A Fresh Antidote Against Neonomian Bane, Chapter 12
CHAP. XII. Of the Imputation of Chriſts 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 it ſelf. His Arguments are 1. Taken from the places of Scripture that ſeem to evince the imputation of our own righteouſneſs to us for Juſtification. VVhat he ſaith of boaſting and merit hath bin 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 ſhewed the abſurdity and vanity of elſewhere. It is manifeſt in Scripture (Mediocr. p. 20.) that good works, holy duties, and performances are accepted of God and 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 non-plus, 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 Gods acceptation of the ſervices of the Apoſtles, and rewarding them in Chriſt, but nothing of his righteouſneſs for Juſtification, which was Chriſt's only that he deſired to be found in; that of Matth. 25.34. hath the ſame import, come ye bleſſed, &c. it holds only God's owning and declaring the 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 ſhew them their folly in truſting to their own righteouſneſs and ability to perform it, for he ſaith, v. 31. caſt away all your tranſgreſſions, i. e. there's not the guilt of any muſt ly upon you, and make you a new heart, and a new ſpirit; where he challengeth them to do that which no natural man can do; but becauſe they ſtood upon their own righteouſneſs and natural abilities, God brings them to the teſt for their Conviction, that they might fly to his Grace both for Juſtification and Sanctification, which fully appears by the Promiſe, chap 36.25, 26, 27. where both are ſaid to be of God, and not of our ſelves. He alledgeth alſo the tenor of the Law, he that doth them ſhall live in them, i. e. ſaith he, he ſhall be juſtified in them.
Reſp. Now its ſtrange a man ſhould be ſo abſurd to bring the expreſs tenor of the Covenant of Works to be that of the Covenant of Grace, when its poſitively affirmed, that this tenor of the law is not of faith, directly oppoſed to that righteouſneſs of faith, Gal. 3.12. Nay, he is not content with this downright contradiction to the Spirit of God, he goes on. If you make a 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 roat, not minding the Text, he ſays there's another Text, but names not where, but its applied to the matter in hand, Gal. 3.11. the 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 Chriſts 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 its ſaid to be accounted for righteouſneſs, or wherever we are ſaid to be accounted righteous, its to be underſtood objectively, and put for the righteouſneſs that it does eye and lay hold upon. But 2dly, Is not Chriſts righteouſneſs ſaid in Scripture to be imputed to us? let us a little examine Scripture: Firſt, whether its 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 its written not for him only, but for us, that have the ſame Faith, Righteouſneſs and Imputation, to us to whom it ſhall be imputed if we believe, i. e. receive that righteouſneſs by faith which 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 Chriſts 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 Chriſts 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, then not that; if Mr. Humph. will ſay, its effective only, its foreign, 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 it ſelf) it muſt be the righteouſneſs of his active or paſſive obedience, or both, But its neither.
Reſp. We ſay both: He goes to prove his active obedience is not imputed, If it be, then muſt we be looked upon in him as having committed no Sin, nor omitted no Duty, and then what need will there be of Chriſt's Death?
Reſp. The ſame conſequent may be corruptly drawn upon imputation of his paſſive, as he doth: But the conſequent follows not, for the Imputation of Chriſts 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 our ſelves, there would not need the Perfection of another to be imputed to us; for all Imputation by Tranſaction, ſuppoſeth the perſon not to be that perſonally, and in himſelf, which he is made to be by Imputation; ſo Imputation of our Sins to Chriſt, ſuppoſeth Chriſt was not Sin in himſelf, but made ſo by imputation of ours; therefore the Imputation of Chriſts active obedience ſuppoſeth us to be ſinners in our ſelves. 2. As Chriſt was the Second Adam, and made under the law in all reſpects for us, ſo he was to come under it for us as to active obedience, and to anſwer that way as well as the other, for it was needful that he fulfil all righteouſneſs for us; and the firſt and chief thing the Law required, was active obedience; the Law is not ſatisfied without a performance of the righteouſneſs which it requires; there muſt be therefore a fulfilling of the Law as to active obedience, elſe the righteouſneſ, of Chriſt is lame and imperfect. Its true, if the righteouſneſs imputed were inherent, according to the Neonomian Doctrine, then 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 compleat in Chriſt, and without ſpot in the eye of God's Juſtice. Let me return the Argument upon him, If our active obedience to the new Law be imputed to us for juſtifying righteouſneſs, then muſt we he lookt upon in this righteouſneſs as ſuch as have committed no ſin. I hope Mr. H. will not ſay, that the righteouſneſs of the new law is not active obedience: I ſay, is it imputed or not? if imputed, the conſequence follows, but to ſee the baſeneſs of theſe men, to draw odious conſequences upon the Myſtery of Chriſt, when the ſame would follow with much more odium 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 lookt upon as ſuch by our ſelves; but there is no true Believer but is lookt upon by God in foro Juſtitiae, as if he had 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 Gods children are caſt behind his back, and that they ſtand without ſpot before the Throne; and to conclude this Point, now let him conſider only one verſe of Rom. 5.19. As by the diſobedience of one many were made ſinners, ſo by the obedience of one many ſhall be made righteous. I would know of him what will become of ſo plain an Antitheſis, if obedience be not active obedience there meant.
§. 4. If Chriſts paſſive obedience be imputed, then muſt we look on our ſelves as ſuch who in Chriſt have ſuffered and ſatisfied the law, and born the curſe of it, and then how ſhall there be room for any 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 eaſie 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. Its 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, tho Man pardons often with injury to Juſtice, but God declares his righteouſneſs for the remiſſion of ſins, Rom. 3.25. and without ſhedding of blood there is no remiſſion, Heb. 9.
2. God's juſtifying ſinners, ungodly, &c. by a righteouſneſs given unto them, is a pardon of them.
3. It is the higheſt, nobleſt Pardon in the World, where ſins are nailed to the Croſs of Chriſt, when it is to the Satisfaction of Juſtice, as Grace, ſo Juſtice are magnified therein: A true Believer, and broken-hearted 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 ſatisfie; with them, either Gods Pardon, or the Sinners Juſtification muſt fall to the ground; but bleſs God for the nobleſt Pardon in the World.
§. 5. But methinks this Argument is purely Socinian, for they ſay, there's nothing more contrary to Gods forgiving freely than Satisfaction: But Mr. H. that he might not ſeem to run a Tilt againſt Satisfaction, ſaith indeed. The Argument of the Socinian from Pardon againſt Chriſt's Satisfaction is not valid, but it is good againſt imputation of it to us, as if we had ſatisfied.
Reſp. And why is it not good againſt Satisfaction in the Socinian ſence? he gives no reaſon, for he ſaith, that he that pays the full Debt by himſelf or Surety, there's no room for pardon; and will not Mr. H. ſay, that Chriſt hath not paid the full Debt for him; if he will, let him pay what remains, or try for Pardon for that which is not paid another way than by remiſſion through his blood; but what do they Socinians ſay more; if God be 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 ſatisfie at all? if he did, was it in a law-ſence? if ſo, was it for himſelf, or for us? if for us, then the law ſaith ſo, for us: For the Law of God doth not take Satisfaction in ſo blind a manner, as that God in his Law knows not for whom it is; if God in his Law knows for whom it is, and accepts it for us, then it is accounted to us, and imputed to us, as to all the ends thereof in Law. The taking Satisfaction in Law for any offence againſt it for any one, is the Laws Imputation or accounting it to him for whom it is made, whether the ſatisfaction be given by himſelf who 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 our ſelves, therefore Mr. H. muſt either renounce the Doctrine of Satisfaction, with the Socinians, or own its imputed to us as fully (yea in this caſe we may ſay) more fully than if we had made it our ſelves.
§. 6. Let us ſee how Mr. H. would avoid the Socinian Rock, he ſaith, Chriſt may have wrought with the father (or made him that ſatisfaction as) to procure new Terms, ſo that a man may be juſtified as a fulfiller of them, and yet need pardon for non-performance of the old.
R. Behold the Neonomian Satisfaction! 1. He makes not 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 injur'd, 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 Purchace; obſerve then, he makes Chriſt's Satisfaction only a New Purchace.
2. This New Purchace is of New Terms of Juſtification; hence God is not to ſtand upon ſatisfaction to the Old Law, but to drop it, and bring the Sinner under a New Law; Chriſt died not to ſatisfie the Law, but to tranſlate us from one Law to 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 indempnified from the old, elſe all pretence of advantage by the ſaid tranſlation is gone, for he that ſtands under the terms of one law, condemned by it, and brought under new terms to another, come now to be liable to the laſh of two Laws, whereas before he was under but one.
2. He ſaith, this Pardon muſt be had at the Bar of the Old Law. I would know of Mr. H. how? If he ſaith, and will ſtand to it according to his own Argument, he cannot, or elſe he muſt deny Chriſts Satisfaction, which is this, That Law which is ſatisfied for the breach of it, admits no Pard…n from the Legiſlator, but the Old Law (ſay Neonomians in words) was ſatisfied for us, therefore there can be no Pardon; yea, it was ſatisfied for us in our ſtead, and the ſatisfaction accepted for us, yea therefore imputed to us, Here I have the Neonomian faſt in this Dilemma from their own Doctrine, let them free themſelves how they can. For if Pardon and Satisfaction imputed are not conſiſtent as to our Doctrine, then not in theirs; but they ſay, notwithſtanding their juſtification by their New Law, they muſt have Pardon for the breach of the Old, and how? Not at all in their ſence, if the Old be not ſatisfyed, or that Satisfaction not imputed; as much as to ſay, it is Money laid down in Court indefinitely, but not accepted in Court for this and that Mans Sins; hence Chriſt hath ſatisfyed for none, for all ſatisfaction as ſuch, is accepted as ſuch; we come now to his attempt, to prove that neither the Active or Paſſive Obedience of Chriſt is imputed.
§. 7. For (ſaith he) If that his Active and Paſſive Obedience be imputed, then muſt God be made to deal with Man according to the Covenant of Works.
Reſp. See how this Gentleman in all his Arguings runs his Head againſt a Poſt and Pillar of Goſpel Truth, his Argument is this, if Chriſt's Active and Paſſive Obedience be accepted for us as ſatisfaction for the Law, then God deals with Sinners in their juſtification, after the tenor of the Covenant of Works; now he may aſſume either by taking away the Antecedent, or by taking away the Conſequent, he indeed intends both, firſt, by taking away the Antecedent, viz. But Chriſt's Active and Paſſive Obedience is not accepted for ſatisfaction, therefore he doth not deal with Sinners in Juſtification according to the Covenant of Works, therefore Chriſt hath not ſatisfied the Covenant of Works for us, the Law lies unſatisfyed. I would know how the Pardon he ſpeaks of is Subſequent to the New Law. 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 meer Grace, the Myſtery of Grace is to ſave ſinners in ſuch a way, as may not only magnifie 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, Chriſts Obedience was the moſt Legal, both active and paſſive that ever was; but that a ſinner is brought under this Obedience of Chriſt unto Juſtification, is meer free Grace, he being thereby partaker of the diſtinguiſhing Grace of God, and the free Gift of Chriſt and his Righteouſneſs, without the intervention of any Mediator, or Subordinate Righteouſneſs of his own; hence it is, that his Faith makes not void the Law, but Eſtabliſheth it in the higheſt degree, in Exalting Chriſt as his only, and moſt compleat 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 juſtifie us without Juſtice? Doth not the Apoſtle ſay a ſinner is juſtifyed by Grace, in and through Chriſts Redemption, that God may be juſt? Doth not Mr. H. ſay Juſtification is an Act of Juſtice, again and again? Doth not this ſetting up our own righteouſneſs in 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 then a Righteouſneſs as doth Anſwer and ſatisfie the Law fully, will ſuffice for the ſinners 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 Judgment 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 Chriſts ſatisfaction were compleat and imperfect: If nothing elſe will ſuffice for a Plea. 1. What can be better than a perfect ſatisfaction for a Plea. 2. Either Chriſts is not perfect, or elſe perfect will not do, without an imperfect added to it, which indeed he means, that Chriſts perfect ſatisfaction muſt have our Imperfect added, to make our Plea compleat. 3. What is freeing from condemnation but Pardon of Sin? I pray, what righteouſneſs doth a Neonomian flee to for the pardon of Sin? Do they tell us its Chriſts, tho' they be juſtified by their own? I would know whether they eſteem Chriſts Righteouſneſs full and compleat for the pardon of Sin? Or do they plead for ſome of their pardon at the Bar of the New Law, where they are juſtifyed, and ſome of their pardon at the Bar of the Old Law, where they are condemned? But this imputed righteouſneſs is a miſtake of the Proteſtants (poor Man I pitty him) and he hath found the miſtake, ſo it ſeems indeed by his Writing.
§. 8. Chriſt came into the World to procure and tender a New Law, and in this regard he is called our Law giver; not that he hath given any other Moral rules of Life to us, but that he hath given the ſame Precepts, with Indulgence.
Reſp. Now mark the Neonomian Spirit, but Two or Tree Lines off he was for Juſtification only by Grace without Law, that he might dethrone Chriſt, but now again, that he may Enthrone Mans Righteouſneſs, he is altogether for Law, his Language is half Aſhdod, take him where you will. 1. He tells you what he means by Satisfaction, which he ſaith is procurement, Chriſt came into the World not to ſatisfie the Law of God, which we had broken, but to procure a Law, a remedial Law, a better Law to anſwer Gods Ends than the Firſt; it was a great miſtake ſure in Divine Wiſdom to make ſuch a Law at firſt as would not do. 2. It was another overſight at leaſt that Chriſt did not come to procure a right law at firſt. 3. Its very ſtrange that God would not 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, its but by a law which requires perſonal obedience in fulfilling the condition; this is the Grace of the Law, and Law of Grace; a Law of Grace it is, ſuch 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 meer Hobgoblin. But how is theſe mens New Law compounded? It is, they ſay, of Grace and a Law; and it lies In that he hath not given new Moral Laws of life to us, other than what was contained in the old law before; but that he hath given the ſame precepts with 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 mixt of Morality and Immorality its good for nothing, it will not ſerve this turn, therefore the old law with indulgence of ſin is the New Law. I pray let me know from the Wits of our Age, whether this be not Antinomianiſm? Now he tells us, this is a law of indulgence, &c. the plain Engliſh of it is, that its a Law of Diſpenſation with a Law of Juſtice, i. e. a lawleſs law; that all the Satisfaction he means, is Gods Diſpenſation with Law and Juſtice, and a law to call Sin by one law Sin, and righteouſneſs by another; the truth is, the whole Doctrine tends to deny God in his glorious Properties, and to change him into the ſimilitude of an Ox that eateth Hay, interpretativè, and if God doth not act now, and at Judgment, by this lay of Diſpenſation with Law, and indulgence of Sin, he ſays, the main buſineſs of Chriſt's coming and Redemption, is loſt, that can be no other in his ſence than to be Miniſter of Sin.
§. 10. You ſhall hear a Proteſtant [i. e. Neonomians, they are Papiſts, according to the Profeſſion of this downright Papiſt] in his Prayer, appealing from the Tribunal of Gods Juſtice, to the Throne of his Grace, yet in his Sermon telling the People, that it is nothing elſe but the perfect obedience and ſatisfaction of Chriſt imputed to them that ſaves them, which is to bring them back from the throne of Grace to the Bar of his Juſtice to be judged.
Reſp. I am aſhamed to read ſuch a Banter of Chriſtianity from any man that profeſſeth himſelf a Chriſtian, tho a Papiſt and Socinian. 1. Is it a good Appeal or no for a ſinner to make from the Tribunal of Juſtice, i. e. meer Juſtice, where God beholds the Sinner as he is in himſelf, by his moſt righteous law, a 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, &c. of Judicial Proceedings to his enemies, and a Diſpenſation of Grace to his Church, (there being a Rainbow round about the Throne;) where Chriſt is a High-Prieſt, who hath ſatisfied the Juſtice of God, and 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 meer Juſtice? is not this the Throne of Grace where Juſtice is ſatisfied and appeaſed, where Chriſt the Satisfier is exalted to Gods right hand to be a Prince and Saviour?
I pray, what do Neonomians? do they firſt bring them to a law, ſuppoſe it were a law of Grace, as they call it, to be 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.