A Fresh Antidote Against Neonomian Bane, Chapter 10
CHAP. X. Whether Faith be our juſtifying Righteouſneſs.
Section 1. Whether the Saints before Chriſts did not look upon themſelves as righteous by their own righteouſneſs. §. 2. Abraham conſidered. §. 3. Abraham conſidered. §. 4. Abraham's Justification further conſidered. §. 5. Of Subordinate righteouſneſs. §. 6. Mr. Cl's. defence of a Subordinate righteouſneſs. §. 7 Oppoſition of Faith and Works in Juſtification, Mr. Cl's 2d. and 3d. Arg. §. 8. Mr. Cl. fourth Argument Anſwer'd. §. 9. Argument 5, 6. §. 10. More to Mr. H's challenge.
Sect. 1. MR. H's. Enquiry about the Saints before Chriſts coming is, He would know of any Man who is moſt Orthodox in his Complexion, whether he does or is able to think that Enoch, Noah, Job, who were before the Law, Samuel, the Kings and Prophets under the Law, or any Man or Woman whatſoever before the coming of Chriſt, did ever imagine that they were righteous or 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 &c. And whether they did not look upon themſelves righteous by their own righteouſneſs, their doing righteo…ſn…ſs, 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 Abrahams time at furtheſt. 3. Whether there was one Word of a conditinal promiſe to Adam after the fall, and whether he thinks not that Adam, Abel, Enock, &c. Were not ſaved by Faith in that abſolute promiſe that the ſeed of the Woman, &c. (who is the Meſſiah tho' not under the Name of Meſſiah till Ages afterwards) did they not believe in his righteouſneſs, as that which ſhould break the Serpents Heads, i. e. all the power he had got over Man by the unrighteouſneſs he had brought him into? 4. If they did look upon themſelves as righteous without the Obedience of the Meſſiah (or by the Name which the Spirit of God reveal'd him to them) why did they offer Sacrifice for Sin, did they look at no Significancy or typicalneſs in them, were they not taught of God ſo to do, and did he not ſhew ſhew them that they were typical of the great Sacrifice the ſeed of the Woman ſhould offer in the end of the World? Was it not by Faith they offered them, Heb. 11. And what was that Faith, was it not in a righteouſneſs? for Noah believed in a righteouſneſs and became heir of righteouſneſs which is by Faith, what was he Heir of his own Righteouſneſs? did they believe in themſelves? The Apoſtle's deſign is not to prove that Faith is the Evidence of things not ſeen, the Subſtance of thoſe things hoped for, that thoſe worthys lived in Faith and Hope, and dyed ſo not having received the promiſe in performance, but ſaluted and embraced it by Faith. 5. Had Job and his friends ſuch Principles (tho' not of the Jews Church) chap. 19.27. I know that my Redeemer liveth, was there no Faith in his Words, is there no righteouſneſs in a Redeemer? and what were the Sentiments of his Friends in this Doctrine, ſure they were not Neonomians, Job 25.4. How can Man be juſtified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a Woman? Saith Bildad. A Neonomian would have eaſily reſolved this Queſtion, by performing of the conditions of the New-Law; but alas they heard not of this New-Law, this Nor-Weſt paſſage to Heaven.
§. 2. Let us conſider Abraham, whether he did imagine himſelf righteous, by his doing righteouſly, or looked to obtain favour of God thereby, and no otherways, and whether his Faith was not Eminently carried forth to the Eying of Chriſt in the promiſe. Chriſt ſaith, Abraham rejoiced to ſee my Day, and ſaw it and was glad, he ſaw it, and ſaw it, and rejoiced and was glad, John 8.58. And where and how did he ſee it? was it not in the promiſe of his Seed? and what did he ſee in it? was it not the bleſſedneſs promiſed? Gen. 12. and the Salvation by Redemption and Righteouſneſs, did he ſee nothing in Chriſt for his own Soul; yes, you ſay he ſaw him as a Neonomian Cypher, to ſtand by his Juſtification by his own Works, to the magnifying his own righteouſneſs, but the Spirit of God ſaith; he was not juſtified by Works; how come Men to ſay he was? James ſaith he was, how, by approving the Truth of his Faith, for he was in a juſtifyed State long before the offering up his Son, but his Faith was proved, and approved of by God, and witneſſed to, by this eminent Act of Obedience, God teſtified to his particular Acts of Obedience, which the World was ready to Condemn, and ſo to Rabab, ſo to Phineas his Act, that whatever the World judged of theſe Actions, yet they were approved of God as righteous, and true Obedience: Abel was an accepted perſon of God before his offering, then becauſe his perſon was juſtified, God witneſſeth to his gifts, that they were accepted as being done in Faith; whereas Cain was an unjuſtified perſon, theres no Sinner juſtified by his Works, but a Believers Works are accepted, becauſe their perſons are accepted in another righteouſneſs, in which their Works are accepted afterward: Abel was firſt accepted, and then his Service.
§. 3. Now we are upon Abraham, let us conſider him a little further, did he imagine himſelf righteous without the Obedience of Chriſt, and no other way than by his own righteouſneſs? What do theſe Men make of the Goſpel preached, is it not the 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 Ʋr of the Chaldees, Gen. 12. In thee ſhall all the Nations of the Earth be bleſſed, and that this contained in it, that bleſſing of righteouſneſs which is after more particularly Explained, he was juſtified as the Heathen, and believing Gentiles were to be juſtified afterwards, and the Apoſtle ſaith theſe that are foreign, i. e. of that kind of Juſtification, are bleſſed with faithful Abraham, ver. 9. but ſuch as are foreign, 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 co-ordinate or Supream, which our Neonomians pleaſe, for Juſtification, becauſe it is ſaid Abrahams: Faith was imputed to him for Righteouſneſs, i. e. ſay, they his Goſpel Works, not Moſaical, or not according to the Old Law, but according to the New.
This aſſertion is moſt falſe, for theſe reaſons. 1. There was no Moſaical Law in Abraham's days. 2. There was no New Law exhibited to Abraham, for their promiſe was abſolute, Gen. 12. And cannot be pretended to be conditional. 3. Its not conſiſtent with the nature of Faith, which is the Evidence of ſomething not ſeen, or preſent, but Works and Faith as ſuch is both ſeen in us, and preſent with us. 4. If Faith be the very righteouſneſs, then Faith believes in Faith as righteouſneſs. Doth the Scripture bid us believe in our ſelves, or believe in another. Faith believes in Faith, for our very righteouſneſs by theſe Men, which is moſt abſurd, when they preach, they ſhould bid Men believe in themſelves, did Abraham believe in his Faith? Was that his believing, or did he believe that which was held out in the Promiſe? the ſame thing that God imputes to us for righteouſneſs, we do make the Object of our Faith for Righteouſneſs. Now then if God imputes our believing to us, then we believe in our believing, theſe are inevitable Rocks this Doctrine will bring theſe Men unto. 5. God cannot impute Faith as a Work, and in the Neonomian ſence for righteouſneſs, it being as Mr. H. confeſſeth again and again, no righteouſneſs, ſinful, in need of pardon, for, 1. This would not be according to truth to call evil good, nor to do it in a way of adminiſtration of Juſtice, as in Juſtification, would it be juſt? But moſt unjuſt, God is a God of Truth and Holineſs, and the Judge of all the World, and therefore muſt deal righteouſly, for tho' he pardons Iniquity, yet will by no means clear the Guilty. 2. Its contrary to their own aſſertions, that Juſtification is an Act of Juſtice, whereas ſuch an Imputation and Juſtification as they ſpeak of, would be far from an Act of juſtice, and is a meer diſpenſation with juſtice, for where a Law muſt be abrogated, or relaxed, there is an abſolute diſpenſation with Juſtice, and without one of theſe they confeſs there cannot be Juſtification by their New Law. 6. This cannot be juſtification, becauſe Sin is not pardoned in it, nor the perſon accepted, Imputation of righteouſneſs to the work, before its to the perſon, and if the perſon muſt do good works before he's juſtifi'd, which is abſurd, becauſe the works he doth are imputed to him, and he is juſtified by 'em, as they ſay.
§. 5. But let us hear what Mr. Cl. hath to ſay for the Proof of this Poſition, that Faith is our Subordinate righteouſneſs (i. e. in his ſence an interveening righteouſneſs coming between Chriſts righteouſneſs) whereby we are juſtified before we come at Chriſt, or pardon, both being conſequent to our Juſtification, by this New-Law-Righteouſneſs which he calls Faith, ſee, p. 64. His reaſon are theſe, 1. What elſe can be the plain and proper meaning of that Phraſe, it was accounted to him for righteouſneſs? (Without putting it upon the Rack of Tropes and Figures, and the like Engines of Cruelty, &c.
Reſp. Doth Mr. Cl. pretend to be an interpreter of Scripture, and will not allow the uſe of a Trope or Figure, but to call them Engines of Cruelty, is to ſay, where a Trope is ſaid to be uſed in a Scripture, there is a wreſting of Scripture; I muſt tell him that a Tropical ſence of many Places of Scripture, is the true plain and proper ſence and meaning of the Spirit of God, in many moſt eminent Expreſſions, and for this he muſt expect to be watched in the adjuſting his New-found righteouſneſs, whether he doth no where interpret Scripture Tropically. What anſwer will he give the Papiſt in the Doctrin of Tranſubſtantiation founded on, This is my Body? Mr. B. ſaith, its as credible as the Doctrine of imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs: And what ſaith Mr. Cl. to the Covenant of Circumciſion. Well let us make a little Impartial Examination of this Expreſſion, If Abraham were juſtified by works, Rom. 4.2. he hath boaſting, but not before God; not in the Preſence of God for his Juſtification, yea he may rejoice, that through Grace he hath performed any action by faith which God witneſſeth to, as James ſpeaks of, but he dare not plead it before God for Juſtification of his Perſon. Now he brings in Juſtification by Faith in diametrical oppoſition to it; for the Scripture ſaith, Abraham believed in God, and it was accounted to him for righteouſneſs, ſo tranſlated, the words in the Hebrew may run thus, He believed on Jehovah, and he accounted it (i. e. what he believed of him) for righteouſneſs to him, the Words are rendred by the Septuagint and the New Teſtament. Abraham believed God, it was accounted to be unto righteouſneſs. The Seed promiſed before was the thing believed by Abraham, the bleſſing unto all Nations, which Seed was to proceed from his and Sarah his Wife's Loins, this was the promiſe of God to him, and this was accounted to him for righteouſneſs; he believed Jehovah graciouſly promiſing, and the thing promiſed, Jehovah imputed to him for righteouſneſs foreign he accounted the thing believed, not the Faith it ſelf, therefore the Targum hath its foreign 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 foreign, i. e. he believes upon the righteouſneſs which is imputed to him. And why may not Faith be taken objectively, by a Metonomy, for the thing believed? for 'tis not unuſual in Scripture, Chriſt is ſaid to be our hope, the object of our hope, 1 Tim. 1.1. and ſo the hope laid up for us in Heaven, i e. the things hoped for, Coloſſ. 1.5. ſo looking for that bleſſed hope, Tit. 2.14. the things hoped for; what's more frequent than theſe Metonomies, yea proper, plain and elegant; in matters of ſenſe or perception its moſt frequent to put the object for the ſence, and ſence for the object, Matth. 6.22. the light of the body is the eye, and there the light is for the eye, and after, the eye for the light; beſides, its a rule, that when a word in Scripture taken in the direct ſenſe, will croſs other Scriptures, and the ſignification lies fair for the Analogy of Faith, then the true ſenſe lies in the Trope; as here, we are juſtified by faith, but how? as it lays hold on the juſtifying blood of Chriſt, or elſe we contradict, Rom. 5.9. being now juſtified by his blood; now either Faith or the juſtifying Blood of Chriſt muſt fall into a Trope; for which is it fitteſt, and to which doth it ſuit beſt? Paul Rom. 4. argues ſtrenuouſly againſt juſtification by works, and therefore, againſt Juſtification by Faith as a Work. To this kind of Juſtification he oppoſeth that of Faith, its being accounted for righteouſneſs; if faith be underſtood as a work of righteoſneſs, then the 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, then 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 expreſly called the righteouſneſs of faith, Rom. 4.11, 13. chap. 9.30. chap. 10.16. by faith, Gal. 5.5. Heb. 11.5.
Reſp. This affects us not, The righteouſneſs of faith, is but as the light of the eye, the righteouſneſs which is the object of faith, Rom. 4.11. he received the ſign of circumciſion, called the covenant of Circumciſion by a plain Trope, not cruel at all, the ſeal of the righteouſneſs of faith: Is this a Seal only that we are righteous, or is it a Seal of the righteouſneſs of Chriſt promiſed to Abraham, v. 13. there's a poſitive denial that the Promiſe was to Abraham and his Seed through a Law, any Law, Old or New, but thro the righteouſneſs of faith the proper and peculiar object in 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, foreign, its not called the righteouſneſs of faith there; to what purpoſe quoted, I know not, and Heb. 11.5. where it is ſaid, by faith Enoch was tranſlated, what's Enoch's Tranſlation here to his Juſtification which was three hundred years before?
§. 7. Argument 4. Becauſe Faith is a conformity to the rule of the promiſe (wherein the nature of righteouſneſs doth conſiſt) viz. the Goſpel or Covenant of Grace, which requires only ſincere believing, not perfect doing, Rom. 10.8.10. and therefore tho it be not righteouſneſs in ſtrict Juſtice, according to the law of nature (i. e. works) yet it is righteouſneſs according to the favourable 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 its called the righteouſneſs of God.
Reſp. The rule of the promiſe is an uncouth Term which I have examined elſewhere, and therefore ſhall not now ſtand upon it, only, A rule of the promiſe muſt be either by which it is made, or upon which it is performed; there's no Rule God makes any Promiſe by, but his own good Will and Pleaſure; but its the Rule its performed by that muſt be a Rule in us, by which God walks, i. e. the condition of the New Law performed by us, a Law indeed hath ſuch a Rule, but no Goſpel hath; do and live, do is the Rule, and live the Promiſe, to be performed upon our doing; and this is theſe mens Goſpel or Govenant of Grace, a downright Law; and where is it proved that Faith is a 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, &c. who denies Faith, if it be true to be as ſincere as any other Grace, but this proves it not to be our righteouſneſs; the words of the Text are againſt it, it believes unto righteouſneſs, it goes out of it ſelf for 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 it ſelf unto righteouſneſs. VVell, 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 forbid 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 juſtifie him for that which a juſt Law and ſtrict Juſtice condemns for unrighteouſneſs; the righteouſneſs of the new Law is condemn'd 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 father'd on God's favourable conſtruction, yea, on Jeſus Chriſts Undertaking and Performance; he undertook and died for this end, that our unrighteouſneſs ſhould have the honour of juſtifying us, his was but ſubſervient to that end; it ſeems God would have it ſo, that his Son ſhould be made a Sacrifice to purchace the imputation of our own righteouſneſs, for righteouſneſs unto juſtification, and therefore it is called the righteouſneſs of God, why, becauſe its ours and not Chriſts: Of this in another place.
§. 8. That Faith is our Goſpel-righteouſneſs appears further from Rom. 10. this being the ſame with the Fourth, and anſwered there, I need ſay nothing to it.
Argument 6. There are but two ſorts of righteouſneſs, Legal and Evangelical, but this is not legal righteouſneſs, and therefore it muſt be Evangelical.
Reſp. There is but one ſort of righteouſneſs, and that is legal, and its a legal righteouſneſs though graciouſly beſtowed, that we are juſtified by, and its impoſſible that it ſhould be otherwiſe; its only the legal righteouſneſs of Chriſt made ours, which is our Evangelical, Chriſt's own righteouſneſs, as it reſpects the Juſtice of God and his Law, is Legal; as it reſpects a Sinner, is graciouſly beſtowed, its Evangelical. But alas, Mr. Cl. to prevent miſconſtruction, after he hath bin 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, &c.
Reſp. One may ſee how frail a righteouſneſs theſe men have feigned to themſelves; it is as the Spider's Web that they dare not lean upon it, tho they will ſwagger and vapour with it to out-dare them whom they call Antinomians, who will cleave 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 fetcht them from under that faulty Perfection, and brought them under a faultleſs unrighteouſneſs of the Remedial Law, and faults their Righteouſneſs muſt have, or elſe it would be an 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 bin to have pardoned and mended the faults of our remedial righteouſneſs; but it ſeems here is ſome pretence to it only that Chriſt may not think he is put off with nothing; but the compleating of theſe rough Garments to deceive, lies in their own doings; if we do this, God looks upon us as righteous in a Goſpel-ſenſe, and pardons us, firſt juſtified and not pardoned, and then pardoned and not juſtified: VVhat 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 Chriſts Obedience, to be their righteouſneſs, how could they imagine that Chriſts Obedience could be the procuring cauſe, ſo that they were altogether deſtitute of the id propter quod. I would know whether the Faith of Gods Children before Chriſt, had no Eye unto Chriſt and his righteouſneſs, in the Sacrifices and ſin Offerings which they offered daily; did they not look at them as ſhadows and types of a better and more perfect Sacrifice, the Apoſtle ſaith that the righteouſneſs of God (which we ſhall by and by ſhew to be the righteouſneſs of Chriſt) was witneſſed by the Law (i. e. the Law of Moſes) and the Prophets, and if ſo, its ſtrange that they ſhould have no imagination of it, when as the Apoſtle Peter, 1 Ep. c. 1.10. Saith, the Prophets have Enquired after and ſearched diligently for this Salvation propheſied of, Searching what and what manner of times the Spirit of Chriſt which was in them did ſignifie, when it teſtified before hand the ſufferings of Chriſt and the glory which ſhould follow: The Apoſtle Peter was clear in this Point, Acts 2.31 He ſaith that David foreſaw the Reſurrection of Chriſt, and ſpake of it, and Chriſt himſelf affirms this after his Reſurrection to the two Diſciples going to Immaus, that he ought thus to ſuffer and 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 expreſly foretel Chriſts ſufferings and reſurrection, and why it was? viz. to bear Sin and ſatisfie Gods 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 intend by the non-imputation of Chriſts 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.