legal Righteousness of Christ is imputed to us by or through faith I answer 1. It is not at all imputed to us in the sence of this Author i. e. properly and in its essential nature but only in the saving effects thereof as I have already I hope convincingly demonstrated 2. Nevertheless I grant that in subordination to the Righteousness of Christ faith is a Medium or means of a sinners justification though it is another kind of Medium than is Christs Righteousness to which it is subordinate in the justifying of a sinner Christs Righteousness being such a Medium as hath the nature or efficiency of a meritorious cause but our faith having only the nature of a condition simply so called I have thought meet to intimate this for these two reasons 1. To prevent the mis-understanding of what I said in the foregoing Chapter wherein was said that Gospel-pardon was ex Christi satisfactione and ex peccatoris fide which must not be so understood as if the word ex did imply the self same importance in both places For the truth is that as the particle ex is of different importance it importing sometimes one kind of cause and sometimes another and sometimes no cause at all but an antecedent condition and the same I may say of the particles in English Greek and Hebrew corresponding to the Latine particle ex so in the former application of the particle it doth imply efficiency or an efficient meritorious cause but in the latter only an antecedent or a condition sine quâ non 2. To prevent the mis-construction of the word faith in many places of Scripture where by faith many do understand only its object Christ or his Righteousness whereas as faith and Christs Righteousness are two things of distinct consideration so by faith in such sayings as these We are justified By faith and saved By faith we are to understand not only the object thereof as implyed Christ or his Righteousness but also the act believing or the thing it self faith Lastly I answer That forasmuch as God is graciously pleased in his Gospel to appoint and to declare his acceptance of faith as the condition of a sinners justification through or for the sake of Christs Righteousness therefore I answer as before That a sinners justification is to be denominated rather Evangelical than Legal I shall now return to Mr. Ferguson and reply to certain other passages which I find here and there dispersed in his Book as grounds for the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us in the sence by him contended for CHAP. XV. Several mistakes in Mr. F. according to the obvious construction of his words detected That Christ suffered not the Idem but the Tantundem manifested by three things distinctly specified and two evil consequences of the contrary Doctrine With a Caution in the close P. 536. MAN having taken off his dependency upon God Mr. F3 by transgressing the Law of Creation Gods Rectorship over him which is regulated by his wisdom holiness veracity and the eternal rectitude and righteousness of his nature would not allow that he should be received into favour but in such a way and by such means as may secure the ends of government manifest the displicency that is in God to sin evidence his truth and immutability in proceeding according to the penal Law which in pursuance of his own Attributes and mans rational nature and relation he had at first enacted Answ I assent to the whole of what is here recited except this That God did for the ends specified proceed according to the penal Law which at first was enacted in which saying there is a complication of mistakes involved for 1. That Law was only dispenced and not executed neither upon Christ nor upon mankind not upon Christ for Christ was not at all threatned in that Law neither did he die the death by vertue of that Law however by occasion of it as hath been already said Nor was that Law executed upon all mankind supposing and taking it for granted that by the death there threatned is meant eternal as well as temporal death 2. A mistake of the nature of that obligation which a divine commination doth induce seems to be implyed in the said words of this Author for Comminatio est obligatio Legem violantis ad poenam ferendam The threatnings of God do induce only an obligation upon transgressors to suffer the punishment threatned but not any necessary obligation upon God to inflict it non Legem ferentis ad inferendam that commination did signifie what man was bound to suffer not what God was bound to do Upon disobedience man was bound to suffer but God was not thereupon bound to inflict punishment otherwise supream Law-givers could have no power to pardon and therefore there is no necessity that the punishment threatned should be executed and it is an error to assert or imagine any such necessity The only inevitable effect of that threatning was That upon mans sin punishment should be his due and so it was man being bound to punishment Ipsofacto upon his offence committed And herein is the difference betwixt a Commination and a Denunciation of punishment this being an act of judgment or sentence or else a prediction of a decree to punish whereupon the punishment denounced is always inflicted 3. There seems also to be this mistake a mistake of very evil consequence implyed in the clause fore-cited viz. That Christ suffered the Idem not the Tantundem the same suffering to which that Commination did oblige and that a sinners liberation from the punishment to which he was obliged was by the way of strict payment not satisfaction or compensation 4. There seems also to be this mistake implyed in the said clause viz. That the ends of Gods soveraign rule and government could not be secured by a Compensation or without strict solution or payment of that very debt of punishment which was by the sin of man contracted And if I were sure that this Author would own this opinion for God forbid that I should causlesly fasten any thing upon him or any of my Brethren viz. That the sufferings of Christ were Ipsa debiti solutio and not Pro debito satisfactio Christs sufferings were not the very payment of our debt in kind but a valuable satisfaction to divine justice for our not payment of it or for Gods not exacting of us the payment thereof I would more at large suggest somewhat of my own and endeavour to improve what hath been so far as my knowledge reacheth said by others against it Nevertheless because there are of my Brethren who do maintain that Christ suffered the very Idem which was in a sinners obligation and not the Tantundem at least that it is not much material whether we say the one or the other I will for their satisfaction do these two things 1. I will briefly set down the substance of what is commonly and
is imputed to us In answer hereunto a twofold acceptation of the word Righteousness is specified respectively to which different acceptation of the word it is determined in what sence the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us is to be asserted and in what sence it is to be renounced with certain Reasons of the abrenunciation thereof p. 4. Chap. iv An Objection from 2 Cor. 5.21 answered and also retorted The blasphemy of Mr. William Eyre in his Assize-Sermon preached at Sarum 1652. reproved p. 10. Chap. v. Q. Did Christ take upon him the Guilt as well as the Punishment of our Sins Answ No. A brief explication of the Distinction of Guilt commonly styled Guilt of Fault and Guilt of Punishment together with a Reply to what is alledged by certain late Writers out of Bishop Andrews p 13. Chap. vi An Answer to several unjustifiable passages in Mr. Ferguson's Book styled The Interest of Reason in Religion His false and manifold uncharitable insinuations answered Wherein 't is shewed what manner of guilt or obligation to punishment that was which Christ took upon him That Christ did not suffer however by occasion of that Law Gen 2.17 as transgressed yet not by vertue thereof as if that Law in or by his sufferings had been executed His mistake of the true nature of Gospel justification demonstrated That it is not against the essential Holiness of God as Mr. Ferguson pretends to justifie a sinner upon an obedience Ex. parte sui seu peccatoris imperfect with the reason of his mistake p. 16. Chap. vii That the Scripture doth no where assert a surrogation of Christ in our room in such a strict Law-sence as that we may be said in and by him to have done and suffered what he did and suffered and in or by him to have redeemed our selves And that Christ did not in such a Law-sence represent us as Proctors and Attorneys do their Clients Ambassadors their Princes or Guardians their Pupils acting accordingly in our names but officiating as a Mediator betwixt God and Man The evil Consequences charged by Mr. F. upon the contrary Doctrine are denied His thwacking Contradiction imputed to others avoided by them retorted upon himself p. 25. Chap. viii Mr. Ferguson's mistake in thinking that a sinner by his justification is freed from the guilt of punishment and fault too That Christs righteousness is not more or otherwise imputed to us for in towards or in order to our justification than the remission of our sin The nature of justification forensick opened both of justification indefinitely considered as also of Gospel-justification in special The truth of the matter laid down in several Propositions p. 28. Chap. ix That those who assert That the Law of works is abrogated do in substance of truth accord with those who choose rather to express themselves saying It is relaxed or dispensed with God in justifying a sinner doth not pronounce him just and righteous that is no sinner A sinner not otherwise made just and righteous by his being justified than by his being pardoned through Christ That a sinner cannot possibly be justified from the accusation of the Law in it's charging him to be a sinner p. 36. Chap. x. That the difference betwixt remission and Gospel-justification is not at all in this viz. That remission is the result of mercy and the act of one exercising favour and justification the off-spring of Justice as Mr. F. says The usage of words in common speech sometimes in signification contrary to that of Scripture exemplified in the language of our Brethren of Scotland Mr. Ferguson's notorious mistake in asserting That to justifie is no where in the Scripture-usurpation equipollent with to forgive p. 39. Chap. xi Mr. Ferguson's mistake in saying That we are made Righteous With the Righteousness of Christ as also Dr. Owen's in his Book styled Communion with the Trinity refuted and that in Rom. 5.18 alledged by him answered wherein is declared That it is one thing to be justified By and another thing to be justified With the Righteousness of Christ The Doctor 's misinterpretation of Phil. 3.9 and Eph. 2.8 That the asserting of the whole of Justification to consist in remission of sin hath no such evil consequences as Mr. F. chargeth it with p. 42. Chap. xii Q. Is a sinner said in a proper or improper sence to be justified In answer hereunto it is declared 1. That the Question in it self in immaterial 2. Nevertheless for the satisfaction of Mr. F. the Question is answered and therein it 's proved That the Justification of a sinner is of or in it's kind a proper Justification and in what respects so said to be specified And Objection answered p. 48. Chap. xiii Q. Why or for what reasons may pardon of sin be called Justification and Vice versâ Or What reasons are there for their promiscuous use in the N. T Answ In answer whereunto 1. It is acknowledged That the Question is in it self not so considerable 2. Nevertheless for the satisfaction of many dissenting Brethren in answer thereunto several reasons of the thing are assigned and specified p. 54. Chap. xiv Q. How is the justification of a sinner to be denominated whether Evangelical or Legal Answ Rather Evangelical and the reason assigned The Arguments of those on the contrary side both answered and retorted who acknowledg that the justification of a sinner is Evangelical ex parte principii but would not have it absolutely to be so styled but rather a Legal justification The reason why this Question is debated and answered p. 58. Chap. xv Several mistakes in Mr. F. according to the obvious construction of his words detected That Christ suffered not the Idem but the Tantundem manifested by three things distinctly specified and two evil consequences of the contrary Doctrine With a Caution in the close p. 63. Chap. xvi The Imputation of Socinianism groundlesly charged by Mr. F. upon his Brethren Mr. F. his charging his Antagonists with non-sence refuted That sort of union with Christ to be renounced the native consequence whereof is the reciprocal Imputation of our sins to Christ and of his Righteousness to us in the sence of Mr. F. with his Adherents i.e. properly and formally or otherwise than in the fruits and effects of the one and of the other The reason thereof rendred p. 69. Chap. xvii That Christ may very well be said to be made sin for us to bear our sins to dye for our offences although it cannot be truly said that he did bear our sin it self or sin in it self or otherwise than in the fruit and effects of it the contrary whereunto is pretended by Mr. F. Mr. Ferguson's mistake in confounding an Antecedent impulsive Cause with a meritorious Cause the difference whereof is asserted and exemplified His mistake in not distinguishing betwixt An Obligation and Our Obligation to suffer That though our sins did properly merit Christs suffering nevertheless it will not follow from
the only justification which such a person is capable of being from another charge viz. from the guilt of punishment i. e. from his being actually bound over to suffer and from the suffering it self of that punishment which for his delinquency he deserved With the former kind of justification no flesh living all being sinful flesh can possibly be justified God himself with Reverence to the divine Majesty be it spoken hath no kind of power to justifie any wicked person no moral power for it is a sinful thing so to justifie the wicked Exod. 23.5 Prov. 17.15 nor physical power for the thing is simply impossible and doth imply a contradiction But with the other kind of justification any flesh living though never so sinful may and shall through Gospel-faith and obedience or an obediential faith be justified 3. As justification and forgiveness of sin are obviously and vulgarly taken Propos 3. or according to common usage of speech so they are contrary the one to the other as is light and darkness For to justifie a person in common use of the word is to free or absolve him from guilt of fault to acquit him as innocent from the fact or fault of which he is wrongfully accused And this kind of justification is by a two-fold plea either the denial of the fact hereby David justified himself from the imputations of Saul 1 Sam. 24.9 10. or by denying the fault pleading the fact to be no fault or breach of any Law whether of God by which plea Daniel justified himself against the accusation of his professed enemies Dan. 6.22 or man or both by which plea St. Paul justified himself against the accusations of his Countrey-men the Jews Act. 24.14 maintaining his innocency not only in respect of the Law of God but also of Caesar Act. 25.8 there being no Acts at that time made by any of the Caesars against Christian Religion nor till the fifth year of the reign of Claudius as History doth report So that if a person be justified in this vulgar sence of the word he is not so much as in a natural capacity of being pardoned nor if pardoned of being so justified as aforesaid I never heard of the substitution of one person in the room of another to have been allowed in criminal cases whatever allowance there hath been in pecuniary mulcts or matters pardon of sin and justification in the said vulgar sence being of so contrary a nature that if the one be affirmed of any person the other must needs be denied And in this sence of the word justifie this Author speaks truth in saying p. 416. That as to justifie and to pardon are not only wholly distinct in their Natures and Idea's but always separated in the cases of such as are arraigned at humane tribunals unless it be where the substitution of one person in the room of another is allowed and even then though they accompany one another yet they are both distinct acts and we have distinct notions of them For neither can an accused innocent by being acquitted be said to be pardoned nor a condemned criminal by having the execution of his sentence remitted be said to be justified 4. However in common usage justification and remission of sin are not only divers but also adverse things nevertheless if we speak of that peculiar kind of justification frequently mentioned in the Scripture whereof a sinner is the subject and of that kind of pardon that is peculiar to sinners so oft there mentioned a pardon conveyed by Law and purchased by the satisfaction of Christ not that kind of pardon which is ex nudâ voluntate if I say we do speak of this kind of justification and pardon then I do affirm it as an undoubted truth That justification and pardon of sin are words equivalent importing one and the self same thing without any real or substantial difference for proof whereof two or three Texts of Scriptures may suffice among several others to be produced Act. 13.38 39. Be it known to you that through this man is preach'd unto you the forgiveness of sins and by him all that believe are justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses i. e. for which the Law of Moses admitted no expiatory sacrifice in order to pardon Rom. 3.24 25. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God to declare I say at this time his righteousness that he might be just and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus i. e. of the Christian faith See also Rom. 4. where that which he calls blessedness v. 9. and Gods justifying the ungodly v. 5. he styleth Gods forgiving their iniquities and covering their sins Thence that of Grotius de satisfactione p. 38. Justificatio passim in sacris literis maxime in Epistolis Paulinis absolutionem significat quae praesupposito peccato consistit in peccatorum remissione ipso Paulo semet clare explicante praesertim Rom. 4. I might hereto add the testimony of other Authors famous in their generation were it needful By the way take notice That I have said nothing concerning his affirming that the introduction of the Law of faith hath not abrogated the Law of perfect obedience but this as well as that doth remain in force nor do I think it necessary so to have done For although some choose to say that that Law of our Creation or of God our Creator is abrogated or repealed there being no Law since the new modelling of the government of mankind but the Law of Redemption or of God our Redeemer the moral part of the original Law being taken into it as the matter thereof and others choose to assert only a dispensation or relaxation of that Law nevertheless I do humbly conceive that all things considered yet not so needful here to be mentioned that are said on both sides there is no real difference between them as to substance of truth but only in modes and manner of speaking and for that cause I can give liberty to any one to speak the truth with due caution in what words he pleaseth Only I must say That I dare not take liberty to my self to say That the Law of works doth now remain in force as well as the Law of faith without a just explication how far it doth and doth not remain now in force I well remember that two late worthy Authors do very differently express themselves touching the immediate effect of the introduction of the Law of faith The most learned Mr. George Lawson chooseth to say That the original Law of works is by the Law of faith or indempnity abrogated and repealed whereas Mr. Joseph Truman will not allow that saying instead thereof asserting it to be
only relaxed or dispenced with and he gives reasons for what he says But because his reasons are not I think so convincing as to be uncapable of a satisfactory reply and forasmuch as I do apprehend the difference betwixt them all things considered to be rather verbal than real I can therefore leave every man to his own choice in wording the matter as he pleaseth Only I shall say That although I do not impute any error of judgement to Mr. F. in saying That the introduction of the Law of faith hath not abrogated the Law of perfect obedience but this as well as that remaineth in force nevertheless forasmuch as such sayings do need explication I wish for the truths sake that such sayings were not roundly and simply uttered or without due caution and explication The premisses considered it is easie what judgment to make of several passages in this Author which I will now recite and briefly animadvert upon CHAP. IX That those who assert That the Law of works is abrogated do in substance of truth accord with those who choose rather to express themselves saying It is relaxed or dispenced with God in justifying a sinner doth not pronounce him just and righteous that is no sinner A sinner not otherwise made just and righteous by his being justified than by his being pardoned through Christ That a sinner cannot possibly be justified from the accusation of the Law in its charging him to be a sinner P. 415. Mr. F. AND indeed the Socinians express themselves in this more consonantly to their principles than some others do For having stated the whole of justification in the remission of sin upon performance of the conditions of the Gospel in pursuance of this they accordingly plead for the utter abrogation of the Law Answ 1. What the Socinians do hold concerning the abrogation or non-abrogation of the sanction of the Law I concern not my self to know This only will I say That by how much the Socinians are more obliged to this Author for his charity towards them in this matter by so much are those his Brethren the some intended by him upon a contrary score bound to con him the less thanks 2. As I said before so I say again That those Brethren who do hold that the Law of works is abrogated and those who say it is not abrogated or repealed but dispenced with and relaxed do both of them agree in this truth viz. That there is a Law still in force that doth command perfect obedience under the penalty of damnation the only difference between them for ought I know being in this viz. By what Law it is now required or by what name that Law is to be styled whether the Law of works or the Law of grace wherein say the former it is indeed required under the penalty of damnation but not peremptorily and unavoidably ex parte Legis as it was in the Law of works but with a Proviso as to the execution thereof Now forasmuch as our Brethren do universally accord as aforesaid I judge this Author to be unjust in determining that the Socinians do express themselves more consonantly to their principles than some others do The Author arguing for justification its being a different thing from pardon of sin because otherwise we cannot in any propriety of speech be said to be justified from the accusation of the Law he saith in that case as followeth P. 416. Pardoned indeed we may be Mr. F. but justified in a proper sence we cannot For to suppose God to pronounce a person just that is unjust or to declare him righteous that is unrighteous is to make him pronounce a sentence that is unjust and false and to act repugnantly to his own holy and righteous nature Answ As to the justification of a sinner from the accusation of the Law whether it is or may be properly or no so called I shall speak my thoughts by and by in my Answer to a Question that shall be put expresly for that purpose Mean while it may be sufficient to say 1. That if by just and unjust this Author doth mean a sinner and no sinner as for ought I know he doth and agreeably to his principle touching the imputation of Christs righteousness to us in its essential nature he must mean he doth utterly mistake the nature of justification in thinking That a sinner through the imputation of Christs righteousness is of unjust made just i. e. of a sinner made perfectly righteous and freed from guilt of fault the impossibility whereof I have already spoken of 2. A sinner is no otherwise of unjust and unrighteous made just and righteous by being justified than by being pardoned and what kind of righteousness that is wherewith he is by his justification or pardon made just and righteous I will at large declare in Answer to a Question which shall be the subject of another Chapter 3. Forasmuch as it hath been already proved that a sinner cannot possibly be discharged from the Law its accusation of him as a sinner or its charging him with the guilt of sin this Author must needs err in thinking that in any manner of sence proper or improper a sinner can be said to be justified from the same CHAP. X. That the difference betwixt remission and Gospel-justification is not at all in this viz. That remission is the result of mercy and the act of one exercising favour and justification the off-spring of justice as Mr. F. says The usage of words in common speech sometimes in signification contrary to that of Scripture exemplified in the language of our Brethren of Scotland Mr. Ferguson's notorious mistake in asserting That to justifie is no where in the Scripture-usurpation equipollent with to forgive THE difference betwixt remission of sin and Justification he doth specifie in the following words P. 417. Remission is the result of mercy Mr. F. and the act of one exercising favour but Justification is the off-spring of justice and imports one transacting with us in a juridical way without the infringment of Law or equity Answ These words are true if understood of Remission ex nudâ voluntate and of the Justification of a person innocent But if understood of Gospel-Justification the Justification of a sinner and of Gospel-pardon which for kind is both a pardon derived to us by Law and purchased for us by a satisfactory price they are notoriously untrue For as we are freely justified so we are freely pardoned by divine grace through the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus Rom. 3.14 Eph. 1.7 Gods Justice and gracious favour joyntly concurring no less to the one than to the other 2. As it is best known to the Author himself what kind of Remission and Justification he intended in those words so it is too too suspicious by his words immediately following that he did mean Gospel-Pardon and Gospel-Justification which words of his I shall recite and leave it to the Judgment of