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
be it observed That as Righteousness in the former sense may not unfitly as I think be styled a Passive and in the latter an Active Righteousness so the said two different senses of the word Righteousness do differ as Officium Beneficium the one being the receiving of some good They differ as work and wages as Duty and Mercy or benefit confer'd on us the other the doing of some good or duty performed by us The phrase receiving righteousness see in Psal 24.5 He shall receive the blessing from the Lord and Righteousness from the God of his Salvation Righteousness in that place being the self same thing with Gods blessing his saving blessing The phrase doing righteousness see in 1 Joh. 3.7 He that doth righteousness is righteous As this is stiled a sowing of righteousness Prov. 11.28 so that may very fitly and suitably to the language of Scripture both of the Old and New Testament be styled Reaping Righteousness Hos 10.12 Gal. 6.7 8 9. Now in this proper formal sense of the word Righteousness the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us is a doctrine however owned by too too many yet by very many others of our own and forraign Protestant Churches justly disowned as that which is no where to be found in Scripture whether in the words or meaning of any Text in Scripture for to assert that Christs Righteousness is in this sense imputed to us is to assert That God doth account or reckon that the Righteousness which Christ wrought we wrought in and by him or that we are reputed by God to have fulfilled the Law and satisfied Divine Justice in and by Christ that what Christ did in his own natural Person God doth account we did in and by him for to have any thing imputed to a man in the propriety formality or essential nature of the thing is to be reputed the doer of what is so imputed to him these being terms equivalent and explicatory one of another and as thus explicated do the Brethren whom I do take upon me in this point to oppose openly own the said doctrine touching the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us it being their errour to think that Christs Righteousness cannot be accepted by God in our behoof or prove savingly beneficial to us unless it be imputed to us in their said sense or to imagine as they do a necessity that what is imputed to or for the justification of a sinner should be reputed to be done by him who is justified for it sufficeth to imputation in this case if that which is done be accepted of God in the behalf of sinners or instead of that which a justified person should in his own person have performed Nor is there any cause or colour for them to suspect that the denial of the said Imputation in their said sense doth infer or include a denyal of Christs satisfaction whether in the thing it self or in the blessed effects of it I am at once both sorry and I wonder to read such passages as these in some learned Authors they saying to this purpose viz. That human reason or mans understanding cannot comprehend how Christs satisfaction can be of saving benefit to us unless it be imputed to us in its formal and essential nature The contrary whereunto is as obvious to be conceived by any unprejudicate person as obvious almost can be For my own part I do humbly conceive it to be a great and dangerous mistake to think that Christ satisfied Divine Justice for believing sinners that they might be reputed by God to have satisfied in and by him as their surety the truth of Scripture to my understanding being this viz. That Jesus Christ did in human nature and his own person as Mediatour or in the person of a Mediatour betwixt God and Man satisfie Divine Justice not that we might be reputed to have satisfied in and by him or that his very satisfaction should be imputed to us but that no such satisfaction should be required of us and that his fulfilling of the law of Mediatorship was accepted of God not as our fulfilling either of that law for the law of Mediatorship belonged not to us it being peculiar to Christ himself or of any other law whatsoever but it was reckoned reputed or accepted by God as a satisfaction for our not fulfilling the law of God imposed upon mankind I mean the law in the rigour of it or as a covenant of works and that such an exact fulfilling of the law should not be exacted of us as the covenanted condition of our salvation but that faith and sincere obedience to the Gospel of Christ should be so required And I am glad to perceive that in asserting the end of Christs satisfaction for mankind I have the concurrence of the Authour of the Book lately published styled The interest of Reason in Religion he saying pag. 548. It was in consequence of Christs susception to be our Sponsor or Mediator say I the word Sponsor and Mediator being promiscuously used by the Apostle as appears by comparing Heb. 7.22 with chap. 8.6 and this latter word being of more frequent use with the Apostle than the former that being only once in its usage applyed to Christ in Scripture and with respect to the obedience of his life and sacrifice of his death as the procuring and deserving cause that God entred into a covenant with mankind promising to pardon their sins receive them into favour and crown them with life upon such terms and conditions as the Father and Son thought fit to prescribe In these words the word Mankind is remarkable the Authour saying expresly That for Christs sake for the obedience of his life and sacrifice of his death as the deserving cause thereof God entred into a Covenant not only with a few with the Elect only but with Mankind promising And I am the more glad to perceive that I have the concurrence of the said Authour in asserting the Covenant of Grace to be procured for Mankind because I shall have occasion by and by to mention some things wherein I am necessitated much against my will to dissent from him and certain others of my Brethren And I shall take a fit occasion to do it in answer to an Argument for the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sense disowned by my self with many others taken from those words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 5.21 from which words I have seen in a certain learned Author the Argument thus formed as shall be expressed in the beginning of the next Chapter CHAP. IV. ' An Objection from 2 Cor. 5.21 answered and also retorted The blasphemy of Mr. William Eyre in his Assize-Sermon preached at Sarum 1652. reproved QUomodo in what sort or manner Christ was made sin for us in the same manner was he made Righteousness to us But he was made sin for us only by Imputation Ergo Answ This Argument is not at all to the purpose in hand or
imputed to him than in the effects of them I may well and warrantably infer by proportion that the righteousness of Christs life and sacrifice of his death his doings and sufferings formally and properly taken are not imputed unto us or otherwise imputed than meerly in the benefits of them P. 411. Neither will I press Mr. F. how that secluding not only the righteousness of Christs life but the satisfaction of his death as the matter and the imputation of it as the formal cause of justification it seems repugnant to the immutability and essential holiness of God to justifie us upon an imperfect obedience the Law which requireth a perfect obedience remaining still in force and denouncing wrath in case of every failure Answ By these words it appears again that this Author doth mistake the true notion and right conception of Gospel-justification he supposing that the righteousness of Christs life and satisfaction of his death is the matter and that the imputation of it is the formal cause thereof whereas the unquestionable truth to my simple understanding is that if we speak of matter in a proper sence as here viz. for a material cause in way of contradistinction to a formal cause neither the righteousness of Christs life nor satisfaction of his death can fitly be said to be the matter or material cause of a sinners justification the satisfactoriness both of his life and death of his doings and sufferings being undoubtedly the external impulsive or morally efficient cause thereof and how one and the same thing should put on the habitude of two causes so different in kind as is the material and efficient that being internal and pars constitutiva rei and this wholly external I do not understand such a conception being altogether contrary to the Logick which hitherto I have been acquainted with 2. Whereas this Author and others make the imputation of Christs righteousness to be the formal cause of justification I do clearly conceive them mistaken and that the formalis ratio or formal cause of Gospel-justification is forgiveness of sin this being Res ipsa the very thing it self wherein the justification of a sinner doth consist 3. Had this Author rightly apprehended or minded that a sinners justification is or doth consist in the pardon of his sin he would scarce have questioned it as a thing in the least wise repugnant to the immutability and essential holiness of God to justifie us upon an imperfect obedience For what though it may be granted that the Law which requireth a perfect obedience and denounceth wrath in case of every failure doth remain still in force i. e. so far forth as to command the one and to threaten the other yet I presume he will not I am sure he ought not to say That that original Law the Law of works I presume he means doth still stand in its primitive force as a Covenant of works both promising life to sinners upon perfect obedience or conditionally upon their not being sinners and threatning death unavoidably upon every failure Doth this Author forget That there is a Law of Grace of oblivion a Lex remedians a Law of indempnity enacted by God through the blood of Christ whereby the force of that Law so threatning may as to the execution of the threatning be vacated by a gracious pardon and certainly so shall be upon a sinners sincere however imperfect obedience to the Gospel of Christ 4. This Author seems to think that a sinner is justified in respect of the precept or preceptive part of the Law i. e. as one who had in and by Christ performed all manner of duty whereas a sinner is justified only in respect of the sanction of the Law i. e. as one who notwithstanding his failings hath right to impunity and to a discharge for Christs sake by a pardon CHAP. VII That the Scripture doth no where assert a surrogation of Christ in our room in such a strict Law-sence as that we may be said in and by him to have done and suffered what he did and suffered and in or by him to have redeemed our selves And that Christ did not in such a Law-sence represent us as Proctors and Atturneys do their Clients Ambassadors their Princes or Guardians their Pupils acting accordingly in our names but officiating as a Mediator betwixt God and Man The evil Consequences charged by Mr. F. upon the contrary Doctrine are denied His thwacking Contradiction imputed to others avoided by them and retorted upon himself P. 411. NEither shall I urge how there can have been no surrogation of Christ in our room Mr. F. nor can we properly be said to be redeemed by him as our substitute if all redounding to us by his death be only the procurement of the Gospel-Covenant in which God upon such conditions as he there requires undertakes to pardon our iniquities and sins A surrogation in our room and stead to acts and sufferings which are not in a Law-sence accounted ours I am so far from understanding that without admitting injustice in the Rector who allows the substitution it seems to me a thwacking contradiction especially if we consider that Christ was our substitute to make satisfaction to the demands of the Law and not of the Gospel and that by his obedience and death he hath only freed us from what we were obnoxious to upon failure of perfect obedience but not at all from what we were liable to in case of unbelief and want of sincere obedience Answ 1. The Scripture no where asserts such a surrogation of Christ in our room as that we can properly be said to be redeemed by him as our substitute For had he been in a strict proper sence our substitute there is cause to assert That we have in and by him redeemed our selves yea that we rather have redeemed our selves than he us or That we are our own Redeemers rather than Christ For what is done by a proper substitute is not in a Law-sence so much his act who doth it as ours whom he as our surrogate and substitute doth personate or represent let the representation be Quocunque modo or quacunque ratione i. e. whether he represent us by our own will consent or constitution as Proctors and Atturneys do their Clients that pay and receive moneys and transact matters in their names and Ambassadors who are imployed by Princes to deal with forreign States and Nations or by allowance and authority of Law as what Tutors and Guardians do in the name of their Pupils in these cases whatsoever is done by such substitutes in the person of another is not so properly and in Law-construction his act who doth it as theirs whose substitute he is and whose person he doth represent 2. Forasmuch as this Author doth assert such a surrogation of Christ in our room as that we can properly be said to be redeemed by him as our substitute if he shall notwithstanding that assertion deny That we have
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
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
the fruit of Christs life than remission of sin 3. I deny what the Doctor here affirms viz. That over and above remission of sin there is required a collation of righteousness in order to a right to heaven This hath been at large already disproved in Ch. 23. 4. Whether the Doctor doth here assert Christs Righteousness it self or a right to eternal life thereby confer'd to be the fine linnen spoken of in Zech. 3. is questionable For it is doubtful what construction he would have his Readers to make of the Relative This he saying This is here called fine change of rayment I mean whether he would have it understood concerning the Righteousness of Christ or concerning the right to life eternal by it This latter construction is of the two more obvious and rational because right to eternal life is in the order of his words the nearest Antecedent the other a collation of righteousness being a little more remote But let him be understood of either as I said before so I say again That by the fine change of rayment neither of these are to be understood but the righteousness of sanctification or fine vestment of holiness 5. In the Exposition of Esay 61.10 I perceive a great difference betwixt the Doctor and very many of the Brethren of his mind in this controversie For they undertaking to shew the meaning of the Holy Ghost therein do confidently say That the Holy Ghost by the robe of righteousness and garment of salvation there mentioned doth mean The Righteousness of Christ himself and thence it is that they do rhetorically set forth the properties thereof under the notion of a Vest how that it is Fine Pure White Rich Splendid But the Doctor tells us That the Holy Ghost says not so for that which the Holy Ghost doth there mean by the garment of salvation is not the Righteousness of Christ but a right to eternal life collated upon us by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us Upon this occasion I call to mind what is charged upon the false Prophets of old Ezek. 13.7 They said the Lord saith it albeit the Lord never spoke it In like sort may it be said concerning the Authors of both the said Interpretations They say The Holy Ghost means this and that by the garment of salvation and the Robe of Righteousness whereas the truth is the Holy Ghost in the Prophets words did mean neither this nor that but some other thing as I have already demonstrated in Chap. 30. 6. Whereas the Doctor concludes saying This is only made ours by the obedience of Christ and whereas his meaning therein is that the other viz. Remission of sin or reconciliation is made ours by the death of Christ I shall still deny it Toties Quoties even as oft as the Doctor shall affirm it The Doctor proceeds to answer an Objection which in his sagacity he fore-saw would be made against the doctrine by him maintained touching the Imputation of Christs perfect obedience to the Law even it it self unto us viz. That it will follow from thence that we are as righteous as is Christ himself But this Objection together with the Doctor 's unsatisfactory Answer thereunto I have already mentioned and made a reply to upon a fit occasion in Chap. 25. to which I shall refer the Reader There is only a passage or two more in p. 193. wherein the Doctor speaks to the same purpose as before which I will recite and make reply unto CHAP. XXXV That our deliverance from a state of rejection or un-acceptation and our Acceptation with God are not two things and to be ascribed to two several causes as the Doctor pretends That in 2 Cor. 5.21 mis-alledged by him for his purpose retorted to the purpose against him His unreasonableness in supposing the old quarrel betwixt God and us to be taken away and yet no new friendship contracted His senseless contradiction in supposing That Adam was guilty of no sin and yet not to have had thereupon a positive as well as a negative holiness That the non-imputation of sin and the Imputation of righteousness are not two things but one and the same thing That Christs Righteousness is not our righteousness before God otherwise than in a causal sence and that our righteousness it self before God is our own personal righteousness That in Rom. 5.18 vainly alledged by the Doctor to prove his purpose That the non imputation of sin and the Imputation of righteousness as they are the same thing so they are to be ascribed to one and the same cause P. 193. BY his death Christ bearing the curse undergoing the punishment that was due to us paying the ransom that was due for us delivers us from this condition that is a state of rejection and our un-acceptation and thus far the death of Christ is the cause of our Acceptation with God that all cause of quarrel and rejection of us is thereby taken away and to that end are his sufferings reckoned to us For being made sin for us 2 Cor. 5.21 he is made righteousness unto us 1 Cor. 1.30 Answ 1. The Doctor doth most unreasonably make a sinners deliverance from a state of rejection or un-acceptation and his Acceptation with God to be two things whereas they are indeed but one and the same thing and done at the same time by one and the same divine act For as the Physician doth not remove the disease by one act and restore health to the Patient by another act healing the disease and restoring health being but two different names or considerations of one and the same thing in like manner God doth not deliver from a state of un-acceptation by one act and restore us to a state of Acceptation by another these two being but two different names expressions notions or considerations of the same thing 2. As our deliverance from a state of un-acceptation and our Acceptation with God are the self same thing and done by one and the same act of God so they are to be ascribed to the self same cause and not unto different causes as the Doctor would have them to be assigned to wit the former precisely to the death of Christ or the Imputation of Christs sufferings to us the latter to the life of Christ or Imputation of the obedience of his life to us neither of which indeed whether his doings or sufferings are properly and in themselves reckoned to us but only is the effects thereof as hath oft upon occasion been before said 3. The whole of our reconciliation to God our deliverance from enmity and restoration into divine favour or friendship if any one list to divide it into those two parts our Acceptation with God or Justification before God is ascribed to the death of Christ as hath been already proved from Rom. 5.9 the same being also proveable from Col. 1.20 4. As one of those Scriptures alledged by the Doctor 1 Cor. 1.30 makes nothing for him