Opposition to Errors of William Sherlock, Chapter 4 · Section 2 (3 of 3)

Opposition to Errors of William Sherlock · Chapter 4 · Section 2 (3 of 3)

p. 545(5.) The Apostle concludes, That there's no difference (in point of Justification) all that are sinners by the First, must be justified (if ever they be justified) by the Second Adam: v. 22. The Righteousness of God which is by Faith of Iesus Christ, unto all, and upon all that believe; for there's no difference, for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. As all men that ever were, are, or shall be, are sinners, under Condemnation; so all that ever were, are, or shall be righteous in the sight of God, are so by that righteousness which is by Faith of Iesus. So that every pardoned, accepted, justified sinner must own, that he is justified freely by the Grace of God, through the Redemption that is in Christ.

From these and such-like Scriptures, it is, that Christians ascribe their Iustification before God, not to their own good Works, but to the Free Grace of God through Iesus Christ: but our Author has a way of proving his Sentiments worth a thousand of these. Could men (says he) be reconciled to plain sence, it would need no other Confirmation, but the Natural evidence of naked and simple Truth. It has been observed of the great Bellarmine (from whom our Author has borrowed some things) that he never comes in with a [Procui dubio] but the next words are a Rapper: the same I observe in our Author, that when he has done just nothing, he always makes p. 546the loudest cackle. It was a handsom Come-of if you did but mind it; that when he had pester'd us with his prejudices, surfeited us with Arbitrary distinctions, filled our heads with empty Notions, and when we looked to have been attack'd with one of his old, plain, kill-cow demonstrations, he faces about, and pops us off with this: It needs no other proof than the Natural evidence of simple and naked Truth.

But now let the Reader take something warm next his heart, let him use his phial of Essences, for our Author is just now a-coming to examine those Texts of Scripture which are abused by these men, to set up the personal Righteousness of Christ, as the only formal Cause of our justification: And must not those Texts of Scripture be miserably abused indeed, that are thus prest in for such a service? What, the personal Righteousness of Christ the formal Cause of our justification? I have heard some say it was the Meritorious Cause, some the Impulsive Cause, others the Material Cause, and some that it is no Cause; but our Author is the first that ever I heard this expression from. There was once a good Orthodox Bishop, (as Orthodoxy past in that Age) his Name Downham, he has Written many a long page upon this Subject, and he acquaints us with the sence of Protestants▪ Lib. 1. Cap. 3. Sect. 1. That the matter of our justification is Christ's Righteousness, and the form is God's Imputing it; and this way go most of your Systematical Divines: but from hence I learn it's the Mode now-a-days, for these Gentlemen to Confute (that is, to Rail at) those long-winded Authors they never had the patience to read, nor the Brains to understand; but let this pass amongst our Authors Negligences or Ignorances, till I understand p. 547better where to marshal it. In examining the Texts which they abuse, he will begin and end with Phil. 3. 8, 9. Yea doubtless, and I account all things loss for the excellency of the Knowledg of Iesus Christ my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things that I may win Christ, and be found in him not having my own Righteousness which is of the Law, but that which is through the Faith of Christ, the Righteousness which is of God by Faith. The main Question here will be, What was that Righteousness which the Apostle renounces, from having any place in his Justification before God? Upon this one hinge turns all the Controversie betwixt our Author and his Antagonists. They say it was, what-ever inherent Righteousness he had attained or could attain, what-ever Obedience he had performed, or could perform to the Commands of God. Ay but (says our Author) what proof have they for this? he can learn none, but that they take it for granted, that My Righteousness signifies Inherent Righteousness. And really they are to be pittied if not pardoned, that by His own Righteousness, understand his own Righteousness; for if Inherent Righteousness, be not His own Righteousness, it's plain he could have none at all; for an External Conformity of Actions to the Law alone is not Righteousness at all, but Hypocrisie, and Vnrighteousness: but I shall inform him of some other proofs why they take His own Righteousness for Inherent Righteousness. 1. That which he calls his own Righteousness foreign, he tells you in the next words, is foreign; that which is from Law, from a Law, from any Law indefinitely: now a Righteousness which is from a Law is such a one as the Law urges, presses upon and prescribes p. 548to the Conscience; but that without question is an Internal Conformity of soul to the holiness of the Law; but this the Apostle rejects, therefore he rejects Internal and Inherent Righteousness. 2. The true Notion of My Righteousness is not to be fetcht from some sorry Conjectures, from precarious Hypotheses, which men (when they are in streights) invent to avoid present ruine, but from the stable fixed constant use thereof in Scripture; but so is this expression [My own Righteousness] and [My own, or your own Works] used in Scripture, viz. for real sineere Conformity of heart and life to a Law, therefore so ought we to take it here, till we see cogent Reason to the contrary. That this is the fixed use of the expression in Scripture we shall see, Gen. 30. 33. My Righteousness shall answer for me in time to come; which our Author would paraphrase thus, My Righteousness, that is, My Roguery, Iob 27. 6. My Righteousness I hold fast, my heart shall not reproach me as long as I live. My Righteousness, that is, (would he say) My Hypocrisie, Matth. 5. 16. That men may see your good works, that is, in the New Glossary, Your Complement. Dan. 9. 18. we present not our supplications before thee not for our Righteousnesses, but for thy great Mercies. The Prophet in the Name of the Church must be supposed here not to renounce real Righteousness, but the Sceleton of Obedience: Now had the Apostle designed only to reject his own Hypocrisie, he was not so barren in expressions but he could have fitted it with its Proper Name. 3. The Apostle expresly renounces both what-ever he had attained before or after his Conversion, v. 7. These things that were gain to me, (whilst I was a Pharisee) those I accounted [foreign] loss p. 549for Christ: But is that all? No! Yea doubtless (v. 8.) and I do (now) account [foreign] all things but loss: I have accounted all things attained in my Iudaism loss, when I was first convinced: and I do now account all things even my own Righteousness loss, and dung for Christ: and therefore it is to be noted that the Apostle rises higher in his earnestness, v. 8. Yea doubtless; q. d. Did I say that I once looked upon all as loss for Christ. I will speak a bolder word than that, I count all but loss, dung, filth, that I may win Christ, and be found in him not having my own Righteousness: and that he speaks of that esteem and value he had of his present Righteousness, is yet further evident from this, that it was in reference to a future day, the day of Iudgment, that he might be found in Christ, in that day, not sticking to his own Righteousness. Two things our Author returns to this:

1. It's a sufficient Answer to say they need not signifie so. I confess for want of a better the Answer may pass: A bad shift is better than None, and half a loaf is better than No-bread: but if a Man had a better, it was the sorriest Answer in the World. I see when men are prest with express Scripture, and yet are resolved (cost what will) to adhere to their own Conclusions, it's adviseable to cast about, to turn their thoughts into all shapes imaginable, to hunt for the extremest possibilities: If a Word, a Phrase, an Expression is but capable of another sence, let it be probable, or improbable, true or false, agreeable to the scope of the place or alien, all is a case, something must be said, that they may not seem to say Nothing; And if they can say it's possible it may be otherwise (as who cannot) though p. 550they do not believe themselves, they hug themselves for their ready wit, and applaud themselves for grave Respondents. A little matter will blow away this dust: Let them show where ever, My Righteousness, is otherwise used, and then let them boast of a bare possibility. 2. My own Righteousness (says he) can signifie no more than that wherein he placed his Righteousness. I beg his pardon for that. It signifies more than that wherein he placed his Righteousness whil'st a Pharisee; and a great deal less than that, wherein he placed Righteousness after Conversion, in order to Justification. But if the Apostle renounced what-ever he placed his Righteousness in, then, either he placed it in Inherent Righteousness, or not; If not, then how dares our Author place his Righteousness there, where the Apostle durst not? If he did ever place his Righteousness in it; then here he openly declares before the World that he Renounces it: But (says our Author) what necessity is there to understand this of inherent holiness? We have shewed you the Necessity before, and shall do hereafter. An External Righteousness serves most mens turns very well: not so well neither as he may Imagine. And this is the Righteousness by which the Pharisees (and amongst the rest St. Paul whilst he was a Pharisee) expected to be justified; but stay a while. 1. We have proved that the Apostle not only renounced that Righteousness what-ever it was that he had whilst a Pharisee; but that which was his own at the time when he made that solemn Renunciation of it: what-ever he had attained, or might possibly attain, all went that he might be found in Christ in the great Day. 2. The Pharisees were generally bad enough in all Conscience, p. 551and he need not make them worse. It's a sin we say to bely the Devil; It doth not appear that the Pharisees expected to be Justified before God, by an external obedience only without sincerity: It was not their Principle, though Hypocrisie (as to many Individuals) might be their Practice. The Case is frequent before our Eyes, a Drunkard, a common Swearer, &c. will tell you they Hope to be saved, though they are wicked; but none durst ever assume the Impudence to expect Salvation because he was wicked: No, he will repent when he can intend it, and trust to the general grace of God, and some such reserves, which our Modern-Pulpit-Drollery has furnisht him withal. 3. As to Paul whilst he was a Pharisee (if we take his own word for it when he was none) he was no Hypocrite, he every-where vindicates himself as to that: His Persecuting was his great Crime, in which he protests his sincerity, Acts 25. 9. I verily thought with my self that I ought to do many things contrary to the Name of Iesus: and 1 Tim. 1. 13. he avows he did it ignorantly: He durst appeal to his very Enemies how he had lived from a Child, Act. 25. 4. My manner of life from my youth know all the Iews if they would testifie: and makes a solemn Protestation before the Sanhedrin, Act. 23. 1. That he had lived in all good Conscience to that very day: That others of the Pharisees, were Sober, Conscientious men, I do not at all question; and the discourse of Paul's Mr. Gamaliel, Act. 5. shows that he had a great deal more Religion in him than most of those who to carry on a design rail at them for Hypocrites.

Ay, but (says our Author) what his Righteousness p. 552was he tells us, V. 6, 7. Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, &c. So that My own Righteousness which is of the Law, is so far from signifying an inherent Righteousness, a vital principle of Holiness, that it only signifies an external Righteousness, which consisted in some external Rites, as Circumcision, and Sacrifices, or external Priviledges, as being of the Seed of Abraham, or an external Civility and blamelessness of Conversation. This proceeds upon a double false supposition; 1. That the Apostle renounces nothing but what he had attained whilst he was a Pharisee. 2. That whatsoever he had renounced, V. 6, 7. did constitute his Pharisaical Righteousness: For, 1. I must cut him off Circumcision; that was no part of his own Righteousness, a priviledge it was; but nothing performed by him, and therefore could not expect Justification by it: unless our Author will grant that he had a spice of the Doctrine of imputing the Obedience of Another to him for Iustification. 2. For Sacrifices, the Apostle mentions them not, renounces them not; for he understood too well their use and proper End in the Iewish Church; that they were their visible Gospel, and did lead to Christ (whom now he owned) though then he was ignorant of him. The Conscientious and believing use of Sacrifices might put in for a place in Justifying the Sinner, with better right, than such Obedience to the Moral Law as man was able in his present state to perfom. 1. Consider them as mere acts of Obedience, wherein the thing done is not so considerable, as the subjection of the Conscience to the Authority of God the Soveraign Law-giver: which in this Case is most signal, for here is only the will and pleasure of God for the Reason of that costly, and p. 553operose seruice; whereas Moral duties are vouched for, by the suffrage of the Light, and Reason of Nature. 2. Consider them as instituted for their peculiar end, the leading and conducting of Faith to Christ; and so they far exceed and outstrip any thing the Moral Law (being become weak through the flesh) could assist the sinner in; for so they are said, actually to procure pardon of sin, actually to make Atonement and reconciliation, Lev. 17. 11. I have given you it [the blood] upon the Altar to make an Atonement for your souls, for it is the Blood that maketh an Atonement for the soul, 2 Chron. 29. 24. The Priests killed them [the Sacrifices] and they made reconciliation with their Blood upon the Altar, to make an Atonement for All Israel. Now let him shew me, where ever Atonement, Reconciliation, are annext to the Actual performance of the Moral Law. It is true that the Original design of the Moral Law was Justification, but not the Justification of a Sinner; but Man being now become such, the Law is utterly uncapable of reaching it's Primitive end: and it's as true also that Sacrifices upon their own Account could not supply that defect, but as directing the sinner to him who is the grand Propitiation, and from whose Death they received all their virtue and efficacy. 3. As to his being of the Stock of Israel, of the Seed of Abraham, &c. they might expect some favours thence, but that any was so far bewitched as to believe that all of the Stock of Israel, and the Natural Seed of Abraham should be justified, cannot be proved. 4. For external Civility, and blamelessness of Conversation: It would have gone a great way in our Authors account at any other time; pag. 384. he asks the question with some heat and briskness, p. 554what? live a blameless, innocent, honest, smooth life, and yet live in some sin or other? Paul would have past for a Righteous person upon his producing the Ticket of a blameless Conversation in that Section, though in this he is rated at for a Hypocrite, and all that's naught: but what-ever Paul was, or was not whilst a Pharisee, it makes no great matter to the business in hand, seeing he has so freely and openly disowned, what-ever was his own Righteousness after Conversion, in the matter of Justification before God.

But to Confirm all this (says our Author) … must observe a double Antithesis in the words. We must? what, whether we can or no? whether it be there to be observed or no? what if there be but … single Antithesis in them? It's no matter; we must observe a double Antithesis if we will purchase our peace and quiet: I promise you this Antithesis is a very hard word! Graecum est, non potest intelligi! And I should assoon chuse to swallow Dr. Iacomb's Conjunction (at which our Author made such a sowre face in the beginning of this Section) as this crabbed Antithesis, much more then a Double Antithesis: but what is this Double Antithesis? Why (says he) The Righteousness of the Law is opposed to the Righteousness which is by the Faith of Christ. And my own Righteousness, opposed to the Righteousness of God. There's your double Antithesis! Now (says he) the surest way to understand the meaning of this, is to examine how these phrases are used in Scripture; but in my mind it will be a surer, I am sure a more Rational way, to examine first whether indeed there be such a double Antithesis in the words as he pretends, or whether a single one will not content the p. 555Text? And the surest way to understand this, is to examine the words themselves. And be found in him not having my own Righteousness which is of the Law; But that which is through the Faith of Christ, the Righteousness which is of God by Faith. Now if any one can find a double Antithesis, or in plain English a double Opposition in these words, he must have eyes like a Cat, which some say, can see as well by Night as by Day, or however as well i'th' dark as without light. Not having my own Righteousness which is of the Law. foreign. There's one member of the Antithesis, where the Righteousness which is of the Law, is a plain Exegesis (there's another hard-word for you) of my own Righteousness; and not any thing distinct from it: My own Righteousness which is of the Law; and then comes the other member of the Antithesis; But that which is through the Faith of Iesus Christ, the Righteousness which is of God by Faith. foreign: where the repetition of the Article foreign (as every hungry Graeculist knows) is as much as videlicet. The Righteousness by the Faith of Christ, namely, or that is to say, the Righteousness which is of God by Faith: and thus Beza, Non habens meam justitiam (nempe) quae est ex lege; sed eam quae est per fidem Christi (id est) justitiam [quae est] ex Deo per fidem: who for a smattering in that Language will not envy our Author? So that nothing could by the Wit, or Ignorance of Man, have been more groundlesly, absurdly, and ridiculously invented, than this double Antithesis. And, 1. Let us observe how ill-favouredly it was contrived. The Text-order is this, My own Righteousness which is of the Law—That which is p. 556the Faith of Christ (even) the Righteousness of God by Faith. Now if any man would needs have a double Antithesis to do him some special service, it should have been laid between my own Righteousness, and that which is by the Faith of Christ; and then between, That of the Law, and the Righteousness of God by Faith: but on the contrary our Author without any provocation, without any umbrage of a pretence from the Text (like old Iacob crossing his hands) has laid them in saltire; My own Righteousness, to the Righteousness of God, and the Righteousness of the Law, to the Righteousness by the Faith of Christ. 2. Supposing all that he can desire, how does this double Antithesis confirm that which he contrived it to confirm, viz. that my own Righteousness signifies an external Righteousness only? It has been an old saying, that one absurdity being granted many more will easily follow. And yet so hard is this Gentleman put to it, that granting him a many absurdities, he cannot make one follow: but yet the Reader shall hear what he would serve out of this double Antithesis.

(1.) The Righteousness of the Law (as you have already heard) is an external Righteousness, which consists in Washings, Purifications, Sacrifices, or an external conformity to the Moral Law: So we have beard indeed once and again affirmed, but never confirmed: The double Antithesis was brought to confirm it, and that must confirm the double Antithesis. I desire therefore once for all to hear where the Righteousness of Law, the Moral Law, is said to consist in Externals: The Righteousness of the Law is that Righteousness which the Law requireth; but the Law requires an internal Conformity of heart to p. 557our outward Actions, and of both to the Law of God; therefore the Righteousness of the Law consists also in an internal Conformity. The Law condemns none that bring the Righteousness of the Law, but the Law condemns those that bring only an external Conformity▪ therefore external Conformity is not the Righteousness of the Law: and from hence we may be abundantly satisfied what was that Righteousness of his own, which the Apostle renounces. That which was his own Righteousness, that he renounces; but an internal inherent Righteousness was his own Righteousness, therefore that he renounces. The Minor I prove, The Righteousness of the Law was his own Righteousness (Not having my own Righteousness that is of the Law) but the Righteousness of the Law was an inherent internal Righteousness; therefore his own Righteousness was an inherent, and internal Righteousness. The Minor I prove, That which the Law prescribes, and commands is the Righteousness of the Law; but that which the Law prescribes and commands, is an internal and inherent Righteousness, and therefore the Righteousness of the Law is such a Righteousness. That which God requires, his Law requires; but God requires Truth in the inward parts, whether in Ceremonials or Morals; therefore the Law requires the same: And is it not now an unparalleld piece of Non-sence to call that the Righteousness of the Law, which both the Law and the Author of it do a…hor? External Conformity alone, is so far from being the Righteousness of the Law, that it's the Unrighteousness of the Law: But hence the Reader will begin to get a glimmering into the true Reason that necessitated our Author to study this device of a double Antithesis, p. 558viz. that Paul's Righteousness which he … nounced, might not seem to be the Righteousness of the Law which God required (though not in order to Justification;) for if his own Righteousness be the Righteousness of the Law, and he so peremptorily renounces his own, then he renounces the Righteousness of the Law also; and what that is, this one Consideration is enough to convince us of: That the Law requires an absolute, perfect, entire Conformity of the whole Man to it's demands, and claimes, without which no man can expect to be Iustified by it. And seeing such is the Case with poor impotent Man, that he cannot answer it's demands and claims, he can never reasonably expect it should do him that service: but now see the frailty of our Authors memory, for just above he told us, the surest way to understand the meaning of this, was to consider how these Phrases are used in Scripture; and yet when he undertakes to give us the true meaning of this Phrase (The Righteousness of the Law) he cannot afford to give us one single Scripture to lead us into the true meaning of it.

(2.) The Righteousness by the Faith of Christ (says he) is an internal Righteousness: Oh but that should have been proved, soundly proved, not begg'… or borrowed, much less stollen, for it's the main thing in Question; and of all things in the Syllogism, we should not stand to Courtesie for the Conclusion: why (says he) it's call'd being born again, becoming new Creatures, rising again with Christ, &c. But still proof! proof is wanting! for we think that those expressions do not denote that Righteousness whereby we are constituted Iust, in the sight of God; but Holiness, and Sanctification of Nature, p. 559which the Gospel evidently distinguishes from that Righteousness whereby we are Iustified; but let him have line enough. Hence (says he) The Apostle tells us, that the Reason why God sent Christ into the World in our Nature, to die as a Sacrifice for our sins, and to confirm the Covenant; was, that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us (N. B.) who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. Well! what is that Righteousness of the Law Christ came to fulfil? why (says he) Learnedly from Chrysostom, foreign, the Righteousness of the Law, that is, foreign. That which the Law was design'd to work in them; but was too weak to effect it by Reason of the greater power and prevalency of sin; i. e. the inward holiness, and purity of mind, which was represented by those externalCeremonies: Most incomparable! and very like himself! It was but the other side of the leaf, that he told us, that the Righteousness of the Law consisted in Washings, Purifications, Sacrifices, or an external Conformity to the Moral Law; but now the Case is altered, and foreign is grown foreign, inward purity, and holiness of mind. It may not be amiss to call these things over again: 1. If the Righteousness of the Law be only an external Conformity (as he told us just before) then Christ came into the World to fulfil in us only Ceremony, and Hypocrisie: for he tells us just now from the Apostle, Rom. 8. 3, 4. God sent Christ into the world, that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us. Or, 2. If the Righteousness of the Law, be inward holiness and purity of mind; then St. Paul who rejects the Righteousness of the Law, in the matter of Justification before God; rejects also inward purity and p. 560holiness of mind for that purpose: but whether we are to believe, pag. 264. or pag. 265. as the honesterof the two, I cannot tell, nor am much concern'd at present. 3. If it be true, that the Righteousness of the Law, be that inward purity of mind which the Law was design'd to work in us, then what is become of that Antithesis which he coyned between the Righteousness of the Law, and the Righteousness by the Faith of Christ? I am very serious, and desire to be resolved; for he tells us here, that the Righteousness of the Law, is foreign, i. e. the inward holiness and purity of mind; and then tells us immediatly after, that the design of the Gospel is to work that inward holiness and purity: Now why St. Paul should renounce inward holiness (which was the Righteousness of the Law) to attain inward purity (which is the Righteousness of the Gospel) is to me a Mystery as deep as any of those I have met withal in your Systematical Divines. To shut up this point, The Righteousness of the Law, is that which the Law requires; and his friend Dr. Iacomb, has furnish'd him with such a Syncretism of Learned Men, as may cut his Comb, and spoyl his Crowing over his Adversary. Significat eam rectitudinem quae praecipitur in lege, P. Mart. Iustitia quam lex exigebat, Vatab. Totum quod lex praecipit, A. Lap. foreign, ipsa legis praecepta, Perer. Iustitia legis, est justitia quam lex praecipit, Estius. Implere justum legis, est totum quod lex praecipit efficere, Tolet. Ut justificatio legis, id est, ut justitia quam lex praescribit & exigit, impleretur, Stap. Ut adimpleret opus praeceptorum legis, Vers. Aethiop. Ut nos impleremus omnia quae in lege Mosis, & per se honesta sunt, Grot. foreign, is any thing that p. 561God hath thought meet to appoint or command his People, Dr. Hammond. And now for to divert his Reader, he has sprung us new game: but I shall adjourn the Consideration of what immediately follows, that we may not be bewildred and lost in a wood; and shall fall in with him at p. 273. where he reassumes the present Subject. Thus y…u see (says he) how the Apostle opposes the Righteousness of the Law, and the Righteousness of Faith; not as an Inherent and Personal Righteousness to an Imputed Righteousness; but as an External and Ritual, to an Inherent and Substantial Righteousness: but we have seen no such matter as yet, and do believe we are not like to see it. And the rather because he has thrown in a very suspicious word that would make any one think, that though he sets a good Face upon the Matter, yet he has little confidence in the Truth of his own Notions. The Truth is (lays he) The Righteousness of the Law, and of Works, in the NewTestament signifies only an External Righteousness, which cannot please God. Now I began to think thus with my self: Does the Righteousness of the Law signifie one thing in the New-Testament, and another in the Old-Testament? Does it signifie a real Inherent Substantial Righteousness in the Old, and a Ritual External Righteousness in the New? Sincerity in the one, and Hypocrisie and Ceremony in the other? this is very unaccountable! Surely (thought I) when the Apostle argues with Jews, or Judaizing Christians, he speaks in their Dialect, speaks to their Capacity, speaks that he may be understood, speaks ad idem. They that had read Ps. 119. 144. The Righteousness of thy Testimonies [of thy Law] is everlasting, would wonder to hear the Apostle p. 562speak against the Righteousness of the Law: but alas, he only equivocated, and had a mental Reservation in his Sleeve, and understood all the while Ceremony and hypocrisie: But this is a Riddle, which because our Author has made of his own Mother-wit, he is the fittest Man alive to interpret it.

(3) His Second Antithesis is between my own Righteousness, and the Righteousness of God; and he is considering with himself in what sense they are opposed. But there's no great difficulty in this, (says he) for the Apostle himself tells us, that by his own Righteousness he means the Righteousness of the Law; and by the Righteousness of God, the Righteousness of Faith: and therefore he will give this the gentle wipe, and away: But now he has quite spoiled the Humour of the double Antithesis; for, if by his own Righteousness, he means the Righteousness of the Law, and by the Righteousness of God, the Righteousness of Faith; then there's but one single Antithesis: between his own Righteousness which is of the Law, (on the one part) and the Righteousness by the Faith of Christ, even the Righteousness which is of God by Faith, (on the other part:) but at these rates he might have given us, a treble, quadruple, sextuple, Antithesis, and have rung as many changes, when his hand was once in, upon two Bells, as others can do upon six. The Apostles Words indeed were clear, very clear, till our Author found it necessary to obscure them, to deprave the Truth, & conciliate some small reverence to errour, to which two Heads I foresaw from the first, his whole Discourse might be reduced. And thus much we are secured of, That the Apostle has repudiated his own Righteousness from any concern in justification; and that we may not p. 563doubt what that was, he tells us, 'tis that of the Law. What the Righteousness of the Law signifies is evident, that which always bore that Name; that which the Law commands, and prescribes, viz. An exact Conformity to the Law of God in Spirit, Soul, and Body, so far as 'tis attainable or not attainable. He assures us next what he owns and adheres to, viz. The Righteousness of Christ, which is also called, The Righteousness of God. He further acquaints us, how we come to be interessed in this Righteousness, and that is by Faith; and that we may not ignorantly or wilfully mistake Faith for the Doctrine of Faith; he assures us that it's by Believing, by which we obtain this Righteousness. Rom. 3. 22. The Righteousness which is by Faith of Iesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe.

To shut up his learned Exercitation, or scholastical Dissertation, or Diatriba of Antitheses, our Author will favour us with a Reason, nay, with an obvious and the most obvious Reason, why this Righteousness of the Law is called their own Righteousness; because (forsooth) this Legal Righteousness was a way of their own chusing, not of God's Appointment. Now here he most falsly supposes, that by the Righteousness of the Law is only meant a Righteousness made up of the Works of the Ceremonial Law: but I think something has been offered to dash that fancy out of countenance. I am in haste, and intreat our Author to accept of short answers: 1. God has not appointed a Righteousnes▪ made up out of any observances of the Moral Law, to be that Righteousness wherein Sinners shall stand justified before him: If any will demand Iustification thereby, God will demand exact and perfect Conformity. If p. 564therefore Sinners will chase this way, 'tis their own Righteousness; and it's time to give it a bill of divorce, God has not appointed it. 2. External Washings, External Conformity, &c. were no Righteousness at all, much less the Righteousness of the Law, that which it required to form a Righteousness; and therefore chuse it, or not chuse it, this is nothing to the purpose: The Apostle renounces his own Righteousness, which is the Righteousness of the Law. And this is further evident from Rom. 10. 3. (which our Author quotes, but miserably perverts.) For they being ignorant of Gods Righteousness, and going about to establish their own Righteousness, have not submitted to the Righteousness of God. Here is then the same Antithesis again, between their own Righteousness, (that of the Law) and the Righteousness of God, (which is by the Faith of Jesus Christ); and the opposition is so direct, and diametrical, that 'twas impossible to establish their own, but they must shake off all subjection to Gods Righteousness. The Question then will be, Whether we are to be justified by a Legal, or an Evangelical Righteousness? And to this our Author agrees in words; but his Words intend quite another thing from the Truth: For by the Law he understands the Law of Moses: and let that pass too for once. But then by the Law of Moses he understands only the Ceremonial Law, though sometimes he is content to take in External Acts of Conformity to the Moral Law: and thus by a Legal Righteousness, or the Righteousness of the Law, he understands one made up of External Observations only, wherein the Apostle has clearly determined against him; to whom therefore from his partial Judgment-Seat. I p. 565shall appeal, v. 5, 6. For Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law, that the Man that doth these things shall live in them; from whence I argue against our Author: That Law whose Righteousness Moses describes, the Apostle excludes from having any place in Justification, but it is the Moral Law whose Righteousness Moses describes; therefore it is the Moral Law, which the Apostle excludes from having any place in Iustification. The Major is evident from the Connexion of the Apostle's Words, v. 3.—They have not submitted themselves to the Righteousness of God. v. 4. For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth; for Moses describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law, &c. The Minor I prove thus: That Law which saith, He that doth these things shall live in them, is that Law whose Righteousness Moses prescribeth; but it is the Moral Law, which saith, He that doth these things shall live in them: therefore it is the Moral Law, whose Righteousness Moses describeth. The Major is the Apostles own, v. 5. the Minor I prove from Lev. 18. 5. You shall keep my Statutes and Iudgments, which if a Man do he shall live in them. v. 6. None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him. 7. The nakedness of thy Father or of thy Mother thou shalt not uncover, &c. from whence I argue thus: That Law which forbids incest, is the Moral Law; but that Law which saith, He that doth these things shall live in them, is the Law which forbids incest: therefore that Law, that saith, He that doth these things shall live in them, is the Moral Law. Again I argue thus from Gal. 3. 10, 11. That Law which hath the Curse annext to it for noncontinuance in all things commanded therein, p. 566is the Law which the Apostle excludes from having any place in the Justification of a Sinner; but it is the Moral Law which hath that Curse annext to it: therefore it is the Moral Law which the Apostle excludes from having any place in the Justification of a Sinner. The Major is evident from the place, v. 10. As many as are of the Works of the Law are under the Curse; for it is written, Cursed is every one that continues not in all things, which are written in the Book of the Law to do them. v. 11. But that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God is evident. The Minor I prove from Deut. 27. 26. from whence the Apostle quotes it. Cursed be he that continueth not in all the Words of this Law to do them. That Law which forbids making Images, which forbids setting light by Father or Mother, which forbids removing Land-marks, which forbids causing the Blind to go out of his way, which forbids perverting of judgment, incest, sodomy, is the Law which hath the Curse annext to it; but it is the Moral Law which forbids all these things: Therefore it is the Moral Law which hath this Curse annext to it. I cannot foresee what our Author will return to all this, but his old tawdry Answer. That indeed the Apostle does exclude the Moral Law, but that is only with respect to External Obedience, without Internal Conformity: But it's evident that the Apostle excludes the Law it self, and therefore it must be highly impertinent to enquire what Deeds of the Law are excluded, when the Law it self is excluded: But yet for his further satisfaction, I shall bestow an Argument upon that also.

p. 567Those Acts of Obedience to which the Promise of Life in the Covenant of Works originally was most directly made, are excluded from Iustification: but to inward acts of Obedience the Promise of Life was most directly made; and therefore inward acts of Obedience are excluded from Iustification. The Apostle has secured the Major, Rom. 10. 3, 5, 6. They have not submitted themselves to the Righteousness of God: For Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law, that he that doth these things shall live in them. The Minor is evident, for God never made a Promise of Life to External Acts of Obedience, without inward Conformity of Soul to them, and of both to the Law of God. Again, Those Acts, the want whereof mainly exposes the Sinner to the Curse, are excluded from Justification; but the want of Internal Acts of Obedience mainly exposes the Sinner to the Curse: therefore internal Acts are excluded from Justification. And the true Reason why these inward Acts are excluded from Justification, is not because they are not well-pleasing to God; but because the case is thus with impotent fallen men, that he cannot reach the foreign, the utmost tittle of what the Law requires, & theresore must fall under the severe doom annext to the violation of the Law in the least punctilio, unless God had provided a better Righteousness than that of his own Obedience.

After all that has or may be said in the Case, If any one will be so civil and ingenuous, as out of his pure good-nature to yield our Author a few small inconsiderable things: As, 1. That there is a double Antithesis, where there is but one. And 2. That a man's own Righteousness is another thing p. 568than the Righteousness of the Law. 3. That the Righteousness which is by the Faith of Christ, is distinct from the Righteousness of God. 4. That by the Righteousness of the Law, no more is intended, than Ceremony and Hypocrisie. 5. That a mans own Righteousness is so called, not because it is his own, but because he places his Righteousness in it. and 6thly, one poor sorry triffle more, That all he asserts is meer Gospel; grant him but this, and he will prove all the rest with ease: but though I would go a great way to save his longing, yet this is so large a boon, that it deserves mature advice and serious deliberation.

There are yet a few odd things in arrear, some notice whereof I promised to take; and seeing we are a little at leisure, I shall do him justice. And first, let us consider what work he has made with that Text, Rom. 8. 3, 4. For what the Law could not do in that it was weak-through the Flesh, God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful Flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the Flesh, that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the Flesh, but after the Spirit. Now our Authors Paraphrase (as well as we can scramble it together from broken fragments, and odd shreds of his Discourse) is thus much. The Ceremonial Law being designed of God to work in the Iews inward holiness, and purity of Mind, which was represented by Circumcision, Washings, Purifications, and Sacrifices; it was found too weak to effect this design, and therefore God sent Christ into the World to die as a Sacrifice for our Sins, to confirm and seal the New-Covenant with his Blood; to work in us that Internal Holiness and Purity, which is the Perfection p. 569and Accomplishment of the Figurative and Typical Righteousness of the Law: which he gives us in other words, p. 267. What the Law could not do, i. e. govern our Minds and Passions; this God effected by sending Christ into the World to publish the Gospel to us, and to confirm all those great Promises and Threatnings contained in it, with his own Blood. This is indeed a parcel of excellent Divinity, but that it's wholly destitute of truth: For 1. he supposes, That that Law, whose weakness the Apostle assigns as the Reason of Gods sending his Son; was only the Ceremonial Law; the Falshood whereof I shall demonstrate (if that be not too great a word for any mans Mouth besides his own) by and by. 2. He insinuates that the whole of Christs being a Sacrifice for our Sins, lay in confirming the New-Covenant; the Falshood whereof, the next Section will give us direct occasion to evince. 3. He makes the whole business of the Ceremonial Law, to represent inward purity, and (perhaps) to effect it: whereas though some of the Ceremonies did represent inward purity; yet the main of their design was to lead to Jesus Christ: and particularly Sacrifices which represented that Atonement and Reconciliation which Christ in due time should make with God on the behalf of Sinners. Col. 2. 17. The Law had a shadow of good things to come, but the Body is of Christ. 4. He scandalously charges it upon God, that he appointed a means to an end; which was found too weak to reach his End: As if God must try conclusions, and make experiments, before he could be certain whether his design would take, and his appointments reach their End. 5. He renders Christ's Coming into the World unnecessary; p. 570for what though the Ceremonial Law could not effect that inward Purity, yet I hope God had means to effect it, unless he will say all the World till Christ's Coming were whited-Walls, and painted-Sepulchres: For what was become of the Moral Law all this while? had it no power to effect that End? 6. He tells us p. 269. That the Reason why the Law of Moses was abrogated, was because it could not make men good: But then the Moral Law was either able to make men good, or it was not; If it was not, why was not that abrogated also? If it was able, and had its effect, then what need of Christ to come into the World to effect that which the Moral Law was able to effect without him? But the true Reason why the Ceremonial Law is expired, is because the Lord Jesus Christ has answered and fulfilled all that is represented. When the Sun is risen, the Shadows fly away; there was no formal abrogation either made or necessary to be made; it expired of course when Christ had made good what-ever the Ceremonies had exhibited to their Faith. 7. He tells that Christ came to work in us that inward Purity, represented by the Ceremonial Law: but for all his good-morrows, when he is throughly catechifed: Christ's working is no more than those sufficient arguments and motives, to excite their own wits, whereby they might work it themselves; and I cannot tell whether he will deny that the Jews had sufficient motives, and arguments for that end under their Law. 8. He contradicts himself (which is no news); for whereas he had said p. 265. That the Law was designed to work in them inward purity: He says p. 269. That the Law nursed them up in a ritual, and external Religion, p. 571and taught them to serve God in the Letter, by Circumcision, and Sacrifices, or an external Conformity to the Letter of the Law. And then I hope God could not justly blame them, much less damn them for being Hypocrites, if they did as well as, and no better, than his own Law taught them: Nay he adds, That the Gospel of Christ alone teaches us to worship God with the Spirit, and to offer a reasonable Sacrifice to him. This is strange Doctrine! but it's less matter for that if it be but true. But was not God always a Spirit, and did he not always teach his People to worship him with their Spirits? How osten does God complain that they drew nigh him with their Lips, when their Hearts were far from him? which he could not well do, if he taught them no better: It's a Riddle to me that these Ceremonies should represent inward purity, and yet not teach it; when they had no way to teach that Purity, but by representing it. 'Tis true, the Gospel teaches us to worship God in the Spirit, in opposition to Ceremonies; but God always taught his People to worship him with their Spirits in opposition to Hypocrisie. Psal. 51. 6. Thou desirest truth in the inward parts. Did God institute a Law, a Law so chargeable and burdensome, and all to teach his People to worship like Parrots, to mumble over their Mattens, and like Puppets to make an outward noise, without a rational Principle to guide it? If they had no reasonable Service, why were they reasonable Creatures? But a little more reverence of the Divine Majesty would confute a great deal of such blasphemy. Let us now seriously consider the Text: and 1. It will be necessary to enquire what that Law is, whose weakness the Apostle assigns as p. 572the reason of God's sending his own Son? And for all the Authors presumptions, I am well satisfied it was not the Ceremonial Law: for what if the Ceremonial had proved weak? what if it had been resolved into its first nothing, the Moral stood still where it always did? and what need of Christ's Coming into the World upon that account? There was a time when the Ceremonial Law was not created, and what if it had been again repealed and annihilated, things had been but in statu quo: But that the Law here mentioned is the Moral Law, the Connexion of the Apostle's Words, his Premises out of which he draws his Conclusion, will abundantly manifest. In Chap. 7. v. 7, He tells us he had not known sin except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet: But sin taking occasion from that Law, wrought in him all manner of Concupiscence, v. 8. Nevertheless he clears the Law. v. 12. The Commandment was holy and just, and good; had an intrinsick goodness, righteousness in it; and this he calls v. 25. The Law of God. Now the Apostle having said v. 10. That this Commandment (of the Moral Law) which was unto life in (God's Original Institution) he found to be unto death: Nevertheless, Chap. 8. v. 1. he assures us, That there is no Condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus; and he shews how Sinners are brought from under that Condemnation, v. 3. What the Law could not do in that it was weak through the Flesh, God sending his own Son, &c. foreign; That impossible thing of the Law: where the Apostle adding the Article [foreign] intimates that he spake of that Law whereof he had made mention before, which was the Moral Law; that Law which saith Thou shalt p. 573not covet; that Law which is holy, just, good; that Law, which is eminently the Law of God, and not that which carries the name of the Law of Moses. (2) But what was that foreign; the impossible thing of this Law? There are many things that this Law cannot do: It can lay a Command upon the Creature, but it cannot give strength to obey the Command; it can offer the Promises of Life to the obedient, and shake the Threatning over the Conscience of the Rebellious; but meeting with depraved Nature, it cannot redintegrate lapsed Nature; it can wound, but it cannot heal; it can condemn but it cannot absolve a Sinner: But yet there seems to be some one thing which above all other impossibles, is absolutely impossible for this Law to do for man; and that is to justifie him before God: For so he had said, and proved Chap. 3. 20. By the Deeds of that Law shall no Flesh be justified in his Sight. But (3.) How comes the Law to be so weak? for certainly it had once such a Power in its primitive appointment, and was fitted to give life to the Obedient; for we must not dare to think, that the Wise God ever appointed a Law or the meanest thing in the World, but it was fitted to reach all those Ends which in his Holy and Secret Counsel he designed it to: How then comes this Law, the Moral Law, to be so weak? If any of the Sons of Adam can produce an Obedience every way such as the Law demands, it is able to give Life Eternal still: The Apostle answers us, It's weak through the Flesh: it was not made weak, but became weak through our weakness. The Law is as strong to reward still, if we were but as strong to obey as ever. But (4.) How did Christ remedy, and help us in this desperate Case? for▪ if p. 574we cannot live by the Law, we must die by the Law. The Apostle resolves us; God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful Flesh, (and in the truth of humane Flesh) and for sin, condemned sin in the Flesh: foreign; That is, as an offering for Sin: So near is the relation between the Sacrifice and the Sin that is laid upon it, that they are called the same. 2 Cor. 5. 21. Christ was made sin: that is, he was made an Offering for sin. For so 'tis exprest, Isa. 53. 10. When thou shalt make his Soul an offering for sin. The Greek therefore, foreign, does but imitate the Hebrew, foreign, which signifies both the Sin, and the Sin-Offering: thus then Christ supplyed the Laws weakness; he who knew no sin, was made sin, and as he was made sin for us, so are we made the Righteousness of God in him. Christ could no otherwise be a Sinner, but by imputation, nor we otherwise Righteous than by the Imputation of his Righteousness. As the Offenders guilt under the Law could not otherwise be laid upon the head of the Typical Sacrifice, but by God's Imputing it; so neither could our Sin otherwise lye upon the Head of Christ, but by his own voluntary Susception, and thereupon God's Righteous Imputation; but these things we shall meet with professedly in the next Section.

There is a Metaphorical expression still behind, which our Author cannot digest; whereupon when he has thrown away a little, and truly but a little wit, he will ease us of the tediousness of this Discourse. The expression which sticks so hard with him is that of the Apostle, Ephes. 3. 8. The unsearchable Riches of Christ. Now though at another time, I would try a fair fall with him, whether p. 575this (and many others which he thinks it enough for their reproach to call so) be a Metaphorical Expression or no; yet I have not leisure at present to attend that Service: for my part, I think that riches is more properly, and literally predicated of that Grace, that is treasured up in the Lord Jesus, than of all that paltry trash which has got the vogue in the Dialect of deluded Worldlings; but I am weary, and shall therefore only make a defensive War of it. What is then this foreign, this unsearchable Riches of Christ? Why, even here these Men cannot agree, for some are zealous for it, that (what-ever is meant by unsearchable Riches,) yet by Christ is meant Christ himself; others, (amongst whom our Author professes his Name) by the unsearchable Riches of Christ, understand the Gospel which St. Paul preached to the Gentiles: And is it not a small thing (that he should stand so stifly upon it) for us to entreat; 1. That the Glorious Person of Christ, his Offices, his Natures, his Obedience, his Life, his Death, with their proper Springs and Causes, their special ends and designs, might come in for a good share of the Gospel? But 2. The Gospel preached is the opening of the Treasures of Wisdom, Knowledg, and Grace that are in Christ. Those Riches are, or were unsearchable, as they lay hid and deep in the Counsels and Purposes of the Father and the Son; so far as they are revealed in the Gospel, they are not unsearchable. But what is meant by Riches? why, Riches (says he) signifie only an abundance. This 'tis to be wise above the common sort of ordinary Mortals; most men I dare say, have hitherto thought that Riches carry in their first Notion, preciousness as well as plenty: A handful of Gold is more p. 576truly Riches, than a heap of Pebbles; but then what are unsearchable Riches? why, they are so called, because the Gospel is not a narrow and stinted thing, is not confined to a particular nation, as the Law was, but is offered to all mankind, &c. I shall not cope with him in his Grammatical skill, for therein he is unmatchable: but foreign has formerly signified that which cannot be traced, that whereof we have no foot-steps: and such are the Riches of Christ, such the Counsels of God, to reconcile the World to himself, by his dear Son; A Mystery whose knowledg depends upon Divine Revelation, whereof we have not the least track in nature, no more than of a Ship in the Sea, an Eagle in the Air, or a Serpent upon a Rock: The Light of Nature is Dark, the Tongue of the Creature Dumb, the Book of the Creation, a great Blank; and he alone that was from eternity in the Bosom of the Father, whose Name is Wonderful Counsellor, was able to reveal and give us notice of them.

One small brush at Mr. Brookes will conclude this Section, for 'tis impossible for our Author to conclude without reviling; and what evil has this good Man done? Oh he has spoken a little too prodigally in commendation of Christ, and it's a standing rule, that whoever will give our Saviour one good Word, shall purchase two bad ones at our Author's Hands for his pains. Now Mr. Brookes (you must know) had said, thinking no man no harm I dare say; That Christ is generally rich, rich in Houses, Lands, in Gold, Silver, in all Temporals as well as Spirituals; with many more friendly expressions of the Fulness and Preciousness of the Grace that is in Christ: To which our Author returns a solid p. 577though short Confutation: That the Son of Man bad not a place whereon to lay his head: And is not Mr. Brooks a rash and unadvised Man think you, to rant it so high in extolling his Riches, and to ascribe to him such vast revenues and possessions: But let us be Charitable, and put a favourable construction upon these dangerous words; perhaps, they are not so rank poyson as they seem to be: 1. What if Mr. Brooks speaks not of what Christ was when he appeared in the form of a Servant; but what he now is since he has reassumed his original Glory, and as Mediator has all power in Heaven and Earth put into his hands; and methinks, it is no such flagitious Crime to assert that Christ has the disposal of all outward things for the good of his Church: But I correct my self when I remember my Author has told us, p. 162. That Christ has left the visible and external Conduct and Government of the Church to Bishops and Pastors; and therefore it may be presumed also he has left the visible Revenues, and Temporalties to their disposal also; for it's equitable, that the Maintenance should go along with the work and therefore those Houses and Lands, the Palaces, the Tithes, the Glebe, the Gold, the Silver, which Mr. B. fancies are in Christ's hands, are entrusted where they shall be converted to better uses. 2. What if Christ for a season that he might feel our Infirmities, and accommodate himself to that dispensation under which his wonderful Condescension had put him, did wave the use of many things he had a Right to: Yet 1. He had foreign the Title, when he forbore foreign the Use of those things. 2. He used his Right too for others, when he would not assert it for himself; He was Rich even then, when he for our p. 578sakes he became poor, 2. Cor. 8, 9. foreign; let him not be reproached for his Love, pardon him that wrong! 3. That Christ had not where to lay his head; signifies no more than that he had no fixed habitation at all times, but generally went up and down doing good, healing all manner of Diseases, Preaching the everlasting Gospel; for he had a House to hide his head in, Ioh. 1. 39. They came and saw where he dwelt: and a Pillow too to lay his head on, Mark. 4. 38. and could sleep securely in the midst of the Storm: he wanted not conveniences for his life, but was so swallowed up of his Fathers work, that he accounted it his Meat and Drink to do his will; and therefore I hope Mr. B. will out-live this assault and battery many a fair day. And now all that I can instruct my self or my Reader in from this Discourse is, That if Mr. Brooks or any of his Brethren shall assert the plainest Truth that ever the Sun shone upon, our Author by the Laws of his Society is bound to oppose it.