there hath been enough said already for a due resolution of this in the determination of the third Question nevertheless for the more abundant satisfaction of any who perhaps may need it I will answer thereunto as followeth There be three things which possibly may be meant by the Merit and Satisfaction of Christ 1. Christs Righteousness it self or his very doings and sufferings themselves wherein his Righteousness did consist 2. The valuableness satisfactoriness or meritoriousness of that his Righteousness and Obedience 3. The thing or things which by Christs meritorious obedience were merited These three do differ in sence and signification as Efficient Efficiency and Effect The first Christs Righteousness or Obedience hath the nature of an Efficient cause The second the satisfactoriness of Christs Obedience of Causality The third the thing or things merited of an Effect so caused Now when we say that we are interessed in Christs merit and satisfaction that they are Ours that they are imputed to us or bestowed upon us the words Merit or Satisfaction are to be understood in the third sence of the words and in neither of the two former sences If the Question were thus formed or worded What is the subject of Christs merit or satisfaction It is truly to be answered 1. As merit is taken in the second sence the subject thereof I mean Subjectum immediatum seu inhaesionis is Christs merit or satisfaction as taken in the first sence of the words before specified For the worthiness the Vis aptitudinalis or aptitude of Christs Righteousness to merit or satisfie hath to that his Righteousness the habitude of an Adjunct even as the keenness of a Knife or its aptitude to cut hath to the Knife it self the same kind of respect 2. As merit or satisfaction is taken in the first sence yea also in the second sence of the words as before specified so Christ himself is the subject thereof I mean Subjectum denominationis In these two sences his Merit and Satisfaction is truly his own Merit and Satisfaction and so to be denominated but not Ours they being in the said sences of the words Incommunicable to us 3. As Christs Merit or Satisfaction are taken in the third sence of the words before-named Believers are the subject thereof for they are the persons who have interest in or do partake of the saving fruits effects or benefits thereof or thereby purchased Now in this only sence in my apprehension can Christs merit or satisfaction be truly said to be Ours To be imputed to us or bestowed upon us or we to have interest in it or as is the usual expression of some Preachers to have it made over to us Briefly In such a sence as Our Demerit may be said to be Christs so his Merit may be said to be Ours As the word Merit so the word Demerit may possibly mean three things 1. The evil act or action of sinning 2. The demeritoriousness or deservingness of punishment that doth necessarily adhere to that evil action 3. The punishment it self thereby deserved Now in the two former sences of the word a sinners Demerit is his own and not Christs nor did Christ ever assume to or take upon himself our Demerit in any such sence but only in the third sence of the word as that word doth import the punishment it self which we by our sins had merited or deserved CHAP. XX. Q. To what profit would the Righteousness of Christ in it self imputed to the justification of a sinner be more than the Imputation of it in the benefit thereof Answ None at all except that be a benefit which the Familists do pretend unto and which they call Our being Christed with Christ The suffrage of the very learned Dr. Henry More An Objection answered taken from the pretence of several benefits which being distinctly specified in the following Chapters are there manifested to be null and void Quest CU I bono To what purpose or profit would the Righteousness of Christ imputed or the imputation thereof in the sence here disowned to the justification of a sinner be more than the imputation of it in the benefit thereof unto him viz. the remission of his sin Answ None at all so far as I have been able by all that I have heard or read hitherunto to comprehend For what more doth a sinner need or can he in reason desire to receive from God or is he capable of receiving from God through Christ than a free and full pardon of all his sins upon his faithful and penitential return to God in him What more should God do for a penitent and believing soul than to be merciful to his sins or to him a sinner these are Scriptural expressions of Gods pardoning mercy Ps 51.1 Luk. 18.13 Heb. 8.12 for the Righteousness sake of Christ or the meritoriousness thereof Is there any thing beyond Heaven that a believing sinner a sanctified soul can desire And what is it that can keep a sinner out of the Kingdom of Heaven but sin unpardoned Sin retained doth indeed keep the gate of Heaven fast shut against us by the arm of the Almighty but sin remitted or the remission of sin makes those everlasting doors to fly open even as that iron gate did to Peter of its own accord Act. 12.10 whereupon to every pardoned soul there is an entrance ministred abundantly into the everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ I know no benefit that a sinner is capable of receiving by any imputation of Christs Righteousness beyond what hath been said he doth or shall enjoy through the pardon of his sin unless we shall account it a benefit to be Christed with Christ a benefit which as I do not understand so neither do I think it to have any existence otherwise than as of old in the brains of Jacob Behmen and Henry Nicols so in those their followers styled The Tribe or Family of Love who have infer'd Our being Christed with Christ from such an Imputation of Christs Righteousness unto us which being by many others unwarrantably asserted is in this Treatise deservedly disclaimed and opposed I do here call to mind the words of the very learned Doctor Henry More very pertinent to the present purpose If you prescind it says he from remission of sin through the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross this phrase Imputative Righteousness hath no signification at all and that therefore there is no damage done to our Religion if it be not accounted a distinct Article from the Remission of sins in the blood of Christ For it cannot afford any true and useful sence distinct there-from nay I may say any that is not mischievous and dangerous and such as tends to that loathsom and pestilential error of Antinomianism The premisses considered there is just cause to conclude that those Ministers who without affectation of new phrases and modes of speaking do love still to utter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as is the Apostles
be it observed That as Righteousness in the former sense may not unfitly as I think be styled a Passive and in the latter an Active Righteousness so the said two different senses of the word Righteousness do differ as Officium Beneficium the one being the receiving of some good They differ as work and wages as Duty and Mercy or benefit confer'd on us the other the doing of some good or duty performed by us The phrase receiving righteousness see in Psal 24.5 He shall receive the blessing from the Lord and Righteousness from the God of his Salvation Righteousness in that place being the self same thing with Gods blessing his saving blessing The phrase doing righteousness see in 1 Joh. 3.7 He that doth righteousness is righteous As this is stiled a sowing of righteousness Prov. 11.28 so that may very fitly and suitably to the language of Scripture both of the Old and New Testament be styled Reaping Righteousness Hos 10.12 Gal. 6.7 8 9. Now in this proper formal sense of the word Righteousness the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us is a doctrine however owned by too too many yet by very many others of our own and forraign Protestant Churches justly disowned as that which is no where to be found in Scripture whether in the words or meaning of any Text in Scripture for to assert that Christs Righteousness is in this sense imputed to us is to assert That God doth account or reckon that the Righteousness which Christ wrought we wrought in and by him or that we are reputed by God to have fulfilled the Law and satisfied Divine Justice in and by Christ that what Christ did in his own natural Person God doth account we did in and by him for to have any thing imputed to a man in the propriety formality or essential nature of the thing is to be reputed the doer of what is so imputed to him these being terms equivalent and explicatory one of another and as thus explicated do the Brethren whom I do take upon me in this point to oppose openly own the said doctrine touching the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us it being their errour to think that Christs Righteousness cannot be accepted by God in our behoof or prove savingly beneficial to us unless it be imputed to us in their said sense or to imagine as they do a necessity that what is imputed to or for the justification of a sinner should be reputed to be done by him who is justified for it sufficeth to imputation in this case if that which is done be accepted of God in the behalf of sinners or instead of that which a justified person should in his own person have performed Nor is there any cause or colour for them to suspect that the denial of the said Imputation in their said sense doth infer or include a denyal of Christs satisfaction whether in the thing it self or in the blessed effects of it I am at once both sorry and I wonder to read such passages as these in some learned Authors they saying to this purpose viz. That human reason or mans understanding cannot comprehend how Christs satisfaction can be of saving benefit to us unless it be imputed to us in its formal and essential nature The contrary whereunto is as obvious to be conceived by any unprejudicate person as obvious almost can be For my own part I do humbly conceive it to be a great and dangerous mistake to think that Christ satisfied Divine Justice for believing sinners that they might be reputed by God to have satisfied in and by him as their surety the truth of Scripture to my understanding being this viz. That Jesus Christ did in human nature and his own person as Mediatour or in the person of a Mediatour betwixt God and Man satisfie Divine Justice not that we might be reputed to have satisfied in and by him or that his very satisfaction should be imputed to us but that no such satisfaction should be required of us and that his fulfilling of the law of Mediatorship was accepted of God not as our fulfilling either of that law for the law of Mediatorship belonged not to us it being peculiar to Christ himself or of any other law whatsoever but it was reckoned reputed or accepted by God as a satisfaction for our not fulfilling the law of God imposed upon mankind I mean the law in the rigour of it or as a covenant of works and that such an exact fulfilling of the law should not be exacted of us as the covenanted condition of our salvation but that faith and sincere obedience to the Gospel of Christ should be so required And I am glad to perceive that in asserting the end of Christs satisfaction for mankind I have the concurrence of the Authour of the Book lately published styled The interest of Reason in Religion he saying pag. 548. It was in consequence of Christs susception to be our Sponsor or Mediator say I the word Sponsor and Mediator being promiscuously used by the Apostle as appears by comparing Heb. 7.22 with chap. 8.6 and this latter word being of more frequent use with the Apostle than the former that being only once in its usage applyed to Christ in Scripture and with respect to the obedience of his life and sacrifice of his death as the procuring and deserving cause that God entred into a covenant with mankind promising to pardon their sins receive them into favour and crown them with life upon such terms and conditions as the Father and Son thought fit to prescribe In these words the word Mankind is remarkable the Authour saying expresly That for Christs sake for the obedience of his life and sacrifice of his death as the deserving cause thereof God entred into a Covenant not only with a few with the Elect only but with Mankind promising And I am the more glad to perceive that I have the concurrence of the said Authour in asserting the Covenant of Grace to be procured for Mankind because I shall have occasion by and by to mention some things wherein I am necessitated much against my will to dissent from him and certain others of my Brethren And I shall take a fit occasion to do it in answer to an Argument for the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sense disowned by my self with many others taken from those words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 5.21 from which words I have seen in a certain learned Author the Argument thus formed as shall be expressed in the beginning of the next Chapter 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 QUomodo in what sort or manner Christ was made sin for us in the same manner was he made Righteousness to us But he was made sin for us only by Imputation Ergo Answ This Argument is not at all to the purpose in hand or
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
sinner to be quite another thing and of another kind than indeed it is An Objection answered p. 152. Chap. xxviii Another evil consequence of the said Imputation That it subverts the necessity of our repentance in order to our salvation by Christ that the non-necessity thereof in Believers hath been asserted by some p. 155. Chap. xxix Another evil Consequence of the said Imputation That it overthrows the necessity of new obedience in order to a sinners being saved by Christ Whence it is that divers Authors whereof some are named do assert That Christians are not to do any good duties that they may be saved Several passages to this purpose in Dr. Owen's Book styled Communion with God related with Animadversions thereupon more at large p. 157. Chap. xxx Q. May Believers be truly or fitly said to be clothed with the Robe of Christs Righteousness or the like form of words Four Reasons why the said Question is proposed and answered The Answer it self 1. That there are no such express sayings in Scripture nor any Scripture wherein Christs Righteousness is set forth under the Metaphor of Rayment 2. That our own personal Righteousness in the several branches thereof doth go under the Metaphorical expressions of Robes comely rayment and splendid array Several Scriptures objected to the contrary answered In what sence 't is true and in what false to say that we are clothed with the Robe of Christs Righteousness And that it is more fitly and intelligibly said that it purchaseth or procureth Clothing for us than that it is it self our Clothing p. 175. Chap. xxxi Dr. Owen's mistake in thinking That when all sin is answered for all the Righteousness which God requireth for that time is not fulfilled the contrary whereunto is proved Several other of his mistakes discovered and his mis-interpretations of several Scriptures p. 184. Chap. xxxii That it is no where said in Scripture that we do receive the Righteousness of Christ The Doctor 's perverting that in Phil. 3.9 from the true meaning of the Apostle That he perverts the sence of 1 Cor. 1.30 utterly beside the meaning of the Apostle That he mistakes the sence of Rom. 5.10 That Christ hath done no more by the obedience of his life for a sinners salvation than for his reconciliation the contrary whereunto is supposed by Dr. O. His iterated mistake touching the end of Adam's obedience p. 189. Chap. xxxiii The Doctor 's allegation of several Scriptures to no purpose That we are no otherwise justified than we are reconciled or pardoned through the Imputation of Christs Righteousness the contrary whereunto is pretended by Dr. O. That none of those Scriptures alledged by him to prove the Imputation of Christs obedience it self unto us do evince the same His error in attributing our justification to the life of Christ whereas the Apostle doth Rom. 5.9 expresly attribute it to his Death however it is not to be understood as excluding the obedience of his Life p. 194. Chap. xxxiv Dr. Owen's mis-interpretation of Zech. 3.3 4. That remission of sin is no more the proper fruit of Christs death as the Doctor would have it than is Justification That there is not required a collation of Righteousness over and above remission of sin as he asserts in order to a right to Heaven His allegation of Esa 61.10 to no purpose p. 198. Chap. xxxv That our deliverance from a state of rejection or un-acceptation and our Acceptation with God are not two things and to be ascribed to two several causes as the Dr. pretends That in 2 Cor. 5.21 mis-alledged by him for his purpose retorted to the purpose against him His unreasonableness in supposing the old quarrel betwixt God and us to be taken away and yet no new friendship contracted His senceless contradiction in supposing That Adam was guilty of no sin and yet not to have had thereupon a positive as well as a negative Holiness That the non-imputation of sin and the imputation of righteousness are not two things but one and the same thing That Christs Righteousness is not our righteousness before God otherwise than in a causal sence and that our Righteousness it self before God is our own personal righteousness That in Rom. 5.18 vainly alledged by the Dr. to prove his purpose That the non-imputation of sin and the Imputation of Righteousness as they are the same thing so they are to be ascribed to one and the same cause p. 203. Chap. xxxvi The difference betwixt Dr. Owen and Mr. Ferguson in their opinion concerning the Imputation of Christs Righteousness or Obedience unto us plainly laid open in their own words recited That the Doctor denies Christs death to have been in our stead but only as it was penal The Author's opinion plainly and expresly declared in opposition to the Doctor 's That satisfaction was no otherwise the effect of Christs death as a penalty than as a price and as a sacrifice p. 208. OF THE IMPUTATION OF Christs Righteousness c. CHAP. I. Q. Is the Righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to Believers Answ Although it be yielded that in Rom. 5.18 there is express mention of the word Righteousness undeniably to be understood of the Righteousness of Christ nevertheless neither in that Scripture nor in any other place is Christs Righteousness expresly said to be imputed to Believers Q. 1. IS the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us i.e. to believing sinners Answ That the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers is an assertion no where in terms to be found in Scripture And whereas by the Righteousness of one or that one Righteousness mentioned Rom. 5.18 is unquestionably meant the Righteousness of Christ expressed by name in the foregoing verse Yet this Righteousness of Christ is not there or in any other place of Scripture for ought I know expresly said to be imputed to us and forasmuch as the Scriptures are so silent therein I cannot but wonder that any one should affirm that the sound of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness is in the Scriptures as shril or loud as was that of the Trumpet at Mount Sinai as if the sound thereof had gone forth ten times out of the mouth of the Apostle in that one Chapter Rom. 4. whereas the truth is that although there be frequent mention in that Chapter of the words Righteousness and Imputed nevertheless as to the Imputation of Christs Righteousness there is Altum silentium a deep silence it being neither in that nor in any other Chapter of the Bible expresly asserted that Christs Righteousness is imputed to us I will conclude this short Chapter with the suffrage of Pareus de justitia Christi Act. Pass Nunquam legi humanam sanctitatem Christi nobis imputatam esse justitiam nostram vel ejus partem Si quis legit quaeso mihi ostendat ut ego legam credam In this sort must I needs say of the Righteousness of Christ whether Active or Passive or both or
imputed to him than in the effects of them I may well and warrantably infer by proportion that the righteousness of Christs life and sacrifice of his death his doings and sufferings formally and properly taken are not imputed unto us or otherwise imputed than meerly in the benefits of them P. 411. Neither will I press Mr. F. how that secluding not only the righteousness of Christs life but the satisfaction of his death as the matter and the imputation of it as the formal cause of justification it seems repugnant to the immutability and essential holiness of God to justifie us upon an imperfect obedience the Law which requireth a perfect obedience remaining still in force and denouncing wrath in case of every failure Answ By these words it appears again that this Author doth mistake the true notion and right conception of Gospel-justification he supposing that the righteousness of Christs life and satisfaction of his death is the matter and that the imputation of it is the formal cause thereof whereas the unquestionable truth to my simple understanding is that if we speak of matter in a proper sence as here viz. for a material cause in way of contradistinction to a formal cause neither the righteousness of Christs life nor satisfaction of his death can fitly be said to be the matter or material cause of a sinners justification the satisfactoriness both of his life and death of his doings and sufferings being undoubtedly the external impulsive or morally efficient cause thereof and how one and the same thing should put on the habitude of two causes so different in kind as is the material and efficient that being internal and pars constitutiva rei and this wholly external I do not understand such a conception being altogether contrary to the Logick which hitherto I have been acquainted with 2. Whereas this Author and others make the imputation of Christs righteousness to be the formal cause of justification I do clearly conceive them mistaken and that the formalis ratio or formal cause of Gospel-justification is forgiveness of sin this being Res ipsa the very thing it self wherein the justification of a sinner doth consist 3. Had this Author rightly apprehended or minded that a sinners justification is or doth consist in the pardon of his sin he would scarce have questioned it as a thing in the least wise repugnant to the immutability and essential holiness of God to justifie us upon an imperfect obedience For what though it may be granted that the Law which requireth a perfect obedience and denounceth wrath in case of every failure doth remain still in force i. e. so far forth as to command the one and to threaten the other yet I presume he will not I am sure he ought not to say That that original Law the Law of works I presume he means doth still stand in its primitive force as a Covenant of works both promising life to sinners upon perfect obedience or conditionally upon their not being sinners and threatning death unavoidably upon every failure Doth this Author forget That there is a Law of Grace of oblivion a Lex remedians a Law of indempnity enacted by God through the blood of Christ whereby the force of that Law so threatning may as to the execution of the threatning be vacated by a gracious pardon and certainly so shall be upon a sinners sincere however imperfect obedience to the Gospel of Christ 4. This Author seems to think that a sinner is justified in respect of the precept or preceptive part of the Law i. e. as one who had in and by Christ performed all manner of duty whereas a sinner is justified only in respect of the sanction of the Law i. e. as one who notwithstanding his failings hath right to impunity and to a discharge for Christs sake by a pardon 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 Atturneys 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 and retorted upon himself P. 411. NEither shall I urge how there can have been no surrogation of Christ in our room Mr. F. nor can we properly be said to be redeemed by him as our substitute if all redounding to us by his death be only the procurement of the Gospel-Covenant in which God upon such conditions as he there requires undertakes to pardon our iniquities and sins A surrogation in our room and stead to acts and sufferings which are not in a Law-sence accounted ours I am so far from understanding that without admitting injustice in the Rector who allows the substitution it seems to me a thwacking contradiction especially if we consider that Christ was our substitute to make satisfaction to the demands of the Law and not of the Gospel and that by his obedience and death he hath only freed us from what we were obnoxious to upon failure of perfect obedience but not at all from what we were liable to in case of unbelief and want of sincere obedience Answ 1. The Scripture no where asserts such a surrogation of Christ in our room as that we can properly be said to be redeemed by him as our substitute For had he been in a strict proper sence our substitute there is cause to assert That we have in and by him redeemed our selves yea that we rather have redeemed our selves than he us or That we are our own Redeemers rather than Christ For what is done by a proper substitute is not in a Law-sence so much his act who doth it as ours whom he as our surrogate and substitute doth personate or represent let the representation be Quocunque modo or quacunque ratione i. e. whether he represent us by our own will consent or constitution as Proctors and Atturneys do their Clients that pay and receive moneys and transact matters in their names and Ambassadors who are imployed by Princes to deal with forreign States and Nations or by allowance and authority of Law as what Tutors and Guardians do in the name of their Pupils in these cases whatsoever is done by such substitutes in the person of another is not so properly and in Law-construction his act who doth it as theirs whose substitute he is and whose person he doth represent 2. Forasmuch as this Author doth assert such a surrogation of Christ in our room as that we can properly be said to be redeemed by him as our substitute if he shall notwithstanding that assertion deny That we have
the impartial Reader what his meaning was P 417. Mr. F. The word Justifie neither in its Etymology nor application and usage according to the institution of men and least of all in the Scripture-usurpation is equipollent to pardon nor coincident with to Forgive Answ 1. However it may be in some respects useful to know the Etymology and usage of common speech nevertheless this is not so much to be regarded in the stating or determining of any Question pertaining to Divinity the usage of words in Scripture being as the Pole-Star to direct the course of our conceptions as I may so say in such matters And for that cause I cannot but commend that passage of this Author he saying p. 155. That that which is chiefly to be attended unto in the sencing of Scripture is the use of words in sacred Writers God being many times pleased to restrain or enlarge the signification of words as in his wisdom he judgeth meet And I do the rather mind the Author of this his saying because if we regard the Etymology of the word Justifie it will to speak the least as much favour the Popish sencing of the word thâ—se sencing it To Sanctifie or to make just sensu physico i. e. by infusion of grace as the Protestants interpretation thereof who do construe it sensu juridico to make just by apology defence or plea. 2. As for the usage of words in common speech this is sometimes contrary to their common usage in Scripture as I have already declared in the use of the word Justifie this signifying in common usage to absolve or acquit a person à reatu culpae i. e. as innocent and not guilty And because this Author as I guess by his name is a Scotchman I shall therefore put him in mind That whereas to be justified and to be pardoned are all one in the usage of Scripture they are contrary in the usage of Scotland to be justified there being not be pardoned but to be hang'd our Scotch Brethren using to say That a man is justified when he is hang'd or executed as I learn from the worthy Dr. Hammond in his Notes upon some place of the Epistle to the Romans 3. It is a most notorious mistake in this Author to assert as here he doth expresly That to Justifie is least of all meaning thereby in obvious construction not at all in the Scripture-usurpation equipollent to pardon nor coincident with to forgive The not observing of the contrary truth which hath been already proved by several Scriptures I do judg to be the occasion of other errors in this matter whereupon I may sadly take up the old saying Hinc illae lachrymae The Authors next ensuing words to be animadverted upon are as followeth 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 answer'd 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. 413 416 419. Mr. F. SO that upon the whole If we be not made Righteous with the perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed to us but that God only for the sake of Christ will dispence with the rigour of the Law and I dare affirm that Justification as it is opposed to the accusation of the Law its charging us with guilt and its passing sentence of condemnation against us thereupon doth not admit a proper sence in the whole Scripture but must every where be construed Metaphorically and that the import of it is not that we are properly and in a Law-sence justified but that such benefits accrue to us by Remission of sin as if we were so According to the sentiments of our Author we are only pardoned but by reason of some allusion betwixt the advantages redounding to us by forgiveness and the priviledges immunities and benefits which ensue upon a proper Justification we are therefore Metaphorically said to be justified It were to bid defiance to the Scripture in an hundred places to say that we are not at all justified and yet in effect their principles imply no less For by stating the whole of our assoilment from the accusation of the Law in remission of sin they indeed say that we are not justified only we are improperly said to be so Answ 1. It is the error of this Author as of many others to say that we are made Righteous With the perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed to us And among others I perceive Dr. Owen doth err in this particular which because he pretends to prove by certain Scriptures in his late Vindication p. 102 103. I will for the truths sake reply thereunto 1. He alledgeth Rom. 5.18 By his obedience we are made Righteous made so truly says he and accepted To which I answer 1. That Scripture proves not the Doctor 's purpose nor is pertinent thereunto for the Apostle doth not say as the Doctor would have him With whose obedience but By whose obedience we are made Righteous now we may be truly said to be made Righteous By it though we neither are nor can be truly said to be made Righteous With it For 2. These two Monosyllables By and With are very much different in signification the former particle By implying the nature energy or interest of an efficient and as here applied morally efficient or meritorious cause the latter particle With pregnantly importing the nature or interest of a formal cause Now forasmuch as the Doctor is a man of such reading and learning as that he cannot be ignorant of the true state of the Question about the Imputation of Christs Righteousness unto us it being not at all touching the meritorious cause of our Justification whether we are justified By Christs Righteousness but about the formal cause whether we are justified With Christs Righteousness imputed as some say or With the Imputation thereof as say some others i. e. with the very thing if self imputed to us or with the imputation thereof in its formal or essential nature I say Forasmuch as this Doctor cannot but know these things it did ill become his learning and ingenuity to hood-wink the eyes of the vulgar Reader from seeing the true state of the Question and consequently from perceiving how nothing at all to the purpose in hand this Scripture is that is alledged by him 3. There is not the least whisper of the obedience of Christ as Imputed to us or of the Imputation of Christs obedience to us in that of Rom. 5.18 For though the Apostle says By his obedience yet he doth not say By his obedience Imputed to us or By the
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
properly and formally or otherwise than in the fruits and effects of the one and of the other The reason thereof rendred P. 537. To say Mr. F. That Christ suffered only for our advantage and not in our room is plain Socinianism and to say That he bare our punishment without being charged with our guilt is plain non-sence and yet to remonstrate to such a Relation between him and us as may and ought to be styled a Legal Vnion is to vent repugnancies in the same breath Answ What is here said hath in effect already been answered and to the same purpose I say again 1. The imputation of Socinianism is causless forasmuch as we do acknowledg what they deny viz. That Jesus Christ being God and man in one person did make a satisfaction or compensation to Gods justice and by his doings and sufferings did merit the pardon of our sins 2. We deny not but that Jesus Christ may be truly said to have suffered in our room or stead and for that cause to be styled in the word of one of the Ancients our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he suffered that which was equivalent to the suffering which being due to us we should have suffered and thereby to save us from suffering and we say That Christ suffered in the person of a Mediator to procure our pardon and reconciliation with God Only we do deny That Christ was in such a sence our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that he did in such a strict sence die in our room and stead as that he may be said to die in nostrâ personâ in such sort representing our persons as that we can truly be said to have satisfied in and by him or that his sufferings are in their essential nature imputed to us One King may be said to rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the room of another though he may not therefore be said to be the Representative of that other as Archelaus is said to have reigned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the room of his Father Herod Solomon in the room of David 1 King 5.5 Benaiah to be made Captain-General of the Host in the room of Joah 1 King 2.35 and Elisha to be substituted or anointed a Prophet in the room of Elijah 1 King 19.16 although none of these can be truly said in a strict sence to represent the persons of those in whose room they were substituted 3. If by Our punishment this Author meaneth the Idem the self same punishment which we should have born it hath been already gainsaid and the contrary truth proved as also that he did not bear our guilt neither our guilt of fact or fault at all nor the self same guilt or obligation to punishment as was ours but another kind of obligation that was peculiar to himself 4. What non-sence soever there is in saying That Christ bare Idem supplicium our very punishment without being charged with our guilt nevertheless it is true sence and the sence of Scripture to say That Christ did contract or take upon him an obligation to suffer and did actually undergo such sufferings as were equivalent to that punishment which we deserved to suffer and this without being charged with our guilt 5. The things being justly to be denied which he doth here presume as granted or to be granted viz. That Christ did at all take upon him our Reatus facti or culpae our guilt of fact or fault or the self same guilt or obligation to punishment which was ours it follows That there is all the reason in the world to remonstrate unto any such union of Christians with Christ by what name soever dignified or distinguished Mystical Conjugal Political Legal Evangelical Supernatural the native consequence whereof is That Christ was charged with our guilt of sin That he took upon him the self same obligation to punishment which was ours That our sin really in it self was imputed to him and undergone by him and That his doings and sufferings briefly his Righteousness was formally in it self imputed unto us All these Consequents are justly to be remonstrated against and consequently so are all the Antecedents be they never so specious from whence they do naturally and necessarily result or flow for as the common saying is Ex vero nihil nisi verum From truth nothing but truth doth natively and necessarily issue These things considered it is easie to answer his arguings in p. 556 557. which I shall more at large now recite and reply to CHAP. XVII That Christ may very well be said to be made sin for us to bear our sins to die 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 thence that Christ himself did merit it or took upon him the meriting thereof That Christ may be said in an improper sence to be punished The word Demerit of punishmeit ambiguous a two-fold sence whereof is specified The Arguments which overthrow the Popish doctrine of believers being discharged from the guilt of sin but not the punishment altogether mis-applyed by Mr. F. to the point in hand P. 556 557. Mr. F. HAD not the susception of our sins preceded as the antecedent impulsive cause of Christs sufferings he could neither be said to be made sin for us nor to bear them nor to have them laid upon him nor to die for our offences nor to be our ransom Nor could the inflicting of sufferings upon him have been either good in it self or an act of Rectoral justice in God or have had any tendency to his glory or to the honour of his Law or to deter sinners from offending yea preclude once the consideration of sin as the meritorious cause of the Agonies which Christ underwent and the love wisdom justice and Rectorship of God are obnoxious to reflections and stand liable to be impeached And if it be once obtained that our sins are the meritorious impulsive cause of Christs death his susception of our guilt will necessarily follow For guilt being nothing but an obligation to punishment and it being impossible to conceive such a habitude betwixt a person and sin that it should be the meritorious impulsive cause of his punishment and yet he not be under an obligation to punishment it plainly follows that guilt must be supposed antecedent to a demerit of punishment Guilt and punishment being Relates he that is obnoxious to the latter must be previously under the Imputation of the former as Bishop Andrews expresseth it Christ was first made sin in respect of the guilt
and then a curse in respect of the punishment Serm. of Justification on Jer. 23.6 Ans Almost all of this either in the same words or in words to the same effect hath been before recited out of this Author and a reply accordingly shaped thereunto And for that reason it is necessary only to repeat the Answers which have been already given I answer then 1. Christ may very well be said to be made sin for us to bear our sins to have them laid upon him to die for our offences and to be our ransom in that he did take upon him an obligation to suffer and suffer to death for the expiation of them although it cannot be truly said That Christ did bear our sin it self properly and formally taken but only in the fruit and sad consequents of it viz. suffering equivalent punishment to that which was due to us for it 2. As to the Authors expressions Antecedent Impulsive Cause 1. It is the Authors mistake to confound an Antecedent Impulsive Cause with a Cause Meritorious That he doth so is most apparent and undeniable by his fore-cited words But that it is his mistake so to do be it considered 1. That the misery of an indigent Creature may be well said to be an antecedent impulsive cause of that compassion which is shewed towards it by those who are conscious unto or spectators of its misery And accordingly I doubt not to aver That the miserable effects of sin specially in making us obnoxious to the vengeance of eternal fire was an antecedent impulsive cause moving God speaking of him after the manner of men which we must do or else we can scarce say any thing of him fore-ordain the sufferings of our Lord Redeemer Christ Jesus whereby to rescue us out of our wretched and otherwise forlorn condition Yet who will or can justly say That the misery of a Creature doth in a strict or proper sence merit the pity whether of God or man This if it did pity would scarce deserve the name of pity I mean it would not be so thank-worthy forasmuch as that which is merited deserves little if any thanks Is a Labourer obliged to give his Master thanks for his wages which he hath earned or merited Misery may be well said to be Res apta nata an object naturally fit to move mercy or to be an impelling cause thereunto and yet not a Meritorious cause thereof in the strict and proper usual sence of the word Meritorious 2. Though I grant it as a truth and a fit saying That our misery contracted by sin was an antecedent impulsive cause of Gods mercy in delivering up Christ for us all nevertheless I do utterly deny that our sins were the Meritorious cause of Christs death or sufferings I grant that our sins were the Occasion of Christs sufferings but I deny that our sins did merit his sufferings And I have just and great cause so to do forasmuch as our Logick tells us that there is a great difference betwixt an Occasion and a Cause truly so called as this Author cannot but know very well I remember the saying of David to Abiathar 1 Sam. 22.22 I have occasioned the death of all the persons of thy fathers house which notwithstanding it could not be said That he had caused their death In like sort may we say to God We have occasioned thee to bruise the Son of thy love and to put him to grief we have been the occasion of all his sufferings but we may not say That our sins did merit them 3. Forasmuch as what this Author hath sought he cannot obtain viz. an acknowledgment That our sins were the meritorious cause of Christs death and forasmuch as he makes this the ground of his following inferences it is not therefore needful that I should use many words in replying thereunto For if the foundation of a building be removed the superstructure falls of it self and without hands Nevertheless I add 3. Although I do deny that our sins were the meritorious cause of Christs sufferings nevertheless I do assert that Christ was under An obligation to suffer for our sins It is this Authors great mistake not to distinguish in this contest betwixt Christs obligation and Ours whereas as hath been aforesaid these are two obligations specifically different and all his inferences here are utterly groundless e. g. 1. That Christ could not suffer or be under An obligation to suffer except he had been under or had taken upon him Our obligation to suffering 2. That he could not else have been said to bear our sins to be made sin for us to have our sins laid upon him to die for them nor to be our ransom 3. That without this the inflicting of sufferings upon Christ could not have been either good in it self or an act of Rectoral justice in God or have had any tendency to his glory or All these inferences I say are altogether groundless 4. I answer Ex abundanti If our sins could properly be said to have merited Christs sufferings nevertheless it will not from thence follow That we meriting that he should suffer then he himself did merit it or took upon him the meriting thereof and therefore although guilt as he says must be supposed antecedent to a demerit of punishment yet where there is no such demerit as in Christ there was not there 't is not necessary to suppose any antecedent guilt Nor indeed in any case but where the person suffering is properly punish'd which Christ was not but only a sufferer of that which we for our sins deserved to have suffered in our own persons and which if we had personally suffered it would have been formally and properly a punishment to us but was not to him because he never deserved it nor was any such guilt or deserving it imputed to him or taken upon him And yet he may be said in some improper sence to be obliged to punishment I do not mean the word improperly in reference to Obliged for Christs obligation to suffering however it was not at all Obligatio Criminis yet being truly Obligatio Contractus it was therefore In suo genere a proper obligation but to the word Punishment and I do therefore express the matter now plainly and say That Christ may be said to be obliged to punishment improperly so called because he did voluntarily undertake and obliged himself to suffer those pains which being inflicted on us would have been properly or proper punishments 5. As for the testimony of that renowned Bishop Andrews I have made reply thereunto in an entire Chapter Ch. 5. and I have thought it my part the rather so to do because as I perceive by my late reading not Mr. Ferguson only but certain other Brethren by their allegation of that saying of the Bishop have adopted it as their own There is but one passage more which I have observed in my reading of his Book throughout to refer to the matter in hand The
and the like vertues Col. 3.12 Put on as the elect of God bowels of mercies kindness Eph. 4.22 23. Put off concerning the former conversation the old man and v. 24. Put on that new man which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness 1 Pet. 5.5 Be ye clothed with humility Our own righteousness in the several branches thereof is that which in many Scriptures is commended to us under the notion of splendid rayment which adorns us makes us lovely in the eyes of God and which is in his sight of great price 1 Pet. 3.3 5. 1 Tim. 2.9 10. To this purpose I might instance in many sayings out of the Proverbs of Solomon were it needful But forasmuch as several Scriptures are objected to the contrary of what hath been here said in the first branch of my Answer I will therefore specifie some of the chief of them and reply thereunto Object Rev. 3.18 What else is meant by the white rayment there mentioned but the Righteousness of Jesus Christ Answ 1. The Question may as well be demanded What is meant by the Gold there spoken of but the Righteousness of Christ For we are not otherwise clothed with the robe or rayment than we are enriched with the gold of Christs Righteousness 2. By the white rayment is there meant our own righteousness consisting of such gracious dispositions and works of holiness which do adorn the Disciples of Christ in his sight more than the most Lilly-white and splendid rayment doth the greatest Princes in the eye of men And this I conceive to be meant by that rayment of needle-work wherein the Bride the Lambs wife is said to be brought unto him Ps 45.13 14. And this is that righteousness of the Saints wherewith they are said to be ‖ Rev. 19.8 arrayed as in fine linnen clean and white righteous works being that rayment wherewith every Christian man and woman should be clothed or adorned 1 Tim. 2.10 Object Rom. 13.14 Are not Christians there commanded to put on the Righteousness of Christ Answ 1. Whatever be the thing which the believing Romans are there commanded to put on I am perswaded that the Apostles meaning there is That we should put it on not as a garment but rather as Armour we being as well said to put on this as that He prosecutes that Metaphor mentioned v. 12. Put on the Armour of light 2. Consequently I think that we have no more reason to conclude that by the garment which we are there commanded to put on is meant Christs Righteousness than that his Righteousness is it which under the Metaphor of the Armour of light we are commanded to put on in the verse next before But I am content that the Reader judg of them 3. I know no surer way rightly to understand what the Apostles true meaning was That we should put on than by considering what we should put off Now forasmuch as the things which he would have us put off are what he stiles the works of darkness i. e. wicked works of all sorts especially such as are there named I may therefore safely I doubt not conclude That by our putting on the Lord Jesus Christ he means our putting on the graces or vertues of the Lord Jesus Christ these being the image of our Lord Christ and it being ordinary to call the image of a thing or person by the name of the person or thing which it doth resemble And in this sence the word Christ is used Gal. 4.19 My little children of whom I travel in birth again till Christ be formed in you Object Gal. 3.27 Doth not the Apostle there mean that the Galatians having been baptized into Christ had put on the Righteousness of Christ Answ By Christ there is not meant the Righteousness of Christ and what is the very thing there meant by the Apostle that the baptized Galatians had put on I know no surer way to understand than by considering the scope of the Apostle in that Epistle what it was that he would have them to put off Now that which the Apostle in this Epistle especially would have the Galatians to put off was Judaism in all the parts of it as such So that as by the Lord Jesus Christ in Rom. 13.14 is meant Christianity in opposition to Gentilism or those heathenish vices there specified so by Christ in Gal. 3.27 I conceive is meant Christianity or the practice of Christian Religion in opposition to Judaism As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ not Moses you have taken upon you the profession of Christian Religion not that of the Jewish or Mosaical Law Object Is not Christs Righteousness the thing it self meant by the wedding garment Mat. 22.12 Answ No but those holy qualifications and gracious dispositions wherewith a Christian should attend upon God in his sacred Ordinances and in his solemn approaches to God should be vested with even as men upon festival occasions do apparrel themselves in rayment suitable thereunto Object Is not the Righteousness of Christ that garment of salvation and robe of righteousness wherewith God is said Esa 61.10 to have clothed or covered his Church Answ It were easie to name many Authors who have perverted that Scripture to such a sence whereas the truth is that there is no more cause to think that the Righteousness of Christ is meant by the garment there mentioned than where mention is made of the same word by the Prophet elsewhere Ch. 52.1 saying Awake awake put on thy strength O Zion put on thy beautiful garments O Jerusalem The very truth of the matter is 1. As the words are a promise although after the manner of Gods speaking by his Spirit in the Prophets it is expressed in the preterperfect tense and as the good promised is expressed by the name of Salvation and Righteousness these in effect being one thing so by Righteousness is meant Gods beneficence and bounty with the several fruits of it confer'd upon his Church in their preservations deliverances restorations In this sence the word Righteousness is frequently taken in Scripture Hos 10.12 It is time to seek the Lord till he come and rain Righteousness upon you Ps 24.5 He shall receive Righteousness from the God of his salvation so that there is no more cause to affirm That by Righteousness in Esa 61.10 is meant Christs personal Righteousness than to make the same construction of the word in the places fore-cited where God promiseth to rain Righteousness upon them or that they shall receive Righteousness from him as the God of their salvation 2. As for the Metaphorical expression of being clothed and covered with the garment of salvation and robe of righteousness it is an allusion to the custom of the Jews and indeed of all Nations which was to clothe and attire themselves sutably to their present condition whether of prosperity or adversity fasting or feasting times as is expressed v. 3. of that Chapter in
expression 1 Cor. 14.9 intelligible speech or as our Translation renders it words easie to be understood I mean who do in plain down-right Scripture-language preach remission of sin through the blood righteousness or obedience of Christ do preach all that is true or truly comfortable in that doctrine which in the Sermons and Writings of many doth go under the name of Christ imputed Righteousness Object But do not the contrary minded pretend that Justification by the Imputation of Christs Righteousness it self to a sinner is a greater benefit than remission of sin and that also which a sinner over and above the pardon of his sin hath absolute need of in order to his admittance into the Kingdom of Heaven Answ I am not altogether ignorant of what is to that purpose pretended by too too many of my Brethren whose pretences I shall faithfully relate and because I do judg them to be weak and groundless I will endeavour to manifest the same in the ensuing Chapters CHAP. XXI One benefit pretended by divers That by Remission of sin a sinner is freed from the punishment deserved by his fault but by Christs Righteousness imputed he is freed from the fault it self the vanity of which pretence is discovered Several Objections answered wherein is shewen That a sinner may be disobliged from suffering the punishment deserved for his fault and yet remain faulty still and that it is repugnant to the nature as well as to the Law of God for God to repute a sinner to be that which he is not or not to have committed those faults which he hath committed That it is one thing for God to repute a person to be innocent and quite another to be dealt with respectively to impunity as innocent In what sence a Thief having made satisfaction for his theft is in the sence of the Law a Thief still The main ground of mistake in this matter specified 1. IT is pretended that by remission of sin the sinner is freed from the punishment deserved by his fault but by his justification through Christs Righteousness imputed to him he is freed from faultiness or the fault it self To this purpose saith Mr. John Warner in his Book styled Diatriba Fidei justificantis qua justificantis printed in the year 1657 the Book it self being chiefly written in opposition to Dr. Hammond Mr. Baxter Mr. Woodbridge and my self as to several passages in my Exercitation concerning the nature of forgiveness of sin His words p. 139. are these Whereas pardon of sin doth take away Reatum poenae justification doth constitute a man so righteous as to take away Reatum culpae To the same purpose I have read in another Author who says That whereas remission of sin takes away the punishment justification takes away the fault so that the Law hath no power to pronounce us faulty So Mr. Anth. Burges of Just 2d part p. 268. As for the vanity of this pretence I have said enough already partly in this Treatise and partly in the 4th Chapter of my Exercitation concerning the Nature of forgiveness of sin and if need be am ready to say more for the discovery thereof And for the better understanding of the matter let the difference betwixt Guilt of fault and Guilt of punishment be rightly understood and still remembred viz. That these two do differ Sicut Meritum poenae and Obligatio ad luendum poenam in the former sence he is guilty who hath committed a fault and thereby hath deserved punishment but in the latter sence he only is guilty that remains actually obliged to suffer the punishment which he by his fault had deserved Now as I have said before as Christs Righteousness is no more or otherwise imputed to a sinner for his justification than his pardon so also his justification doth stand him in no more stead than doth his pardon albeit Justification doth even as Remission of sin take away the guilt of punishment yet it neither doth nor can take away the guilt of fault or faultiness it self from the sinner so that albeit the Law cannot pronounce a sinner who is justified to be guilty as a person actually obliged to suffer for his fault yet it may and doth and cannot otherwise choose but pronounce him faulty or guilty of fault yea the Law in its express pronouncing a person to be pardoned justified or not guilty of punishment doth implicitly pronounce him to be guilty of fault So true are those sayings Quod factum est fieri infectum non potest Habere eripitur habuisse nunquam it a peccare cessat peccavisse nunquam Hereupon it was most truly said by the Poet Ne non peccârim Mors quoque non faciet But because I am well assured that Mr. Warner and Mr. Burgess are not alone in that their mistake as aforesaid I will therefore relate certain passages which I have somewhere read objected against the truth here and in the 4th Chapter of my said Exercitation asserted and return answer thereunto Object Either in forgiving sin God must Peccantem non peccantem facere or else he doth nothing Answ 1. If this be true that God in forgiving sin doth make a sinner to be no sinner or of faulty not faulty then there is no difference at all as to this particular betwixt forgiveness of sin and justification seeing God in forgiving the sinner as well as in justifying him doth make him no sinner i. e. not faulty or culpable Object Gods taking off the obligation to punishment is in order to his making Peccantem non peccantem i. e. a sinner to be no sinner Answ I deny that Gods taking off a sinners obligation to punishment is in order to any such matter as is here pretended For his taking off a sinners obligation to punishment is in order to his non-inflicting or his actual taking off the punishment it self in his appointed time 2. If it were truly said that Gods taking off a sinners obligation to punishment were in order to his making of a person faulty not faulty then the difference betwixt remission of sin and justification cannot be as is here pretended Object As long as a sinner is faulty he is still obliged to punishment Answ Woe be to us if this be true For if there be truth in that saying we have all cause to say with the Disciples Who then can be saved 2. Be it known to sinners for their great Consolation in Christ that what is here objected is a notorious mistake the very truth being this viz. That a sinner may be disobliged from suffering the punishment deserved by his fault even when and while he stands faulty yea although to all eternity he doth stand faulty and in very deed every pardoned or justified sinner shall so stand before God it being a thing simply impossible but that he who is pardoned or justified by Gods free grace through the Redemption which is in Christ Jesus should remain faulty or culpable as to his former