Righteousness shall not be theirs Where by the way observe the unjustifiableness of those Antinomian sayings of the Doctor p. 118. That Christ himself is the Righteousness that he requires at our hands And p. 166. It will one day appear that God abhors the janglings of men about the place of their own works and obedience in the business of their acceptation with God To these sayings I reply 1. Christ himself is our Righteousness in such a sence as he is said to be our Life i. e. not in a formal but in a causal sence the predication in such Propositions not being Formalis or Essentialis but Causalis as is the manner of Logicians to express such matters 2. As it is not truly said in a literal but only in a tropical sence that Christ himself is our Righteousness so it is not true in any sence I know to say That Christ himself is the Righteousness which he requires at our hands neither do I remember any such saying in Scripture but rather that Christs Righteousness or Obedience How many disputes have been managed says Dr. O. p. 166 167. how many distinctions invented how many shifts and evasions studied to keep up something in some place or other to some purpose or other that men may dally withal Hereby it appears that the Doctor will not suffer evangelical obedience to have any manner of place one or another in order to our acceptance with God was a thing required at his hands and not at ours 3. As Christs Righteousness was a thing required at his hands so it is apparent by the Scriptures that there is a personal evangelical Righteousness required at our hands in order to our acceptation with God by through or for the Righteousness sake of Christ and without which evangelical Righteousness the unrighteous shall not be accepted with God Mat. 5.20 and 25. last 1 Cor. 6.9 4. It will one day appear how God abhors the vain janglings that I may not say also the juglings of men who not perceiving or acknowledging the consistency or subordination of our own personal Righteousness to Christs in the business of our acceptation with God would thrust either of them out of their proper place i. e. either Christs Righteousness out of the place or office of the alone meritorious cause or our own evangelical Righteousness i. e. our return to God by faith and repentance from the office or place of a condition of our acceptation What God said to Cain Gen. 4.7 If thou dost well shalt thou not be accepted the same in effect doth God in his Gospel say to every sinner If thou dost well i. e. If thou dost believe in Christ if thou dost repent and convert thou shalt be accepted through Christ if otherwise sin lies at the door and will obstruct thy acceptation with God Again Observe from the premisses the unreasonableness of that other saying of the Doctor p. 219. where having quoted 1 Cor. 1.30 he says Not that Christ is this or that part of our Acceptation with God but he is all he is the whole To this I answer as the very truth is 1. Although Christ be the whole and sole meritorious cause of our acceptation with God yet he is not the whole nor any the least part of our acceptation it self For Christ being altogether a cause extrinsecal to our acceptation with God he cannot possibly be any part of or ingredient into the thing it self For this were to make Christ to be a cause intrinsecal to it and consequently either the formal or material cause thereof for these only are Causae or Partes Constitutivae which do Ingredi naturam rei neither of which he can be said to be but the meritorious cause 2. As was afore said so I say again That in order to our acceptation with God both Christ hath his part and we have our part to act both of them being severally and joyntly assigned us of God So that if by the whole of our acceptation with God the Doctor doth mean that Christ and his Righteousness is all that God requires in order to our acceptation with him his saying is to be rejected as false and a branch of Antinomian doctrine 2. I desire that the foresaid distinction may the rather be observed because it may serve to discover the maleyolence or in-sincerity or at least to speak most favourably and with the utmost of charity the ignorance of those who say That the dispute here is Whether we are justified before the Just and Holy God by our own righteousness or by the Righteousness of a Mediator These are the very words of the Author of the late Book styled ‖ In the last Page of the Preface to his Book Anti-Sozzo who should either have had more wit to know or more grace to acknowledg the contrary viz. That the Dispute between Protestant and Protestant is not Whether sinners be justified before God by their own Righteousness or by the Righteousness of Christ our Mediator but whether there be not also an evangelical Righteousness consisting in a return to God by faith and repentance required of every sinner in order to his being justified for the sake of Christs Mediatory Righteousness as the alone meritorious cause thereof And this is that which however some Protestants do dispute and seem to gainsay yet others do not but do professedly maintain among whom I shall instance in the late Assembly of Divines as appears by the Confession of their Faith and Catechism they professing Ch. 15. Sect. 3. of their Confession That although repentance be not to be rested in as a satisfaction for sin or any cause of the pardon thereof which is the act of Gods free grace in Christ nevertheless it is of such necessity to all sinners that none may expect pardon without it And as appears also by the express answer which they do instruct every Catechumen to make unto this Question What doth God require of us that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us by reason of the transgression of the Law the answer put into their mouths being this That we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us by reason of the transgression of the Law he requireth of us repentance towards God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ and I might also instance in the judgment of our own Church touching the necessity of a personal Righteousness in sinners that so they may be justified before God through the Righteousness of Christ or for his sake absolved from their sins This appears by the tenor of that discharge or absolution which after the general Confession in the Liturgy every Minister is in Gods Name and as his Commissioner to pronounce saying He pardoneth and absolveth all them that do truly repent and wherefore let us beseech him to grant us true repentance and so that at the last we may come to his eternal joy through Jesus Christ our Lord. I do well remember
the impartial Reader what his meaning was P 417. Mr. F. The word Justifie neither in its Etymology nor application and usage according to the institution of men and least of all in the Scripture-usurpation is equipollent to pardon nor coincident with to Forgive Answ 1. However it may be in some respects useful to know the Etymology and usage of common speech nevertheless this is not so much to be regarded in the stating or determining of any Question pertaining to Divinity the usage of words in Scripture being as the Pole-Star to direct the course of our conceptions as I may so say in such matters And for that cause I cannot but commend that passage of this Author he saying p. 155. That that which is chiefly to be attended unto in the sencing of Scripture is the use of words in sacred Writers God being many times pleased to restrain or enlarge the signification of words as in his wisdom he judgeth meet And I do the rather mind the Author of this his saying because if we regard the Etymology of the word Justifie it will to speak the least as much favour the Popish sencing of the word thâ—se sencing it To Sanctifie or to make just sensu physico i. e. by infusion of grace as the Protestants interpretation thereof who do construe it sensu juridico to make just by apology defence or plea. 2. As for the usage of words in common speech this is sometimes contrary to their common usage in Scripture as I have already declared in the use of the word Justifie this signifying in common usage to absolve or acquit a person à reatu culpae i. e. as innocent and not guilty And because this Author as I guess by his name is a Scotchman I shall therefore put him in mind That whereas to be justified and to be pardoned are all one in the usage of Scripture they are contrary in the usage of Scotland to be justified there being not be pardoned but to be hang'd our Scotch Brethren using to say That a man is justified when he is hang'd or executed as I learn from the worthy Dr. Hammond in his Notes upon some place of the Epistle to the Romans 3. It is a most notorious mistake in this Author to assert as here he doth expresly That to Justifie is least of all meaning thereby in obvious construction not at all in the Scripture-usurpation equipollent to pardon nor coincident with to forgive The not observing of the contrary truth which hath been already proved by several Scriptures I do judg to be the occasion of other errors in this matter whereupon I may sadly take up the old saying Hinc illae lachrymae The Authors next ensuing words to be animadverted upon are as followeth CHAP. XI Mr. Ferguson's mistake in saying That we are made Righteous With the Righteousness of Christ as also Dr. Owen's in his Book styled Communion with the Trinity refuted and that in Rom. 5.18 alledged by him answer'd wherein is declared That it is one thing to be justified By and another thing to be justified With the Righteousness of Christ The Doctor 's misinterpretation of Phil. 3.9 and Eph. 2.8 That the asserting of the whole of Justification to consist in remission of sin hath no such evil consequences as Mr. F. chargeth it with P. 413 416 419. Mr. F. SO that upon the whole If we be not made Righteous with the perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed to us but that God only for the sake of Christ will dispence with the rigour of the Law and I dare affirm that Justification as it is opposed to the accusation of the Law its charging us with guilt and its passing sentence of condemnation against us thereupon doth not admit a proper sence in the whole Scripture but must every where be construed Metaphorically and that the import of it is not that we are properly and in a Law-sence justified but that such benefits accrue to us by Remission of sin as if we were so According to the sentiments of our Author we are only pardoned but by reason of some allusion betwixt the advantages redounding to us by forgiveness and the priviledges immunities and benefits which ensue upon a proper Justification we are therefore Metaphorically said to be justified It were to bid defiance to the Scripture in an hundred places to say that we are not at all justified and yet in effect their principles imply no less For by stating the whole of our assoilment from the accusation of the Law in remission of sin they indeed say that we are not justified only we are improperly said to be so Answ 1. It is the error of this Author as of many others to say that we are made Righteous With the perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed to us And among others I perceive Dr. Owen doth err in this particular which because he pretends to prove by certain Scriptures in his late Vindication p. 102 103. I will for the truths sake reply thereunto 1. He alledgeth Rom. 5.18 By his obedience we are made Righteous made so truly says he and accepted To which I answer 1. That Scripture proves not the Doctor 's purpose nor is pertinent thereunto for the Apostle doth not say as the Doctor would have him With whose obedience but By whose obedience we are made Righteous now we may be truly said to be made Righteous By it though we neither are nor can be truly said to be made Righteous With it For 2. These two Monosyllables By and With are very much different in signification the former particle By implying the nature energy or interest of an efficient and as here applied morally efficient or meritorious cause the latter particle With pregnantly importing the nature or interest of a formal cause Now forasmuch as the Doctor is a man of such reading and learning as that he cannot be ignorant of the true state of the Question about the Imputation of Christs Righteousness unto us it being not at all touching the meritorious cause of our Justification whether we are justified By Christs Righteousness but about the formal cause whether we are justified With Christs Righteousness imputed as some say or With the Imputation thereof as say some others i. e. with the very thing if self imputed to us or with the imputation thereof in its formal or essential nature I say Forasmuch as this Doctor cannot but know these things it did ill become his learning and ingenuity to hood-wink the eyes of the vulgar Reader from seeing the true state of the Question and consequently from perceiving how nothing at all to the purpose in hand this Scripture is that is alledged by him 3. There is not the least whisper of the obedience of Christ as Imputed to us or of the Imputation of Christs obedience to us in that of Rom. 5.18 For though the Apostle says By his obedience yet he doth not say By his obedience Imputed to us or By the
legal Righteousness of Christ is imputed to us by or through faith I answer 1. It is not at all imputed to us in the sence of this Author i. e. properly and in its essential nature but only in the saving effects thereof as I have already I hope convincingly demonstrated 2. Nevertheless I grant that in subordination to the Righteousness of Christ faith is a Medium or means of a sinners justification though it is another kind of Medium than is Christs Righteousness to which it is subordinate in the justifying of a sinner Christs Righteousness being such a Medium as hath the nature or efficiency of a meritorious cause but our faith having only the nature of a condition simply so called I have thought meet to intimate this for these two reasons 1. To prevent the mis-understanding of what I said in the foregoing Chapter wherein was said that Gospel-pardon was ex Christi satisfactione and ex peccatoris fide which must not be so understood as if the word ex did imply the self same importance in both places For the truth is that as the particle ex is of different importance it importing sometimes one kind of cause and sometimes another and sometimes no cause at all but an antecedent condition and the same I may say of the particles in English Greek and Hebrew corresponding to the Latine particle ex so in the former application of the particle it doth imply efficiency or an efficient meritorious cause but in the latter only an antecedent or a condition sine quâ non 2. To prevent the mis-construction of the word faith in many places of Scripture where by faith many do understand only its object Christ or his Righteousness whereas as faith and Christs Righteousness are two things of distinct consideration so by faith in such sayings as these We are justified By faith and saved By faith we are to understand not only the object thereof as implyed Christ or his Righteousness but also the act believing or the thing it self faith Lastly I answer That forasmuch as God is graciously pleased in his Gospel to appoint and to declare his acceptance of faith as the condition of a sinners justification through or for the sake of Christs Righteousness therefore I answer as before That a sinners justification is to be denominated rather Evangelical than Legal I shall now return to Mr. Ferguson and reply to certain other passages which I find here and there dispersed in his Book as grounds for the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us in the sence by him contended for CHAP. XV. Several mistakes in Mr. F. according to the obvious construction of his words detected That Christ suffered not the Idem but the Tantundem manifested by three things distinctly specified and two evil consequences of the contrary Doctrine With a Caution in the close P. 536. MAN having taken off his dependency upon God Mr. F3 by transgressing the Law of Creation Gods Rectorship over him which is regulated by his wisdom holiness veracity and the eternal rectitude and righteousness of his nature would not allow that he should be received into favour but in such a way and by such means as may secure the ends of government manifest the displicency that is in God to sin evidence his truth and immutability in proceeding according to the penal Law which in pursuance of his own Attributes and mans rational nature and relation he had at first enacted Answ I assent to the whole of what is here recited except this That God did for the ends specified proceed according to the penal Law which at first was enacted in which saying there is a complication of mistakes involved for 1. That Law was only dispenced and not executed neither upon Christ nor upon mankind not upon Christ for Christ was not at all threatned in that Law neither did he die the death by vertue of that Law however by occasion of it as hath been already said Nor was that Law executed upon all mankind supposing and taking it for granted that by the death there threatned is meant eternal as well as temporal death 2. A mistake of the nature of that obligation which a divine commination doth induce seems to be implyed in the said words of this Author for Comminatio est obligatio Legem violantis ad poenam ferendam The threatnings of God do induce only an obligation upon transgressors to suffer the punishment threatned but not any necessary obligation upon God to inflict it non Legem ferentis ad inferendam that commination did signifie what man was bound to suffer not what God was bound to do Upon disobedience man was bound to suffer but God was not thereupon bound to inflict punishment otherwise supream Law-givers could have no power to pardon and therefore there is no necessity that the punishment threatned should be executed and it is an error to assert or imagine any such necessity The only inevitable effect of that threatning was That upon mans sin punishment should be his due and so it was man being bound to punishment Ipsofacto upon his offence committed And herein is the difference betwixt a Commination and a Denunciation of punishment this being an act of judgment or sentence or else a prediction of a decree to punish whereupon the punishment denounced is always inflicted 3. There seems also to be this mistake a mistake of very evil consequence implyed in the clause fore-cited viz. That Christ suffered the Idem not the Tantundem the same suffering to which that Commination did oblige and that a sinners liberation from the punishment to which he was obliged was by the way of strict payment not satisfaction or compensation 4. There seems also to be this mistake implyed in the said clause viz. That the ends of Gods soveraign rule and government could not be secured by a Compensation or without strict solution or payment of that very debt of punishment which was by the sin of man contracted And if I were sure that this Author would own this opinion for God forbid that I should causlesly fasten any thing upon him or any of my Brethren viz. That the sufferings of Christ were Ipsa debiti solutio and not Pro debito satisfactio Christs sufferings were not the very payment of our debt in kind but a valuable satisfaction to divine justice for our not payment of it or for Gods not exacting of us the payment thereof I would more at large suggest somewhat of my own and endeavour to improve what hath been so far as my knowledge reacheth said by others against it Nevertheless because there are of my Brethren who do maintain that Christ suffered the very Idem which was in a sinners obligation and not the Tantundem at least that it is not much material whether we say the one or the other I will for their satisfaction do these two things 1. I will briefly set down the substance of what is commonly and
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
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
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
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.