. boasts again and again, that he hath outdone the Papists; and I may truly say, that he and his Father B. hath, and in this only they differ from the Papists, that they go beyond them in Self-righteousness, and in a most daring scornful Opposition to the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ.  
§. 3. The Righteousness of God and Grace opposed to Works, is nothing but the Righteousness of the Covenant of Grace accepted for Christ's sake, instead of the Covenant of Works.  
Resp. It is not Christ's Righteousness accepted for us, for that alone is the Righteousness of the Covenant of Grace, and then only God did not set up Christ to set up our Righteousness, because it was impossible for us to have any other to be justified by, that he might have the Glory of Being our Righteousness alone, but he saith, this Righteousness of ours must come instead of the Righteousness of the Covenant of Works; to which we Answer, that its impossible for us to be Justified by any Righteousness, but that which fully and exactly answers the Covenant of Works, either our own, or another's, the Righteousness of another Law cant Justify 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, than we say that Satisfaction is a sufficient Righteousness for our Justification, we look for no other Law to be justified by, nor no other Righteousness for our Justification. He proceeds, Herein are two Things comprised, the meritorious Righteousness of Christ, procuring the pardoning Covenant of Grace, and our performing the Condition, only we are to know how this Righteousness may be understood in respect to God, as it is all one with his Grace, or with respect to us as its all one upon which this Grace is vouchsafed.  
Resp. This Neonomian Cheat is always to be noted in the Point of Satisfaction, that all the Satisfaction they ascribe to Christ is only in making pay unto God for a new Purchase, they will not have Christ to have paid any Arrears or old Scores, the Law passeth away in sententiam, and we found insolvent to this perfect Law, therefore Christ buys another Law, upon that promiseth Justification upon easier Terms, not so Holy, but sinful and immoral, and therefore called the Law of Indulgence, yet justifies us upon those Terms, but yet without Pardon which we must have of the Old Law, and because we have fulfilled the New Law, God out of his Prerogative without any other Satisfaction than the forementioned procurement Pardons, for they say Satisfaction and Pardon are inconsistent as the Socinians do, and why do they say Christ's 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 Christ's purchasing a new Law, which would be madness for to claim an Imputation of to us, for that concerns us no further than a new Legal Bondage, if Christ's Righteousness be not accepted for our Justification from the Old Law, and imputable to us, it's not desirable to be imputed to us to bring us under a new Law and further Bondage. Besides, if Christ purchased this Law-making Power, it's for himself, and not for us, for they will tell you he did not Purchase the Performance of the Condition, and when they say, we are justified by our Works for the sake of Christ's 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 Lawmaker; this is all they mean, and this is the Neonomian Cheat in the great Point of Satisfaction, whereby they would by retaining the Word, only without the Sense, 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 Nonsense.  
§. 4. Mr. Cler. p. 64. tells us, He will offer his Reasons, why Faith is our subordinate Righteousness; to the First and Second we have spoken sufficiently already. The Third is, Because we frequently read of the Righteousness of Faith, which he saith is our Conformity to the Rule of the New-Law in sincere Believing and imperfect Doing; the Places he mentions are, Rom. 4.11, 13, Chap. 9.30. Chap. 10.6. Gal. 5.5. Heb. 11.5.  
Resp. The Righteousness of Faith is the Righteousness of Christ apprehended and received by Faith, for Rom. 4.11. tells us, that Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, which Righteousness of Faith Abraham had being uncircumcised, that the same righteousness may be imputed to them; and what righteousness is that? it is that through which iniquity is forgiven, and Sin covered, that it might not be imputed, and this is the righteousness that's imputed without works. Hence I argue. That that righteousness through which iniquity is forgiven, and sin covered, and is imputed without works, is the righteousness of Christ, and not ours; but the righteousness of Faith, according to the Apostle in that place, is such, as appears, v. 6, 7, 9, 10. Is there any iniquity forgiven in the New Law Righteousness? no, they say, pardon is consequent to it, it's had of the old law: Is any Sin covered by it from the Eye of God's Justice? no, they say, God sees their Sins by the old Law: Is righteousness imputed without works? no, it cannot be, because its faith as a work is imputed, v. 13. The Promise that he should be the heir of the world, was not through a law [then not through any works of a law] but through the righteousness of faith, therefore it was the the righteousness of Christ; the righteousness of a law is excluded, therefore works; and it's here also what the righteousness of faith apprehends. That of Rom. 9.31. and chap. 10.6 we shall show by and by was the righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith: The Apostle, Gal. 5.5. intends Christ's righteousness; for what should men do for the hope of that righteousness which they have in themselves; for by faith, all, saith he, are one in Christ Jesus, true faith bringing forth love, as such apprehends and waits for more and more comfort in the righteousness of Christ. That spoken of Hebrews 11.7. is the righteousness of Christ promised, the Seed of the Woman, that was the great Promise believed by the Antidiluvian Patriarches, and by the Death and Satisfaction of the Seed of the Woman promised, they believed he should break the Serpent's head; Noah became heir of this righteousness which he received and lived comfortably in the enjoyment of, by faith in the Promise.  
§. 5. Mr. Cl. brings for a further confirmation of this Argument, those places which speak of the righteousness of God, which they bring as a great Block in their way, and therefore take much pains to remove it: Mr. Cl. saith, this Phrase hath been much mistaken by many, who have been led into error thereby, and therefore he will endeavour to give the true sense of it; to this purpose also Mr. H. we will therefore very diligently mark what they say. The places are, Rom. 1.17. & 3.21, 22. & 10.3. 2 Cor. 5.22. Phil. 3.9. We say, by the righteousness of God is meant the righteousness of Christ, but these men say, it's our own inherent righteousness.  
Mr. H. saith, That our righteousness is called Gods in opposition merely to that of works; let a man do what he can by his own strength, or by God's aid he can never come to the law of works or Moses; God hath therefore been pleased to make us a new law, a law of faith, or grace, or new covenant, having lower terms, in performance whereof the sinner, in respect of the law, may be righteous, it's a righteousness performed by Grace, which God mercifully condescends to accept instead of that which is perfect, through the merits of our Saviour, and in regard of that acceptation (N. B.) or this good will it's called his, or the righteousness which is of him. Lo here is the true Key which opens the Mind of the Apostle, therefore Mr. H. takes it to be the new-law-righteousness which in these places is called the righteousness of God, because opposed to the old-law-righteousness, because also wrought of God.  
Mr. Cl's resolution is in a manner the same, That the imperfect new-law-righteousness is the righteousness of God because it is of his Institution; as for perfect obedience to the law, (which is legal righteousness) that is righteousness in the strictest sense, and in strict justice can be taken for no other, and therefore the reward must be debt: But that an imperfect work, such as Faith and Obedience should be accounted righteousness, must arise from the gracious Appointment, Designation and Ordination of God, who hath set up this Way and Method of becoming righteous under the Gospel; and hence it's said, reckoned, accounted, imputed for righteousness, which Phrase imports Grace and Favour, as some note.  
§. 6. Mr. Cl's. reasons for his Opinion, are 1. Because the Phrase of submitting to the righteousness (Rom. 10.3.) of God seems to import, that this is a new law, institution or way naturally we are not acquainted with.  
Resp. The Text runs quite against him, being ignorant of the righteousness of God; how doth that appear? seeking to establish their own righteousness, they submitted not to [yielded not to accept of] the righteousness of God.  
1. God's righteousness and man's are here directly opposed to each others.  
2. It is directly against Mr. Cl's reason, in that man need not be taught to set up his own righteousness, they naturally adhere to it.  
3. They 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. sense, being ignorant of an imperfect righteousness of their own performing, going about to establish a righteousness of their own performing, they submitted not to a righteousness of their own performing, which is God's righteousness; besides, it's not sense to say, a man submits or not to that which is his own righteousness, but it is to say, he submits to take the righteousness of another.  
2. As the righteousness of the law is that which the law requires, Rom. 2.26. so this righteousness of God is that which God requires under the Gospel.  
Resp. 1. The righteousness both under the Law and Gospel is the righteousness of God; what the law requires, God by the law requires, and indeed God requires but one righteousness under the Law and Gospel, and there's the righteousness of the law, and the strictest righteousness; and if there must be a distinction between the righteousness of the Law and Gospel, as our Neonomians make, it's most proper to call the perfect righteousness of the law, God's righteousness, it being his more than an imperfect, sinful righteousness, which would be very dishonourable to him to be called his; But Christ's righteousness is Legal, in that it answers the Law and Gospel unto the Sinner, because it answers it for him, and his peace with God is made thereby.  
3. As the Sacrament of the Supper is called the Lord's Supper, because it's his Institution, and the Lord's Day because his Designation.  
Answer, The Supper is not called the Lord's Supper, only because it's his Institution, but because our Lord's Body and Blood is showed forth therein to be the righteousness of God for our Justification. Neither is the Lord's Day so called from his Design of it, but because it is to remember the resurrection of our Lord, who risen for our Justification, having accomplished justifying righteousness for us. 4. It's opposed to their own righteousness, Rom. 10.3. therefore not any righteousness of their own, as is already showed, supra, from Rom. 10.3.  
§. 7. Next let us see how Mr. Cl. will prove that it's not the righteousness of Christ that's meant by the righteousness of God in the aforesaid places; he saith it cannot be for these reasons, p. 33. 1. Because the Apostle here distinguisheth, 2 Cor. 5.21. between God and Christ, the righteousness of God is one thing, and being in Christ another; whereas, if they were all one, the sense would be, that we might be made the righteousness of Christ in Christ: And p. 65. The Apostle also, in most places where he mentions it, distinguisheth between God and Christ, Rom. 3.22. Phil. 3.9.  
Resp. This Reason is so frivolous, that it needs little answer, There is no distinction at all in respect of righteousness, but an exact account thereof, that the righteousness of God, which the Apostle speaks of Christ, that which is in Christ, that the righteousness of God in Christ is that which is imputed to us; we need not look far to the meaning of the Apostle in the Phrase, it's but in verse 19 God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing unto them their trespasses, i. e. in the righteousness of Christ God was working out reconciliation, and non-imputation of sin, and if so, imputation of Christ's righteousness, and he saith, if the righteousness were one, it's that they might be made the righteousness of Christ in Christ; but I pray, why may not Christ's righteousness be called the righteousness of God, as well as our own, because they say, our own was God's Institution: Is it ours, God's and ours too? and Christ's righteousness may not be God's and Christ's too; but this reasoning is very absurd, more of this as we proceed; and as for the other places, we shall come to them by and by.  
§. 8. P. 65. Reason 2. He always calls it, the righteousness of God, and never the righteousness of Christ.  
Resp. Mr. Cl. himself saith, it cannot be understood of that righteousness which is inherent in God, p. 33. I suppose he means of the Attribute of God's Justice, because its something revealed in the Gospel, and he speaks true in it, but why may not the redeeming righteousness of Christ be called the righteousness of God?  
1. Because it was the righteousness of the Person who is God, and Acts 20.28. God is said to purchase his Church with his own blood, by a communication of Properties; But 2. Why may not Christ's righteousness be called the righteousness of God for the same reason that you say our righteousness is so called, because it is the way and method through which he hath designed to justify us, Christ saith, he is the way, and if so, than the instituted and ordained way; now if this interpretation of the Text will serve for them, why not for us? I am sure the righteousness we plead for is the most deserving.  
Reason 3. He calls it, The righteousness which is of God, not which is in God or Christ.  
Resp. According to Mr. Cl. it's not the Attribute of God's righteousness, but it's the work of righteousness wrought by God in the Person of his Son, therefore its properest to express it as the Apostle, of God, and it's often enough said in Christ, therefore it's not true. I find not any thing said further, by either of them, to support this Notion. Mr. H. talks here and there, in divers places about it, but the substance of all is put together more methodically by Mr. Cl. and with more modesty.  
§. 9 It remains now, that we take the said Texts into distinct Consideration, and examine what righteousness is by them intended, which is called the righteousness of God.  
1. Rom. 1.16, 17. The Subject the Apostle treats of is, the Gospel of Christ, the glad tidings brought to Sinners of Life and Salvation in him.  
2. This he gives an account of as the reason why he is far from being ashamed of it, in receiving it for its appointed Ends, for his own Salvation, or in preaching it for those ends unto others. 1. Because it is the power of God to Salvation of every one that believes, both of Jews and Gentiles. 2. In this is the power of God in effectual Grace seen, in that its the Doctrine of Righteousness. 3. He shows its the Doctrine of righteousness by two things. 1. In that this righteousness of God is revealed in it. 2. In that its the object of a Believer's Faith from time to time, it's revealed to his first faith, and always of faith justifying afterwards, he lives upon this righteousness from time to time, as he proves from the Prophet, the just shall live by faith. Now then it's called the righteousness of God. 1. Because its a righteousness provided by God before the foundation of the World in his wise Counsels, and Covenant-Compact with the Son, as the Apostle saith expressly, 1 Pet. 1.19, 20. Christ as redeemer by his precious blood, as of a lamb without spot [this is his righteousness] who verily [i. e. really as such] was fore-ordained of God before the foundation of the world: It was then the Plot and Contrivance of God, and therefore may well be called, the righteousness of God. This Purpose and Grace to poor Sinners was first given us in the Person and Righteousness of Christ before the World began, but was manifested since, and especially at the first appearance of Christ in the flesh, actually to work out this righteousness in abolishing Death, and bringing Life and Immortality to Light in the said Gospel of Christ, which he was a Preacher of; this Head I might be large in insisting on, from other places, as Eph. 1.6, 7, 8, 9 Prov. 8 30. Heb. 10.8, 9 2. It is the Righteousness of the Person who is God, Acts 20.28. 3. It's the only righteousness that God is well pleased with a sinner for, and in which he makes his law honourable, Isa. 42.21.  
3. God hath called and anointed Christ thereto in righteousness, Isa. 42.6. i e. to answer my law and righteousness therein, and to perform the work of righteousness, the Condition of the Covenant I have given thee for, so Heb. 8.3. chap. 5.5. & 9.12.  
4. It's a Righteousness becoming the Grace of God, as the gift of righteousness, Rom. 5. and becoming the Perfect Justice and Law of God, and therefore magnifies his Law, etc. and becoming the Wisdom of God, therefore Christ is called, the Wisdom of God; and answers all the ends of God's Glory in Man's Salvation.  
5. It's the Righteousness of God, in regard of the stateliness and highness thereof, as the Trees of Lebanon were called the Trees of Jehovah, Psal. 104.16.  
6. In a way of opposition to all men's inherent righteousness, which is humane, man's righteousness only; this is God's righteousness, and be hath made Christ to be righteousness to us, 1 Cor. 1.30.  
§. 10. Now here is reason enough why Christ's Righteousness should be called the righteousness of God, and that its plainly so intended in the Text appears.  
1. Because its a revealed righteousness that Man saw not before, they can easily see their own own righteousness, without Revelation they are addicted.  
2. It's the righteousness of Christ that is the righteousness of the Gospel of Christ, the Gospel of Christ is called so, because its the preaching Christ and him crucified, 1 Cor. 3. and because it's his Gospel whereby he cometh and preacheth peace through his righteousness, Eph. 2.14, 15.  
3. It's the righteousness of Christ, because its the great object of Faith in Justification; for its absurd to say, our faith is the object of faith, it's something without a man first, that he believes upon; faith is the evidence or Hypostacy of things not seen.  
4. It's opposed to the Anger and Wrath of God revealed in the Law, v. 18. as that righteousness which answers it.  
5. The Apostle throughout this Epistle casts off, and abandons all righteousness of ours as insufficient, therefore this must be the righteousness intended.  
6. The Text is plain, that the righteousness of God is spoken of objectively, as to faith; for a thing is revealed that it may be seen, it's revealed from one act of faith to another, and it is confirmed by the words of the Prophet, the just shall live by faith, on this righteousness believing in it, and feeding upon it as their food of life, and therefore is not in themselves, but in the Gospel there as revealed; for the import of the words should be, according to those men, I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, it is the power of God to Salvation, for therein [i. e. in the Gospel preached, not in ourselves] is the righteousness of God revealed, from one act of faith to another, to be seen by it [it is not said that faith is revealed to be the righteousness of God, but the righteousness of God in the Gospel,] because it is the power of God to Salvation, is revealed to our faith, and to be that righteousness which is Gospel righteousness, therefore not in ourselves. 3. The preaching thereof, is the power of God to Salvation, and that which a believers faith lives upon.  
§. 11. The next place, Rom. 3.21, 22. The Apostle in the 9th verse saith, he proved both Jews and Gentiles under sin, viz. under the transgression of the Moral Law, as plainly appears by his Proof unto v. 19 now saith he, they are under the law in that they are convict by the law, even the whole World, by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that law, not the Ceremonial but Moral, against which all the forementioned transgressions are committed, and Gentiles, who were never under the Ceremonial Law, as well as Jews. Now, saith the Apostle, seeing that by this Moral Law the World is condemned, its impossible that any works of obedience to any law whatever should; for if any other law comes to milder terms, unless this law be rescinded, its impossible any man can be righteous before God, hence he concludes, therefore by the deeds of the law, i. e. any law, no flesh can be justified in God's sight; whatever Law men may pretend to, God will judge and try all by the Moral Law, for a sinner and transgressor of God's law, can have the knowledge of sin by it, i. e. Conviction but no Salvation by any righteousness of his performance: What then, must all the World perish therefore for want of a righteousness? No, God hath provided a righteousness, [he doth not say, God hath repealed his Law, and made a new one] the righteousness of God without a new law is evident, or made manifest in the Gospel, which is witnessed by the Law, i. e. of Moses, in the Doctrine of Sacrifices, and by the Prophets that have prophesied of Christ, v. 22. even the righteousness of God, which is by the faith of Jesus Christ, viz. the righteousness of Christ which faith lays hold on, which is by faith, i. e. which we receive by faith, for it may be said, what is this righteousness of God? saith the Apostle, it is in Christ; how have it we in Christ? by faith: Now, saith he, it's unto all, i. e. imputed unto all, and upon all, as a covering or robe of righteousness by the faith of every Believer, by the least as well as the greatest, by a Gentile Believer as well as a Jew; there's no difference in the degree of righteousness, nor in the imputation of it, nor application of it, all Believers are equally, and alike righteous in Christ's righteousness which is the righteousness of God, and the reason added, for all have sinned, and justified freely by God's 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 completely 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 righteousness 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 righteousness of God is so, ergo, the Propositions of these Syllogisms lies plainly proved in the Text. 4. If all righteousness be here peremptorily rejected, which is performed by us in obedience to any law, than the righteousness here introduced, the righteousness 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 Discourse, than God's righteousness is Christ's, but ergo, the Minor, which is the Antecedent, is proved. The redemption and propitiation of Christ is the righteousness by which we are justified, v. 24.6. That righteousness which the law of Moses witnesseth to, being 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 Gospel-Mysteries, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, being ignorant of God ' righteousness in the law, viz. the perfection thereof, and going about to establish their own imperfect righteousness unto justification, they submitted not to justification by God's righteousness, being ignorant of Christ's righteousness; for it's expressly said to be the righteousness of God, v. 4. Submitted not to the righteousness 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 righteousness; 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 justification to have some imperfect sincere obedience to Moses' 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 Moses' 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' 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, according 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 contracted 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 comers thereto perfect; and the most carnal of them reckoned themselves perfected by those sacrifices but for a time. Therefore 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 atonement 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 attained not to the righteousness of faith, because they sought their righteousness 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, Behold I lay in Zion a stumbling stone, etc. 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 Judgement and Conscience, that this is a genuine Interpretation- Here lies in the Text very fairly these two things, 1. That the righteousness of God is explained by him particularly to be the righteousness 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 righteousness 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 performed 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 it's the righteousness of faith, because it's 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 righteousness that fully answers the law. How will it hold in Mr. H's. sense, 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 faith the end of a law is righteousness, and then Christ is the end of it for another righteousness, and not his own; he should have said, believing is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Lastly, What righteousness is it to take us from under a law, or relax it, or procure that it shall not be satisfied at all, and that the offender shall be justified by another Law?  
§. 15. The next Text is, He hath made him sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. 5.21. i e. saith Mr. H. the immaculate lamb made a Sacrifice for our sins, that we may become righteous with the righteousness of God, which he accepts through him; Christ as a Sacrifice redeems us from a Law of Sin, and purchaseth for us a law of grace, according to that law we have a righteousness which is a righteousness accepted unto life through Christ. Medioc. p. 28.  
R. So that Mr. H's. meaning must be, That Christ was made Sin under the old law, that we might have righteousness by him under the new law, and that what Christ did under the old law, amounted to no righteousness to us; But he must be righteousness to us under the New Law, and then Christ was made under the New Law, which these men will deny, and be our righteousness there; no, say they, not himself be our righteousness, but procure that we should be our own righteousness; then the true meaning is here, That Christ was made Sin for us— that we should be our own righteousness; but how our righteousness in Christ's? is our righteousness Christ's? then it is that we may be made Christ's righteousness, becoming ours by Imputation: Christ being made sin for us, he glosses upon as the Socinians, i. e. Christ the immaculate Lamb was made a sacrifice for sin. It is true, Christ is expressly 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, than the sins of the People; but Christ did not only bear Sin as the Sacrifice that was slain, but as Escape Goat also, for one Type could not hold forth the fullness of Christ's Righteousness; therefore the Apostle saith, he did not only bear sin, but bore it away, Heb. 9.26, 28. Now it's a strange thing that these men should spit at this Doctrine of Christ's bearing Sin, one of late calling it Poison; another saying, he bore not our very sins, and all, that he bore only suffering for sin; I would know, how any can suffer for Sin. in Law or Justice, and not legally bear the charge of sin? And how Christ came to be a Curse, if he bore not Sin?  
2. He bore Sin because he bore the Curse of the Law, he was made a curse, doth curse come upon any but for sin? Is there any in the World but for Sin? therefore whatever subject hath the curse of the law, hath also the charge of sin, for they are inseparable.  
3. How dare any man be so audacious as to give the Spirit of God the lie, in that it hath so often and peremptorily asserted, We have gone astray— and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all, he hath caused them to meet upon him; will you say that is the punishment of us all, when the Spirit of God speaks so distinctly of punishment, v. 5. and tells us the reason, because he bore sin, he was wounded for our transgression, because sin was laid upon him, so v. 8. for the transgression of my people was he stricken, and lest you should be at a stand in this Point, about Christ's bearing sin, it's expressed again, as the reason of Christ's justifying many, v. 11. for he shall bear their iniquities. Nay, it's added the third time, and he bore the sins of many; so that Christ's bearing Sin distinct from Punishment, is no less than three times in this Chapter. It is also fully expressed in the New Testament, totidem verbis, Heb. 9.28. Christ was once offered [there's his suffering] for what? to bear the sins of many, and 1 Pet. 2.24. He his own self bore our sins in his body on the tree; and in multitude of places, in expressions that are tantamount to these; and now to say, that Christ did not bear sin, and all things that the Law calls Sin, let it be as filthy and as vile as you will (for it's so, because its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and we know he was manifest to take away all sin; now is there any thing which you call the filth of sin, is it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is it not then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the transgression of the law? if it be, Christ bore it; if he did not, than it stands yet in God's sight? and the hand-writing of the law is against you, and you are not justified; and why is Christ's Sacrifice said to be the purging of sin, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, many things might be said to show how properly it's spoken see Dr. Owen. I must for brevity sake only say, that it imports Christ's purging us by Sacrifice from all that the law of God calls filthy in sin: Then it's objected, Christ was unclean. Answ. Not morally polluted, but legally unclean, while he was under our sins, as the Sacrifices were, and therefore he suffered without the camp.  
Obj. Then the Saints have no sin, who give sufficient evidence that sin remains in them.  
Answ. The Saints are without spot before God in Point of Justification, they are justified from all sin and filthy spot in God's sight. 2. Sin remains in them, and will do in Point of Sanctification, which is not perfect in this life, but all in their sins that is a burden to them, that is odious and filthy, was laid on Christ by Imputation, or else Christ died in vain, or made not full satisfaction 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, it's not said that his righteousness might become ours, nor that we might be made his righteousness, but that we might be made the righteousness of God.  
Resp. It's said, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him, and what is the righteousness of God in him but his righteousness? in him, shows where this righteousness of God is, it's 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. It's 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 Christ's, not by his Corruption, but being imputed to him juridically; so his Righteousness is made ours in Justification before God. As he was made Sin in our sins, so we are made Righteousness, in the righteousness of God that is in him: The Phrase in him, determines expressly what the righteousness of God is, unless men will be wilfully blind to plain Truth.  
Lastly, What he saith is in uncouth Terms, he saith Christ redeemed 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 mere procurement, Satisfaction, which we have excepted against before.  
3. It's no sense 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 Christ's 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, than he hath procured the repeal of the law, than it ceaseth to be norma judicii, and what satisfied it.  
6. He hath procured a new law, what's that to the righteousness of it, which they deny to be procured by Christ? the Parliament procures an Act to pay the King Taxes, but we the People 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 Suretyship.  
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 Jehovah 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 swears, 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Acts 4.12. 2. It's 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, it's a force to the Text to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by (from or by) for its plainly in Jehovah, for in Christ is our righteousness and strength, and because here is two things named, it's no reason to say they come to us the same way, the fullness of Christ both of righteousness for Justification, by way of imputation, and strength for Sanctification: Now according to these Men, to say, in Jehovah I have righteousness, is to say, in myself I have righteousness and strength; but it denotes that the righteousness that we are justified 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 justified, and glory, they shall also give God the Glory of the strength they receive in Grace; for as Christ is made of God the righteousness, so he is made the Fountain, Head and Root of their Sanctification, and this is a special Prophecy of the latter days, when the Veil 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 righteousness, Christ Jehovah saith it should not be so when the ends of the earth came to be his inheritance, than men should renounce their own righteousness, and acknowledge Christ's righteousness alone to be their justifying righteousness, yet that all Grace and Holiness is treasured up in him. 1. It's the righteousness of God, such Paul calls so. 2. It's the righteousness of Justification. 3. It's a Righteousness of God in Christ Jehovah. 4. It's a righteousness made ours by Imputation. 5. It's the righteousness that every true Believer is justified by, for such are the Seed of Israel in the days of the Gospel. 6. It is that righteousness 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 called the Lord our Righteousness, Much of the same import with the former, 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 sense correspondent to the rest. v. That he is the Lord that doth execute Judgement and Righteousness for us; and I deny not but it may refer to a being our Righteousness in senses agreeable to Scripture, as to be the author of our righteousness.  
Mr. H. It's not appropriated to the Second Person, but to be understood of the Gospel-goodness of God, whereby he imputeth righteousness to us, when we have none according to the law of Creation— signifying that God hath found out a means to demonstrate his Justice no less fully (and his goodness more fully) in saving us by this new law through his Son's Mediation, than if we had kept our first Innocency, or underwent eternal Judgement.  
Resp. I find Mr. H. talks by rote, I suppose he did not so much as turn to Text when he wrote, for he speaks too, so absurdly, as that he manifests plain Ignorance of the Text, as to say, that it's not appropriate to the Son; and indeed all that follows, but I find Mr. H. takes his blowing upon a Place of Scripture to be enough to carry away all the Sense and Authority of it. I find Mr. Cl. hath looked 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 Prophecy, as Mr. Cl. says, belongs to Christ who is often entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Prophets; and the Prophet foretells at least the Days of his Incarnation and Exaltation, the rising up of his Glory from small unlikely and contemptible Beginnings, Isa. 53.2, 3. he is called, Isa. 11.1. a Science 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, out of the Stem of Jesse, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Branch, or Sprout out of David's 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, etc. Isa. 9.9. I deny not, but the Kingly Reign and Government is here spoken of, but this is not all that is said of him, when he is entitled the Branch, we have not only his Kingly Qualifications spoken of but his Prophetical and Priestly, Isa. 11.1, 2, 3, 4. As it's said, he should Judge in Righteousness, so it's said, Righteousness should be the girdle of his Loins, as the High-Priests; and so here he speaks not only of his Kingly Justice, but of his Priestly Righteousness; for he saith, as King he shall Reign and Prosper, so he shall Work Judgement and Righteousness in the Earth; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He shall Work Judgement and Righteousness, i. e. shall in the State of his Humiliation Work out Judgement and Righteousness, or while on Earth, and it seems to be the genuine meaning in that he had spoken of his Kingly Reign before, and immediately speaks of Judah's Salvation and Security therein, and the Reason of it should be that he should be called the Lord our Righteousness, because he should be so famous not only for Reigning Righteousness, but also for Redeeming; and it's in this respect the Righteousness of God, and then Gods in Jehovab Christ, and then ours by giving it to us, and in imputing it to us; for we find that not only the Kingly Righteousness as is ascribed to the Branch, but also a Priestly, Zech. 6.13. and what is it that shall be done by this Kingly Priest? The removal of the Iniquities of the Land in one Day, Zech. 3.9.  
§. 3. Hence we see this Branch is Jesus Christ, this Branch is set forth to be a King and Priest, He shall bear the Glory, and Rule, and be a Priest upon the Throne, Zech. 6.13. And he shall be such a Branch as to be the Stone of Israel, i. e. the Corner Stone as the Lamb, Rev. 5. with seven Eyes, and should remove and take away the Iniquity of the Land in one Day, i. e. by his Righteousness, but you say, how comes he to be our Righteousness? God makes him so, read the Text right, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not Passive in Niph, but Active, therefore it's thus, this is the Name which he shall call him, i. e. The Lord that would raise up to David a righteous Branch, as King, and Priest, a Priest of the Tribe of Judah, a Melchizedeck. This God shall put this Name upon him, the Lord our Righteousness; let us go a little further yet, and the Spirit of God will tell us the full intent and meaning of this great Name of Christ, see Jer. 33.15. And there we shall find the very same Prophecy repeated with a little Alteration, before God saith, The Day is come, that I will perform the good thing promised to the House of Israel, and the House of Judah, what's that, I will cause the Branch of Righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inde, by way of Eminency, the Branch that shall flourish in all Righteousness, Kingly and Priestly, and Israel shall be saved, etc. He shall be Jesus a Saviour of his People by Righteousness, and this is the Name by which she, i. e. Israel and Judah shall be called, the Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jehovah our Righteousness, Jehovah-zidkenu; now this Place, I find is a Noli me tangere to some Divines, let the Men that look upon the Place as so dangerous, read the Hebrew Text, and they must understand a great Gospel Mystery, that this great Name whereby the Father hath graciously as to us, and honourably as to him should be put upon the Church, sure it's to show that the Righteousness of God in Christ is put upon the Church; that she is made the Righteousness of Jehovah in Christ, and you'll say, why so great and sacred a Name on the Church, is not this the Name of God only, whose Name alone is Jehovah? Yes, Jehovah is, but Jehovah-zidkenu is Christ's and the Churches, and this is the new Name she is called by, which the Mouth of the Lord hath spoken, Isa. 62.5. but you'll say, it seems too great for the Church, and it makes Christ a Public Person, there's no doubt of the last, the Church is called Christ, being one Mystical Body with him, 1 Cor. 12.12. But seemeth it too great for the Church to be thus called? It's the new Name which the Mouth of the Lord hath given, and its a Name of a real Thing, God hath made it righteous in Christ's Righteousness, and why not as well as the Place on Mount Moriah, which Abraham called Jehovah Jireh, and it's said (saith Moses) to this Day, in the Mount the Lord will be seen, and so Moses Builds an Altar, and calls it Jehovah Nissi, the Lords my Banner. Likewise Gideon calls an Altar Jehovah Shalom, Judg. 6.24.  
§. 4. Mr. Cl. saith, that 1 Cor. 1.30. seems to have a great Affinity to this, for he is our Righteousness, and made unto us Righteousness is much alike.  
Resp. Especially when God makes him our Righteousness, and calls him so, for the Words are, Who of God is made unto us, Wisdom, etc. But he saith, Christ is not Wise and Holy in our stead, neither doth it follow then that he is Actively Righteous in our stead; but the meaning is, he is the procuring meritorious Cause, by his perfect Obedience hath satisfied the Law, and procured a new Way of Righteousness by Faith, Sanctification.  
Resp. The Words are not, Christ is Wise and Holy in our stead, but that Christ is made of God to us what he is there said to be, whether Wisdom as a Prophet to teach us, or Righteousness as a Priest, to  us with the Garment of Salvation and Robe of Righteousness; and that he is made of God to be what he is in the divers Ways and manner of Being or Conveying, what we have from him, he is our Wisdom by way of teaching, Righteousness by way of Sacrifice, Sanctification by being the Treasure of all Grace and Holiness which God bestows, he is Redemption, in that all the Promises of Inchoation and Consummation of Redemption are yea and Amen in him. But Mr. Cl. makes Righteousness and Sanctification all one, and Christ being to us all these Things one way by meriting and procuring, we have as much right to say too, that Christ is all these one Way, viz. by Imputation, because we are sure he is Righteousness to us by Imputation, but why is Active annexed to Righteousness, he might have excluded his whole Righteousness by what follows, both Active and Passive intentionally. But is not Christ righteous in our stead, when he satisfied God's Law and Justice in our stead? For what? For any wrong we had done unto the Law of God; I pray, is not that our Righteousness which is Righteousness in our stead; but these Men will have Satisfaction, and no Satisfaction, only a new Bargain or Purchase; likewise a Satisfaction, but not for us, so their Satisfaction which they will have Christ make is no Payment for us nor accounted so by God, nor any Satisfaction to him for any wrong we have done him, that which Christ hath done is a Purchase of a Righteousness; he saith, we say Righteousness is the Purchase Money, accounted to us; so that Christ is not only a Procurer and Bestower, but he hath something to procure and Purchase by, he hath something to offer, now as God hath made Christ, the satisfying Price and Ransom-mony, so he is made of God Righteousness to us; but with Mr. Cl. Righteousness and Sanctification is all one, this is hard dealing with Jehovah our Righteousness, these Men are as the Jews of Old, that would not be subject to the Righteousness of God.  
§. 5. Mr. Cl. Another is Rom. 4.6. pressed to serve this Cause. As David describes the blessedness of the Man to whom the Lord imputes Righteousness without Works; say they, the Righteousness of Christ, but its clear, it's not meant of any thing in another Person that's imputed for Righteousness, but something in a Man's self, by the whole Tenor of the Chapter, and by ver. 9 where he saith, Faith was reckoned for Righteousness; so that the Righteousness imputed here spoken of is inherent, graciously accounted Righteousness, but in strict Justice is not so, nor according to the Original Law, etc.  
Resp. This plain Place which stands a Rock against all Popish and Neonomian Attempts, he calls pressed into our Service, or Cause; no it comes in freely, it's a Volunteer, and mighty through God to cast down all their Confidence and Imaginations, where's the clearness in all this Chapter, or Psalm from whence it's taken? is it not clear for the Imputation of another's Righteousness? Is there any thing of self-righteousness? Faith is spoken of as accounted to Abraham for Righteousness, but we have shown that, that which was imputed to Abraham for Righteousness, was the Righteousness of the promised Seed; for the Gospel, which is the Doctrine of Christ's Righteousness was Preached to him in the Promise, and he by Faith saw Christ's Day of Expiation and Atonement, this he reached by Faith, and it was imputed to him not Faith itself, not the Arm that reached it, but the Righteousness itself. There's a Plain Instance in the Gospel, where what the Object of Faith doth, is ascribed by a Metonymy to Faith itself, Mat 9.21, 22. The diseased Woman touched the Hem of Christ's Garment, and was made whole, and Christ saith, Woman thy Faith hath made thee whole. And we see Mark 9.29, 30. where is the same Narrative, that Christ perceived that Virtue 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 Virtue that healed the Woman, or the Virtue 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 Virtue in the Brazen Serpent, or in their own Eyes. Let us now examine then how clear it is, that the Place is not meant of the Righteousness of another. The Apostle saith, that David describeth the righteousness of the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works.  
1. The Apostles design in the whole Chapter is to prove our Justification by a righteousness which is not made up of works of our own, and the Neonomians say, his design is to prove, Justification by works, are not these contradicentia? the Apostle, negat ubique, they say, by some works only, the Apostle means works of the old law, they the works of the new; It's strange the Apostle did not except and secure works of the new law; but I suppose, as for the works of the new law he never heard of them, thence his altum silentium about the new law and its works too. He saith David was justified, or Justification was with a righteousness without works, and yet David might plead his own works to Justification, as well as any Neonomian.  
1. He was no carnal Jew that sought Justification by the law of Works, as appears by Psal. 51.  
2. If there was any Justification then by New-Law works (as indeed there was not then or now) David sure must be under the New Law for Justification, and he must needs know the works thereof, whereby he expected to be justified; and therefore I thus argue, If David knew he was justified by works, and blessed therein, than he deals falsely, or the Apostle greatly mistakes him, in saying that David proves the blessedness of the man, etc. the consequent is of absolute necessity, and the assumption must, tollere anteced. ut tollat conseq. for they were both inspired, and therefore could not deceive themselves nor us in this great Point.  
Arg. If David proves a righteousness without his own works, either old or new-law works, than it must be works of another that he intends, for there's no righteousness without works of some or another; if he plainly mean the exclusion of his own works, than he must mean some righteousness of another, and not his own, as appears by this Psal. 31. and also 51. Now we shall prove that David means the Righteousness of Christ, and not of the New Law.  
1. That righteousness by which sin is forgiven is not New-Law righteousness, but Christ's, and without our works, but the righteousness is such here. The major is proved from the Neonomians themselves, who say, there's no forgiveness in Justification by Works, but forgiveness is consequent of it, for that they go to the old Law Bar, that the righteousness whereby sin is forgiven is the righteousness of Christ, because it's expressed by blood, remission is not without blood, and forgiveness being one Medium by which the Apostle proves Justification without works.  
2. That righteousness which covers from the eye of God's Justice in the law, is a righteousness without our works, and another's, and no● of the New Law, but such is the righteousness here spoken of,; such as covers sin from the eye of God's Justice in the Law, such covering David meant, as appears Psal. 51.9. Hid thy face from my sin, and blot out all mine iniquity; now it's such righteousness as will take off the Eye of Divine Justice from our sins, yea cancel and blot out iniquity. Now as to the major it appears by the Neonomian Doctrine, that their righteousness in Justification doth not cover sin; for they say, it's a sinful righteousness, and needs pardon, therefore their righteousness cannot cover sin, which is sinful in itself, and there can be no righteousness but Christ's that can cover sin; men's own righteousnesses are far from being such covering.  
3. That righteousness through which God imputeth not sin to any chargeable therewith is a righteousness of another, but this righteousness without works is such, Ergo. The minor is plain by the Apostle, for what the Apostle rehearseth from the Prophet, is David's description of this righteousness without works. The major is clear from what went before, no man hath righteousness enough to cover his own sin. Neither can God not impute sin where he sees sin to be more than righteousness, God must impute Sin where Sin is seen uncovered by righteousness; therefore if there be a righteousness through which God imputeth not sin, its certain it's not ours, but Christ's only.  
4. That Righteousness through which God imputeth not Sin is justifying Righteousness, and Christ's alone, but the Apostle speaks of such a Righteousness. Now the major is plain, that Christ's Righteousness is that through which God imputes not sin, for he saith, Cor. 5.9. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses.  
§. 4. And so likewise, Phil. 3.9. is of the same import [they have one answer for all] This Place should have been handled in the former Chapter, but Mr. Cl. missing it there, led me out. Here Mr. Cl. saith, Paul disclaims only his legal righteousness which he had before Conversion, not his Gospel Righteousness, viz. his Repentance, Faith, Love, Humility, etc. And it's the same thing Mr. H. saith, Med. 31. and tells us, the Protestants are mistaken in their interpretation. 1. Because the righteousness of God is not the same with the righteousness of Christ, as hath been observed.  
R. That we have disproved, and proved it a false Assertion, and proved, that the righteousness of God is the righteousness of Christ in all the forementioned places, and is as easily proved here, for the righteousness which he opposeth to his own righteousness, indefinitely, without any exception, is Christ's, that I may be found in him, in Christ, not having mine own righteousness, therefore in Christ, is another's, which righteousness of mine own working is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, legal, as all righteousness of our own by which we seek Justification is legal, it cannot in any sense be called Evangelical, therefore Paul would be found in Gospel righteousness, which is Christ's only, and this is God's righteousness which we receive by believing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
2. You are to know that this righteousness which Paul calls his own, in this Text, is the righteousness of a Jew and Pharisee, not his own as a Christian, this appeareth from the Verses before v. 4. and this appears further from Rom. 10.1, 2.  
R. The righteousness of a Jew or Pharisee was a new-law righteousness, for they were all Neonomian. Paul could not look upon himself as Perfect, but as to his moral conversation, comparatively blameless; he was sincere, for he had great zeal, and verily thought he did God good Service in persecuting the Church. But Mr. H. should have looked to the beginning of the Chapter, where he bids them beware of absolutely profane, of evil workers, that carry on mischievous Designs under fair Shows, and lastly, of the concision, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those that were so fond of their new-law Notions, so as to cast off Christ, or cut themselves off from him, but we are of the true circumcision, whereby all our fleshly Conceits are cut off, and worship God in the Spirit, rejoicing in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, a fleshly conceit of our own righteousness, in which I had more ground to rejoice than any; and accordingly he tells how exactly he had conformed to Mose's Law, and performed the condition of it as much as any Pharisee of them all, and had as much reason to expect Justification by this new imperfect righteousness as any that now do, but Christ had now taught him better things, what then I counted gain, I now count loss for Christ, I find I had nothing that advantaged while I was ignorant of Christ, and therefore I find now, that not only my Pharisaical righteousness was loss to me, but any present self-righteousness, even now at this time, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I do now esteem all things to be damage, for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, etc. and account them dung that I may gain Christ, and he tells us what he means by that, that I may be now found in him, what in respect of holiness, yea especially in respect of righteousness, not having now my own righteousness, viz. that of the works of the law, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that which is legal, for so all his righteousness that a man seeks Justification by is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is of a law, but what is the righteousness he would be found in? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that righteousness which I have by the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God, for such is that by faith, the righteousness which God giveth, and Christ hath, in whom it is, and I do receive by faith; this whole verse treats of his Justification and the righteousness thereof, and the following verses treat of the the Sanctification he looks after in Christ; and v. 9 there it's certain that Paul opposeth the righteousness of Christ not only to the righteousness of the law, but to his own righteousness in the largest consideration, any thing of his own now: What he saith to Rom. 10.1. is answered before. The Christians 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 righteousness, 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 after Conversion is here directly opposed to the righteousness of Christ, for he would not be found in his own, but this righteousness 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 holiness.  
2. There can be no Gospel-righteousness of our own that stands in competition with the righteousness of Christ for Justification, for then its legal and fleshly.  
3. A man's own righteousness, whether before or after pretended Conversion, is his own, of the same nature and kind, whatever he himself may think of it.  
4. If it was Paul's Judgement that his works was only changed from one law to another, and thought that he was now to be justified by his Gospel-Works, he was as far from the Kingdom of Heaven as before; for one law can no more justify 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 righteousness which faith lays hold on, and this is the righteousness of God, which God imputes to Justification, and the sinner receives by faith.  
6. He intends not any thing here of Sanctification in this v. but speaks singly and by itself, of it in the next; neither doth he call it his righteousness, but in this ver. sets aside all his works, though he shows 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 righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, which is against him, for no man's righteousness exceeds theirs, which stand in his own for Justification before God: It must not be our own that can, it must be Christ's 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 Repentance quite out of this life. I must tell him, I am sorry he understands Repentance no better; those that he calls Antinomian knows how to reconcile Christ's Perfections and their Duties together, I see, better than he doth, as if Christ being a perfect Second Adam, did exclude Grace from us, where it is of his fullness for righteousness and holiness that we receive and exercise 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 answer him with more mildness than he deserves. As to the exclusion 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 show 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, shows that the first was a Figure of the other, in his general nature, but after shows notwithstanding their agreement in a general nature, how greatly they differ specifically, sin entered into the World by the First Adam, by imputation of his Sin and by Propagation; so Righteousness by Imputation, 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 Public 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 Public 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 obedience; for where disobedience and obedience are set one against another, then as the one is actual sin, so the other is positive obedience; for if only passive obedience be here meant, than it should be said, as by one man's 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 Public Person, in respect of his actual obedience or disobedience to the Law of God, therefore the Second Adam must be a Public 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, etc. as such, and a High Priest is a Public 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 righteousness, 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 into 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 Conveyance, whereas the Apostle hath much more, Rom. 5.17. If by one man's 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 obedience to God for us; Interpreters generally assign two ways wherein Christ is a Surety, 1. By undertaking for God to us, or his becoming Security for God, that he should make good his Covenant to us on his part. 2. By undertaking for us to God, that we should perform the Condition of the Covenant, the first the Polonian Merchants, Grotius and Hammond are for; the Protestants generally stick to this latter, that Christ is our Surety, by undertaking for us to God; that we shall fulfil the Condition of the Covenant by yielding that obedience that is required of us therein.  
Resp. Mr. Cl. tells of the Merchants that they the Neonomians do trade with, and indeed most of their Commodities have Polonian stamps, not to treat so large as to handle all that might be said of the Suretyship of Christ, it being the very Hinge of our Salvation; though the Neomonian, as well as the Polonian Merchants make very slight of it, and Mr. H. in Particular, because he saith, it's but once used in the New Testament. I say it is therefore a Pearl of great Price, for I could Instance in several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Spirit of God hath used in the Old and New; which do express singular Truths and Mysteries not common, I shall only Note some things generally that are Truths I will stand by, as 1. That Christ is not a Metaphorical Surety, but the most proper Surety that ever was, and the Exemplar of all Sureties. 2. That the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies a Surety for Debt. 3. That is a Surety of the better Covenant, i. e. of the Covenant of Grace, not that he was a Surety of the Performance of that Covenant, but that he is the Surety in that Covenant, that is bound to pay the Debt that we own to the Justice of God in the Covenant of Works which we have broken; and he is not such a Surety, as to be bound to the Justice of God, that we should pay the Debt [the Lord have Mercy on Neonomians] but he hath undertaken to pay the whole Debt for us; every Farthing, if he had been such a Surety as Mr. Cl. speaks of; we were in a miserable Condition. I know the Neonomians do mostly incline to be with their Polonian Merchants, in Mr. Cl. first Point mentioned as to God's Suretyship 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 own to the Law of God by Adam's fall and our Sin; i. e. that we shall satisfy God's Justice for the wrong done, and that we shall perform perfect Obedience to the Law; thus much Man must pay, though a poor insolvent wretched Creature, and Christ hath engaged to see it done, but not to pay any thing of the Debt himself: And indeed I can prove this to be the true Account of their Doctrine; for they say, Christ hath procured and merited of God a new Law, whereby the old Law is relaxed or repealed (not paid or satisfied) a new one is set up, the Condition whereof we performing we shall be justified, but procured not, nor merited the Condition to be performed by us. Now I would fain know, whether Christ was a Surety for that which he never Purchased, is Christ a Surety, that we shall perform the Condition of the Covenant, and never merited Faith and Obedience, what a kind of Surety will they have Christ, to engage for our Performance, and not take care that we should have the cum quo? But Mr. Cl. seems not to be quite satisfied with this second Way. He adds a Third to mend the Matter a little, at least to put a gloss upon it, viz. 3. To discharge that Debt of Suffering, which we did owe the Law for the Transgressing of it.  
Resp. Ay Sir, now you say something, you bring a Surety with Money in his Hands, we use indeed to say, that a Man should never be bound for another, unless he resolve to pay the Debt; Christ knew well enough how Poor we should be, when he undertook this Suretyship: 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 ourselves: It may be, that which the Law is primarily and mostly concerned 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 pays some of the Debt, but lays up the Sinner in a Workhouse to pay the rest at his Finger's ends; For saith Mr. Cl. Now take it in which of these Three Ways you will, yet there's nothing of his paying the Debt of Active Obedience.  
Resp. A very sad Story indeed, a great noise of a Surety, that would pay the whole Debt of the poor Man in Prison, and when the Matter is strictly enquired into, he hath only prevailed that he should not be whipped so often in Bridewell, though agreed that he should have the Lash too pretty severely sometimes; but as for the greatest Part of the Debt he must Work it out, at least so far as a new Law of his which he hath procured and made doth require. Well, when all comes to all, here's nothing done to free the Sinner, but he must pay all the good Money by the Sweat of his Brows, for Active Obedience to the Law is indeed that which the Law sets a High value upon, being the first and main Thing that it designs and aims at; and it doth expect not only to be satisfied for Disobedience but must be obeyed, yea and it must be paid by perfect Obedience too not by imperfect: Now saith our Neonomian, Christ was no Surety to pay any of our Debt of Active Obedience; how then, hath he made no Provision in this Case? Yes truly, he hath done something that may help a little, He hath taken down the old strict Law that kept the Sinner at continual hard-work, and brought in a new easy remedying Law, than he makes choice of his own Work and business and his own Time, and work at leisure, only must have the Lash now and then, and besure that he Work when he is going to Die, and the Condition shall be performed and the Debt paid. Now I only briefly argue, if Christ was a Surety, it was to pay all our Debt in Active and Passive Obedience or none; for Christ paid not by halves, though the Passive Obedience is hardest, yet the active is hardest to do, the damned can suffer, and shall, but can pay nothing of the debt by active obedience to the preceptive part of the Law. Well, Christ was a Surety to pay all our Debt by active and passive obedience, for else his righteousness would be imperfect, the law left unsatisfied, and we most certain to perish that could never pay, there is no obedience of the Saints that satisfies the Law, Christ performed that as a Public Person in their Stead, as well as he bore the passive too, whence the payment of the Debt was full and complete; 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 men's Suretyship of Christ it is thus, Christ in his transaction with the Father agrees with him, 1. That he would pay one half of the Debt, and we should pay the other and the best half too. 2. That seeing therefore if we should grow insolvent as not to be able to make the payment of our part in currant Money according to the first Law, that he would purchase a new law, and not satisfy the old, but repeal it, and the new law should make all our Brass Money currant, and that God should take that Money for our part, and for his accepting it he becomes Surety for God to us, and thus they come to agree with the Polonian Merchants.  
§. 9 The Word used Heb. 7.22 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it signifieth, praes satisfactionibus obnoxius, one made liable to make satisfaction for another, and therefore sponsor & fide-jussor; Praes we are told was an ancient Title of a Surety being one that answered 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 appeared, num praes sit, he answered Praes' sum, which imported two things, 1. That he appeared praes sum quia prae sum, i. e. coram, I appear before you. 2. That he appeared not for himself, but for another, in his place or room, as a public Person, and Representative of the person or persons for whom he appeared; what he did he did in the person of him that was represented by him, and so owns himself either fide-jussor on his behalf, or sponsor, for that the person charged should give satisfaction, or he himself would do it; but when the person represented is apparently insolvent, and never likely to be otherwise, the Sponsor's obligation is not upon conditional terms, if the Principal do not, but he becomes bound absolutely to pay the whole Debt; Christ was thus an absolute Surety for Man insolvent to God in his Law and Justice, to pay the whole Debt due from Man to God: For it was clear to both the Father and the Son, that upon the foreseen Fall Man would be an absolute Bankrupt, and never able to pay a Farthing of the Debt; hence saith Dr. Gouge, Christ was a Surety to God for Man, of whom the Law required two things, 1. Perfect obedience to the Laws Precepts. 2. Full satisfaction for sin, both these Christ performed, Rom. 5.19. 2 Cor. 5.21. Gal. 3.13. according to whose judgement we hold the Doctrine of the Suretyship of Christ. Then from what hath been said, we may conclude. That the Suretyship of Christ doth eminently belong to his Mediatorial Office, whereby he hath absolutely engaged himself in the Covenant of Grace, to stand and appear for, to answer for us, and satisfy 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 Suretyship 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 shows, in so much that his Father constituted him Surety, by that Oath whereby he made him Priest after the Order of Melchizedeck, ver. 20, 21. And by so much, he was a better Surety and Priest than any of Old, in that God never swore that any of them should be Priests for ever after the Order of Melchizedeck. 3. It essentially belongs to his Mediators Office in making Reconciliation, as might be amply shown, if these and other Places be considered, Heb. 2.17. Eph. 2.17. Col. 1.20, 21. Rom. 5.10. 2 Cor. 5.18. 2. In that he is a Surety of the better Testament, because its that better Testament that his Mediators Office, more eminently and fully, according to the Tenor of the Covenant of Grace shines forth in, called the New Testament, Heb. 9.15. The fuller and clearer, and most lasting Revelation of Christ, where he is set as the only High priest over the House of God, and the Surety thereof, here in better Testament or New Testament, is an express Opposition to the Old Testament Dispensation, which was the Exhibition of the Covenant of Grace more legally and veiled, and under temporal Promises; and therefore the Apostle calls faulty, compare Heb. 8. with 2 Cor. 3. wherefore Christ is called the Highpriest and Surety of this better Testament, the Covenant being therein more perspicuous and manifest; wherein Christ hath his Constitution and Establishment as Surety to his Church. 3. He hath become Surety by Covenant engagement unto God, if thou shalt make thy Soul an Offering for Sin, etc. Lord I come to do thy Will, etc. 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 God's Law, therefore a Public Person. 4. He is to stand for others to represent them before God, for what Promises are made to him is to them in him; and its i e. what he doth is for them, what he engageth to pay is in their Persons and Room. 5. He promiseth absolutely to pay their Debts, and all the Debts and Demands of that Law both as to Active Obedience and Passive, both as to Obedience and Suffering, the Debt of Obedience to the Preceptive Part of the Law, and the Debt of Punishment as to the vindictive Part of the Law, and in order thereto to write himself Debtor, to bear their Sins, and to be made Sin by Imputation, and this he doth not conditionally, if they don't Pay, but absolutely knowing they could never Pay, nor upon Terms of their performing the Condition of a New Law; but by absolute Obligation to perform the Conditions of this Law which they had offended and broke, and by bearing this Sin and Curse of this Law, and reconciling them to God in respect of this Law, and that not by giving an equivalent but by paying the same, according to the true intent and meaning of the Tenor of the Law. 6. This Engagement he performed as to us in Time, but to God that dwells in Eternity, there's no Time, nor Succession; Christ was set up from Eternity, Prov. 8. as Surety, a Thousand Years are to God but as one Day, and much less, therefore Christ's Execution of his Suretyship on Earth in the Days of his Flesh was Eternally before the Lord; hence he is said to be slain from the Foundation of the World; hence the faithful before his coming had a full 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Remission of Sin through this Covenant Relation of Christ, there was not a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or passing them by for Remission, till Christ was actually Slain, but they had the Virtue of his Death as fully as we, Heb. 4.15. 7. He continues our Surety that hath paid, standing and pleading his full Satisfaction for us, therefore is our Surety now since Payment, carrying his own Blood into the Holiest of all, and there making Intercssion for us.   

CHAP. XV. More Places of Scripture Vindicated from False Glosses.  
Section 1. Of Daniel 9.24. §. 2. Of Ephes. 1.4. §. 3. 2 Cor. 5.19. examined. §. 4. Of Gal. 5.7, 8. §. 5. The Sense 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 righteousness, if Christ had not procured for us this New Law we could not be saved.  
Resp. Let us see how Mr. H's. Gloss will hold with the Text, for I am sure it holds not with the Analogy of Faith, Seventy weeks shall be distributed [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which word lies the Key of the Prophecy, 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 Margin] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to restrain transgression, i. e. by the Reformation of Ezra and Nehemiah, in the compass of these 72 Weeks, but to make an end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make an end of sins or sin-offerings, by the offering up of Christ within the 72 Weeks] and to make expiation for sin [true, not typical, and perfect Expiation by the Expiation made by the Blood of Christ] and to bring everlasting righteousness [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bring in eternal righteousness, or the righteousness of ages Lxx 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: We shall go no further in the Prophecy, This Prophecy is generally owned to belong to the first coming of Christ, and in this Verse the time is set in a mysterious manner to the coming of Christ, his offering up and erecting the Gospel Church, the Angels the Events that should fall out in this compass of time, especially toward the latter end, in the Sacrifice of Christ, wherein he should make an end of sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the abolishing Sin by the sacrifice of himself, Heb. 9.26. wherein he also finished all sin-offerings. 2. He should put it away by making atonement and Expiation, Lxx. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to blot out, and atone for transgression. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in pih. signifieth to make Expiation and Atonement by Sacrifice, even to the blotting them out, and full satisfaction to Divine Justice, for then sin is expiated when the Debt-Book is cancelled; thus the blood of the Sacrifice was sprinkled on the Book of the Law, and on all the People, so that there is plenary satisfaction in the blood of Christ, and thereby a righteousness everlasting brought in, i. e. preached, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rev. 14.6.2. Thereby revealed and made manifest, freed from the Vails and Shadows of the Old Testament, for though it was given us in Christ before the World began, and lay obscured long under the Old Testament Types, yet now was made manifest by the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath abolished Death [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nulling or abandoning death] and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel, the Apostle seeming plainly to allude to these expressions of Daniel, the bringing in of righteousness, is plainly no more than the bringing the sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ for everlasting righteousness, opposed to the righteousness of the legal Sacrifices, which was but temporary, offered every year, but this Expiation of Christ was one offering and the righteousness of Ages; or if it carry any thing distinct from preceding Events, that it be not to be understood of the passive obedience of Christ, the Spirit of God expresseth to all the fullness thereof; he adds this to signify the active obedience of Christ, which is also everlasting, and to be understood always as a compliment of that perfect righteousness of Christ.  
In Answer to Mr. H. I say, 1. Christ himself is the everlasting righteousness, it's not procured, but it's that which procures. 2. The Righteousness of Christ is here prophesied of, not the righteousness of ourselves. 3. It's the Righteousness that expiates the old transgressions, and therefore here is nothing of a New-Law spoken of. 4. Justifying righteousness is such as satisfies the Law broken, and therefore there must be at least Expiation in it. 5. It's very absurd, and contradictio in adjecto, to talk of a Law of Grace, if thereby be meant a law for Justification; and again absurd, to talk of performing the condition of a law without law. 6. How is new-law-righteousness, for it's but imperfect obedience, and therefore will be quite wiped away at death; for when things that are perfect are come, those that are imperfect are done away; you will say, it may last in a perfect righteousness, than the New Law will turn into he old; for they make imperfection to be a proper adjunct of the works of the New-Law, and appropriate to it to distinguish it from the old law. So that here they are justified by the New Law, and in Heaven by the Old Law: What a stir do these men make with the Law? and how do they shift and shirk from one law to another, swerving from Faith and Truth, to laws singly, making themselves great teachers of the laws, but understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm, I would fain know whether Daniel was justified by his own New Law righteousness? it seems he did not understand that that kind of Justification was then afoot, and its a Wonder the Angel Gabriel could come to tell him, that in a few years hence the Messiah 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 Bellyful of law shortly.  
§. 2. Mr. H. gives a wild Gloss upon Eph. 1.4. According as he hath chosen us in Christ. before the Foundation of the World; he saith, the Election of Grace is the Election of Grace, and Gods choosing us, is the taking the Way and Method of Grace, and not of Works, a choice way of saving.  
Resp. Ay indeed it's a choice way to save by Grace, and not by Works, but to save by Grace and yet by Works is a Contradiction in Paul's Logic. 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 Daylight, if you take it for the Law of Grace, the Law is the Will of the Lawgiver, 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 called Neonomian, that thus New Law it, its hard to conceive how Election is in Christ, why? Because he cannot conceive Christ to be a common Person or Head of the Elect, and that Christ as such was chosen, and the whole Body in him; but tell him, that we are chosen in the New Law, and the Difficulty is removed; and you see what he makes of the Gospel, it is the Lawgiver, I think its Time to give over talking with Men whose Wits go a Woolgathering, once more though  
§. 3. 2 Cor. 5.19. God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself, not imputing their Trespasses, and hath committed to us the Word of Reconciliation; the Word is, the Gospel declaring to the World this purchased Pardon, the Pardon is General, a standing Pardon, an Act of Grace; yet if any will have Benefit by it, he must look into the Act, and see how he is to be qualified.  
Resp. The Gospel, he saith, is the Declaration of the New Law, the making of which was an Act of general Pardon, for all the World; and for this Pardon Christ atoned, none could obtain this but Christ; and here all the Rogues and Whores in the World continuing so, are pardoned at once; now the silly Antinomian talks only of the Pardon of Believers before Faith, now a Neonomian doth Antinomize to Purpose, and Mr. H. is willing Christ shall have the Honour of saving Peter, so far as he saved Judas, and so far it's from the Love of the Father in sending his Son to fulfil the Law, how? By no Obedience to it, or Satisfaction for wrong done to him in it, and in this Sense he will allow Grace is without Condition; i. e. as much as Creation is Grace, and God's giving a Law at first; it's true, whatever Act God puts forth at first to a Created Being, in a way of Nature, or Jurisdiction, or Mercy; it may be said to proceed from his Sovereignty, but it cannot shine forth in a way of Grace, unless it be the bestowing some good Thing in a way of Speciality, Peculiarity, and in Distinction from others; not to do something in general, for all the World in common, this is not that which will bear the Name of Grace; likewise, considering that what he calls a Law of Grace is but an Exhibition of a Law of Works; for it is but, do believe; God had made the first Law as much a Law of Grace, as this, had the World been as full of People as since, and more, for it had been easier to perfect Man to perform than now, an un-performable condition is to lapsed man. This is Grace without conditions (he saith) even as much as the first Covenant; for God made that Covenant without Man's causing it, the Condition was lege constitura, in the law enacted, the previous causes of a law, whether it proceed from the mere pleasure of the Legislator, or obtained from him by Petition or Purchase, are not considered in the law by the Subject, it's the tenor of it that he looks at, and is concerned in it, therefore the making a law, the proper nature whereof is to be conditional, and promulgatting of it to all the world, is no Pardon; therefore he soon trips up the heels of his General Pardon, in saying, If any come to look for benefit by this Pardon, Act of Grace, Law, Covenant, Testament, (any thing, a declaration of the will of God, as he saith, which being a law is not therefore Grace) he must read it, and see the conditions or terms that God requires. And are not these conditions required of all the World? are they therefore pardoned because they are required of them? its required of every man (he saith) to believe, repent, walk sincerely in order to the benefit, if these be the conditions of the Covenant, than not free, because working conditions are required of all the World, which by the World are unperformable. The main of the Text he cannot see, he is so dazzled with his New Law, v. 18. All things are of God [even the reconciliation of the World, as well as its new Creation, and therefore the righteousness by which reconciliation is made, is of God, and therefore saith] reconciling us [by Expiation and Satisfaction, for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying reconciling by an Expiatory Sacrifice] to himself [the enmity was between the Sinner and God, and God in this Grace is the first mover of Reconciliation] by or in Jesus Christ [in whom the righteousness of Satisfaction is] giving to us the word of reconciliation [i. e. the Gospel in which this reconciliation is preached, whereby the Sinner seeing the preventing love of God in the mystery of Reconciliation, by the Impetration of Christ, he may have the application of this Grace also by Faith, for this is the great doctrine that reconciles the heart and brings him to believe. This he repeats v. 9 showing 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] show 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 Justification so here its manifest that it's not our own righteousness that is Imputed to Justification, but his only by which reconciliation 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 Justification 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 exclusion of all works of any law from Justification, i e. works of our own performance hath been sufficiently made to appear; what he allegeth for Paul's meaning, p. 70. may be a little spoken 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 intent 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 Galatians, 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 specify the Law and Works that he intended we are justified by. Mr. Cl. saith he did, in his specifying Love and the New Creature. Verse 6. in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by love; the Apostle had said before, as for us our expectation of righteousness is only by faith, for it's 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 eminent 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 itself, or any doing by us for that end; hence he saith, it's not any works of the circumcision, 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 shown 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 being 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 sense 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 Arguments, 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 Profession only; and further, v. 18. How, saith he, wilt thou demonstrate to another person that thou hast faith, thou sayest 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 show thee my works, whereby thou shalt conclude I have faith, and justify me and my profession 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.) will't thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead, i. e. wilt thou have demonstration of it, how dead? It is not justifying faith, and therefore not saving, for all true, saving faith is justified against all objections men can make against it. 1. He instances in Abraham, the obedience of Abraham to God was a ground of men's justification of Abraham as a true Believer, provided his action was good obedience which seemed so unnatural, wherefore God himself 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, provided his obedience were good, all men must justify 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 carrying 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 thriving and flourishing in that manner. He insists upon Abraham's again, and tells us, That the Scripture was fulfilled, [or is proved 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 righteousness, 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 sense the Apostle is speaking of, was a Justification as to his Faith, and the goodness of it in his particular 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 only [God may commend and approve of a man's works as well as his faith, for indeed it is a Justification by way of commendation and approbation of a man's 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 herself 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 without 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 Profession is empty and profitable to ourselves and others, as also dead in itself, 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 Person 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 Services 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 accompanies salvation, at large, and condemns that as false and hypocritical, 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 before God by works, but none can do so, Ergo. 2. He asserts Justification by faith before God in the instance of Abraham's faith, using the same Expression, and doth not deny this to be true Justification, 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 justifying faith hath such fruit. 3. James shows 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 performed 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 Justification 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 God's declaration 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 man's person; It is true and here it's 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 justified coram hominibus. He doth not say works were imputed to him for righteousness? But he and his works for his person, than his obedience being accepted by God in Christ, God witnesseth before men to his faith and obedience, and to his faith by owning 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 though faith without works cannot save, yet faith with works will; for Saved, and Justified, 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 it's not therefore that Saving in all respects is Justifying, for there's saving in sanctification and glorification; and though faith without it be such as in time produceth works will not save upon any account, yet it follows not that works do justify before God.  
3. He speaks of the person of Abraham being Justified, and there was a concurrence of his works with his faith in his Justification.  
R. There was in foro humano, for he could not appear unto men that he had faith but by works, if Abraham saith he is a believer and righteous before God, another man will say show me such works as will argue it to me? So Abraham shows his obedience, and his faith concurs to it for he could do such works but by Faith, and God witnesseth to them Heb. 11. coram hominibus.  
4. He rejects being Justified by Faith only.  
R. 1. He cannot be Justified by Faith that is dead and barren. 2ly, He cannot be Justified before God and man too without works. 3ly, There was not any held a man's Faith was justified by his faith but his person, and that his faith was justified to men by his outward demeanour in exercising visible graces.  
5. The reason that he coucheth in that Similitude, v. 26. shows, 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 show only what was the drift of the Apostles discourse from the 14 v. viz. to show 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 justified by works, as James saith, a man is Justified without works of the law, i. e. saith he, A man is Justified 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 itself as a qualification are works of a Law, and whereby no flesh living shall be justified, Gal. 3.11. and though the Apostle speaks of, and owns Abraham's Justification by faith before God as Paul doth Rom. 4. yet he no no where saith a person is justified 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 justified by works of faith or fruits of it before man. 2d. Pair, A man is Justified by faith, and a man is not Justified by Faith only. Reconc. A man is Justified by that faith that includes works, but not by that faith that is without works. Recon. A man is Justified by faith objectively which produceth works before God, and man is not Justified without works before man. The 3d, Pair is thus, A man is Justified by Faith and a man is Justified by Works, I reconcile thus, a man is justified by that faith which brings forth works, and a man is justified by those works.  
R. Recon. a man is justified before God by faith, a man is justified before man by works. By all which it appears that Paul and James are agreed in the nature of true Faith and Justification by it in the sight of God; but only James speaks of Justification in a larger sense, to wit, Justification in foro humano, as well as Divino, and therefore he ascribes a kind of Justification to works, so that a man cannot be Justified by Faith alone, in the largest sense, seeing he cannot be Justified before man without works. Now if he had meant as our Neonom. do, he must have ascribed all Justification to works only, for they hold our Justification by Faith to be no otherwise than as a work. Mr. Cl. seems to boast himself in expression of the Psal. 106.3. 1. concerning Phineas, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used the same root, which is used of Abraham 's Faith, Gen. 15.6. Where the thing that Abraham believed in the Promise, God Imputed to him for righteousness as the Apostle expounds Gal. 3.6.8. for he saw Christ in that Gospel preached to him as our Saviour witnesseth, and as the word there is an Active signification. It is a Passive in Niph. with the Psalm. it plainly refers to the particular Act of Phineas. It is said, that Phineas stood up and executed Judgement and the Plague was stayed, and it was reckoned to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Righteousness, for a noble righteous just Act, to all Generations, it's not said that the Lord accounted it him for the righteousness of his person before God, but God bore witness to the seasonableness and justice of the action in staying of the Plague, and such an effect being thereof, all men have since judged it a righteous just Act to all Generations. So that the word is not used impersonally but personally and passively, and the Act which he performed is the Nominative Case, neither is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used impersonally but the thing that God promises and he believes is the Nominative Case.   

CHAP. XVI. The Righteousness of Christ is the only Righteousness whereby a sinner is justified in God's sight.  
Section 1. The Transition, and Subject asserted. §. 2. Argument 1. §. 3. Arg. 2. §. 4. Arg. 3. §. 5. Arg. 4. §. 6. Arg. 5. §. 7. Arg. 6. §. 8. Arg. 7. §. 9 Arg. 8. §. 10. Arg. 9 §. 11. Arg. 10. §. 12. Arg. 11. § 13. Arg. 12. §. 14. Arg. 13. §. 15. Arg. 14. §. 16. Arg. 15.  
Sect. 1. HAving written hitherto in way of defence, against the Adversaries of our Justification by Christ's Righteousness, and having in some measure (as I trust) the mind of the Spirit, I dare not let these Adversaries pass without using the Sword of the Spirit, to the wounding their Doctrine even in its very Vitals, by home thrusts and downright blows. For the Lord Jesus Christ who is come forth upon his white Horse, with a Bow and a Crown, will not return till he hath conquered all the Enemies of this glorious Righteousness of his, and triumphed over them. I have cheerfully through 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 Christ's 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 sense, that it's not another law can excuse him from the condemnation of the law which he hath broken; nor a righteousness of another law, especially such as is imperfect and faulty, that will serve the turn. God never abandoned nor relaxed his original Law, (though others as branches in positive laws for a time being, may be) but that was perfectly fulfilled in Christ.  
§. 3. Arg. 2. That Righteousness which merits the Justification of a Sinner before God, is that righteousness only by which, and for which he is justified before God; but the Righteousness of Christ is such, Ergo. For the minor our adversaries grant it, that Christ merited and purchased our Justification, i. e. by works of our own, and that our Righteousness and Justification are effects thereof, and therefore there needs no further Proof here; but we must come to the major which pincheth hard upon them; but it appears to be true, 1. Because there is no legal Discharge of an accused person, without a meritorious righteousness appearing; Now these men, with the Socinians say (some at least, and others do but lisp at it, Mr. B. says it downright, he knowing it to be inseparable from the Popish Doctrine) that their righteousness is not meritorious, being imperfect, if it be not, it's no justifying righteousness; I will stand by it, that there is no righteousness can claim Justification but upon the merit of their action in the performance of the preceptive part, and if they be justified by the new law, they must be justified by the merits thereof; but we assert that the righteousness must answer the old law broken, and it must be, as in Justice it doth so satisfy that law, that it lays claim to Justification by virtue of those merits, and no other righteousness will pass there, but what is such.  
§. 5. Arg. 4. The righteousness typified by the Priest's Sacrifices of old, was the righteousness whereby a sinner is justifis d in the sight of God; but the righteousness of Christ a-alone is such, Ergo. For the major our adversaries, Mr. Bellarmine and Mr. H. say, that Christ's Righteousness is the thing for which id propter quod, not as the End but as an Instrument of the Efficient, and a meritorious cause, and our Faith and Obedience is the per quam, which they say doth not denote Merit, and in the Protestant sense per quam denotes only instrumentality; but indeed here's these men's 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 God's sight. 1. i. e. The righteousness by which we are justified, is not two, but one, and Christ's 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, promisevously in this case, as hath in part been showed. 4. No Sinner therefore can stand in Judgement, but by and for this Righteousness of Christ.  
§. 5. Arg. 4. The Righteousness typified by the Priestly Sacrifices of old, was the righteousness whereby a sinner is justified in the sight of God, but this was the Righteousness of Christ only, Ergo. The major and minor are so clear that no Christian that hath read the Scripture with any understanding, can deny either; if any shall say, it's not easy to defend it, there's the whole Epistle to the Hebrews, yea, the whole Scripture to prove them; all the Devils in Hell cannot cast down this Fortress, and I leave it therefore to the intelligent Reader, let him search the Scriptures, they testify of it.  
§. 6. Arg. 5. That Righteousness which is a ransoming and redeeming righteousness from a legal Bondage is the justifying righteousness of a sinner before God, but Christ's Righteousness is that alone which is a redeeming and ransoming righteousness, Ergo. The minor is true, none that call themselves Christians dare to fly so audaciously in the face of Christ, and deny plain Scripture, to deny this, if they do, there's enough to prove it, to the meanest Christian; The major therefore, I will prove beyond all contradiction; That righteousness which meritoriously dischargeth the sinner from his Bondage under the Law, the condemnation and curse of it, is justifying Righteousness; but Christ's 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 justify a Sinner against the Law, is the Righteousness whereby a Sinner is Justified in the sight of God, but Christ's Righteousness is such. Ergo, I suppose the major is undeniable, except men will cavil at the Sun at noon day, and will any have the face to say, as to the minor, 1. That God hath not purer Eyes of Justice than to behold Iniquity, 2. That he exerciseth justice by halves and not in the strictest and exactest manner, 3. Will they say their righteousness is so perfect, as to answer God's Law? The Neonomians say no. How will they dare to say then they are justified by a Righteousness which is not answerable in perfection to the Law, but they will be justified by another Righteousness the worst they can think of by a Law coined adequate to Antinomian and licentious Principles? 4. A Sinners unrighteousness is such, that the Law could never look upon him for to be righteous 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 though glorified with Perfection, yet having been sinners and transgressors of the Law, they could not stand Justified out of Christ's righteousness, It is one thing to have perfection of Sanctification as to the present standing and performances, and another thing to have perfection of Justification, wherein the least believer here on Earth are as perfectly Justified and as righteous before God as the glorified Saints in Heaven. See Col. 1.22. Eph. 6.27. Rev. 14.4.5.  
§. 8. Arg. 7. That Righteousness which repairs all our unrighteousnesses lost in the first Adam, is the only righteousness whereby we are Justified before God: but Christ's righteousness is such and no other righteousness. Ergo, as to the major, for all other righteousness comes short of what we lost in the first Adam, our unrighteousness was our breach of the preceptive part of God's Law, this was our unrighteousness, our loss and punishment was also very great, in respect of moral original righteousness, and coming under the wages of sin which is death or liableness thereto by the Law in all acceptations. Now Christ as a second Adam brought in a righteousness upon both these accounts. 1. His perfect complete 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 unto many. So in every v. to the end of the chapter Christ's obedience was not only to save us from punishment but to take of all the spots of sin in the sight of God. Will Neonomian righteousness, take away Original sin in the sight of God, bring us into the perfection of the Law in the sight of God, repair the preceptive 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 boldness 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 acceptance of our services through his righteousness, he entered into the holiest of all with his blood. What was it to procure? A Justifying righteousness of ours for him to plead before his Father?  
§. 11. Arg. 10. If there be no name of any other, nor Salvation 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 bvilders; 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 righteousness is our salvation only. For what is in Christ, is it not in them? And though Christ purchased it, the salvation is in them not in Christ.  
§. 12. Arg. 11. If Christ be the end of the law for Righteteousness to every one that believeth, than 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 should 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 righteousness, 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 that's 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 show forth our own death or life of works or his? that they should be seals of our own righteousness and not of Christ's.  
§. 14. Arg. 13. If no righteousness but a Suretyship, and Priestly righteousness can justify a Sinner before God, than Christ's righteousness alone can do it, but nothing but a Suretyship and Priestly righteousness can, etc. The minor is proved because we are Bankrupts have nothing to pay, neither in ourselves 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, etc. that pays a righteousness for us adequate 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, than Christ's righteousness is our Justifying righteousness; but there's no Gospel righteousness. The minor is thus proved, The righteousness by which a Sinner is Justified is Gospel. 1. Because it's not wrought by himself but by another for him. 2. Because it's given to him freely; it's a Law righteousness in respect of Christ: Now when by our graces and duties we claim Justification as due to us upon performing 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 righteousness, that of Christ that is offered 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 performed by him, than the righteousness of Christ is the only righteousness that he is justified by; but there is no life to be given to any Sinner, by the righteousness of any law performed by him, Ergo. The antecedent is fully proved by the Gal. 3.21. where Law is used indefinitely, in both parts of the Texts as well the last as the first, and it should have been rendered thus, if there had been a Law given which could have given Life, than Righteousness had been by a Law; therefore this place is fully exclusive of justifying righteousness by a new Law, and God never made such a Law. The consequence is clear if all other Law righteousness but Christ's be excluded, than 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 enlightened thereby may take place. The Scripture is so full of proof, that these Sixteen might be made Sixty, but brevity is called for, by the circumstances that attend Printing.   

CHAP. XVII. Of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness.  
Section 1. Christ's Righteousness is Imputed to us, and Paul saith so. §. 2. Argument 1. §. 3. Arg. 2. and 3. §. 4. Arg. 4. §. 5. Arg. 5. §. 6. Arg. 6. §. 7. Arg. 7. §. 8. Arg. 8. §. 9 Arg. 9 §. 10. Arg. 10.11.  
Section 1. OUr Adversaries say they own the Imputation of Righteousness to Justification; but they say, it's there own, not Christ's: Now we shall prove that Christ's Righteousness is Imputed. They say, it's no where said that Christ's Righteousness is Imputed. We say, it is in all that is said by the Apostle Paul, so plain, that all but he that will shut his Eyes perversely must see it. I shall but give brief hints of it, 1. The Apostle Paul, Rom. 4. speaking so often of Imputation, gives us plainly to understand, that he means no Imputation but of Christ's Righteousness to Justification; for his Discourse in the 4th chap. is continued from ver. 25. of the 3d to prove the Doctrine of Justification by the Propitiation, Blood and Righteousness of Christ; and shows 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 shows 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 called our Propitiation, in allusion to the Golden cover of the Ark, that hide the Law and was the mercy seat; now briefly to show that by Imputation so often mentioned in this chap. he meant the Righteousness of Christ to our Justification he tells us ver. 22. that what God had promised to Abraham, viz. the Righteousness of Christ, which he was fully by Faith persuaded of, was Imputed to him for Righteousness; now saith the Apostle, it was not written for the sake of Abraham only, but for us also to whom it shall be Imputed, i. e. the Righteousness in the Promise; if we believe on him, that raised up the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, who was delivered for our offences and raised again for our Justification i. e. if we believe in God, through the full perfect and complete righteousness of Christ, for our Righteousness could not have been full and complete without his Resurrection, and his Justification as a public head of all the Elect; who raised was Justified, as having wrought out a full and complete Justifying righteousness for them, they are encouraged and invited to take it for their Righteousness by Faith, and they might assure themselves of the Imputation thereof; and proceeds in the next chap. to say, that having taken this Imputed righteousness by Faith, they are said to be justified by Faith, and to have peace with God, and access unto the grace of God thro' the said righteousness.  
§. 2. Arg. 1. Now than I Argue, if Christ in the promise be Imputed for Righteousness to Abraham and every believer, and the Apostle saith so, than the Imputation here spoken of, is the Imputation of Christ's righteousness; but the antecedent is true, from Gal. 3.21, 22. its plain, that it was what God had promised to him was Imputed to him. The consequence needs no proof, for it was Christ was promised, and he saw Christ's day in that promise, and the Promise of Christ was the Gospel preached to him.  
Again, to prove the Apostle means the Righteousness of Christ is imputed, If the delivery of Christ for our sins, and raising him again for Justification, was the Righteousness of Christ for Justification; then this is that which was imputed not to Abraham for righteousness only, but also to every Believer by the Text; and therefore the minor is fully there proved; and I think as to the major, that none can deny the Life, Death and Resurrection of Christ to be his complete Righteousness.  
§. 3. Arg. 2. He that was made of God righteousness to us is made by imputation of his righteousness to us; but Christ is made so of God, 1 Cor. 1.30. but saith Mr. Cl. he is made righteousness as he is made Wisdom. So Righteousness, Sanctification and Redemption, but it follows not only that he be made of great advantage to a Christian, but these several ways, that he is not one thing as the other; he is not a Prophet as a Priest; and if he should mean made righteousness in Mr. Cl's. sense, than he should be but made sanctification twice taken, for Mr. Cl's justifying righteousness is but Sanctification; it's, he is made the Spring, Head and Root of Sanctification, and legally made righteousness to us.  
Arg. 3. Again, If we be made the righteousness of God in Christ, [where its plain this righteousness of God is in Christ] then the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, but we are made the righteousness of God in him, Ergo. the antecedent is proved by, 2 Cor. 5.21. as to the major, the Neonomians say, the righteousness of God is our own righteousness: We say, nay, the righteousness of God is said to be in Christ, and we are made so by imputation, for Christ could not be made Sin for us, but by Imputation, and if it is meant of a Sacrifice for Sin, even such were made Sin by Imputation, and therefore we are made the righteousness of God in Christ by Imputation.  
§. 4. Arg. 4. Again, If Christ hath merited our Justification, Christ's Merits are imputed in themselves to Justification; but Christ hath merited our Justification: The minor is granted by these Gentlemen: They tell us, that Christ's Merits are id propter quod, we are justified for the sake, or rather by reason of Christ's Merits; but they mean not that Christ purchased the Sinner's performed condition of the New law, but that he procured of God a new law for man to perform the condition of: Now this is no more to be the cause of Justification, than God in making a Law was a cause of Sin; for sin is not Imputed where there's no law; and where there is a Law, there will be Justification or Condemnation: Christ merited a Law and made one, therefore for the sake of Christ, we are Justified by this Law; here's Christ's law causa sine qua non with a Witness. As to the consequence, if Justification be an effect of Merits, and it be a Juridical effect, then Merits which is the cause, must be imputed to the person on whom these effects must fall: What moves the Court or Judge to justify this or that person, his own Merits or the Merits of another? Not his own, but the Merits of another: Then these Merits are imputed, for it quickly and plainly appears what is imputed to any, whether merits of Condemnation or merits of Justification, for Justice goes by nothing but Merit; and therefore men's 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 therefore, if Christ's 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, Christ's Merits cannot be Imputed, but the Effects are Imputed. And I Argue, If Christ's 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 it's not Imputed in the Effect, Ergo. In and as the Cause, for the Effect is not the Cause but contrary, it's another thing; so that to say Christ's 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 imputed? Sure not. Is Justification imputed to Justification? Sure that's most absurd. Is Mortification imputed to Justification? That looks very odd. Is Vocation and Adoption, or Glorification, all or any of them Imputed to Justification? for they are Effects of Christ's Merits. But suppose they say, some of these or all, are to us imputed for righteousness unto Justification; I then Query, Whether the Righteousness performed 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 another 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 Christ's Merits? They will say, we are Justified by Imputing 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 Christ's, and gives it to us; it applies and brings home to a sinner the Impetration of Christ, as Righteousness unto his Justification; hence the Spirit is said to justify, 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 Righteousness cannot be imputed in the effect, and is imputed at all, then as the cause meritorious of Justification.  
But they say, God cannot impute Christ's 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 Christ's Righteousness.  
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 Righteousness 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 showed: 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 Adam, 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 Christ's 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, etc.  
Lastly, If Christ's righteousness be taken as a meritorious cause in a sinner's Justification, it is imputed as such to the person justified; the effect of this cause is the sinner's Justification, which is his proper Discharge, and this is not Imputation, but Judgement 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 Condemnation or Justification but upon a meritorious cause imputed unto Condemnation or Justification; and how absurd is it to say Condemnation 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 many 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 imputed to condemnation is the righteousness through which a man is imputed righteous unto Justification: But Christ's 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 Gentiles, that which covers Sin from the Eye of God's Justice, therefore 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 Justification; reconciliation is essential to it, and therefore non imputation of sin; for while a man lies under a law charge of sin he is unrighteous, till he be imputed righteous by the law. The major is evident from what is said in proof of the minor, for non imputation of sin to a sinner is essential to his Justification, which can be no otherwise then by a covering righteousness; and when a law imputes sin, the same law must justify by imputing to him an adequate and satisfactory righteousness.  
§. 8. Arg. 8. The Sins of Sinners under the old Testament were Imputed Typically to the Highpriest and Sacrifices, which is very easy to make appear, Ergo. The Sins of all saved sinners are Imputed really to Christ, and his righteousness to them. See 1 Cor. 5.21. Rom. 3.25. Heb. 9.15.  
§. 9 Arg. 9 That which cannot be pleaded for Pardon or Justification unless it be Imputed, is when it's pleadibly imputed unto Justification: But Christ's very righteousness is pleadible, etc. Ergo. The minor I suppose these Gentlemen dare not deny, for I find though they will not have it their immediate righteousness by imputation, yet they will have it for some remote and as a reserve at a dead lift, when conscience sees that neither the New Law, nor the righteousness thereof will serve the turn. Now that Christ's 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 thyself; I never imputed thy righteousness to these, let them plead for their own Justification. If they plead it with God, the answer is, Christ is righteous for himself; his righteousness not imputed to thee, no more than the righteousness of one of the Angels; and therefore Christ's righteousness being pleadible its imputed; without Imputation it's not pleadible for us or by us.  
§. 10. Arg. 10. That righteousness which is a Suretyship righteousness must be imputed, else it's of no value to the offender; but Christ's righteousness is a Suretyship righteousness, he being a Surety his righteousness must be such. And as for the major its plain that the justice that accepts one person to be Surety for another, doth impute or account the righteousness of the Surety to that other, or else it accepts not, the Surety is rejected now that Christ was accepted as a Surety is beyond all question, Heb. 7.22.  
§. 11. Arg. 11. The righteousness of the second Adam is an Imputed righteousness, for 1. as Adam was a Public 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 Christ's 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 justification.  
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 God's sight, and that this Righteousness is certainly Imputed to every one that believes; we shall in the last place inquire, what concern and interest 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 refers to) Justification and the righteousness thereof.  
§. 2. Justifying Faith is a gift of God, whereby a poor sinner believes in God unto eternal life thro' Jesus Christ. 1. It is a gift of God, in respect of the grace of God and the work of the Spirit, Eph. 2.8. 2. It is a purchased benefit for an Elect person. 2 Pet. 1. 3. It's a Gift to a Sinner; there's no grace lives tell Faith, than Christ lives in him; it's to a poor undone broken Sinner. 4. This is a gift of grace to believe in God and Christ; 1. To be persuaded 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 called fides, but its hard to distinguish this from the Faith of a natural man and hypocrite; therefore, 2. There is believing in i e. resting upon God and Christ, resting on the faithfulness of God in his promise of a good thing to us, as for eternal life, and for righteousness in Christ; now faithfulness belongs to persons; truth unto things, when the Soul doth not only believe the thing promised true, but believes him faithful who hath promised, and from thence doth stay himself and his Soul acquisce in it. This is properly fiducia, trusting in God. 3. There's a particular application of Christ in the promise and the Soul unto God in Christ, believing that all the promises, especially those that concern eternal life and justification by Christ's righteousness, are yea and Amen in him, made and performed 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 divorced 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 itself 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 sense or reason, yea it is the hypostasis of Christ's righteousness in the Soul; Christ lives as it were in our Faith, take away Christ from it, and you leave it a dead nothing or worse, it returns to unbelief. 7. Because by this Faith the Soul sees God at peace with him, and he hath peace in himself, and the controversy is at an end between God and him, thro' this Imputed and believed righteousness. 8. The justified one as he draws his first breath of the new man in believing unto righteousness, so he lives upon this righteousness in all his Christian course, in that Christ's righteousness may be called the righteousness of Faith, for Meat and Drink. John 6.51, 53. 9 Faith hath hereby all justifiable ways to God, Christ is thereby his way unto the Father, he can have access to the grace wherein he stands, comes thro' this righteousness with boldness to the Throne of grace, and receives remission of sins, and every good, and perfect gift, God having not spared his Son, but given him for us, hence he will not withhold any good thing. 10. As it receives all grace in and with justifying grace, so it gives and ascribes all to free grace in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, both the gift of righteousness and faith itself, and the life eternal given to such a poor wretch in and thro' Jesus Christ. 11. In that this grace being filled with Christ's righteousness, is leading to all fruits of Christ's righteousness imputed and believed, all which appear in the exercise of all holy affections, graces and duties to the mortification of sin and growth in obedience and conformity to Christ.  
§. 14. Now having showed the Excellency of this Grace in its Nature and Kind, we must show you that it is not Christ, nor must not take his Throne or Crown from him, yea abhors nothing more if true, but will keep a Believer always a poor, humble, broken, and contrite hearted Sinner. Therefore we assert, and Christ with his whole Word will stand by us in it, that our Faith as a Grace of the Spirit or Work of ours is not imputed for Righteousness to Justification; I shall but Name a few Arguments convincing enough, and show thereby the way to others to do the same.  
1. Faith is for the Honour of Christ our Highpriest upon the Throne, if it takes to itself justifying Righteousness, it takes the Crown from his Head, and sets it upon his own for the great end of Christ's Humiliation and Exaltation, was the working out of this Righteousness.  
2. If Faith be our Righteousness, than Faith is its own Object, when you bid Men believe unto Justification, you must bid them believe in themselves; and bid them by Faith go to their Faith for Righteousness and Life, what's Absurd?  
3. If God impute Faith itself as a Work to Justification, than Faith must be imputed as meritorious of Justification. For, 1. Christ's Righteousness is so imputed. 2. No Righteousness can be imputed otherwise to Justification, but such as is meritorious of it, Justification being a Law-act.  
4. Faith making itself Righteousness for Justification by a Law, makes itself altogether Legal as much as any Works whatever, insomuch, that it is not an evangelical Work, so that it ought not to justify as a Work by their own Rule, that we are not justified by the legal works, but we have proved all their Works legal.  
5. That that can't cover Sin, and take off the Imputation of it can't be justifying Righteousness and take off the the Imputation of Sin, for faith did not die for Sin, or was made a Sacrifice for it to bear the Sin of many.  
6 The Priests and Sacrifices of Old were Types of Christ's 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 itself be our Righteousness, than our unbelief is, for that Faith must believe that Christ's Righteousness is not imputed to us for Justification, this his high unbelief according to the Scripture.  
8. If Faith say it justify as a Work, than Faith excludes itself, the very Nature of it; the Neonomian say, the Law of Faith is the New-law, if so, than it excludes itself, 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 justify as a Work, than Faith justifies not without Works, for if it be a Work itself, and justifying as such, than it justifieth not without Works, because it is a Work, contrary to Rom. 4.6.  
10. If Faith be Imputed for Righteousness, than 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, than no more is ascribed to Faith than to other Graces in the concern of our Justification; but the Apostle ascribes more concern to Faith than other Graces; and then why doth he oppose Faith to Works? Is it not, that its more the Office of Faith as to Justification, the Neonomian say, it is the same with other Graces, etc. So Mr. Cl. Justifying Faith is the same thing in Substance with Effectual Calling, Repentance, Regeneration, forming Christ in the Soul, the new Creature, etc. Is not a great deal of the Scripture in vain, hath not Paul wrote two Epistles in vain, where he makes it his Main Business to beat down Justification by Works, and oppose them to one another, and now he tells us, that Faith and Gospel Works [i. e. legal] are all one.  
12. That which justifies as a Righteousness, justifies eternally, Dan. 9 but Faith can't justify eternally, because Faith ceaseth in Heaven, but justifying Righteousness doth not, yea all the Righteousness of the New-law must cease, 1 Cor. 13.10.  
14. That which is not the faederal Condition of the Covenant of Grace, can't be our Righteousness in itself; but Faith is not the faederal Condition, because Faith is promised in the Covenant, given by Grace purchased by Christ, part of Eternal Life, a means to lay hold of the Condition; but I shall not enlarge upon this now, only make one Quotation at last. Mr. R. Capel, who wrote of Temptation, saith, speaking of the Conditions of the Covenant. In this Matter I am of the Opinion of Kendal, that the Covenant (he means of Grace) was not made with us, but with Christ [this was the Assembly's Judgement] for us; and for the main, I am clear of Opinion, that the Covenant of Grace cannot stand with any Condition of ours at all, for that I wish the Learned to consult Junius. To deliver my Opinion, Adam casting himself out of his Estate, the Covenant of Works fell void: Then it pleased God to fill up this Room with a New Covenant, commonly called his last Testament, wherein he bequeathed Grace and Glory on no other Condition that I know of out of the Scriptures, but the Death of the Testator, i. e. Jesus Christ, that as the First Covenant was built on the Righteousness of the first Adam, so the Second was built on the Righteousness of the second. It is beyond my Brain to conceive, that God should immediately make a Covenant with us, who were Children of Disobedience and of Wrath, who could not be capable of any such Covenant or Conditions, but it was with Christ for us, Adam lost his Righteousness, the Foundation of the first Covenant, but the Righteousness of Christ the Second can never be lost, and therefore the second Covenant or rather Testament, can never be broken or disannulled, 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. deal; r. bottom they must be Pelagians. p. 66. l. 2. r. is it not so? p. 72. l. 27. deal ●. p. ibid. l. 28. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 73. l. 40. r. Christ's righteousness and us. p. 78. l. 27. r. would not be. p. 79. l. prope antep. deal 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. deal not. p. 100 l. 3. deal and l. 6. r. yea. 123. l. 13. r. addicted to it, l. 35. r. should not be. p. 126. l. 10. r. righteousness twice. p. 133, l. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 31. false Hebrew. p. 134. l. 20. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 148. l. 17. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, l. 29. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 34. deal the before events. p. 149. l. 5. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 155. l. 6. a fine, r. unprofitable. p. 158. l. 6. ab ult. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 159 false Hebrew. p. 160. l. 6. ab ult. r. Arg. 3, The righteousness for which, and by which a sinner is justified.