that they may accord and continue uniformly in one faith and doctrine that this agreement of all God the Father Son and Believers may be a powerful means of convincing the world that Jesus was the Christ sent by God To pray I say to this or the like purpose is this to pray That God and Christ and Believers may become One entire thing Thus have I cited a second Author or Authors should I say forasmuch as there are so many who by their several Epistles do applaud the Divinity of his Book no less than five names The third Author is brought to my hand by Mr. Samnel Rols a zealous Asserter of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sence here challenged in his late Book styled Prodromus who informs me that the words following are the words of the most excellent Mr. Richard Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity or in some of his Writings annexed thereunto p. 4. alias 38. But the Righteousness wherein we must be found if we will be justified is not our own therefore we cannot be justified by any inherent quality Yet even the man that is in himself full of sin being found in Christ by faith and having his sin remitted through repentance him God beholdeth with a gracious eye putteth away his sin by not imputing it and accepteth him in Jesus Christ as perfectly righteous as if he had fulfilled all that was commanded him in the Law shall I say more perfectly righteous than if himself had fulfilled the whole Law I must take heed what I say but the Apostle saith 2 Cor. 5.21 That we might be made the Righteousness of God in him Such we are in the sight of God the Father as is the very Son of God himself To this my reply is He calls it his own righteousness not because it was his at what time he spake those words but because it was his at what time he was a Jew and before a Convert to the faith of Christ 1. That Judaism or a Judaical Righteousness is that Righteousness which St. Paul doth call his own and this in opposition to Christianity or the practical knowledg of Christ wherein alone he did desire to be found and therefore it doth not follow from thence that a sinner cannot be justified or freed from condemnation upon the account of any inherent Christian grace or graces 2. A man may be said to be justified by the Righteousness of another and not by his own in a three-fold sence 1. By way of merit 2. By way of form 3. By way of a condition In the first sence it's most true that the Righteousness by which we must be justified is the Righteousness of another even of Jesus Christ the Righteous and not our own 2. But in both the other sences it is altogether untrue For 1. That Righteousness by or to speak more accurately with which a sinner is formally justified or made righteous is alwayes a mans own viz. his pardon or the remission of his sins 2. That Righteousness by which as a condition of his discharge a sinner is justified is always his own and not anothers viz. His own faith It 's true indeed that in respect of procurement both these Righteousnesses with and by which a sinner is justified are Christs and in respect of collation they are Gods but in respect of possession or performance they may be well said to be our own Righteousness they being freely given us of God for the sake of Christ Act. 5.31 And that sinners are in this last sence of the phrase justified by some inherent quality or grace of their own certainly Mr. Hooker would not deny for he in that Citation saith That it is through repentance that our sins are remitted which is as much as to say That by or through repentance a sinner is pardoned justified or not condemned by God 3. The Apostle in saying We are made the Righteousness of God in Christ doth not say either expresly or constructively That we are made more perfectly righteous than if our selves had fulfilled the whole Law no more than he says the same thing in Rom. 5.19 which was for that purpose alledged by Mr. W. Eyre but to no purpose as I have manifested 4. As for the closing words Such we are in the sight of God the Father as is the very Son of God himself I have said enough already declaring how such sayings are not to be justified but to be abominated as most false if not blasphemous there being nothing to be alledged for the excuse thereof save the innocent intention of the Authors I will close this Chapter with a request That the foresaid distinction touching the several sences wherein a man may be said to be justified by the Righteousness of another and not by his own may the rather be observed because it may serve for a two-fold purpose 1. It may be subservient to us how to give a ready and satisfactory answer to that passage of Dr. Owen with certain others in his often cited Book wherein he says p. 167. Christ is made of God to the Saints Righteousness and they will own nothing else to that purpose To this I answer 1. For Christ to be made of God Righteousness to the Saints is not for God to impute Christs Righteousness immediately in it self to them as the Doctor would have it he saying to that purpose as in other places so p. 110. That that perfection of obedience which we have in Christ is imputed to us but in the saving effects of it according to that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 1.30 He is of God made unto us Wisdom and Righteousness and Sanctification and Redemption i. e. he is causally efficiently or effectually made all these unto us And one would think that this Doctor should content himself with that sence of the phrase Christ his being made of God Righteousness unto us for he says p. 104. That in the Covenant God becomes our God and we his people and thereby all his Attributes are ours i. e. as to the benefit of them as else-where he interprets it The Doctor doth not say That upon our being in Covenant with God Gods Attributes are imputed to us nor doth he barely and simply say Gods Attributes are ours but he explicates that saying in these words that is as to the benefit of them so that there is just cause to think that the Doctor of any man should rest satisfied with that explication which others do give of such phrases touching the manner of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness or its being made ours they saying of Christs Righteousness as he says of Gods Attributes 2. Though the Saints will own nothing as the meritorious cause of their righteousness pardon or justification but the Righteousness of Christ nevertheless they may and ought to own evangelical obedience i. e. their return to God in faith and repentance as the condition without which the said saving effect or benefit of Christs
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
eternal The premisses considered I infer these three or four Conclusions 1. That upon the removal of eternal evil from a person who is pardoned eternal good is immediately introduced by Gods order and appointment 2. That to grant as the Objector here doth that forgiveness of sin doth remove the eternal evil is to yield the cause and to acknowledg that by Gods order and appointment forgiveness of sin doth introduce eternal good or a title to eternal life 3. That if we do suppose a sinner pardoned to be only freed from hell and then annihilated we do even then therein and thereby suppose him not pardoned according to the tenor of the Gospel or with such a plenary pardon as the Gospel promiseth and consequently that to argue after such a rate as is here argued is to forsake or to depart from the subject of the Question a thing much unbeseeming a close Disputant such as this Author was by many accounted 4. That it is a groundless imagination to think as too too many do who having first unnecessarily distinguished of Christs obedience into active and passive do sort them to several distinct purposes dogmatizing thereupon That Christ by his passive obedience hath freed us from the guilt of eternal death and by his active obedience hath procured us a title to eternal life and That by forgiveness of sin we have freedom from the one and by Justification by Christs Righteousness we have title to the other As particularly Dr. Owen speaks in his Book of Communion with God And because it is much to be desired that Christians would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as is the Apostles prayer for the Philippians Ch. 1.10 first try and then approve or disapprove according to the different nature of things my purpose is in certain Chapters of this Treatise to expose to an impartial examination what that Author hath dictated concerning this matter In the mean while I shall offer two things to consideration 1. Mr. Baxter says in those sheets which he wrote in reference to Mr. Edw. Fowler 's Book styled The design of Christianity We believe says he p. 17. That Christs habitual perfection with his Active Righteousness and his sacrifice or sufferings all set together and advanced in value by their conjunction with his Divine Righteousness were the true meritorious procuring cause of our pardon justification sanctification and salvation Not one part imputed to this effect and another to that but all thus making up one meritorious cause of all these effects even of the Covenant and all its benefits He adds saying and which is the main truth which I do by this whole Treatise contend for And thus Christs Righteousness is imputed and given to us not immediately in it self but in the effects and fruits As a ransom is said to be given to a Captive because it is given For him though strictly the ransom is given to another and only the fruits of it to him This I take to be the Catholick Faith in the Article before us 2. Be it considered That there is no Medium betwixt Life and Death no middle condition rationally imaginable betwixt these two Hereupon we may certainly conclude That he who by the forgiveness of his sins is freed from eternal death cannot otherwise but be conceived to have a right to life eternal I proceed to answer certain other Arguments objected from the Scriptures Object The Apostle having said Acts 13.38 39. that through Christ was preached to them the forgiveness of sins he adds as a further priviledg or benefit saying And by him all that believe are justified This is objected if I do not mis-remember in the said Book styled Communion with God Answ 1. The words being translated out of the original run thus Be it known unto you therefore Men and Brethren that by this man forgiveness of sins is preached unto you and from all things from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses this is the entire v. 38. in the Greek and then it follows v. 39. By him every believing man is justified The words being thus rendred and an Emphasis laid upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is oft-times in Scripture as much as even do clearly make the same thing to be meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do clearly I say make justification and remission of sin to be the same thing or of the self same adequate importance that implying no more priviledg or benefit than this 2. Read the words as we find them translated and it is sufficiently clear that the words justification and remission are but varied phrases of one and the same thing it being the manner of Scripture frequently to express the self same thing by varied words and phrases 3. The said Scripture being alledged usually for the proving that justification doth denote a further priviledg than forgiveness of sin especially the Imputation of Christs active obedience must for that purpose thus be paraphrased Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins and by him all that believe have Christs active obedience imputed to them from all things from which you could not have Christs active obedience imputed to you by the Law of Moses Hereupon let any Reader judg whether this Scripture makes for the purpose for which it is alledged whether by Dr. Owen or any other of the adverse Brethren in this controversie Some other Objections there are but they are so weak that no impartial or unprejudicate person will I am most assured be swayed by them and therefore having answered the most considerable I shall let pass the rest I shall now propound another Question Quest Are not believing sinners restored by Christ unto a greater degree of felicity than Adam did lose or forfeit by his sin and are not Believers entitled to this greater degree of glory by their justification through the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to them and not upon the meer score of the forgiveness of their sins Answ In answer hereunto I will set down in the first place what the opinion of others is in this matter and then speak my own sence 1. There be many who as they judg that Believers are restored to a greater degree of felicity in this life than Adam did enjoy in Paradise so also that they shall enjoy through the Imputation of Christs Righteousness a greater degree of heavenly glory than Adam should have enjoyed upon his continuance in a state of innocency But there are others who think that both of them are justly questionable and scarce proveable by the Scriptures especially the latter 2. There be others asserting That there is in the merits of Christ not only Plenitudo sufficientiae but also redundantiae or that his satisfaction was super-satisfactory not only Legalis justitiae but also Super-legalis meriti as are the expressions of the very learned Dr. Reynolds Bishop of Norwich in some of his Sermons if I
whether he should believe the Doctor or his own eyes 2. Much less is there mention of Reconciliation through a non-imputation of sin as distinct from justification in any of those three Texts of Scripture 3. Though there be mention of Reconciliation and a non-imputation of sin in one of the fore-cited Scriptures 2 Cor. 5.19 yet neither is the one or the other there mentioned as distinct from justification through an Imputation of Christs Righteousness as the Doctor says 4. We are no otherwise justified than we are pardoned or reconciled to God through the Imputation of Christs Righteousness Christs Righteousness it self being no more necessary nor acting any otherwise for the effecting of the one than of the other the agency thereof being that of a morally efficient or meritorious cause towards our remission reconciliation and justification 5. If by the Doctor 's confession reconciliation and justification are reciprocally affirmed one of another I am apt to think that Philosophy will warrant us from thence to conclude an identity And by the last fore-cited Scripture the identity which the Doctor denies may undoubtedly be evinced For the non-imputation of sin together with our reconciliation with God is there mentioned as all one even the self same thing with our being made the Righteousness of God in Christ which may be truly paraphrased with our being justified by the Righteousness of Christ but is falsly glossed as the Doctor would have it with the Imputation of the perfect and compleat righteousness or obedience of Christ to the Law of God As for the other three places of Scripture alledged by him he doth manifestly wrest them For 1. Though it be said in Jer. 23.6 That this is his name whereby he shall be called The Lord our Righteousness let who will be there meant by the Lord whether God the Father as Mr. John Humfreys thinks or God the Son as many others it matters not here to make enquiry yet there is no such thing there either mentioned or meant as Justification through an Imputation of Christs Righteousness unto us 2. Although in Rom. 4.5 there is mention made of Gods Imputing Righteousness unto us yet by Righteousness is not there meant the Righteousness of Christ i. e. his perfect and compleat obedience to the Law nor are we by that expression of the Apostle given to understand that the said righteousness or obedience of Christ is imputed to us but by it is meant a certain righteousness which is the effect and fruit of Christs Righteousness and which for the sake of Christs Righteousness is imputed to us or confer'd upon us 3. There is not the least sound or whisper of a sinners justification through the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in 1 Cor. 1.30 although the Doctor hath endeavoured several times to pervert that Text to such a sence as was never intended by the Apostle 4. Whereas he says as he hath said often that this last i. e. justification through an Imputation of Christs Righteousness we have by the life of Christ he doth expresly contradict the Apostle who affirms That we are justified by the Blood of Christ i. e. by his bloody death The Doctor proceeds in his perverting the true sence of certain other Scriptures as after the recital of his words I will demonstrate in the following Chapter CHAP. XXXIV Doctor 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. 187. THIS that is the distinct mention of Reconciliation through a non-imputation of sin and Justification through an Imputation of righteousness is fully expressed in that Typical representation of our justification before the Lord Zech. 3.3 4 5. Two things are there expressed to belong to our free Acceptation before God 1. The taking away the guilt of our sin our filthy robes This is done by the death of Christ remission of sin is the proper fruit thereof but there is more also required even a Collation of righteousness and thereby a right to life eternal this is here called fine change of rayment So the Holy Ghost expresseth it again Esa 61.10 where he calls it plainly the garment of salvation and the robe of righteousness Now this is only made ours by the obedience of Christ as the other by his death Answ We are now come to Visions and Revelations of the Lord in the Expositions whereof I do confess my self to have little exercised my talent nevertheless I reply 1. In a flat gainsaying his interpretation and denial that this i. e. that reconciliation with God and justification through the Imputation of Christs Righteousness as things distinct is fully expressed in that Typical representation of the matter in Zech. 3. For although I do yield that remission of sins is represented by that visible sign I have caused thine iniquities i. e. in the guilt and punishment of them to pass from thee i. e. I have pardoned them nevertheless I deny that by the fine change of rayment is there meant the Righteousness of Christ or justification through the Imputation of it unto us but I rather think that by it is meant our own personal righteousness or holiness which doth oft-times in Scripture go under the Metaphorical expression of a splendid vest fine linnen robe or the like as I have already manifested Briefly My opinion is That in the said vision of the Prophet there is a representation of justification or remission of sin and sanctification as distinct things but not as the Doctor will have it expounded of reconciliation or remission and of justification through the Imputation of Christs Righteousness 2. Remission of sin is no more the proper fruit of Christs death as the Doctor says than is our justification for as the Apostle somewhere says We have redemption through his Blood even the Forgiveness of our sins so he doth elsewhere say We are justified by his Blood Rom. 5.9 I doubt not to say It is a great mistake in this Doctor as in many others to assign our Reconciliation or remission of sin and our Justification to several distinct causes the former to Christs passive obedience his death the other to his active the obedience of his life imputed whereas the truth is in these two things 1. That reconciliation or remission of sin and justification are the self same thing in effect as was aforesaid 2. Being the same thing in effect although they are expressed by divers names yet they are wholly to be ascribed to the whole obedience of Christ both of his life and death as joyntly constituting the meritorious cause thereof so that neither is remission of sin to be more said to be the proper fruit of Christs death than justification nor justification more properly
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
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-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
in and by Christ redeemed our selves or are in and by him our own Redeemers it behoves him to consider how he can avoid the just imputation of that thwacking contradiction which upon his swopping mistake he insinuates his adversaries in this point to be guilty of And it concerns him also to consider how his Hypothesis can be maintained without admitting that injustice which he mentions in the Rector who notwithanding his allowance of the said substitution doth deny instantly to confer upon us the benefits of Christs redemption and satisfaction these being no other than what we our selves have in and by Christ made a full satisfaction for and which upon that account we may fitly and properly be said to have purchased for our selves 3. Whatsoever bad consequences there be of Christs being our surrogate and substitute in such a strict Law-sence as he doth fancy to himself there is no such repugnancy or contradiction as here he speaks of that doth follow from what we do assert in this matter viz. That Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us that he died for our sins as a ransom sacrifice atonement or propitiation and forasmuch as he suffered for our sakes and in our stead i. e. such suffering as was equivalent to what we deserved and such as was fit to attain the ends designed by our Creator and Redeemer better than the damnation of all mankind could have done we do not deny but that our sins may be said to be imputed to Christ and his sufferings to us but neither of them properly and in their essential nature not our sin it self to him or his sufferings themselves to us but both of them in their effects our sin to him in its penal and his sufferings to us in its saving effects And this as we do so we may very well and warrantably maintain notwithstanding it be yielded as the truth is That Christ was substituted or given of God to make satisfaction to the demands of the Law and not of the Gospel in the sence here specified by this Author 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 HItherto I have related the arguings of this Author word for word as I find them continued together from p. 409. to p. 412. and accordingly the Reader may if he please take view of them all as contiguous But forasmuch as I judg'd it most conducive to the conviction of gain-sayers and to the edification of all to shape my reply thereunto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 period by period I have therefore accordingly recited them and suited my reply to every distinct period in those pages As for his ensuing arguings in the same Chapter to the close thereof I cannot in such sort recite them verbatim without the transcribing of seven or eight whole pages from p. 413. to p. 421. nor will it be at all necessary so to do it being fully satisfactory to demonstrate that his arguings do proceed upon his utter mistake of the true nature of Gospel-justification or that peculiar kind of justification whereof a sinner is the subject or subjective matter and for the manifestation thereof be it considered That he premiseth these two things p. 413 414. 1. That to justifie is in its proper acceptation here a forensick term signifying to acquit and absolve one that is accused 2. That justification not only supposeth us to be indited but withal imports an absolution from the charge of that Law of the breach whereof we are accused viz. The Law of perfect obedience which is not abrogated by the Law of faith but doth remain in force and we being all guilty of the violation of its terms there lyes accordingly a charge against us from which by justification we are as he says to be acquitted Now yielding to the former of the two premisses which he proves by several Scriptures apt to the purpose I reply to the latter That there being a two-fold guilt which the Law of God being violated may be supposed to accuse us of or charge us with the ignorance or non-observance of which distinction is the cause of great confusion and misunderstanding in the doctrine of justification viz. guilt of fault and guilt of punishment i. e. actual obligation to punishment it is the great mistake of this Author as of many other of our Brethren to think that by justification we are freed or acquitted from both the said kinds of guilt or as some do imagine that by pardon of sin we are freed from the latter kind of guilt and by justification with the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to us from the former Whereas the truth is That the righteousness of Christ is no more nor otherwise imputed to or for the justification of a sinner than it is to or for the non-imputation i. e. the pardon of his sins and that there is no possibility for a sinner by any plea whatsoever to be justified or acquitted from the former kind of guilt I have already manifested and shall farther manifest according to occasion in the sequel of this Treatise In the mean time I will speak somewhat more at large for the due understanding of the nature of justification both as indefinitely considered and specially as the subject thereof is a sinner And in order thereunto I will lay down the following Propositions 1. Justification as indefinitely taken Propos 1. or as abstracted from the consideration of the special quality of the person justified is the absolution of a person suppos'd to be accused from the guilt that he is charged with and according to the quality of the person accused guilty or not guilty such is the nature of his justification If innocent he is justified à reatu culpae from guilt of fault or from having deserved any punishment through any fault he is charged with In this sence the word is taken in many Scriptures as in Deut. 25.1 Esa 5.23 And so I conceive the word is taken in 1 Cor. 4.4 Only it is to be understood that St. Paul there speaks of that kind of justification which is commonly styled Justificatio causae not personae his meaning being not that he was conscious to himself of no sin at all but not of insincerity or unfaithfulness in his stewardship or Ministerial office in which respect he was able to justifie himself although that was a thing comparatively not so material forasmuch as he must stand to the final sentence of God the Judge of all 2. If the person accused be guilty or culpable Propos 2. his justification is of another kind or nature
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
other Authors do fancy concerning the impropriety of our being justified By or to speak more properly With a pardon that I can give them leave to think and speak therein as they please being fully assured That I am as properly said to be justified as pardoned yea though neither pardoned nor justified properly yet forasmuch as I am assured that being pardoned and justified properly or improperly I am certainly pardoned and certainly justified and shall be glorified I am well contented with it and am abundantly thankful to God and Christ Jesus for it Thus have I dared to oppose what this Author as he says hath dared to affirm viz. That if a sinners Justification be the same thing with the Remission of his sins then doth that his Justification not admit a proper sence in the whole Scripture and that to say so is in effect to say we are not at all justified and so to bid defiance to the Scripture in a hundred places And I do leave it to the judgement of every learned and impartial Reader what sentence to pronounce both upon the one and the other this his Affirmation and my Opposition I shall in the next place address my self to the answering of another Question as followeth 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 Q. FOR what reason or reasons can pardon of sin be styled Justification and Justification pardon Answ I say concerning this Question as of the former That it is not very material For if I know that Gods pardoning mercy as in Scripture it goes under divers other names Redemption Salvation Reconciliation Righteousness goes also under the name Justification I may very well rest assured that there is a reason for it because the only wise God will not give a name to any thing for which there is no reason But because this Author either is ignorant of the reasons usually rendred for it or else doth dissemble his knowledge thereof I will therefore for his sake make answer to the said Question and I desire that my Answers may be lookt upon as a Superpondium or measure running over given into his bosom My Answers are 1. One Reason why Gods saving mercy to sinners is called by different names is taken from the divers mischievous effects or consequences of sin Because sin doth make the sinner obnoxious unto or binds him over to punishment therefore is Gods saving mercy in the blood of Christ towards sinners styled Remission this being Gods loosing the bond or discharging of the sinner from the said obligation 2. If Mr. Bradshaw's opinion be right viz. That if an offendor be pardoned without any amends and satisfaction he is not at all justified and consequently where a fault is of that nature as that no sufficient satisfaction or amends can be made there can be no justification of a person so offending then this reason will well warrant Remission of sin to be styled Justification viz. Because our pardon is a peculiar kind of pardon i. e. not Pura puta omni modo gratuita meerly and in all respects free but some way merited viz. By the satisfaction of Christ our Mediator whereupon God is just and doth exercise justice in the pardoning of sinners and consequently may be said to justifie those whom he doth upon such consideration remit 3. But because this ground perhaps is not so justifiable and satisfactory forasmuch as that Delinquent that can Quocunque modo seu ratione qualicunque produce a pardon is justified from the accusation of being obliged to suffer the penalty of the Law and by consequence respectively thereunto is just Rectus in Curiâ If any I say be dissatisfied in that reason of Mr. Bradshaw's I shall offer to him instead thereof this reason viz. Remission of sin is styled Justification because it will stand a sinner in as much stead before the Tribunal of God the Judge of quick and dead as a Justification upon perfect justice would do a person who being perfectly innocent is impleaded This reason I have cause to presume will not much be regarded by this Author but distasted rather because he thinks that for this reason a sinners Justification must needs be wholly improper and altogether Metaphorical which he can by no means endure But as I have endeavoured to cure him of that his mis-conception so I doubt not but that this reason will be of a perfect good relish to others of another and more sound palate 4. Another Reason as some think is because a sinner is pardoned by course of Law his pardon is derived or accrews to him not as that of a Malefactor sometimes doth by the meer will and prerogative of his Soveraign Prince but by vertue of the Law of the Gospel enacted as an instrument for the conveyance thereof As for the Reasons of Remission of sin its being styled Justification and Justification its being styled Remission of sin I think they may be fitly to the purpose in hand thus expressed 1. Gospel-Justification is styled Remission of sin in respect of the quality of the person who is the Materia circa quam the subject about which that saving grace or mercy is conversant the person or recipient subject thereof being not an Innocent but a person in himself obnoxious viz. a sinner For Gospel-Justification though Justa just yet it is not Justification Justi but Injusti i. e. it is the discharge of a person who in himself is unjust from that obligation to punishment wherewith he is charged by the Law 2. Remission of sin is in the N. T. frequently styled Justification in regard of the manner of its conveyance which is not as many others if not most pardons from man are upon meer good will and pleasure but from Law and Covenant A sinners pardon being of a peculiar kind from what many other pardons are as in one respect it is pardon granted by God upon the satisfaction of Christ so in another respect it is upon the faith and repentance of a sinner and in both respects it may be said to be a covenanted pardon or pardon by a Law which Law or Covenant is two-fold 1. The first is a Law or Covenant peculiar to Christ as Persona restipulans God the Father therein requiring satisfaction to be made by him and thereupon covenanting and promising That no strict satisfaction should be exacted of the sinner This satisfaction according to the said Law or Covenant as commonly styled or as others style it divine decree they referring the matter to the Decretive rather than the Legislative will of God this satisfaction I say Jesus Christ did according to the said
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
make their appearance before the Judgment seat of Christ A Malefactor with the Kings pardon in his hand may boldly look his Judg in the face they are justified or accepted with God the error of which imagination I have already discovered and shall speak somewhat more of in Ch. 35. wherein I will manifest that although figuratively i. e. in a causal sence Christs Righteousness is a sinners Righteousness before God nevertheless to speak properly a sinners personal Righteousness which consists in his sanctification and Remission of sin is his Righteousness before God In the mean while I shall assert this to be the plain truth of Scripture in this matter even as in effect hath been before asserted by me upon occasion viz. That believing sinners are justified before God and accepted with him By and For the Righteousness of Christ as the meritorious cause thereof but not With the Imputation of the thing it self or With the Righteousness of Christ in it self imputed to them 3. The best and only true construction that I can possibly make of the said un-Scriptural phrases is this viz. That the Saints do take from Christ his Righteousness or the Righteousness he wrought out for them in the saving fruits or effects thereof in which sence a like phrase is used and was before upon occasion instanc't in 2 Joh. 8. where by the things which Believers had wrought are not meant the very things themselves but the fruit or reward of them But upon supposition of this true sence of the said phrase or phrases I must say 1. That the Doctor and his Adherents in this controversie concerning the Imputation of Christs Righteousness will not own or content themselves with the bare truth of that construction 2. Were the said construction the Doctor 's true meaning nevertheless I must needs say That his expression thereof is very un-scriptural and upon that account not such as becomes the Oracles of God For it is not the manner of those divine Oracles to say That Believers do by faith take Christs Righteousness in the saving fruit or effect of it but that the blessed effect thereof Comes upon them for which see Rom. 5.18 As by the offence of one judgment Came upon all men to condemnation so by the Righteousness of One the free gift Came upon all men to the justification of life and Rom. 4.9 Cometh this Blessedness upon the Circumcision only or Obj. 1 Pet. 1.9 Believers being there said to receive the end or reward for so the word ‖ Answerably to the Hebrew word gnekeb which signifies the like as appears by Ps 119.33 and 19.11 in the former place in signifies an End in the latter a Reward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies viz. both end and reward of their faith is not that all one as to take it in the Doctor 's sence of the phrase here used by him Answ No For there is a two-fold taking or receiving of a thing viz. Ethical and Physical or Active and Passive as it may be fitly expressed the former implyes our duty and is a taking or laying hold of a thing by an act of faith or believing in which sence it 's taken in the Doctor 's phrase or expression the latter imports our felicity and doth only imply our Having Enjoying or our being partakers of the thing which we are said to receive in which Physical or Passive sence it 's taken in 1 Pet. 1.9 and in which sence of the word Receive we are said to Receive evil as well as good at Gods hand Job 2.10 and Rom. 1.27 Receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet And the word is applyed to things as well as persons Heb. 2.2 Every transgression Received a just recompence of reward unless by sins there we understand sinners Every Transgression i. e. every Transgressor received the abstract being put for the concrete a thing in Scripture not unusual as circumcision for circumcised the same word also being used in the same sence Transgressions for Transgressors as some think Heb. 9.15 Briefly In such a sence as Believers are said to Receive a Kingdom which cannot be shaken Heb. 12.28 they may truly be said to Receive Christs Righteousness i. e. to receive it in the benefit or fruit thereof which fruit in the final upshot is indeed the Kingdom it self there spoken of and by which reception is not there meant a Moral or Active Reception by the hand of faith or action of believing for it is not there commanded as a duty but a Passive Reception it being there mentioned as the blessed fruit of a divine promise or Having it as is the Apostles word Rom. 6.22 You Have your fruit unto holiness and the end everlasting life and Mat. 19.27 What shall we Have therefore To which our Saviour answers v. 29. You shall Receive an hundred-fold 3. The third thing which I observe in the Doctor 's words is his Vanity in calling the said Commuting with Christ their sins with him and his Righteousness with them A Blessed Bartering and Exchange For Jesus Christ doth not like nor did he ever make offer of such a bartering or exchange as seems here to be intended by the Doctor i. e. Christs taking to himself not only the punishment but also the guilt of our sins and in the way of exchange our taking from Christ his Righteousness it self This I have already manifested so that although the Doctor hath in Gods name blessed such a Bartering Commuting Exchanging nevertheless I may truly say That sinners do no better than cheat themselves by such vain imaginations and fancyful conceits Whereupon that admonition of the Apostle Gal. 6.7 is in this case to be minded Be not deceived God is not mocked Though in commuting exchanging bartering commodities one with another we may deceive and be deceived one by another yea although in the barter and exchange here spoken of we may cozen and deceive our selves yet God and Christ will not be so mocked or deceiv'd Nevertheless I do acknowledg that there is a kind of giving and receiving betwixt Christ and a sinner which if any one lift to call Bartering may well and warrantably be styled A Blessed Bartering and what this kind of Bartering is I will declare in my reply to another passage of the Doctor 's by and by to be recited after I have intimated one thing more in his words fore-cited wherein 4. I observe his mistakes in saying That by the said Bartering Believers do fulfil the whole of that of the Apostle 2 Cor. 5.21 For 1. The Apostle by those expressions doth not mean such a Commutation Exchange or Bartering as aforesaid and it is a perverting of that Text to affix such a sence thereunto as the Doctor doth 2. It is not true to say That Believers by ought that is or can be done by them do fulfil the whole of that Scripture for it is God who made Christ and Christ who made himself to be sin
but for us there can be no comparison betwixt him and us nevertheless if the Doctor will allow us to say as indeed he doth that we are righteous with his Righteousness which he wrought for us and that compleatly he must allow to others the comparison aforesaid which they make to themselves touching their being as perfectly righteous as was Christ the Righteous and that God sees no sin in them For how should God see sin in them who are compleatly righteous with that Righteousness which Christ wrought for them more than in Christ himself 4. Though we forbear the comparison yet granting as the Doctor doth that we may say positively That we are righteous with his Righteousness which he wrought for us and that compleatly it will from thence necessarily follow that God sees no sin in us For supposing Christs Righteousness to be a compleat Righteousness which we cannot suppose except we suppose it to be without the least spot of sin and supposing that we are compleatly righteous with that his spotless sinless Righteousness how it is possible for God to see sin in us I do not understand or can perceive Having been so large in the foregoing Chapters touching the evil Consequences of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness asserted in the sence aforesaid I will be more brief in the rest CHAP. XXVII Another evil Consequence of the said Imputation That it leaves no place for remission of sin in persons made so compleatly righteous with Christs Righteousness and that it doth utterly overthrow the true nature of Gospel-Justification making the justification of a sinner to be quite another thing and of another kind than indeed it is An Objection answered ANother evil Consequence of the said Imputation of Christs Righteousness is That it leaves no place for remission of sins in persons made compleatly righteous with it It is certain that God forgave Christ no sin And the reason is obvious because being perfectly righteous he had no sin to be forgiven according to that of St. John 1 3 5. And in him is no sin Now if men be righteous with the same sinless Righteousness wherewith Christ was righteous they have no sin to be pardoned no more than he had Whereas Remission of sin as it is a saving benefit which we all have need of and the great purchase of Christs blood so it is that which Christ hath taught Believers daily to pray for even after and notwithstanding this Imputation of Christs Righteousness unto them if any such thing were except we will maintain that our Saviour Christ composed that pattern of prayer only for the use of Infidels and Unbelievers Now to ask Gods mercy in the forgiveness of our sins and yet to conceive our selves to be righteous with the spotless Righteousness of Christ and this compleatly is rather to mock or dissemble with God than seriously and in good earnest to worship him whom we pray unto Briefly The said Imputation doth utterly overthrow the true nature of Gospel-Justification or the justification of a sinner which doth consist in the remission of his sins as hath been already manifested For a legal or perfect Righteousness imputed to a person in the very formality thereof doth not justifie him by way of forgiveness of sins but is of it self intrinsecally and essentially his justification and is such a kind of justification as with which forgiveness of sins is not competible For what need hath he who hath a legal Righteousness imputed to him of forgiveness of sins whenas such a Righteousness excludes all sin If it be objected That a mans sins are first forgiven him and then Christs perfect Righteousness is imputed to him and so he is justified To this it hath been already answered 1. That Christs Righteousness is no more or otherwise imputed to a sinner in order to his justification than in order to the remission of his sin 2. That a person who is a sinner is capable of no other kind of justification than that which is by or doth consist in the remission of his sins 3. That if a mans sins be forgiven him he hath no need of any Imputation of any further Righteousness for his justification For when God hath given men their offences according to that expression of the Apostle The free gift is of many offences unto justification that is hath forgiven them he hath fully justified them The Apostle in that expression the gift of offences alludes to that Metaphor of debts under which notion our Saviour speaking of sin did teach his Disciples to pray for the forgiveness thereof to give a debt and to forgive it being all one Mat. 6.12 Lastly Whereas this Objection supposeth that by the passive obedience of Christ we have remission of sin and by the Imputation of the active part of his obedience we are justified as I have already disproved it and asserted withal that the whole obedience of Christ God-man doth make up the meritorious cause of all saving benefits bestowed on us so I add If we will needs distinguish the effects of Christs active and passive obedience after that manner I cannot perceive that it is any ways reasonable to invert the order of these effects and dispose of them thus Ad placitum in a cross method to their several causes producing them which some Authors presume to do and in special Dr. Owen among others Christ did not first die and then keep the Law for us but he first kept the Law and then suffered death for us Therefore if we will needs make the Imputation of the one a distinct benefit from the other reason methinks would that that which is first purchased should be first bestowed or received and consequently that Imputation of Righteousness should have a precedency in order before remission of sin 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 MR. Baxter having charged the opinion here impugned as many ways subverting Christian Religion for proof of that charge I shall suggest to consideration Whether in the consequence thereof it doth not subvert the necessity of repentance and new obedience in order to a sinners salvation by Christ To this end be it considered how the matter is obvious to be argued e. g. If Adam had kept the Law he had needed no repentance more than Christ himself needed it Now if upon the Imputation of Christs Righteousness unto us in its essential nature we may be said to have kept the Law in Christ as exactly and perfectly as he did what need of repentance have we or can we have more than the first or the second Adam Christ Jesus For if the exact and perfect obedience of Christ be the ground and reason why Christ himself needed no repentance and this obedience in all the exactness and perfection thereof be as truly Ours by Imputation as it
these words To appoint to them that mourn in Zion to give unto them beauty for ashes the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness So that by the whole of that expression we can understand no more than the great goodness and bounty of God let the particulars in the retail thereof whether in temporals or spirituals or in both be what they will promised or manifested to his Church and manifested by them in a suitable manner of open and solemn rejoycing for them Quest May it not be truly said in some sence that Believers are clothed with Christs Righteousness Answ Yes Yet more fully be it known that as it may be truly and falsly said that Christs Righteousness is imputed to us according to the different sences of the word Righteousness mentioned in the third Chapter so it is both true and false to say That we are clothed with the Righteousness of Christ e. g. Christs Righteousness being taken properly in its essential nature it is notoriously false to say that we are clothed therewith For so taken it is Christs own clothing and not ours he is glorious in this apparrel and he will not give this his glory to another and as Saul's Armour would not fit David so neither will Christs Righteousness taken in this sence suit with any other but himself who was God and man in one person As it is a point of disloyalty in a vassal to put on the Ensigns of Majesty upon himself The Crown Royal upon his head so it is a disloyal thought a most unbecoming thing for a wretched sinner to imagine himself vested with the Royal Robe of Christs Righteousness the only begotten Son of God But as the word Righteousness is taken improperly Effectivè for the fruits and effects of it so it is true to say That we are clothed with his Righteousness i. e. we are clothed our spiritual nakedness is covered we are arrayed with a garment or garments procured or purchased with the Righteousness of Jesus Christ So that if the Question were thus formed May Christs Righteousness be truly said to be a sinners clothing It must be answered That this Proposition Christs Righteousness is a sinners clothing is true Praedicatione causali but not Essentiali or formali i. e. it it self or in it self is not our clothing nor are we vested in or with it but with the fruits of it it being the meritorious cause that hath procured all necessary clothing for the covering of our nakedness for our comfortable appearance before God and our gracious acceptance with him which clothing may summarily be refer'd I think to these two heads viz. Justification and Sanctification both which may be said to be our clothing Nevertheless I do judg it to be more fitly and intelligibly said That our sins are covered with a pardon rather than with Christs Righteousness the one being verified in an immediate sence the other in a sence more remote both in it self and from common understanding But it must ever be remembred that the pardon which covers our sins is a blessing purchased by the Righteousness of Christ and for that reason in such a sence as a ransomed Captive or bought Servant is said to be his Masters or Redeemers money because he was bought with their money in a like sence may the clothing wherewith we are clothed be said to be the Robe of Christs Righteousness because Christs Righteousness was the price wherewith that our clothing whatsoever it be be it sanctification or justification grace or glory for even with this Believers are said to be clothed upon 2 Cor. 5.2 4. was dearly bought or purchased And in this sence the price or hire it self which is given for an House is used to signifie the House wherewith it was hired as appears by Act. 28.30 where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth properly signifie the hire of a thing be it of an House or ought else and which was given by St. Paul or some other in his behalf is styled His own hired House 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 FOrasmuch as there are several passages in Dr. Owen's Book of Communion with God wherein the contrary is asserted to what hath been maintained in the foregoing Chapters he asserting That over and above the taking away the guilt of sin it is necessary in order to our being saved that we should be actually righteous and for that purpose that the Righteousness of Christ should be imputed to us I shall therefore think it not amiss to recite the chief of those passages and to reply thereunto which shall be the subject of three or four of the ensuing Chapters The Doctor having told us That Christ satisfies for sin and procures the remission of it p. 116. he proceeds to say in the following page There is something more required it is not enough we are not guilty We must also be actually righteous Not only all sin must be answered for but all righteousness is to be fulfilled By taking away the guilt of sin we are as persons innocent but something more is required to make us to be considered as persons obedient I know nothing to teach me that an innocent person shall go to heaven be rewarded if he be no more but so Adam was innocent at his first creation but he was to do this to keep the Commandments before he entred into life he had no title to life by innocency This then moreover is required that th◠whole Law be fulfilled and all the obedience performed that God requires at our hands This is the souls second enquiry and it finds a resolution only in the Lord Christ For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life his death reconciled us then are we saved by his life The actual obedience which he yielded to the whole Law of God is that Righteousness whereby we are saved If so be we are found in him not having our own righteousness which is of the Law but the Righteousness which is of God by faith Phil. 3.9 This I shall have occasion to handle more at large hereafter Answ Somewhat to this purpose being alledged by other Authors hath been already answered in Chap. 23. Nevertheless I shall here make reply to every dictinct passage in the words recited 1. When all sin is answered for all the righteousness which God requireth for that time is fulfilled For the Law is fulfill'd two ways viz. Either by performance of perfect obedience to it or by suffering sufficient punishment for the breach of it Either of these is a satisfaction to the justice of God Now Gods Law doth not bind to both these Copulativè i. e. it
that or any other consideration of his death die in our stead i. e. strictly and in a Law-sence In personâ nostrâ as if so be God had reckoned his death to be our death or that we had suffered death in and by him or as if our obligation to suffer punishment had been transfer'd upon him 3. Forasmuch as the Doctor doth simply deny that which for my own part I never did but do simply and positively affirm the contrary viz. That the death of Christ was in our stead I may well think it strange that he hath hitherto escaped the charge of Socinianism whereas if my self or any of my Brethren who maintain what I have professedly asserted in this controversie should simply deny That Christs death was in our stead I am much afraid that we should not so escape but that rather our names would be enrolled in that black List But that it may farther appear what a great gulf there is fixed betwixt us and the Socinians I do here profess in my own and I do not know but that I may sincerely make the same profession in the name of all those my Brethren saying After all this Dispute I do freely and plainly confess and acknowledg and this I do without any of Dr. Owen's distinctions That All Christs Mediatory Obedience To Any Law Whatsoever Common To Us Or Peculiar To Himself Especially His Obedience To The Death Of The Cross Was Under All Considerations Both As A Penalty As A Price And As A Sacrifice In Our Stead And Forasmuch As The Dignity Or Value Of All His Obedience Did Depend Upon The Dignity Of His Person He Being Both God And Man I Do Confess That All His Obedience Was In Our Stead That is To Bestead Us And That It Did Bestead Us In The Purchasing Of A Pardon And Life Eternal For Us Upon Terms Expressed In the Gospel Promised To Us And Upon Performance Thereof To Be Confer'd Upon Us And That the Said Obedience Of Christ Both Active and Passive As It Is Usually Stiled Is Imputed To Us Although Not Immediately And In It Self Yet To As Much Purpose And Real Benefit As If It Were Actually Or Could Possibly Be So Imputed that is That It Is Imputed To Us In All Its Saving Fruits And Blessed Effects All That His Foresaid Obedience Making Up One Entire Meritorious Cause Of All The Said Benefits And Blessings Hereupon as God makes his appeal saying And now O Inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah judge I pray you between me and my vineyard what could have been done more than in like sort shall I make my appeal to all saying And now Men Brethren and Fathers judge I pray you betwixt us who do make the said Confession of our faith in this matter and our adversaries who notwithstanding will clamour against us and stigmatize us with that odious name of Socinianism what need we what can we saâ—vâ veritate say more whereby to acquit our selves from all cause or colour of being accused as Socinians Lastly I reply upon occasion of the Doctor 's fore-cited words That forasmuch as he doth acknowledg Christs death to have been in our stead only as it was penal or a punishment it is therefore justly enquirable under what consideration or in what respect his death was not in our stead and by observing what he says concerning the death of Christ p. 188. Comm. it seems to me That he denies it to be in our stead as it was a Price and as it was a Sacrifice and that this may appear to others as well as to my self I will recite his words as followeth The death of Christ is in Scripture proposed under a three-fold consideration Of a Price of a Sacrifice and of a Penalty 1. It is a Price 1 Cor. 6.20 1 Pet. 1.19 1 Tim. 4.6 Now the proper effect and issue of the death of Christ as a price or ransom is Redemption 2. P. 189. It was a Sacrifice also Heb. 10.5 Esa 53.10 Eph. 5.2 Now the end of Sacrifices such as his was bloody and for sin Rom. 4.3 Heb. 2.17 was Atonement and Reconciliation Eph. 5.2 Esa 53.10 Dan. 9.24 Rom. 5.10 3. It was also a Punishment a punishment in our stead Esa 53.5.6.12 1 Pet. 2.34 Now bearing of punishment tends directly to the giving satisfaction to him who was offended and on that account inflicted the punishment His substituting himself in our room being allowed of by the Righteous Judg satisfaction to him doth thence properly ensue To this I reply saying 1. Redemption and Reconciliation are not at all distinct benefits of the death of Christ for they are one and the self same saving benefit they being but distinct or several names given in several respects to one and the same thing And the very truth is That Redemption i. e. redemption from the guilt of sin I mean the word Redemption passively taken and Reconciliation with God even as also forgiveness of sin and justification with many other words which might be named are Synonimous expressions in Scripture importing in effect the self same thing as may appear by the current of the Scriptures many whereof have been already named to which more were it needful may easily be added 2 Cor. 5.18 19. Eph. 1.7 Col. 1.14 Rom. 5.9 10. and 4.24 25. Gal. 3. 13 14. with v. 8. 2. As Redemption and Reconciliation are one and the same saving benefit of Christs death so much less do they flow from any such nice or distinct consideration as the Doctor affirms i. e. the one from the consideration of Christs death as a Price and the other as a Sacrifice But as they are in effect one saving benefit so they flow from one cause the death of Christ our reconciliation flowing no more or otherwise from the death of Christ as a Sacrifice than as a Price nor doth our redemption more flow from the death of Christ as a Price however it may be thence denominated than from it as a Sacrifice but entirely from the death of Christ as a meritorious cause it being all one in effect to say it follows from it as an expiatory Sacrifice as to say it follows from it as a valuable Price 3. I know no more reason to say That satisfaction is the issue of Christs death considered as a Penalty than as it was a Price or Sacrifice for Christs death was as well a Price satisfactory and a Sacrifice satisfactory as a Punishment satisfactory For the end of paying a Price and the end of Sacrifices was satisfaction of its kind and to say that Christs death was a Propitiatory or Expiatory Sacrifice is all one I ever thought as to say it is a Satisfactory Sacrifice So that I am altogether dissatisfied as to the fountain or rise of the Satisfaction here mentioned by the Doctor God being as well satisfied by the death of Christ under the notion of a Price or Sacrifice as of a Penalty 4. In what sence the death of Christ was or may be said to be a Punishment I have already declared in answer to Mr. F. and it will not be needful here to repeat what hath been there said 5. Finally Whereas the Doctor doth only affirm That Christs death was in our stead under the consideration of a Penalty I have already in the third Branch of my Reply shewed That it was under all considerations in our stead both as a Penalty as a Price and as a Sacrifice and I have explained moreover in what sence it was in our stead and I desire the Reader that he would again so peruse it as if it had been in this place together with my said Appeal again inserted I will conclude with that Prayer of Calvin which Beza his Scholar tells us was his constant form before his Lectures in the publick Schools Det nobis Dominus in Coelestis suae sapientiae mysteriis cum verae pietatis profructu versari in gloriam suam aedificationem nostram Amen Books Printed for and Sold by Walter Kettilby at the Bishops Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard H. Mori Opera Theologica Folio Price 1 l. 10 s. Dr. More 's Reply to a late Answer to his Antidote against Idolatry with the Appendix Octavo Price 4 s. Spencer dissertatio de Urim Thummim Octavo Price 3 s. 6 d. Frederici Lossi Observationes Medici Octavo Price 2 s. 6 d. Epigrammata Juvenilia in quatuor partes divisa Encomia Seria Satyras Jocosa per Gulielmum Speed Price bound 9 d. Dr. Smyth's unjust mans doom as examined by the several kinds of Justice and their obligation with a particular representation of Injustice and danger of partial Conformity Octavo Price 1 s.