A Fresh Antidote Against Neonomian Bane, Chapter 13

A Fresh Antidote Against Neonomian Bane · Chapter 13

p. 115CHAP. XIII. Of the Righteouſneſs of God.

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

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

Reſp. If it be a revealed Righteouſneſs, it's that which is the Object of Faith ſeen without our ſelves not in our ſelves, for that need not to be revealed, which every Man is naturally addicted to ſee and know. Again, it muſt not be our Works in Oppoſition to our Works for Juſtification, for there is no formal Oppoſition between Works and Works, nor material indeed which have the ſame Subject, and Genns, and End; as for what he calls them by way of Difference, it will not ſerve, he calls ſome Works, Works of the Law, ſome Goſpel-works, i. e. Works of the Law of Grace; now we have ſhew'd that there are no ſuch Goſpel-works which put in for Juſtification, nor doth the Spirit Work ſuch, and being both are the Works of a Law, they differ not ſpecifically, they are legal Works, Works of a Law p. 116performed for Juſtification are always Legal never Evangelical.

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

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

§. 3. The Righteouſneſs of God and Grace oppoſed to Works, is nothing but the Righteouſneſs of the Covenant of Grace accepted for Chriſts ſake, inſtead of the Covenant of Works.

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

Reſp. This Neonomian Cheat is always to be noted in the Point of Satisfaction, that all the Satisfaction they aſcribe to Chriſt is only in making pay unto God for a new Purchaſe, they will not p. 117have Chriſt to have paid any Arrears or old Scores, the Law paſſeth away in ſententiam, and we found inſolvent to this perfect Law, therefore Chriſt buys another Law, upon that promiſeth Juſtification upon eaſier Terms, not ſo Holy, but ſinful and immoral, and therefore called the Law of Indulgence, yet juſtifies us upon thoſe Terms, but yet without Pardon which we muſt have of the Old Law, and becauſe we have fulfilled the New Law, God out of his Prerogative without any other Satisfaction than the forementioned procurement Pardons, for they ſay Satisfaction and Pardon are inconſiſtent as the Socinians do, and why do they ſay Chriſts Satisfaction is not imputed to us, becauſe if they were not aſhamed to ſpeak out they think there is none, yea and that they ſpeak of is only Chriſts purchaſing a new Law, which would be madneſs for to claim an Imputation of to us, for that concerns us no further then a new Legal Bondage, if Chriſts Righteouſneſs be not accepted for our Juſtification from the Old Law, and imputable to us, its not deſirable to be imputed to us to bring us under a new Law and further Bondage. Beſides, if Chriſt purchaſed this Law-making Power, its for himſelf, and not for us, for they will tell you he did not Purchaſe the Performance of the Condition, and when they ſay, we are juſtified by our Works for the ſake of Chriſts Merits, their meaning is, becauſe Chriſt purchaſed the Law and Promulgation of it, juſt as if they ſhould ſay, if Adam had ſtood, he had been juſtified by his Works for the ſake of God who made the Law, for if there had been no Law there had been no Juſtification by it; ſo we are juſtified ſay they by the Law of Grace, for the ſake of Chriſt who merited the Law and became Law-maker; this is all they mean, and this is the Neonomian Cheat in the great Point of Satisfaction, whereby they would by retaining the Word, only without the Sence, cover themſelves from the odious Name of Socinians. Laſtly, He makes Grace and Juſtice in reſpect of God to be all one, ſo that to be juſtified by Works of our own, and by Grace is all one, and Paul's Epiſtles are all Non-ſenſe.

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

Reſp. The Righteouſneſs of Faith is the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt apprehended and received by Faith, for Rom. 4.11. tells us, that Circumciſion was a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, which p. 118Righteouſneſs of Faith Abraham had being uncircumciſed, that the ſame righteouſneſs may be imputed to them; and what righteouſneſs is that? it is that through which iniquity is forgiven, and Sin covered, that it might not be imputed, and this is the righteouſneſs that's imputed without works. Hence I argue. That that righteouſneſs through which iniquity is forgiven, and ſin covered, and is imputed without works, is the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, and not ours; but the righteouſneſs of Faith, according to the Apoſtle in that place, is ſuch, as appears, v. 6, 7, 9, 10. Is there any iniquity forgiven in the New Law Righteouſneſs? no, they ſay, pardon is conſequent to it, its had of the old law: Is any Sin cover'd by it from the Eye of God's Juſtice? no, they ſay, God ſees their Sins by the old Law: Is righteouſneſs imputed without works? no, it cannot be, becauſe its faith as a work is imputed, v. 13. The Promiſe that he ſhould be the heir of the world, was not through a law [then not through any works of a law] but through the righteouſneſs of faith, therefore it was the the righteouſneſs of Chriſt; the righteouſneſs of a law is excluded, therefore works; and its here alſo what the righteouſneſs of faith apprehends. That of Rom. 9.31. and chap. 10.6 we ſhall ſhew by and by was the righteouſneſs of Chriſt apprehended by faith: The Apoſtle, Gal. 5.5. intends Chriſt's righteouſneſs; for what ſhould men do for the hope of that righteouſneſs which they have in themſelves; for by faith, all, ſaith he, are one in Chriſt Jeſus, true faith bringing forth love, as ſuch apprehends and waits for more and more comfort in the righteouſneſs of Chriſt. That ſpoken of Hebrews 11.7. is the righteouſneſs of Chriſt promiſed, the Seed of the Woman, that was the great Promiſe believed by the Antidiluvian Patriarchs, and by the Death and Satisfaction of the Seed of the Woman promiſed, they believed he ſhould break the Serpents head; Noah became heir of this righteouſneſs which he received and lived comfortably in the enjoyment of, by faith in the Promiſe.

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

p. 119Mr. H. ſaith, That our righteouſneſs is called Gods in oppoſition meerly to that of works; let a man do what he can by his own ſtrength, or by God's aid he can never come to the law of works or Moſes; God hath therefore been pleaſed to make us a new law, a law of faith, or grace, or new covenant, having lower terms, in performance whereof the ſinner, in reſpect of the law, may be righteous, its a righteouſneſs performed by Grace, which God mercifully condeſcends to accept inſtead of that which is perfect, through the merits of our Saviour, and in regard of that acceptation (N. B.) or this good will its called his, or the righteouſneſs which is of him. Lo here is the true Key which opens the Mind of the Apoſtle, therefore Mr. H. takes it to be the new-law-righteouſneſs which in theſe places is called the righteouſneſs of God, becouſe oppoſed to the old-law-righteouſneſs, becauſe alſo wrought of God.

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

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

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

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

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

3. They did ſo cloſely adhere to it that they would not ſubmit to the Doctrine of Juſtification by the righteouſneſs of another, viz. the righteouſneſs of Chriſt; ſee how the words will run in Mr. Cl's. ſence, being ignorant of an imperfect righteouſneſs of their own performing, going about to eſtabliſh a righteouſneſs of their own performing, they ſubmitted not to a righteouſneſs of their own performing, p. 120which is Gods righteouſneſs; beſides, its not ſence to ſay, a man ſubmits or not to that which is his own righteouſneſs, but it is to ſay, he ſubmits to take the righteouſneſs of another.

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

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

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

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

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

Reſp. This Reaſon is ſo frivolous, that it needs little anſwer, There is no diſtinction at all in reſpect of righteouſneſs, but an exact account thereof, that the righteouſneſs of God, which the Apoſtle ſpeaks of Chriſt, that which is in Chriſt, that the righteouſneſs of God in Chriſt is that which is imputed to us; we p. 121need not look far to the meaning of the Apoſtle in the Phraſe, its but in verſe 19. God was in Chriſt reconciling the world unto himſelf, not imputing unto them their treſpaſſes, i. e. in the righteouſneſs of Chriſt God was working out reconciliation, and non-imputation of ſin, and if ſo, imputation of Chriſt's righteouſneſs, and he ſaith, if the righteouſneſs were one, its that they might be made the righteouſneſs of Chriſt in Chriſt; but I pray, why may not Chriſts righteouſneſs be called the righteouſneſs of God, as well as our own, becauſe they ſay, our own was God's Inſtitution: Is it ours, God's and ours too? and Chriſts righteouſneſs may not be God's and Chriſt's too; but this reaſoning is very abſurd, more of this as we proceed; and as for the other places, we ſhall come to them by and by.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Rom. 1.16, 17. The Subject the Apoſtle treats of is, the p. 122Goſpel of Chriſt, the glad tidings brought to Sinners of Life and Salvation in him.

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

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

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

p. 1235. Its the Righteouſneſs of God, in regard of the ſtatelineſs and highneſs thereof, as the Trees of Lebanon were called the Trees of Jehovah, Pſal. 104.16.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 124§. 11. The next place, Rom. 3.21, 22. The Apoſtle in the 9th verſe ſaith, he proved both Jews and Gentiles under ſin, viz. under the tranſgreſſion of the Moral Law, as plainly appears by his Proof unto v. 19. now ſaith he, they are under the law in that they are convict by the law, even the whole World, by foreign that law, not the Ceremonial but Moral, againſt which all the forementioned tranſgreſſions are committed, and Gentiles, who were never under the Ceremonial Law, as well as Jews. Now, ſaith the Apoſtle, ſeeing that by this Moral Law the World is condemned, its impoſſible that any works of obedience to any law whatever ſhould; for if any other law comes to milder terms, unleſs this law be reſcinded, its impoſſible any man can be righteous before God, hence he concludes, therefore by the deeds of the law, i. e. any law, no fleſh can be juſtified in Gods ſight; whatever Law men may pretend to, God will judge and try all by the Moral Law, for a ſinner and tranſgreſſor of God's law, can have the knowledge of ſin by it, i. e. Conviction but no Salvation by any righteouſneſs of his performance: What then, muſt all the World periſh therefore for want of a righteouſneſs? No, God hath provided a righteouſneſs, [he doth not ſay, God hath repealed his Law, and made a new one] the righteouſneſs of God without a new law is evident, or made manifeſt in the Goſpel, which is witneſſed by the Law, i. e. of Moſes, in the Doctrine of Sacrifices, and by the Prophets that have propheſied of Chriſt, v. 22. even the righteouſneſs of God, which is by the faith of Jeſus Chriſt, viz. the righteouſneſs of Chriſt which faith lays hold on, which is by faith, i. e. which we receive by faith, for it may be ſaid, what is this righteouſneſs of God? ſaith the Apoſtle, it is in Chriſt; how have it we in Chriſt? by faith: Now, ſaith he, its unto all, i. e. imputed unto all, and upon all, as a covering or robe of righteouſneſs by the faith of every Believer, by the leaſt as well as the greateſt, by a Gentile Believer as well as a Jew; there's no difference in the degree of righteouſneſs, nor in the imputation of it, nor application of it, all Believers are equally, and alike righteous in Chriſt's righteouſneſs which is the righteouſneſs of God, and the reaſon added, for all have ſinned, and juſtified freely by Gods grace through the redemption that is in Jeſus Chriſt.

§. 12. Now it appears that the righteouſneſs of God is Chriſt's righteouſneſs: That righteouſneſs that fully and compleatly ſatisfied that law which convicted all the world as guilty, is the righteouſneſs of Chriſt; but ſuch is the righteouſneſs here ſpoken of, as is apparent by the whole Text. 2. That righteouſneſs which we have by faith in another to juſtification, is the p. 125righteouſneſs of Chriſt; but this righteouſneſs is that which we have by and in another; for faith is ſaid to act upon what is without us, and not on that which is within us. 3. That which is imputed to Sinners, devoid of any righteouſneſs by the law, or by any law, is the righteouſneſs of Chriſt; but this righteouſneſs of God is ſo, ergo, the Propoſitions of theſe Syllogiſms lies plainly proved in the Text. 4. If all righteouſneſs be here peremptorily rejected, which is performed by us in obedience to any law, then the righteouſneſs here introduced, the righteouſneſs of God, is Chriſt's righteouſneſs; but the Antecedent is true, v. 20. 5. If the righteouſneſs of Chriſt is our juſtifying righteouſneſs, which the Apoſtle intends throughout this Diſcourſe, then God's righteouſneſs is Chriſt's, but ergo, the Minor, which is the Antecedent, is proved. The redemption and propitiation of Chriſt is the righteouſneſs by which we are juſtified, v. 24.6. That righteouſneſs which the law of Moſes witneſſeth to, being the reaſon and ſign thereof, is the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, as ſuch: For what did the ſacrifices for ſin, but witneſs to Chriſt's great propitiatory ſacrifice? but the ſacrifices of the law all held forth, Chriſt offering himſelf a ſacrifice for ſin, and the Goſpel was therein preached. Now it's plain the Apoſtle brings in the law of Moſes witneſſing to this righteouſneſs of God.

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

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

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

3. That which is the end of the law for righteouſneſs, [i.e. anſwers the law] is the righteouſneſs of God; but Chriſt is the end of the law. This Argument is ſo plain and fall in the Text, that it cannot be anſwered with any fair pretence, tho' they make a blundering at it to no purpoſe; and you ſhall ſee the Apoſtle p. 126oppoſeth it, v. 5. to the righteouſneſs of the law, conſiſting in doing; and at once tells us, the righteouſneſs of God, the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, and the righteouſneſs of Faith, is but one righteouſneſs, and oppoſed to the righteouſneſs of the law which the Jews eſtabliſhed; thinking, as our Neonomians do, that it was ſufficient to juſtification to have ſome imperfect ſincere obedience to Moſes's law, (For I bear them record, ſaith the Apoſtle, they have a zeal of God, that's their ſincerity) which was the new law; for if they were ſaved by the law of Grace, this was diſpenſed to them in Moſes's law; they knew not that God's law required perfect right, and its perfect right muſt anſwer it. Hence it appears that they had the ſame opinion that the Neonomians now have, that Moſes's law, was a new law, requiring only obedience to the moral part of it, ſo far as they could, and for their ſins to offer ſacrifice, according to the ceremonial part; and reſting therein, without faith in the Antitype, they reckoned themſelves fully righteous for juſtification: Hence, upon the annual day of atonement, they reckoned themſelves as innocent as Adam in his innocency, i. e. as free from guilt, propitiation being made, till they had contracted more guilt: Therefore the Apoſtle ſaith, Heb. 10.1. That the law being a ſhadow of good things to come, could never with thoſe ſacrifices, which they offered year by year, make the comers thereto perfect; and the moſt carnal of them reckoned themſelves perfected by thoſe ſacrifices but for a time. Therefore it's moſt abſurd, to aſſert, that the carnal Jews, whom the Apoſtle writes againſt, did endeavour after a perfection of the law of works; 1. Becauſe they offered ſacrifices, and made atonement for ſin. 2. Becauſe, when they did make atonement, they reckoned they contracted new guilt, and were perfect but for a time: Therefore the Apoſtle ſaith, Rom. 9.30, 31, 32. they attained not to the righteouſneſs of faith, becauſe they ſought their righteouſneſs as it were by the works of the law, not directly by perfect obedience, but by ſuch as they had, and not by faith in Chriſt's obedience, for the Apoſtle is expreſs in it, for they ſtumbled at that ſtumbling ſtone, which was Chriſt, as the Apoſtle proves, Behold I lay in Sion a ſtumbling ſtone, &c. 3. When they offered they confeſſed Sin.

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

Reſp. Can Mr. H. be ſo irrational, as to think in his Judgment and Conſcience, that this is a genuine Interpretation- Here lies p. 127in the Text very fairly theſe two things, 1. That the righteouſneſs of God is explained by him particularly to be the righteouſneſs of Chriſt— have not ſubmitted to, i. e. accepted the righteouſneſs of God: What is that? the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, for Chriſt is the righteouſneſs that anſwers the righteouſneſs of the law, and this is the righteouſneſs of God. 2. The Deſign and great End of the Law was righteouſneſs, and perfect righteouſneſs, unto Juſtification of Man, perfect cannot be performed by fallen man, therefore God hath provided a perfect righteouſneſs in Chriſt and he is this end of the law to every one that believeth, and herein, by juſtifying him by this righteouſneſs, God is juſt, and the juſtifier of him that believeth in Jeſus; and its the righteouſneſs of faith, becauſe its not for Juſtification by any thing that evacuates or relaxeth the law of God, but eſtabliſheth it in ſeeking for, and laying hold upon Juſtification by a righteouſneſs that fully anſwers the law. How will it hold in Mr. H's. ſence, That Chriſt by his Satisfaction hath procured, that we ſhould not anſwer the law of works, or that he ſhould not be the end of the law of works for righteouſneſs to a Believer; but that a believer's performance of obedience to the new law, ſhould be the end of the law of works, for righteouſneſs, which is a direct contradiction to the Text. For he faith, Chriſt is the end of the law, what law? of all law, of works, in way of Satisfaction of the Moral and concurring Ceremonial as an Antitype; he and his righteouſneſs is ſhadowed forth thereby; he ſaith not that Chriſt is the end of a law for a righteouſneſs of our performing, for that would be a contradiction; to fay the end of a law is righteouſneſs, and then Chriſt is the end of it for another righteouſneſs, and not his own; he ſhould have ſaid, believing is the end of the law for righteouſneſs to every one that believeth. Laſtly, What righteouſneſs is it to take us from under a law, or relax it, or procure that it ſhall not be ſatisfied at all, and that the offender ſhall be juſtified by another Law?

§. 15. The next Text is, He hath made him ſin for us who knew no ſin that we might be made the righteouſneſs of God in him, 2 Cor. 5.21. i. e. ſaith Mr. H. the immaculate lamb made a Sacrifice for our ſins, that we may become righteous with the righteouſneſs of God, which he accepts through him; Chriſt as a Sacrifice redeems us from a Law of Sin, and purchaſeth for us a law of grace, according to that law we have a righteouſneſs which is a righteouſneſs accepted unto life through Chriſt. Medioc. p. 28.

R. So that Mr. H's. meaning muſt be, That Chriſt was made Sin under the old law, that we might have righteouſneſs by him under the new law, and that what Chriſt did under the old law, p. 128amounted to no righteouſneſs to us; But he muſt be righteouſneſs to us under the New Law, and then Chriſt was made under the New Law, which theſe men will deny, and be our righteouſneſs there; no, ſay they, not himſelf be our righteouſneſs, but procure that we ſhould be our own righteouſneſs; then the true meaning is here, That Chriſt was made Sin for us— that we ſhould be our own righteouſneſs; but how our righteouſneſs in Chriſts? is our righteouſneſs Chriſts? then it is that we may be made Chriſts righteouſneſs, becoming ours by Imputation: Chriſt being made ſin for us, he gloſſes upon as the Socinians, i. e. Chriſt the immaculate Lamb was made a ſacrifice for ſin. It is true, Chriſt is expreſly ſaid to be a ſacrifice for ſin, but how? 1. As the true Sacrifice, not as a typical, Heb. 9.26. 2. As a Sacrifice to bear Sin; not leſs, but more than all the Sacrifices of Old, and therefore it is ſaid to be made ſin for us; he was not a ſinner by nature, neither was his nature corrupted by his being made Sin for us, therefore he was made ſin by legal imputation; made ſin, becauſe put under the law, the Prieſts and Sacrifices of old had the ſins of the People laid upon them, ſin was charged on them, their own firſt for which they ſacrificed, then the ſins of the People; but Chriſt did not only bear Sin as the Sacrifice that was ſlain, but as Scape Goat alſo, for one Type could not hold forth the fulneſs of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs; therefore the Apoſtle ſaith, he did not only bear ſin, but bore it away, Heb. 9.26, 28. Now its a ſtrange thing that theſe men ſhould ſpit at this Doctrine of Chriſt's bearing Sin, one of late calling it Poyſon; another ſaying, he bore not our very ſins, and all, that he bore only ſuffering for ſin; I would know, how any can ſuffer for Sin. in Law or Juſtice, and not legally bear the charge of ſin? And how Chriſt came to be a Curſe, if he bore not Sin?

2. He bore Sin becauſe he bore the Curſe of the Law, he was made a curſe, doth curſe come upon any but for ſin? Is there any in the World but for Sin? therefore whatever ſubject hath the curſe of the law, hath alſo the charge of ſin, for they are inſeparable.

3. How dare any man be ſo audacious as to give the Spirit of God the lie, in that it hath ſo often and peremptorily aſſerted, We have gone aſtray— and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all, he hath cauſed them to meet upon him; will you ſay that is the puniſhment of us all, when the Spirit of God ſpeaks ſo diſtinctly of puniſhment, v. 5. and tells us the reaſon, becauſe he bore ſin, he was wounded for our tranſgreſſion, becauſe ſin was laid upon him, ſo v. 8. for the tranſgreſſion of my people was he ſtricken, and leaſt you ſhould be at a ſtand in this Point, about Chriſt's p. 129bearing ſin, its expreſt again, as the reaſon of Chriſts juſtifying many, v. 11. for he ſhall bear their iniquities. Nay, its added the third time, and he bare the ſins of many; ſo that Chriſts bearing Sin diſtinct from Puniſhment, is no leſs than three times in this Chapter. It is alſo fully expreſt in the New Teſtament, totidem verbis, Heb. 9.28. Chriſt was once offered [there's his ſuffering] for what? to bear the ſins of many, and 1 Pet. 2.24. He his own ſelf bare our ſins in his body on the tree; and in multitude of places, in expreſſions that are tantamount to theſe; and now to ſay, that Chriſt did not bear ſin, and all things that the Law calls Sin, let it be as filthy and as vile as you will (for its ſo, becauſe its foreign, for all foreign is foreign, and we know he was manifeſt to take away all ſin; now is there any thing which you call the filth of ſin, is it foreign, is it not then foreign, the tranſgreſſion of the law? if it be, Chriſt bore it; if he did not, then it ſtands yet in Gods ſight? and the hand-writing of the law is againſt you, and you are not juſtified; and why is Chriſt's Sacrifice ſaid to be the purging of ſin, foreign, many things might be ſaid to ſhew how properly its ſpoken ſee Dr. Owen. I muſt for brevity ſake only ſay, that it imports Chriſt's purging us by Sacrifice from all that the law of God calls filthy in ſin: Then its objected, Chriſt was unclean. Anſw. Not morally polluted, but legally unclean, while he was under our ſins, as the Sacrifices were, and therefore he ſuffered without the camp.

Obj. Then the Saints have no ſin, who give ſufficient evidence that ſin remains in them.

Anſw. The Saints are without ſpot before God in Point of Juſtification, they are juſtified from all ſin and filthy ſpot in Gods ſight. 2. Sin remains in them, and will do in Point of Sanctification, which is not perfect in this life, but all in their ſins that is a burden to them, that is odious and filthy, was laid on Chriſt by Imputation, or elſe Chriſt died in vain, or made not full ſatisfaction for their ſins, and they are yet in their ſins, and bear them, and ſo unjuſtified. This I have a little the more enlarged upon for ſome reaſons.

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

Reſp. Its ſaid, that we might be made the righteouſneſs of God in him, and what is the righteouſneſs of God in him but his righteouſneſs? in him, ſhews where this righteouſneſs of God is, its in him, the Apoſtle ſpeaks not of two Subjects, but of one that is Chriſt; and is it not ſaid, that his righteouſneſs may become ours? what is more plain? 1. Its ſaid, as Chriſt was made p. 130ſin, viz. by Imputation, for its a legal making, ſo righteouſneſs is made ours. 2. As our ſins are made Chriſts, not by his Corruption, but being imputed to him juridically; ſo his Righteouſneſs is made ours in Juſtification before God. As he was made Sin in our ſins, ſo we are made Righteouſneſs, in the righteouſneſs of God that is in him: The Phraſe in him, determines expreſly what the righteouſneſs of God is, unleſs men will be wilfully blind to plain Truth.

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

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

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

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

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

6. He hath procured a new law, what's that to the righteouſneſs of it, which they deny to be procured by Chriſt? the Parliament procures an Act to pay the King Taxes, but we the People muſt pay the Money.