do not mis-remember they I say thus asserting do yield that Believers shall enjoy through Christ a greater degree of glory in heaven than they lost by the fall of Adam or in him But they say That they are entitled unto this overplus of glory not simply by vertue of the remission of their sins or justification for this say they doth only restore them Adstatum quo prius to such a degree of happiness as they lost in Adam but by vertue of the super-aded grace of adoption and of this opinion are those two learned Authors Mr. Will. Bradshaw and Mr. John Goodwin and how far forth Mr. Baxter is inclinable thereunto and what his opinion more fully is himself hath declared in a peculiar Section thereabout in his Book against Colvinus if my memory do not fail me 2. As for my own sence I conceive 1. That as the loss of Gods fatherly love and favour and our becoming children of the devil was one part of the punishment of mans sin 2. As thereupon it follows That our adoption or being restored into Gods fatherly love and favour is one prime branch at least of forgiveness of sin So consequently 3. That Believers are no otherwise entitled to that farther degree of glory by vertue of their Adoption than by vertue of the remission of their sins and I do the rather conceive this to be the truth because whatever that higher degree of glory here supposed is I doubt not but the loss or miss thereof is threatned for sins committed against the Covenant of grace together with a greater degree of positive punishment than was threatned to Adam for breach of the Covenant of works Now forasmuch as Jesus Christ hath by his satisfaction procured pardon for sins committed explicitly against the New as well as the Old Covenant always excepted to final non-performance of the conditions of that New Covenant which are summarily comprehended in Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ and forasmuch as this pardon is promised and vouchsafed to sinners upon their repentance and faith in Christ it doth as I think necessarily follow That what sinner soever hath his sins all his sins against both Covenants pardoned that person is immediately discharged or freed not only from that punishment and loss of favour which he did incur and forfeit in Adam but he is moreover set free from that greater degree of punishment which is threatned for sins committed against the Covenant of grace and is also by his pardon entitled to that higher degree of glory and happiness which is supposed to be promised in the same But that he is entitled thereunto by his justification with such an Imputation of Christs Righteousness as is here pretended I see no reason at all to acknowledg and therefore I must still deny it till I see it proved adding withal that as for the said higher degree of heavenly glory supposed to be enjoyed by Believers for Christs sake I think it to be a matter rather of curious than necessary enquiry wherein we are not to be solicitous of being wise above what is written I shall close this Chapter with the words of Mr. Anth. Burges the said Author of the Tract concerning Justification first part p. 143 144. Remission of sin says he is not only Ablativa mali but also Collativa boni it is not a meer negation of-punishment due to us but also a plentiful vouchsafing of many gracious favours to us such as a Son-ship and right to eternal life These words in his first Book concerning Justification when I compare with what he says directly and professedly contrary thereunto in his second Book which came forth some years after which are these p. 269. Remission of sin and justification differ in this consideration In forgiveness of sin there is Ablatio mali in justification there is Collatio boni when sin is forgiven the eternal evil deserved is removed but when we are justified eternal good is promised When I say I compare those contradictory sayings of the same Author together I call to mind what is said to have been facetiously replyed in Parliament to one Mr. Jordan a Member thereof upon his declared change of mind What ailest thou thou Jordan that thou wast driven back What ail'd this Author so plainly and palpably to contradict both the truth and himself It seems that that Greek Proverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Second thoughts are best is not always true There are certain other contradictory passages in this Author concerning the subject which I am now treating upon He says p. 268. Whereas remission of sin doth only take away the guilt of sin justification doth remove the sin it self But he saith p. 432. Notwithstanding the Imputation of Christs active obedience God doth see the imperfect graces and sins of his people Again Although it be this Author 's professed design in his Book second part to maintain the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sence impugned in this Treatise he making Justification to consist of two integral parts viz. Remission of sin and Imputation of righteousness nevertheless he seems plainly to contradict himself and to yield the cause by me contended for in this Treatise touching the manner of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness my assertion as aforesaid being this viz. That it is not in it self immediately or in its essential nature imputed to us but in the blessed effects or benefits thereby purchased for us and by God according to promise confer'd on us And he saith the same pag. 135 136. None say Christs obedience is imputed unto us in such a sence as that we should be said to be the efficients of that righteousness but that we should be the passive subjects receiving the benefit of it CHAP. XXIV Q. What are the evil Consequents which do naturally flow from the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sence here impugned In answer hereunto one mischievous consequence is specified viz. That Christ is a sinner and the greatest of sinners Quest WHAT are the evil Consequents which do seem necessarily to follow from that doctrine touching the Imputation of Christs Righteousness unto us in the sence which in this Treatise is disowned Answ Having in the foregoing Chapters manifested that no good at all over and above Remission of sin doth or can come of it this Question comes in very fitly to be demanded What are the evil consequents to it And if besides the No good or profit I shall be able to prove that there are many mischievous consequences thereof I hope that those who have espoused it will no longer be enamour'd with it but will be contented rather to give it a Bill of divorce and fairly to dismiss it Mr. Baxter saith It is the heart and root of so many errors yea of the whole body of Antinomianism that he would rather write a great volume against it than leave it with a brief touch Mr. Baxter's Confession p. 229. and p. 266.
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
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-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
other Authors do fancy concerning the impropriety of our being justified By or to speak more properly With a pardon that I can give them leave to think and speak therein as they please being fully assured That I am as properly said to be justified as pardoned yea though neither pardoned nor justified properly yet forasmuch as I am assured that being pardoned and justified properly or improperly I am certainly pardoned and certainly justified and shall be glorified I am well contented with it and am abundantly thankful to God and Christ Jesus for it Thus have I dared to oppose what this Author as he says hath dared to affirm viz. That if a sinners Justification be the same thing with the Remission of his sins then doth that his Justification not admit a proper sence in the whole Scripture and that to say so is in effect to say we are not at all justified and so to bid defiance to the Scripture in a hundred places And I do leave it to the judgement of every learned and impartial Reader what sentence to pronounce both upon the one and the other this his Affirmation and my Opposition I shall in the next place address my self to the answering of another Question as followeth CHAP. XIII Q. Why or for what reasons may pardon of sin be called Justification and Vice versâ Or What reasons are there for their promiscuous use in the N. T Answ In answer whereunto 1. It is acknowledged That the Question is in it self not so considerable 2. Nevertheless for the satisfaction of many dissenting Brethren in answer thereunto several reasons of the thing are assigned and specified Q. FOR what reason or reasons can pardon of sin be styled Justification and Justification pardon Answ I say concerning this Question as of the former That it is not very material For if I know that Gods pardoning mercy as in Scripture it goes under divers other names Redemption Salvation Reconciliation Righteousness goes also under the name Justification I may very well rest assured that there is a reason for it because the only wise God will not give a name to any thing for which there is no reason But because this Author either is ignorant of the reasons usually rendred for it or else doth dissemble his knowledge thereof I will therefore for his sake make answer to the said Question and I desire that my Answers may be lookt upon as a Superpondium or measure running over given into his bosom My Answers are 1. One Reason why Gods saving mercy to sinners is called by different names is taken from the divers mischievous effects or consequences of sin Because sin doth make the sinner obnoxious unto or binds him over to punishment therefore is Gods saving mercy in the blood of Christ towards sinners styled Remission this being Gods loosing the bond or discharging of the sinner from the said obligation 2. If Mr. Bradshaw's opinion be right viz. That if an offendor be pardoned without any amends and satisfaction he is not at all justified and consequently where a fault is of that nature as that no sufficient satisfaction or amends can be made there can be no justification of a person so offending then this reason will well warrant Remission of sin to be styled Justification viz. Because our pardon is a peculiar kind of pardon i. e. not Pura puta omni modo gratuita meerly and in all respects free but some way merited viz. By the satisfaction of Christ our Mediator whereupon God is just and doth exercise justice in the pardoning of sinners and consequently may be said to justifie those whom he doth upon such consideration remit 3. But because this ground perhaps is not so justifiable and satisfactory forasmuch as that Delinquent that can Quocunque modo seu ratione qualicunque produce a pardon is justified from the accusation of being obliged to suffer the penalty of the Law and by consequence respectively thereunto is just Rectus in Curiâ If any I say be dissatisfied in that reason of Mr. Bradshaw's I shall offer to him instead thereof this reason viz. Remission of sin is styled Justification because it will stand a sinner in as much stead before the Tribunal of God the Judge of quick and dead as a Justification upon perfect justice would do a person who being perfectly innocent is impleaded This reason I have cause to presume will not much be regarded by this Author but distasted rather because he thinks that for this reason a sinners Justification must needs be wholly improper and altogether Metaphorical which he can by no means endure But as I have endeavoured to cure him of that his mis-conception so I doubt not but that this reason will be of a perfect good relish to others of another and more sound palate 4. Another Reason as some think is because a sinner is pardoned by course of Law his pardon is derived or accrews to him not as that of a Malefactor sometimes doth by the meer will and prerogative of his Soveraign Prince but by vertue of the Law of the Gospel enacted as an instrument for the conveyance thereof As for the Reasons of Remission of sin its being styled Justification and Justification its being styled Remission of sin I think they may be fitly to the purpose in hand thus expressed 1. Gospel-Justification is styled Remission of sin in respect of the quality of the person who is the Materia circa quam the subject about which that saving grace or mercy is conversant the person or recipient subject thereof being not an Innocent but a person in himself obnoxious viz. a sinner For Gospel-Justification though Justa just yet it is not Justification Justi but Injusti i. e. it is the discharge of a person who in himself is unjust from that obligation to punishment wherewith he is charged by the Law 2. Remission of sin is in the N. T. frequently styled Justification in regard of the manner of its conveyance which is not as many others if not most pardons from man are upon meer good will and pleasure but from Law and Covenant A sinners pardon being of a peculiar kind from what many other pardons are as in one respect it is pardon granted by God upon the satisfaction of Christ so in another respect it is upon the faith and repentance of a sinner and in both respects it may be said to be a covenanted pardon or pardon by a Law which Law or Covenant is two-fold 1. The first is a Law or Covenant peculiar to Christ as Persona restipulans God the Father therein requiring satisfaction to be made by him and thereupon covenanting and promising That no strict satisfaction should be exacted of the sinner This satisfaction according to the said Law or Covenant as commonly styled or as others style it divine decree they referring the matter to the Decretive rather than the Legislative will of God this satisfaction I say Jesus Christ did according to the said
expression 1 Cor. 14.9 intelligible speech or as our Translation renders it words easie to be understood I mean who do in plain down-right Scripture-language preach remission of sin through the blood righteousness or obedience of Christ do preach all that is true or truly comfortable in that doctrine which in the Sermons and Writings of many doth go under the name of Christ imputed Righteousness Object But do not the contrary minded pretend that Justification by the Imputation of Christs Righteousness it self to a sinner is a greater benefit than remission of sin and that also which a sinner over and above the pardon of his sin hath absolute need of in order to his admittance into the Kingdom of Heaven Answ I am not altogether ignorant of what is to that purpose pretended by too too many of my Brethren whose pretences I shall faithfully relate and because I do judg them to be weak and groundless I will endeavour to manifest the same in the ensuing Chapters CHAP. XXI One benefit pretended by divers That by Remission of sin a sinner is freed from the punishment deserved by his fault but by Christs Righteousness imputed he is freed from the fault it self the vanity of which pretence is discovered Several Objections answered wherein is shewen That a sinner may be disobliged from suffering the punishment deserved for his fault and yet remain faulty still and that it is repugnant to the nature as well as to the Law of God for God to repute a sinner to be that which he is not or not to have committed those faults which he hath committed That it is one thing for God to repute a person to be innocent and quite another to be dealt with respectively to impunity as innocent In what sence a Thief having made satisfaction for his theft is in the sence of the Law a Thief still The main ground of mistake in this matter specified 1. IT is pretended that by remission of sin the sinner is freed from the punishment deserved by his fault but by his justification through Christs Righteousness imputed to him he is freed from faultiness or the fault it self To this purpose saith Mr. John Warner in his Book styled Diatriba Fidei justificantis qua justificantis printed in the year 1657 the Book it self being chiefly written in opposition to Dr. Hammond Mr. Baxter Mr. Woodbridge and my self as to several passages in my Exercitation concerning the nature of forgiveness of sin His words p. 139. are these Whereas pardon of sin doth take away Reatum poenae justification doth constitute a man so righteous as to take away Reatum culpae To the same purpose I have read in another Author who says That whereas remission of sin takes away the punishment justification takes away the fault so that the Law hath no power to pronounce us faulty So Mr. Anth. Burges of Just 2d part p. 268. As for the vanity of this pretence I have said enough already partly in this Treatise and partly in the 4th Chapter of my Exercitation concerning the Nature of forgiveness of sin and if need be am ready to say more for the discovery thereof And for the better understanding of the matter let the difference betwixt Guilt of fault and Guilt of punishment be rightly understood and still remembred viz. That these two do differ Sicut Meritum poenae and Obligatio ad luendum poenam in the former sence he is guilty who hath committed a fault and thereby hath deserved punishment but in the latter sence he only is guilty that remains actually obliged to suffer the punishment which he by his fault had deserved Now as I have said before as Christs Righteousness is no more or otherwise imputed to a sinner for his justification than his pardon so also his justification doth stand him in no more stead than doth his pardon albeit Justification doth even as Remission of sin take away the guilt of punishment yet it neither doth nor can take away the guilt of fault or faultiness it self from the sinner so that albeit the Law cannot pronounce a sinner who is justified to be guilty as a person actually obliged to suffer for his fault yet it may and doth and cannot otherwise choose but pronounce him faulty or guilty of fault yea the Law in its express pronouncing a person to be pardoned justified or not guilty of punishment doth implicitly pronounce him to be guilty of fault So true are those sayings Quod factum est fieri infectum non potest Habere eripitur habuisse nunquam it a peccare cessat peccavisse nunquam Hereupon it was most truly said by the Poet Ne non peccârim Mors quoque non faciet But because I am well assured that Mr. Warner and Mr. Burgess are not alone in that their mistake as aforesaid I will therefore relate certain passages which I have somewhere read objected against the truth here and in the 4th Chapter of my said Exercitation asserted and return answer thereunto Object Either in forgiving sin God must Peccantem non peccantem facere or else he doth nothing Answ 1. If this be true that God in forgiving sin doth make a sinner to be no sinner or of faulty not faulty then there is no difference at all as to this particular betwixt forgiveness of sin and justification seeing God in forgiving the sinner as well as in justifying him doth make him no sinner i. e. not faulty or culpable Object Gods taking off the obligation to punishment is in order to his making Peccantem non peccantem i. e. a sinner to be no sinner Answ I deny that Gods taking off a sinners obligation to punishment is in order to any such matter as is here pretended For his taking off a sinners obligation to punishment is in order to his non-inflicting or his actual taking off the punishment it self in his appointed time 2. If it were truly said that Gods taking off a sinners obligation to punishment were in order to his making of a person faulty not faulty then the difference betwixt remission of sin and justification cannot be as is here pretended Object As long as a sinner is faulty he is still obliged to punishment Answ Woe be to us if this be true For if there be truth in that saying we have all cause to say with the Disciples Who then can be saved 2. Be it known to sinners for their great Consolation in Christ that what is here objected is a notorious mistake the very truth being this viz. That a sinner may be disobliged from suffering the punishment deserved by his fault even when and while he stands faulty yea although to all eternity he doth stand faulty and in very deed every pardoned or justified sinner shall so stand before God it being a thing simply impossible but that he who is pardoned or justified by Gods free grace through the Redemption which is in Christ Jesus should remain faulty or culpable as to his former
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
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
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
be it observed That as Righteousness in the former sense may not unfitly as I think be styled a Passive and in the latter an Active Righteousness so the said two different senses of the word Righteousness do differ as Officium Beneficium the one being the receiving of some good They differ as work and wages as Duty and Mercy or benefit confer'd on us the other the doing of some good or duty performed by us The phrase receiving righteousness see in Psal 24.5 He shall receive the blessing from the Lord and Righteousness from the God of his Salvation Righteousness in that place being the self same thing with Gods blessing his saving blessing The phrase doing righteousness see in 1 Joh. 3.7 He that doth righteousness is righteous As this is stiled a sowing of righteousness Prov. 11.28 so that may very fitly and suitably to the language of Scripture both of the Old and New Testament be styled Reaping Righteousness Hos 10.12 Gal. 6.7 8 9. Now in this proper formal sense of the word Righteousness the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us is a doctrine however owned by too too many yet by very many others of our own and forraign Protestant Churches justly disowned as that which is no where to be found in Scripture whether in the words or meaning of any Text in Scripture for to assert that Christs Righteousness is in this sense imputed to us is to assert That God doth account or reckon that the Righteousness which Christ wrought we wrought in and by him or that we are reputed by God to have fulfilled the Law and satisfied Divine Justice in and by Christ that what Christ did in his own natural Person God doth account we did in and by him for to have any thing imputed to a man in the propriety formality or essential nature of the thing is to be reputed the doer of what is so imputed to him these being terms equivalent and explicatory one of another and as thus explicated do the Brethren whom I do take upon me in this point to oppose openly own the said doctrine touching the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us it being their errour to think that Christs Righteousness cannot be accepted by God in our behoof or prove savingly beneficial to us unless it be imputed to us in their said sense or to imagine as they do a necessity that what is imputed to or for the justification of a sinner should be reputed to be done by him who is justified for it sufficeth to imputation in this case if that which is done be accepted of God in the behalf of sinners or instead of that which a justified person should in his own person have performed Nor is there any cause or colour for them to suspect that the denial of the said Imputation in their said sense doth infer or include a denyal of Christs satisfaction whether in the thing it self or in the blessed effects of it I am at once both sorry and I wonder to read such passages as these in some learned Authors they saying to this purpose viz. That human reason or mans understanding cannot comprehend how Christs satisfaction can be of saving benefit to us unless it be imputed to us in its formal and essential nature The contrary whereunto is as obvious to be conceived by any unprejudicate person as obvious almost can be For my own part I do humbly conceive it to be a great and dangerous mistake to think that Christ satisfied Divine Justice for believing sinners that they might be reputed by God to have satisfied in and by him as their surety the truth of Scripture to my understanding being this viz. That Jesus Christ did in human nature and his own person as Mediatour or in the person of a Mediatour betwixt God and Man satisfie Divine Justice not that we might be reputed to have satisfied in and by him or that his very satisfaction should be imputed to us but that no such satisfaction should be required of us and that his fulfilling of the law of Mediatorship was accepted of God not as our fulfilling either of that law for the law of Mediatorship belonged not to us it being peculiar to Christ himself or of any other law whatsoever but it was reckoned reputed or accepted by God as a satisfaction for our not fulfilling the law of God imposed upon mankind I mean the law in the rigour of it or as a covenant of works and that such an exact fulfilling of the law should not be exacted of us as the covenanted condition of our salvation but that faith and sincere obedience to the Gospel of Christ should be so required And I am glad to perceive that in asserting the end of Christs satisfaction for mankind I have the concurrence of the Authour of the Book lately published styled The interest of Reason in Religion he saying pag. 548. It was in consequence of Christs susception to be our Sponsor or Mediator say I the word Sponsor and Mediator being promiscuously used by the Apostle as appears by comparing Heb. 7.22 with chap. 8.6 and this latter word being of more frequent use with the Apostle than the former that being only once in its usage applyed to Christ in Scripture and with respect to the obedience of his life and sacrifice of his death as the procuring and deserving cause that God entred into a covenant with mankind promising to pardon their sins receive them into favour and crown them with life upon such terms and conditions as the Father and Son thought fit to prescribe In these words the word Mankind is remarkable the Authour saying expresly That for Christs sake for the obedience of his life and sacrifice of his death as the deserving cause thereof God entred into a Covenant not only with a few with the Elect only but with Mankind promising And I am the more glad to perceive that I have the concurrence of the said Authour in asserting the Covenant of Grace to be procured for Mankind because I shall have occasion by and by to mention some things wherein I am necessitated much against my will to dissent from him and certain others of my Brethren And I shall take a fit occasion to do it in answer to an Argument for the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sense disowned by my self with many others taken from those words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 5.21 from which words I have seen in a certain learned Author the Argument thus formed as shall be expressed in the beginning of the next Chapter CHAP. IV. ' An Objection from 2 Cor. 5.21 answered and also retorted The blasphemy of Mr. William Eyre in his Assize-Sermon preached at Sarum 1652. reproved QUomodo in what sort or manner Christ was made sin for us in the same manner was he made Righteousness to us But he was made sin for us only by Imputation Ergo Answ This Argument is not at all to the purpose in hand or
the impartial Reader what his meaning was P 417. Mr. F. The word Justifie neither in its Etymology nor application and usage according to the institution of men and least of all in the Scripture-usurpation is equipollent to pardon nor coincident with to Forgive Answ 1. However it may be in some respects useful to know the Etymology and usage of common speech nevertheless this is not so much to be regarded in the stating or determining of any Question pertaining to Divinity the usage of words in Scripture being as the Pole-Star to direct the course of our conceptions as I may so say in such matters And for that cause I cannot but commend that passage of this Author he saying p. 155. That that which is chiefly to be attended unto in the sencing of Scripture is the use of words in sacred Writers God being many times pleased to restrain or enlarge the signification of words as in his wisdom he judgeth meet And I do the rather mind the Author of this his saying because if we regard the Etymology of the word Justifie it will to speak the least as much favour the Popish sencing of the word thâ—se sencing it To Sanctifie or to make just sensu physico i. e. by infusion of grace as the Protestants interpretation thereof who do construe it sensu juridico to make just by apology defence or plea. 2. As for the usage of words in common speech this is sometimes contrary to their common usage in Scripture as I have already declared in the use of the word Justifie this signifying in common usage to absolve or acquit a person à reatu culpae i. e. as innocent and not guilty And because this Author as I guess by his name is a Scotchman I shall therefore put him in mind That whereas to be justified and to be pardoned are all one in the usage of Scripture they are contrary in the usage of Scotland to be justified there being not be pardoned but to be hang'd our Scotch Brethren using to say That a man is justified when he is hang'd or executed as I learn from the worthy Dr. Hammond in his Notes upon some place of the Epistle to the Romans 3. It is a most notorious mistake in this Author to assert as here he doth expresly That to Justifie is least of all meaning thereby in obvious construction not at all in the Scripture-usurpation equipollent to pardon nor coincident with to forgive The not observing of the contrary truth which hath been already proved by several Scriptures I do judg to be the occasion of other errors in this matter whereupon I may sadly take up the old saying Hinc illae lachrymae The Authors next ensuing words to be animadverted upon are as followeth CHAP. XI Mr. Ferguson's mistake in saying That we are made Righteous With the Righteousness of Christ as also Dr. Owen's in his Book styled Communion with the Trinity refuted and that in Rom. 5.18 alledged by him answer'd wherein is declared That it is one thing to be justified By and another thing to be justified With the Righteousness of Christ The Doctor 's misinterpretation of Phil. 3.9 and Eph. 2.8 That the asserting of the whole of Justification to consist in remission of sin hath no such evil consequences as Mr. F. chargeth it with P. 413 416 419. Mr. F. SO that upon the whole If we be not made Righteous with the perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed to us but that God only for the sake of Christ will dispence with the rigour of the Law and I dare affirm that Justification as it is opposed to the accusation of the Law its charging us with guilt and its passing sentence of condemnation against us thereupon doth not admit a proper sence in the whole Scripture but must every where be construed Metaphorically and that the import of it is not that we are properly and in a Law-sence justified but that such benefits accrue to us by Remission of sin as if we were so According to the sentiments of our Author we are only pardoned but by reason of some allusion betwixt the advantages redounding to us by forgiveness and the priviledges immunities and benefits which ensue upon a proper Justification we are therefore Metaphorically said to be justified It were to bid defiance to the Scripture in an hundred places to say that we are not at all justified and yet in effect their principles imply no less For by stating the whole of our assoilment from the accusation of the Law in remission of sin they indeed say that we are not justified only we are improperly said to be so Answ 1. It is the error of this Author as of many others to say that we are made Righteous With the perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed to us And among others I perceive Dr. Owen doth err in this particular which because he pretends to prove by certain Scriptures in his late Vindication p. 102 103. I will for the truths sake reply thereunto 1. He alledgeth Rom. 5.18 By his obedience we are made Righteous made so truly says he and accepted To which I answer 1. That Scripture proves not the Doctor 's purpose nor is pertinent thereunto for the Apostle doth not say as the Doctor would have him With whose obedience but By whose obedience we are made Righteous now we may be truly said to be made Righteous By it though we neither are nor can be truly said to be made Righteous With it For 2. These two Monosyllables By and With are very much different in signification the former particle By implying the nature energy or interest of an efficient and as here applied morally efficient or meritorious cause the latter particle With pregnantly importing the nature or interest of a formal cause Now forasmuch as the Doctor is a man of such reading and learning as that he cannot be ignorant of the true state of the Question about the Imputation of Christs Righteousness unto us it being not at all touching the meritorious cause of our Justification whether we are justified By Christs Righteousness but about the formal cause whether we are justified With Christs Righteousness imputed as some say or With the Imputation thereof as say some others i. e. with the very thing if self imputed to us or with the imputation thereof in its formal or essential nature I say Forasmuch as this Doctor cannot but know these things it did ill become his learning and ingenuity to hood-wink the eyes of the vulgar Reader from seeing the true state of the Question and consequently from perceiving how nothing at all to the purpose in hand this Scripture is that is alledged by him 3. There is not the least whisper of the obedience of Christ as Imputed to us or of the Imputation of Christs obedience to us in that of Rom. 5.18 For though the Apostle says By his obedience yet he doth not say By his obedience Imputed to us or By the
legal Righteousness of Christ is imputed to us by or through faith I answer 1. It is not at all imputed to us in the sence of this Author i. e. properly and in its essential nature but only in the saving effects thereof as I have already I hope convincingly demonstrated 2. Nevertheless I grant that in subordination to the Righteousness of Christ faith is a Medium or means of a sinners justification though it is another kind of Medium than is Christs Righteousness to which it is subordinate in the justifying of a sinner Christs Righteousness being such a Medium as hath the nature or efficiency of a meritorious cause but our faith having only the nature of a condition simply so called I have thought meet to intimate this for these two reasons 1. To prevent the mis-understanding of what I said in the foregoing Chapter wherein was said that Gospel-pardon was ex Christi satisfactione and ex peccatoris fide which must not be so understood as if the word ex did imply the self same importance in both places For the truth is that as the particle ex is of different importance it importing sometimes one kind of cause and sometimes another and sometimes no cause at all but an antecedent condition and the same I may say of the particles in English Greek and Hebrew corresponding to the Latine particle ex so in the former application of the particle it doth imply efficiency or an efficient meritorious cause but in the latter only an antecedent or a condition sine quâ non 2. To prevent the mis-construction of the word faith in many places of Scripture where by faith many do understand only its object Christ or his Righteousness whereas as faith and Christs Righteousness are two things of distinct consideration so by faith in such sayings as these We are justified By faith and saved By faith we are to understand not only the object thereof as implyed Christ or his Righteousness but also the act believing or the thing it self faith Lastly I answer That forasmuch as God is graciously pleased in his Gospel to appoint and to declare his acceptance of faith as the condition of a sinners justification through or for the sake of Christs Righteousness therefore I answer as before That a sinners justification is to be denominated rather Evangelical than Legal I shall now return to Mr. Ferguson and reply to certain other passages which I find here and there dispersed in his Book as grounds for the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us in the sence by him contended for CHAP. XV. Several mistakes in Mr. F. according to the obvious construction of his words detected That Christ suffered not the Idem but the Tantundem manifested by three things distinctly specified and two evil consequences of the contrary Doctrine With a Caution in the close P. 536. MAN having taken off his dependency upon God Mr. F3 by transgressing the Law of Creation Gods Rectorship over him which is regulated by his wisdom holiness veracity and the eternal rectitude and righteousness of his nature would not allow that he should be received into favour but in such a way and by such means as may secure the ends of government manifest the displicency that is in God to sin evidence his truth and immutability in proceeding according to the penal Law which in pursuance of his own Attributes and mans rational nature and relation he had at first enacted Answ I assent to the whole of what is here recited except this That God did for the ends specified proceed according to the penal Law which at first was enacted in which saying there is a complication of mistakes involved for 1. That Law was only dispenced and not executed neither upon Christ nor upon mankind not upon Christ for Christ was not at all threatned in that Law neither did he die the death by vertue of that Law however by occasion of it as hath been already said Nor was that Law executed upon all mankind supposing and taking it for granted that by the death there threatned is meant eternal as well as temporal death 2. A mistake of the nature of that obligation which a divine commination doth induce seems to be implyed in the said words of this Author for Comminatio est obligatio Legem violantis ad poenam ferendam The threatnings of God do induce only an obligation upon transgressors to suffer the punishment threatned but not any necessary obligation upon God to inflict it non Legem ferentis ad inferendam that commination did signifie what man was bound to suffer not what God was bound to do Upon disobedience man was bound to suffer but God was not thereupon bound to inflict punishment otherwise supream Law-givers could have no power to pardon and therefore there is no necessity that the punishment threatned should be executed and it is an error to assert or imagine any such necessity The only inevitable effect of that threatning was That upon mans sin punishment should be his due and so it was man being bound to punishment Ipsofacto upon his offence committed And herein is the difference betwixt a Commination and a Denunciation of punishment this being an act of judgment or sentence or else a prediction of a decree to punish whereupon the punishment denounced is always inflicted 3. There seems also to be this mistake a mistake of very evil consequence implyed in the clause fore-cited viz. That Christ suffered the Idem not the Tantundem the same suffering to which that Commination did oblige and that a sinners liberation from the punishment to which he was obliged was by the way of strict payment not satisfaction or compensation 4. There seems also to be this mistake implyed in the said clause viz. That the ends of Gods soveraign rule and government could not be secured by a Compensation or without strict solution or payment of that very debt of punishment which was by the sin of man contracted And if I were sure that this Author would own this opinion for God forbid that I should causlesly fasten any thing upon him or any of my Brethren viz. That the sufferings of Christ were Ipsa debiti solutio and not Pro debito satisfactio Christs sufferings were not the very payment of our debt in kind but a valuable satisfaction to divine justice for our not payment of it or for Gods not exacting of us the payment thereof I would more at large suggest somewhat of my own and endeavour to improve what hath been so far as my knowledge reacheth said by others against it Nevertheless because there are of my Brethren who do maintain that Christ suffered the very Idem which was in a sinners obligation and not the Tantundem at least that it is not much material whether we say the one or the other I will for their satisfaction do these two things 1. I will briefly set down the substance of what is commonly and
properly and formally or otherwise than in the fruits and effects of the one and of the other The reason thereof rendred P. 537. To say Mr. F. That Christ suffered only for our advantage and not in our room is plain Socinianism and to say That he bare our punishment without being charged with our guilt is plain non-sence and yet to remonstrate to such a Relation between him and us as may and ought to be styled a Legal Vnion is to vent repugnancies in the same breath Answ What is here said hath in effect already been answered and to the same purpose I say again 1. The imputation of Socinianism is causless forasmuch as we do acknowledg what they deny viz. That Jesus Christ being God and man in one person did make a satisfaction or compensation to Gods justice and by his doings and sufferings did merit the pardon of our sins 2. We deny not but that Jesus Christ may be truly said to have suffered in our room or stead and for that cause to be styled in the word of one of the Ancients our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he suffered that which was equivalent to the suffering which being due to us we should have suffered and thereby to save us from suffering and we say That Christ suffered in the person of a Mediator to procure our pardon and reconciliation with God Only we do deny That Christ was in such a sence our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that he did in such a strict sence die in our room and stead as that he may be said to die in nostrâ personâ in such sort representing our persons as that we can truly be said to have satisfied in and by him or that his sufferings are in their essential nature imputed to us One King may be said to rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the room of another though he may not therefore be said to be the Representative of that other as Archelaus is said to have reigned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the room of his Father Herod Solomon in the room of David 1 King 5.5 Benaiah to be made Captain-General of the Host in the room of Joah 1 King 2.35 and Elisha to be substituted or anointed a Prophet in the room of Elijah 1 King 19.16 although none of these can be truly said in a strict sence to represent the persons of those in whose room they were substituted 3. If by Our punishment this Author meaneth the Idem the self same punishment which we should have born it hath been already gainsaid and the contrary truth proved as also that he did not bear our guilt neither our guilt of fact or fault at all nor the self same guilt or obligation to punishment as was ours but another kind of obligation that was peculiar to himself 4. What non-sence soever there is in saying That Christ bare Idem supplicium our very punishment without being charged with our guilt nevertheless it is true sence and the sence of Scripture to say That Christ did contract or take upon him an obligation to suffer and did actually undergo such sufferings as were equivalent to that punishment which we deserved to suffer and this without being charged with our guilt 5. The things being justly to be denied which he doth here presume as granted or to be granted viz. That Christ did at all take upon him our Reatus facti or culpae our guilt of fact or fault or the self same guilt or obligation to punishment which was ours it follows That there is all the reason in the world to remonstrate unto any such union of Christians with Christ by what name soever dignified or distinguished Mystical Conjugal Political Legal Evangelical Supernatural the native consequence whereof is That Christ was charged with our guilt of sin That he took upon him the self same obligation to punishment which was ours That our sin really in it self was imputed to him and undergone by him and That his doings and sufferings briefly his Righteousness was formally in it self imputed unto us All these Consequents are justly to be remonstrated against and consequently so are all the Antecedents be they never so specious from whence they do naturally and necessarily result or flow for as the common saying is Ex vero nihil nisi verum From truth nothing but truth doth natively and necessarily issue These things considered it is easie to answer his arguings in p. 556 557. which I shall more at large now recite and reply to CHAP. XVII That Christ may very well be said to be made sin for us to bear our sins to die for our offences although it cannot be truly said that he did bear our sin it self or sin in it self or otherwise than in the fruit and effects of it the contrary whereunto is pretended by Mr. F. Mr. Ferguson's mistake in confounding an Antecedent impulsive cause with a meritorious cause the difference whereof is asserted and exemplified His mistake in not distinguishing betwixt An obligation and Our obligation to suffer That though our sins did properly merit Christs suffering nevertheless it will not follow from thence that Christ himself did merit it or took upon him the meriting thereof That Christ may be said in an improper sence to be punished The word Demerit of punishmeit ambiguous a two-fold sence whereof is specified The Arguments which overthrow the Popish doctrine of believers being discharged from the guilt of sin but not the punishment altogether mis-applyed by Mr. F. to the point in hand P. 556 557. Mr. F. HAD not the susception of our sins preceded as the antecedent impulsive cause of Christs sufferings he could neither be said to be made sin for us nor to bear them nor to have them laid upon him nor to die for our offences nor to be our ransom Nor could the inflicting of sufferings upon him have been either good in it self or an act of Rectoral justice in God or have had any tendency to his glory or to the honour of his Law or to deter sinners from offending yea preclude once the consideration of sin as the meritorious cause of the Agonies which Christ underwent and the love wisdom justice and Rectorship of God are obnoxious to reflections and stand liable to be impeached And if it be once obtained that our sins are the meritorious impulsive cause of Christs death his susception of our guilt will necessarily follow For guilt being nothing but an obligation to punishment and it being impossible to conceive such a habitude betwixt a person and sin that it should be the meritorious impulsive cause of his punishment and yet he not be under an obligation to punishment it plainly follows that guilt must be supposed antecedent to a demerit of punishment Guilt and punishment being Relates he that is obnoxious to the latter must be previously under the Imputation of the former as Bishop Andrews expresseth it Christ was first made sin in respect of the guilt
and then a curse in respect of the punishment Serm. of Justification on Jer. 23.6 Ans Almost all of this either in the same words or in words to the same effect hath been before recited out of this Author and a reply accordingly shaped thereunto And for that reason it is necessary only to repeat the Answers which have been already given I answer then 1. Christ may very well be said to be made sin for us to bear our sins to have them laid upon him to die for our offences and to be our ransom in that he did take upon him an obligation to suffer and suffer to death for the expiation of them although it cannot be truly said That Christ did bear our sin it self properly and formally taken but only in the fruit and sad consequents of it viz. suffering equivalent punishment to that which was due to us for it 2. As to the Authors expressions Antecedent Impulsive Cause 1. It is the Authors mistake to confound an Antecedent Impulsive Cause with a Cause Meritorious That he doth so is most apparent and undeniable by his fore-cited words But that it is his mistake so to do be it considered 1. That the misery of an indigent Creature may be well said to be an antecedent impulsive cause of that compassion which is shewed towards it by those who are conscious unto or spectators of its misery And accordingly I doubt not to aver That the miserable effects of sin specially in making us obnoxious to the vengeance of eternal fire was an antecedent impulsive cause moving God speaking of him after the manner of men which we must do or else we can scarce say any thing of him fore-ordain the sufferings of our Lord Redeemer Christ Jesus whereby to rescue us out of our wretched and otherwise forlorn condition Yet who will or can justly say That the misery of a Creature doth in a strict or proper sence merit the pity whether of God or man This if it did pity would scarce deserve the name of pity I mean it would not be so thank-worthy forasmuch as that which is merited deserves little if any thanks Is a Labourer obliged to give his Master thanks for his wages which he hath earned or merited Misery may be well said to be Res apta nata an object naturally fit to move mercy or to be an impelling cause thereunto and yet not a Meritorious cause thereof in the strict and proper usual sence of the word Meritorious 2. Though I grant it as a truth and a fit saying That our misery contracted by sin was an antecedent impulsive cause of Gods mercy in delivering up Christ for us all nevertheless I do utterly deny that our sins were the Meritorious cause of Christs death or sufferings I grant that our sins were the Occasion of Christs sufferings but I deny that our sins did merit his sufferings And I have just and great cause so to do forasmuch as our Logick tells us that there is a great difference betwixt an Occasion and a Cause truly so called as this Author cannot but know very well I remember the saying of David to Abiathar 1 Sam. 22.22 I have occasioned the death of all the persons of thy fathers house which notwithstanding it could not be said That he had caused their death In like sort may we say to God We have occasioned thee to bruise the Son of thy love and to put him to grief we have been the occasion of all his sufferings but we may not say That our sins did merit them 3. Forasmuch as what this Author hath sought he cannot obtain viz. an acknowledgment That our sins were the meritorious cause of Christs death and forasmuch as he makes this the ground of his following inferences it is not therefore needful that I should use many words in replying thereunto For if the foundation of a building be removed the superstructure falls of it self and without hands Nevertheless I add 3. Although I do deny that our sins were the meritorious cause of Christs sufferings nevertheless I do assert that Christ was under An obligation to suffer for our sins It is this Authors great mistake not to distinguish in this contest betwixt Christs obligation and Ours whereas as hath been aforesaid these are two obligations specifically different and all his inferences here are utterly groundless e. g. 1. That Christ could not suffer or be under An obligation to suffer except he had been under or had taken upon him Our obligation to suffering 2. That he could not else have been said to bear our sins to be made sin for us to have our sins laid upon him to die for them nor to be our ransom 3. That without this the inflicting of sufferings upon Christ could not have been either good in it self or an act of Rectoral justice in God or have had any tendency to his glory or All these inferences I say are altogether groundless 4. I answer Ex abundanti If our sins could properly be said to have merited Christs sufferings nevertheless it will not from thence follow That we meriting that he should suffer then he himself did merit it or took upon him the meriting thereof and therefore although guilt as he says must be supposed antecedent to a demerit of punishment yet where there is no such demerit as in Christ there was not there 't is not necessary to suppose any antecedent guilt Nor indeed in any case but where the person suffering is properly punish'd which Christ was not but only a sufferer of that which we for our sins deserved to have suffered in our own persons and which if we had personally suffered it would have been formally and properly a punishment to us but was not to him because he never deserved it nor was any such guilt or deserving it imputed to him or taken upon him And yet he may be said in some improper sence to be obliged to punishment I do not mean the word improperly in reference to Obliged for Christs obligation to suffering however it was not at all Obligatio Criminis yet being truly Obligatio Contractus it was therefore In suo genere a proper obligation but to the word Punishment and I do therefore express the matter now plainly and say That Christ may be said to be obliged to punishment improperly so called because he did voluntarily undertake and obliged himself to suffer those pains which being inflicted on us would have been properly or proper punishments 5. As for the testimony of that renowned Bishop Andrews I have made reply thereunto in an entire Chapter Ch. 5. and I have thought it my part the rather so to do because as I perceive by my late reading not Mr. Ferguson only but certain other Brethren by their allegation of that saying of the Bishop have adopted it as their own There is but one passage more which I have observed in my reading of his Book throughout to refer to the matter in hand The